s/o piercing thread; so what if one was against circ?

[Spy Car]

From what I've been able to find out, circumcision in Biblical times was very different from circumcision today. It took off a while lot less skin, just the very tip of the foreskin which could actually be cut off without separating the foreskin from the rest. That is not how it is done now, and there's more foreskin taken off than left when they're done. I think it's very likely that Biblical circumcision didn't significantly alter the function of the foreskin--it was meant to be symbolic.

 

Total nonsense. Don't you remember the story of the men of Shechem who raped Dinah in Genesis? They were tricked into being circumcised (in adulthood, which is not ideal) and were slaughtered when they were recovering. It was not a symbolic cut then, or now.

 

Bill

[caedmyn]

Total nonsense. Don't you remember the story of the men of Shechem who raped Dinah in Genesis? They were tricked into being circumcised (in adulthood, which is not ideal) and were slaughtered when they were recovering. It was not a symbolic cut then, or now.

 

Bill

 

I think it would be a bit different done on an adult. Adults don't heal as fast as infants, and the wound would likely be irritated every single time they peed which could be quite painful, not to mention rubbing up against their clothing. I imagine it would bother an adult a whole lot more than a newborn who doesn't move a whole lot. And I don't see why cutting off 1/2" on an adult would necessarily be less painful than cutting off a few inches (or whatever the equivalent to a standard newborn circ today would be).

 

And there is indication in the Bible that just a small amount was taken off, like where Zipporah, Moses' wife, used a flint knife to circumcise her son. You aren't using a flint knife to perform the type of circumcision that's done today where the foreskin is separated before before being cut off. That method would really only have been practical if they were cutting off foreskin that was not attached to the rest of it, and there's only a bit of foreskin that's not attached at birth.

[caedmyn]

It was a non-event pain wise for my child, and the medical studies show that the combination of topical and local anesthetic virtually eliminates pain.

 

Bill

 

And I'm still really curious as to your source for this. I searched and I'm not finding any studies (other than one done with topical cream and the Plastibell) that show that use of anesthesia makes infant circumcision virtually pain-free.

[Spy Car]

And I'm still really curious as to your source for this. I searched and I'm not finding any studies (other than one done with topical cream and the Plastibell) that show that use of anesthesia makes infant circumcision virtually pain-free.

 

The study by Kirya and Werthman concluded that the proper use of anesthetic "successfully and safely introduced with consistent elimination of pain rendering NC [natal circumcision] a painless surgical procedure."

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/kirya1/

 

Bill

[beaners]

Who? Where? Who says that? The second part is the cultural element I was speaking to. The proverbial locker room argument is not the same as saying, "I want his penis to look like mine." It's saying you want them in the majority for your demographic.

 

I'm just wondering about the "I want him to look like me" part. Who says that? Where is that documented?

 

I know you already received a response to this, but I wanted to add that this is the reason my mother told me (unasked!) about why she and my father chose to circumcise my brother. She asked how my son was healing after we got home from the hospital, and I said we hadn't had it done. I'll admit, that brief conversation involving penises and my brother and father was about the most awkward I've ever had.

 

But yeah, apparently this is the reason my brother was circumcised. My parents wanted him to have the same general appearance as my father. Now I'd like to go scrub that thought out of my brain.

[caedmyn]

The study by Kirya and Werthman concluded that the proper use of anesthetic "successfully and safely introduced with consistent elimination of pain rendering NC [natal circumcision] a painless surgical procedure."

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/kirya1/

 

Bill

 

You have ONE study saying that and the results haven't been reproduced in any other study done, even using the same form of anesthesia. (Aside from the one I mentioned earlier, and EMLA cream is contra-indicated by the manufacturer for infants under 12 months of age.) That doesn't mean a whole lot scientifically.

[Ester Maria]

About this, I can't possibly be the only person whose opinions on some of the big things changed over time, can I? Or who simply didn't think about certain issues before they arose? When DH and I got married, I thought children needed to be in daycare to be raised properly and that SAHMs were overly obsessed with their children. We discussed and came to agreements accordingly. Fast forward three years, and all my opinions were different. And how I'd feel about circumcising a son never even crossed my mind. Before I was pregnant, I just thought that was what was done, by everyone, everywhere. What did I know about it?

 

We discussed what we knew to discuss and came to agreements on everything we could, but I don't think it's always possible to hash every single issue out before agreeing to marry. Stuff comes up. People change. Even when they didn't think they would.

Our experience was particular because DH and I came from different backgrounds as regards religious observance, lifestyle preferences and attitudes about some very important things. There are way too many such marriages which crack within the first several years, or in which the partners live with some level of more or less serious resentment. Things which do not seem particularly important when you are in your twenties and when the opium of love blinds much of your common sense, things which you discard as "unimportant, we will agree about that already" tend to become, in such marriages, the very things which bring about the lack of peace in the house (at best) or the destruction of such marriages (at worst), because for a family to be peaceful and happy, some things have to be agreed upon. Because of that, it is often highly beneficial for the partners to agree upon, explicitly, and much in advance, and preferably in writing to make it all more serious, who is willing to make which compromises. It is never a problem if further down the road both partners decide to forgo that agreement, but it does assure you, about the important things, whose preferences will prevail.

 

The logic is really the same as the logic of prenupts - nobody actually signs a prenupt really thinking that they are going to divorce soon and fearing that they might be financially harmed in the process, but it is an additional peace of mind if things go wrong. Just like that, when you sign those other agreements, it is just an additional peace of mind that in a case of a dispute you will have it your way for things that are important to you, and that you also hand over the right to decide on some other things to your partner. Of course that, in reality, all decisions are preferably made after a sincere dialogue as a shared decision, but if that compromise cannot be obtained, you remind yourself that you established whose preferences will prevail for some of the important issues.

 

We put many issues into our agreements before marriage, actually. You would probably be surprised what kinds of issues were brought up - from children's citizenships, to who decides on religious upbringing, to whose preferences will prevail as circumcision regards, to exactly which compromises will be made observance-wise (we sort of met halfway through, we each gave up on something), to financial matters, to what type of education we want for children and who decides on that, to some national loyalty issues (whether, and to what extent, are we going to raise our children to feel loyal to a certain other country than that of their passport - another thing we massively disagreed about), etc.

 

We are messed up, I know. :tongue_smilie:

But we have had a beautiful and a stable marriage ever since. At least partially thanks to having spelled out some expectations right away.

[Jennifer3141]

And yet the Jews are still thriving and having more babies.

 

:confused:

 

Horrible things happen. No one wants it to be our kid, but no one builds a hose and plans for a tornado to rip it up , either. I just don't see how the article proved you right. It reported a tragedy, yes, but the one article didn't prove your point. But in your case it did win your argument.

 

My point is, that my son will NEVER die from a botched circumcison. And one of DH's arguments was that botched circumcisions are "rare." They may be. But MY son will never be one of the rarities.

[Spy Car]

You have ONE study saying that and the results haven't been reproduced in any other study done, even using the same form of anesthesia. (Aside from the one I mentioned earlier, and EMLA cream is contra-indicated by the manufacturer for infants under 12 months of age.) That doesn't mean a whole lot scientifically.

 

You say you can't find any studies, I provide a study, you say it is only ONE study. Do your own research.

 

I've seen a topical followed up with local injections with my own eyes. It is a pain-free procedure.

 

Bill

[SKL]

My point is, that my son will NEVER die from a botched circumcison. And one of DH's arguments was that botched circumcisions are "rare." They may be. But MY son will never be one of the rarities.

 

I assume that you don't ever drive your children around in a car either, considering that is one of the biggest causes of child death. Since apparently your risk tolerance is zero when it comes to your kids.

 

It's enough to say that you do not believe there is a net benefit. You are in good company, and reasonable minds can differ.

[Guest]

My point is, that my son will NEVER die from a botched circumcison. And one of DH's arguments was that botched circumcisions are "rare." They may be. But MY son will never be one of the rarities.

 

That doesn't make sense logically. It could also be said that it is "rare" for a man to get a UTI, or repeated UTIs, that leads to death or medically necessary circ. in adulthood. There is at least some small risk either way. In that respect, this argument is so similar to debates over things like vaccination, antibiotic use or homebirth. You have your odd horror stories no matter what decision you make. It is not possible to fully prevent a bad result whether you are pursuing a route of medical intervention or you're shunning it.

[AFwife Claire]

Yes, I have to agree with Bill here--I don't think the circumsicion procedure itself was painful for my 5 boys. Some of them started crying when strapped down, and stopped when they were released (making me assume it was the strapping down part they didn't like), and others didn't cry during any part of it. My husband watched each circumcision get done, and we have had all the different methods. No complications from any of them.

[TheAutumnOak]

I assume that you don't ever drive your children around in a car either, considering that is one of the biggest causes of child death. Since apparently your risk tolerance is zero when it comes to your kids.

 

It's enough to say that you do not believe there is a net benefit. You are in good company, and reasonable minds can differ.

 

:iagree: I also have to agree with Bill as well...Whether to circ or not is a choice...It is not do or die either way...I have no problems at all with people being against circ (as I have said, I was also against it until my DH had it done on my boys)...My only problem is that I think people treat the decision as if it is a life threatning issue...I think (correct me if I am wrong Bill) what Bill is saying is that it is an acceptable choice, not cruel and unusual punishment...I can't even imagine if I had divorced DH after my first son over this...In the big scheme of things, we have had bigger issues to face and have done it for the past twelve years together...The boys have been circ and they are fine...They were also fine during the process...

I know people feel deeply about this issue and I am in no way trying to minimize that...I just agree that there are way more dangerous things in every day life that are not regarded in the same way...

[Jenny in Florida]

Actually, the general suggestion was that men were were too stupid, too lazy, or were otherwise incapable of doing "research" and they insight into having informed opinions on the subjects.

 

Bill

 

 

Well, in the case of division of labor in my own marriage, research is my job.

 

It's not my job because my husband is "too stupid" or "lazy." It's my job because it's one of the things at which I'm really, really good. So, in the interest of saving time and effort, I do the research, brief him on what I found (both sides), and then we discuss.

 

For the record, there are lots of things that are his job, because he's better at those. I stay home full time with the kids in part because he's better at making money than I am. It's also his job to make phone calls for various reasons, because he's much, much better at dealing with people.

 

But when it comes to research, yep, that's mine.

 

My observation with circumcision is that, as with so many other things, the people who choose not to do it are sure it's not a good idea, while the people who've already done it will defend their choice adamantly. I've yet to meet or speak to any person who has a circumsized son and will admit they now think it was a bad choice. And I've never yet met anyone who chose not to circumcize but will admit they now thing they should have.

 

So, I'm not sure ANY personal experience is especially helpful to the discussion.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Jenny in Florida

[Jenny in Florida]

I have never heard a man say he wanted his son circumcised so his son's penis would look like his. Saying that is typical for your cultural demographic is not the same as saying you want your child's genitals to look like yours. I think you misunderstand what "reasons like appearance" actually means to someone who does circumcise.

 

Actually, my husband was another one who initially said he assumed he would decide to circumcize our about-to-be-born son because he didn't want him to get teased for looking "different." There was also a sort of general position that it would be best for it to be "like father, like son."

 

As I said, he changed his mind after reading a single article I passed along to him.

[Mom-ninja.]

I've yet to meet or speak to any person who has a circumsized son and will admit they now think it was a bad choice.

 

I have. More than one person. I've seen a person cry each and every time circ came up as a topic. She felt so horrible that she allowed it to be done. She has said she will regret it for the rest of her life.

 

I also know several people who circ'd a first son, but not any others because they decided the first circ was a mistake.

 

 

Haven't met anyone who feels the opposite though. Someone that didn't but wish they had.

[NicAnn]

I have. More than one person. I've seen a person cry each and every time circ came up as a topic. She felt so horrible that she allowed it to be done. She has said she will regret it for the rest of her life.

 

I also know several people who circ'd a first son, but not any others because they decided the first circ was a mistake.

 

 

Haven't met anyone who feels the opposite though. Someone that didn't but wish they had.

 

 

Sadly this has been my experience too. I have two lactation consultant clients (not doula clients) going through terrible pain right now. Both their sons had complications after the procedure and are now dealing with it.

 

I also know a husband who is adamant against circ because he feels the choice was taken away from him.

[PeacefulChaos]

You say you can't find any studies, I provide a study, you say it is only ONE study. Do your own research.

 

I've seen a topical followed up with local injections with my own eyes. It is a pain-free procedure.

 

Bill

I have to agree. While I didn't have Bill's experience of being in the room when the circumcision was performed on either of my boys, they were back in no time and were perfectly happy. They never cried when they peed or anything like that, which some people seem to think would be the case. There was no sign of discomfort or anything like that. They acted the exact same after as they did before.

My boys did NOT have the plastibell. Just a regular, sterile, doctor-performed circumcision. :)

That doesn't make sense logically. It could also be said that it is "rare" for a man to get a UTI, or repeated UTIs, that leads to death or medically necessary circ. in adulthood. There is at least some small risk either way. In that respect, this argument is so similar to debates over things like vaccination, antibiotic use or homebirth. You have your odd horror stories no matter what decision you make. It is not possible to fully prevent a bad result whether you are pursuing a route of medical intervention or you're shunning it.

:iagree:

The bottom line is, people make their decisions. I really don't care much about this one myself, much less what other people choose to do! :D

[mommymilkies]

Circumcision is not "damage" it offers life-long advantages to men at every spectrum of life, from infantry to old age.

 

Bill

 

This is not true. Read any medical journal to find out why. It decreases pleasure, sensation, and lubrication for men. My son is one of 10% of circ'd males with meatal stenosis from circ, according to our urologist. He's had 2 meatotomies already and will likely need more. The urologist has told us it's her most common procedure and does not happen in non-circ'd boys. I suppose once uou've had to tear open your son's urethra every time he urinates for weeks after surgery, you'd feel different about how wonderful it is.

 

Curcumcision is mutilation-you are purposefully cutting off a living, functioning part of a baby's body for aesthetics. There is no more to it. And yet people are against female circumcision. It's quite hypocritical. Circumcision is plastic surgery without medical indication. As for it being painless, you can not quantify that unless it was your foreskin being cut, and without taking into consideration life long consequences of ED, meatal stenosis, and many other problems. More boys die from circ than suffocation and car accidents combined.

[SonshineLearner]

If I had a little boy I would circumsize , only for the reason is with that skin there it can cause bacterial build up in little boys and cause UTI's. They have to be responsible enough as they mature to pull back the skin and clean the area because if they don't bacteria can build up and get into the urethra and cause UTI's.

....

I almost wonder if it was something the Jewish people learned and it became custom. So people just relate it to a Jewish ritual. But it may have been more of a health thing. This is just one of those cases where Natural isn't always good.

 

First, it's a problem for people who don't know not to force their son's foreskin back before it's ready. Some boys can pull it back at 2... some not till 6 or 7. No problem. One yeast infection, yeast infection meds on the tip rubbed in... no problem. (BTW, Boys can get yeast infections even if they're circ'd)

 

2nd, The Jewish people were and are in a covenant between the "Jews and God" to circ their boys. The Torah doesn't say how long the cut is to be, but rather on the 8th day. Who knows how it was done. It would be interesting to know how it was cut, since it happened on older men... who could pull it forward and chop off... but for babies... not sure how that would have been done.... If you pull it forward you could cut off the very tip of the foreskin, and leave it as long as possible, which would still provide the visible difference between cut and uncut. (Especially as an adult man)

 

Uncut children don't have the same problem now as they did before. The cut kids will soon be in the minority.

 

If uncirc'd men are so gross and unhealthy, then much of France and the UK must be in trouble.

[SonshineLearner]

I have never heard a man say he wanted his son circumcised so his son's penis would look like his. Saying that is typical for your cultural demographic is not the same as saying you want your child's genitals to look like yours. I think you misunderstand what "reasons like appearance" actually means to someone who does circumcise.

 

Oh, I have!! And funny thing... the son was adopted. The man is tall and he has one bio son. The adopted son is Korean, shorter, black hair, black eyes. Face it... he'll never look like his dad. BUT, he wanted something alike so he would be more "alike" and the foreskin gone was it. They had it done at 2yrs... seriously, I just think it's crazy.

[Veritaserum]

This is not true. Read any medical journal to find out why. It decreases pleasure, sensation, and lubrication for men. My son is one of 10% of circ'd males with meatal stenosis from circ, according to our urologist. He's had 2 meatotomies already and will likely need more. The urologist has told us it's her most common procedure and does not happen in non-circ'd boys. I suppose once uou've had to tear open your son's urethra every time he urinates for weeks after surgery, you'd feel different about how wonderful it is.

 

Curcumcision is mutilation-you are purposefully cutting off a living, functioning part of a baby's body for aesthetics. There is no more to it. And yet people are against female circumcision. It's quite hypocritical. Circumcision is plastic surgery without medical indication. As for it being painless, you can not quantify that unless it was your foreskin being cut, and without taking into consideration life long consequences of ED, meatal stenosis, and many other problems. More boys die from circ than suffocation and car accidents combined.

 

:grouphug: I hope a longterm fix has or will be found for him.

 

My nephew was circumcised a second time when he was 18 months because of complications from his first time around. His urologist said he does circumcision corrections all the time. If I were inclined to circumcise my son, I'd want it done by a pediatric urologist. Instead I'll just skip all the risks that come with surgery, including the risk that it will have to be done again.

[SonshineLearner]

Quote:

"Originally Posted by Spy Car

Circumcision is not "damage" it offers life-long advantages to men at every spectrum of life, from infantry to old age.

 

Bill"

 

Already had past Bill's post when I thought of my Uncle. When he went in the Army, is when he was circ'd. At the time he went in, they had to be. (He would be around 80 now, although he died a few years ago)

[SKL]

More boys die from circ than suffocation and car accidents combined.

 

This is absolutely untrue.

[SKL]

Actually, my husband was another one who initially said he assumed he would decide to circumcize our about-to-be-born son because he didn't want him to get teased for looking "different." There was also a sort of general position that it would be best for it to be "like father, like son."

 

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. Your DH didn't want your son to be teased by other boys for looking different from other boys. How would your son get teased for looking different from his dad? Which other boys are going to see your DH's penis?

 

I assume that your DH saw uncirc'd boys getting teased when he was young, and all things being equal (not saying they are), wouldn't want that for his son.

 

I just don't believe a dad would say circ is to make the son look like the dad. In no case does a little boy's penis look like his dad's, and once he grows up, why would he and his dad be in the same room naked? And even if they were, are they really going to stand there and compare and ponder the differences? Really? Where do these ideas actually come from? I am certain that when my brothers were born, my dad was not thinking about whether they would someday have matching penises.

[Parrothead]

More boys die from circ than suffocation and car accidents combined.

Source please.

 

I ask because we do see PSAs about the danger of plastic bags and babies, but nothing about how circs are killing little boys.

[beaners]

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. Your DH didn't want your son to be teased by other boys for looking different from other boys. How would your son get teased for looking different from his dad? Which other boys are going to see your DH's penis?

 

I assume that your DH saw uncirc'd boys getting teased when he was young, and all things being equal (not saying they are), wouldn't want that for his son.

 

I just don't believe a dad would say circ is to make the son look like the dad. In no case does a little boy's penis look like his dad's, and once he grows up, why would he and his dad be in the same room naked? And even if they were, are they really going to stand there and compare and ponder the differences? Really? Where do these ideas actually come from? I am certain that when my brothers were born, my dad was not thinking about whether they would someday have matching penises.

 

I can't believe I'm doing this twice in one day...but here I go. My mother specifically told me that she and my father didn't want my brother to see my father in the shower and wonder why he looked different. I think my father would die of embarrassment if he knew my mother had said that to me.

[Guest]

More boys die from circ than suffocation and car accidents combined.

:confused: Is there also some mass cover-up so that we won't know the real reason thousands of boys die is from circumcision? Really, that is quite absurd. How could you make such a contention?

 

I'm sorry, but you're not making sense. Your DH didn't want your son to be teased by other boys for looking different from other boys. How would your son get teased for looking different from his dad? Which other boys are going to see your DH's penis?

 

I assume that your DH saw uncirc'd boys getting teased when he was young, and all things being equal (not saying they are), wouldn't want that for his son.

 

I just don't believe a dad would say circ is to make the son look like the dad. In no case does a little boy's penis look like his dad's, and once he grows up, why would he and his dad be in the same room naked? And even if they were, are they really going to stand there and compare and ponder the differences? Really? Where do these ideas actually come from? I am certain that when my brothers were born, my dad was not thinking about whether they would someday have matching penises.

 

This is what I was saying. So glad someone gets it.

[SKL]

I can't believe I'm doing this twice in one day...but here I go. My mother specifically told me that she and my father didn't want my brother to see my father in the shower and wonder why he looked different. I think my father would die of embarrassment if he knew my mother had said that to me.

 

Maybe my brain just doesn't have the right stuff. This seriously does not compute.

 

Of course they are going to look different. My daughters and I look different. Should I be socking away money for therapy?

 

By the time he's old enough to potentially look like his dad, can't they simply tell him about circumcision and that not everyone has it done? What is the issue?

 

Beam me up, Scotty!

 

FTR, my dad isn't and my brothers are. (Didn't know my dad wasn't until my mom mentioned it in passing recently.) I promise you it was never an issue in our house - and we only had one bathroom when we were young.

[beaners]

Maybe my brain just doesn't have the right stuff. This seriously does not compute.

 

Of course they are going to look different. My daughters and I look different. Should I be socking away money for therapy?

 

By the time he's old enough to potentially look like his dad, can't they simply tell him about circumcision and that not everyone has it done? What is the issue?

 

Beam me up, Scotty!

 

FTR, my dad isn't and my brothers are. (Didn't know my dad wasn't until my mom mentioned it in passing recently.) I promise you it was never an issue in our house - and we only had one bathroom when we were young.

 

I didn't say it was my issue. ;) It's just information that my mother sprang on my poor unsuspecting self. We are a household with mixed foreskin presence, so it wasn't a problem with my own children.

[Guest]

I can't believe I'm doing this twice in one day...but here I go. My mother specifically told me that she and my father didn't want my brother to see my father in the shower and wonder why he looked different. I think my father would die of embarrassment if he knew my mother had said that to me.

 

IMO, this still comes down to cultural norms. It's not the same as saying you want your son's penis to MATCH your own. It's saying you don't want your son to be the odd man out amongst a heavy population of circumcised peers.

[beaners]

IMO, this still comes down to cultural norms. It's not the same as saying you want your son's penis to MATCH your own. It's saying you don't want your son to be the odd man out amongst a heavy population of circumcised peers.

 

No, it really wasn't a question of being in the majority. Really. It was specifically being the same as the parent. I have the conversation burned into my brain. I can't get it out of there.

 

 

"If he saw your father's penis, we didn't want him to wonder why his was different from your Dad's."

 

 

No mention was ever made of the cultural majority. Nothing was said about locker rooms. It was only in the context of having the same appearance of father and son. Not a single other motive was mentioned.

[Veritaserum]

No, it really wasn't a question of being in the majority. Really. It was specifically being the same as the parent. I have the conversation burned into my brain. I can't get it out of there.

 

 

"If he saw your father's penis, we didn't want him to wonder why his was different from your Dad's."

 

 

No mention was ever made of the cultural majority. Nothing was said about locker rooms. It was only in the context of having the same appearance of father and son. Not a single other motive was mentioned.

 

I've heard the "matching dad" reason with equal or more frequency than the "locker room" reason. There are absolutely dads who are specifically worried about their sons not matching the dads.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Veritaserum

[Parrothead]

No, it really wasn't a question of being in the majority. Really. It was specifically being the same as the parent. I have the conversation burned into my brain. I can't get it out of there.

 

 

"If he saw your father's penis, we didn't want him to wonder why his was different from your Dad's."

 

 

No mention was ever made of the cultural majority. Nothing was said about locker rooms. It was only in the context of having the same appearance of father and son. Not a single other motive was mentioned.

It is a male thing. We aren't supposed to understand.

[Virg]

My dad actually paid for the twins' curc. I had wanted it done anyway but when I found out my insurance didn't pay for it I wasn't sure how I would pay for two out-of-pocket. My dad said he would pay because it must be done! They would not be made fun of like he had been!

 

I was appreciative of the payment but seriously WAAAAAY TMI Dad! I didn't know that and never needed to either! (To put it into context though my dad was born in the late 30's.)

[melissel]

I'm so confused about the confusion :confused: Why is it so hard to believe that some men, when asked to make a decision about something they've never really considered before and have done no real research on, default to the visual aspect? Do you all think we're lying about our experiences? What others have told us? I'll have to check my mailbox for my big fat guerrilla marketing check from the anti-circ movement. I don't recall getting one last month!

 

When I brought the issue up with my husband, the conversation went something along the lines of this:

 

Me: If we have a boy, we'll have to decide about whether or not to circumcise. Is that something you'd want to do?

 

DH: Huh? Well yeah, of course.

 

Me: Why?

 

DH: Well, so he'd look like me, I guess. Why wouldn't we?

 

Me: Why would we? Would it really matter if his penis looks like yours? We could just tell him the truth about why they're different.

 

DH: Hm, yeah, I guess so. But I woudn't want him to be teased about it. That's what guys do; they compare, they tease. I wouldn't want him to be different.

 

Me: Less than half of the boy babies born now are circumcised. There'd be plenty of diversity if they're comparing by then.

 

DH: Hm, yeah, that's true. Well, isn't it safer and more hygienic to have it done?

 

Me: Not necessarily. Here's some research...

 

I'm not fabricating or even exaggerating this story. This is how it went, and when I've talked to other moms about it (we travel in crunchy-hippie type circles), I've heard plenty of similar stories. I don't get why this is so hard to believe? No, I don't think most dads expect their sons to look exactly like them in every single possible way. But when asked, an unsuspecting man who's never given it much thought and is being asked for a judgment is pretty likely to jump to the first factor that comes to mind: appearance.

 

ETA: Coincidentally, the "what do you think about homeschooling our kids?" conversation went sort of similarly. When I asked about his opinion (DD9 was 4 then and already reading, and we were tracked to the worst and farthest school in the district), he said, "Hm, I don't know. Don't they need to be socialized?" yada yada yada "Here's some research..." Fast forward four years and he's one of HSing biggest cheerleaders because of how well it's worked for our family. But back then, it wasn't anything he'd given much thought to.

Edited January 16, 2012 by melissel

[SKL]

But when asked, an unsuspecting man who's never given it much thought and is being asked for a judgment is pretty likely to jump to the first factor that comes to mind: appearance.

 

I dunno. I've had this conversation with 3 men. Two were uncirc, and the third had to have his done at 3 due to problems. The uncirc'd men were both horrified by the thought of someone going down there and compromising the integrity of the almost-sacred penis. The circ'd man said that he wished he'd been able to make his own choice, so I assume he'd have refused circ (he doesn't have a son). Other than that, I have only heard (IRL) men's views from a religious standpoint, i.e., we're Jewish (or Dad's Jewish) so it's not open for discussion.

[SKL]

It is a male thing. We aren't supposed to understand.

 

I guess so. :001_huh:

[Guest]

It is a male thing. We aren't supposed to understand.

 

Clearly.

 

I'm so confused about the confusion :confused: Why is it so hard to believe that some men, when asked to make a decision about something they've never really considered before and have done no real research on, default to the visual aspect? Do you all think we're lying about our experiences? What others have told us? I'll have to check my mailbox for my big fat guerrilla marketing check from the anti-circ movement. I don't recall getting one last month!

 

When I brought the issue up with my husband, the conversation went something along the lines of this:

 

Me: If we have a boy, we'll have to decide about whether or not to circumcise. Is that something you'd want to do?

 

DH: Huh? Well yeah, of course.

 

Me: Why?

 

DH: Well, so he'd look like me, I guess. Why wouldn't we?

 

Me: Why would we? Would it really matter if his penis looks like yours? We could just tell him the truth about why they're different.

 

DH: Hm, yeah, I guess so. But I woudn't want him to be teased about it. That's what guys do; they compare, they tease. I wouldn't want him to be different.

 

Me: Less than half of the boy babies born now are circumcised. There'd be plenty of diversity if they're comparing by then.

 

DH: Hm, yeah, that's true. Well, isn't it safer and more hygienic to have it done?

 

Me: Not necessarily. Here's some research...

 

I'm not fabricating or even exaggerating this story. This is how it went, and when I've talked to other moms about it (we travel in crunchy-hippie type circles), I've heard plenty of similar stories. I don't get why this is so hard to believe? No, I don't think most dads expect their sons to look exactly like them in every single possible way. But when asked, an unsuspecting man who's never given it much thought and is being asked for a judgment is pretty likely to jump to the first factor that comes to mind: appearance.

 

ETA: Coincidentally, the "what do you think about homeschooling our kids?" conversation went sort of similarly. When I asked about his opinion (DD9 was 4 then and already reading, and we were tracked to the worst and farthest school in the district), he said, "Hm, I don't know. Don't they need to be socialized?" yada yada yada "Here's some research..." Fast forward four years and he's one of HSing biggest cheerleaders because of how well it's worked for our family. But back then, it wasn't anything he'd given much thought to.

 

Relax. It's not that I think you're telling a bare-faced lie. It's that I think the knee-jerk statement of "looking like me" is about culture, not specific, identical appearance. If my own dh had said, "I want them to look like me," I would interpret that as, "I want them to look like normal, white, middle-class, blue collar American guys." That he would want them to fit into the "normal" demographic of similar peers. I don't have any hard facts to back it up, but from casual observation, circumcision is still a lot more common than intact in our demographic that I just mentioned. Nationally, it probably does come closer to half-and-half for babies born now, but for our particular demographic, not.

 

That the "locker room" conversation is so likely to follow the "look like me" objection demonstrates to me that the men are reacting to what they perceive as culturally normal.

[SonshineLearner]

When I pointed out that my husband didn't "look like his dad" because his mom told me about his dad.... he realized if he grew up without it being a problem for him... that it wouldn't be a problem for our son. I feel like we just skipped back a generation with our decision...

[TranquilMind]

I've heard the "matching dad" reason with equal or more frequency than the "locker room" reason. There are absolutely dads who are specifically worried about their sons not matching the dads.

 

That is so unbelievably stupid that it boggles the mind.

 

Not once in life do normal men and their sons stand around comparing penis coverings or lack thereof. Goodness. I don't think we ever even had the conversation here at all, but if we did, it was in the context of what circumcision was, and why my husband was circumsized and my son is not. End of story. Just not relevant in the scheme of ANYTHING.

 

I don't match my daughter. She has an unbelievable model type body and I do not after 50 years and kids (I had it when I needed it, as my Mom used to say!;)) She has curly hair and I have straight hair.

 

Perhaps I should have straightened her hair in infancy so she would "match me"? :confused:

[Veritaserum]

That is so unbelievably stupid that it boggles the mind.

 

Not once in life do normal men and their sons stand around comparing penis coverings or lack thereof. Goodness. I don't think we ever even had the conversation here at all, but if we did, it was in the context of what circumcision was, and why my husband was circumsized and my son is not. End of story. Just not relevant in the scheme of ANYTHING.

 

I don't match my daughter. She has an unbelievable model type body and I do not after 50 years and kids (I had it when I needed it, as my Mom used to say!;)) She has curly hair and I have straight hair.

 

Perhaps I should have straightened her hair in infancy so she would "match me"? :confused:

 

I agree that it doesn't make sense. When dh said it, I was like :001_huh:.

[Jennifer3141]

I assume that you don't ever drive your children around in a car either, considering that is one of the biggest causes of child death. Since apparently your risk tolerance is zero when it comes to your kids.

 

It's enough to say that you do not believe there is a net benefit. You are in good company, and reasonable minds can differ.

 

My risk tolerance is ZERO for cosmetic surgery on a newborn infant, yes.

 

We're also atheists. I don't really give a fig if you think god is telling you to circumsize. Circ your kid away, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't believe in a god and I don't believe in circumcision for cosmetic purposes. I NEED to go to the grocery store to get groceries every once in awhile. I don't NEED to cut off any part of my child's body.

 

It makes me laugh that you're trying to fight this argument with the old, "Do you drive your child around?' argument.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Jennifer3141

[melissel]

Relax. It's not that I think you're telling a bare-faced lie. It's that I think the knee-jerk statement of "looking like me" is about culture, not specific, identical appearance.

 

I'm fairly relaxed, thanks. I am, however, irritated after participating in a long thread where I've been called a zealot, been told that I haven't done any real research in order to come to the decision I have, been condescended to, and been told I'm offensive to men in general when I was speaking strictly from my own experience (and was backed up by others' experiences).

 

I wasn't responding directly to you, actually. However, these statements make it sound as though, in spite of several of us giving you information to the contrary, you still seem determined to hold on to your own beliefs about other people's expressions:

 

I just don't believe a dad would say circ is to make the son look like the dad. In no case does a little boy's penis look like his dad's, and once he grows up, why would he and his dad be in the same room naked?

 

This is what I was saying. So glad someone gets it.

 

Why is it so hard to believe that men want their boys to be physically like them, particularly with regard to an appendage that's pretty important to most males? Boys are very likely to be familiar with the way their fathers' bodies look long before they are in position to be teased in a locker room.

Edited January 17, 2012 by melissel
fixing random boldness

[SKL]

My risk tolerance is ZERO for cosmetic surgery on a newborn infant, yes.

 

We're also atheists. I don't really give a fig if you think god is telling you to circumsize. Circ your kid away, as far as I'm concerned. But I don't believe in a god and I don't believe in circumcision for cosmetic purposes. I NEED to go to the grocery store to get groceries every once in awhile. I don't NEED to cut off any part of my child's body.

 

It makes me laugh that you're trying to fight this argument with the old, "Do you drive your child around?' argument.

 

Nobody is telling you to circ your kid. But the post I responded to suggested that the ONLY/MAIN reason you disagree with it is the miniscule risk of death.

 

Most who circ nowadays do NOT do it for cosmetic but hygienic/preventative/religious purposes. Perhaps you disbelieve the hygiene/prevention claims; then say so; that should be enough without acting like you're saving your kid from imminent torture and death.

 

Honestly, your tone here sounds like I'm trying to tie your kid down and chop his weenie off right now. It's your decision, OK? I never suggested otherwise.

 

(Not sure how you decided that I am pro-circ, let alone that I do it for religious purposes. I don't even have a son or a husband. I said I'd defer to my dh if I had one and he had a strong opinion. I guess that makes me a fanatical maniac.)

[SKL]

Why is it so hard to believe that men want their boys to be physically like them, particularly with regard to an appendage that's pretty important to most males?

 

Because it's so patently dumb, and because no man whom I know intimately would think that way.

[melissel]

Because it's so patently dumb, and because no man whom I know intimately would think that way.

 

I agree with you, which is why I persisted in discussing it and didn't accept it as a reason. My DH would also agree with you, but he would only do so because I asked him to think beyond that initial reason. If I had said, "OK then, let's do it!" after he said that, I'm sure he wouldn't have given much more thought at all. I'm also sure he's not the only man on the planet who thought that way at one point. And people do things to their children every day for what I would consider patently dumb reasons, so it's not as if he'd be setting any kind of precedent!

[Jennifer3141]

Nobody is telling you to circ your kid. But the post I responded to suggested that the ONLY/MAIN reason you disagree with it is the miniscule risk of death.

 

Most who circ nowadays do NOT do it for cosmetic but hygienic/preventative/religious purposes. Perhaps you disbelieve the hygiene/prevention claims; then say so; that should be enough without acting like you're saving your kid from imminent torture and death.

 

Honestly, your tone here sounds like I'm trying to tie your kid down and chop his weenie off right now. It's your decision, OK? I never suggested otherwise.

 

(Not sure how you decided that I am pro-circ, let alone that I do it for religious purposes. I don't even have a son or a husband. I said I'd defer to my dh if I had one and he had a strong opinion. I guess that makes me a fanatical maniac.)

 

Actually, there are a myriad of reasons not to circ. YOU made an assumption that MY only reason for not circing is the risk of death. I don't really see the reason to list those reasons because I happen to know that most of the posters here are smart enough to do their own research.

 

It does amuse me that you call it a "miniscule risk of death." When I hold my newborns, ANY risk of death is too much. Perhaps we simply have differeing parenting styles.

[SKL]

It does amuse me that you call it a "miniscule risk of death." When I hold my newborns, ANY risk of death is too much. Perhaps we simply have differeing parenting styles.

 

Not sure about different parenting styles, but the reality is there is always a risk of death and I am certain that you have exposed your child to that risk every day of his life, one way or another.

 

I respect your opinion that there is not a net benefit to circumcising. Why do you have to go on to imply that those who are OK with circ apparently don't care if their kids die?

[Spy Car]

Actually, there are a myriad of reasons not to circ. YOU made an assumption that MY only reason for not circing is the risk of death. I don't really see the reason to list those reasons because I happen to know that most of the posters here are smart enough to do their own research.

 

It does amuse me that you call it a "miniscule risk of death." When I hold my newborns, ANY risk of death is too much. Perhaps we simply have differeing parenting styles.

 

Since most of the posters are women ;) :D

 

Bill