From: potts@oit.itd.umich.edu (Paul Potts)
Newsgroups: misc.kids,soc.men,alt.atheism,alt.sex.wizards
Subject: Re: A few facts about circumcision
Date: 22 Dec 1992 18:07:33 GMT
Organization: Instructional Technology Laboratory, University of Michigan
NNTP-Posting-Host: helen.oit.itd.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec19.172939.18506@newstand.syr.edu> kgatling@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Keith E Gatling) writes:
>In article <1glhqeINNi59@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> potts@oit.itd.umich.edu
>(Paul Potts) writes:
>
>   > What they really mean is that Daddy doesn't want to admit to
>   > himself that he is the one who is "different" by virtue of
>   > genital mutilation...  and is willing to inflict the same
>   > treatment on son to justify it.
>
>Let's try this one more time...I *don't* consider myself to have been
>mutilated, and I'm actually *glad* that I *am* circumcised.  I'm also glad
>that it was done so early in my life that I have no memory of it, and as a
>result, intend to do the same if our child is a boy.
>
>So now...what do you have to say to a person who intends to have his kid
>circumcised because he looks at his circumcision as *an advantage*?

I've gotten a lot of personal mail messages about my original posting.
Most of it I didn't reply to because the messages contained some sort of
personal insult. It seems I've struck a nerve with this idea. The phrase
that comes to mind is Shakespeare's "methinks he doth protest too harshly."
(I may be misquoting, but what the hell).

If any parent on the net wants to get their boy circumcised, I certainly can't
stop them, and wouldn't presume. But, I would urge parents to carefully
consider the safety and necessity of this procedure. I am skeptical of
*many* of the medical profession's common ways of dealing with birth and
newborns; why should circumcision be any different? Look at the way that
most parents perceive the birthing process now versus the way they 
perceived it 25 years ago. In another 25 years routine circumcision will
probably be considered a barbaric anachronism. Your child will be 25
years old, like I am now, and wondering why this was done to them.

Among my earliest memories are memories of going to a doctor multiple
times to be treated for a swollen, purple, infected circumcision scar.
My penis is pretty normal now, but the area below and around the glans
is largely scar tissue - inflexible, dry, and easily irritated, like
a rubber band constricting the glans. When I become sore from sex, the
circumcision scar is invariably the only part that becomes sore. I'm
pretty well convinced that if I had a foreskin intact, I would be able
to engage in sex longer without becoming sore, and not wincing half
the time when my partner plays with my penis a little too roughly.
Now, I'm not a genital cripple, and enjoy my sex life, but feel that
perhaps it could be a little bit better with original factory equipment.

A lot of men are likely to become flippant and say "oh, you're just
whining" or "get over it." Well, I don't spend all my time griping
about my circumcision. It's a little thing (was literally at the time...)
but a rather personal thing. And so, my point of advocacy: don't
perpetuate this rather bizarre practice, founded in a religious tradition
and mostly unnecessary in a modern culture of cleanliness and reason.
Sure, if there is some problem with the foreskin of your son, get it
taken care of. But, as was pointed out, why routinely do something that
only enriches the medical establishment? I certainly wish that I had
mine to play with; in another 25 years, your son might be thinking the
same thing. Will you be able to justfify your decision then?
 


-- 
Politics is crime pursued by other means.              
potts@oit.itd.umich.edu      CI$ 71561,3362 (rarely)
Newsgroups: misc.kids