Turtleneck or no turtleneck?
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen. We’re talking about circumcision this week. And we fully expect you to bring it.
Editor’s note: Today’s feature is the next installment in our new parenting column written by two sets of Richmonders: Jorge and Patience Salgado (veteran parents of four gorgeous children), and Ross and Valerie Catrow (total parenting rookies who have only been doing this “raising a child thing” for a couple months). Check back fortnightly to watch them discuss/agree/disagree/throw down over all kinds of parenting issues, Richmond-related and beyond.
We are SURE to stir the pot with this next topic…
Today’s question: To circumcise or not to circumcise?
The Salgados
Turtleneck or no turtleneck? For some couples, this is a huge discussion and others not even a blip on the radar. Culturally, it is very uncommon for Latino males (especially those not born in this country) to be circumcised. Is it just a white thing? We did some research and quickly decided either way; this surgery was definitely not for our boys.
Needless to say, this invited some undesirable opinions from those close to us. My older sister (who was childless at the time), in the height of her sex-in-the-city days, was mildly horrified. I think she was convinced we were dooming our beautiful son to a life of sexual embarrassment. As a woman, I really didn’t get what the big deal was. Jorge just continued to shout from the next room, “but the sex is better!” The funniest part was five years later when she had her first son and the little guy remained intact. Cosmetic just seemed like a silly and weak reason to us.
The American Academy of Pediatrics does not endorse circumcision as a way to prevent any medical conditions like infections, potential risks of diseases, etc. It also does not find sufficient evidence to recommend or argue against it. The AAP is pulling a Switzerland. While this wasn’t our only reason for choosing not to circumcise, from a medical standpoint it seemed unnecessary.
At seven weeks old, our infant got a urinary tract infection. A simple round of antibiotics solved the problem but the hospital ordeal was intense and scary. We were new parents and everywhere we turned someone implied this might not have happened had we circumcised our son. They may have been right, the statistics support it. I have to admit, I was questioning our decision in the moment. In the end, he never had another infection and was fine.
We have stood on both sides of the argument and have dealt with a potential complication due to our decision, yet we both still feel pretty secure in our choice. It wasn’t just a physical/medical one for us, it was cultural and emotional. We didn’t hesitate when our second son was born, it’s turtlenecks for this family.
The Catrows
When we found out we were having a baby, Ross was adamant about two things: 1) we were not finding out the sex of the baby and 2) if it was a boy, we were not getting him circumcised.
Well, we had a boy. Knowing that, now you also know specifics about his genitalia. That’s weird. Sorry, kid.
Anyway, I was surprisingly not gung-ho about either of these points, particularly when it came to the whole “To cut or not to cut” question. I figured as a dude Ross was much more acquainted with the specifics of this area. So I deferred to him.
From our conversations, it came down to these points…
- We subscribe to no religious conventions that require us to circumcise our son.
- Our pediatrician said there was no reason to do it and no reason not to do it. How’s that for non-committal?
- The whole “embarrassment in the locker room” is a complete joke because no one showers after gym anymore anyway. And if they do, no one’s going to admit they were looking at anything anway.
- Word on the street is that, um, certain things are, ahem, more enjoyable should things be left intact. (OH GOD, it almost killed me to write that as it required the knowledge that one day my CHILD will be involved in such things.)
- Considering numbers 1 through 4, why put the kid through it?
Yes, we understand that he wouldn’t remember the pain and we know that most little boys have no trouble with it – just pop a pacifier in their mouths as you make the cut and they’re typically ok.
We also know that we will eventually have to “teach him to take care of it” at some point, although our pediatrician has assured us (like with most things pertaining to children) if you keep it simple and make it a non-issue, the kid won’t think twice about it.
For us, we just didn’t see the point. We figured, it’s his equipment. If he wants to make modifications later on in life, that’s his call. While he’s on our watch, all of his parts will remain intact until he decides otherwise.
-
Recommend this
on Facebook -
Report an error
-
Subscribe to our
Weekly Digest
Notice: Comments that are not conducive to an interesting and thoughtful conversation may be removed at the editor’s discretion.
studies have shown that circumcision cuts the risk of AIDS transmission by almost 50% http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6176209.stm as with most ‘religious’ practices of old they usually have been based on necessity for health reasons.
It’s a good place to keep your extra chewing tobacco.
Did you guys see the name of the doctor featured on that study Anthony linked? I’M JUST SAYING.
let the jokes begin!
It’s not really as cut-and-dried ;) as Anthony suggests.
Medical Circumcision and HIV Prevention: Is There Really Enough of the Right Kind of Evidence? http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dowsett2007/
As for my family, our son is uncut for reasons similar to the Salgados’- we read a bunch of stuff and could not find a single compelling reason to circumcise him.
the aids prevention angle is bogus. read this – http://www.continuum-concept.org/cc_defined.html and consider these points:
-Over 450,000 circumcised, American men have died of AIDs in our country.
-The US has the single highest rate of all countries of transmission of STDs.
1) Even if it’s true, it shouldn’t be forced on children who can’t consent.
2) Even if it’s true, condoms are still better protection
3) Even if it’s true, I wouldn’t want it (or rather, a female equivalent) so why would I advocate it for men?
That’s aside from all the evidence that it isn’t even true, anyway.
oops, wrong like there. should have been – http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/
that’s what i get for typing one-handed
When I was younger and not faced with an actual baby to actually make a decision about, I had just assumed that I would have my sons circumcised. I had never seen an intact penis and assumed that my brothers and father were circumcised because it was a necessary procedure. Shortly before becoming pregnant with my first son I was present in a newborn nursery while a baby was being prepared for circumcision and it made me wonder why it’s necessary. Questioning medical professionals and reading – and talking to my own parents, who now regret having their sons circumcised – revealed to me that it is not necessary. I approached my husband with this information and to my surprise, he was relieved that I was considering leaving our sons intact. He was circumcised as a newborn and while he is not consumed with regret, if he had been given the choice, he would have kept his foreskin.
We now have three sons, none of whom had their foreskins removed.
I’d like to point out the difference between medical “benefit” and medical necessity. Something can have potential benefits – such as prophylactic mastectomy to avoid the risk of breast cancer – yet not be considered a desirable or necessary procedure for all people. Would we advocate routine newborn amputation of the labia for girls if we had data showing that it reduced urinary tract infections? Do we consider mastectomy for teenaged girls? Circumcision is surgical amputation of healthy, normal tissue – tissue that serves very real protective functions. UTIs are treatable. HIV can also be prevented in many other ways, and circumcised men are not immune to HIV. When considering the medical benefits of circumcision, it’s important to also consider how we approach other parts of the body and other preventable conditions, and also to consider what benefits of the foreskin are lost when it is removed.
I had my son’s foreskin lengthened.
both our sons’ foreskins are intact. i definitely did not want to circumcise, while my husband was ambivalent & leaning toward circumcision (so our son would look like him). i knew the AAP’s (non) position on the issue and had witnessed a circumcision, and that’s all the research i needed. i really feel like if people were required to witness a circumcision before making the decision, then more folks would opt NOT to subject their brand-new, tender baby boys to this unnecessary, painful (yes, it is painful) procedure. my husband is now glad we decided to leave our boys intact. we spared them unnecessary pain, and while our boys won’t look exactly like their dad, they will look like each other.
My doctor was quite conservative with the circ’s on my three sons. They have what we’re calling mock turtlenecks. I guess they have the best of both worlds, right?
Funny that virtually every opinion shared here happens to represent the minority view in America. The custom is changing here, but very gradually. Here’s more provocation:
What do you all think of the “we want him to look like daddy” justification?
If God made man in “his” image, why saw off part of the baby’s teeny-weenie. That’s an original piece of God’s artwork (or at least the parent’s collaboration) that you’re tampering with.
Women get UTIs their whole life, but you don’t see many ladies opting to have their labia removed.
Lots of ladies think foreskin is gross, but they may never actually deal with it because they’re only handling erect penises. Regardless, I don’t think women enjoy being subjected to society’s ridiculous physical criteria (resulting in eating disorders and unnecessary elective surgeries), so they should think twice about doing this to males. Most men are hardly better deciders in this dept, being likewise motivated by superficial concerns like locker room perceptions, etc. I think parents with suspect motivations like these should excuse themselves from choosing elective surgery for another person.
Despite all this, circumcision may be harmless in the long run as most American boys undergo the procedure and allegedly go on to live normal lives… Of course, we’ll never know what kind of psychic message is received by an infant who is welcomed into the world with excruciating pain in his most sensitive area.
i did lots of research and came to the same conclusions as many above, its not necessary. But the real reason both of my sons still have their foreskin is because its not my body and i wont take away a part of their body without their consent unless there is a pressing valid medical need. When they get into their teens, and if they then decide its something they may want to do, i will offer lots of research and talking with doctors and let them make their own educated decision.
I’m having a boy in June and he will get circ’d. My husband wants him to and I agree. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an uncut peen and the thought makes me a little squeamish. Sorry guys.
We had ours boys done, and here’s the most compelling reason why.
I knew an adult male once who had a medically required circumcision in his late 20s or early 30s, for a condition that IIRC basically came down to not having enough pliability in his foreskin. He said it was the most miserable, painful six weeks of healing that he could imagine. Having it done at two days of age only requires a week or so of vaseline daubing to prevent the diaper from sticking.
Plus, the OB that delivered our first son had a son of her own, and while she didn’t delve into citations and analysis, she said that when it was her turn to make the decision, she determined that it was better to do it than not to.
Lisa is wise.
Do you really think anyone (well, most anyone) would willingly go through with it given their own choice to do so once in their teens?
It’s stupid to force your will on someone. People are only okay with it because it doesn’t affect their own body in any way.
Circumcision confers a lifetime of medical, health and sexual benefits. At least 1 in 3 uncircumcised males will develop a condition requiring medical attention. This means various degrees of suffering and some deaths. In contrast, circumcision can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of most of these medical conditions. The surgical risk of a circumcision in a modern setting is extremely low, while the long-term functional and cosmetic outcomes are generally excellent. Circumcision of the male partner also confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman, by reducing her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death.
I would post links for more information, but that ability is blocked.
That should be its new slogan:
Circumcision: Prevents premature death in women.
A good friend of mine was uncircumcised and he experience so much trouble with infections that he decided to go through the procedure in his early 20’s. He said he always wished it had been done at his birth because having the procedure later in life poses all sorts risks, time off from work, and lots of pain.
I took his advice and my son was circumcised at birth.
Thankfully, we are having a girl this time and we do not have to make such decisions. But for the record both boys are cut, they both had all their immunizations, ate cereal before 4 months and even slept on their bellies once.. I know it’s crazy!!
Hahaha, I mean our kid gets his shots right on schedule. But I’m sure that’s a topic for another column.
Yes, Eric, but you know what they say.
When you have a son you only need to worry about one penis.
When you have a daughter you need to worry about all penises.
The previous poster said that a change towards not having boys cut was a gradual change. But after reading this I was looking online and the statistics surprised me. I found this on a website (not sure of the source, so take it for what it’s worth):
“the United States 25 years ago, the vast majority of men were circumcised, but today a minority of infants are circumcised. Circumcision rates have been falling in the United States since the 1970s. In the 1980s, over 80% of newborn male infants were circumcised. By 2007, when the most recent data from the American Academcy of Pediatrics was released, less than 40% of newborn male infants were circumcised, meaning that of boys born today in the United States, more are uncircumcised and circumcised. ”
So, in 25 years the rate of circumcision went from 80% to 40%? That’s not gradual at all!
Davies. That was funny. Well until she gets here funny.
I saw a similar statistic Mel and was kind of surprised. Any theories as to why?
My theory on that has more to do with immigration rates and shifts in demographics than with changes in reason.
I am so glad to read an enlightened treatment of this topic. I have two sons and both are intact.
I get very upset when I consider how many people put their infant boys though this unnecessary procedure without even thinking twice about it just because it seems to have been the cultural thing to do for however long. Usually I have to refrain from this topic on the internet or with close friends. It gets me too emotionally charged and hurt.
I really liked the arguments Jess made above about prophylactic mastectomies et cetera. This point is right on.
I am so thankful that more and more people are choosing not to submit their babies to this terrible practice.
Circumcision confers a lifetime of medical, health and sexual benefits.
According to whom?
At least 1 in 3 uncircumcised males will develop a condition requiring medical attention. This means various degrees of suffering and some deaths.
That’s right, folks – if you are circumcised, you will NEVER REQUIRE MEDICAL ATTENTION. And you won’t suffer or die, either.
In contrast, circumcision can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of most of these medical conditions.
Of what – a fatal foreskin injury? I’d love a list of “medical conditions” that are directly foreskin-related, as opposed to penis-related.
The surgical risk of a circumcision in a modern setting is extremely low, while the long-term functional and cosmetic outcomes are generally excellent.
A) the surgical risk of not circumcising is zero.
B) beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Circumcision of the male partner also confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman, by reducing her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death.
So she won’t ever suffer, or need medical treatment. Or die. It’s maaaaagic.
There is some misinformation here that needs to be addressed and some information that needs elucidation.
In the original article is the information about urinary tract infections. Only one study has found a difference of more than 1% and that study is known to be fraudulent and conducted by a rabid advocate that all infants be circumcised. However, many medical professionals will use this study to solicit the procedure. Even though that study only found a 2.5% difference, it is typically stated as a 10X or 12X difference. That is simply a lie by statistics and the intent is to convince the parents to accept this procedure.
Anthony Capara wrote: “studies have shown that circumcision cuts the risk of AIDS transmission by almost 50%”
This is based on a study done in Africa that is fraudulent. The actual claim is 61% but evidence clearly shows it is false. This is a claim that it is equally efficacious to the polio vaccine or maybe superior. The polio vaccine wiped the disease from the populace in a single generation and the disease is virtually unknown in The US now. If this claim were true, HIV would be equally unknown in The US. Instead, The US has the highest HIV infection rate among the industrialized nations. None of the other industrialized nations have a circumcision rate of more than 1 digit. If this claim were true, there would be vast differences in circumcising nations and those that don’t. Those differences are not observed anywhere in the world.
Suz wrote: “My doctor was quite conservative with the circ’s on my three sons. They have what we’re calling mock turtlenecks. I guess they have the best of both worlds, right?”
Actually not. These looser circumcisions are the result of doctors finally realizing the problems the older style “tight” circumcisions were causing and changed their method. As a result, they have simply exchanged one set of complications with another. Just a couple of weeks ago, I read a study that found the cost of neonatal circumcisions in The US are almost $1 billion and the cost of addressing complications is about half (48%) of that amount.
Jeb wrote: “We had ours boys done, and here’s the most compelling reason why.
I knew an adult male once who had a medically required circumcision in his late 20s or early 30s, for a condition that IIRC basically came down to not having enough pliability in his foreskin. He said it was the most miserable, painful six weeks of healing that he could imagine. Having it done at two days of age only requires a week or so of vaseline daubing to prevent the diaper from sticking.
Plus, the OB that delivered our first son had a son of her own, and while she didn’t delve into citations and analysis, she said that when it was her turn to make the decision, she determined that it was better to do it than not to.”
The probability that an older child or adult man will need a circumcision is very low. In Sweden, only one man in 18,000 is ever circumcised in a lifetime and Sweden has a very good health system. Contrast that to the US death rate of one in 7,000 from neonatal circumcision and it is clear to see this is a no brainer.
As for the OB/GYN, she is a danger to her patients. She is dangerously unaware of the research and in a complete opposite opinion of both her medical association The American Academy of Obestricians and Gynecologists, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association and The American Association of Family Practitioners.
Not Styro wrote: “Circumcision confers a lifetime of medical, health and sexual benefits.”
Not according to the world’s medical associations. Not a single one recommends circumcision and some have very negative recommendations.
“At least 1 in 3 uncircumcised males will develop a condition requiring medical attention. This means various degrees of suffering and some deaths.”
This is absolutely not true when talking about the genitals alone. This is contrary to any study or recommendation. This is apparently a scare tactic. “Not Styro” is known for this.
“In contrast, circumcision can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of most of these medical conditions.”
This is exactly contrary to advice by the medical associations and real life experience. Any difference is statistically insignificant.
“The surgical risk of a circumcision in a modern setting is extremely low, while the long-term functional and cosmetic outcomes are generally excellent.”
As mentioned above, the cost of addressing the complications is 48% of the national costs of infant circumcisions. That is not extremely low. These costs just do not exist for children that are not circumcised.
“Circumcision of the male partner also confers substantial sexual and medical benefits to a woman, by reducing her risk of disease, suffering, medical treatment and premature death.”
Also not true. It is known that male circumcision affects negatively the mechanics of the penis affecting the sexual act. Research has shown that partners of intact males have more frequent orgasms and are more likely to have multiple orgasms. There is no conclusive evidence that male circumcision protects women from anything.
Tiny wrote: “A good friend of mine was uncircumcised and he experience so much trouble with infections that he decided to go through the procedure in his early 20’s.”
This is odd because infectious pathogens can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. This means that the infections men get are the same exact infections women get and are equally treatable with the same medications. A woman would not accept having part of her genitals cut away in treatment of these infections. Men will only accept it and doctors will only recommend it because of cultural acceptance and the profit motive.
Mel wrote: ““the United States 25 years ago, the vast majority of men were circumcised, but today a minority of infants are circumcised. Circumcision rates have been falling in the United States since the 1970s. In the 1980s, over 80% of newborn male infants were circumcised. By 2007, when the most recent data from the American Academcy of Pediatrics was released, less than 40% of newborn male infants were circumcised, meaning that of boys born today in the United States, more are uncircumcised and circumcised. ”
So, in 25 years the rate of circumcision went from 80% to 40%? That’s not gradual at all!”
That’s not entirely accurate. The circumcision rate in the early 1990’s was about 90% and remained relatively constant during the decade. Since then, the rate has fallen to approximately 52%. That is rapid change though and the decline is expected to continue at a similar rate. The lowest circumcision rate is the west coast region with a circumcision rate of approximately 30% with the south being second lowest. You are correct that it is an amazing change in such a short time. Before the mid 1990’s, there was little source for accurate information for expectant parents. The internet changed that and is primarily responsible for the change. Information empowers!
Jeb wrote: “My theory on that has more to do with immigration rates and shifts in demographics than with changes in reason.”
This is a claim by those promoting the practice. In fact, immigrant populations only account for 4% of the change and are the fastest growing segment of the population adopting the practice.