Is the circumcision of a boy sexual abuse? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

lindalove · 01-09-2006, 10:36 AM

I say Hell no - it's a common practice here in America, and it's done while they are too young to remember anything about it. It's a lot more sanitary and reduces your risk of getting penile cancer greatly.

Carno · 01-09-2006, 10:41 AM

Hahaha yeah it is. A dirty old man is fondling little boy penis!

Ahahahaha

EDIT: yeah but seriously it isn't. If it were, then all doctors who treat children are pedophiles.

P.S. circumcision doesn't make it any more sanitary.

Poppinjay · 01-09-2006, 10:50 AM

It does not reduce the risk of penile cancer. Penile cancer is extremely rare and there is no study proving it reduces the risk. There are several statistical studies that show any difference in cancer rates between the circumcised and non-circumcised is unmeasurable chatter.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

Meanwhile, if you read pro-circumcision lit, it reads like tin foil stuff, the studies are all "against the truth", it's all shaped by doctors with a "political agenda". Very little data to back it up.

JustJess · 01-09-2006, 10:50 AM

No, I think she meant is it abuse, the way we think of the removing of the clitoris in some african tribes is abuse...

Of course, it's hard to interpret a two sentence OP!

As for the issue... I'm on the fence. I'm clearly used to them being circumcised, but I can't think of a good reason to do so.

Himbo · 01-09-2006, 10:52 AM

I believe so. You cutting off a part of a boy's genital's.

You can't do this to women. There are actual laws protecting your girls against this type of act. But nothing for boys.

Circumcision doesn't benefit young boys in any way. That is the conclusion from post 2000 studies done on the subject from un-biased researchers.

http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3475

*Circumcision of infants is never medically necessary, according to the American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs.

*Circumcision has serious risks. These include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, shock, penile disfigurement, penile amputation, and even occasional death. The complication rate for this unnecessary procedure is estimated to be 2-10%.

*Circumcision confers no proven health benefits. An intact penis is easy to clean and care for. Some studies show that it increases risk of infections or disease transmission. The few studies that indicate some health benefits all have serious flaws in terms of population selection.

*Circumcision permanently changes the way an infant will later experience sex and sexuality. It removes several square inches of functional, healthy tissue including 10,000-20,000 nerve endings. Removal of this many nerves and this much tissue damages the ability to feel sexual pleasure. Problems later in life can include lack of sensation, chafing, lack of arousal, frustration, and problems due to insufficient lubrication.

*Circumcision is painful. It involves tearing away and amputating highly sensitive tissue that was physically attached to the head of the penis. The procedure causes excruciating pain and can send infants into shock. Babies who have been circumcised are significantly more likely to have problems breast-feeding, and they demonstrate heightened pain responses months later.

*Circumcision hurts everyone. There is evidence that female partners of circumcised men experience less pleasure during intercourse, and may be subject to more frequent vaginal tearing and urinary tract infections.

*Although circumcision holds a traditional place in Jewish and Islamic culture, today's hospital circumcision bears little resemblance to religious ceremonies. Some Jewish individuals are opting for alternative ceremonies that do not require genital alteration, called "Brit Shalom".

*U.S. infant circumcision validates female circumcision here and abroad. The belief that male circumcision is valuable for hygiene reasons mirrors statements that female circumcision is necessary to keep women "clean" and "acceptable" for their husbands. In fact, there is no hygienic justification for removing healthy tissue in either gender.

*There is already a federal law protecting female children from genital cutting, modification, or piercing of any kind. Boys have a right to the same protection.

*Involuntary circumcision violates human rights. Every individual has the right to an intact body, and should not be subjected to body modifications without his/her consent. Infants require special protection because they cannot speak for themselves.

*A child who is not subjected to circumcision will fit in just fine with his peers. Circumcision rates in the U.S. are falling, down from 90% in the 1970s to 60% today.

flamingdog · 01-09-2006, 10:54 AM

Let's just say, I'm happy to have the hood.

Cynthetiq · 01-09-2006, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindalove

It's a lot more sanitary and reduces your risk of getting penile cancer greatly.

you'll have to back those up with facts.

I've not seen anything that corroborates that at all.

Quote:

"It had no face, no personality. It was like a martian."
- Elaine, describing an uncircumsized penis, in "The Bris"

lindalove · 01-09-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poppinjay

It does not reduce the risk of penile cancer. Penile cancer is extremely rare and there is no study proving it reduces the risk. There are several statistical studies that show any difference in cancer rates between the circumcised and non-circumcised is unmeasurable chatter.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

Meanwhile, if you read pro-circumcision lit, it reads like tin foil stuff, the studies are all "against the truth", it's all shaped by doctors with a "political agenda". Very little data to back it up.

Thanks for the links.

lindalove · 01-09-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

No, I think she meant is it abuse, the way we think of the removing of the clitoris in some african tribes is abuse...

Of course, it's hard to interpret a two sentence OP!

As for the issue... I'm on the fence. I'm clearly used to them being circumcised, but I can't think of a good reason to do so.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry about the wrong wording.

Charlatan · 01-09-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindalove

I say Hell no - it's a common practice here in America, and it's done while they are too young to remember anything about it. It's a lot more sanitary and reduces your risk of getting penile cancer greatly.

What a strange way to make your point...

Here's a question: Is female circumcision abuse? It is a common practice in parts of Africa. LINK

It does not make the penis anymore sanitary than a woman who does not wash herself (i.e. a penis with a foreskin + soap and water = a clean penis). The link to cancer has been proven false.

As for being too young... I could remove baby boy's nipples at birth. They are young and won't remember, they don't need them... so I say take them off.

Hospitals for a time, used to do them to every boy. They also used to advocate bottle feeding your kids. Today they will not perform them unless requested.

flamingdog · 01-09-2006, 11:11 AM

Basically, sexual abuse is a misnomer in this case.

It would have been better to say 'is circumcision ritualistic mutilation?'

I don't see how anyone can say 'no' to that. That's pretty much a definition of circumcision.

I don't see the logic behind removing a part of the body that it is normal to be born with. It's like saying that ten fingers is too many and we can afford to lose a few.

Da Munk · 01-09-2006, 11:17 AM

In most cases it is an unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery performed before the subject is old enough to give consent. If cutting of a part of a baby's genitals out of some weird sense of tradition isn't abuse, I don't know what is.

billege · 01-09-2006, 11:27 AM

It is abusive. It's SICK.

I will not allow any sons I may have to be strapped down and mutilated. There is no rationalization or reasoning I would ever believe that makes this in any way okay.

I'm genital mutilated, like most guys. I don't hate my parents for doing it, because I don't believe it ever occured to them not to. I have to excuse thier behavior because I believe it was done in ignorance.

Only recently are we coming out of the dark ages on this particular subject. There is no valid reason to strap a child down and cut off parts of his genitalia.

The linked video below is of a boy being mutliated by a doctor. Why a parent would do this, I don't understand. The child is literally strapped down in a seat made just for this particular horror. His penis is then clamped with one tool, then ripped apart with other sharp tools. The infant's body is wracked with pain as he's mutilated. It makes me sick to see this.

Video of mutilation << Video requires RealPlayer... Sorry about that.

The amount of hypocracy surrounding this practice continues to amaze me. It's barbaric and senseless.

JustJess · 01-09-2006, 11:29 AM

I agree that it's unnecessary ... but I have to ask: of the male respondents, are any of you circumcised?

BadNick · 01-09-2006, 11:30 AM

I don't believe there is any recent scientific reasoning to support benefits of male circumcision, but I still don't consider it "abuse"; though it is a religious ritual for sure and I think it fits "ritualistic mutilation".

Most of my friends cringe when I tell them about this ...but my two year younger brother and I were born in Austria in 1949 and 1951 to Catholic parents and circumcision was not all that common or generally done to all. When we came to the U.S. and were being examined by the pediatricians of the day back in the mid 50's, they recommended that my brother and I be circumcised. So I had it done when I was almost 10 years old. Other than the potential pain and suffering of which I barely had any of that, I think I prefer mine to be circumcised, though I have never lived as an adult with mine in the OEM version.

I never heard about this variation until the recent news in NY State about one of the orthodox Jewish variations on circumcision. I found it quite odd that their ritual involves the moyle sucking the bloody wound of the baby ...maybe I'm weird for even thinking that's weird?! But it's in the news since apparently one moyle could have transmitted herpes to a couple of babies by this procedure.

my edit: when my two boys were born, now they're 9 & 10yo, we had them circumcised at home by a moyle even though I'm not Jewish and while my wife is of Jewish heritage, her family is absolutely NOT religious at all. We thought we wanted it done and it was safer doing it at home.

Carno · 01-09-2006, 11:37 AM

I'm not circumcised, and I'm kinda glad I'm not.

I can just pull the skin back if I want to pretend I'm circumcised

Charlatan · 01-09-2006, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

I agree that it's unnecessary ... but I have to ask: of the male respondents, are any of you circumcised?

Yes. I am circumcised.

Lebell · 01-09-2006, 12:07 PM

The responses are interesting.

After due consideration and reading of the current literature, my wife and I decided to have our son circumcised.

kutulu · 01-09-2006, 12:22 PM

I am but I'm undecided as to whether my son (if I have one) will be.

JustJess · 01-09-2006, 12:26 PM

I do find it interesting that men who are circumcised feel strongly that you shouldn't be. I always thought that there wasn't a good enough reason to do that to a little baby, but because it's so societally accepted here, there wasn't a reason necessary.

But as I'm not a man, with all of the expectations on me about how my penis is supposed to look, what do I know? All I do know is that it does seem equivalent to slicing off the clitoris, and that is a horrible thought. Why do that to a poor baby boy?

Glory's Sun · 01-09-2006, 12:28 PM

I'm circumsized.. I like it. I guess it's just what I've always pictured as being normal. When I see an uncut penis.. it just looks odd to me. (no offense to anyone with a hood.)

Now, do I think it's wrong?? TBH, I've never really given it much thought. I've never studied up on the reasoning(s) behind the practice so I couldn't really give any answer other than.. "I have no fucking clue."

Kadath · 01-09-2006, 12:37 PM

I don't think it's abuse. It's unnecessary surgery. I asked my parents why they had it done to me, and the reason came back that my father was circumcized, and so he wanted me to be the same. I'm not angry about it; it hasn't negatively affected my life, but I won't be having it done to any sons I have, because it IS unnecessary.

BadNick · 01-09-2006, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

All I do know is that it does seem equivalent to slicing off the clitoris, and that is a horrible thought. Why do that to a poor baby boy?

I don't get this comparison. Cutting off a teeny piece of skin covering is soooo far from cutting off a functioning part of the genitalia. While the skin has some minor sensory functionality, to me ...OK - I'm male... the clitoris seems to be much more significant in this regard and therefore, MUCH more significant of a mutilation.

flamingdog · 01-09-2006, 12:40 PM

It's just what you're used to. In this country, circumcision isn't anything like as usual as it is over in the US.

JustJess, it's not equivalent to having your clitoris sliced off, that would be the same as cutting off the glans... think of it more like having the hood that covers your clitoris taken off.

I know that what we understand as 'female circumcision' isn't exactly the same as it is in the case of males, but if you're looking for the conceptual equivalent, that - to my understanding - would be it.

Completely unnecessary.

Leto · 01-09-2006, 12:41 PM

nope not abuse. Necessary? not any longer. was it ever necessary? maybe not. But i was done as a matter of medical practice when I was born. The women of my past and present all seemed to have prefered it that way too. All of them in discussion have claimed that. Were they telling the truth? hard to say. Just as I would not have complained about their physical configuration while I was in a relationship with them as well.

My sons (all three) are circumsized. Would I do it now? Probably not. But It's not a big issue, and all three are comfortable with the situation.

*yawn* there are more important things to worry about.

Charlatan · 01-09-2006, 12:49 PM

For those wondering what female circumcision is exactly... you can click on this link to wikipedia: LINK

I just don't know why anyone would do something so uneccesary.

flamingdog · 01-09-2006, 12:54 PM

Male and female circumcision are equivalent as far as both practices being mutilating.

Although, is there not a situation where some men are actually unable to roll the foreskin back because it is too tight to fit over the glans? My understanding is that it makes intercourse painful, and cleaning next to impossible. I believe circumcision is used in such cases. Though I might be wrong.

The last female circumcision in America, according to that article was done in 1958???? I am continually amazed by how backwards we have been, and how recently.

Talk about barbaric:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Infibulation

The form of female circumcision regarded as the most severe is Type III, which is also referred to as infibulation or pharaonic circumcision. This is often carried out by a "gedda," or matron of the village, without anaesthetic, on girls between the ages of two and six.

Infibulation replaces the vulva with a wall of flesh from the pubis to the anus, except for a pencil-size opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. A reverse infibulation is where the opening is left in the anterior part of the vulva in front of the uretha. After excision, the labia are sewn together, and since the skin is abraded and raw after being cut, the two surfaces will join via the natural healing and scar-formation process to form a smooth surface. The girl's legs are tied together for around two weeks to prevent her from moving the wound.

Charlatan · 01-09-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamingdog

Although, is there not a situation where some men are actually unable to roll the foreskin back because it is too tight to fit over the glans? My understanding is that it makes intercourse painful, and cleaning next to impossible. I believe circumcision is used in such cases. Though I might be wrong.

Circumcision is done (or recommended) in this case but that would be because the proceedure is medically neccessary.

It's a bit different from taking the foreskin from a baby who has no say in the matter, for no other reason than either a) religion or b) aesthetics.

flamingdog · 01-09-2006, 01:13 PM

Yea, I do see the distinction.

I was just bringing it up because it shows that not every circumcision is unnecessary.

Fly · 01-09-2006, 01:17 PM

i am cut too...........an hold no grudge towards my parents.

but i gotta say,i'm so fucking glad that my son didn't have to scream and go through the pain that poor little boy did in that vid.

....there's no need for it.

ngdawg · 01-09-2006, 04:13 PM

I thought long and hard when I found out I was having a boy.. His father is circumcised and said hell, yea, he's getting it too. I had been with one uncircumcised man and, while he was probably not the norm, I hated it-he was unclean. But I wasn't sure it was necessary. I decided for it.
Not all doctors or hospitals strap a baby down like a scene out of a Vincent Price movie and hack away. While I did not witness my son's, they did bring him to me right after and he wasn't even crying. There was almost no blood on the bandage either.
As for some of those 'facts' posted, he had NO problem breast feeding, didn't have 'heightened pain response' later on. Every man I've been with besides the one have been circumcised and never complained about lack of sensation, lack of lubrication(isn't that partly my job?) or lack of arousal.
It is one of the most agonizing decisions to make while pregnant. MIght have helped if I could have learned about the care that goes with leaving the foreskin intact, but I didn't have a clue, except Mr. Icky.

flamingdog · 01-09-2006, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

I hated it-he was unclean.

That's because he didn't wash, not because he had a foreskin. I find this attitude completely irreconcilable. I just don't get the fascination with lopping off something all men are born with for no reason whatsoever. It strikes me that losing your foreskin is commensurate with a loss of sensation in the head of the penis. It stands to reason, since I'm uncut and I can barely stand it to be touched directly. If it was exposed all the time, I'd feel nothing like what I do now. While you might think that's great from a stamina point of view... I'm not convinced. And I'm quite capable of lubicrating myself, thanks.

onodrim · 01-09-2006, 04:43 PM

I don't believe that it is abuse. It's certainly not necessary, but I don't have a problem with anyone who makes the choice to have their son circumcized. It doesn't inhibit sexual function or pleasure in any way. As far as I see it, that's what sets it apart from clitoral mutilation or female genital mutilation in general.

Grasshopper Green · 01-09-2006, 04:53 PM

I don't view it as sexual abuse, but I see no reason for it unless you have religious convictions for it. I watched a video in my human sexuality class in 1998 that showed a baby being circumcised; I vowed then and there that no son of mine would ever go through that. Thankfully, hubby didn't see any reason for it either, and it was never an issue when my son was born.

ASU2003 · 01-09-2006, 05:22 PM

I was born in the 70s in Midwest America to white parents. There was no way I was going to not get circumcised. There was probably some family influence, since all of my cousins had it done. I think my parents weren't looking out for my best interests and were just following the crowd. I doubt they even thought twice about not having it done. And the doctors here are more than willing to make the extra $200 for 15 minutes of work.

I would say it is sexual abuse. It demonstrates the power that adults have over a child. A baby can't defend himself or say he doesn't want it done. And I don't see 90% of European males getting circumcised when they are old enough to consent to the surgery. It's the boy's body to decide what to do with as he pleases. There is no reason to cut it off, even the religious ones. The Jewish people used to just make a small cut on the top of the skin and let some blood drip out.

Hopefully as people learn more about this, I hope their attitudes change. The circumcision rates have dropped quite a bit in the past 10 years. All I know is my son(s) will be left with all of their pieces.

Suave · 01-09-2006, 07:04 PM

I wouldn't say sexual abuse. Genital mutilation is a better term. I have no problem with it being performed when necessary, but doing it just for shits and giggles is retarded. It's tradition? So fucking what? Traditional medicine also involved bleeding people to cure them. Let's do that too! Circumcision at birth is complete idiocy. FUCKING STUPID IDEA.

dlish · 01-09-2006, 07:09 PM

just to clear up a few things..female circumcision is done to prevent the female from reaching orgasm by destroying the clitoris. this is supposed to prevent them from having sexual intercourse with other men because they would be deprived of the pleasures of sex..

whereas male circumcision is more of a cleanliness issue to most. i know for a fact that from a religious point of view both jews and muslims practice it to all their boys... theoretically anyways. i'm chopped and ive never had a prob with it. ive never had any flashbacks or anything freaky like that. i think myself as 'normal' ... i think...

ngdawg · 01-09-2006, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamingdog

That's because he didn't wash, not because he had a foreskin. I find this attitude completely irreconcilable. I just don't get the fascination with lopping off something all men are born with for no reason whatsoever. It strikes me that losing your foreskin is commensurate with a loss of sensation in the head of the penis. It stands to reason, since I'm uncut and I can barely stand it to be touched directly. If it was exposed all the time, I'd feel nothing like what I do now. While you might think that's great from a stamina point of view... I'm not convinced. And I'm quite capable of lubicrating myself, thanks.

It was the smegma under the foreskin that was gross-yes, because he didn't wash, I believe I said that. Really no reason to get.....uh...snippy.

Suave · 01-09-2006, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlishsguy

just to clear up a few things..female circumcision is done to prevent the female from reaching orgasm by destroying the clitoris. this is supposed to prevent them from having sexual intercourse with other men because they would be deprived of the pleasures of sex..

whereas male circumcision is more of a cleanliness issue to most. i know for a fact that from a religious point of view both jews and muslims practice it to all their boys... theoretically anyways. i'm chopped and ive never had a prob with it. ive never had any flashbacks or anything freaky like that. i think myself as 'normal' ... i think...

From the information I've seen, it's the trimming of the labia, not the clitoris.

ng: Haha I love awful puns. ^_^

majik_6 · 01-09-2006, 07:53 PM

My $.02:

I was circumcised and honestly, I'm glad. I think aesthetically it's a better choice. My family really doesn't have a religious reason, I figure it's just what was normal when I was born.

Honestly, if I'd been able to make the choice back then, I'd have chosen to get snipped. Knowing what I do now, I see that the only one of my friends that was supposedly uncircumcised got teased pretty bad, even in high school.

I don't really know if I'll be having children, so it's not an especially important issue in my future, but I do know that if I had a son, I'd most likely get him circumcised. Not because I am, but just because I know that it CAN be very difficult in this area to grow up un-cut.

So, in summation, no, I don't think it's abuse. It's simply a matter of opinion.

01-09-2006, 10:36 AM	#1 (permalink)
lindalove Registered User	Is the circumcision of a boy mutilation? I say Hell no - it's a common practice here in America, and it's done while they are too young to remember anything about it. It's a lot more sanitary and reduces your risk of getting penile cancer greatly. Last edited by lindalove; 01-09-2006 at 10:57 AM..

01-09-2006, 10:41 AM	#2 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	Hahaha yeah it is. A dirty old man is fondling little boy penis! Ahahahaha EDIT: yeah but seriously it isn't. If it were, then all doctors who treat children are pedophiles. P.S. circumcision doesn't make it any more sanitary. __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

01-09-2006, 10:50 AM	#3 (permalink)
Poppinjay You had me at hello Location: DC/Coastal VA	It does not reduce the risk of penile cancer. Penile cancer is extremely rare and there is no study proving it reduces the risk. There are several statistical studies that show any difference in cancer rates between the circumcised and non-circumcised is unmeasurable chatter. http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/ http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html Meanwhile, if you read pro-circumcision lit, it reads like tin foil stuff, the studies are all "against the truth", it's all shaped by doctors with a "political agenda". Very little data to back it up. __________________ I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

01-09-2006, 10:50 AM	#4 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	No, I think she meant is it abuse, the way we think of the removing of the clitoris in some african tribes is abuse... Of course, it's hard to interpret a two sentence OP! As for the issue... I'm on the fence. I'm clearly used to them being circumcised, but I can't think of a good reason to do so. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

01-09-2006, 11:27 AM	#13 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	It is abusive. It's SICK. I will not allow any sons I may have to be strapped down and mutilated. There is no rationalization or reasoning I would ever believe that makes this in any way okay. I'm genital mutilated, like most guys. I don't hate my parents for doing it, because I don't believe it ever occured to them not to. I have to excuse thier behavior because I believe it was done in ignorance. Only recently are we coming out of the dark ages on this particular subject. There is no valid reason to strap a child down and cut off parts of his genitalia. The linked video below is of a boy being mutliated by a doctor. Why a parent would do this, I don't understand. The child is literally strapped down in a seat made just for this particular horror. His penis is then clamped with one tool, then ripped apart with other sharp tools. The infant's body is wracked with pain as he's mutilated. It makes me sick to see this. Video of mutilation << Video requires RealPlayer... Sorry about that. The amount of hypocracy surrounding this practice continues to amaze me. It's barbaric and senseless. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

01-09-2006, 10:52 AM	#5 (permalink)
Himbo Tilted Location: Canada	I believe so. You cutting off a part of a boy's genital's. You can't do this to women. There are actual laws protecting your girls against this type of act. But nothing for boys. Circumcision doesn't benefit young boys in any way. That is the conclusion from post 2000 studies done on the subject from un-biased researchers. http://standyourground.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3475 Circumcision of infants is never medically necessary, according to the American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Circumcision has serious risks. These include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, shock, penile disfigurement, penile amputation, and even occasional death. The complication rate for this unnecessary procedure is estimated to be 2-10%. Circumcision confers no proven health benefits. An intact penis is easy to clean and care for. Some studies show that it increases risk of infections or disease transmission. The few studies that indicate some health benefits all have serious flaws in terms of population selection. Circumcision permanently changes the way an infant will later experience sex and sexuality. It removes several square inches of functional, healthy tissue including 10,000-20,000 nerve endings. Removal of this many nerves and this much tissue damages the ability to feel sexual pleasure. Problems later in life can include lack of sensation, chafing, lack of arousal, frustration, and problems due to insufficient lubrication. Circumcision is painful. It involves tearing away and amputating highly sensitive tissue that was physically attached to the head of the penis. The procedure causes excruciating pain and can send infants into shock. Babies who have been circumcised are significantly more likely to have problems breast-feeding, and they demonstrate heightened pain responses months later. Circumcision hurts everyone. There is evidence that female partners of circumcised men experience less pleasure during intercourse, and may be subject to more frequent vaginal tearing and urinary tract infections. Although circumcision holds a traditional place in Jewish and Islamic culture, today's hospital circumcision bears little resemblance to religious ceremonies. Some Jewish individuals are opting for alternative ceremonies that do not require genital alteration, called "Brit Shalom". U.S. infant circumcision validates female circumcision here and abroad. The belief that male circumcision is valuable for hygiene reasons mirrors statements that female circumcision is necessary to keep women "clean" and "acceptable" for their husbands. In fact, there is no hygienic justification for removing healthy tissue in either gender. There is already a federal law protecting female children from genital cutting, modification, or piercing of any kind. Boys have a right to the same protection. Involuntary circumcision violates human rights. Every individual has the right to an intact body, and should not be subjected to body modifications without his/her consent. Infants require special protection because they cannot speak for themselves. *A child who is not subjected to circumcision will fit in just fine with his peers. Circumcision rates in the U.S. are falling, down from 90% in the 1970s to 60% today.

01-09-2006, 10:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	Let's just say, I'm happy to have the hood.

01-09-2006, 11:11 AM	#11 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	Basically, sexual abuse is a misnomer in this case. It would have been better to say 'is circumcision ritualistic mutilation?' I don't see how anyone can say 'no' to that. That's pretty much a definition of circumcision. I don't see the logic behind removing a part of the body that it is normal to be born with. It's like saying that ten fingers is too many and we can afford to lose a few.

01-09-2006, 11:17 AM	#12 (permalink)
Da Munk Crazy	In most cases it is an unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery performed before the subject is old enough to give consent. If cutting of a part of a baby's genitals out of some weird sense of tradition isn't abuse, I don't know what is.

01-09-2006, 11:29 AM	#14 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	I agree that it's unnecessary ... but I have to ask: of the male respondents, are any of you circumcised? __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

01-09-2006, 11:30 AM	#15 (permalink)
BadNick Riding the Ocean Spray Location: S.E. PA in U Sofa	I don't believe there is any recent scientific reasoning to support benefits of male circumcision, but I still don't consider it "abuse"; though it is a religious ritual for sure and I think it fits "ritualistic mutilation". Most of my friends cringe when I tell them about this ...but my two year younger brother and I were born in Austria in 1949 and 1951 to Catholic parents and circumcision was not all that common or generally done to all. When we came to the U.S. and were being examined by the pediatricians of the day back in the mid 50's, they recommended that my brother and I be circumcised. So I had it done when I was almost 10 years old. Other than the potential pain and suffering of which I barely had any of that, I think I prefer mine to be circumcised, though I have never lived as an adult with mine in the OEM version. I never heard about this variation until the recent news in NY State about one of the orthodox Jewish variations on circumcision. I found it quite odd that their ritual involves the moyle sucking the bloody wound of the baby ...maybe I'm weird for even thinking that's weird?! But it's in the news since apparently one moyle could have transmitted herpes to a couple of babies by this procedure. my edit: when my two boys were born, now they're 9 & 10yo, we had them circumcised at home by a moyle even though I'm not Jewish and while my wife is of Jewish heritage, her family is absolutely NOT religious at all. We thought we wanted it done and it was safer doing it at home.

01-09-2006, 11:37 AM	#16 (permalink)
Carno Junkie	I'm not circumcised, and I'm kinda glad I'm not. I can just pull the skin back if I want to pretend I'm circumcised __________________ http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

01-09-2006, 12:07 PM	#18 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	The responses are interesting. After due consideration and reading of the current literature, my wife and I decided to have our son circumcised. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-09-2006, 12:22 PM	#19 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	I am but I'm undecided as to whether my son (if I have one) will be.

01-09-2006, 12:26 PM	#20 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	I do find it interesting that men who are circumcised feel strongly that you shouldn't be. I always thought that there wasn't a good enough reason to do that to a little baby, but because it's so societally accepted here, there wasn't a reason necessary. But as I'm not a man, with all of the expectations on me about how my penis is supposed to look, what do I know? All I do know is that it does seem equivalent to slicing off the clitoris, and that is a horrible thought. Why do that to a poor baby boy? __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

01-09-2006, 12:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
Glory's Sun Registered User	I'm circumsized.. I like it. I guess it's just what I've always pictured as being normal. When I see an uncut penis.. it just looks odd to me. (no offense to anyone with a hood.) Now, do I think it's wrong?? TBH, I've never really given it much thought. I've never studied up on the reasoning(s) behind the practice so I couldn't really give any answer other than.. "I have no fucking clue."

01-09-2006, 12:37 PM	#22 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	I don't think it's abuse. It's unnecessary surgery. I asked my parents why they had it done to me, and the reason came back that my father was circumcized, and so he wanted me to be the same. I'm not angry about it; it hasn't negatively affected my life, but I won't be having it done to any sons I have, because it IS unnecessary. __________________ it's quiet in here

01-09-2006, 12:40 PM	#24 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	It's just what you're used to. In this country, circumcision isn't anything like as usual as it is over in the US. JustJess, it's not equivalent to having your clitoris sliced off, that would be the same as cutting off the glans... think of it more like having the hood that covers your clitoris taken off. I know that what we understand as 'female circumcision' isn't exactly the same as it is in the case of males, but if you're looking for the conceptual equivalent, that - to my understanding - would be it. Completely unnecessary.

01-09-2006, 12:41 PM	#25 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	nope not abuse. Necessary? not any longer. was it ever necessary? maybe not. But i was done as a matter of medical practice when I was born. The women of my past and present all seemed to have prefered it that way too. All of them in discussion have claimed that. Were they telling the truth? hard to say. Just as I would not have complained about their physical configuration while I was in a relationship with them as well. My sons (all three) are circumsized. Would I do it now? Probably not. But It's not a big issue, and all three are comfortable with the situation. yawn there are more important things to worry about. __________________ You said you didn't give a fuck about hockey And I never saw someone say that before You held my hand and we walked home the long way You were loosening my grip on Bobby Orr http://dune.wikia.com/wiki/Leto_Atreides_I

01-09-2006, 12:49 PM	#26 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	For those wondering what female circumcision is exactly... you can click on this link to wikipedia: LINK I just don't know why anyone would do something so uneccesary. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-09-2006, 01:13 PM	#29 (permalink)
flamingdog Still fighting it.	Yea, I do see the distinction. I was just bringing it up because it shows that not every circumcision is unnecessary.

01-09-2006, 01:17 PM	#30 (permalink)
Fly see the links to my music? Location: Beautiful British Columbia	i am cut too...........an hold no grudge towards my parents. but i gotta say,i'm so fucking glad that my son didn't have to scream and go through the pain that poor little boy did in that vid. ....there's no need for it. __________________ BASTARD SterlingStudios

01-09-2006, 04:13 PM	#31 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	I thought long and hard when I found out I was having a boy.. His father is circumcised and said hell, yea, he's getting it too. I had been with one uncircumcised man and, while he was probably not the norm, I hated it-he was unclean. But I wasn't sure it was necessary. I decided for it. Not all doctors or hospitals strap a baby down like a scene out of a Vincent Price movie and hack away. While I did not witness my son's, they did bring him to me right after and he wasn't even crying. There was almost no blood on the bandage either. As for some of those 'facts' posted, he had NO problem breast feeding, didn't have 'heightened pain response' later on. Every man I've been with besides the one have been circumcised and never complained about lack of sensation, lack of lubrication(isn't that partly my job?) or lack of arousal. It is one of the most agonizing decisions to make while pregnant. MIght have helped if I could have learned about the care that goes with leaving the foreskin intact, but I didn't have a clue, except Mr. Icky. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

01-09-2006, 04:43 PM	#33 (permalink)
onodrim Cosmically Curious Location: Chicago, IL	I don't believe that it is abuse. It's certainly not necessary, but I don't have a problem with anyone who makes the choice to have their son circumcized. It doesn't inhibit sexual function or pleasure in any way. As far as I see it, that's what sets it apart from clitoral mutilation or female genital mutilation in general. __________________ "The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides" -Carl Sagan Last edited by onodrim; 01-10-2006 at 11:42 AM..

01-09-2006, 04:53 PM	#34 (permalink)
Grasshopper Green ...is a comical chap Location: Where morons reign supreme	I don't view it as sexual abuse, but I see no reason for it unless you have religious convictions for it. I watched a video in my human sexuality class in 1998 that showed a baby being circumcised; I vowed then and there that no son of mine would ever go through that. Thankfully, hubby didn't see any reason for it either, and it was never an issue when my son was born. __________________ "They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king" Formerly Medusa

01-09-2006, 05:22 PM	#35 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	I was born in the 70s in Midwest America to white parents. There was no way I was going to not get circumcised. There was probably some family influence, since all of my cousins had it done. I think my parents weren't looking out for my best interests and were just following the crowd. I doubt they even thought twice about not having it done. And the doctors here are more than willing to make the extra $200 for 15 minutes of work. I would say it is sexual abuse. It demonstrates the power that adults have over a child. A baby can't defend himself or say he doesn't want it done. And I don't see 90% of European males getting circumcised when they are old enough to consent to the surgery. It's the boy's body to decide what to do with as he pleases. There is no reason to cut it off, even the religious ones. The Jewish people used to just make a small cut on the top of the skin and let some blood drip out. Hopefully as people learn more about this, I hope their attitudes change. The circumcision rates have dropped quite a bit in the past 10 years. All I know is my son(s) will be left with all of their pieces. Last edited by ASU2003; 01-09-2006 at 05:29 PM..

01-09-2006, 07:04 PM	#36 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	I wouldn't say sexual abuse. Genital mutilation is a better term. I have no problem with it being performed when necessary, but doing it just for shits and giggles is retarded. It's tradition? So fucking what? Traditional medicine also involved bleeding people to cure them. Let's do that too! Circumcision at birth is complete idiocy. FUCKING STUPID IDEA. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

01-09-2006, 07:09 PM	#37 (permalink)
dlish Currently sour but formerly Dlishs Super Moderator Location: Australia/UAE	just to clear up a few things..female circumcision is done to prevent the female from reaching orgasm by destroying the clitoris. this is supposed to prevent them from having sexual intercourse with other men because they would be deprived of the pleasures of sex.. whereas male circumcision is more of a cleanliness issue to most. i know for a fact that from a religious point of view both jews and muslims practice it to all their boys... theoretically anyways. i'm chopped and ive never had a prob with it. ive never had any flashbacks or anything freaky like that. i think myself as 'normal' ... i think... __________________ An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay? - Filthy

01-09-2006, 07:53 PM	#40 (permalink)
majik_6 narcissist Location: looking in a mirror	My $.02: I was circumcised and honestly, I'm glad. I think aesthetically it's a better choice. My family really doesn't have a religious reason, I figure it's just what was normal when I was born. Honestly, if I'd been able to make the choice back then, I'd have chosen to get snipped. Knowing what I do now, I see that the only one of my friends that was supposedly uncircumcised got teased pretty bad, even in high school. I don't really know if I'll be having children, so it's not an especially important issue in my future, but I do know that if I had a son, I'd most likely get him circumcised. Not because I am, but just because I know that it CAN be very difficult in this area to grow up un-cut. So, in summation, no, I don't think it's abuse. It's simply a matter of opinion. __________________ it's all about self-indulgence