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.
8 comments:
Nice rant. I'm going to tell Patrick that he'd better not become a non-condom-toting-man-whore or you'll be really mad.
This looks like prime material for the "Letters to the Editor" section of Men's Health. You could possibly be a published author and mother of an anti-non-condom-toting-man-whore.
I agree with your comments about doing uneccessary surgery on a male infant.
It's should be left up to the owner to decide how he wants his penis to be. It's no one elses business. Parents have no business in altering their sons penis. It's up to parents to train their sons and daughters on how to maintain good hygiene. As an adult your son will be grateful to you for leaving him 'As Nature Intended.'
Please Sign this petition!!
The Ashley Montagu Resolution to End the Genital Mutilation of Children Worldwide: A Petition to the World Court, the Hague
http://montagunocircpetition.org/
I'm with you! There was an article a while back in mothering that said "circumcision does not prevent HIV". it was a great article. http://nocirc.org/ is a great site too. I think I told you once though that here in the western US we have the lowest circumcision rate of all the us.
It's really sad that people think genital mutilation is ok. I watched a lot of circumcisions in nursing school & you can't tell me that doesn't hurt those boys. they just give them a shot of local anesthetic (painful!!! - it's a highly sensitive area with lots of nerves) and give them sugar water pacifiers. it's horrible!!
In Europe they have a very low circumcision rate & they aren't having an AIDS epidemic.....hmmmmm!!
of course there are other issues as you've mentioned....but we won't go there!
Actually, they do preventative and unneccesary surgical removals. One of your sisters got her tonsils out just because the doctor happened to be in there for the adenoids. More women are getting preventative mastectomies because of family history of cancer. Polydactyly is often surgically taken care of at birth for the sole aesthetic reason of not having extra digits.
While it's true that being particular about cleaning (when uncircumsized) results in no difference of general health, it's just a notable difference in some areas, such as UTIs and penile cancer. And while we should all strive to have sons who aren't man-whores (good one, Kirsta! I laughed when I read that), magazines like Maxim, Men's Health, Glamour, and Cosmopolitan (etc.) tend to target populations that are non-monogamously sexually active.
I don't disagree with your choice for your son though -- he is YOUR son -- I'm just giving a little light to the other side. Good rant!
I used to be really shocked and horrified about female genital cutting until I learned about the significance of FGC in african culture. It was like a huge paradigm shift when I learned that teenage girls willingly wanted to go through the ritual of becoming a woman. But then the united nations threatened africa (and eventually followed through) with cutting funding, which hurt all the hospitals and led to "back alley" FGC.... yada yada yada. And now there's a safe alternative that peace corp workers are pushing where they take girls into huts and discuss safe sex and other feminine issues, and there's NO cutting involved but they still have a tradition to look forward to.
I guess circumcision for males at birth has a lot of layers, one being a cultural practice that somehow became widespread for americans (have you ever noticed we lack traditions?). But in the end, I agree with you, I also think it should be a personal choice.
I read the article and thought that it was pretty dumb, and WAY too short to be proving any kind of legitimate point. We'll have to have a further discussion sometime about circumcision in general because Jonathan and I are still unsure. More me than Jonathan but whatever, lol.
I agree. Nice rant. I think that it raises the excellent--and very important point--that parents should not simply do things because that's they way they've always been done. I think it's our duty, as parents, to educate ourselves and to make INFORMED decisions relative to our childrens' health and well-being. This would apply to circumcision, immunizations, education, and a whole slew of other important areas.
Way to take a stand!
Post a Comment