June 19, 2007
Mamas, Don't Cut Your Babies
CNN Headline news reported this morning that according to a recent survey by National Health and Social Life that only 57% of the male children born in 2004 underwent circumcision. This is down from 90% in the early 1960's.
Good.
Circumcision is a completely superfluous procedure and amounts to nothing more than male genital mutilation. Foreskin is not a health risk. It is not any more dirty. And aesthetically, foreskin has been included in marble sculptures for millenia.
The foreskin contains a lot of nerve endings that make the sexual experience more pleasant. You wouldn't have your daughter's clitoris or labia removed, so why are you cutting off your son's foreskin?
The foreskin also serves as protection and a lubricating membrane for the penis as well.
Anyway, I'm against circumcision and I'm glad to hear that fewer parents are choosing to mangle their baby boys like that.
Update: Here's the CNN article on the same report:
CNN: Fewer baby boys being circumcised in the U.S.
According to a study by the National Health and Social Life Survey, the U.S. circumcision rate peaked at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s but began dropping in the '70s. By 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent.
Experts say immigration patterns play the biggest role in the decline, which is steepest in Western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries where circumcision is uncommon. The trend has also accompanied a change in Americans' attitudes toward medicine and their bodies.
"The rates of drug-free labor and breast-feeding all rose during the 1980s, while the initial declines in male circumcision rates began during the 1980s as well," said Katharine Barrett, an anthropology lecturer at Stanford University. "It may have been part and parcel of the wider effort to reclaim bodies -- adult female and infant male -- from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions."
The article has some interesting statistics and discusses some of the very dubious claims about the benefits of circumcision.
Though I was circumsized (my mother has since apologized.) I remain staunchly opposed to the procedure, but I'd like to highlight one more aspect of the circumcision tradition:
Ruth Katz, 38, of San Francisco had both her sons circumcised at brises. She and her husband, Michael Rapaport, were astonished when the teacher in their birthing class described circumcision as "immoral" and "not consensual."
"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this
So, there you go. God said so. All the more reason not to do it.
Point of fact: it is a violation of the child's right to his own person and is, therefore, immoral.
I understand that the unfortunate decision is often made in ignorance. Many people are taught that having a foreskin is bad or something, and in the chaotic, emotional period immediately following the birth, people don't have time to weigh all the options and information. And, understandably, when preparing for the birth of a child, foreskin is not at the front of one's considerations.
So, I'm not upset or angry with my mother for making the decision she made and what's done is done. But these people who walk into the situation informed, but decide to do it because God told them to are not so easily excused.
Circumcision is a sin.
Posted by Flibbertigibbet at June 19, 2007 05:26 AM
| TrackBack
Go Flibby!
That's exactly the right attitude.
Just teach your kid to clean properly for heaven's sake. Circumcision for babies should be illegal in my opinion. The procedure may help the kid be lazy in the future, but it actually detracts his capacity for experiencing sexual pleasure. This is not like a vaccine, where there is hardly any negative effect on the child in the first place. Thus, parents have no right to have this procedure performed on their baby. If he wants it in the future, well, let him get it then.
Although I do not have any children yet, I have actually given the issue of circumcision a lot of thought. I must admit, that until now, I was undecided about the issue.
Other than Jewish people, I didn’t know that anyone else did circumcisions for religious reasons. Any sexual mutilation in the name of mysticism is an unnecessary barbaric tradition. End of argument there.
My previous thoughts were that circumcisions were like tonsillectomies -- those things simply had to come off. Where and when I grew up, EVERYBODY just had these things done without question. It wasn’t until I started thinking about having children of my own that I started to give it more thought.
I soon learned that in today’s more hygienic world, the claims of circumcision for cleanliness sake were dubious at best. However, I must say, that in some of my personal sexual encounters, I have come face to face with a few stinky penises. Though this probably says more about the habits of those particular individuals than it does about circumcision in general.
Now when it comes to having a sexual partner, I honestly don’t care if he is circumcised or not. I have had a couple of lovers who had magnificently beautiful “un-cut” penises. That being said... in my opinion a circumcised penis is more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. But this is only my opinion... and I only have this opinion because I was raised in an area (and at a time) where the majority of penises I saw were circumcised. Simply put, I like the way circumcised penises look in photographs. They just seem cleaner, drier, and prettier to me -- but then I know that I am bias. (I am circumcised of course.)
So... if health is not a real issue here, is my opinion of penis prettiness enough for me to have my son(s) circumcised? I no longer think so. No more so than I would have my child’s brown eyes surgically changed to blue, just because I think that blue eyes are slightly prettier.
It is a very valid argument that infant circumcision is non-consensual and is therefore a violation of the child’s individual rights. This makes it a moral issue, and now it has become crystal clear to me where I stand. I am against circumcision.
Thanks!
The cleanliness thing is really irritating to me.
Yes, there are stinky penises and stinky vaginas and stinky butts and stinky mouths and stinky armpits and stinky everythings. You can wash all of them.
It's like, armpits get dirty therefore we should cut off people's arms.
I'd prefer to stay away from a discussion of what sorts of penises we prefer because that isn't relevant to the discussion here. As you've pointed out, you're not going to have sex with your children, so you shouldn't make decisions about your children's health based on what you think is pretty -- PARTICULARLY if it involves cutting off pieces of their genitals.
Though there have been some studies that suggest circumsicion reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission, those that would benefit most from this (people in 3rd world nations where the spread of HIV is rampant and prevention is non-existant) don't circumsize anyway. So even in the one case where there might be some small reason to do it, it isn't even being done there anyway. I am not altogether devastated that I was circumsized. Personally b/c most men my age are and most experiences I have had have been with circumsized ones, I'm not sure I'm too upset about it. If I had a "do over", I would choose to be circumsized only if everyone else continued to be. If we all got "do overs" and everyone went back to being uncut, I'd gladly have my foreskin back b/c then I'd likely be used to it and I wouldn't have to worry about it deterring potential sexual partners. Stupid, I know. But you like what you're used to seeing on yourself I guess.
I should call my mother and still demand an apology.
And as for the sexual sensitivity...frankly I don't know many circumsized men who have issues with getting off considering they don't have any foreskin. So beyond the fact it is just a violation of person and immoral in that regard, I can't say that reduction of sexual sensitivity matters much in my book. Sometimes I think masturbation would be more fun with it. TMI?
Silly goose.
I'd definitely want mine back, but I wouldn't say I'm at all outraged or upset by the fact that I was circumsized. I don't remember it, so it's not a big deal to me. But I would prefer to have my junk in its natural state for maximum fun times.
And the claim isn't that one can't get off without a foreskin, that is obviously untrue, the claim is that you are more sensitive to sexual activity, which is true.
Well I don't need more sensitivity...it's sensitive enough! Ha!
Penn & Teller did a great episode on circumcision. I decided then and there not to do it to my kids should I have them. I had been confused about the issue as well b/c of the medical bs surrounding the procedure.
Fun fact: Some in the anti-circumcision movement allege that there is some kind of massive circumcision industry out there trying to maintain a revenue stream by propagating these rumors about the procedure.
I don't believe that's the case, but I think it's funny that conspiracy theories about everything.
When I was an undergraduate in a kooky Christian college we were told that circumcision took place at around 8 days, which is just around the time that clotting factors are higher in newborns... of course the implication was, "See, it's all part of God's plan!"
Christians can think up pretty kooky reasons to justify just about anything.
My nephew was circumcised. I was pretty surprised that my sister had that done. I'm not sure what doctors tell their patients, but there are a lot of ridiculous and unneccessary things that go on in the medical community. This is one of them.
