Only women seem to be in favour, even then only a minority, and we are not the ones affected. None of the men here seem to be in favour so far, whether they are circ'ed or not, I think that pretty much says it all.
Printable View
Only women seem to be in favour, even then only a minority, and we are not the ones affected. None of the men here seem to be in favour so far, whether they are circ'ed or not, I think that pretty much says it all.
I've heard a lot of stories about fathers who want their sons circumcised so they'll look like him. It's pretty much the only reason I've come across that a father would want that done to his sons. As if the sons will be confused and traumatized if their penises aren't identical to their father's! And what fathers and sons go around comparing penises all day anyway???
That made me laugh! I guess a lot of parents want their kids to be replicas of themselves... maybe it's human nature. I've always thought it strange but then again, I don't have kids.
should i even say it? i'm happy to fall into the "not" category. i think my partner is as well.
Rantipole is the first circumcised male (#2) that I have ever heard that misses having a foreskin. I was about thirty the first time I encountered one.... he was ever so fastidious and wished he HAD been snipped. The next fellow lacked in hygiene. 2 unsnipped is enough: sex is just soooo much better with circumcised men. Thank you to all the snipping parents for my daughters future happiness!
Well I've never slept with a circumcised man but surely the man's right to not be circumcised is more prevalent than his future sexual partner's gratification?
That's akin to giving girls vaginal surgery so their future sexual partner's enjoy it more. Does the rights of the child have no bearing on what is done to them?
As a hard-core vegan, my opinion on this subject is a strong NO. I have expressed it in my previous post here.
The concept according to me is very simple. Why are we vegans? Because we feel that nature made us fit for us to be herbivores and we try to live in accordance to nature as much as possible, and ethics is a major part of it.
If nature did not intend for the foreskin to be there, why would it have given it to every man in the first place? Everything is there for a reason. Who are we to go against the laws of nature? It is upto the person to decide if he wants to get circumcised. Forcing circumcision on a baby is not an ideal way to go. That over-rules any ethical principals I have and I hence conciser it inappropriate. On similar lines, I don't think a girl child's ears must be prierced.
A person can decide what he/she must do, when they are old enough to think for themselves. Till then, a parent must not take authority to inflict harm on a baby based on what they think is right.
I understand circumcision is a practice that is promoted by certain religions. But religions have been modified and changed over the centuries based on beliefs that certain group of individuals subscribe to. Religious circumcision is nonsense, and as invalid as animal sacrifice in the name of religion. How is it any different?
A friend of mine was circumcised at the age of 12 by his own will. His parents did not object, but did not endorse it either - it was completely up to him.
Today he's happy he did and never regrets it.
I had my ears pierced at the age of 8 after much nagging and I'm happy with my decision too. Even though I was young I made a choice which I thought was right for me.
I would not let my daughters (or son) get their ears pierced that young, my husband says not until they are 16, I would probably be a little more lenient and say about 13 or 14 is old enough to decide but will let him take charge on this one if it ever comes up (I can win some of the bigger battles if we disagree). If a parent allows nagging from an 8 year old to work, who is the boss there?? The parent or the child? I'd not have given in on it.
I don't think my kids will want to get piercings because I have told them I wish I had not had my ears pierced! I had a lot of soreness with them, however clean I kept them they always got red and sore, so I gave up on earrings, haven't worn them for years. My older daughter is 11 and because she has heard of my experience, she sees little point in ear piercing, I think my kids will probably be quite sensible about not wanting to be unnecessarily pierced or otherwise mutilated because of how myself and my husband both feel about it. He is more against it than I am.
In my experience little girls wanting to get their ears pierced is usually about bowing to peer pressure! One girl at my daughter's school (she sounds like a bit of a b!tchy bully from a few things my daughter has said), well she said to my daughter that she should not wear her hair behind her ears because she should not show her ears if they don't have earrings, apparenty ears without earrings are ugly! How rude of her and what a stupid thing to say! My daughter said she just gave this silly girl a funny look as if to say "you are a bit of a nut-job" and she tells me rather disdainfully that this girl is just a "fashion addict".
My daughter is a bit of a "chip off the old block" as they say, so I can't say I am disappointed in her attitude. I have talked to her about how harmful peer pressure can be and to always stand her ground, as I always did against peer pressure to do stupid things like smoking, and she will not go far wrong if she can hold her head high and know she is doing the safe and sensible things.
No doubt a boy who want to be circ'ed at 12 in the US only wants it to be the same as his friends. I'll bet in the UK the issue would have never arisen!
I find it very sad that mutilation is the norm in some circles.
As I'm sure I've made clear on this issue pretty recently; completely disgusting, horrendous and abusive. It's male genital mutilation. Let's not kid ourselves or mince words. In Western cultures, female circumcision is seen by basically all as immoral and is illegal. Obviously there's a double standard here. Thank fuck I have not been cut, and I would never mutilate my body for the pleasure of sexual partners, basically because I have more self-esteem than that. I think Amy said it best (scroll up).
If a guy chooses to get this done then so be it and I can't disagree, but honestly, nothing can defend people who cut bits off baby's dicks. That's serious abuse.
And I hope no one tries to defend it with religion. Prove your God exists then I might accept there's another side to this, but until then it's just a-FUCKing-NOTHER example of people using their "beliefs" to act like weirdos and abuse children.
I am so against this it is not even funny.
your right; you are not funny. I try to put it in perspective: the really awful things kids go through starting from violent birthing procedures to the less prevalent today 'moulding' foreheads or feet, or tooth chipping down to scarification (tribal marks), at the bottom is circumcision. Ya, we humans are funny critters and do want to identify with our group. So, I shake my head sometimes at what we consider normal but I can't be too fussed about the rituals that have more benefit than risk.
It is legitimate to debate whether to wait for consent or carry out a practice when the baby has no fear and can quickly recover. Hell, jabs are worse than ear-piercing for pain. And full marks for bravery to the lads in Turkey who have their coming of age party 11-14 and midway through get snipped.
Just for the record IMO hymen cutting is closest equivalent for females. I know a couple of women who had their labia minor 'trimmed' in adulthood due to the prominent appearance. I was also happy to have raggy bits of hymen removed at the time of another procedure.
It is all open for debate. I just do actually give some room for historical precedent when the outcomes are healthy and happy.
Amy, Kiran and Russ - I agree with everything you just said.
I strongly disagree with genital mutilation, be it male or female. IMO it is just plain wrong and immoral to mutilate a child in any way, whilst they are helpless and unable to decide for themselves. Circumcision is not medically necessary. It is not our body to abuse, whether for religious or cosmetic reasons.
I agree with RachelJune, Russ and Lilac Hamster and everyone else against this. Is one thing if it is a personal choice but there are enough healthy men who aren't circumsized to show that it isn't necessary.
The thing I find most revealing in this thread is that (and please do correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm right) every male who has posted here opposes circumcision.
I think that says it all.
It seems the proponents of, or apologists for, involuntary circumcision (a.k.a. infant genital mutilation) in this thread have fallen back on
1. Accusations of anti-semitism
2. The historical precedent arguments
3. Women enjoy sex more with circumcised males
4. Circumcision is healthy and happy.
Well, let's see how I can respond to these...
1. Ridiculous. Of course I don't consider all Jews to be child-abusers. Just the ones who actually abuse children themselves by circumcising them. (Beside the point perhaps, but Jewishness can refer to a race and a religion and the two are not the same. To try to lump me into the same category as Hitler, Ernst Zundel and Henry Ford because I am against violence to children is pretty ridiculous, being that I oppose the cultural practice - in the same way I oppose the way pigs must be slaughtered in accordance with Judaism - rather than the right of genetic Jews to exist.) And this is not by any means limited to Jews, because Jews are not the only people in the world who by custom circumcise infants.
2. There are also historical precedents for eating meat, slavery and keeping women at home. I don't see you standing up on a soapbox to defend these things.
3. If you think it's okay to abuse someone else for your own, (or someone elses) sexual gratification - a child, nonetheless - what does that make you?
4. That's a pretty twisted world view, to think that lopping off body parts will lead to happiness, but okay. Let's forget that for a moment and consider that there is no difference in health or happiness between a circumcised male and an uncircumcised male who makes the minimal effort that is required to keep clean. While I'm obviously not going to say that circumcised males are unhappy, I'm certainly happier that I'm not circumcised (of course this may be a personal thing in that I resolutely oppose the practice and would hate it had it been done to me, though of course others - including circumcised males - do not share this view.) So I think it's fair to say that uncircumcised males have just as much potential for being healthy and happy.
I'm done, and I even managed to contend arguments without making personal attacks. Cause making personal attacks is what people do when they're cornered.
I agree with pretty much everyone on this forum.
Surely we have chose veganism because we reject that it is our right to inflict harm on another animal (be they human, or non-human) just because we can. The practise of genital mutilation on young children confers no significant health benefits to them. To do it for the purpose of aesthetics, on something/someone who cannot possibly give their consent, is barbaric.
I'm shocked that the 'argument' that doing so is justified for it increases a female partners sexual gratification is even being used.
Let's try and put it in perspective? As 'funny' as we 'critters' might be, to try and justify circumcism of babies (or ear piercing for that matter) by saying that a kid could go through a lot worse, is ludicrous. Let's all go around de-beaking, de-clawing and de-tailing all animals, because, lets face it, i'm sure it's at the bottom of the list of things we could do...:rolleyes: I sure hope those animals think themselves lucky.
If a male, or a female, decides to get circumcised ('decides' being the operative word here), I have absolutely no issue with that. As I see it, particularly in practices with religious significance, isn't it far more preferential that an individual weighs up the reasons behind circumcision and still wants to go through with it? Rather than any old person pushing their beliefs on another individual, and saying that is okay, because it it what has always happened.
Hymen cutting is ridiculous. Pretty much everyones hymen breaks when they're kids naturally, just through normal activity. To bring this up as the closest equivalent to male infant circumcision, and then to say that a couple of female adult friends chose to have it done because they were a bit.. untidy, is utterly irrelevant in the context of this thread.
As to whether it is okay to debate whether or not consent should be given, I really don't see there is much to debate? Circumcision without that individuals consent is immoral and stupid. I'm done.
I don't. I think with all of the anti-circumcision talk going on here, anyone that is pro-circumcision might be afraid to say that they are. I think there's only been 2 posters who have been brave enough to say that they are pro-circumcision and they were attacked for their opinion.
There might be a few people who aren't saying what they really want to for fear of the same. :o
I just coughed up water.
Excuse me? The only personal attack here has been directed at me for not being funny (when I was not even trying to be, which should have been pretty clear). No one has attacked proponents of circumcision on any personal basis, but MANY people have countered their arguments.
The possibility that people support circumcision but are too afraid to engage in debate is not an argument for circumcision. You get no points for this one.
I encourage proponents to engage abolitionists. Please. As far as I can see the only reason why a proponent would not post is because they cannot provide responses to the arguments of the abolitionists. The fear is that they might read something that changes their mind, not that they will be attacked, because this simply HAS NOT HAPPENED except on that one occasion where it was directed at me.
Hmmm. I wonder what I was talking about then. Give me a minute to find out.
You're right, of course. I was recalling something from Eternal Treblinka about how animals are slaughtered in accordance with Kosher regulations; but of course pigs are not consumed at all by practicing Jews.
Apologies.
I won't go back and change that cause it would affect the flow of the thread now. But instead let's say kosher methods of slaughter in general; this was just an example anyway, I don't support any method of slaughter, obviously.
Oh, do excuse me then. I suppose I should have said "in my opinion" they were attacked for their opinion.
I can see this is an issue that you're very passionate about Russ. :)
Yes, of course it is. It seems natural to me to strongly oppose this practice. I'm the first to admit that unlike more articulate members of this forum, I don't spend a lot of time on posts, I tend to write them at once and post. That's why, reading through this, some posters (sprite1986, absentmindedfan) come across a lot more convincing though I'm often making the same points.
Disagreeing with someone does not constitute a personal attack. Having this view may hinder one's ability to engage in debate. Perhaps.
As I said in my post, I do not have any problem with circumcision so long as the individual involved is fully consenting. I do not believe a baby, or a child can ever fully consent, and so my issue is with circumcision when it is enforced upon another, not circumcision through personal choice.
If anyone (who has actually been circumcised...) has said or wants to say they are happy that it had been done to them, thats fair enough.
But surely on principal, it is wrong to inflict anything on another person without their consent, most of all a little baby?
Seeya.
Back to the issue at hand - any opinions?
I'm against circumcision as I stated and I have been circumcised. Does my opinion count double?
I think I might even have agreed, but being only about 5 that really doesn't count for much I don't think. :rolleyes:
I think that's an interesting topic for discussion in itself; at what age are children really capable of deciding important things concerning themselves (not just circumcision, but it is a good example).
Though I guess people of all ages, do things they might regret later.
One of my nephews like you Pob was circumcised for medical reasons (at about the age you were I think).
There needs to be more awareness among new parents that when it is done for medical reasons which initially seem valid, there might even then sometimes be an alternative.
If it had been my son I think I would have researched on the internet before accepting it was absolutely necessary and it obviously would be an absolute last resort to have the operation done. Unfortunately I had no influence regarding my nephew and when I suggested to my mother-in-law there might be other conservative treatments which could be looked into, her attitude was that he was in pain and it had to be done, so I don't know if my sister in law was open to considering an alternative as I never got to ask her. They did not seem very open-minded, even though they were not in favour routine circumcision. Very few of the British favour routine infant circumcision, it pretty much died out in Britain in the 1950s. Can't imagine why the US is so far behind but then they are also very much more in favour of compulsory vaccination, one of the reasons my husband decided not to go for a job in the US as we would probably not be allowed to live there without getting all the kids jabbed which is something we were not prepared to do.
http://www.norm-uk.org has some useful information for parents of boys who might face the medical circumcision issue (although thankfully most of us do not have to face it).
I just hope my nephew grows up OK about it, and does not suffer any pressure or embarrassment for being circumcised the way many uncircumcised boys suffer in the US. I think pressure either way on the boy is wrong, it's not his fault and I find it shocking that some women actually consider it an issue if their husband or boyfriend has had it done or not (or even about a future son-in-law which is none of their business really). Men are not simply walking penises after all! I could not imagine it being an issue.
Feminazism has gone mad to the point of male oppression in some areas.
True feminists I would hope support equality and would agree with Absentmindedfan who put it very well about whose choice it should be.
This thread has been temporarily closed to let tempers cool.
Thank you everyone.
Dear members
Thread open again.
Please be nice despite the emotive subject.
Thank you.
If you tell someone that you think what they are doing (with eg. an animal, or a child) in your opinion is unethical and very wrong, it's easy to receive this as an attack on them personally, and not on what they are doing or have been doing in the past.Quote:
I suppose I should have said "in my opinion" they were attacked for their opinion.
Circumcision is also a very difficult topic to discuss, because nobody wants to hear from others that they - or their actions - are considered 'abusive'... AND: we're not even really discussing circumcision most of the time, but if it's right to do it it on someone else, if/when it can cause fear, pain or even cause a permanent trauma in this person. Discussing 'causing a trauma' or interference with other beings is quote different from discussing piercing or other physical changes on one's own body.
Eve wrote above that she felt personally attacked, and I understand her, and still, I can't help feeling that causing pain and fear in others is wrong, even if it's common in some countries. The discussion and arguments actually have many similarities with the kind of communication we see between vegans and non-vegans:
A: "It's wrong to harm an animal"
B: "It's just a tradition, don't worry. It's not a big deal for me"
A: "But it's a big deal for the animal that is killed or harmed, it's unethical to cause suffering in others"
A: "So you're attacking me?"
B: "No, but I strongly disagree with what you do"
Some people may not be aware of that there are massive campaigns against male circumcision, and may simply not have given the alternative (= no circumcision) much thought.
Circumcision may be some medical benefits (higher incidence of the the HIV virus in non-circumcised men was mentioned), but in terms of preventing AIDS, I don't think anyone would suggest circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
Stuff like cosmetics or medical reasons may be considered an argument pro circumcision by some, but is it really an argument pro using a knife on the most sensitive part of a little boy's body before he's old enough to understand why they are doing this? For a baby, I'm sure this must feel just like if his parents are would watch others attacking him with a knife - down there - without trying to prevent it, and I'm pretty sure that the psychological shock is worse than the pain itself.
I never said I was 'right' but open to debate. I am sorry Russ that you feel attacked for 'not being funny' that was not my intention to be rude. I am mature enough however to overlook swearing and terms like wierdo abuser etc because we weren't all raised to show respect under difficult circumstances.
I respect everyone's opinions on this thread and am trying to listen.
I'd feel quite justifed calling anyone who harmed animals (human and non-human) for aesthetics pretty 'abusive', and 'weirdo's', but that's my opinion.
As Korn said, this is an emotive subject, with a lot of strong feelings on both sides, and as such, understandably brings out strong reactions, particularly in males (funnily enough..). Beautifully said, Korn.
so it's okay for parents to mutilate their children so your daughters can sleep with men without foreskin in the future, I find that statement quite horrifying. I think that parents teaching their sons a little about hygiene is all that is needed !
If they were to cut off their eyelids you would be screaming abuse I'm sure, IMO circumcision is no different. You're born with foreskin for a reason, and parents have no right at all to make the decision to get rid of it.
On a different note I think that it also is quite wrong to be making comments about how people on this forum may or may not have have been raised. I don't think that is very mature or respectful.
ok despite what was said (or not said) on another thread by me, in which I think I was misunderstood, I am anti-circumcision of any kind (male or female) all my brothers have been circumcised as far as I know, due to religion (muslim) but I don't personally agree with it, especially as the child usually has no say in the matter. I remember when my youngest brother was circumcised, I must have been about 5, and I remember thinking how horrible a thing it was to do.
I think its a decision men can make for themselves as adults. I actually do find the practise in the name of religion, really odd. I can't actually believe some of the horrific things that are done to children in some parts of the world, including female genital mutilation as well, are allowed to be condoned by any religion....but that's my disillusionment with religion for you. Just my opinion!