Bigger, Longer, and Uncut

I don't know if a lot of people are paying attention but when people talk about cosmetic surgery I always smirk and grimace a little. It's a loaded subject, no? There are a lot of people who would probably love to do it. You know, bigger boobs = better sex = happier life! Isn't that how the equation works? Or there's the, look younger= look better= happier life line. I think a lot of people subscribe to these kinds of ideas but there's also a little bit of a social stigma. She may look great in a bikini but the minute people find out they're fake it's as though her value instantly depreciates. Cheap ho. Materialistic. Shallow. Low self worth. For me I just think it's kind of sad. People put so much value on outward appearances that I feel like no one is paying attention to any other part of human beauty anymore. I fantasize about places inhabited by old men like Chilean poet, Pablo Neruda, where women become sexier with age because they are buoyed by life and the elixir of experience. To have a history with a woman, a feeling of knowing... Someone to dance with on the veranda to an old tune that's infused with memory... This seems so much sexier to me than big, giant titties.

But I digress, there's another kind of cosmetic surgery that I'm usually bristling about when people bring up the subject and it's the kind that we do to baby boys. Circumcision was finally in the news this past winter with shocking reports that the procedure can prevent HIV. The December 24, 2007 issue of Time headline read "Circumcision Can Prevent HIV." The magazine even honored the news by awarding the claim the top spot on it's annual list of "medical breakthroughs."

My God! Parents across the world must have been thinking either with fear or with relief. Thank goodness my son is circumcised, now he won't be at risk of contracting HIV. Phew! Or, Oh Hell, I've put my son at risk by leaving him intact. I was driving on the interstate when I heard the story on NPR and I have to admit my heart raced a little. We've left our dude intact and plan to with any future sons we may have. I think it's one of the best decisions as a mother I've made and I try to let as many parents know that I meet that we did NOT circumcise our son. We love his little elephant trunk of a penis and cringe every time we see little cut baby penises. It's so sad. They look shockingly exposed like naked baby birds in the cold. But here was the media, flashing a medical study claiming to prove that circumcision could reduce the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 53 to 60 percent.

I took pause, however, because the study from Africa seems too damn good to be true. If circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV by over 50 percent then reason would lead to believe that heterosexual men in the United States would have some of the lowest infection rates. We have one of the highest rates of circumcision (and are the only Western country to cut the majority of infant boys) so the spread of HIV in the US is low, right? Wrong, we have one of the highest rates of HIV infection.

Circumcision has always been promoted with a cup full of fear ever since the medical community in the 1800s started promoting it as a way to reduce masturbation which was thought to cause disease. Since then it has been a catch all used to guard against the scariest diseases of the day. In the 1800s masturbation, in the 1960s during the sexual revolution it was touted to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. More recently it has been pushed as a shield against urinary tract infections (which are extremely rare in men anyway), and cancer. All of the above, then, should be rare in a country that has had circumcision rates as high as 85% in 1965 to the current rate of around 56% and falling.

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1971 that "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period." In 1999, the most recent statement was issued in which the Academy summarized: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child." (author's emphasis) I am critical of this statement because it reeks of the kind of bureaucratic powerlessness that plagues so many organizations that are supposed to help us navigate the ocean of science and opinion. Leave it up to the parents. I am grateful to have a choice but I'm disturbed that so many choose a nonessential procedure they would never consider for their daughters. Why should our sons be any different?

Education is the way to prevent the spread of HIV and stop AIDS, not foreskin amputation.

(and yes, that's my little baby Miles. cute, oui?)