How far do you take it, with your pro-circ DH? Am I over the top? Crazy? - Page 5

[perspective]

Originally Posted by Sandy Roman

It is women -who have the power to create life, that truly can heal us. Men tend to be destroyers, while women are creators. Envy Much? I think the world would be a better place if more boys learned to knit a pair of socks, after cleaning, carding and spinning the wool by hand. Knowing firsthand the effort that goes into the smallest things, -ones we take for granted, might make them less likely to break things, go to war, etc. My children knit, as do I. (No socks yet!) Knitting teaches patience, counting, beauty,... whats not to like?

Let men stop their violence, -even if women have to hold their hand, or stare them down, all the way to the end. Medicine has aspects of this violence too, in the medicalization of birth, excessive hysterectomies and so on.

I got to say thats an incredibly sexist thing to say. "Men tend to be destroyers"? You should take a trip to a pro female circ society. You will find that it is mothers, sisters, and grandmothers (women) who are the ones holding little girls down as they go genital mutilation. Forced circ is not problem specific to any gender, both sides do it to their own gender.

A male baby is no more prone to destroy, or be violent then a girl baby.

I think your completely missing the point when you say "It is women -who have the power to create life, that truly can heal us." Because its only partly true.

The power to create life is shared between women and men. Men fertilize the seed, and women give it a place for it be safe while it develops. What that example should be teaching you is that only when we come together can we see positive results in the world around us. And not that any one side is "the problem" (or the solution).

We must support and open each others eyes. Because violence knows no gender bounds. Its only working together can we see where we have become misguided in what we might have thought was best.

[benj]

Originally Posted by frontierpsych

yikes! Sorry dude. Probably a positive thing in the long run! I've always heard foreskin makes a great shallow woman filter.

I have never been with an intact guy, just because circ. was really common when I was born so most guys in the US my age are circed. I didn't even know what an intact penis looked like until I came to MDC. I didn't intend to circ my son though, pretty much from the time I thought about it.

Originally Posted by Storm Bride

Ouch. I'm sorry. I can't even imagine...

I can brush it off now, don't worry. But at the time, I will admit it was pretty awful and humiliating. She ended up apologizing eventually.

[LavenderMae]

Women are holding down their daughters to be circumcised because their male dominated culture dictated them to. It's much more complicated than whose holding them down and making the cut. The mutilation started with Patriarchy here and there.
That said I am horrified by women forcing sexual mutilation onto girls no matter the cultural push.

I'd love to know if you have had any luck with your dh, OP.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by LavenderMae

Women are holding down their daughters to be circumcised because their male dominated culture dictated them to. It's much more complicated than whose holding them down and making the cut. The mutilation started with Patriarchy here and there.
That said I am horrified by women forcing sexual mutilation onto girls no matter the cultural push.

I'd love to know if you have had any luck with your dh, OP.

Cultures can manipulate men as much as they do women. The point of that example is to show that women have the ability (and are) just as violent and destructive as men can be. Just as men can be as loving and caring as women are traditionally seen.

[Sandy Roman]

Violence knows no gender

Originally Posted by perspective

I got to say thats an incredibly sexist thing to say. "Men tend to be destroyers"? You should take a trip to a pro female circ society. You will find that it is mothers, sisters, and grandmothers (women) who are the ones holding little girls down as they go genital mutilation. Forced circ is not problem specific to any gender, both sides do it to their own gender.

Perspective, all good points you make here. I tend to think about these folks: Bin Laden, Bush Cheney, endless USA wars, the Taliban types. Some men go for destruction wholesale. Others let them do it. I think they have a problem! But FGM is also very very awful, and very personal of a violation. The poster who said FGM also served men, was also right.

In talking to one person about infant circumcision, -his response was, "Who says human rights are important?" He just feels entitled to do it -and recommend it to others. Sad. FGM probably has similar adherents in the older women in those cultures.

A male baby is no more prone to destroy, or be violent then a girl baby.

Yes, babies is where we start, but things do eventually differ! I have two rather large boys and take very seriously the task of raising them to be thoughtful, expressive, compassionate etc. because the balance is needed. Socializing boys is important, they can easily use size and power to their advantage. Testosterone level in individuals does have correlates to behavior, -but it certainly doesn't dictate it. [Boys are sometimes seen as "flawed girls" in schools nowadays, and that is just plain unfair to the boys.]

I think your completely missing the point when you say "It is women -who have the power to create life, that truly can heal us." Because its only partly true.

This would have been clearer, "It is women that truly can heal us." -Not that we can't heal on our own! -Yet, it can help a lot to have the support and perspective of women.

The power to create life is shared between women and men. Men fertilize the seed, and women give it a place for it be safe while it develops. What that example should be teaching you is that only when we come together can we see positive results in the world around us. And not that any one side is "the problem" (or the solution).

Totally agree. You are very wise here. But women really have the bulk of the bodily function and involvement. I have "womb envy" I admit it. -The whole thing is amazing from courting to conception to birth and growth. Men can feel a little left out.

We must support and open each others eyes. Because violence knows no gender bounds.

True, yet men commit most of the violent crimes assault, murder, rape. Yuck. War. Big yuck (usually). -I was bullied a great deal in grade school. That colors my perception of males and authority figures, most certainly. Girls also bully, via exclusion, and that is just as rough -and less well known.

Its only working together can we see where we have become misguided in what we might have thought was best.

Again, the two perspectives (and more) are often better than one. Agreed.

Thank you for the kind criticism, it is appreciated. -These are habitual ways of thinking. Lately I have been sifting through them with a fresh eye, maybe I'll change some. I certainly hope so.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by Sandy Roman

Perspective, all good points you make here. I tend to think about these folks: Bin Laden, Bush Cheney, endless USA wars, the Taliban types. Some men go for destruction wholesale. Others let them do it. I think they have a problem!

Well, yes but all those roles, from leader of the free world, to figure heads of terrorist groups are positions that traditionally excluded women. It is not that women would not act in similar ways if put in these positions, its just they have not had as many chances to. And in times where there have been women in leadership roles over countries, they still carried out wars, there still was corruption, innocent people died, and at times greed/power still won over their better nature.

The problem is when people take traditional gender roles and say that these are inherent, instead of reactions to the situations people are thrown into. If you are the gender which is traditionally responsible for the caring and nurturing of the family, of course is going to seem like the more “healing gender” versus the one traditionally in charge of leadership/ protection, who is forced to be on the front lines of dealing with cultural problems.

I have two rather large boys and take very seriously the task of raising them to be thoughtful, expressive, compassionate etc. because the balance is needed. Socializing boys is important, they can easily use size and power to their advantage. Testosterone level in individuals does have correlates to behavior, -but it certainly doesn't dictate it.

Its true that males have more aggressive hormones then females do, that hardly trumps level headed judgement of adults. I do agree that boys need to be raised with compassion, love and socialization, but not because of their hormones. But because society spends so much time telling men to be less emotionally, and less socialized. Like girls are given dolls and they play mock situations that simulate things adults deal with. While boys are told not to cry, and are handed a ball, or an action figure, with preparation for the emotional realities of adulthood.

This would have been clearer, "It is women that truly can heal us." -Not that we can't heal on our own! -Yet, it can help a lot to have the support and perspective of women.

Just as it can women to have the support and perspective of men. This is a two way street.

Totally agree. You are very wise here. But women really have the bulk of the bodily function and involvement. I have "womb envy" I admit it. -The whole thing is amazing from courting to conception to birth and growth. Men can feel a little left out.

Of course, I think everyone is amazed by the developmental process that goes on within the female body, and would not mind experiencing it myself. (Although not really the birthing part, yikes!) But women do not have any majority control over the creation process. That ball starts rolling with man and woman pushing at the same time, its the developmental/incubation process that they over see. Although its not creation, its still pretty amazing stuff.

True, yet men commit most of the violent crimes assault, murder, rape. Yuck. War. Big yuck (usually). -I was bullied a great deal in grade school. That colors my perception of males and authority figures, most certainly. Girls also bully, via exclusion, and that is just as rough -and less well known.

Its true men commit most of the violent crimes, but that does not mean most men are violent, or that we can say "men are the violent ones, lets get advise from the less violent females." It would be just as untrue to say "since most violent crimes in NYC are commited by African-Americans then African-American New Yorkers are more violent."

You would not say they should get advice from other demographics that commit less crimes, would you? No, of course not. Because just because more violent actions are caused by a certain group does not mean most people in that group are violent, or have some lesson they need to learn.

As you said, and as I said really the focus should be we all have something we can learn from each other. But I have to say your comments have been quite interesting. And as you can tell from my SN, the views of others is very important to me.

As the analogy goes, your understanding of where the sun hangs in the sky is completely relative to where you stand on the ground.

Meaning there is no one, right point of view. Only together can we see clearly.

[Sandy Roman]

Hummmm...

Perspective,

Well, yes but all those roles, from leader of the free world, to figure heads of terrorist groups are positions that traditionally excluded women. It is not that women would not act in similar ways if put in these positions, its just they have not had as many chances to. And in times where there have been women in leadership roles over countries, they still carried out wars, there still was corruption, innocent people died, and at times greed/power still won over their better nature.

Well, I am weak on historical knowledge of what you speak. I concede it can be possible, but don't know of it myself. Certainly women in tragedies (Greek Shakespeare) commit many sins too.

In theoretical moral choice scenarios, men tend to choose "the most good for someone" -even at the expense at another party, sort of an "end justifies the means." This was viewed (by men) as superior moral development to women's responses which tend to, "Can't we find a way to do good, without penalizing someone else in the process?" A second look at this, by feminists shows women are not less developed morally, they just frame it differently.

Still men kill over ideas and "the R word" I don't see women doing that nearly so much, historically speaking.

The argument also could be made (for either gender) that selection for these roles is not uniform: You have to be sleazy or ruthless to be successful as a politician. The rest of us might be much more decent folk. -You make a similar argument further down about New Yorkers.

I'm keeping this short as we are mostly on the same page, (and it's a bit off topic). You -and others- might enjoy this striking essay, with the tongue in cheek title Is There Anything Good About Men? :
http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Baumeister discusses the idea that men tend to have numerous, less deep relationships, they compete with other men, and create culture in order to do so. Specific data that applies is mentioned. It's a good read.

See you tomorrow, -I have a day job I need to sleep for!

[Meg_s]

Originally Posted by 1littlebit

wtf? i would love to meet the girl who asks about a guys circ status before she gets intimate. i would also sort of wonder why you would turn someone down b/c they are intact... that makes no sense.

LOL ::: I ask... you know, prospectives, but just cause I'm nosey like that. My current is my first circ'd and really, the foreskin is such a wonderfully functional and fantastic part of the human body i'm needing to learn how to work with something pretty different now. I'm all about going for the person and not their parts, just noting the difference.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by Sandy Roman

Perspective,

In theoretical moral choice scenarios, men tend to choose "the most good for someone" -even at the expense at another party, sort of an "end justifies the means." This was viewed (by men) as superior moral development to women's responses which tend to, "Can't we find a way to do good, without penalizing someone else in the process?" A second look at this, by feminists shows women are not less developed morally, they just frame it differently.

I dont see what evidence you have to show that "men tend to think this way, and women tend to think that way" beyond the influences of your own opinion. I dont think this is something you can prove. The closest anyone could get to doing so would in the end be a cherry picking project.

Still men kill over ideas and "the R word" I don't see women doing that nearly so much, historically speaking.

The argument also could be made (for either gender) that selection for these roles is not uniform: You have to be sleazy or ruthless to be successful as a politician. The rest of us might be much more decent folk. -You make a similar argument further down about New Yorkers.

Are you trying to say what kept women from getting into real positions of power, was that they were not sleazy/ruthless enough? Men often were born into positions of power, if not that they had family legacies to fulfill. Often they had plans set up for them from birth. What do you think women could not have been clever enough to gain leadership positions? Every step of the way women were excluded from the "power ladder" and not because they wouldn't be ruthless but because traditional gender roles excluded them from getting anywhere near it.

Men did not fight over ideas, or "the R word", cultures did. Since women could not really gain power, it appeared simply that these were issues only the men were dealing with, and fighting over. But that paints a very simplistic view of history.

But getting us back to the point here. I guess the reason I focus so much on this is because people often make the mistake to blame genders for different problems in our culture. Instead culture itself, and this can be a problem if we go into circ discussions with the assumption that men are the problem, while I would say culture is the problem. This defuses the situation and I have seen many circ fights resolved by taking out the anger and blame.

[QueenOfTheMeadow]

Please keep the discusion on topic for CAC. Thanks.

[jenP]

:

Welcome Sandy!

Interesting discussion between you and Perspective, I am enjoying both "perspectives."
OT but very interesting,the idea that boys are treated as "flawed girls" in our system.
While perhaps we should not make blanket statements about "men are this way," it might be said that IN OUR CULTURE men tend to be adamant about harming their sons because of their own bloody initiation into our culture. It really changes who they are as human beings, and in this case it could be said that their female partners (not having been mutilated themselves and therefore able to be more rational about it) really can have quite a role in helping the man to heal.
What I'm getting here, and this important point may be getting lost in the debate over what behaviors are inherently male or female, is that one way a woman can help her partner is to stand firm in protecting their sons. That when you stand firm in that sometimes huge battle, it may seem that you are pitting the son against the father and making the son the winner, but really you are helping the father get on the road to healing himself. So it isn't "choosing" one or the other, it is choosing the best for both, for the whole family.
I don't think we'll move forward in genital integrity rights until we figure out as individuals and as a society how to heal the men who have been harmed and are emotionally invested in passing it on to the next generation.
But my question is: Okay, we've established that a woman can help her partner heal and protect their sons, but what about women who are just as pro-circ as the men??? I don't mean women who are unaware of the harm involved and just let the man choose because they didn't know any better. I'm talking about women who have read the articles, seen the videos, been exposed to people who can explain the horrors and the human rights aspect, and STILL choose to side with their husband in insisting that circumcision is right, good, and best for their son. How can any healing for the man or the boy ever take place in THAT situation??

Jen

[Mimi]

make him watch a circ video here in the recources section , any person who sees that will change their mind. seriosly.
if my dh made me do that (he is luckily 100% against it, never a discussion) i would leave him. yes, i would go that far. there are things that i will not do to my children,such as circ ,& i would choose that over dh.

[kawa kamuri]

what would i do? i would end the relationship. i don't know what's right for other people but that's what would be right for me.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by jenP

men tend to be adamant about harming their sons because of their own bloody initiation into our culture.

Actually I disagree. After talking to other circed guys, I think most of them pick circ because they feel like this is a decision that needs to be thought about. For many fathers, they feel fine with their penis. So for them its a situation where they think "Why take this unknown path, when I know I was circumcised, and I feel ok with it."

Of course the problem with this logic is that this is a choice being made out of fear for the unknown. Where consideration for what the boy wants is being pushed aside for "whats comfortable" for the parents. The problem is that with all the talk pro-circ parents make about the benefits, in reality they are doing little to no research into what it means to stay intact. And if any research is done, usually its looking for things that support the decision already made in their head.

[jenP]

Originally Posted by perspective

Actually I disagree. After talking to other circed guys, I think most of them pick circ because they feel like this is a decision that needs to be thought about. For many fathers, they feel fine with their penis. So for them its a situation where they think "Why take this unknown path, when I know I was circumcised, and I feel ok with it."

Of course the problem with this logic is that this is a choice being made out of fear for the unknown. Where consideration for what the boy wants is being pushed aside for "whats comfortable" for the parents. The problem is that with all the talk pro-circ parents make about the benefits, in reality they are doing little to no research into what it means to stay intact. And if any research is done, usually its looking for things that support the decision already made in their head.

Actually, I think you do agree with me! Everything you just said is exactly what I meant.
When I spoke of the harm and the bloody initiation, I didn't mean to imply that the men actually see this as an important initiation ritual and actually have intent to harm their sons. I meant that the fact that they were circumcised makes them emotionally invested in continuing with circumcision for the next generation. The whole "My penis is circumcised and it is GREAT! I love it, my sex partners love it... obviously circumcised is the way to go!" So, a little bit fear of the unknown ('cause intact seems odd to those who have never seen or experienced having it) and a little bit of what Treespeak so eloquently spoke of, the denial/repression of any issues from their own circumcision.
I guess what I meant was, often a parent who was circumcised feels a strong and emotional (rather than rational) need to do it to their children, whereas a parent who was not circumcised is more likely to see it as harmful to the child and to wish to protect the child from it. Because IN OUR CULTURE it is the men who are circumcised and the women who are not, we frequently see the men adamant about circumcising and a woman who is left feeling like she has to choose between her marriage or protecting her child. Not because of any gender-based differences in aggression vs. nurturing or ability to think logically or how much one sex or the other loves their children, but just a difference in worldview because of having been circumcised.
I hope that made some sense... I'm very tired

Jen

[Sandy Roman]

Some clarifications

I dont see what evidence you have to show that "men tend to think this way, and women tend to think that way" beyond the influences of your own opinion.

Research has been done. I don't know where to find it. My point was simply that sexist bias in the male researchers initially made women look "less advanced in moral development" compared to men. -Similar to the "conquering sperm" scenario, that turns out to be quite inaccurate physiologically.


Are you trying to say what kept women from getting into real positions of power, was that they were not sleazy/ruthless enough? Men often were born into positions of power, if not that they had family legacies to fulfill. Often they had plans set up for them from birth. What do you think women could not have been clever enough to gain leadership positions? Every step of the way women were excluded from the "power ladder" and not because they wouldn't be ruthless but because traditional gender roles excluded them from getting anywhere near it.

Perspective, I don't think women are any less intelligent than men. And selfish and ruthless they can also do capably. I alas know personally some of these types. But I don't think it is "traditional gender roles" that have limited women historically, it is the inability to plan the timing and number of children and the attendant physical burden of gestation and nursing. These things do have an impact on energy level and "career opportunities" and would have been worse when families had 4-6 children. Gender roles added to that, but gestation and nursing are a "full time job". Sarah Palin, seems to have done well with G&N and politics, -as well as being sufficiently ruthless and clever. Hilliary Clinton is a more positive example to my mind, but types like these are rare.


Men did not fight over ideas, or "the R word", cultures did. Since women could not really gain power, it appeared simply that these were issues only the men were dealing with, and fighting over. But that paints a very simplistic view of history.

Men do fight more. And Women certainly are part of culture, but I think men do fight about "the R word", and culture and politics and sports more, than women. I think men are invested differently in these things on average, than women are. (The fact that you and I are going on and on.... is anecdotal evidence of this.)

Women can wrestle, fight, argue and play sports too, no question.
I live in Pgh. where both genders routinely come to work dressed in Steelers jerseys. This is a good thing. I myself find sports akin to Gladiator worship, -usually.

I think Baumeister could be right about culture, that men invest in it to stratify themselves and make themselves stand out, -so as to get the chance to reproduce.

He also points out that the "bell curve of ability" for men, if it is wider means that men will have the "geniuses" more often than women, and they might "top out" higher than women. The down side is that they also "bottom out" lower, more men with low abilities, who have limited choices.

Women (and men) are often rightly critical of culture. It does serve men better on average, than it serves women. Men argue about them more and maintaining any of the prevailing ones serves them better. It ain't right.

Male Circumcision, to name a specific cultural ritual, apparently functioned to establish a male line of descent, patrilinearity as primary and significant, to replace matrilinearity, -which preceded it. Male circumcision, (and the lack of female circumcision or other female ritual) also marked the men as significant and special, in a way that was not available to the women. And MGM was required of the men.

So being intact undermines this hegemony as well as being kinder, and making for more intimate satisfying physical love as an adult.

[Sandy Roman]

Jen,

Welcome Sandy!

Thank you. I do feel welcomed here by several, yours is especially nice.

it might be said that IN OUR CULTURE men tend to be adamant about harming their sons because of their own bloody initiation into our culture. It really changes who they are as human beings, and in this case it could be said that their female partners (not having been mutilated themselves and therefore able to be more rational about it) really can have quite a role in helping the man to heal.

Absolutely. Your paragraph above is quite correct to my mind. I think the trauma of circumcision is primarily stored in the preverbal limbic reptilian part of the brain. "Talking" to this part of the brain just doesn't happen readily if at all. It is a fight or flight subunit. Repeating circumcision on one's children makes it "OK" and "normal" for this violence to have been done to the father, as a child. Abuse perpetuates itself not logically, but in some physiologically based way. It only stops when the adult's cortex says strongly enough "It has to stop with me. The BS stops here."

Some men can get there on their own, but having a woman say assuredly, "There is no way, Ain't gonna happen" can matter a lot. Some say it fiercely, some say it quietly "from their core." That means, that man has to deal with the violence of circumcision that he went through, -without harming his children.

You say all this and more, beautifully above.

One's relation to ones children is unique. A spouse can be "replaced" in a way that a child cannot. I would leave a spouse who'd insist on harming my child with cutting, if I were the mother and the roles were reversed.

I was lucky, I just thought it was barbaric, but even if I had a partial or fully intersex child, I was totally against genital "assignment" surgery. -That makes the parents feel better and their life easier. It sucks for the child, and the adult they will become.

We don't get to have ideal or "perfect" children. There are no guarantees, accepting that, I think, is part of the deal. Risks with responsibilities.

what about women who are just as pro-circ as the men??? I don't mean women who are unaware of the harm involved and just let the man choose because they didn't know any better. I'm talking about women who have read the articles, seen the videos, been exposed to people who can explain the horrors and the human rights aspect, and STILL choose to side with their husband in insisting that circumcision is right, good, and best for their son. How can any healing for the man or the boy ever take place in THAT situation??

Well then it gets very personal and graphic, alas. There is no way around it.

It would be the same if we insisted on FGM to make women attractive, or removed their labia, or tightened their vaginas routinely to make them "better sexual partners." Keep pointing out that they have no rational reason to harm their child, and strip them of their sexuality. They have the issue, not the child. The are making a SEXUAL decision for someone, -who won't be having sex for decades.

They also are are unable to see men as they F*&#ing are, -and as they were made for F*#&ing. They have lost out too, and bigtime in having circumsized partners. Do some research, watch an adult videos, ask a European or Russian or Chinese neighbor.

OR tell them they should just, "Put your head in the sand, and cut it off! -So you'll feel better." It's not about the baby, that is for sure!

10 out of 10 babies oppose circumcision!

[Mimi]

Originally Posted by Sandy Roman

They have lost out too, and bigtime in having circumsized partners. Do some research, watch an adult videos, ask a European or Russian or Chinese neighbor.

or, ask me.
seirously, don't circ, future daughter in law will be thankful

(in all seriousness,though, if your husband won't even discuss harming your child in that way, i don't think he is even thinking about the decision. try to figure out why he wants to insist on it. if he doesn't change his mind, i personally would not stay, i would not let my baby get hurt. my husband said to me, when we found out that we were having a boy, "if you want him circed, there is no way,i am sorry,but i will leave you & i will fight for that baby", which, you know, made me a very proud wife. it was quite funny really, because we both thought we'd have to have this big argument when we actually agreed.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by jenP

Actually, I think you do agree with me! Everything you just said is exactly what I meant.
When I spoke of the harm and the bloody initiation, I didn't mean to imply that the men actually see this as an important initiation ritual and actually have intent to harm their sons. I meant that the fact that they were circumcised makes them emotionally invested in continuing with circumcision for the next generation. The whole "My penis is circumcised and it is GREAT! I love it, my sex partners love it... obviously circumcised is the way to go!" So, a little bit fear of the unknown ('cause intact seems odd to those who have never seen or experienced having it) and a little bit of what Treespeak so eloquently spoke of, the denial/repression of any issues from their own circumcision.
I guess what I meant was, often a parent who was circumcised feels a strong and emotional (rather than rational) need to do it to their children, whereas a parent who was not circumcised is more likely to see it as harmful to the child and to wish to protect the child from it. Because IN OUR CULTURE it is the men who are circumcised and the women who are not, we frequently see the men adamant about circumcising and a woman who is left feeling like she has to choose between her marriage or protecting her child. Not because of any gender-based differences in aggression vs. nurturing or ability to think logically or how much one sex or the other loves their children, but just a difference in worldview because of having been circumcised.
I hope that made some sense... I'm very tired

Jen

I actually disagree with you slightly, but in an important way. I dont think men are emotionally invested in it as some form of delusion. I think men who are circumcised dont know anything else. They dont see it as such a extreme thing because unlike women and intact men, they have been living with a circed penis all their lives. For people outside this circ cycle its easier to move out of it, but for circed guys they are just jaded, so they see circ as normal.

For the latter two groups, having a intact boy is much more similar to their life experiences and its a more comfortable choice. Everyone goes with the comfortable choice.

All choices are comfortable to someone, as this issue shows. But whats important is not what is the comfortable choice, but what is the better choice. And when it comes to infant circ, the better choice is it not happening it at all.

[BlessedMommy2006]

Bumping this up, wondering how the OP and her DH are doing.