The Genital Mutilation Thread

[SuperFemme]

I think as mothers we are pretty much forced/shamed into complying with doing the circumcision on our male babies in the hospital. It's not like the OB/GYN discusses it with you during pregnancy.

It's not like they even discuss it with you in the hospital. They wait until you are all worn out from giving birth and then they come in the room and shove a consent form in front of you and tell you to sign it. You are never encouraged not to circumcise or told that it is not medically necessary. Think about that. It's a cosmetic procedure being done on a little life that is hours old. Elective. One out of every 500 circumcisions results in a serious complication. About 4 out of 100 are either considered unsatisfactory or result in some sort of complication.

“Some children end up with adhesions and/or skin bridges which can impede hygiene and actually precipitate infections.” The most common complication is the removal of either too much or too little skin. This may not become apparent until years later. Many circumcised adults complain that too much skin was removed. This can result in painful erections and bowing or curvature of the penis. Other common results not always noticed until later include extensive scarring, skin tags, and bleeding of the circumcision scar.

Yet there is little to no consultation beforehand. So while I understand that male circumcision is nowhere near the same a FGM it is a serious issue and one that keeps getting swept under the rug.

[Heart]

Originally Posted by SuperFemme

I think as mothers we are pretty much forced/shamed into complying with doing the circumcision on our male babies in the hospital. It's not like the OB/GYN discusses it with you during pregnancy.

I agree. This was basically my experience. It was never raised or discussed in terms of health pros or cons by anyone prior to my giving birth. Once it was discussed I was in the immediate aftermath of labor (I did not know ahead of time that I was having a boy). I signed the papers. It seemed like the "normal" thing to do. I remember being told it was "healthier," I remember my mother saying, "all Jewish boys are circumcised," and my husband, who was not Jewish, was also circumcised and he wanted our son to be as well. (Yes, he did want the baby to "look like him," I distinctly remember that part of the conversation").

What bothers me the most when I think back on it was that I was not present when it was done. Because I was not religious, I did not have a Bris at home. It was done in the hospital while I was still in recovery. I hate that I wasn't there with my baby and that he went through that alone.

Heart

[SuperFemme]

Originally Posted by Heart

I agree. This was basically my experience. It was never raised or discussed in terms of health pros or cons by anyone prior to my giving birth. Once it was discussed I was in the immediate aftermath of labor (I did not know ahead of time that I was having a boy). I signed the papers. It seemed like the "normal" thing to do. I remember being told it was "healthier," I remember my mother saying, "all Jewish boys are circumcised," and my husband, who was not Jewish, was also circumcised and he wanted our son to be as well. (Yes, he did want the baby to "look like him," I distinctly remember that part of the conversation").

What bothers me the most when I think back on it was that I was not present when it was done. Because I was not religious, I did not have a Bris at home. It was done in the hospital while I was still in recovery. I hate that I wasn't there with my baby and that he went through that alone.

Heart

YES!

There is cultural significance in my community regarding the procedure and I too let my son be carted off to another room to have it done in a cold and clinical setting.

I feel like I let him down in more than one way. I also feel that having a mother make that kind of decision after labor and delivery is irresponsible and disrespectful to the mother. IMO it takes away a degree of choice.

[Jett]

I think the distinction as far as one being "mutilation" and the other not has a lot to do with the intent and results. Mutilation is defined as something that damages form or function of the human body to the detriment of the person experiencing it.

Although circumcision sometimes can result in botched surgery, it's done often with beneficial results in mind and usually ends up that way. Whereas FGM is not a "therapeutic" procedure, more aptly disfiguring and can result in permanent loss of ability to derive any sexual pleasure for life.

Both are questionable and worthy of discussion, but just in the context of "mutilation" FGM certainly strikes me at a core level as a more barbaric harmful practice in the long term.

Metro