Parenting Without a Manual
with Karen Murphy
I'm Karen, the poster child for the concept that there's no one right way to be a parent. I went from stay-at-home attachment-parenting mom of four to being the non-custodial parent, working as a professional writer and channel-psychic. Let's talk about throwing away the parenting manual and exploding the myths and mystique of motherhood!
Check out Karen's Work It, Mom! profile and read her blog, Juxtapositioning.
Why should I care about your kid’s penis? Well, because you care about it. And assuming your kid has a penis, at some point you had to make a decision about circumcision. Did you or didn’t you? That’s the question being thrown around amid passion and tears over on Momversations this week.
I have two sons. They are both intact. When the first was born 13 years ago, there we were in the hospital and the doctor started talking about circumcision. I assumed it was routine. I hadn’t thought about it. But this is where my son’s father spoke up, as the representative from the family who actually owned a penis, and he said, emphatically, no. I was surprised. After all, he clearly had been circumcised; why not his son? Again, no. I thought about my wee boy and parts of him that could stay parts of him. We never spoke of it again.
My second son was born 8 years later. He has Down syndrome. Times had changed, and when he was born no one was thinking about the eventual sex life he probably won’t have, and it was never brought up. It was assumed we wouldn’t want to. We didn’t.
But that’s me. For years I was part of a very vehement anti-circ community. I’ve heard all the arguments against it. Heard them to death. I agree with many of them. Not all of them: mutilation? Not to the people doing it for religious reasons. So you can’t sell me on that.
But I also think that some pro-circing arguments are really lame. Well, one of them: to make him look like Dad. Seriously, who cares? Other than Dad, I mean? Will that little boy care about looking like his dad when he’s grown up? I think not. Give me another reason. Even, “I didn’t really think about it,” is better. I mean, I was willing to go along with it myself so I get how that happens. And the whole anti-anti-circ movement…what is that? “What to say to people when they dis you about your kid’s lack of foreskin?”
People are passionate about penises, especially when they are not their own. So why should I care what your kid looks like?
As I see it, this is a decision between a man and his penis. Problem is, deciding when you’re a man to have yourself circumcised is sort of a big deal. You’re, well, sort of attached to things by that time. And if you’re doing it for religious reasons, there’s a bit of a time limit. The whole covenant thing. So babies are easier to deal with. But easy doesn’t equal right. Which means that parents have to make that decision for the eventual man their sons will become.
And, really, who here among us knows who our sons will be when they grow up? So the circumcision question comes down to passion: we make a decision based on, well, something. What was your motivation?
Subscribe to blog via RSS
Ha! I have seen this discussion get really ugly in other forums. Luckily, I didn’t have to make that decision as I have only girls.
I will say that I feel the arguments about mutilation and ruining a child’s sex life forever are overblown. And there are valid medical considerations on the pro side. But not enough that there should be “one rule” for all. It is appropriate for the parent to make this decision in my opinion.
What I really don’t understand is, why is that body part treated like the most important, most valuable, most sacred thing on this planet? It makes me laugh every time.
SKL | January 28th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Our motivation to NOT have our son circumsized was that he was fine just the way he was. That was how he was born. Who were we to decide that his normal body part needed modification?
If we had had a daughter, we wouldn’t be cutting any part of her body off, so why would we do it with our son?
It really was that simple.
~Monica | January 28th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
We did not circumcize our son. Didn’t really think too much about it other than the fact that my husband isn’t and never had any health “issues” with it. That coupled with the fact that I couldn’t bare to have my sweet brand new baby be hurt for “tradition’s” sake. Seemed unnecessary to me. I could barely stand to have my son’s foot pricked for the newborn screening tests, let alone his foreskin chopped off.
Stacey | January 28th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
We couldn’t think of a good reason to do it, so we didn’t. (The operative word there is “good.”)
Leah K | January 29th, 2009 at 1:02 am
ok, everyone don’t curse me out, but there are plenty of good reasons to do the circumcision. It’s cleaner and healthier and just looks better. It’s not mutilation because the child does not feel the pain about 5 minutes later and if it’s done when the child is only days old, they will never remember and will be happy about it. Also it’s being done in a clean, and healthy environment. The instruments are sterilized and sharp. The person doing is usually a doctor or someone who specializes in that.
My son was circumcised when he was 8 days old, he was eating right after, which means he was not in pain. You don’t eat when you are in pain. Right now he is five and if you ask him, he wont’ remember a thing. But the results are fabulous.
I am sure when he will be older, he will be happier circumcised then not.
ok, if I upset you, go ahead and curse me out. But that’s my opinion and that’s what Ms. Murphy asked for right?
vera babayeva | January 29th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I have two boys, neither of them is circumcised and neither is their father. We live in Guatemala, though I`m originally Canadian and truthfully, this isn`t even an option offered when a baby is born. We didn`t really have to think about it and I certainly wouldn`t have decided to have my boys circumcised later on unless there was a serious medical reason for it.
That doesn`t mean this is the only way, though. I don`t think it matters if it “looks better”, it`s a penis, it`s going to look weird no matter what! And proper hygiene is easily taught, after all, what boy doesn`t like mucking about down there? Unless there is a serious reason . . . it just doesn`t make sense to me.
Genesis | January 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
What about the research showing that circumcision dramatically lowers chances of STD transmission? It may seem a long way off to parents of newborns, and I’m sure we’d all like to think our kids will ALWAYS use protection and good judgment– but as a public health practitioner, I think caution wins out, and not just for the sake of our own sons, but for all those they might take a roll with in the future.
Laura P | January 29th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Thank you Laura. Circumcision is healthy and I believe it’s necessary.
vera babayeva | January 30th, 2009 at 12:03 am
The arguments for/against circumcision remind me of the debate about vaccines, sort of. Both sides have data. You just have to decide what data convinces you more.
The American Medical Association stated in 1999: “Virtually all current policy statements from specialty societies and medical organizations do not recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and support the provision of accurate and unbiased information to parents to inform their choice.”
Men have survived for a long, long time with foreskins. I would assume that nature put them there for a reason. And, I don’t really buy the STD argument, honestly, because unprotected sex is almost always going to be a risk. Should a man really rely on circumcision to protect him? That’s what CONDOMS are for!
I don’t have a problem with people who have their sons circumcised… or the ones who don’t either. I just have a problem with people who give other people a hard time about their choice.
Robyn | January 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
My son is not circumsized. However, it did cause us many problems and cost us a lot of money. He got UTI’s for several months, our insurance wouldn’t cover the proper tests to see if his kidneys were okay and it was going to cost thousands of dollars. After months, I finally was able to find an insurance plan to cover a specialist who discovered that it was simply because his foreskin had never loosened and it was trapping bacteria, he performed some tests and sonograms and everything else was fine with him. He prescribed a cream, which worked and now he is fine. Now, despite this, I probably would not circumsize another boy knowing what a simple thing this was and I would know what to look for next time. However, I say probably, because the whole ordeal was many months of stress for our family. But I’m torn, the stress might be worth not mutilating my son.
Oceans Mom | January 30th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The main reason boys are circumsized is to keep the penis clean. Not so they can “look like” someone.
Cindy Freland | January 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Circumcision to keep a penis “clean”? Give me a break. A penis with a foreskin is still easier to keep clean than a vagina with labia.
Brian | February 1st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Why does there need to be a decision? If it’s not medically therapeutic there is no reason to do it, and it is unethical to do so. We don’t allow other ritual scaring done to infants, don’t boys deserve protection too?
Joe | February 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I am so happy we are actually keeping this civil. It gets really nasty other places.
I am expecting my first boy in May and we are definitely not circumscizing. DH is not circumscized and we he has never had a problem. Yes, yeast infections CAN develop, but hygiene is important, circ’d or not. Washing it is really easy, especially after the foreskin retracts on its own.
I don’t think a lot of the medical opinions are that valid. Many are following antiquated beliefs. Circumcision among non-Judaic Westerners was not popular until the later 19th century. The argument for “cleanliness” referred to halting masturbation (you have to retract the foreskin to wash it, which is a pleasurable sensation) in young men. By that logic, we should also cut off the clitoris of any female, because having something rub against that is pleasurable.
I am fine for circumcision for religious beliefs, but I think we need to examine the logic for medical beliefs.
- M
P.S. - yes, circumcision can prevent the incubation of STI’s. So can condoms.
Miranda | February 14th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
There is a lot of ignorance on circumcision in the USA.
If people knew more about it I doubt that it would still go on. Those of us that are opposed to routine infant circumcision are more annoyed at how prevalent it is - not at individual cases. Also there is a lot of misunderstanding over why young boys are circumcised - a lot of myths (such as the one about it having to be done later - it doesn’t). Most Americans don’t circumcise because of religion. Jesus Christ is the New Covenant, rendering all of the Old Testament practices, including the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision, null and void.
When the Gospel was to be spread to the Gentile world, during the time of St. Paul, circumcision of Gentile converts was a matter of intense debate. Circumcision was dangerous, painful, and culturally repugnant to the Greeks and Romans. Early Christian church authorities quickly decided that circumcision was unnecessary.
“For freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we can wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” Galatians 5:1-6
“It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God.” Galatians 6:12-16.
“Look out for the dogs, look out for the evil-workers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh.” Philippians 3:2-3.
This was nearly 2,000 years ago. Throughout most of history, and in most parts of the world today, Christians are rarely circumcised. In many cultures, people are often not even aware of what circumcision is.
Yet you still here from mothers “I did it for religious reasons” Well if you are not Jewish or Muslim, no you didn’t! Non religious circumcision was taken up in the late 1800’s - but only in English speaking countries. The main reason was to prevent masturbation. Masturbation was thought to cause all sorts of maladies - particularly to do with the nervous system. In Britain, circumcision never really caught on and by 1950, it had been abandoned. In the USA however, it became routine. Ever since then it is just been a case of coming up with more reasons to justify the practice. Never mind that most of the world (80%) do not circumcise (including all of Europe - Britain,France,Germany etc) and they are all doing fine. In Canada and Australia , medical associations turned against the procedure in the 1970’s and rates of newborn circumcision declined. Now less than 10% of boys are circumcised in those 2 countries. In the USA , the rate has fallen from 85% to about 55-60%.
It is still too high. Many men are still being mutilated for life.
A full history of circumcision can be found here: historyofcircumcision(dot)net
In regards to the medical aspects - the point is kind of moot when you consider the ethical problem of performing such a sever operation on a boy without his consent. But if we did do examine the medical aspects, even then, there are no compelling reasons to circumcise. Like I said, European countries, who don’ circumcise, aren’t suffering major health defects. In fact, STI’s and HIV rates are greater in the USA.
Also the point is kind of moot if you wear a condom and aren’t sleeping around.
Genital cancers are also more prevalent in the circumcising USA. This isn’t surprising considering how medical circumcision was first established.
I’d recommend people check out cirp(dot)org/library/ and circumstitions(dot)com for info on studies and critical examinations of the studies.
Care is a lot easier if you leave the boy intact. Despite what you may have read there is nothing to do. The foreskin is attached to the glans at birth (they painfully rip it apart to perform the circumcision); it should be left to separate naturally. This usually occurs from the ages of 0 - 10, though it can occur in puberty. You should not try to clean under it (as there is little space) or try to pull it back.
With a circumcised boy there is a lot more care and because he has lost the protection of the foreskin is more at risk to infections and inflammation by urine and faeces. Also the severed foreskin could re-attach forming a skin-bridge.
Circumcision also has a dramatic effect on the functionality of the penis. The foreskin contains many nerves on it’s underside (it is a mucous membrane). As the foreskin is moved up and down, the nerves are stimulated. The circumcised guy loses the nerves and the gliding action of the skin. The gliding action of the skin means no lube is needed for masturbation and sex. This page shows the functionality of the foreskin(also includes a 20 minute video on the functions of the foreskin):
geocities(dot)com/painfulquestioning/naturalresources
Another consequence is that the foreskin no longer covers the glans(head of penis). Because of this the glans dries out. It also rubs on clothes which makes the glans skin tough and leathery. both these things reduce sensitivity further.
This page shows the damage done:
noharmm(dot)org/IDcirc.htm
In terms of sex both partners enjoy it more when the man is intact. The foreskin makes insertion of the penis into the vagina easier. It also traps moisture meaning that there is less risk of vaginal dryness. Because the intact man has greater sensitivity he doesn’t need to thrust as hard; circumcised men often do not realize they are hurting the woman banging away. Finally the intact man is more able to control ejaculation; the foreskin contains stretch receptors and nerves which give feedback as to how close he is to orgasm.
For more info on the sexual effects of circumcision go to sexasnatureintendedit(dot)com
James_T | February 18th, 2009 at 11:14 am
why is it most of westerner men are uncut?
Rainbow | June 9th, 2009 at 9:36 am