Circumcision Blurb in Mothering Mag

[*Erin*]

I can't put my hands on my issue right now, but i just remembered this and really wanted to talk about it. in this month's issue, there is a little paragraph, tucked at the bottom of a page, and it's about circ. it says that men who are uncirced have a slightly higher chance of having stds( ithink), and that circed men are more likey to be gay. period. no explanation of what that has to do with anything. it left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. are we supposed to infer that having a gay son is bad?? seriously? and that if we leave our sons intact, they have a higher chance of coming out straight???like gay is a disease we're avoiding? or does it imply that gay men have more stds? because there were no facts to back that one up either. that one little unchecked bit of homophobia, or whatever it was, has really made me think critically about the mag.
did anyone else notice this, or know what im talking about??

[mamaroni]

I think I'm looking at the paragraph to which you're referring. . . page 30.

It says that a new study shows that circ'ing will NOT protect against STDs. (It was a British study.) The last two sentences say "Circ'd men were slightly more likely to become infected that intact men. compared with intact men, circ'd men were more likely to report having had homosexual partners."

Is that what you're referring to?

the fine print cites the following: www.cirp.org/library/general/dave1

[georgia]

I was curious---since I wasn't very fond of this issue, and wasn't sure why, thought I'd check it out.....

It's on page 30, and it says:

"Circumcision Doesn't Pay

Many parents believe that circumcising their sons will protect them from sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), but a new study says it isn't so. The large study investigated British men across diverse ethnic and social groups. It failed to validate claims made in the US and the developing world that male circ. is associated with a reduced rate of STDs. In fact, the reverse may be true. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to become infected than intact men. Compared with intact men, circumcised men were more likely to report having homosexual partners."

I don't read anything into that other than what it states. There's also a link provided in the magazine--maybe checking that out might ease your mind. I guess I'm not seeing the implied homophobia? The study's stats really are just that to me---each person can infer what they want. That's what so frustrating about stats and research......like who is paying for the research and what do they
*want* to find??? I just don't think MM intended to imply anything on this.

[Meiri]

Some of the myths about circumsion were that it prevents STD, and I'm willing to bet that it prevents gayness, since it was definately promoted way back when as a way to stop masturbation.

What that blurb is doing is blowing holes in those old myths (which did treat both masturbation and gayness as badthings) with science, in the form of that British study.

It's a goodthing. Really.

[*Erin*]

thanks for posting that. its been on my mind. what does this sentence compared with intact men, circ'd men were more likely to report having had homosexual partners." have to do with this one Circumcised men were slightly more likely to become infected than intact men ???
i mean, why put that in there? what's the reasoning?

edited to add

Some of the myths about circumsion were that it prevents STD, and I'm willing to bet that it prevents gayness, since it was definately promoted way back when as a way to stop masturbation.

you may be right, but why not say that in the blurb?
that wouldve been great.

[Meiri]

Comparing behavior with results?

[mamaroni]

Originally posted by georgia
I was curious---since I wasn't very fond of this issue, and wasn't sure why, thought I'd check it out.....

I don't read anything into that other than what it states. There's also a link provided in the magazine--maybe checking that out might ease your mind. I guess I'm not seeing the implied homophobia?

I wasn't that fond of this issue either!

And, I also didn't read any implied homophobia into the blurb.

oh, and the link to which you refer is in my post above.

[*Erin*]

i read the link-thanks for posting that. my problem is still that they just threw that last sentence on there and didnt quantify it. they left it wide open for interpretation. not everyone is going to read the links provided. and actually, the page that summarized the study didnt say why it mattered or was pertinent that intact men are less likely to be gay. : what is one supposed to make of that finding? yk? it's a little stinky to me.

[wrensmom]

Erin,
I'm with you. The sentence seems random. I just think it was poorly written.
It left me thinking. . . hummm?

[somemama]

It didn't bother me at all. Only the crap in other parenting magazines bothers me.


And, just curious, for those of you who were bothered, does that have anything to do with the state of your own son's penis? (intact or circ'd.)

[wrensmom]

I have a daughter. No circ there. On a side note, if I did have a son he would be remain intact.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally posted by Meiri
I'm willing to bet that it prevents gayness, since it was definately promoted way back when as a way to stop masturbation.

Meiri, I'll take your bet and give you 10:1 odds. Homosexuality is a state of mind. It has nothing to do with the organ. It is an attraction to the same sex. It doesn't mean they don't use their organs or that they don't get sexual pleasure from their organs. They are mentally attracted to the same sex and sexually stimulated by the opposite sex and that's all in the brain.

It has been known that circumcised men partake of a wider variety of sexual stimulations for almost 90 years but they do it with their preferred sex, male or female and circumcision or intactness is not going to affect that. You might say they don't cross the street to try out the other side.



Frank

[LavenderMae]

Frank, I took Meiri's post to mean that she bets at one time circ was promoted to prevent boys from becoming gay, that parents were told circing your son will prevent him from becoming gay. Not that she thinks it does. Just like circ was supposed to prevent masturbation.

[Mothra]

It bothered me because anything that is homophobic bothers me. I think there should be a certain amount of social responsibility in the media, which is why we criticize the "mainstream" mags, and there was none displayed in that little blurb.

Circumcision has nothing to do with homosexuality. Nothing. It is irresponsible to imply, or directly state, otherwise.

[Mothra]

A few more things-- using falsehoods to promote anything takes away from the credibility of valid arguments. Also, if we take everything that comes from Mothering and other "alternative" sources simply because they come from "alternative" sources, that is no better than taking what comes out of Parenting as gospel.

I was deeply, deeply dissappointed by that remark. I started a thread about it when I got the magazine. I am embarrassed because I just got a few friends subscriptions to the magazine-- one of whom is a gay woman.

[kama'aina mama]

I had a very different take on it. For one thing having a same sex partner does not mean you are gay. They did not say "more reported they were gay" simply that more reported having same sex partners. For a variety of reasons male/male sex is higher risk for a variety of STD transmissions than male/female sex. So, when I read that what I took away was 'despite engaging in statistically riskier behavior, intact men STILL had a lower incidence of STD transmission.' And that strikes me as rather significant.

[cottonwood]

Erin, I agree. If they did mean to make the point that Meiri thought, it certainly wasn't made clear by the context. The only context given, actually, is that of the title of the blurb, "Circumcision Doesn't Pay." Whatever is in the blurb necessarily refers back to the title -- first, that this new study shows that circ'd men are more likely to have infections. So it would be reasonable to assume, if we're following any logical rules of writing, that whatever comes next (if unqualified) also is an example of how circumcision doesn't pay. "Compared with intact men, circumcised men were more likely to report having homosexual partners." So, in other words, one way in which circumcision doesn't pay is that circ'd men are more likely to be gay.

Context is everything.

But I have a VERY hard time believing that Mothering wished to make this point intentionally. I'm inclined to think that the writer wasn't thinking clearly and the editor missed it.

[cottonwood]

Kama, it was saying that it was circ'd men who were more likely to have homosexual partners.

[kama'aina mama]

Oh. Um. Maybe in the interest of full disclosure acknowledging riskier behavior could be the reason for the gap in STD numbers?


Hell, I give up!

[daria]

I saw that paragraph, and think it was intended more or less the way kama'aina mama suggests--that circumcising a boy isn't a preventive against engaging in risky sexual behaviors--but unless you really think it through it sounds like they are saying "leave your boy intact so he won't be gay!" And I know that is not the sentiment of Mothering so I think it's a shame that the writing and editing were a little sloppy on that piece.