help stop genital mutilation

[mellowtigger]

Yes, there are more urgent matters facing the nation, but this is still a very intimate subject and worthy of discussion (and hopefully action).

There is apparently a movement underway to get the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend circumcising all male children at birth. I have heard before that there is very little medical literature to support such wide-reaching policy. Even at the websites I've read which support the idea, they admit that the medical benefits are very minor.

In contrast, however, is the obvious ethical problem of mutilating an infant's genitals. Surgery without consent of the subject or immediate threat to their life should be against the Hippocratic Oath! Please (whether you are male or female, gay or straight) consider signing both the petition and the letter to stop the AAP proposal. If there are truly any health benefits to be had, please let the child grow up to make his own choice about the condition of his body. I don't know why America is so backwards on this issue, but please consider helping to change the status quo.

I'm amused that this site even has political maternity clothes for expectant (and supportive) mothers to wear:



And those of you tempted to invoke religious beliefs, I ask why your Creator of the human form screwed up male bodies so badly that He requires you to significantly modify them immediately upon their introduction to the world? That's a really serious blow to the whole "infallible" theory, isn't it? Please leave the bodily form of your child as you found it. He can make his own choices later.

My ex (from France) got circumcised in his 30s as he converted to Judaism. It was his choice, and that's consistent with my call to action here. Leave the infant alone; let the adult man decide.

Comments

[pink-halen.livejournal.com]

There is evidence that the Circumsizing ritual from biblical days was just a small cut. When they found that men were stretching them back the started cutting off more so it would be more difficult to pass. It makes sense as a ritual. It doesn't make much sense as a medical necessity.

[mellowtigger]

I'm very skeptical of the foreskin restoration procedures. I think that they work, yes. I just doubt their long-term safety. Stretching skin causes the cells to divide to produce extra tissue. Cell division is one of the causes of dna damage that can eventually lead to cancer.

My theory is that men who indulge in foreskin restoration will be at increased risk for skin cancer (in an already sensitive area). I have no data yet that supports the theory, but I still think my reasoning is sound. I hope that long-term studies someday show that there is no cause for worry.

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of any restorer getting cancer from it so it's just your theory. Do people who gain weight also get cancer because of all the skin they grow? Or people who stretch their earlobes.

[fuzzyjay.livejournal.com]

Skin cells are constantly sloughing off and being replaced. The cell division continues for your whole life.

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

You know, if circumcision was a valid medical procedure then cattle ranchers would get billed by their veterinarians for snippin' the bulls...

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

That "His Body, His Choice" shirt is awesome. If I am ever pregnant with a boy, I'm totally getting one -- both enochsmiles and I are opposed to any non-medically-necessary surgeries on our kids unless they choose them for themselves.

Probably TMI

[foeclan.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty happy to still have my foreskin, and definitely agree that it oughtn't be cut off as a matter of course.

It does have its drawbacks. Most practical of which is that guys often have no idea what to do with it and think that if they just skin it back, they can just treat me like any cut guy, completely unaware of the heightened sensitivity that tends to make oral sex in particular unpleasant.

Medically speaking, my doctor at one point just told me to be sure to keep my foreskin clean, since she'd done a rotation in a urology ward and saw something she called a 'fungal mass'. Essentially, athlete's foot fungus in your foreskin.

She said there's also a greater risk of penile cancer, but essentially that's just because snipping it off means you won't get cancer in it (not that they'd recommend removing a kidney at birth to reduce the risk of kidney cancer).

[kroyd.livejournal.com]

Thanks for bringing this topic to the forefront once again. It used to be one of my main causes. I used to plant no-circ brochures in relevant books in the library, and inside magazines in MD offices. LOL...

I've used the restoration techniques and many do work well. I have not completed the process since I got enouth restoration so that I'm relatively content. It's well worth the risks you mention if it is indeed a risk.

When my son was born I watched over him like a hawk in the hospital to assure he was left intact.

[bonemead.livejournal.com]

I couldn't agree with you more. The idea of making this decision for another human being is stone-age. It should be illegal.

[bluebear2.livejournal.com]

The U.S. is backwards in so many issues that one can easily lose track of them all. This has to be exposed as the primitive thing it is. Also there are Christians out there who think it's necessary for them to do it even though it goes against Christian teaching but do they look it up for themselves?

But yeah, it needs to be made into the thing that it is. A body modification no different than earlobe stretching, piercing, penis-splitting, tattooing, etc. Definitely something only for an adult who is well informed and not forced on babies or anyone for that matter.

Thank-you for posting this.

[caestus.livejournal.com]

I am also unsettled by organizations like the CDC proposing to advocate for circumcision for medical reasons. It is almost as if the mentality is: well safer sex is harder and so let's just do this preemptively so we don't have to bother. The science on the benefits of circumcision is poor at best. Preemptive mastectomies would be asinine for similar reasons.

It is immoral and unjust to impose it upon children and this is even without consideration of the number of botched circumcisions. Sexual health is touchy subject, that needs to change. Cutting off foreskin is a horrible appeal to tradition and thus a much easier sell than acknowledging the sexuality and agency of people.

And *then* (But wait there's more!) even if the science was tight on HIV transmission (AND it warranted such a measure-- I don't think even then it does), the data does not have anything to positive for men-who-have-sex-with-men.

Let's recap: You want to advocate for cutting the dicks of every man child for medical reasons that are shoddy and speculative at best even though there are problems with the procedure and madcap mishaps occur and that it will not actually work at all for a small percentage of those boys?

Sorry I got a bit ranty, but this is a sore point for me even in foreskin-friendlier Canukistan.