I've been confronted several times in the past few weeks (and many many more times in the past few years since my son was born) regarding an issue in which I have a strong opinion which flies in the face of the majority of the citizens in this country (and many others).


Circumcision.


I refused to do that to my son, and I honestly am of the opinion is a form of genital mutilation and has no place in a civilized society (outside of medical necessity, of course). I am incredibly glad I researched it in depth before I gave birth... had I not, my son would have fallen in line with the masses who are cut to 'look normal'.

"Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know." -Michel de Montaigne

As a parent who isn't a fan of circumcision, avid breastfeeding supporter, and anti-spanking -- i'm obviously not popular in the parenting circles in the south.

I don't openly chastise those who have chosen to do it, but I am a huge advocate of educating yourself on the issue instead defaulting to the social norm. I've been asked many times why I stand firm on this issue, but I think the more appropriate question is: "Why would you want to take a scalpel to your sons genitals, unless it was a medical necessity?"

I've gotten a few answers.

1) It looks better. Pure aesthetic purposes.

I have to wonder if they'd also strap down their daughters and give them boob jobs when they find out they're going to be flat chested? After all, we need our kids to look 'perfect'...

2) Hygiene.

My answer: teaching your son how to clean his frank n' beans regularly and correctly will eliminate the need for you to put him under the choping block. Lazyness is a pretty crappy excuse.

3) The AIDS studies in Africa

I'd like to point out a little known fact: in the industrialized world, the U.S has both one of the highest rates of circumcision (somewhere in the 80% range. compared to the ~30% globally) but ALSO has the highest rates of HIV/AIDS. Not to mention the mass differences in the culture, hygiene standards, prevalence of STDs, sexual practices, etc.

I have to pose this in retort to the AIDS 'link' --> if you're alright with circumcicing a boy to perhaps slightly decrease the risk of contracting HIV in the future, would you also be willing to extend that to female circumcision if it were to show there was a slight decreased risk of a STD? I'm guessing most wouldn't, which would beg the question why they'd use this excuse and not consistently follow across the gender lines.


I have genuine curiosity as to what rationale goes through a parents head when they decide this is a "good" thing to do.
Instead of being told that I am "psychologically scaring" my son for life by not having this procedure done on him, that I am dooming him to lonely sex-less adult life because women don't like the way it looks, and that I increasing his risk of illness (something that could be discussed on its own for pages) because I don't modify his anatomy at birth... I'd like a straight forward honest answer.