Circumcision Ban

[BethK]

And does circumcision hurt? Ever see one done to a baby?

You can see one at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk

If it "doesn't hurt", why is the baby screaming?

Beth

[Jax]

No I wouldn't let people suffer, I would agree with circumvision on medical grounds, but just for tradition is disgusting.

Oh, alright. Perhaps I got the wrong assumption because of the way you worded your posts.

Surely genital mutilation is a change to the sexual organ. So I think I am correct in circumcision being genital mutilation. If I'm wrong I apologise. But how you can say 'it's just extra skin' is a bit silly.

Alright, I admit, I was stupid for saying "extra skin". But still, circumcision can also bring benefits, as well as non-circumcision.

[Rayaan]

Male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved. Male circumcision may provide an important way of reducing the spread of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa. (Preliminary and partial results were presented at the International AIDS Society 2005 Conference, on 26 July 2005, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.).

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info...ed.0020298

Mass circumcision to fight Aids: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6730261.stm

Aside from the potential benefits and risks (whatever they may be), I've been told that circumcising a Muslim male is primarily aimed to improve his cleanliness.

[Cinjin]

An interesting thread.

I wrestled with the decision when my son was born because both sides of the argument seem to have valid points. I eventually decided to go ahead with the procedure, but I have always wondered if it was the right decision. I did demand to meet the surgeon who did it. She went over the procedure that she has done thousands of times, and explained the benefits.

You have to remember that these factors went into my decision:

1. I sure as hell didn't have it done because of religious reasons. Obviously.
2. I'm reasonably sure the medical doctors didn't do it for their own religious reasons either.
3. The medical doctors at our particular hospital informed me of such things as Paraphimosis and UTIs and how they are much more prevalent in third world countries. This may have been a scare tactic, but it worked. I didn't go to med school ... I have to assume that doctors know what they're talking about.
4. My dick works fine and I've never had any complaints with it or about it. Sex feels pretty god damn good to me.
5. Two of my friends are uncircumcised and both admitted to being very embarrassed in the HS shower room cause "theirs was different". They also further reported that they were extremely hesitant to have a woman perform fellatio on them because they didn't want them to be "grossed out".
6. My uncle had a circumcision when he was 20 because he was so worried that a woman would "freak out" at his "different looking" penis. This may very well be an American thing, since circumcision is so very common here, but since I live in this country - I have to consider the fact.


My point is, I didn't authorize it because it would look better or because god wants it that way or because his dick needs to look like mine.
I did it because I honestly believed at that time that I was doing the best thing for my son. The term genital mutilation sure as hell didn't even cross my mind. I love that boy more than anything on this planet and I wanted to spare him any unnecessary future heartache.


Is it wrong? I still don't know, but don't think for a moment that the parents who have authorized this action are doing it because of some stupid religious reason. I would dare to say that the majority of parents, at least in the US, are doing it because we are told it is best for the child in the long run. Whether that's true or not, I do not know, but until the medical community establishes a clear and overwhelming side to the argument, you can't blame a parent for making what he/she is told is the right decision. Especially when you consider that many of us men have no problem with the results of circumcision in our own lives.

[eric209]

5. Two of my friends are uncircumcised and both admitted to being very embarrassed in the HS shower room cause "theirs was different". They also further reported that they were extremely hesitant to have a woman perform fellatio on them because they didn't want them to be "grossed out".

I belive this could have been remedied with the parents of those friends having open talks about sex and their bodies more. They could of explained their reasons as well as told them that even in the United states they are not alone by any measures. I believe talking with your children very openly can and will help with many issues surrounding adolescence as long as the the child in question has always been spoken to with such frankness. A child raised very modest will not like a sudden change in openeness.

--------------

I was circumcised at the age of 7 or so. It was done without my knowledge as i was being put under to have testicular torsion corrected. My parents wanted the procedure done to me when I was an infant but I was born too premature or something along those lines.

I never masturbated or anything beforehand or in the near future after that but I can say that immediately after the bandages were removed the glans was super sensitive to even my underwear rubbing against it. It felt like needles and razors. So I can imagine that sex would of felt much better had the skin on the glans not thickened which didn't take very long maybe a few days if I recall correctly.

As a secular humanist with personal experience I would not circumcise any sons I have. I still have disagreements with my wife over this issue but she is pregnant with our first child and the fetus is female so we have time yet to discuss it further.

[Cinjin]

As a secular humanist with personal experience I would not circumcise any sons I have.

And I for one respect that decision. You do for your children what your life experiences have taught you to be the best for them.

[eric209]

I dont think its a big deal to circumcise but i dont think the risks are worth it.

http://children.webmd.com/tc/circumcision-risks

When the biggest gains are aesthetics (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) and not having to clean it as a often.

I also support your choice in doing it although I would encourage you to rethink it before doing it again if given another choice.

[tackattack]

Why hitchens made such a big stink about levity yet added his own joke to teh conversation, prior the the nobel remark is beyond ridiculous to me.

To call circumcision genital mutilation is intellectually irresponsible, borderline disingenuous. We all know the horrible stories behind forced female genital mutilation.Mutilation has a serious connotation to it. I bet if the proponents of the anti-circumcision movement were instead to call it genital modification. Many people do this on their own like prince alberts, clit piercings, penis tatoos ,etc. This is just another form of expression. In this case it's religious expression, but I agree that it should be an informed decision.

[Rwandrall]

Unlike what Hitchens (who i otherwise love) said, there is no conclusive evidence to show that the reason that ancient people made circumcision a practice did so because they did not want their children to have pleasure when having sex.

Genital mutilation in girls, a horrible, barbarous practice, is done because women were (and often still are) seen as "inferior" and as "mothers".

But it has been proven that circumcision in men DOES provide some health benefits. Yes, risks too, but there are some benefits nonetheless.

When the Bible bans shellfish, it does so because some primitive people ate shellfish and got sick. Not because those who wrote it wanted their children to not experience the pleasure of eating shellfish.

In my eyes, the people who made circumcision a practice likely did so because they thought it would make the penis cleaner, and as such it would make it more protected against ailments, and this is a reasonable idea.

Not everything is all black or all white...

[BloodyHeretic]

Nobody is saying one can't do it at all. All I'm saying is it must be consented to and and 8 day old baby does not in any sense give their consent to it. Some of the recent comments are to do with wanting what's best for children. With respect, I don't think it's a parents decision to make whether or not their child has surgery on their genitals when it's not necessary. Sure, when they're in a position to give informed consent, let them go ahead and have it done, but it should be their decision.

Tackattack says it's another form of religious expression. You do not have a right to religious expression when it affects other people very seriously, in this case, it affects them to about one foreskin.

Genital mutilation in girls is for precisely the purpose of dulling sexual pleasure. Women are 'baby factories', they don't need sexual pleasure getting in the way of reproduction. After all, what if they are as prone to unfaithfulness as we men are? What's the solution, oh yes, let's cut off their clitoris.

Cinjin, points 5 and 6 on your list are matters of aesthetics and attitudes. That women are grossed out by a penis in it's natural state, is just weird. That's what it's supposed to look like after all. Being Irish the situation is opposite, most are not circumcised. Nobody seems to have any problems with it here. If it's just a case of being accepted, do we really have a right to take a knife to our children's genitals? If they want to do it, when they're at an age to make an informed decision, let them, by all means.

When the bible institutes circumcision, it doesn't mention any health benefits, it merely says it's an outward sign of the abrahamic covenant, something Jews should do to show their faith. Tribal emotions basically, all 'insiders' have no foreskin, all 'outsiders' have one.