Help with my parents' biggest argument. - Page 2

[Tinijocaro]

Is your son going to be joining the navy?

[latinalonestar]

Originally Posted by tennisdude23

Female genitals are much dirtier and more prone to infection, but nobody suggests that female soldiers should get parts of their genitals cut off for hygiene reasons. No, of course, not. That would be ridiculous. The same applies to boys.

I agree here. I have always been prone to irritants (sorry TMI). Vulvaritis is not uncommon among many women. I haven't heard of a single OB/GYN tell a woman that her labia need to be cut off! The foreskin is so much easier to care for than a woman's parts.

[robertandenith]

Originally Posted by Pumpkinheadmommy

He did mention, though, that the Navy medical people did try to encourage him to get circumcised and he refused.

omg!!!

[FullMetalMom]

You don't HAVE to justify your decision to anyone, let alone your parents, so why do you? Stop encouraging them to think they have a say in how you raise your babies.

[phrogger]

I haven't read any responses, but DH is running out the door. There is NO limited amounts of water on the ships anymore, just limited HOT water. you can take a shower all freaking day if you wanted (and I assume some guys do ) But that isn't even a valid comment anymore. DH has been on a few ships and has been in the Navy for 15 years. He is cut, but doesn't get where it would be a problem on a navy ship as probably more then 1/2 the guys aren't cut.

[KBecks]

My first thought is that there are plenty of places in the developing world with minimal water access and many intact men.

Since there is not a huge chance of your son having restricted access to water, I think this is not a very good argument. And even if he is put in a situation with restricted access to water, I don't see problems as big as your Dad is making them out to be. It sounds like he's being dramatic about how terrible things are and that all the intact men had horrible problems.

Best wishes!

[KBecks]

Originally Posted by IlluminatedAttic

DSS is a Navy submariner. He went thru basic and A school with no issues or comments. Once chosen for submarine duty he had to go through a final medical intake. He called us very upset saying that the docs were trying to force him to be circumcised because he would have problems and need it in the long run anyway. Of course he refused and of course we fed him all the current research so that he would feel confident in his decision. He has been deployed on several cruises over the past years and has had no issues that we know of (and I'm quite certain he would tell us). I don't really know about such things, but I would assume that water rations on a sub are even tighter than on a regular ship. And really, how much water can it take anyway?

How awful that you son was pressured like that!!! I'm so glad he did not get circed on that bad advice.

[Ruthla]

My maternal grandfather was in the US Navy during WWII. He told me how all the non-Jewish men (ie: the ones not circ'ed in infancy) were circ'd upon entering the Navy, and they were all doubled over in pain for 3 days following the surgury. I have no doubt that the US Navy circ'd many men- whether or not these men were forced into it or merely "encouraged" to have it done isn't clear. Perhaps, by the 1980's, the Navy was doing more "let's sell the circ idea to new recruits" rather than "let's just go ahead and circ new recruits."

I have a feeling that there weren't many (or any) women on board these Navy ships, so the issue of "what did the women do for hygeine" wasn't really an issue.

I personally suspect that there were never very many penis infections in uncirc'd sailors. There were probably a handful that were mismanaged (ie: cut-happy docs recomending circ in lieu of medication.) It was probably an overall "preventative" measure to begin with; something the Navy officers were afraid might become a problem, based on the general trend of "circing for repeated infections in the general public", rather than being based on actual problems on board Navy ships.

I'm not sure it's worth it to bring up these arguments to your family. Your father in particular might get VERY defensive at the idea that he was circ'd unnecessarily. He might even get defensive at the very thought that the US Navy might have made decisions based on faulty logic or biased data. He may or may not respond well to "medical science knows more now than it did back then."

I'd stick with "he's our baby and we get to make the choices for him." You'll be using that one a LOT for a variety of things!!

[SunshineJ]

Originally Posted by Tinijocaro

Is your son going to be joining the navy?

Um yeah, nevermind if the story is accurate or not, I've yet to see a newborn be in that situation. I'd simply reply with something like "then we'll be sure he checks on that if he ever decides to join the navy in 20 years. Discussion closed and not open for debate, thanks for your input.". I'm sorry, I've heard a lot of arguements for things before but this one has to be one of the most lame yet. I can't believe you're being told you need to do something on the off chance that your as yet unborn son *might* join a specific sect of the military and *might* encounter the same conditions that *may* have existed 25 years ago.

K.

[peainthepod]

Originally Posted by FullMetalMom

You don't HAVE to justify your decision to anyone, let alone your parents, so why do you? Stop encouraging them to think they have a say in how you raise your babies.

"Mom, Dad, I love you both very much and appreciate that you care so much about our son. But we have made our decision and it is not open for debate or discussion. Pass the salt?"

If they continue, "Why are you so interested in our son's penis, anyway? I find that rather disturbing..." *raise eyebrow*

If they still won't relent, "I said I am not discussing this with you and if you don"t drop it, I'm going to have to leave/hang up/walk away." And then follow through.

They don't get a say in your parenting decisions and if you don't set boundaries with them now, EVERY decision you make will be like this. Nip it in the bud.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

My maternal grandfather was in the US Navy during WWII. He told me how all the non-Jewish men (ie: the ones not circ'ed in infancy) were circ'd upon entering the Navy, and they were all doubled over in pain for 3 days following the surgury. I have no doubt that the US Navy circ'd many men- whether or not these men were forced into it or merely "encouraged" to have it done isn't clear. Perhaps, by the 1980's, the Navy was doing more "let's sell the circ idea to new recruits" rather than "let's just go ahead and circ new recruits."

I have a feeling that there weren't many (or any) women on board these Navy ships, so the issue of "what did the women do for hygeine" wasn't really an issue.

I personally suspect that there were never very many penis infections in uncirc'd sailors. There were probably a handful that were mismanaged (ie: cut-happy docs recomending circ in lieu of medication.) It was probably an overall "preventative" measure to begin with; something the Navy officers were afraid might become a problem, based on the general trend of "circing for repeated infections in the general public", rather than being based on actual problems on board Navy ships.

I'm not sure it's worth it to bring up these arguments to your family. Your father in particular might get VERY defensive at the idea that he was circ'd unnecessarily. He might even get defensive at the very thought that the US Navy might have made decisions based on faulty logic or biased data. He may or may not respond well to "medical science knows more now than it did back then."

I'd stick with "he's our baby and we get to make the choices for him." You'll be using that one a LOT for a variety of things!!

I just want to make it clear that the US military never had a circumcision policy. This is all myth. Back in WWII, a lot of military officials were concerned with the spread of venereal disease amongst the GIs. Naturally, all kinds of methods were suggested to prevent the spread of syphilis and other STDs, and I suspect a few doctors encouraged circumcision as a health strategy. So, there were probably some soldiers out there who did get circumcised when they were on leave or something, believing that they were protecting themselves from STDs. However, there were no mass circumcisions done by any branch of the U.S. military, especially during the war because the military needed all the manpower it could get. It could not afford to have men on extended sick leaves while major combat operations were in progress. Therefore, the idea of forcing new recruits to get circumcised just does not stand up to any meaningful historical analysis.

Here is a link to a very good article published in the New Zealand Medical Journal that puts the "mass circumcisions during the world wars" myth to rest. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1218/1564/

I suspect that your grandfather either overheard something or saw one or two cases of circumcision during his time in the service, which may have happened considering that I do know of instances when the military was offering certain medical procedures for free, and again some people chose to get circumcised. Throughout the Cold War, there were also no mass circumcisions offered by the military, nor was any branch in the armed forces in the business of selling circumcision. As Mr. Llewellyn pointed out in a previous post, there was no pressure for circumcision from anyone back in the 1970s in the navy. I suspect that whenever you hear of the navy or army circumcising anyone it merely amounts to some poor chap getting bad medical advice from a military medic.

[veganone]

Originally Posted by peainthepod

They don't get a say in your parenting decisions and if you don't set boundaries with them now, EVERY decision you make will be like this. Nip it in the bud.

Exactly. It might be hard at first, but this is your child and you are the parent now. Your parents don't have a vote in how you raise your child.