[a_dub]

Stillness, I am aware of why some religious groups do it, and that those groups are more prevalent than any other in the US, but I know plenty of folks who are not religious in the least who are nothing less than zealous about circumcision. That's the part I don't understand, the cultural obsession above and beyond religion.

I think it's a little funny that even a ritual prick of a female infant's genitals is considered FGM legally, but forcibly separating the glans from the foreskin and then removing the foreskin of a male infant is a tradition to protect. Obviously, this isn't funny "ha-ha," but instead quite out of balance. If RIM is going to continue to be an option for male children because of religious reasons, then the same needs to be available for other religions and other genders. If it's ok to do to a boy, it's ok to do to a girl, right?

FGM and circumscision are different in a few important ways. Firstly, male circumcision is not as radical as female. In the female an entire organ and often multiple organs (clitoris + labia) are removed. In the male its a small part of a single organ who's function remains intact. Secondly male circumcision offers many benefits such as lower risk of penile carcinoma and its easier to clean - not cleaner, but easier to clean. Well actually it is naturally cleaner since there isn't any smegma to begin with. The third thing is its just a heck of a lot more common and thus "normal" whereass FGM is practiced by a much smaller and endemic population.

Circumcision of the male isn't all that traumatic - my father was done when he was like 10 or so without anesthetics and he didn't complain much about it. I was done at age 7 by a urologist in the United States with a general anesthetic and the only trauma was 1) the very first leak I took burned like **** and 2) the glans was super sensitive so I had to walk around naked for a few days.

[Magnetism]

I don't see the difference. But, some uncircumcised guys say that rubbing over the foreskin hurts?

[Hugo-B]

I don't see the difference. But, some uncircumcised guys say that rubbing over the foreskin hurts?

If my foreskin kinda 'works its way' back exposing my glans then even my cotton underwear rubbing against it is very uncomfortable because of how sensitive the glans are. Circumcision will de sensitize them obviously. I hope that makes sense?

[Hugo-B]

FGM and circumscision are different in a few important ways. Firstly, male circumcision is not as radical as female. In the female an entire organ and often multiple organs (clitoris + labia) are removed. In the male its a small part of a single organ who's function remains intact. Secondly male circumcision offers many benefits such as lower risk of penile carcinoma and its easier to clean - not cleaner, but easier to clean. Well actually it is naturally cleaner since there isn't any smegma to begin with. The third thing is its just a heck of a lot more common and thus "normal" whereass FGM is practiced by a much smaller and endemic population.

Circumcision of the male isn't all that traumatic - my father was done when he was like 10 or so without anesthetics and he didn't complain much about it. I was done at age 7 by a urologist in the United States with a general anesthetic and the only trauma was 1) the very first leak I took burned like ******** and 2) the glans was super sensitive so I had to walk around naked for a few days.

Good post

As previously mentioned, my only issue with male circumcision is it being done to babies who cannot consent since it is irreversible.

[CHANDLERS WISH]

We would just like to remind people, sometimes things touch your beliefs, personally.

We value "opinons" and that is what this Forum is about.

Personal beliefs followed by attacks as such, are not welcome.

We suggest if this thread touches a core, that you " ignore" the thread and do not answer.

Topics such as this are interesting and the weight of opinions answers the OP's question. Which is the purpose.

My personal thoughts are, I understand hygiene and religion.. I am not sure personally if I would do this to a child.. That is my opinion.

CW

[Little]

A_dub: arguing that RIC and FGM are different because of the severity of the removal is, again, a difficult argument because FGM is not always as severe as the instances of FGM you're describing. The World Health Organization identifies three different levels of mutilation. I mentioned this graphic before, but evidently it needs to be brought to the thread.
fgm_types.jpg
Level one looks a whole lot like routine male circumcision, supposing that no part of the clitoris is removed. Is that level of mutilation still mutilation? According to US law and my opinion, yup. But my argument in the post you've quoted is that, if it's legal and culturally okay to do something to a boy, it should be legal and culturally okay to do an analogous action to a girl. If it's not, then clearly there's something unbalanced. There could be some arguments against legislating FGM selectively, like that leaving certain levels of FGM legal would make it difficult to enforce the law and make it easier for parents who want levels 2 or 3 done to get it done. But I reject the idea that it's simply okay to cut off a boy's foreskin, particularly in infancy when that foreskin is fused to the glans, removal requires forcible separation that will cause scarring on the glans and affect the individual's sexual pleasure in the future, and the individual being operated on can't consent ... when it's absolutely NOT okay to even make the tiniest of cuts, to even prick the genital skin of a girl.
On the other hand, if an adult woman wants to take out her clitoris and inner labia, then sew her outer labia together, she should be able to do so. It's not the act of removal that I disagree with, but the circumstances. In your case, by age 7, you could at least have reasonably understood that a surgery was going to happen. Your foreskin would also probably have separated from the head of your penis, making your circumcision less traumatic to the remaining tissues than it would have been if it were still fused (unless your surgery was for some problem, in which case, my bad.)

If the argument for RIC at birth is that the older child or adult must be spared pain, how does a_dub's experience affect the argument? If circumcision is going to be a cultural "requirement" of sorts, how would waiting the few years between birth and foreskin separation affect the rate of circumcision? Naturally, this would not include religious circumcision, since I'm pretty sure there are strict temporal requirements for it. Would circumcision rates drop if adults had to make the decision about their own circumcision upon reaching the age of consent? And if so, what does that say about the relatively high rate of infant circumcisions in the US? (32.5% of baby boys were circumcised in 2009, down from 56 percent in 2006, but still much higher than Canada's 9% in 2005. Numbers are harder to nail down for the UK and Australia, but even the estimates are lower than the US's current rate.) Why are parents in these countries making different decisions concerning their children's genitals? Does it have something to do with their medical care, or maybe the people giving it?

[ItsASecret]

Why are parents in these countries making different decisions concerning their children's genitals? Does it have something to do with their medical care, or maybe the people giving it?

I think a lot of has to do with "what is everyone else doing?". If it is relatively common to circumcise they may just follow along. Parents may honestly have it also come down to future thinking, "what if my boy is considered different because he still has foreskin compared to other guys meaning men and women would make fun of him". Something like that would affect some parent's decisions because parents can come up with any amount of justification for their choices. If I have a boy in the future I am still not sure what I would do, religion plays absolutely no role in my life other than to avoid it so that would have no bearing in my choice but my bf is not circumcised so I would take a lot of input if not all from him because he has first hand experience of still having foreskin.

[Hugo-B]

We would just like to remind people, sometimes things touch your beliefs, personally.

We value "opinons" and that is what this Forum is about.

Personal beliefs followed by attacks as such, are not welcome.

We suggest if this thread touches a core, that you " ignore" the thread and do not answer.

Topics such as this are interesting and the weight of opinions answers the OP's question. Which is the purpose.

My personal thoughts are, I understand hygiene and religion.. I am not sure personally if I would do this to a child.. That is my opinion.

CW

I am not circumcised, so I am a complete prick

[Stillness]

It's Mutilation

I agree now. Partially because of this thread and one of the wonder-if-I'm-a-lesbian threads, my view has changed. I want to share a couple of things I picked up.

The first was actually because of something I looked up for the other thread about pheromones. Circumcision removes glands that make them. The subconscious effects they have in human reproduction is not fully understood. What is known it that it plays a role in attraction, arousal, and mood alteration. I read about some speculation that female arousal may be hampered because of the lack of penile pheromones. So even if a woman consciously prefers a circumcised penis, her body may not respond as well to one. I want to stress that this is speculation, but I don't think it's unfounded.

The second thing is a little more complex and biblical. I know not everyone here is a Christian and quoting the Bible is not well received around here, but I promise that what I'm about to say is relevant and has a payoff, especially for the American members who want to shut up their Christian friends and relatives. I've mentioned a couple of times on this thread that my dad was circumcised because of spiritual reasons. I was his firstborn. Biblically, the firstborn has a lot of spiritual significance I won't bore you with, but he dedicated me to God. He also gave me the name of the first High Priest of Israel. This probably influenced his decision to circumcise me.

We know that certain elements in our society love to claim that America is a Christian nation. And, while there are people from all religions that circumcise, the largest segment of the population circumcising their babies are probably professed Christians. Like my dad, somewhere in a lot of their minds is probably some spiritual significance attached to this tradition. This morning I was pondering the irony of that considering the history of Christianity when I came across a scripture that I've read countless times that I've never seen the way I did today.

Here's the irony (I'll try to make this brief. Bear with me. I promise a payoff.): In the ancient world, if you had wanted to attach yourself to the house of Abraham or the nation of Israel, as a man you would have needed to get circumcised. I think we know that to this day Jews still adhere to this traditionally. The Christian congregation was initially 100% Jewish and so 100% circumcised. So guess what the first major conflict was when Gentiles started to flock to the congregation? Yep, circumcision. Many believed that it was a requirement, so that Gentiles would need to be circumcised. This issue was taken to the fully Jewish, fully circumcised governing body in Jerusalem. Their unanimous decision was that circumcision was an unnecessary burden. They sent out letters to the congregations letting them know that them and God himself declared subversive any mandatory circumcision. This event and the letter they sent out is recorded in the Bible at Acts 15, so it's a part of the Christian faith. That's the ironic part, that in this "Christian nation" we routinely force circumcision on our sons when circumcised Christians fought tooth and nail against making it mandatory. It get's deeper.

I mentioned that they fought tooth and nail, because, not just at that time, but for years after the explicit mandate of the governing body some Jewish Christians wouldn't let this go. The most prolific penman of the Christian Scriptures, Paul, was also specially assigned by Jesus himself to the Gentiles. If you were to do a search for "circumcision" or "circumcised" in the Christian scriptures (meaning the "New Testament"), nearly every reference discussing it is him fighting against the idea. Judging by the frequency with which it was discussed it was at least one of the most (if not the most) heated topics in the primitive congregation. I wanted to give you all an example of a scripture and the first one I came across blew me away.

"Look out for the dogs, look out for the workers of injury, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are those with the real circumcision." - Philippians 3:2, 3 [emphasis mine]

When he says "real circumcision" he's referring figuratively to their hearts being receptive to God's will. (If it's not clear compare Deuteronomy 10:16 or Romans 2:29) So, when he speaks of 'mutilation' he's referring to literal circumcision. The Bible calls circumcision mutilation.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying it's unchristian to get a circumcision or to be circumcised. I'm just pointing out the irony for Christians to require that their sons have one, especially if they think it has any sort of spiritual significance to do so. Also, it absolutely changes the function - probably in ways we don't even understand.

[a_dub]

A_dub: arguing that RIC and FGM are different because of the severity of the removal is, again, a difficult argument because FGM is not always as severe as the instances of FGM you're describing. The World Health Organization identifies three different levels of mutilation. I mentioned this graphic before, but evidently it needs to be brought to the thread.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2539[/ATTACH]
Level one looks a whole lot like routine male circumcision, supposing that no part of the clitoris is removed. Is that level of mutilation still mutilation? According to US law and my opinion, yup. But my argument in the post you've quoted is that, if it's legal and culturally okay to do something to a boy, it should be legal and culturally okay to do an analogous action to a girl. If it's not, then clearly there's something unbalanced. There could be some arguments against legislating FGM selectively, like that leaving certain levels of FGM legal would make it difficult to enforce the law and make it easier for parents who want levels 2 or 3 done to get it done. But I reject the idea that it's simply okay to cut off a boy's foreskin, particularly in infancy when that foreskin is fused to the glans, removal requires forcible separation that will cause scarring on the glans and affect the individual's sexual pleasure in the future, and the individual being operated on can't consent ... when it's absolutely NOT okay to even make the tiniest of cuts, to even prick the genital skin of a girl.
On the other hand, if an adult woman wants to take out her clitoris and inner labia, then sew her outer labia together, she should be able to do so. It's not the act of removal that I disagree with, but the circumstances. In your case, by age 7, you could at least have reasonably understood that a surgery was going to happen. Your foreskin would also probably have separated from the head of your penis, making your circumcision less traumatic to the remaining tissues than it would have been if it were still fused (unless your surgery was for some problem, in which case, my bad.)

If the argument for RIC at birth is that the older child or adult must be spared pain, how does a_dub's experience affect the argument? If circumcision is going to be a cultural "requirement" of sorts, how would waiting the few years between birth and foreskin separation affect the rate of circumcision? Naturally, this would not include religious circumcision, since I'm pretty sure there are strict temporal requirements for it. Would circumcision rates drop if adults had to make the decision about their own circumcision upon reaching the age of consent? And if so, what does that say about the relatively high rate of infant circumcisions in the US? (32.5% of baby boys were circumcised in 2009, down from 56 percent in 2006, but still much higher than Canada's 9% in 2005. Numbers are harder to nail down for the UK and Australia, but even the estimates are lower than the US's current rate.) Why are parents in these countries making different decisions concerning their children's genitals? Does it have something to do with their medical care, or maybe the people giving it?

You're correct, if the analogous practice is done on girls, and if its ok for boys, then it should be ok for girls. Except that in boys there are actual reasons (religious, health, hygiene) whereas the same isn't true for girls. AFAIK, a neither a girls health or hygiene is affected by her clitoral prepuce (hood) being intact. Hence its different in my opinion. Others are free to disagree of course.

I had mine done for religious reasons and would have been snipped at birth except that my older brother passed away shortly after birth and my parents didn't want me to get that done without anesthetics if I wasn't going to live past infancy as well. I do remember being 5 years old and having a pretty bad itch on my penis. The pediatrician told my dad that I needed to wash under my foreskin. Of course my father being circumcised and my mother not even having a penis had no idea how to handle the hygiene of a son who did have a foreskin. So there are hygiene issues as well since I have never had smegma accumulate after I got cut.

The simple fact is that any benefit of being intact is quite a bit less than the benefits of getting cut. Getting cut reduced the risk of cancer, HIV infection, HPV spread to female partners (which lowers the risk of female cervical cancer), etc. Circumcision, thus, doesn't just benefit the men who have it done, it benefits all the potential women they will ever have sex with. The mechanism is quite simple...the cut glans has a tougher and more keratinized membrane making it less vulnerable to the intercourse induced micro-tears that allow pathogens to enter the body.