Ok, I know I'm becoming an annoying nag at this point so its the very very last think I will post on this subject for at least a year. This was just too shocking to not share.
http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents
Yearly Neonatal Death Rates (for boys)
44 suffocation
8 auto accidents
115 SIDS
117 circumcision
Granted, death rates, in reality, are probably about double for each of those other things because I'm assuming just about as many girls die from suffocation, auto accidents, and SIDS. Not many girls suffer circumcision complications. But the fact that just as many boys in this country die every year from their circumcision as from SIDS (a problem that has inspired countless TV ads and hospital hand-outs) makes me wonder why oh why oh why dont we hear about this?
Ok, I'm done for real this time.
Showing posts with label cicumcision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cicumcision. Show all posts
33% Sounds Like So Little But Also So Much
So according to this site: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/08/us-circumcision-rate-falls-to-33.html , which I'm admitting on the record is sometimes interesting and sometimes craaazy, the US circumcision rate for newborn boys was 33% last year.
I'd LIKE to believe that circ rates have gone down that far. I'd like to believe they've gone down even further. And everyone I've asked who has chosen to circumcise their son(s) has told me that the top reason they did it was in order for them to fit in, so it makes sense that once the numbers started going down they would REALLY start going down. I mean, at 33%, when they all grow up it would be the circumcised boys who would be considered "strange". Which is ironic if you think about it. It's like my poor mother who named me Courtney because she thought it was so original but then lo and behold every 4th little girl was named Courtney that year. Or rather the opposite of that.
And honestly 33% even sounds HIGH if I was to go off of my personal experience. I can only think of 3 boys I know under the age of 6 that are circumcised. And I know a lot of boys under the age of 6. But then again I live in Washington. And I know for a fact that this states rates have been under 25% for years and years. We are among the lowest circumcised in the nation.
But for some reason I'm still having a hard time believing that its 33% national. I'm not quite sure why. The medical "reasons" have all been debunked, a lot of insurance companies and most states wont pay for it anymore, it's officially classified as a cosmetic surgery at this point. All roads point to circumcision going down. But still the 56% that I read about two years ago when I decided to leave my own children intact seems more likely to be true.
So here is a question, especially for those of you living in other states, but really for anyone: Does 33% sound about right to you? Bear in mind that they are talking about NEWBORNS here, which may be the problem I'm running into. As I sift thru children in my acquaintance they are all older, when 56% WAS the current rate. Any labor and delivery nurses? Anyone around an unusual number of babies? Do you guys think only 1/3 of boys are circumcised these days? Or is Dr. Momma wishful thinking?
I'd LIKE to believe that circ rates have gone down that far. I'd like to believe they've gone down even further. And everyone I've asked who has chosen to circumcise their son(s) has told me that the top reason they did it was in order for them to fit in, so it makes sense that once the numbers started going down they would REALLY start going down. I mean, at 33%, when they all grow up it would be the circumcised boys who would be considered "strange". Which is ironic if you think about it. It's like my poor mother who named me Courtney because she thought it was so original but then lo and behold every 4th little girl was named Courtney that year. Or rather the opposite of that.
And honestly 33% even sounds HIGH if I was to go off of my personal experience. I can only think of 3 boys I know under the age of 6 that are circumcised. And I know a lot of boys under the age of 6. But then again I live in Washington. And I know for a fact that this states rates have been under 25% for years and years. We are among the lowest circumcised in the nation.
But for some reason I'm still having a hard time believing that its 33% national. I'm not quite sure why. The medical "reasons" have all been debunked, a lot of insurance companies and most states wont pay for it anymore, it's officially classified as a cosmetic surgery at this point. All roads point to circumcision going down. But still the 56% that I read about two years ago when I decided to leave my own children intact seems more likely to be true.
So here is a question, especially for those of you living in other states, but really for anyone: Does 33% sound about right to you? Bear in mind that they are talking about NEWBORNS here, which may be the problem I'm running into. As I sift thru children in my acquaintance they are all older, when 56% WAS the current rate. Any labor and delivery nurses? Anyone around an unusual number of babies? Do you guys think only 1/3 of boys are circumcised these days? Or is Dr. Momma wishful thinking?
Here She Goes Again
If you dont want to hear my opinion, you have my permission to go read something else. Josh and I are often amused by THIS. I have the somewhat guilty pleasure of reading THIS from time to time as well.
Now to your regularly scheduled post....
I read today about the american pediatric society possibly allowing female circumcision and have been pondering it all day. If you have never heard of female circumcision my friend Ivory provided THIS explanatory article on my facebook comment about this. For the nutshell version, however, it is the removal of part (or more rarely all) of a female's clitoris. Its been practiced for centruries and occurs in at least 28 countries today, including Egypt (90% of women) and Somalia (97% of women).
The stated reasons for female circumsison include religious significance, keeping girls pure (it limits sexual pleasure and in the most extreme cases completely prevents sex), that it makes girls more fertile, that it is cleaner, and most commoly that it is tradition, and that its necessary for peer acceptance (in cultures where circumsision happens in the pre-teen years many girls are eager to get circumsized since remaining uncut will cause them to be different and teased).
The reasons against include that it is against sexual freedom (again because it severely limits sexual pleasure), that it can cause infection and even sometimes be dangerous, that is is often performed without anesthetic, and that it is almost always performed without the girl's opinion in the matter.
For a long time now female circumsision (or how it has been recently dubbed female genital mutilation) has been illegal in our country. The american pediatric society, however, is considering allowing a small "nick" in order to pacify parents who otherwise would send their chidlren back to their home country to get a more full job done. Ivory commented that this idea is pretty bull, because any motivated parent is going to want to get the full deal. I accede to her logic but what is most interesting to me is the similarity to our own circumsision practices and yet the completely different feelings most americans are having about this.
A lot of what I'm reading on the net today are the opinion that this female mutilation is disgusting and either should nto be allowed at all, or should be allowed in this "small nick" capacity in order to stop a fuller job being performed elsewhere. People are very pissed at the APS and even more pissed that this female mutilation is in existance.
Yet, for jsut a second, think about this.
They want to circumsize their women because its religiously significant. For the Jewish, male circumsion is VERY religiously significant. For Christians....well Christians do it because they used to be Jewish and back then they did it.
They want to circumsize because it keeps girls pure. Male circumsision had its biggest growth in popularity in the late 1800's when it was thought to prevent masturbation (which of course leads to insanity).
They want to circumsize because it makes girls more fertile. Ok you got me there.
But also because it is cleaner. A HUGE argument for male circumsision. And I will even give you that up to a point its true. A circumsized boy has a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting a urinary tract infection in his lifetime. An intact boy's chances are 1 in 100 so greatly increased although its still only 1%. Although to be fair, 20% of circumsized boys will experience an infection because of their cicumsision.
And most importantly, the number 1 stated reason for female circumsision is because it is a CULTURAL NORM. They do it because they have always done it. Because it is just the way it is. Because they want their daughters to be just like their mothers, just like all the other girls. They are afraid of "lockerroom" teasing. Sound familiar?
Our form of circumsision also changes (and some studies say limits) sexual pleasure. Our form can also cause infection and be dangerous, its also performed sometimes without anesthetic (although this is thankfully less and less common) and almost always performed without the boy's opinion on the matter.
Im not really defending female cicumsision here. But I do think if you are one of those (and there are many of you) that support male circumsision up and down and left and right, but think that the female counterpart is disgusting and wrong...figure out why. How much of your disgust is because male cicumsision is "normal" and female isnt.
Because the only differences I see are the cultural ones.
In the name of full disclosure I think both female AND male circumcision is pretty disgusting, unnecessary, and even harmful. Both of our sons have remained intact and Josh and I strongly support our decision there. The question of whether either surgery should be illegal is a headache...and one that makes me very glad I'm not in charge of deciding such things. While allowing this "nick" could definitely garner some cultural respect and normality to bigger, badder, and uglier forms of female circumcision and I would really hate for that to ever happen.... Well at the same time I cant see how we can morally allow one (male circ.) and not the other (a female nick).
I'm very willing to hear your opinions on this.
Although I will say right now that I dont buy into the whole "male circumsision prevents STDS!" argument, so dont even try me on it. A. These studies are being performed by people with very serious investments in getting a good result...mostly christian organizations (and for reasons I dont know, christians are very invested in circumsision) and people that make a lot of money on circumsizing. Also, all these stories about how circumsized men in Africa are getting AIDS way less are really really bull. Circumsision is rare enough in Africa that the men that get one got it to prevent AIDS, and are therefor the men working in probably many ways not to get the disease. Also the study was repeated here in the US and found to have no similar results.
B. Ok, lets even say that it IS true and it does make your chances of contracting an STD slightly less...so what? With the prevalance of STD's these days (what was it I last heard? 2 out of 3 people in their 20's have one?) I dont really want my kids relying on their circumsized status to protect themselves.
Now to your regularly scheduled post....
I read today about the american pediatric society possibly allowing female circumcision and have been pondering it all day. If you have never heard of female circumcision my friend Ivory provided THIS explanatory article on my facebook comment about this. For the nutshell version, however, it is the removal of part (or more rarely all) of a female's clitoris. Its been practiced for centruries and occurs in at least 28 countries today, including Egypt (90% of women) and Somalia (97% of women).
The stated reasons for female circumsison include religious significance, keeping girls pure (it limits sexual pleasure and in the most extreme cases completely prevents sex), that it makes girls more fertile, that it is cleaner, and most commoly that it is tradition, and that its necessary for peer acceptance (in cultures where circumsision happens in the pre-teen years many girls are eager to get circumsized since remaining uncut will cause them to be different and teased).
The reasons against include that it is against sexual freedom (again because it severely limits sexual pleasure), that it can cause infection and even sometimes be dangerous, that is is often performed without anesthetic, and that it is almost always performed without the girl's opinion in the matter.
For a long time now female circumsision (or how it has been recently dubbed female genital mutilation) has been illegal in our country. The american pediatric society, however, is considering allowing a small "nick" in order to pacify parents who otherwise would send their chidlren back to their home country to get a more full job done. Ivory commented that this idea is pretty bull, because any motivated parent is going to want to get the full deal. I accede to her logic but what is most interesting to me is the similarity to our own circumsision practices and yet the completely different feelings most americans are having about this.
A lot of what I'm reading on the net today are the opinion that this female mutilation is disgusting and either should nto be allowed at all, or should be allowed in this "small nick" capacity in order to stop a fuller job being performed elsewhere. People are very pissed at the APS and even more pissed that this female mutilation is in existance.
Yet, for jsut a second, think about this.
They want to circumsize their women because its religiously significant. For the Jewish, male circumsion is VERY religiously significant. For Christians....well Christians do it because they used to be Jewish and back then they did it.
They want to circumsize because it keeps girls pure. Male circumsision had its biggest growth in popularity in the late 1800's when it was thought to prevent masturbation (which of course leads to insanity).
They want to circumsize because it makes girls more fertile. Ok you got me there.
But also because it is cleaner. A HUGE argument for male circumsision. And I will even give you that up to a point its true. A circumsized boy has a 1 in 1,000 chance of getting a urinary tract infection in his lifetime. An intact boy's chances are 1 in 100 so greatly increased although its still only 1%. Although to be fair, 20% of circumsized boys will experience an infection because of their cicumsision.
And most importantly, the number 1 stated reason for female circumsision is because it is a CULTURAL NORM. They do it because they have always done it. Because it is just the way it is. Because they want their daughters to be just like their mothers, just like all the other girls. They are afraid of "lockerroom" teasing. Sound familiar?
Our form of circumsision also changes (and some studies say limits) sexual pleasure. Our form can also cause infection and be dangerous, its also performed sometimes without anesthetic (although this is thankfully less and less common) and almost always performed without the boy's opinion on the matter.
Im not really defending female cicumsision here. But I do think if you are one of those (and there are many of you) that support male circumsision up and down and left and right, but think that the female counterpart is disgusting and wrong...figure out why. How much of your disgust is because male cicumsision is "normal" and female isnt.
Because the only differences I see are the cultural ones.
In the name of full disclosure I think both female AND male circumcision is pretty disgusting, unnecessary, and even harmful. Both of our sons have remained intact and Josh and I strongly support our decision there. The question of whether either surgery should be illegal is a headache...and one that makes me very glad I'm not in charge of deciding such things. While allowing this "nick" could definitely garner some cultural respect and normality to bigger, badder, and uglier forms of female circumcision and I would really hate for that to ever happen.... Well at the same time I cant see how we can morally allow one (male circ.) and not the other (a female nick).
I'm very willing to hear your opinions on this.
Although I will say right now that I dont buy into the whole "male circumsision prevents STDS!" argument, so dont even try me on it. A. These studies are being performed by people with very serious investments in getting a good result...mostly christian organizations (and for reasons I dont know, christians are very invested in circumsision) and people that make a lot of money on circumsizing. Also, all these stories about how circumsized men in Africa are getting AIDS way less are really really bull. Circumsision is rare enough in Africa that the men that get one got it to prevent AIDS, and are therefor the men working in probably many ways not to get the disease. Also the study was repeated here in the US and found to have no similar results.
B. Ok, lets even say that it IS true and it does make your chances of contracting an STD slightly less...so what? With the prevalance of STD's these days (what was it I last heard? 2 out of 3 people in their 20's have one?) I dont really want my kids relying on their circumsized status to protect themselves.
All packed up
I am all packed up and ready to go to Idaho for Thanksgiving, or jet-set as I like to say...I don't know where I got that...
Anyways, I am super stoked. Seriously. I am. And I should be decorating the house for Christmas so that it will look all nice when I get back home but Zeke is taking a late nap and I don't want the noise in the closet to wake him. We where at Kait's a bit too long today probably, oh well, it happens. And it was worth it because Molly, Zeke's girlfriend and also Kait's daughter, gave him a big fat kiss. Seriously people, we didn't even tell her to! She did it of her own accord. I am glad they are listening to their mommies and falling in love but a little worried at how young they are doing it. Maybe those two should slow down!
PS Haha Kaitie, I blogged it first!
Also, as many of you know, because this comes up surprisingly often, Josh and I decided not to give Ezekiel a circumcision when he was born. We had many reasons for this decision and did a LOT of research, and we haven't regretted it for a second. Quickly put we just felt that the medical reasons to circumsize didn't really hold (and neither did the medical reasons to NOT circumsize), I knew from experience with other small boys that it wasn't "dirtier" or harder to clean, and neither of us wanted to do something, especially a painful surgery, just because everyone else does it. Not that everyone else does, I was surprised to find out how many of my friend's children aren't these days.
Anyways, I wasn't actually planning on getting into that decision or my reasons for it although I'm happy to discuss it with any of you. What I wanted to segue into was this reply to one of my ulitmate fav. blogs/bloggers and hero about this same subject. I never thought of it this way and found it so interesting.
...Something that I didn't see brought up on your comments was female circumcision (FGM) [I am fairly certain this stands for Female Genital Mutilation, am I correct?]. This practice is common all over the world. There are varying types I through III. Type III includes removal of clitoris, labia minora and majora, then sewing the vaginal opening, leaving a very small opening the size of a matchstick. I have assisted in delivering babies from women with type III circumcisions, and it was not pretty. Not to mention all of the other health problems it causes. We lived in a city that was predominately Somali. The State Department sites that 90% of Somali women have been circuited and that 80% of these circumcisions were Type III. I have spoken with many Somali women about their circumcisions over the past 5 years. They cite reasons such as, "girls will become prostitutes if we don't stop their sexual drive", "if you don't cut the clitoris it will keep growing until it's hanging down between their legs". It has also become a convenient way for women to prove their virginity before getting married. It's interesting to note that it is the older women who keep this tradition going and the #1 reason for circumcising is simple to them.... "It's the most beautiful". It's how they look, and they want their daughters to look the same. [I find this such a frightening parallel to male circumcision in the U.S.: circumcising boys without their consent because it is the way their fathers look and it is the most "beautiful" (or normal, or acceptable, or common, or least different, or usual) way for boys to look in this country. Should that alone be reason to continue this practice in our country?? Should that be a reason to continue FGM of girls in other countries!?]
This really got me thinking about my cosmetic reasons for wanting to circumcise my son, and how dangerous that line of thinking can become. [I believe that "line of thinking" has perhaps become a trap for American parents regarding male circumcision as well.] Somali women would even suggest that because we circumcise our males, it should be fine for them to circumcise females. Although there is no comparison to the degree of mutilation that it causes, I am happy to be able to report to them that we haven't circumcised any of our children, male or female. [Certainly male circumcision is much less extreme than the female circumcision spoken of here. However, regardless of the difference in extremes, I drew a huge parallel between these two and the reasons both have been carried out as long as they have.]
I of course dont want you to think that Im suggesting any of you with circumsized boys have mutilated them, or even that circumcision is a bad choice. Your choice, as long as you chose it, is the right choice, if that makes sense. I just found this so interesting that I had to share.
Anyways, I am super stoked. Seriously. I am. And I should be decorating the house for Christmas so that it will look all nice when I get back home but Zeke is taking a late nap and I don't want the noise in the closet to wake him. We where at Kait's a bit too long today probably, oh well, it happens. And it was worth it because Molly, Zeke's girlfriend and also Kait's daughter, gave him a big fat kiss. Seriously people, we didn't even tell her to! She did it of her own accord. I am glad they are listening to their mommies and falling in love but a little worried at how young they are doing it. Maybe those two should slow down!
PS Haha Kaitie, I blogged it first!
Also, as many of you know, because this comes up surprisingly often, Josh and I decided not to give Ezekiel a circumcision when he was born. We had many reasons for this decision and did a LOT of research, and we haven't regretted it for a second. Quickly put we just felt that the medical reasons to circumsize didn't really hold (and neither did the medical reasons to NOT circumsize), I knew from experience with other small boys that it wasn't "dirtier" or harder to clean, and neither of us wanted to do something, especially a painful surgery, just because everyone else does it. Not that everyone else does, I was surprised to find out how many of my friend's children aren't these days.
Anyways, I wasn't actually planning on getting into that decision or my reasons for it although I'm happy to discuss it with any of you. What I wanted to segue into was this reply to one of my ulitmate fav. blogs/bloggers and hero about this same subject. I never thought of it this way and found it so interesting.
...Something that I didn't see brought up on your comments was female circumcision (FGM) [I am fairly certain this stands for Female Genital Mutilation, am I correct?]. This practice is common all over the world. There are varying types I through III. Type III includes removal of clitoris, labia minora and majora, then sewing the vaginal opening, leaving a very small opening the size of a matchstick. I have assisted in delivering babies from women with type III circumcisions, and it was not pretty. Not to mention all of the other health problems it causes. We lived in a city that was predominately Somali. The State Department sites that 90% of Somali women have been circuited and that 80% of these circumcisions were Type III. I have spoken with many Somali women about their circumcisions over the past 5 years. They cite reasons such as, "girls will become prostitutes if we don't stop their sexual drive", "if you don't cut the clitoris it will keep growing until it's hanging down between their legs". It has also become a convenient way for women to prove their virginity before getting married. It's interesting to note that it is the older women who keep this tradition going and the #1 reason for circumcising is simple to them.... "It's the most beautiful". It's how they look, and they want their daughters to look the same. [I find this such a frightening parallel to male circumcision in the U.S.: circumcising boys without their consent because it is the way their fathers look and it is the most "beautiful" (or normal, or acceptable, or common, or least different, or usual) way for boys to look in this country. Should that alone be reason to continue this practice in our country?? Should that be a reason to continue FGM of girls in other countries!?]
This really got me thinking about my cosmetic reasons for wanting to circumcise my son, and how dangerous that line of thinking can become. [I believe that "line of thinking" has perhaps become a trap for American parents regarding male circumcision as well.] Somali women would even suggest that because we circumcise our males, it should be fine for them to circumcise females. Although there is no comparison to the degree of mutilation that it causes, I am happy to be able to report to them that we haven't circumcised any of our children, male or female. [Certainly male circumcision is much less extreme than the female circumcision spoken of here. However, regardless of the difference in extremes, I drew a huge parallel between these two and the reasons both have been carried out as long as they have.]
I of course dont want you to think that Im suggesting any of you with circumsized boys have mutilated them, or even that circumcision is a bad choice. Your choice, as long as you chose it, is the right choice, if that makes sense. I just found this so interesting that I had to share.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)