or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Just changed my first cut baby :(
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Just changed my first cut baby :(

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
Hi:
I don't normally post here, but do lurk sometimes.
I have a 10 month old intact son, and at the time that was a REALLY hard decision (it was a "look" thing, but finally came down to it being HIS decision)
Anyway, SO glad i left him alone, he is perfect! So i guess now i am a...timid intactivist.....

I am starting to take care of a baby for childcare....he is cut
I changed his diaper for the first time and it looked, just.....so red, and....sad

Why isn't it illegal??? So many other things about the body are....you can't sell it (sex or organs) you can't put certain things into it (drugs) and you can't cut little girls.....why oh why do people do this to their perfect little boys???? It made/makes me so so sad.

Do you think this will ever be illegal here?(USA) Or at least illegal to do it to infants?

-L
post #2 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by larzanna View Post
Why isn't it illegal??? So many other things about the body are....you can't sell it (sex or organs) you can't put certain things into it (drugs) and you can't cut little girls.....why oh why do people do this to their perfect little boys???? It made/makes me so so sad.

Do you think this will ever be illegal here?(USA) Or at least illegal to do it to infants?
What's ironic is that removed foreskins ARE sold for use in cosmetics or physical restoration which I feel is one of the main reasons why circ is still pushed by the medical industry today. The other reasons lie in a long tradition of misinformation and myth about so-called benefits of the procedure.

Circumcision, which was originally used as a method to curb masturbation for religions that frowned upon it, was given credit for curing endless ailments. When scientific data disproved it, suddenly it cured something completely different. Even the medical science of today (AIDS studies and whatnot) hardly show any significant difference between infections in circumcised men and intact men but the medical community still like to tout it as the "miracle cure."

Unfortunately, most of us tend to have a kind of "blind faith" when it comes to doctors. They're the ones with the medical degrees, so they should know what's best, right? Well, not necessarily. Most of their curriculum seems to be based on traditional practices and methodology, which is probably why we see so many "Why did my doctor retract my intact son?" threads on this board. It seems like they just don't know what to do with an intact penis.

Although I wish it were illegal here in the US, I don't think it will ever be. Luckily, thanks to the Internet and countless anti-circ sites, I believe intactivism is on the rise and circ rates are on the decline. It will eventually fall to a low percentage, but first it must overcome the agenda-driven biased medical community, and the egotistical fathers that were circumcised and don't want to accept the reality that something bad was done to them.
post #3 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by larzanna View Post
Hi:
I don't normally post here, but do lurk sometimes.
I have a 10 month old intact son, and at the time that was a REALLY hard decision (it was a "look" thing, but finally came down to it being HIS decision)
Anyway, SO glad i left him alone, he is perfect! So i guess now i am a...timid intactivist.....

I am starting to take care of a baby for childcare....he is cut
I changed his diaper for the first time and it looked, just.....so red, and....sad
I know I'm ignoring your question (I'm in Canada in the province with the lowest circumcision rate) but I just wanted to respond to this because I can relate. There was a time when I was pro-circ because I liked the way it looked (on an adult) and I believed some of the health arguments. Then I saw a little boy with a cut penis and it just looked so sore and so wrong on a child that age (I believe he was a year old already). So I also became a timid intactivist. However, it's not much of an issue around here due to our low circ rates.
post #4 of 25


I wish it was illegal, too. Surprisingly, I've seen a lot of talk popping up against the MGM bill. I wonder if these people spoke out against the FGM bill when it passed. I love to spread awareness and provide information on this topic, but that doesn't mean we need to waffle about protecting babies from MGM.
post #5 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by larzanna View Post
Hi:

Do you think this will ever be illegal here?(USA) Or at least illegal to do it to infants?

-L
I pray it will be illegal to do to infants, adults can choose to make body modifications if they so desire.
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaesun's Dad View Post
ultimately I still think that the right to decide one way or the other should still lie with the parents.
Although I was circ'd at a time when the parents weren't even asked (60's), my guess is that, living in the circ happy midwest and a time of the Doctor-as-God, they would have consented. Who got the botched penis with three corrective surgeries? It wasn't my parents. I may have been in their care for a few years, but in the overall picture I've had to live with this wreck a heckuvalot longer. My only consolation is a negative one; they didn't get any grandkids from me. Boys with ignorant parents deserve the protection of the law just as much as girls do.
post #7 of 25
I never get the thing about parents newver being asked in the 60's. I was in a LTR with an intact man that was born in 1960 in Chicago.
post #8 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
I never get the thing about parents newver being asked in the 60's. I was in a LTR with an intact man that was born in 1960 in Chicago.
DH was circed in the 80s w/o consent.
post #9 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
I never get the thing about parents newver being asked in the 60's. I was in a LTR with an intact man that was born in 1960 in Chicago.
I'm sure it varied from place to place, but in many instances they did not even ask. It wasn't until a court case (early 70's I believe) that they made the signed consent forms a standard practice.

Some did escape the knife. I had a friend in HS, just one year older than me, who remained intact because he was very premature when he was born. His mother died within a year of his birth and his dad just never got around to having it done since he never had any issues with it.
post #10 of 25
I agree with you that there was variation from place to place. I wasn't denying that there were circs without consent, just the general census I often hear and see that consent was rare or never happened.

What I've noticed is that the men from my generation ( I am in my mid 40's) that were from cultures where intactness was the norm managed to come home from US hospital births intact. The first generation Americans made sure their kids were not circ'd. My previous boyfriends parents were from the Caribbean and of Latino descent. He was born in 1960 in Chicago and he and all his male siblings were intact. My best friends husband is Italian American and same with his family. Same with the Greek men I've been friends with. My own husband was adopted in LA in the 50's and the adoptive parents made the decision. How did they all manage to keep their kids intact and so many other American boys didn't? That is the question.

Regardless I have a hard time with the assumption that it was always routinely done everywhere.
post #11 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
How did they all manage to keep their kids intact and so many other American boys didn't? That is the question.
Obviously some did manage, but I think they tended to be the exceptions. Maybe it's a location thing? I'm in Illinois, but "downstate" rather than Chicago....and worlds apart in many ways. I know many people coming out of the ethnic communities you mentioned who also ended up with cut sons. I'm in the same generation (mid 40's) and know few who escaped the cutting, and even fewer among those who were born locally. I'd never say it was 100%, but before they were required to get signed consent it was darn close.
post #12 of 25
my three brothers and i were born in chicagoland from 1967 - 1973, and none were circumcised. my dad was against it, and i'm sure proactive about making sure it wasn't done. probably that was the difference -- if it was done generally without consent during that time, someone who made a big deal out of not doing it, could prevent it being done.

to the OP: i know what you mean; i think circumcision on a tiny infant "sexualizes" his penis, and thereby looks very weird.
post #13 of 25
I believe that most of the men born in the '60s who managed to escape the hospital with intact genitalia did so with the help of their pro-active parents. I know a doctor, long since retired, who practiced in Canada back then and he told me that "they circumcised all the little boys, UNLESS THE MOTHER HAD SERIOUS OBJECTIONS". In other words, unless the mother was savvy enough, or bold enough to confront the doctor and argue with him, then the poor child lost his foreskin.
post #14 of 25
my DH was born in OK in 1977 and his parents made a choice. He was cut. My little brother was born in FL in 1988 and it was done without consent. My parents were planning a bris, so it was going to be done anyways, just not in that way.

I think it all depends on whether or not the parents ask questions. I'm not saying that parents that don't are ignorant, but some people stop and think "wait a minute... I have to do what?"

I sit for a cut boy just a week younger than my DD. I apologize to him quite often while changing his diaper for what his parents did. His has many problems with it, too. He's had two readhesions in the 7 months I've had him during the week. Most recently his scar was red and inflamed and oozing pus. I don't know if there was too much skin left, but it can sometimes cover almost half of his glans. Poor baby.
post #15 of 25
I don't think it should become illegal. You can't be completely reliant on the laws to tell you right from wrong. I'd rather that people understand that it isn't necessary. Although it takes longer, it's more effective in the long run.
post #16 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by larzanna View Post
Hi:
I have a 10 month old intact son, and at the time that was a REALLY hard decision (it was a "look" thing, but finally came down to it being HIS decision)
Hello! I'm afraid I don't have an answer to your question, but I do have a question of my own if you don't mind. When you say "HIS", are you referring to your DH or your son? If it's the latter, how did he decide and how did he communicate his decision to you?

LOL, I just have this mental image of you holding up two pictures in front of him - one of a circumcised man and one of an uncircumcised man and whichever one the little guy gestured to was his decision!
post #17 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by RheaSilva View Post
Hello! I'm afraid I don't have an answer to your question, but I do have a question of my own if you don't mind. When you say "HIS", are you referring to your DH or your son? If it's the latter, how did he decide and how did he communicate his decision to you?

LOL, I just have this mental image of you holding up two pictures in front of him - one of a circumcised man and one of an uncircumcised man and whichever one the little guy gestured to was his decision!
When people on TCAC refer to his body, his decision, they are reffering to allowing the baby to grow up and make the decision for themselves. An adult making the decsion to circ is very different than RIC, which we do not support at MDC.
post #18 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RheaSilva View Post
Hello! I'm afraid I don't have an answer to your question, but I do have a question of my own if you don't mind. When you say "HIS", are you referring to your DH or your son? If it's the latter, how did he decide and how did he communicate his decision to you?

LOL, I just have this mental image of you holding up two pictures in front of him - one of a circumcised man and one of an uncircumcised man and whichever one the little guy gestured to was his decision!
Yes, meaning my son's penis and my sons decision when he comes of age to do whatever he wants to it.
nope, he didn't point to a picture ha ha that would be funny!
post #19 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arduinna View Post
I never get the thing about parents newver being asked in the 60's. I was in a LTR with an intact man that was born in 1960 in Chicago.
I think they usually asked...for a given definition of "asked". My mom was handed a form and basically told "sign here". She asked what it was, and didn't know what "circumcision" meant. When they explained, she was horrified, and refused. But, I'm sure a lot of people just signed it, yk? They consented, but didn't really know what they were consenting to...which is another issue, in and of itself.
post #20 of 25
According to my dh's parents, no one asked. Dh and his older brother were born in 1969 and 1973, overseas, in military hospitals. It never occurred to my IL's that they had a choice.

I'm in the camp that it should be illegal without the child's consent. I guess that would have to apply to other things too, so it would get very sticky, wouldn't it? What about children who's parents have them undergo cosmetic procedures, such as ear pinning (I know that's an outdated term)...or limb-lengthening? Or parents whose choose to separate healthy conjoined twins? It really is a can of worms...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Just changed my first cut baby :(