February 2011 Moms
Options
Circumcision question
My husband doesn't want to have our son circumcised if we have a boy, as he has done a lot of research about this being the same as genital mutilation. He himself was circumcised as a baby, but he says he wishes he wasn't. Do any of you have any thoughts or beliefs about this?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Circumcision question
what are the health reasons?
what is 12-24?
Sorry, 12-24 is one of the parenting boards,Toddlers ages 12-24 months. People can feel very passionate about this topic. I have seen some real battles about it.
I think you and you DH know what is right for your family and you should go ahead and do that!
My DH and I are going to have to revisit this conversation again very soon!
I am Jewish, so snipping is the only option for me!
I have ready that it can be harder for men to keep their penises clean, but I am sure that you could ask a pediatrician on bathing tips and that tosses that theory out of the window. If you have questions/ concerns, make that one of your interview questions for a new pediatrician!
I always thought my son would be circumcised and then I married an Asian man who wasn't and it adamant about his son not being circumcised either. I always claimed the "for health reasons" excuse but the more I research I do I learn that is no longer a valid excuse.
I'm against it - I believe there's no point in the procedure if not for religious reasons. The US is about the only developed country in which circumsision is regularly performed. I'm not going to do it so that, "Junior will look like Daddy" or "He will look like all the other boys in the locker room". Girls are taught to have proper hygiene to prevent infection, why can't boys?
I'm somewhat neutral on the subject, but lean more towards not circumcising. However, DH wants his son to be, since he is. He feels strongly about it, and he has a wiener- so there you go. I've given him plenty of research on both sides, and he made an informed decision on it.
Fun fact- you can watch them do this procedure on youtube.
-m/c at 11w2d due to partial molar 2008 -m/c #2 2009
Beautiful daughter born February 2011
**Ultimate TTCALer 2009**
For religious reasons we will have our baby circumcised if it is a boy.
I dont know if there are any health benefits for men being circumcised but there are definetely health benefits for a woman when her partner has been circumcised.
Like what?
Hi danielle - there are valid pros and cons to circumcision, but this argument is not one of them. Have you ever looked up female genital mutilation? Has your husband? How about he does that, and after he reads about the clitoris being cut off, some or all of the labia, and the girl's orgasmic ability ruined or severely curtailed for life, then he can think about whether he should compare circumcision to FGM. Here's a diagram of the levels of mutilation if you have the stomach for it: FGM.
Personally, I think we'll go with circumcision. I come from a Jewish family, so it's natural for me, plus my husband (non-Jewish) is also circumcised. Although good hygiene removes most of the problems associated with keeping the foreskin, there is research that shows that there are higher rates of STD infection, for example, in uncircumcised men. It's culturally normal for us to do it, and there are some (small) health benefits, so that's our decision.
Edit -- Sorry, I'm still so steamed at the casual comparison between circumcision and FGM. Here's the World Health Organization's "key facts" on female genital mutilation. I bolded the things that particularly kill me.
- Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
- The procedure has no health benefits for girls and women.
- Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later, potential childbirth complications and newborn deaths.
- An estimated 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.
- It is mostly carried out on young girls sometime between infancy and age 15 years.
- In Africa an estimated 92 million girls from 10 years of age and above have undergone FGM.
- FGM is internationally recognized as a violation of the human rights of girls and women.
Here's the fact sheet if you want to know more.From a public health perspective, circumcised men are much less likely to pass on STDs - since STDs make women more prone to HIV infection, a lot of poorer countries have developed campaigns to circumcise boys and have seen subsequent decrease in disease transmission rates.
Since we probably arent having boys that will live in these circumstances - our sons if circumcised will be less likely to harbor yeast infection bacteria and this will be beneficial for their wives.
This...
I'm pretty nuetral, you do with your sons penis what ever you feel is right and the most health conscience. I understand your wanting to be educated abt the pro and cons and asking the board for some advice and perspective, but comparing it to genital mutilation is rediculous. I'm surprised your not getting more lit up for that one - BUT its early!
First, I would like to start off with circumcision is a very personal choice for your family and son.
That being said, I have a 20 month old who is not circumcised (DH is). When it came down to making the choice I was on the fence. I heard pros and cons for both sides. We finally decided not to do it because it seems like the less invasive option. You can't undo a circumcision. Plus, the STD rates we had research we based more on a global level and did not necessarily reflect the United States and our STD rate or hygiene practices.
For us, the decision to not circumcised what the right choice for us. As a mother of a son who is no circmcized I can tell you it is not difficult to care for. As he gets older we will have to educate him on care and hygiene, like you would any other adolescent child.
I hope this helps.
This and the fact that MH is Jewish and we both wanted it done.
I don't see how it is genital mutilation if #1 they really can't feel it since the nerve endings have not fully formed down there and #2 the penis still works. Genital mutilation in other countries causes women to become infertile and in a high percentage they die from it.
I've been thinking of this too, the later in life thing. Also, I'm not really discounting the "looking like every other boy in the locker room" thing as something to brush off. I think the emotional side of things is just as important to the physical.
I also cringed when I saw it related to genital mutilation. Thanks to the poster that called that out.
That said, thanks OP for sparking an interesting conversation between me and my DH about this. It is something we hadn't really discussed and I hadn't thought a lot about. I can see there are valid points on both sides.
Here is how it is different. Is it painful for your DH to have sex? Does he still enjoy sex? Does he remember how painful circumcision was? Did it take months to heal? Was it done to sexually repress him?
If he answers "no", to any and all of these questions, then it is NOTHING like female genital mutilation. While I agree that circumcision may not be necessary, I don't think it is on par with female genital mutilation... (See the World Health Organization fact sheet) I had a man try to tell me that it was the same once, and I nearly ripped both of his heads off, if you know what I mean...
That being said, we're Jewish so we will circumcise, but I WILL NOT have it done in the hospital (sometimes they don't use any pain medication), but I will take our son to a pediatric urologist so it can be done by an actual expert...
If you read The Baby Book by Dr. Sears, he gives a pretty indepth discussion about the procedure.
We are not doing it because he explains that there are nerve endings and it is a very painful process for the baby. We also did not feel there was any pros to circumcision based on the information and statistics he gave. I do not judge anyone who chooses to have their baby circumcised though.
I would suggest reading reliable information and statistics from a variety of sources and talking with your family doctor.
We had DS done when he was born but my OB didn't take enough foreskin off. The entire first year of DS's life, we were questioning the pedi about it and she just kept saying he would grow into it. I have never actually seen an uncircumcised penis in person, but DS's looked how I would imagine that looks.
When we took DS to his 12 month well care appt, his pedi referred us to a urologist because she could see how much it bothered us but she still maintained that he just had to grow into it. Well, we met with the urologist and he said that DS had received the health benefits of circumcision but that it would never look like it had been circumcised. We chose to have it redone because I wasn't sure what it would look like as he grew up (i.e. would it look half done).
DS was put under anesthesia to have it done when he was 13 months old. I held him as they put him under and cried as I was leaving the room. The procedure itself took maybe 10 minutes. DS was a little out of it the day of but after that, you would never know that he had a wound. It healed within a week and I am so glad we chose to have it redone.
I was also in the room the first time DS had it done and he didn't cry at all. Maybe that was because my OB didn't take enough skin, I don't know, but I did feel better about choosing to have it done.
I don't judge people who choose not to have it done, but I can't argue the health benefits since the pedi and urologist were both proponents of having it done and specifically mentioned the "health benefits". I also think it's more common to have it done in the US (but I do recognize that it's becoming more common not to have it done) and I don't want DS to be different from his daddy nor do I want to have to rely on a toddler to keep it clean.
We had our son circumsied for a few reasons:
First, look at your DH. He's going to be showing your son how to stand up and pee, and when your son sees his daddy's doo-da he's going to want to look just like daddy. If your DH is circ'd, then do your son too.
Also, look at your faith. Some religions require it, end of story. Some cultures don't do it though, like my Native American friends. The husband isn't circ'd, and neither are his two boys.
Another reason we chose to was because we had a few male friends who'd gotten 'hurt' because they were uncirc'd. When they hit either teenhood or early manhood, the tip of the foreskin got tight and wouldn't retract, which was painful, and they had to have an immensely painful surgery to get circ'd. I don't doubt it's equally painful as an infant, but at least as an infant you forget about it by sundown! As a grown man that's a pain you'll remember forever. All the men I knew who'd gone through that had their sons circ'd at birth to prevent the same thing. Now, this does NOT happen to all grown/pubescent uncirc'd men, but it can happen and when it does, it's very painful and takes longer to recover from.
*I also let my DH make the choice. I figured he's the one with the penis, therefore he should know what's best.
I want to make one point about comparing fgm to mgm... the fgm you are comparing to mgm are done in other countries where health care is not the same as it is here in the states. If males were circumcised in these other countries as well, the outcome may not be as easy and great as it is here in the US.
Oh, and the STD argument has pretty much been called crap since whenever you are reading about it.
I also feel this way, the more I read about it.
I was going to ask about this - how does a foreskin increase STD infection risk anyway?
FI's from a culture where circ is very uncommon; like other ladies here, I feel like it's more his decision since I don't have a penis. However, I want to come to the table with some kind of research before we discuss it...
I'm soooo glad that this thread got started. My DH and I are on opposite ends of the fence about it and we had decided not to discuss it anymore until we knew if we were having a boy or not. My DH is circumsized. He doesn't think our son should be. I am all for my son being circumsized, though. My godson is not but his dad is. My mom told me my father is not (and has been embarrassed about it his whole life, apparantly... we're cherokee and white so when he and my mom were growing up, you wanted to appear as "normal & white" as possible)
I guess I shouldn't have such a strong opinion since I'm not a dude but I've been familiar with uncircumcised adult dude parts and I have to say, they just seem a little funky to me. flame away.
Danielle - I don't understand either of your points. You are seriously calling circumcision "male genital mutilation" now?
FGM is mostly practiced in African countries. In these countries, male circumcision is also practiced, and the only "outcome" widely reported is a lessening of the risk of infection from HIV and other STDs. Unlike FGM, male circumcision does not create health risks (including death by bleeding), possible infertility, reduction of orgasmic ability, and does reduce the risk of STD infection. I don't know where you are getting that this is "crap."
At this point, it seems you're on board with your husband's ridiculous analogy despite all evidence that points to the contrary. So go ahead, don't circumcise your future sons. Just know that if you continue to call it "male genital mutilation," I will continue to think that you are uninformed and willfully ignorant.
I have been researching this over the past few days, and your sexist attitude about it makes me believe that you are the one who is "uninformed and willfully ignorant."
Read on...
Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I brought up the issue a few weeks ago.
"Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.
Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.
The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not allow us to see anything wrong.
I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"
He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.
The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.
Does that not sound like mutilation to you, Mrs. Jocelyn?
And more details...
My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor. Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?
The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.
The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state of complete and total shock.
The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp. He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to his mother. Welcome to America, little man.