Circumcision: Response to Comments

I started a reply in the comment box of my last entry to respond to those who'd commented on this apparently controversial issue. When I saw it turning into a novel, I decided to make my response a follow-up entry, instead of leaving it in the comment box.

First of all, to clarify what I wrote yesterday, I respect parents' decisions on this issue to do or not do, based on what they believe is best for their sons. It is, after all, a private decision. I also respect those uncircumcised males who are proud of their bodies as they are, and I support their decision to remain so. It is a mentally healthy attitude that should only be encouraged.

Though circumcised and "altered" from my original state at birth, I, too, am proud of my penis, both its appearance and its functionality. But I think that those circumcised males who have been persuaded that they are "victims" are a little sad, and would do better learning to accept themselves as they are, rather than trying to reconstruct a foreskin (as I've read about).

Though there may not be conclusive evidence that males should be circumcised for health reasons, I've read studies, though inconclusive, that there may be some benefits, however small. I'd rather be safe than sorry, so I'm grateful my parents had me circumcised and I'm glad I did so with my son.

While reading the responses to my last entry, I've seen some "selective reading" in some of the comments. I was very careful to say that the cleanliness issue is only a PERCEIVED one, not necessarily based on reality. I also made of point of emphasizing that there isn't any difference in the average levels of hygiene between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Perhaps people were so quick to disagree with my main point that they just skimmed over these points, hmm?

Sally P in particular was guilty of selective reading. I in NO way implied that female circumcision is done for aesthetic reasons, but rather for the larger sexist issue of controlling the sexuality of women. If she'd read carefully, she would have come upon the phrase: "it is done expressly to destroy a woman's enjoyment of sex and to keep her chaste and faithful to her future husband." Nothing about aesthetics there. Indeed, FGM destroys the beauty of the female genitalia. And I stand by my original assertion that it is ludicrous to compare routine male circumcision to female genital mutilation.

"Decrease sexual pleasure". Please, please don't make me laugh. I've had hundreds of sexual partners in my lifetime, and I hope to have dozens more before I die. I can't get enough sex, which has always been nothing BUT pleasurable for me. Circumcised and all. If I got any more pleasure from sex, I'd never find the time to go to work and make a living!

"Incredibly painful". Obviously not so anyone remembers as adults. I posted this entry on my other blog and a commenter (Benthere) described how her son was circumcised: "When his was done there was no cutting. They used something called a plasti-bell and tied it over the head. The foreskin and the bell fell off after a couple days. It was very non invasive...my son never even cried."

And to answer my own survey questions. My father, born in 1924 at home, was not circumcised. He once said that he wished he had been, but that this was not generally available for poor American families at that time. My very much older brother (born in 1945 in a hospital) is circumcised, as is his son.

So far as whether I am pro, anti, or indifferent to this issue -- as far as what other people do, I am indifferent. For myself and my son, I'm happy with being circumcised and I'm confident I made the right decision for my son, too. If I ever sire another son, he will be circumcised as well.

After all, at the core, it is a private decision.