Admittedly I am not from a place where circumcision is widely practised on infants, and was surprised to learn just how common it is in the USA. And common enough that even doctors can give incorrect information about circumcised penises, and how to care for uncut male children.

For example, the foreskin is fused until puberty (or around that time). That means that it literally cannot be easily pulled back from the penis- think of the attachment between the nail and the nail bed. This means that cleaning it only requires wiping the outside. Eventually, the attachment breaks down, and the foreskin can be pulled back, and the child is going to be the one to discover this, being fully aware of what will hurt and what will move.

Sometimes, however, doctors will give advice telling parents that they need to retract the foreskin and clean underneath it, or even retract it themselves during medical check-ups. This definitely doesn’t need to happen, and will likely cause pain and infection by exposing the glans and introducing bacteria to what is essentially inside the body.

To quote from that linked page:

Teaching youthful and trusting parents that their boy needs aggressive hygiene at each bath helped to market circumcision as it implied amputation might free the parents of this yucky task, unpleasant for them; painful for their son. Better, goes the argument, the immediate acute pain of circumcision rather than periodic pain inflicted by parents over the years. And when the forcible retraction by parents did cause UTI, or scar tissue, or adhesions, phimosis, or other infection, it was easy to blame the parents for inadequate hygiene or failing to choose circumcision, the ‘sensible’ option, to begin with.

It’s worth noting that forced retraction is not practised in countries where circumcision is less common.

Other benefits for circumcision are also much disputed, if not baseless. It’s a practice that has been around for much longer than the claims defending it (interestingly, I believe it was popularized in the USA to try and curb male masturbation) and, honestly, countries where circumcision is rare are not overwhelmed with infection, penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases.

I don’t believe choosing to circumcise their son makes somebody a bad parent, or abusive, or ignorant, or whatever. It’s more of a cultural thing than anything else, whether that culture is of a country or a religion. It also doesn’t mean that those who are cut are therefore mutilated or ruined or anything like that. To those who are cut and who like their body, I’m glad. To those who are uncut and like their body, I’m glad. To those who are uncut and wish to be circumcised, the option is there for them. To those who are cut and wish that they weren’t, it’s not so simple.

uncutting (NSFW) is a good blog for information on the slow process of foreskin restoration, but as well as that it answers any questions you might want to ask about circumcision and the like, as well as body positivity for all kinds of genitals! Which is nice. Adding that it’s NSFW for both text and image content.

Finally: yes, you are completely right! As the law stands, whether your (male) child is circumcised or not is entirely your choice as a parent. I would only request that anyone who has that choice looks into the benefits for and against, and whether uncircumcised penises do indeed have the problems that you want to avoid.

(I’m sorry for reblogging with yet more Opinions on this blog, which is not what it’s for. I will stop now, and leave everyone to their own things! At least I left the more morally bumpy ground of abortion alone)