Circumcision, Revisited
Posted By Daisy on November 29, 2010
I’ve been thinking about the theme here at Too, Too Mama lately. I’ve got a trusted reader who points out portions of posts that strike this reader as “too judgy” — the concern being that judgment is the opposite of my blogging theme. I believe there is a fine but important line between “opinionated” (which I certainly am — hence the subcategory heading) and “judgmental” (a state of being which I try to avoid, although I may not always succeed). The colloquial “judgy” is in those murky in-between waters where the line gets blurry.
Let’s examine the topic of circumcision to see if we can’t figure out together what the difference is between being opinionated, judgy, and judgmental. Circumcision is a very good topic for this study because (1) my friend thought I got a little judgy in my Guide To Informed Decision-Making post on the issue, (2) I was judgy about the very “side” to which I theoretically “belong” and (3) damned if that post doesn’t keep getting traffic, so why not feed the search engines some more fodder? (And by the by, a scary proportion of that traffic comes from very disappointed visitors looking for pictures. Pictures of young people. Young people who are boys. Hey pedophiles, heads up — you are going to be disappointed yet again, and also, did you realize we bloggers have the ability to see what you are looking for, and if we have tech savvy friends, we can tie your searches to your IP addresses and sick the Feds on you? Think about that the next time you google.)
Now back to the exercise at hand. In my earlier post, what did you all think? Did you think you knew what we had chosen for our son after you read the original post? Did you find the post judgy (or judgmental) about either choice, to circumcise or not to circumcise? Your feedback will help me figure out if I am getting anywhere with promoting dialogue, as that is my aim. Dialogue doesn’t happen without opinions, and it has never been my mission to eliminate opinions, or even passion about our opinions. The thing I’d like to eliminate is our tendency to demonize whatever opinion is contrary to our own. The whole principle behind the Guide to Informed Decision-Making was that most of us are making the best decisions for our families based on the best information we have at the time we make those decisions. Good information is helpful. Rants, hyperbole and scare tactics generally are not. This is why I part ways with the Intactivists.
Who are these “Intactivists”? They are people who feel strongly that male children should not be circumcised. The choice of label is driven by a number of factors. First, people in this particular movement use the word “intact” to describe a male with an uncircumcised penis precisely for its inverse implication — that those who are circumcised are NOT intact. (And these circumcised males are therefore — what? damaged goods? lesser men? The intactivists won’t say. For real. I’ve asked.) Second, it’s so darn catchy, this combination of “intact” and “activist”, that the media won’t be able to stay away, and thus the movement’s message will spread more quickly. The message is that circumcision is a form of human rights abuse.
Well, we didn’t circumcise the Bear. If you want to know whether I think we made the right decision, I absolutely do. It must follow, then, that I think families who choose to circumcise their children, armed with the same information with which we were armed, are making the wrong decision. There. I said it. In this matter, I believe I’m right and some other people are wrong. I’m just not ready to force my right answer on everyone else. I am open to discussing how and why we made our decision with anyone facing the same decision, but I’m not going to tell them they are child abusers if they make what I believe is the not-right choice. Nor am I going to call my son intact, thereby implying that some of his friends and family are somehow not as male as he is.
As for the Intactivists themselves, I believe that most of them are genuinely acting in the manner they believe is best in order to reduce the practice of circumcision. I also think they are doing their own cause a disservice. They are not promoting dialogue. Now, at some point dialogue is not enough, and revolution, civil disobedience and legislation are called for. But Western parents who circumcise male children are not doing so out of anger, or mean-spiritedness, or hate, or us-vs-them superiority. There is still plenty of time for dialogue here.
Or do you disagree?
Related posts:
I’m a so called “intactivist”, and I agree with you on most of what you’ve said. It’s true that people respond better to good information than rants or hyperbole. Most intactivists I know agree with that. However, there are going to be people who don’t know how not to get emotional. It is, after all, an emotional topic. If we weren’t emotional about it, we wouldn’t be trying to inform.
Most of the intactivists I know are level-headed people who are highly educated. Occasionally, the crazies rear their heads. Some people literally become obsessed with this issue (I’ve had my moments!). But most of us just wish people would stop cutting baby’s penises. That’s all.
As for the last thing you said,
“Western parents who circumcise male children are not doing so out of anger, or mean-spiritedness, or hate, or us-vs-them superiority.”
Does it really matter, WHY (absent of medical necessity), we are cutting babies’ genitals? The harm is still being done. Also, I feel this statement implies that non-Western parents who “circumcise” their female children are doing it for “bad” reasons. This is a myth. People who promote female genital mutilation are not doing it out of malice, but because they truly believe it is best for women (cleaner, healthier, more desirable).
[Reply]
Daisy Reply:
November 29th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Hi Caroline,
Very thoughtful response, and I take your point that the reason circumcision is practiced doesn’t change the result. I do think that reasons matter in terms of what strategies will or will not work when we try to make social change, which was my larger point — there is more room for dialogue when we aren’t in the territory of irrational hate. I’ll come right out and admit too that I expect we have different views on the degree of harm done by the procedure. I think it’s unnecessary and cosmetic, but I don’t think that it has significant negative effects beyond the pain experienced during the short surgery.
I honestly need to get myself better educated about the practice of female circumcision, as I did not know that health and cleanliness were the primary motivators. I had always assumed it was a purposeful destruction of the female’s ability to experience orgasm, but it could be that I was listening to an overzealous group on that score without hearing the other side. I will dig deeper. Thanks for uncovering the myth — this is what I like about dialogue!!
[Reply]
I decided to leave C intact so he could get a Prince Albert piercing. Or so thought someone who dropped by my blog.
Having made the decision on whether or not to circumcise, did you enjoy making the choice of retracting vs leaving be? The fun never ends!
Ofthesea recently posted..Ostrich hunters of the world- unite!
[Reply]
I just spit VitaminWater out of my nose. As for the retraction issue — oy, It was decided for us, sort of, when Bear had a bad fever at 8 months and the docs wanted a urine sample. At the time I fretted, a lot, in a very Too, Too Mama fashion, but all seems fine 3 years later. He’s very proud of the entire apparatus.
[Reply]
I totally don’t get what retraction has to do with a urine sample – C has always peed like a champion. He wet his moses cot through THREE TIMES on his first night!
But I’m sure you saw my retraction disaster post and the ensuing kerfuffle, and oo-ee. I thought having a boy would be easier because all the parts were out!
[Reply]
And darling, how come you don’t have a proper avatar in your own blog?
[Reply]
Sweetness, did you notice how I mentioned that there are pedophiles circling my blog? I am electing for the time being to go without photographs. Although I could make the Daisy my avatar, I suppose. I am not too original.
[Reply]
Let’s do a Google-search-off. You and me, mano a mano, the creepiest google searches that brought ppl to our blogs!
[Reply]
“First, people in this particular movement use the word “intact” to describe a male with an uncircumcised penis precisely for its inverse implication — that those who are circumcised are NOT intact. ”
No, you’ve got it bass-akward. We say “intact” because we hate the implication of “uncircumcised” that there has been a failure to circumcise and that circumcised is the norm. (The circum-fetishists at circlist speak of intact men as “not circumcised yet” and you can almost hear the drool fall from their lips at the prospect.) Circumcised men ARE missing something, by definition, and it’s just bizarre to claim they’re not. Some get quite hysterical in their denial, seeing an attack on their whole person where there is no such thing.
Speed the day when there is just a penis, and the occasional (medically necessary, really necessary, not just because that’s the only thing the doctor knows to do) circumcised penis.
Yes, some Intactivists get a bit OTT, but they are almost all men who are as mad as hell at what was done to them and they’re not going to take it any more. Here’s a sample: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html
Female genital cutting was legal in the US till 1996, covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977, and in 1959 a doctor called Rathman published pictures of a gadget he’d invented to do it (http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#rathman NSFW) that protected the clitoris. Here is a summary of reasons given for doing it: http://www.circumstitions.com/FGC-stitions.html
[Reply]
I though, being a male, you might be interested in hearing why I have begun using the word intact, instead of uncircumcised.
Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with how men who are circumcised feel. It’s certainly not about making them feel bad.
Intact is a medical term used to describe body parts that have not been altered, to my knowledge. It’s fairly commonly used. Do I like referring to myself as Intact? NO. I’d prefer to not need any name to describe myself at all – but since some women are circumcised in some cultures, I ask you, would you rather be referred to as uncircumcised or intact?
I think there is an inherent problem with calling someone by the state of their penis – but that’s our culture, I guess.
But my rejection of the term “uncircumcised” comes from the fact that I don’t feel the natural state of the body is “un” anything.
Believe it or not, there is a clear stigma associated with the word “uncircumcised” that you probably thought of when I asked you to imagine being called uncircumcised – which, Daisy, I assume you are uncircumcised, but I don’t need to know.
we don’t have uncavitied teeth or unmastectomized breasts… why should penises be any different?
If you don’t like the term intact, fair enough. If you have to refer to it by something other than just penis, “penis that hasn’t been circumcised” is a less offensive term to me.
I hope that doesn’t come across as me just being easily offended. I genuinely just don’t think its a fair label to put on someone, especially because of the stigma associated with the term. It almost makes it sound like circumcision is inevitable, or like someone just forgot to do it. Like untrimmed hedges – why is someone not trimming them!?
you see my point?
[Reply]
Daisy Reply:
December 1st, 2010 at 10:19 am
Yes, I do see the point. Language is so tricky. I do wish there were a way to avoid a term that implied one or the other state were the norm. It’s interesting that you drew a parallel with mastectomy; while it might not occur to me to say I am unmastectomized, I wouldn’t go about proclaiming my intact breasts either, because there are plenty of women in this world who DO have mastectomized breasts. I’m with you that just “penis” is optimal, and I’ll go you one more by changing my language in the future from uncircumcised to “penis that was not circumcised” (I think you’d agree that “was not” is better than “hasn’t been” which suggests it’s just a matter of time, yes?)
[Reply]
Joel Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 11:35 pm
Daisy,
I don’t think saying your breasts are intact would be offensive unless you said it in an offensive tone – then wouldn’t the tone be the problem, and not the term?
For example, I don’t think anyone would suggest you were rude if you were to say “though my breasts are intact, I have a good friend who has undergone a mastectomy…”
I really appreciate that you’ve decided to stop using the word ‘uncircumcised’. I really feel like getting away from that terminology is the real benefit.
Now, as for your choice to in the future say “penis that was not circumcised” I like that.
However, I hope that you’ll only use that terminology when you need to – such as when you’re discussing circumcision already and you need to mention a penis that has a foreskin.
In situations where you don’t need to mention it, just “penis” on its own is ideal.
The point being, I don’t think we need to teach our children that they are in a specific category by NOT having had a surgery done to their genitals.
[Reply]
Daisy Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I think we end up very nearly in the same place, and I do agree that we shouldn’t be categorizing people by body parts, no matter what — but this being a parenting blog about controversial topics, and we being a somewhat genitalia-obsessed society, it seems we aren’t there yet. Just to keep noodling further, do you self-refer as “intact” or as “a man with an intact penis”? I hope the latter but I find many in the intactivist movement go with the former and it comes off as a boast. As for boobs, I don’t think it would ever occur to me to refer to mine as intact. As I consider the context in which it would come up, I can only fathom being asked if I have had a mastectomy, the answer to which would be a simple “no, I have not.”
You should also know that as a southern girl the notion that I might “need to mention a penis that has a foreskin” in ANY context other than these debates can only be answered with a “heaven forfend.” ; )
Hi Hugh,
Take a look at the exchange below with Joel on the language issue and chime in with further thoughts. I am really astonished at the information out there on female circumcision of which I was so blithely unaware. I’m glad you guys are posting.
For the counterpoint to the adult men now angry that they were circumcised, check my original post for a personal story in the reverse from one of the commenters. (I’m not making a value judgment on the position, just noting that there are those with regrets on both sides. Guilt for the parents, no matter what they choose, and that’s one of the things that concerns me.)
[Reply]
Joel Reply:
December 4th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
Regarding your comment to Hugh about how it goes both way (in terms of people wishing the opposite happened to them).
Our position is that healthy, valuable body parts don’t belong to parents. The foreskin fits into this category.
So.. there is not parental guilt to not choosing to remove ANY healthy, valuable body parts..
You can make that decision when you’re older.. the same cannot be said of men who are circumcised and can never get back what was removed.
Seems like a very different situation to me.
To complain that you weren’t circumcised as a baby doesn’t make sense to me – that’s to say that all male children should be put at risk of being circumcised and not wanting it and being forced to live with that their entire lives JUST so that you don’t have to feel a little pain – which you can treat with TONS of pain killers and everything after – which children can’t!
As a man with a foreskin, I will say that the idea of the pain doesn’t phase me at all. I’ve been through a lot of painful things in my life, and being able to “remember” them is not that bad – they were awful in the moment, but children experience pain in the moment as well. Not to mention, scraping my knee when I was younger was horrible! If I did the same thing now I’d be like “hmm.. ouch”. Things were MORE painful the first time.. So, I don’t get why cutting a baby is somehow seen as a better alternative to doing it now when I’m way more jaded to pain.
What I would ACTUALLY fear about going for a circumcision now is losing the awesome part of my body that I’ve grown so fond of. It isn’t the fear of pain that stops me… it’s knowing what I’d lose!
Hopefully you understand what I’m trying to get at here.
[Reply]
I think as a female, my instinct is to think about the inevitable mom-guilt that’s destined to be a part of whatever decision gets made. (I’ve already been subjected to that myself — if ONLY I’d circumcised my son, he wouldn’t be at risk for a UTI and this less-than-cuddly nurse wouldn’t have to catheterize him. Of course, it wasn’t a UTI at all but there was a need to rule it out.) If moms can catch it for forcing or NOT forcing their children to learn piano, you can believe we’re going to be in the crosshairs on this one for a long time to come.
[Reply]
Ofthesea Reply:
December 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Agree. I chose inaction to minimize the complaints further on, and even then I got an earful from a lot of people about “increased risk for STDs etc.”
Being a Mom is forever being in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position, and no amount of research or activisim is likely to ever change that!
Ofthesea recently posted..Reason 122 – I read inappropriate bedtime books to my baby
[Reply]
@Daisy
To answer your question, I don’t refer to myself as “an intact man” but I also don’t refer to myself as “a man with an intact penis”
…the truth is.. I rarely mention the state of my penis at all. When it comes up, I prefer to just insinuate it by talking about what it’s like having a foreskin… by saying “it provides sensations that I TRULY value” …the last thing I am trying to do is boast about it.
I think most men in the USA with intact penises grew up as an extreme minority… hearing jokes about it on TV.. in the face of incredible ignorance by their peers… those are not the conditions that lead someone to be arrogant.
I understand that you can’t imagine having to say your breasts are intact.. but I have heard women refer to their breasts as “natural” or “all-natural” before – but I think people would likely find that even more arrogant in discussion of penises than ‘intact’.
….
…as for mom-guilt… admittedly I don’t know what that’s like. It sounds horrible to have to worry people will call you a bad parent for every decision you make – regardless of which choice you make. However, I think it should be a lot easier to look past people who try to guilt you with unfounded claims.
Do you know who is at an increased risk of STDs? People who sleep around without condoms on. I could be 10 times more susceptible to STDs right now than I currently am, and I’d still not have one – because I’m very careful with my partner selection, and I know enough to wear condoms – which cover the area of the penis affected by circumcision – nullifying any potential effect! when you narrow it down to a personal level, those claims are just ridiculous! You don’t cut off part of a baby because of behavioral-based risks.. that is not real science/medicine!
…so, while I guess you can’t stop people from trying to guilt you about your parenting decisions, you can probably realize that uneducated people saying you made the wrong decision is not something you need to let bother you. I guess that was my point.
If your son thinks he needs to be circumcised to protect himself from STDs.. there’s nothing stopping him from choosing it.. except logic and reason, that is.
[Reply]