Recently, the intact debate has surfaced in Florida, an ironic state for this debate to rise up, considering it's shape. I deeply sympathize with this mom's attempt to save her son, whose penis everyone has been legislating. Somehow, for women, it's their body, but for men, it's not so. Men -- newborn males, specifically -- have zero rights concerning the loss of this important membrane. The U.S. backs bans of similar surgeries for infant girls, but pediatric urologists are running rampant with their scalpels, unchecked and unremitting.
At the risk of exposing private facts about our sons' privates, I throw in my lot with Chase's mom. Our boys are both intact, and I've been proud that I did not
give in to current Western cultural standards and have them cut. I had no
compelling personal reason (such as religion, or a medical need) to do
so, and in fact had several reasons not to. Of course I respect parental rights, but object that current parental rights override the rights of the body owned by a son, from birth.Why? I'll tell you.
First, it's a trauma. Do not doubt the pain involved in flaying off most of a membrane intended to protect the member. I couldn't bear the thought of
causing my sons pain, and loss of an essential part before they'd barely
found their voices. I believe my sons' bodies are their own, and that no one should t take away
part of them before they even knew what was happening.
Second, I abhor the overselling of an idea to the masses strictly for the purpose of amassing wealth. Dupont took formula -- an invention intended to supply babies who were motherless, or whose mothers were milkless, with vital nutrition. Then they sold the world on its efficacy, in fact its superiority. The ridiculous knows no boundaries in what misconceptions capitalism effects. Here, the masses are blindly lining the pockets of pediatric urologists for unnecessary, painful, damaging "surgery."
the Cleanliness idea is a myth. This makes no sense to me, being that everything else on the planet stays cleaner if left in its original wrapper. A
foreskin is there for a biological reason, and that is to
keep the member clean. A circumcised child is at risk for infection
because of the cut, and the fact that dirt and urine get on the penis. Even with two sons, in 5 years we have not had
even one incidence of infection, nor even diaper rash, on their
members. You do not have to do anything special. You get no benefit from
circumcision that you don't get from simply keeping it clean. It is a wound that requires care and causes
more problems in the first weeks than circumcision claims to solve.
Fourth, there is a risk of botched circumcisions. Though these are rare, they are devastating.
I understand that a cut member chafes for decades against clothing,
desensitizing it and reducing men's sexual pleasure.
Sixth, this pain right after birth is a betrayal which is remembered. The body, the muscle, remembers. This can cause a rift, according to some, in the mother-son bond.
Lastly, it can always be removed, but
can't ever be put back.
encourage mothers of boys to read the sites below, which I have found invaluable
in raising my boys. As a proponent of Attachment Parenting, I believe
intact and uncut is best for the boys.
I hope that every mom reading this will consider keeping their sons intact rather than cutting them immediately, that you will wait at least a little while, live
with it, and see how you feel about it later. If later, problems develop and
you decide to go through with it, then you will have made a decision
after having a chance to get to know your beloved son, whole and intact.