As I have been going through classes recently because we're having a baby, the question of circumcision has come up quite a few times. I am amazed that in this day and age, this procedure is still performed, and what's more, according to the documentation we've been shown at the birthing class, has "possible health benefits" and is "recommended". I honestly agree that FGM and circumcision are not inherently different - both have many roots in religious beliefs, and at their basis, are both mutilation of genitalia. Luckily, circumcision rates in recent years have plummeted, lessening the 'peer pressure' effect. It was even suggested that a valid reason to have a boy circumcised was so that 'he could fit in better in the shower room' and avoid teasing!
Honestly, I'm glad I'm able to sidestep this entirely, as we're having a girl, but even if I had to deal with it, everyone that matters agree with me, and that's all that's important. :)
Like you, I am a bit surprised and disappointed that they're still recommending circumcision.
...There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of the circumcised man contracting HIV. Some. Needless to say, given the existence of oh say condoms I don't think this benefit is really worth the cost.
Nevertheless circumcision is being touted in places like Africa as a "more acceptable" means than condoms to control the spread of AIDS. I understand how they sell this to the people in the West writing the checks (*SIGH*), but I seriously don't understand how they sell this to the people undergoing the procedure. "There's this thing called HIV, and it makes people very sick and usually eventually kills them. You can either put this little rubber thing on your dick before you fuck somebody, or I can cut the end of your dick off. Your choice!"
Actually they probably don't talk about condoms at all. I... aaaugh.
Also, it amazes me the degree of repression of frank discussion of sexual health topics in our culture, when sex itself is sold everywhere. I really would think that the trauma caused by circumcision should be more common knowledge by now, and its practice not the default procedure.
I guess I'm guilty of perpetuation myself, though. Three of my friends have had baby boys and not to one of them did I say anything about it. Next time I have the opportunity (not to proselytize, just to prompt inquiry), I'll hope to say something like: "There are serious problems and health consequences that can arise from circumcision. You might look into it before you make a decision."
I have three sons who were circumcised (for religious reasons-I am not interested in evaluating the secular arguments for circumcision), and I have seen a lot of other circumcisions performed in my community, and in the vast majority of cases, the babies involved did not act traumatized; the typical behavior was for the baby to cry when his diaper was unfastened and stop when the diaper was put back on. (The only anaesthetic used in these cases was Kedem Cream Malaga.)
By comparison, cutting an infant’s fingernails has always been a squirm-and-scream-fest.
I'd be curious to know what behavior you did observe in the infants. I've never seen a circumcision performed live myself, but I've read that some infants exhibit an increased unresponsiveness -- a catatonic torpor induced by shock (as indicated by elevated cortisol levels and decreased body temperature).
I'll refrain from providing references since you said you aren't interested, but they are available. My point is only to question what "not acting traumatized" means.
“...since, of all the delights which pleasure can afford, the association of man with woman is the most exquisite, it seemed good to the lawgivers to mutilate the organ which ministers to such connections; by which rite they signified figuratively the excision of all superfluous and excessive pleasure, not, indeed, of one only, but of all others whatever, through that one which is the most imperious of all.” -Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-50 CE)
Comments 7
Honestly, I'm glad I'm able to sidestep this entirely, as we're having a girl, but even if I had to deal with it, everyone that matters agree with me, and that's all that's important. :)
Reply
...There is some evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of the circumcised man contracting HIV. Some. Needless to say, given the existence of oh say condoms I don't think this benefit is really worth the cost.
Nevertheless circumcision is being touted in places like Africa as a "more acceptable" means than condoms to control the spread of AIDS. I understand how they sell this to the people in the West writing the checks (*SIGH*), but I seriously don't understand how they sell this to the people undergoing the procedure. "There's this thing called HIV, and it makes people very sick and usually eventually kills them. You can either put this little rubber thing on your dick before you fuck somebody, or I can cut the end of your dick off. Your choice!"
Actually they probably don't talk about condoms at all. I... aaaugh.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Also, it amazes me the degree of repression of frank discussion of sexual health topics in our culture, when sex itself is sold everywhere. I really would think that the trauma caused by circumcision should be more common knowledge by now, and its practice not the default procedure.
I guess I'm guilty of perpetuation myself, though. Three of my friends have had baby boys and not to one of them did I say anything about it. Next time I have the opportunity (not to proselytize, just to prompt inquiry), I'll hope to say something like: "There are serious problems and health consequences that can arise from circumcision. You might look into it before you make a decision."
Reply
By comparison, cutting an infant’s fingernails has always been a squirm-and-scream-fest.
Reply
I'll refrain from providing references since you said you aren't interested, but they are available. My point is only to question what "not acting traumatized" means.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment