I'm in a foul mood over a taboo subject, so I am here to vent! In Joe's Men's Health magazine this month there is an article, "Should All Males Be Circumcised?" that I, having strong opinions on the subject, just HAD to read. Now I'm sorry I read it because I'm blasting mad and you're all sorry I did because now I'm blogging about it (but really, feel free to quit reading if this isn't your cup of tea). The theme of the article was that all males SHOULD be circumcised because it's helping stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. Excuse me, but did I catch that? All American males should be circumcised because AFRICANS can't keep it in their pants?? It's not like you get AIDS by walking down the street uncircumcise,
you get it from having unprotected sex with someone who is infected. Of course that AIDS study carries over and means being circumcised,
wherever you are, helps cut down on STDs and AIDS, but why are we snipping up our baby boys
in anticipation of them being non-condom-toting man-whores? Shouldn't we EXCPECT that they be monogomous, and they PROTECT when they are otherwise? Or perhaps we should just start removing appendixes at birth as well in anticipation that they will defy us and burst? After all, we don't really need them, either, and it would be handy to protect ourselves from possible attacks....
Why is this even such a big deal? It's a tiny bit of skin, they now use anesthesia for babies, it heals quickly and in the ends it's just a personal choice... well, THAT'S RIGHT! It's a personal choice, and WE, the parents, are making that choice for another person! Of course parents make millions of decisions for those "other persons" known as their sons, but do they decide to permanently remove
any other parts of their bodies? Would they ever decide to remove similar parts on their
daughter? No, because we would be sent to jail since it's against the law to circumcise girls in America (because we are NOT talking about Africa here, thank you Men's Health) and certainly no doctor would condone us cutting off a finger or toe, despite the fact that it is small and seemingly useless (c'mon, you've got 9 others!). If the decision has been made for you and you don't care, well that's a spot of luck, isn't it? What if you DID care? There are lots of men who do! Why should we assume that our sons won't care, either? Won't that come back to slap us when they do?? How 'bout we leave it up to the person who cares MOST - the male who's about to lose part of his package! And don't tell me it's better to do it when they're younger because they won't remember the pain... if girls can go through CHILDBIRTH (hey! I remember that!), surely you can endure "just a little snip" yourself.
That said, I know circumstances require circumcision sometimes - infection, balanoposthitis, paraphimosis (look 'em up) - but these should be dealt with as the issue arises, not in anticipation of a problem. A foreskin isn't a problem, it's a foreskin. Take care of it and it will take care of you. Meanwhile, don't go having unprotected sex in Africa. DUH.
...lastly, I know I'm leaving out other facets of the argument (he should look like his dad! it's religious practice! it makes sex better! it makes sex worse! he'll get teased in the locker room!) but this rant was specifically in response to the article. Read it at meanshealth.com, and we can cover the other topics another day... or never.