To feel angry about this "advice column" re. male circumsision?(57 Posts)
I know it's just a daft advice column but this man is obviously suffering. In a nutshell he's circumcised and feels immense anger towards his parents for doing that to him and his penis isn't right because the doctor took too much away. He says he was sexually assaulted in primary school but feels more invaded regarding his penis than he did about the assault.
"Abby" says that he might have "misdirected anger" towards his parents when really he's angry about the assault.
Now he may still need help re the assault but who is SHE to say that his anger about being mutilated isn't real?
I honestly think that circumcision in males needs to be made illegal. I don't CARE about religion either. My DH is circumcised...it was "normal" in Australia in the 70s but he HATES his penis being incomplete as he puts it. He feels violated and pissed off about it....our sex life is good but really, having met men who weren't mutilated like this, I know that penises which are complete are easier to handle sexually.
circumcision should be illegal for male and female for anything other than medical need.
if you want to be circumcised, you can choose yourself when youre 18
1. She says his anger may be misdirected. Not that it is
2. It's her place because he asked for her advice
3. Circumcision is a valid medical procedure in a lot of cases. Not mutilation
4. You seem very angry about circumcision because of your own experience.
Without a shadow of a doubt some sadist deviant somewhere was at the start of this longstanding but outrageously primative 'trend'. It should receive the same contempt as FGM because unless there is a medical need interacting with a child's genitals is wrong unless you are changing soiled nappies.
Thing is, if you make it illegal then you risk driving the practice underground, and risking more ilicit, unsafe practice of the procedure. Whatever you may think of it, it is regarded as a "must" in many religions or cultures. Making it illegal will not stop it being carried out, just make it less likely to be performed safely IMO.
religious and cultural reasons should have zero importance on deciding if it legal to mutilate the genitals of babies who have no say in the matter
Liz, I get your point, but really that same argument can be used for FGM but it is not. Not making it illegal is tacitly accepting it IMO.
YANBU and I think the whole 'driving it underground' is a tired argument.
The same could be said for many illegal practises, but that's not an argument to legalise them.
To repeat myself, it is a major deal to a lot of people who would be determined to have their sons circumcised whether or not it is illegal, whether you, I, or anybody else agrees with it or not. By forcing the practice underground/backstreet then the risk of it being performed in less safe and unhygienic conditions arises. Making it illegal won't stop it. But I just said all that...
Can't you make the same argument for fgm and cultural drug use? Just because people want to do something doesn't make it right, or legal.
That said, I do believe that any ban of circumcision would be viewed as anti-Semitic and as such will never happen.
No need to repeat Liz I got all that I just disagree
liz70 if those parents are determined to break the law, they should feel the full force of it upon them. Hopefully that'll see the tradition die out pretty fast.
If those kids end up being operated on in less safe and unhygienic conditions, the only people to blame are the parents and the surgeon.
You can't equate FGM with circumcision though. Its ridiculous. One is a perfectly legal and acceptable medical procedure. The other literally done just to mutilate and scar for life.
You may have different opinions about medical procedures that are done unnecessarily, but it still doesn't make those two things similar.
Plus there are other procedures that are sometimes done on children that are essentially 'elective' that aren't considered mutilation.
You can't equate FGM with circumcision though. Its ridiculous. One is a perfectly legal and acceptable medical procedure. The other literally done just to mutilate and scar for life
I am not comparing medically needed circumcision with FGM any more than I would compare a labial tumour being removed which damages the female genital area out of necessity as being FGM. I am comparing the non medically necessary, barbaric practice of removing foreskin from infants from some misguided cultural practice to another similarly barbaric cultural practice inflicted on the opposite sex for cultural reasons. The fact that you cannot see the difference is what I would consider rediculous.
They are not alike. Male circumcision is a trivial procedure whose benefits and downsides are finely balanced. I am v happy to have been circumcised as a baby. I think the vast majority of circumcised men are. Gem affects function and pleasure and there are zero medical benefits.
Thanks Larrygrylls.... that's exactly what I mean about not equating the two. One has a medical reason and/or benefit/ neutrality to the individual. The other, designed by its very purpose to be negative to the individual. There is no neutral or beneficial outcome of FGM. The same cannot be said for circumcision.
FGM and male circumcision are completely different things, but like the OP I'm completely against unnecessary male circumcision. The thought of cutting a child's genitals like that is horrible. DH was circumcised for medical reasons as a toddler and it's certainly affected him physically and psychologically. I imagine he'd feel much, much worse if the operation hadn't been necessary.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I don't think the comparison of FGM was made because the poster thought the two practices were in any way comparable. Obviously FGM is grossly barbaric torture whereas male circumcision, while cruel and unnecessary imo, doesn't usually inflict lasting damage and pain. The comparison seems to have been made because of the 'driving it underground' argument - ie, FGM has an underground, hidden 'market' but nobody is arguing to make it legal! As do drugs, child pornography etc. So the fact that it would still happen illegally is not an argument for keeping something legal. That's how I read it anyway.
I don't have desperately strong feelings about male circumcision but would generally tend to agree that it shouldn't happen.
Male circumcision is a trivial procedure whose benefits and downsides are finely balanced
I really disagree. If it's needed for medical reasons, then the benefits clearly outweigh the downsides. It is not done for those reasons, there are realistically no benefits which justify it.
YABU that 'complete' penises are easier to handle sexually- I find the opposite. Sometimes circumcision is a medical need.
YANBU that circumcision for non-medical reasons in those unable to consent (I.e children) is wrong.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Circumcision in babies purely for religious/cultural purposes is on par with child abuse imo.
It's terribly difficult to do a circumcision on an 18 year old man and not have issues with healing afterwards. I've a friend who had a circumcision as an adult and he tore his stitches every morning when he got an erection in his sleep. It has to be re done, and was just awful. My elder brother had one done at age seven due to problems with his foreskin, and he was very embarrassed, and it was a longer healing process.
When I visited some friends in Israel years ago, their relatives new baby had just had his bris a few days prior. I was much younger, and it wasn't something I'd ever thought about so felt quite shocked to be confronted with it, but I saw the baby getting his nappy changed and the 'wound' was so so minimal.
It's really difficult to know what to do. That said, it's not in my culture, and none of my three boys have been circumcised. I wouldn't judge a family for doing it. That said, if someone feels aggrieved what the hell can you do about it? Once it's gone....
Glad I don't have to worry.
Actually, there's also the statistics to consider, which puts a much darker slant on things....
In countries where one pays for medical care, the circumcision rates are much higher than countries where it's free.
The thought that circumcision is promoted purely to make money is horrific.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.