Warning: this post may be a little inflammatory. I have thought long and hard about posting this and have come to the conclusion that because it's part of who I am (and this is my blog, and the 1st amendment and all that), then yes, I am going to post about it. If you have strong feelings about circumcision, or don't want to listen to a rant involving um, boy parts, you might want to skip over it.
Why the title? Because, ladies and gentlemen, I have become an 'intactivist' in my old age and wisdom (ok, the wisdom part is debatable). What is an intactivist? Thanks for asking. An intactivist is someone who does not believe in circumcising baby boys. There are more of us out there than I thought, but I truly wish the numbers were higher.
What do I have against circumcision?
1) It's not mandated by God for Christians. For Israel, yes. In the OT. Paul writes that what counts is a new creation. Circumcision is not necessary for salvation. And even among Jews today there is a small but significant movement away from circumcision. The ceremony is still held as a way to welcome baby into the community, but without the trauma.
2) It really doesn't serve a purpose. Yes, I have heard the studies about it preventing HIV transmission. Those studies were done on adult men. If adult men want to line up to have their weenies whacked, fine. (I didn't think so!) But to put a baby boy through something like that, well, I can't see what the logic is. If it gives us pause to imagine a grown man going through something like that, why shouldn't it bother us to think about babies? Also, while we're on the HIV topic....are you telling me we should be preaching circumcision instead of abstinence and monogamy? I hope not (I realize most people reading this blog wouldn't be. I'm just making a point). I still believe that circumcising baby boys is not necessary if you want to prevent HIV transmission.
3) Over and over I have seen it in my work as a mother-baby nurse: people who would not think of having their little girls cut in ANY fashion (not even under local anesthesia and in a sterile room), the same folks will send their little boys off without a second thought to have essentially the same thing done. If one is child abuse, why is the other okay?
4) Again, over and over I have seen this: Babies who are nursing like the little champs they are do great til they get circumcised. Then it all falls to pieces. Numerous studies have suggested that babies' pain response often resembles going to sleep. In actuality, they are shutting down because they cannot tolerate the pain. I have had so many moms get frustrated with nursing after their babies are circed because they will not wake up to eat.
5) The hygiene argument is a really non-applicable one, especially in the era of soap and water. Either way you have to wash down there, right? It is not that difficult to retract a foreskin, wash & rinse under it, and put it back. If it is, maybe you ought to invest in a protein shake or something. And you really don't even have to do that til the darn thing goes back on its own, which may not be for several years. Believe me, a 2 year-old can do it. My 2-year-old does.
6) I really wish people would not use the "we wanted him to look like Daddy" argument. Number one, he's not going to look like Daddy for a very long time anyway, and by the time he does, he and Daddy are probably not going to be comparing. Second, how many adult men (don't raise your hands) know/care whether or not your dad was circumcised? Third, he may notice that he and Daddy look different but that doesn't mean it will bother him. Whose hang-up is it, really? Is it the boy that will feel funny not looking like his dad, or is it the other way around? With friends that I know whose husbands are circed but their boys aren't, a simple "Daddy had a surgery you didn't need" does the trick if they ask. Also worth asking: what if Daddy has had a leg or arm amputated? Are you going to chop off your son's limb so he'll look like Daddy? Why not? (Ok, that was rhetorical. I'm NOT advocating the aforementioned idea.)
7) The locker room argument. You don't want your son to be made fun of for being 'different.' 1) With the current circ rate running at about 60% in the USA, that leaves 40% uncirced. He'll probably have some company. 2) What are they doing looking, anyway? 3) What message am I sending my son having his body unnecessarily, irreversibly altered as a baby so he'll fit in?
8) I have heard people say that men who aren't circumcised don't look 'normal.' Um....ok. 75% of the world doesn't circumcise. Most Latin Americans don't. Most Asians, Europeans, and Aussies don't. Canada's universal health care doesn't cover it anymore, as far as I know. Many places in Africa don't. That leaves....hmmm....the USA. I had a nurse colleague tell me once, "It's all what you're used to." It's all about what I'm used to? I'm going to put my son through something unnecessary so he can look some way that I'm 'used to'?!
This post is not intended to offend anyone who has had their sons circumcised, nor outrage anyone reading this who has been circumcised (no need to raise hands), nor imply that people who have had their boys circed should be arrested on the spot and jailed. And I realize that a generation or two back, it was something that you just did. You didn't ask questions. I know that. I just want people to think about it.
I didn't realize that I had such strong feelings about this until I started working as a mother-baby nurse. Fortunately, we had not had Daniel circumcised as a baby because we did research & found that the AAP no longer endorses it. But having seen over and over what it does to the babies, and having seen a few botched/bleeding circs, I just can't see having it done to any baby, period. It's essentially cosmetic surgery, and no thank you. Not for my boys until they are consenting adults & can decide for themselves that it's something they want (I'll think they're crazy, but I'll make the appts if they want them).
Some websites with additional information, should you want it:
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/
http://www.cirp.org/
http://www.nocirc.org/
www.jewishcircumcision.org
Some of the information is a little extreme but most of it is informative, even for those of us in the field already.
I welcome debate and/or questions. But please keep comments polite, and only comment if you can deal with others disagreeing with you on either side. Thanks.
Now that my rant is done, I hope I still have friends!
14 comments:
Hey there-
I think I have commented here before--I am a friend of Matt Burly. Anyway--I have to agree with you 100% about the not circ stuff. We didn't know what we were having with Elijah and we don't know this go round but if it is another boy we are leaving him the way God made him. If he wants to get circ'd later on that's fine with us. I agree about the cruelty! I volunteered in the hospital doing the newborn baby pictures and it always amazed me that the babies were subjected to that with no pain medicine--how awful!! You could hear them screaming 1/2way down the hall. I think if a parent decides to do it then they need to be there and watch it and try and comfort their baby. I bet many more mom's would change their mind if they had to see it.
-Covey
Hey -- I've been to your blog site before. You had your baby at home, right?? I totally applaud that, and hope to do the same next time around. I think you guys live just a county away too...:)
We can't afford four reconstuctive surgeries in the burlyfamily home, so we'll stick with what we've all done or had done to us. Our boys did just fine, but am willing to concede that it's not for everyone. It was six-of-one-half-dozen-of-the-other for us, and so ... there you have it. I don't take this post as a personal affront to our decision ... I feel very unstrongly about the issue, and respect your right to feel strongly. Both of y'all. It's interesting that it tends to be a cultural decision ... not a statement of good or bad on my part. Culture is where you live. I don't disagree with anyone's house. Anyway ...
BTW - babies generally get a topical anesthetic. Maybe some hospitals don't do that.
Oh, they get topical anesthetic and Tylenol beforehand, and sugarwater afterward at good ol' WakeMed. I still hate them.
Cutting little girls is cultural too, but most people here would call it child abuse. I just don't get why one is ok and the other is not. Again, I'm not saying people who circ their boys ought to be thrown in jail, but I just don't see why it's necessary.
Or paid for by insurance.
Yeah--We had EJ at home and are planning another homebirth. We ought to get together so that we aren't just blogworld friends :)
"Again, I'm not saying people who circ their boys ought to be thrown in jail, but I just don't see why it's necessary." I think that's a valid point. I didn't know that the age of soap and water means that there's no chance of infection - is that true? But I don't think it's apples to apples (female and male) in that female circumcision is inhibitive later in life during the time when a woman might want to enjoy knowing a man. Male cicumcision ain't inhibitive in that regard.
As for insurance covering it: either it's outdated, or part of the medical community sees some value in it. I work for an insurance company, and I can guarantee that the insurance company would (or maybe IS) fighting against male circ. if it has NO value. They don't want to pay for "Not Medically Necessary" services. I don't think that an insurance company is going to pay for an adult male circumcision - and there's a stewardship argument for getting it done early! (but I don't really support the stewardship apologetic - only joking ... sort of ... because it did cross my mind with our boys ... but I digress ... we went for it as it was six of one half dozen of the other for us ...).
Just to be clear I don't feel strongly on this, so I am not offended. I think you may have a valid point. I'm just offering our experience, and not hard research for the opposing view.
I am so, SO glad that Halleigh was a girl. But when/ if we have a boy, we will have to revisit this topic, and you both (Matt and BethAnn) have made interesting points. GOOD TOPIC BethAnn! I love reading about controversy.
p.s. we need to set up another play date!
"I didn't know that the age of soap and water means that there's no chance of infection - is that true? But I don't think it's apples to apples (female and male) in that female circumcision is inhibitive later in life during the time when a woman might want to enjoy knowing a man. Male cicumcision ain't inhibitive in that regard."
Ok Burly, I'm quoting you just so people will know what I'm referring to. There's a chance of infection either way....I'm sure there are a lot of circed guys who have jock itch & the like. As a mom and wife of happily uncirced guys, I can tell you that neither of them has ever had any problem with infection, and I know plenty of people with uncirced boys who could tell you the same thing. If you know how to take care of it (as with any other body part), it's not a big deal. Really.
As for the 'enjoyment' bit....well, ok. You went there! :) I can't argue with your experience, but I have read numerous studies in which men who have been circed later in life say that the difference is like watching TV in b&w vs. in color. I obviously don't know.
The reason I brought up the insurance point is that in NC, Medicaid does NOT cover circ, as they have deemed it elective surgery. I am really surprised that private insurers haven't followed suit. So if you don't have private insurance in NC, you will pay out-of-pocket for a circ. Where I work, that is $673!!! That right there would be a deterrent for me, if I were on the fence about it.
About circing boys vs. girls...I don't even mean going as far as excising any female parts, though we have had patients with various forms of it give birth. I'm talking about having even the smallest cut made anywhere on her parts, even with a local anesthetic, even in a sterile room. People don't do it and wouldn't do it...why? Because they consider it (rightly, IMO) child abuse. What is the difference?
When Daniel (and any future sons) are old enough to decide for themselves that they want it (or don't), I'll be happy to make the appt. But for now, anteater pride lives at our house! :)
Thanks for the debate. I too enjoy controversy.
I still think "child abuse" is too strong a term for male circ. until the research is more fully in ... esp. as it was not considered child abuse in Hebrew culture ... even if circ. was to set them apart and not for the cosmetic/psychological/cleanliness reasons today ... all reasons of which, I agree are up for debate and action and have been up for debate.
Making a kid eat vegetables, which disturbs their pallate is not child abuse either. Not a fair comparison you say? I agree. I'm just using hyperbole, too ... which doesn't help the argument unless you truly believe it is child abuse.
To me, the fact that most of the rest of the world stays intact and doesn't have problems is a good enough argument that it's not necessary. As an aside, I found out from a friend of mine who is a family practice doc in Finland that it's illegal to circ for nonmedical, nonreligious reasons.
I'll give you the circumcision in Hebrew culture argument. But...on the flip side, cutting girls isn't considered child abuse in Somalia, or the Sudan, or Saudi Arabia...but you and I probably cringe at it. Why? What's the difference? Why is messing with girls' parts child abuse, and messing with boy parts ok?
I guess I should qualify and say, I'm not totally against circumcision. I'm against circing babies. If grown men want it, fine. They are consenting adults.
This may be my last comments, but I can't leave these things left unstated:
1.) We're still friends. I really am not passionate about circ.'ing ... just did it as the six of one half dozen of the other rationale. We might've reconsidered if we'd done more research ... maybe not.
2.) As we did circ., I admit that I am coming into this discussion biased.
3.) I can't leave this statement untouched: "Why? What's the difference? Why is messing with girls' parts child abuse, and messing with boy parts ok?" I am emphatic that even if "messing with the boy parts is not okay," it is NOT the same as messing with the girl's parts. Messing with their parts leads to a.) unenjoyable intercourse or b.) painful intercourse. A man who's circ.'ed may be only able to "watch in black and white," but at least he's still got a TV!
Post a Comment