On My Bozack
I've alienated enough people with talk of politics (go Howard Dean!) and animal rights (go tofurkey!) and would like to move on to a less incendiary topic.
The penis.
My sister is giving birth in less than a month - God willing - and doesn't know if she's having a boy or a girl. Like any good mommy, she has researched car seats, strollers and breast pumps. Only the best for my future niece or nephew. About a month ago, she even researched circumcisions.
Seems this early cut is a bit controversial.
As a Jewish mom, for me the bris is a no-brainer. We had a beautiful ceremony, the mohel came into our Boston home and talked about ancient traditions, the promise of children making the world a better place and then I passed out. Don't ask me what happened next.
Lots of Goyim parents choose a mohel to perform the circumcision because he/she is trained in the Art of the Penis and mistakes are rare. They also soak some gauze in Manischewitz wine and let the baby suck on it afterwards. Who can beat that kind of treatment?
Take it from me, wine makes everything just a little bit better.
Nowadays there are men (read: grownup crybabies) who believe circumcision should be discouraged or, better yet, outlawed. They claim to be traumatized by what happened to them as a baby and wish to protect future boys from similar mutilation.
Jewish men are among the most well-adjusted and emotionally healthy of all ethnic backgrounds, so I'm not sure what such bellyachers are suggesting. Not counting Woody Allen, of course, or Richard Lewis or Jack Abramoff. But I digress.
Even if you don't have a religious reason, I recommend a circumcision for your son. Those left in original foreskin are prone to diseases and infections. (Please - you can't get boys to properly clean under their fingernails. Granted, they like their pee-pees more and don't need encouragement to go there. However, cleaning ain't a boy's thing. And you know it. So good luck with that.) Lots of grown men remember seeing a uncircumcised c*ck in the locker room and report a funky smell. Lots of grown women remember seeing a uncircumcised c*ck in the bedroom and report laughing before faking a headache and heading home.
Who wants their son to be that guy?
posted by kate @ 7:37 AM
22 comments
22 Comments:
after birth, get that dialed in asap. he'll never have to worry about locker room insults and having his first girlfriend say, "wtf?" - don't kid yourself mommies, that's a heavy scene.
There's so much to address here, where to begin?
It's interesting that you believe animals have rights but children don't. As a vegan myself, I'm content to accept that animals are not ours to use as we see fit. But I'm curious as to why you value their rights while ignoring that boys have any right to be free from unnecessary surgical amputation.
The locker room scenario you mention is a fallacy, in my experience, so performing surgery on children to prevent something that may or may not happen is extreme. As for women who would reject a man because he's intact? Shallow, anyone? What would we say about a man who rejects a woman because her breasts are too small? Should parents give their daughters breast implants, to please men? Interesting parenting philosophy.
I don't imagine you're interested in reading about the flaws of the STD study you linked, but consider something not mentioned in the article. The study relied on self-reporting for STD and circumcision status. Reliable methodology, I'm sure, which is why it's hard to believe that no New Zealand medical journal would publish it. The authors went to an American journal, instead. Also, much larger studies have shown no correlation.
But I'm just a grownup crybaby because I believe that no one had the right to amputate a healthy portion of my body for their own preferences. However, I'll stop now because the overflowing tears put me in danger of electrocuting myself as they drip onto my computer.
You know, I've never missed it. Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I simply can't work up the level of hysteria some men seem to have over this subject. While it supposedly enhances stimulation of the limbo pole, my stimulation levels are just fine without it. Other than that, there seems to be no real advantage to having a sausage casing. Maybe no minuses, but no real pluses, either.
From an aesthetic standpoint, there's something shady about a bishop in a turtleneck. I mean, what's going on down there that you need to bundle up like that?
Besides, if you miss so desperately something you lost before you could consciously control your own head movement, then there's always foreskin restoration. Maybe it doesn't completely replace the original outer candy shell, but it's not like you're really going to have anything to compare it to.
So snip or don't snip. Whatever. If that's the worst thing that happens to you over the course of your life, or even before you turn one, then count yourself lucky.
Tony, you make some very good points. Of course children have rights - I just don't believe removing foreskin falls under the cruelty category. It seems to me that there are far more reasons to do it than not to do it. It also seems to me that there are far more men out there who are glad they're circumcised than traumatized as a result. It's a tough decision for most parents; however, for us, it wasn't so hard. Being Jewish and all.
And I'm with Quaker - I like the look of an uncircumcised penis. But maybe it's because that's all I know.
Touchy, touchy! Proving yet again that deep thoughts for most men are reserved for their genitalia.
Either way, if they work, who cares?
As a mother of 2 boys, a jew and a doctorate level clincial psychologist, I am quite certain that there is NO trauma involved in circumsion. I have asked every man I know if he remembers the "trauma" and they look at me like I have 3 heads. It is a part of our religion so it is a no-brainer. My boys didn't even flinch, they healed in 2-3 days and have yet to talk about the "trauma" they endured due to their circumsion. To address circumsion as "amputation" is just plain ignorant. What are you going to go after next, mothers who pierce their daughter's ears??? That causes pain. Is it mutilation??
Kate,
I didn't say anything about cruelty in discussing rights. There are arguments to be made about cruelty, but that's not the basis for my argument. To get more to what I suspect is your point, how extreme does the rights violation have to be before it becomes unacceptable? Unnecessary surgery is not a minor violation of bodily integrity, in my opinion and experience.
...far more men out there who are glad they're circumcised than traumatized as a result...
Your last statement, that it's what you know, gets to the fallacy of that argument as a justification for circumcision. Sure, most American men are content. I'm happy for them, which is why I don't think circumcision should be outlawed completely. But it should be the man's choice, which is why the medically-unnecessary circumcision of children should be outlawed. The people who don't like that they were circumcised as an infant, however few in number, don't have the choice to change it. Given that we can't know in advance which opinion the male will hold, it seems callous to circumcise anyway and say "oh, well" if he complains.
Of course, survey the rest of the world and the majority of the world's men (~ 85% intact) are content with their foreskin and wouldn't think to remove it. Your statement only holds up as cultural conditioning. That may suffice to encourage adult men to get circumcised to please themselves and/or their partner(s), but that's not a sufficient basis for performing the surgery on children.
There are many reasons given for circumcision, but they fail to meet any test of logic or need. The arguments are either ridiculous or better addressed with less invasive measures. As a quick example, the potential for infections is a common reason given. Girls are much more likely to suffer an infection than even intact males, yet we do nothing to their genitalia. The thought alone (rightly) causes great outrage. Instead, we treat them with antibiotics. Since antibiotics work on boys, I'm not sure how we hold onto this justification for circumcision.
Dalia,
I said nothing of mental trauma, which is what I assume you're discussing. I referred to physical trauma, which is clear from any surgery. But to address mental trauma for just a moment...
Your sons don't remember their circumcisions. Wonderful and not surprising. But as a clinical psychologist, how might you explain studies indicating that circumcised boys have a lower pain threshold than intact boys at their 6-month vaccinations? Surgery without anesthesia seems to have strange impacts on human beings, regardless of age. (Not a justification for any surgery, as long as anesthesia is used, as some are now promoting.)
But back to the physical trauma I discussed. You dismissed it this way:
To address circumcision as "amputation" is just plain ignorant.
How would you describe the removal of (healthy) tissue from a boy's penis by surgical cutting? Amputation is the perfect word, unless you'd prefer something less threatening, such as the excision of (healthy) tissue from a boy's penis by surgical cutting. Whatever you call it, it's still surgery that's not medically indicated. We don't allow any other surgery on children with that low standard. Why the exemption?
As for other physical trauma from infant circumcision, you are aware that the foreskin is torn from the glans, forcefully breaking the natural adhesion? That doesn't occur in adult circumcisions because the synechia no longer hold the two structures together. Of course, as surgery, complications do result from circumcision. Whether it's something "innocent" like an infection (M.R.S.A is fun), or something more troublesome, such as removing so much of the foreskin that erections become painful, or even, I don't know, something serious like death, complications exist. Thus, to say that circumcision causes no trauma would be incorrect.
I'm not going to get into the religious debate because, like every parent who believes in circumcision, you and I don't agree on the same civil law ground rules about what is acceptable to do to another person. As such, getting to the religious debate would be fruitless, I fear. However, as my counter-point in the specific religious debate, I suggest Marked in Your Flesh by Dr. Leonard Glick. Dr. Glick provides a useful history of how circumcision came to be a commandment.
P.S. No, parents should not pierce their daughter's ears. Same principle: her body, her decision. Children are not dress-up dolls for parents.
You present logical and reasoned arguments. My favorite kind. And while I would never pierce my infant daughter's ears (if I had an infant daughter that is), I am not comfortable saying parents "shouldn't" do it. Also, if parents decide against circumcision, I think that's fine, too.
Parents have to do the best with information they have at the time of any major decision. We're Jews, this is what's done, didn't seem barbaric to me at the time, read up on secular reasons to do it, took to heart the advice of grown men I respect and so our boys were circumcised. We are not Orthodox or follow laws that seem to go against our grain. For example, there is a tradition for the oldest boy to be bought back from the temple or some such nonsense. We didn't do that because it didn't make sense to us. However, a bris did make sense. And I'll be honest with you, it felt wonderful to witness our sons being welcomed in by this warm and ancient tribe that I have come to love. I hope the boys don't hold it against me. And I worry about grown men who hold it against their parents. Seems to me that they are putting too much importance on a flap of skin that doesn't have much significance either way.
Jeepers, Tony, parents really are just doing their best. Whether you agree with their ultimate decision (piercing ears, circumcising, feeding dead animals to their kids, raising them as Scientologists) - most parents today are simply trying their best to raise decent human beings.
To all anti-circumcising activists - continue to educate people. More power to you and the discussion is a good one. But don't hold onto your dicks too tightly, brothers. Every once in a while, let 'em go.
Tony,
The 1 study you mentioned was partially funded by a drug company whose products include pain numbing ointments...how convient that they found the aftermath of circumsion to be negative. Anyone in the medical field will tell you that you can find a study to supoort any opinion. Most are biased especially those with outside funding to produce an opinion that benifits their funders. None of my children cried for more that 1-2 seconds when vacinated, they were immediately breastfed and soothed so that the pain of the injection was immediately forgotten. I recently took all 3 of my children for flu shots and none of them uttered a peep. They feel safe and protected by me,
If you look at the definition of amputation...it refers to removal of a limb, diseased tissue etc.... so to equate circumsion with amputation is as far of a reach as possible. When I cut a hangnail, I removing a piece of flesh...is that amputation?? Circumsion is not surgury...there is no operating room, no harsh lights, no cold sterilty involved. No surgeon is involved in the procedure. There in no sleeping medication, no recovery room, no drugs involved. Plainly...not surgury!
Jewish circumsion is performed by a Mohel...it is the only form that I have any knowledge of...I have NEVER known any child to die, to become infected or to cry upon erection. In my culture, the circumsion is fast swift and clean...in all my years I have never known anyone to have a complication from the procedure.
I could sit here on the computer and list numerous books and studies to support my opinions but I have children to take of
Have a great day!!
Wow...definitely more interesting than politics. I knew that circumcision was a controversial topic, but I had no idea. I thought most Americans -- Gentile or Jewish -- had boys circumcised. I've never seen 'em any other way.
I'm stunned to learn that there's no medication given to the baby. It sounds like a pretty painful procedure...why not do something for the pain?
I'm pro-circumcision, but I'm a woman and have no kids, so it's easy for me to say that. I know you can't believe everything you see on the internet, but www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org is giving me a lot to think about (I've only had time to skim through the site).
Another reason to hope I have a girl if I ever have a baby...
Just an aside - Dalia, this is why I miss our conversations over cannolis in the North End so much. There is no one NO ONE like you in Pasco County, Florida. And I won't find anyone like you in The Springs either. So sad that we have to be so far apart. :-(
Lisa - I love love love that you don't like politics and still come visit me. If that isn't an endorsement to treasure, I don't know what is.
For the record, I was given cream to numb my boys the night before and then they suck on some wine right after and it really was no big deal. For them. I needed something stronger but they seemed fine.
Kate,
I understand that parents are doing their best, so I'm not trying to imply that parents are maliciously wounding their children or doing anything other than what they feel is best. Just like the other examples you offer, parents are doing their best. In most cases, I agree it wouldn't be my place to judge or say anything. But I don't believe intent is the only criteria for assessing whether or not a decision is acceptable. As such, there has to be a more compelling criteria than parental wish for the permanent removal of a healthy part of a boy's body.
Dalia,
As for the study, wonderful, it was funded by drug companies. Let's disregard it. I don't need it because the logical failings of circumcision are obvious enough. But then we have to essentially disregard every study from America because there is a cultural bias to believe that the data will ultimately support circumcision. Why bother studying anything? Luckily, reason and the experiences of other industrialized nation provide tremendous evidence that the normal human body is generally not dangerous. This shouldn't be surprising, but in America, it is.
On use of the term amputation... Fine, point conceded, since the foreskin isn't a limb. Let's get tied up in semantics. If I'm being ignorant for claiming that circumcision is amputation, you're falling into the same trap by claiming that it's somehow not surgery because, in your sons' cases, you used a mohel instead of a surgeon. So what?
No operating room, no lights, no pain medication, no sterility? Oh, must not be surgery. You can't be serious. There is a blade, there is skin, there is cutting, there is blood. Just because you don't know anyone who's had an infection from circumcision does not mean that it doesn't happen. Since complications minor and severe do happen, what else would you call it? What more defines surgery that isn't present in most circumcisions, other than a specific medical reason for cutting? If there's no disease, it's not surgery? Surely you can't be that literal.
Bottom line: The foreskin is more than just a flap of skin. It serves specific functions. Without medical indication for doing so, the decision to remove it should be the owner's exclusively. That's the standard we hold for the cutting of a girl's genitals (FGM Act of 1995). Boys don't somehow lose their equal protection because it's culturally acceptable and the foreskin is "easy" to remove.
Geeez Tony...lighten up!!!
Clearly you are very passionate about the foreskin. Good for you. We all need to be passionate about something. I however will not side with people who argue so intensely about a 10 second operation that has been performed for thousands of years without incident. Sure if you choose to circumsize your son by an idiot then bad things will happen. Any procedure done by fools results in bad things. Ergo....use a Mohel for circumsion. Like I said I have never heard of a "serious" or other complication but I am sure if I search hard enough I will find something to prove that I am wrong!
In this world where children are abused mentally and physically where they are burned, cut, scarred, beaten, yelled at, demeaned, belittled etc...I would only hope that people choose to place their passion on these issues as opposed to a 10 second procedure that when done properly has no long lasting effect on the body or the psyche (I have never met a man who bemoaned his lost foreskin or felt traumatized by the removal of said foreskin). Children who are not loved, not cared for, adandonded...acts that have life altering consequences...lets speak out for these kids.
As for American science...sure it can be flawed...read it with a grain of salt...educate yourself about how funding influences outcome...dont believe anything becasue it is published in a journal. That doesn't mean abandon science and it doesn't mean all science should be tossed.
I like your defintion of surgery...a blade...skin...cutting..knife...blood...that happened to me last week when I was cutting a tomato...again NOT SURGERY!
Oh and by the way...my child...I am the owner..I decide what they eat, when they sleep, what they wear, who they play with...until they can make these decisions for themselves.. I own them...that is called parenthood!
You are a hoot!
i'm not sure if i want to jump into this one. . .i think one of the most surprising things about becoming a parent is how unsupportive other parents can be and how quickly they'll throw you under a bus if you don't have a similiar opinion.
my personal viewpoint tends to go along the lines of the american academy of pediatrics (aap). they convened a panel and reviewed numerous studies to basically say, "eeh, it's up to you".(that's not a direct quote)
per the aap:
if you have religious, cultural or social beliefs, then circumcise.
if you choose not to circumcise, the numbers regarding infections, cancer, etc. aren't sufficient enough to warrant the procedure.
honestly though, i tend to be uncomfortable with circumcision done only for "social" reasons. (i.e. so junior can look like senior). if you don't have religious or cultural reasons, it seems to be more of a cosmetic procedure. as such, i can't think of any other instance where a purely cosmetic operation would be done on a two or three old day baby. . .for the sole purpose of the son looking like the father.
however, while i may not be comfortable with the decision to circumcise a baby for social reasons. . .if i know you.. .then, i know that you love your child, i respect you as a parent, i just don't agree with your decision.
and don't worry, i won't be checking out bus schedules.
I can attest to that. Jenn could have thrown me under...could have mentioned being at our bris...seeing me cry...something few have witnessed...and yet you remain the queen of discretion.
When I need an alibi and representation, you're my girl.
Dalia,
Circumcision lasts longer than 10 seconds. It has been performed for thousands of years, yes, but not without incident. And just because it has a long tradition does not make it acceptable. History is full of examples of such long-lasting traditions finally set aside by society. And Mohel's have to learn on someone, just like doctors. I'm sure they receive good instruction, but they're not infallible. Unless they are somehow not human.
Complication is a very interesting word, since some may not be knowable until the boy becomes sexually active. For instance, removing too much skin, as I mentioned. But it's not surgery, according to you, so complications aren't possible. Once again, just because you haven't heard of any does not mean they don't happen. Tell the parents of a boy who loses his glans during circumcision, or suffers skin bridges, or bleeds uncontrollably. But none of that happens because it's not surgery.
As for your attempt to mock my definition of surgery, you pint out that I wasn't precise enough, so I left myself open to your clever example. Since you want to be literal, rather than accepting that English has words that summarize much larger concepts for ease of expression, please add intentional to the word cutting. I forgot to accommodate for accidents. Let's use a more realistic example instead. If an infant (or an adult) is circumcised in a hospital, it's surgery because it meets your criteria. Take that patient out of the hospital and into the home and suddenly it's not surgery. That's irrational. But I'm willing to get stuck in the minutiae for as long as it takes to get the larger concept across. Circumcision is non-medically indicated surgery on a non-consenting individual. Deny it, or make up whatever excuse you want to leave yourself in denial, I can't change that. But the truth is the truth whether you acknowledge it or not.
So here we are at your assessment of the general merit of this issue in the world order. I've heard it all before, so I'll ask you to do what I've asked of others. You're the expert on what's important, so please, for the good of the world, rank the issues in order of importance so that we may move along the list in a reasonable fashion. Concentrated effort will be much more powerful, I think. Is it mentally abused first, or physically? Probably physically. What follows next? But, wait, as I look down your list of horrible things done to children, I see two that jump off the page in relation to circumcision. Cut? Check. Scarred? Check. What am I missing?
You are wrong that circumcision has no long-lasting effect on the body. (I'm going to leave the mental alone, for now, because I didn't bring it up and it isn't necessary to raise sufficient objection to circumcision.) Study the basic anatomical difference between the intact penis and the circumcised penis and you'll see a lot missing. In the circumcised penis, you won't see the sexual nerve endings of the foreskin that are no longer there. You likely won't see the frenulum, as it's removed in most circumcisions, although I won't make a specific claim about Jewish circumcisions on that. The frenulum is the most sensitive part of the penis. Or what's left of it when it's scraped off. The glans of the circumcised penis is rough and dry, unlike the glans of the intact penis, which is moist and smooth. Sort of like normal female genitalia. Just because you can't imagine any male wishing he'd be left intact does not make it acceptable for you to have it removed from your sons.
But you own your sons, and presumably your daughter(s). An interesting choice of words, given the literal standard to which you've held every word I've used. Nice to know that parenthood is just another word for slavery. A few questions arise from that, since I'm new to the concept of owning other human beings. What's the limit for what you can do to your children? Can you circumcise your daughter(s), or rather, should you be able to if you wanted to, since it's illegal in the U.S.? Can you break their arms for any reason? I own my iPod and I can break that into pieces if I want. No one's going to bother me about it. I don't imagine you would do that, but you could. You own them. What if you needed money, could you sell them? They're property, and every piece of property has a value. Something to keep in mind if they have special talents. They could act like an annuity.
Every rational person knows that that's ridiculous. I don't believe that you think you own your children in the way I own my iPod. I also suspect you're putting me on when you pretend that circumcision isn't surgery. But it's silly to even journey down the concept that any part of your child's life involves ownership. Children have rights. Parents should protect those rights until the child is old enough to act independently. Where the rights are minor (not permanent), you make your best judgment and that's parenting. When they sleep, what they wear, who they play with, those kinds of decisions. But when it comes to decisions that affect their autonomy as a fully formed human being, with a complete, healthy body, parents do not have the right to remove a part of a child's body without medical justification. The part you remove may not seem important to you, but it might be to him. A parent's job as protector and guardian is to let him find out, barring a medical issue. Circumcision falls outside that realm.
Tony,
I sense a lot of anger in you...makes me wonder about your childhood...therapy really helps...I digress.
It's Thanksgiving...take a deep breath...let it go....move on.
Try to find something to be grateful for...happiness feels so much better than bitterness.
Enjoy some turkey...oops...tofurkey.
Dalia,
Anger? Absolutely. And if you're wondering about my childhood, that's a wonderful guess since there is one specific incident fueling it. Want to guess what it was?
I have no problem letting this debate go. I mainly continue because I enjoy the debate. It also helps me learn a lot about the arguments used for circumcision that I would never think up on my own. But it's not possible for me to get over it and move on. I deal with the ramifications of that decision every day of my life. That can't change, precisely because that decision was unnecessary and permanent.
Therapy might help, who knows. But what would you say to me if I was a patient of yours and this is the issue I brought to you? That's rhetorical, mostly, unless you want to answer. (I understand that your response was winding the conversation down.) My stance is the minority opinion in our society, so it's too easy for people to dismiss me based on cultural conditioning. Too few stop to think I might be right.
As I said earlier, I don't hate parents who circumcise. I don't understand, and never will, though. It shouldn't have been done to me. Someone has to stand up to that. I'm doing my best, trying to use logic and reason, even if heated. Here I've tried to attack the arguments instead of you. I hope I've been successful in sticking to that.
Tony,
I am truely sorry that you have suffered as a result of someting being done to you that you did not consent to...that is very unfortunate and frankly unfair.
This has been very thought provoking. I wish I could say more to help ease your suffereing.
I wish you the best!
Fair enough place to end. I wish you the best, as well.
Why is there a difference between a bris milah and a bris periah?
Post a Comment
<< Home