september mama

i've been spending some time looking into the statistics for due dates (for spontaneous, not induced, labor) in an effort to make a guess about when the squirrely girl will be born.

looks like the breakdown is consistently something like this:

37 weeks - 5.69%
38 weeks - 14.36%
39 weeks - 21.56%
40 weeks - 32.44%
41 weeks - 14.65%
42 weeks - 3.40%
43+ weeks - 0.13%

the problem i am (still) having is that is that i really, really think she was conceived the day before my period, which would make me two weeks further on, according to 'due date calculations.' doesn't mean she'll be born two weeks early, of course, so it kinda confounds the whole thing.

then i just read a study saying that the average white first-timer will give birth 274 days after ovulation, which i assume is the method the OBs are using b/c that puts me at may 11 if i got pregnant when they think i did.

i know--i need to get over it and let it go, because i can't control it anyway--i realize that, and i'm not looking to control anything, i'm just really curious! i want to know when she will be here. more than that, i think i want to know if i am right about my conception date.

blah. "the waiting is the hardest part."

edit 3/2/09:

on looking at the moon phase calendar i have singled out a few super-likely dates. i think i got pregnant just after the 8/3 new moon, so this will be an experiment to see if she is born during the same phase as i think she was conceived, albeit 10 cycles later. the other probable (and medically assumed) conception date of 2 weeks post-menstruation puts her smack on the full moon cycle.

new moon date: 4/26 (and 5/25)
full moon: 5/11

i'm still vaguely aware of the lingering "may day" possibility, but considering these strong lunar influences right around her due date i'm not sure that will happen. unless her will power is reeeeally strong!

edit 3/25/09:

at my mother blessing, in a moment of "automatic writing," i placed my bet on april 28th as her date. i don't know why.

i am, quite frankly, surprised to see this. are people coming to their senses?

"The report found that, in the U.S., too many healthy women with low-risk pregnancies are being routinely subjected to high-tech or invasive interventions that should be reserved for higher-risk pregnancies.

...[L]ow-cost, beneficial practices are not routinely practiced for several reasons, including limited scope for economic gain, lack of national standards to measure providers' performance, and a medical tradition that doesn't prioritize the measurement of adverse effects, or take them into account."

well ain't that just hitting the nail on the head!

i noticed i never wrote that post on circumcision that i was planning on. i guess now is as good a time as any (odd since i'm having a girl, but whatever).

as a non-disclaiming disclaimer: i am not going to pad my words in this post. this is what i really think, and it's a subject about which i have spent a lot of time thinking, and i feel very strongly about it. i'm going to say what i want to say, and without intending to offend anyone, i'm sure i will. i'm sorry about that--i promise i am not judging YOU or your personal decisions, i am only sharing MY feelings on the matter. on a similar note: i STRONGLY believe in parental rights, so alas, it is the parents' choice what to do with their helpless offspring; one hopes the parents have enough compassion to be open to the best interests of the child, but if not, it is their right to decide nonetheless. i do not believe in any state or federal intervention between parents and children unless abuse is apparent (the legal definition of "abuse" then becomes the problem, but that is a whole other issue that doesn't need to mix itself up in here).

so off we go... on circumcision.

"...an intact body is a universal human right." NOHARMM.org

opening question: would you circumcise your daughter? then why your son? it. is. the. same. thing.

we take a perfectly healthy infant and remove a functioning part of his body. a part that he would--by all accounts--be better off for having, both physically and emotionally.

first of all, WHY?
historically, we are told the reasons for circumcision are basically hygienic. we have been taught that uncircumcised penises are dirty, dangerous, and difficult to care for. medical research shows that none of the above are true; the most common problem with intact foreskin later in life is "phimosis," which affects 2% of intact males, on average, and can be treated almost 99% of the time without surgery. so the fear that "it will have to be done later anyway" is medically unfounded. the idea that uncircumcised men spread STDs more easily has also been disproven. as for difficult to care for--please. even if it were true, which it isn't, are we now using laziness as a good reason to perform unnecessary surgeries on infants?

in fact, almost all circumcisions are performed for religious or cultural reasons; i.e., conformity of the child to the "norm" to which the parents are accustomed. i can't find the link now but i read (many times in various places) that women who were polled and said they were more likely to circumcise their sons admitted it was because of THEIR OWN SEXUAL PREFERENCE. part of the poll was also to ask whether they had been with an intact male or not--those who had were less likely to have their sons circumcised. that's what you call fear of the unknown; thus, the "cultural" reasons for most circumcisions. it's bad enough that most are done out of ignorance--the idea that women are molding their sons' bodies based on their own sexual ideology borders on twisted. what right would a father have to give his daughter breast implants because it was HIS preference in women?

in the 1800s and 1900s circumcision was performed (almost exclusively) as a means to curb the prevalence of masturbation in children. yes, the reason most men in the US are mutilated is because of the victorian mass-hysteria and fear of sexuality which literally altered the perceptions of the medical community through the 1920s and on.

Dr. E.J. Spratling, who promoted this surgery by telling his colleagues that "...circumcision is undoubtedly the physician's closest friend and ally..." prescribed in 1895 the method of circumcision as it is practiced in hospitals today.

"To obtain the best results one must cut away enough skin and mucous membrane to rather put it on the stretch when erections come later. There must be no play in the skin after the wound has thoroughly healed, but it must fit tightly over the penis, for should there be any play the patient will be found to readily resume his practice not begrudging the time and extra energy required to produce the orgasm... We may not be sure that we have done away with the possibility of masturbation, but we may feel confident that we have limited it to within the danger lines."
(E.J. Spratling, MD. Medical Record, Masturbation in the Adult, vol. 48, no. 13, September 28, 1895, pp. 442-443.)

doesn't that make you feel good? today's medical practice is informed by a bunch of erotophobes with the misperception that masturbation made people sick and degenerate. mutilation of the body was considered an appropriate response to "dangerous" (natural human) behavior. and here's a telling gem:

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement."
(John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., "Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects," Plain Fact for Old and Young. Burlington, Iowa: F. Segner & Co. (1888). P. 295) [yes, like kellogg's cereal. that's him.]

so the POINT is for it to be painful and traumatic, in order to create lasting associations between sexuality and pain, with pleasure as a bad, scary, and ultimately traumatic experience. you are bad for wanting that, and you will be punished. if you have been circumcised, the punishment is lifelong. (by the way, carbolic acid is phenol, the numbing agent in chloraseptic spray. why numb the girls and mutilate the boys? it doesn't make sense...)

the american association of pediatrics has stated as of 1999:

"Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision [emphasis mine]. In circumstances 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. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision."

when you have babies, if you haven't already, let me know if you are presented with "accurate and unbiased information" (or any information whatsoever) on circumcision before they ask you on delivery day what you want to do. if they ask at all.

some physical consequences of circumcision, or What Is Lost
1. The frenar band of soft ridges--the single most pleasure producing zone on the male body. Loss of this densely innervated and reactive belt of tissue reduces the sensitivity of the remaining penis to about that of ordinary skin.

2. Approximately half of the temperature reactive smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.

3. Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system.

4. An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.

5. Between 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture. This loss includes thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called the Meissner's corpuscles - the most important sensory component in the foreskin.

6. Estrogen receptors the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.

7. More than 50% of the mobile penile skin, the multi-purpose covering of the glans, that shields all of the specialized penile skin from abrasion, drying, and callusing (by keratin cell layering), and protects it from dirt and other contaminants. The debilitating sexual consequences of keratinizing the glans have never been studied. [this is when the head of the penis becomes more callous--less sensitive--over time in reaction to constant exposure and stimulus with clothing]

8. The immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mothers milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.

9. Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system.

10. The frenulum, the very sensitive "V" shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; usually amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, which destroys its functionality.

11. The apocrine glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheromones—nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioral signals to potential sexual partners. They contribute significantly to sexuality. Their loss is unstudied.

12. Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.

13. The essential "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin measures about 15 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating mobile skin gives the natural penis its unique hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" in and out within itself—permitting natural non-abrasive masturbation and intercourse, without drying out the vagina or requiring artificial lubricants.

14. The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans, normally an internal organ, like the tongue.

15. A significant amount of the penis circumference because its double layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis defectively thinner than a full-sized intact penis.

16. As much as one inch of the erect penis length due to amputation when the connective tissue is torn apart during "circumcision." This shared membrane tightly fuses the foreskin and the glans together while the penis develops. Ripping it apart wounds the glans, leaving it raw and subject to infection, scarring, and shrinkage.

17. Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery. The loss of this dense vascularity interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, obviously damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its complete and healthy development.

18. Every year boys lose their penises altogether from botched "circumcisions" and infections accidents happen. They are then "sexually reassigned" by transgender surgery and must live their lives as females.

19. Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of medically unnecessary circumcisions. The cause of these deaths are a fact the billion dollar per year circumcision industry willfully obscures and conceals.

20. Although not yet proved scientifically, there is considerable new evidence that an incomplete penis loses its capacity for the subtle electromagnetic "cross-communication" that occurs only during contact between two mucous membranes, and which contributes to the perception of sexual ecstasy. In other words, medically unjustified foreskin amputation of boys ultimately diminishes the intensity of orgasms for both men and women!

"The fundamental biological sex act becomes, for the circumcised male,
simply satisfaction of an urge and not the refined sensory experience
that it was meant to be."
Falliers, C.J. Circumcision. Journal of the American Medical Assn., vol. 214, 1970, pp. 2194-2195

(i don't know about you, but i mourn for our men. it makes me SO SAD to think what they have lost--and what we have lost through their loss--and can never get back. deep down i feel this is truly an explanation for much of the difference between men and women's expressions of sexuality. circumcised men have no choice but to be rougher, less sensual, and more to-the-point... their equipment is irreparably damaged and dulled, ON PURPOSE. removing the most sensual part of someone's body is unforgivable and at least equivalent to the rape of a virgin... the most intimate thing, both in concept (as pleasure) and material (as flesh), stolen before he even knows what it is or what it means; and he will never get it back. there is no justification for that in my eyes.)

i cannot even begin to address #18. it is true--look it up yourself.

a few other issues to consider
so. there is no proven medical reason to circumcise babies routinely. and just knowing what it does to them physically, there should be no religious or cultural reason good enough to override that.

for a long time (and even still, sometimes) doctors told parents "babies don't feel pain" because their memories are not developed enough. i'm sure that would make me feel better, watching my newborn son screaming--and in some cases they stop breathing from shock--and betting on the fact that it's ok because 'he won't remember it.' except i know already that my still-womb-bound daughter recognizes my voice, so she must have a memory, mustn't she? mothers report a loss of bonding attachment and difficulty breastfeeding after circumcision (still searching for that link), and if we think for a moment from the infant's perspective, even if it is a purely emotional one: your mother, your world, has failed to protect you in the most basic way. your body has been violated and mutilated. you are in pain; you are no longer whole. would you continue to trust mother to protect you any longer? would you trust anyone ever again? perhaps this is why so many men harbor unconscious rage towards their mothers... as Marilyn Milos, Founder and Director of NOCIRC says, "Circumcision is where sex and violence meet for the first time."

maybe your son will come to resent the decision you made for him when he was a helpless child (assuming he is even aware of it). according to a 1996 study, "among the 46% of men circumcised in infancy with a definite opinion about their genital condition, the ratio of happy to unhappy men was 50:50. The ratio of men happy to be intact versus those who were unhappily intact was 31:1 (97% vs. 3%). The lowest satisfaction rate was observed in those circumcised in infancy."

"I'm left with a sense of impotence and powerlessness and a fear
about the power of others to hurt me grievously." NY/1930

i hope people bother to wonder what men think about their circumcisions before doing it to their own babies.

by the way i didn't really go into the many (many) ways that a circumcision can be botched, permanently scarring the man in minor to major ways--plenty of which he might never realize are the result of the procedure, and not a "natural defect" in his body. here is a site with photos and links to more.

conclusion
if you go through the links i put in this text you will find a universe of information from doctors, lawyers, researchers, men, and even women on both sides of the fence. do what you have to do, but do it with a fully informed conscience so that if you are ever asked by your child, "why did you do that to me?" you can answer with more than, "uhh..." seriously. we are talking about amputation, after all.

for me the only truly important question is, "whose body is it?"

and then suddenly a bit of timeless wisdom from my grandmother's refrigerator pops into my head:

if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

*sigh*

i'm sorry, i don't like this book. i got 10 minutes into browsing through it and was bored and frankly put-off by the almost-creepy "breastfeeding is the holiest of holies" attitude just barely hidden under the surface.

i have said before i have NO intention of using formula or bottles for any of my future children, but that doesn't mean i have to secretly worship lactation or spread the divine word of the breast in my free time. and of course, i appreciate all la leche league does in the world, they are educators and counselors and support for millions of women and that shouldn't be discounted... but let up a little. i felt like i was reading propaganda.

i do believe in "too much of a good thing" so maybe that is where this attitude of mine stems from, or maybe i have been a little bit influenced by pop media myself, but i feel like there is a point at which the obsession with breastfeeding becomes something a little creepier than just mama-feeding-baby-naturally. anyway i've already mentioned how i *personally* feel about extended BF (no way) so i'm probably just repeating myself on a similar tangent here.

sure, there was good advice for what to do about engorgement, plugged ducts, etc, but you can find all that online without the hoo-ha it's surrounded by in the book.

i guess i was a little bit offended(? is that it?) by the attitude taken in the book that breastfeeding is THE ULTIMATE in being a mother... as if pregnancy and delivery and years of nurturing pale in comparison to the simple act of feeding the baby with your body... and i just think that's ridiculous. true, i have yet to experience it, but come on. seriously? not every woman who formula-feeds has bonding issues. not every woman who breastfeeds is a good mother. but they really seemed to present it that way, and i found it disturbing and completely illogical. i'm sorry but 18+ years of caring for and loving someone (not to mention 9 months of sharing a body!) mean more than a scrawny 6 months of intimate physical contact, hormones or not.

...and if it doesn't, we have more problems as a species than i ever thought imaginable.

ok scratch the previous format, i just want to jabber:

i hated this book. really, i hated it. i don't think anyone should read it, though *perhaps* everyone should have access to it for when they want to verify their worst fears or get a few facts on this procedure or that one. as a book to actually sit and read, it's terrible and does nothing but create fear and prepare you to experience all kinds of "symptoms" (as if pregnancy is an illness).

i think it was the first one i sat down with and already at that point i knew it was a waste of my time... for one thing, if you are not going the conventional prenatal care route, it is mostly irrelevant information.

(hmm i think i am in a confused mood--all i want to say is "it's stupid" and quit this post... weird...)

um. so. yeah. don't read it. it doesn't empower women AT ALL--it was written for perpetual "patients," those consumers of health care who keep the system running. anyone who thinks for herself either 1) already knows everything it has to say, or 2) can find the same information in better, more well-rounded sources.

last night i had a crazy dream!

i decided i needed to take the baby out of me for a minute, so (somehow, it's not really clear) i got her out and put her on the bathroom counter of my old house, still inside the amniotic sac and everything... she was not really human-looking because she was so underdeveloped, all slimy and pink and gross... and i was looking at her and saying "wait her heart isn't beating" and that's when i realized the cord was broken. so i freaked out and held the two pieces together and right away her heart started pumping again and everything was fine... except it was spilling fluids a little bit since i couldn't get a perfect seal.

so i sat there holding it and wondering how i was going to fix it, and thinking "how i am going to get her back into my belly to finish growing?" and it became very clear that it was a terrible idea to take her out in the first place. i had no idea what to do because she definitely wasn't ready yet. then the dream changed.