It makes me wary of espousing any opinion on the subject that appears to be laying down the law! in any way, shape or form. I imagine that some men feel the same way about espousing an opinion about the morality and/or legality of abortion, especially basing any such opinion on the way an abortion would personally impact the life of someone who was having one–
“It is self-evident that a mother who comes to regret her choice to abort must struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound, when she learns, only after the event, what she once did not know: that she allowed a doctor to pierce the skull and vacuum the fast developing brain of her unborn child, a child assuming the human form.”
–Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion on the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban
Hey, I did say SOME men!
But anyway…
I do have sons. The first son made his appearance fifteen years ago. (Yes, I was a young mother. Easy clue: Roe vs. Wade and I were born the same year! Side note: If you wanna drive a rabid pro-lifer completely over the edge, putting it just that way works like a charm. It’s awesome.) The flow of information on the topic, not to mention internet access, was far less comprehensive than it is now; however, I was sure I didn’t want him circumcised. I lacked religious opinions on the subject and the research that was available at the time, that I had access to, did not seem to indicate that the medical advantages of having the procedure performed at all outweighed the possible complications, especially having it performed in early infancy. In my naivete, I imagined that my husband would agree with me. We did discuss it a few times prior to the birth, but we didn’t know if the baby was going to be a boy or not (military hospitals at that time had a policy of not giving the parents that information), and he honestly wasn’t very comfortable discussing it–since it might be a girl, I reasoned, we could wait til we found out and close out the topic then.
Bad idea. After twelve hours of non-medicated childbirth (military hospitals also had the policy at that time of not offering epidurals to women in labor–you could have an opiate, which I was told would depress the baby’s respiration and possibly cause brain damage and if I didn’t come to before it had to come out of me, also result in an episiotomy and/or forceps, or you could have nothing) lasting from midnight to noon, I was in no shape whatsoever to enforce my opinion on the subject. I also didn’t know they did it so soon after the birth–we had to decide right then.
I honestly don’t remember the conversation very well. I do remember starting to cry, and my husband hauling the doctor (the male doctor!) in to tell me that it was by far the best thing for the baby. So, I caved.
Second time around, I had far less excuse for allowing the procedure–but I did end up allowing it. We knew he was a boy from the fifth month of gestation onward, we had internet access, and there was five more years of information and research for me to pummel my husband with. We got into a few ferocious shouting matches near the end of my pregnancy. What really killed me, and my insistence, was that he clearly didn’t understand why I thought it was a big deal. This, to me, was the clincher, because as I say above…I’ve never had a foreskin. I don’t have a penis. The person who did, whose child this also was, a person who had already shown himself to be a very devoted parent to the first child, not only had a penis but thought it was really really important for the kid to NOT have a foreskin covering it. So, I caved a second time.
I still really regret both. I still think I was right, and it is quite, quite unnecessary to ever remove a boy’s foreskin as an infant except in the few isolated cases where there is a medical condition involving said foreskin. After all, said boy can choose at any time in his life to have his own foreskin removed, if it turns out it’s really an advantage.
It still puzzles me very, very deeply that it was always men, starting with the father of the boys, who were so bloody insistent that it be removed. It still makes me feel as if I am missing something very important. I just don’t know what it is. The only parallel there is, is that the people who perform female genital mutilation in the cultures that practice it, that perform breast ironing in the cultures that practice those, are always women, frequently relatives and sometimes even the same-sex parent of the child, and many of them are fanatically insistent that it is the best thing for the child. It is too much to believe that they’re all psychotic, every single last one of them. I understand there are cultural pressures (I believe that is what was primarily driving my husband). Of course, I believe that the cultural pressures driving circumcision are far slighter than the ones driving female genital mutilation and breast ironing–the majority of American women are not going to refuse to marry a man who is not circumcised because they think he’s “dirty” or will be unfaithful because of it, nor is a man who is uncircumcised in any greater danger of rape or forced marriage because he appears more sexually mature than he is because of it. But then, the results of circumcision, except for medical complications arising from the procedure itself, are far less drastic for the individual as well. Maybe that’s the justification that those who cave to the social pressure of conformity use to themselves. I don’t know; my husband and I were not able to communicate successfully on the subject.
I think back to the circumcision of my children when I read stories like this:
Sitting underneath the bright murals at a clinic, 22-year-old Elijah Ochanda gestures at his shorts and explains: “When they remove this thing, it makes you safer.”
He is talking about the circumcision he is about to undergo at the urging of his older brother. He has watched several friends die of AIDS, and has come to believe the science that says circumcision can prevent men from being infected.
Magic. It reminds me of those years-old fights with my husband, when he would be reduced to shouting “It’s just BETTER FOR HIM TO HAVE ONE!!”
No. It would be better for them all to wear condoms. Much, much more effective; much, much safer. Wear condoms, and control themselves. Spend all the money on the circumcision procedures on THAT. But do the men themselves want that..? Or would they rather have the magic cure? The one that doesn’t require them to change their behavior or deny themselves anything at all? Even if it’s not anywhere near as effective and has a risk of complications that could render them unable to function sexually at all?
I wish I understood what it was that I’m clearly, clearly not understanding at all, about circumcision.