If you frequent any mommy boards, this subject always breaks out the claws of what we call intactivists. It's a penis, not the holy grail. Some people choose not to do it and others do. Those who do it have abused and mutilated their child. Recently we had the pleasure of seeing mothers who circumsize referred to as Pedophiles. Yes, a pedophile.A person who targets children sexually or has a fetish regarding children!
FGM is usually the removal of labia and the woman is sewn up so all that can get through is menstrual blood. The clitoris is often removed too. If you are acquainted with basic fetal genital development, you would know that the foreskin is equivalent to the clitoral hood. So, if we performed circ's that equal the damage done during FGM, we would have to remove the actual head of the penis and a good part of the shaft. Obviously, this is not what is happening. These two things are unequal.
What is interesting is these women speak of the child's sex life. The penis will be damaged, his penis won't work correctly, he will have erectile dysfunction, etc. It is said that the foreskin makes sex better for him. How do we know this?? The intactivist sites say it is so. Men are told that they are missing something that makes sex better instead of telling the man that if sex sucks, he needs to work on it! Way to pass the buck!
There are studies that say circumcision reduces the risk for STD's (including HIV), UTI's, and penile cancer. Yet, those studies done by the government are flawed horribly and not to be trusted (where is my eye rolling smilie?).
There are studies that say circumcision reduces the risk for STD's (including HIV), UTI's, and penile cancer. Yet, those studies done by the government are flawed horribly and not to be trusted (where is my eye rolling smilie?).
3 comments:
You don't have to be a homebirther or a natural birth nazi to understand that male circumcision is ridiculous.
First of all, FGM accounts for less than 10% of female circumcisions. The other 90+% generally only involves the removal of the outer labia, and is often times done in hospitals by doctors (or nurses). Like male circumcision, it doesn't affect urination or sexual function unless it's botched. It's extremely dishonest to try and portray FGM as the standard for female circumcision just to make a stab at homebirthers. Female circumcision IS analogous to male circumcision. FGM is in another realm.
Female circumcision has also been shown to provide most of the same "benefits" as male circumcision, and the cultural arguments are nearly identical. Does that make it okay? Is it okay if it's "cleaner" and a nice doctor in a nice hospital does it?
It's cruel to discount the very real pain and suffering many men live with. It has nothing to do with "intactivists" telling them how to fee about their circumcisions. It has to do with what they live with on a daily basis- thick, hideous scars, circumcisions so tight erections are painful or even unattainable, etc. And, of course, men who have lost part of their penis because of botched circumcisions. There's no way of knowing how large an infant's penis will be, and the old "high and tight" circumcisions have cause many problems for those men as mature. That said, there's no empirical evidence that a normal circumcision free of complications significantly decreases sexual stimulation.
Those studies aren't flawed because the government can't be trusted, they're flawed because they're poorly done studies who's results are misrepresented. Circumcision doesn't reduce the risk of HIV, condoms do. The studies were shocking in how pathetic the methodology was. They didn't account for things like number of sexual partners or even whether or not the participants were using condoms! Nor did they account for the fact that the men are living in countries with extremely high rates of HIV, where infection can easily occur in a number of ways. Sexual practices are what affect the likelihood of contracting a STD, not a foreskin.
cont
You also fail to mention the rates at which circumcisions would need to be performed to prevent ONE case of UTI or cancer. Nearly 200 circumcisions would have to be performed to prevent one UTI. Another way of stating this is to say that having a foreskin gives a baby a 1% increased risk of developing a UTI. (BTW, female circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of UTI, too). For penile cancer, it would take over 300,000 circumcisions to prevent ONE case of penile cancer on a yearly basis. Circumcising an infant lowers his chance of penile cancer by a whopping 0.2% When you take into account the fact that circumcision itself has potential complications (namely infection, but rarely death, and don't forget the possibility of complications from the anesthesia used) it seems more than a little ridiculous to circ to prevent it. The most commonly accepted way to prevent the likelihood of penile cancer is good hygiene. To suggest amputation of a perfectly healthy, functioning part of an infant's body on those grounds is shockingly absurd. Why not suggest that all females have double mastectomies after puberty? I bet their risk of breast cancer would drop significantly! Can't you see how absurd that line of thinking is?
You also fail to mention that neither the AAP nor the AAFP recommends routine infant circumcision.
I'm sorry that you lost your baby because of homebirth, and I applaud your courage in standing up against those who want to silence mothers who's have had devastating experience with homebirth.
But please, don't throw logic to the wind and turn into one of those who hates anything perceived as "crunchy" on principal. Rejecting without questioning is just as bad as accepting without questioning.
The circing and HIV studies were done in sub-saharan Africa where the HIV infection rates hover in the 30-40% range. They have no relevance to Western raised little boys for whom condom access is not a problem and societally acceptable. Circumcision is a personal choice but has no bearing on the health of a child.
Post a Comment