Social Theory in the Blogosphere

*An addendum to this post has been added below*

I have a theory that I'd like to test. Bear with me here.

My sons are both circumcised. Why? Because Husband felt strongly about it, while I, not having a penis, did not. I imagine it had something to with the fact that his father had to undergo circumcision at an advanced age due to recurring bladder infections, and the resulting agony. But I didn't specifically ask. He said he wanted them circumcised, I said okay.

I got to decide pretty much everything regarding labor and childbirth, since the byproduct of our union was going to be dragged kicking and screaming from my tender and theretofore amazingly snug orifice and not his.

I decided on how they would be fed (Breast), how they would sleep (Sometimes co, sometimes solo) what kind of diapers they would wear (Are you kidding me?? Disposable. The End.) and whom their pediatrician would be. I selected all the baby paraphanalia. All of it.

Ergo, I felt that he deserved the privilege of making this decision. I wanted him to feel involved and relevant. I wanted him to know that I cared that he cared. So our boys were circumcised. And that was that.

I am not eaten up by guilt. I don't think they have been "butchered" or mutilated. I think their penii look just fine. I think little boys who have not been circumcised look just fine too. I don't consider one choice superior to the other. If for some reason they couldn't have been circumcised, it would have made very little difference to me one way or another.

The above statements are true, but I posted them for the sake of social science in the blogosphere. I want to see how much my page views increase when I post a juicy keyword and/or take a controversial stance on a hot button issue. And I want to see if my readership as a whole increases. If so, maybe I'll make a point to mention something controversial on a regular basis.

I'll let you know what happens.

Maybe some important people would be interested in my oh so scientificly sound study.

This could really lead to something.

Addendum for the reader who wondered why male genital "mutilation" is acceptable, while female genital mutilation is not:

Female genital mutilation really is mutilation in the truest sense of the word. In FGM, the clitoris is removed entirely, thereby rendering the female unable to achieve orgasm. (Unless she is one of the elusive few who experiences orgasm by pentetration alone. Frankly, I think that's a urban legend.) In circumcision, the glans is left intact, and only superfluous tissue (meaning that although foreskin does have a purpose, it is not necessary to achieve orgasm) is removed.