[effy2014]

A_dub, those of us who are against RIC of males find the "benefits" of it to be poorly-sourced and statistically irrelevant. But I wouldn't go around saying there are NO benefits. It's popular to say there are NO benefits of FGM - capital N-O, let's look very worldly for putting down a barbaric practice, but there are certainly purported benefits by those practicing it. They are strangely similar to the benefits of male RIC. I'm not in the practice of defending either practice, though, so I'm not exactly an expert.

Why do you need to make the association between two practices that are not remotely similar? There has never even been an asserted association between FGM and the prevention of any disease . . . the asserted justifications are all cultural relating to a woman's role in those societies. The practice of FGM is barbaric because of how it is performed, the health risks at the time and the long term consequences associated with it. I don't believe that the condemnation is being "worldly" or looking down at mostly-African cultures at all. The African countries in which FGM is practiced have outlawed it.

It is hard to believe that "children's rights" have the opponents this riled up.

[Little]

You're characterizing me as riled up - I'm not. I have strong feelings on the subject but am approaching it from a impersonal place and using the generally-accepted terminology for the acts being performed - it's not like I'm raging, calling RIC infant genital mutilation, or doing anything out of the ordinary to defend my position. Your characterization is rude, personally insulting.

Google [benefits of female circumcision.] The first result is from a religious website that lists many medical "benefits" of the practice. Only one has anything to do with social expectations for women in that culture ("excessive sexual desire.") They are not peer-research-supported (at least, there are no citations.)

In another result, the Hastings Center (a center dedicated to bioethics) say many women who undergo FGM "have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced." Unfortunately that citation is behind a paywall. I'm not going to pay to cite defense of a practice I'm not interested in defending.

[Stillness]

Stillness, I have never heard these arguments against circumcision.

They aren't arguments against circumcision. effy asked about the rabid opposition. My answer deals with what I think is at the root of it. If you don't want to circumcise your boys, that's great. I wouldn't circumcise mine either. But I'm not going around calling people who do, backwards sheep stuck in the stone-age and saying that their God is corrupt and should be rejected for his barbarism. That's more than just, "I don't want this for my baby."

I know it is off topic but are you saying opposition to pesticides is not ok because you regard people who do oppose it as being "pro-nature" ?

That’s OK. “Off Topic” is the unofficial motto on this site.

The answer is “no.” What I’m doing is identifying what I think is the mentality behind the emotional opposition to circumcision, not the correctness or incorrectness of it. I agree with a lot of the sentiment – the part that’s based in logic. As I said, I wouldn’t cut my child’s penis and tried to stop my childhood friend from cutting his son’s. But it’s his baby, not mine, so I shut up and stood off to the side when he and his wife made it clear that’s what they wanted. That boy is doing fine, just like me and hundreds of millions of other boys and men who are circumcised and not hurt at all for it...and even possibly benefit.

[DreamP346]

It is the forcefulness of the opposition that I do not understand. Why does this drive a wedge between people? It makes Little's blood boil and this is a woman who is tolerant of everybody.

The reason is because those of us that oppose it are treated like hippies who are against medicine (see Stillness's comments). I have experienced this myself. And most people who circumcise just do so because it is the norm and I'm not talking about those who do it for religious purposes. People like you seem to be the exception. To me that is a problem. Unless the doctor tells you to circumcise, why are people cutting a piece of their infant? Most people know nothing about the AAP recommendation. People blindly following the herd is a problem to me. I feel the same about breast feeding in public. That is another issue where supporters are made to feel like anti-establishment hippies and are ridiculed.

[effy2014]

Your characterization is rude, personally insulting.

I never meant to be either rude or insulting. I apologize. I assumed that, by comparing circumcision to FGM, that you were equating the two as mutilation. If I am wrong, I apologize again. The emotionalism was in the comments:

Romy stated: "I would never describe myself as ignorant, I have a university degree and am a very open minded person except with it comes to the rights of children and this barbaric practise."

You agreed: "I have incredibly strong opinions on this that agree completely with Romy. Most people who have an opinion on Routine Infant Circumcision have rabid ones."

SP equated those who would circumcise their sons as akin to parents who would shave their heads to cure lice.

As you wrote, it is a subject on which people have strong opinions.

[effy2014]

The reason is because those of us that oppose it are treated like hippies who are against medicine (see Stillness's comments). I have experienced this myself.

I have no issue with hippies nor do I have an issue with breast feeding in public. I have no issue with those who choose not to circumcise their boys. My only issue is being made to feel that I was somehow mutilated or that I mutilated my sons in some barbaric act. It's the same issue I have with "right to lifers" -- hold whatever belief you want, just don't call people murderers who have abortions.

[Stillness]

The reason is because those of us that oppose it are treated like hippies who are against medicine (see Stillness's comments).

I'm a vegetarian that refuses most medicine, believes that the earth can heal better than any doctor, wouldn't circumcise his children, and believes that most religion is some of the most destructive and divisive stuff on this planet. You have to consider the source to understand intent.

I think that going against the grain on this can be good and can spring from a certain enlightenment. But knowledge without love and humility can turn the corner and become hatred and dogma. That's what I saw. That's why I started the thread.

[Little]

Well, effy, by your logic you're calling those who do not routinely circumcise their infants neglectful - a sentiment I'm sure you don't mean to express. I would never seek to condemn you for making a different decision from me, but I do think the choice was incorrect. This should be obvious, because I made the opposite choice. But I do concede that I can't put myself in your shoes, I can't make your decisions for you, I can't weigh the evidence for you because it's not cut and dry. Definitely not completely quantifiable. We can't put men on a scale and decide whether circumcision is "good" or "bad" for everybody; we can't put parents on a scale and decide whether they're "good" or "bad" based on their decisions in controversial topics.

I do consider RIC to be mutilation - that's another unquantifiable thing. I find it to be very extreme medicine. I don't condemn you (or anybody) for having performed what is considered a routine medical intervention on your child/ren. Not any more than I hope you'd condemn me for passing on what you view as a harmless, very helpful procedure. I don't create opportunities to have this conversation with people, but if the conversation comes up, I do engage ... depending on the circumstances. On a discussion forum, absolutely.

And I certainly prefer that a person have circumcised equipped with reasonings, even if I consider their sources lacking, better than "son ought to match daddy," or "nobody wants to suck a turtle ****." (true stories!) ... versus not circumcising and not knowing why not. It might be nice to meet some of those second-group people though ... having contrary opinions about your friend's son's private bits is weird out there in real society

[effy2014]

I don't think labeling people is at all helpful. You made one choice and I made another. You do not live in a developing country where anything that could stall the speed of AIDS should be done as a matter of routine. I believe that both decisions are supportable in Western societies.

However, it is hard to imagine that approximately 60% of males are walking around "mutilated", especially where the vast majority of them would tell you that they are just fine with their parents' decision. Indeed, if men believed it was mutilation, the practice would cease but for us destructive religious nuts. Given the popularity of the procedure and the fact that it is endorsed by the AAP and WHO, the label "extreme medicine" doesn't quite fit. These are all opinions on which people can differ without one being enlightened and the other destructive.

[Stillness]

Mutilate
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.

I guess you could make a case for definition 1 because a part is removed if you feel that circumcised penises are horrible to look at and that uncircumcised penises are beautiful. Or if you feel that the initial injury to the child makes it so. It seems an extreme application of the word, but I guess it's not technically wrong. How useful is it, though?

I'll tell you what's crazy. I googled "mutilate definition," clicked the first link at dictionary dot com where I got this definition, and the "matching quote" is this:

""Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"

-Paul"

Which is one of the many Christian Scriptures penned by circumcised Jews fighting against forced circumcision that other Jewish Christians wanted to impose on Gentile converts. Life is funny.