To be dreadfully sad that in the 21st century child abuse seems to be part of the culture in a so-called modern, progressive and enlightened country like the USA

[Perriwinkle]

I've been watching a lot of American baby programmes on satellite TV lately and have been horrified and saddened to see how many parents, who appear to be loving, caring, very protective parents who are determined to everything right by their children, have their sons circumcised in hospital just before they bring them home.

These parents then get stressed and worried when these babies are what they describe as "fussy" (which I've gathered seems to mean a collection of things such as not feeding/sleeping/settling well and crying a lot). Clearly these poor babies are in huge discomfort, due to the barbaric and hugely invasive and unnecessary procedure that's been carried out on them.

When the parents are talking to camera about their early experiences of parenthood, how it has made them feel and what their hopes are for the future, they are all full of wanting to do the best for their child, to love, cherish and protect them and about being the best parents they possibly can for their child. This seems to be so at odds with giving consent for that child to have its genitals mutilated just a day or two earlier.

One woman I saw was talking about how she was in pieces when her son had to "get his first shots" as she called it (injections I assume?) yet she said nothing about his circumcision. I know that the vast majority have it done because when you see them changing nappies you know they have had it done because they have big wadge of gauze there to protect the wound site and you often hear them saying they have to be careful due to the circumcision. If only these parents could be educated to see that it is not in their child's best interests to have him circumcised, rather than thinking it is.

I really can't believe that this practice is still carried out as routinely and widely as it is in the USA even though there is no medical justification for it and no sound evidence to justify that it is in any way beneficial or more hygenic than leaving the baby intact.

What a shame that in many cases such clearly educated and rational people, who do not appear to have any religious imperative to carry out this barbaric practice are still doing this to their children in their droves. It means that millions of children are being subjected to this abusive practice on a daily basis in the USA.

Surely with proper education and information this could be turned around and this vile practive wiped out? I know having it done due to a religious imperative is a whole different argument but surely if non Jewish and Islamic people were properly informed and enlightened on the subject surely the incidence of this completely unneccessary abusive practice could be drastically reduced and in time eschewed by the overwhelming majority of parents?

I understand that routine non ritual circumcision was once a feature of many cultures but that it has successfully died out due to education and enlightenment. Wouldn't it be lovely to think the same could happen in the USA?

Of course I do, but it's not relevant.

And a gene cannot predict HIV.....so still that so called benefit is no such thing.

Stop trying to use the whole cultural relativism crap to justify cutting a tiny perfect baby boy. Yuck.

Mathanxiety you said:

"The arrogance of your posts shines forth for all to see, and the ethnocentrism of the cultural assumptions that underlie your hostility to religious practices is really cringeworthy. To say, as you insist on saying again and again, that the path to true civilisation would involve, for Jews and Muslims, adopting your form of enlightenment and giving up an enormously important part of their religion, is cultural anti-Semitism of a really shameless kind."

The thing is, it's not just me saying this. Jewish people themselves are eschewing this ritual practice. So Jews themselves are turning their backs on it. They are saying that it is absolutely possible to be faithful adherents to Judaism without perpetuating this ritual abuse. So you see, it appears that some Jews do not consider it to be an "enormously important part of their religion". I would again refer you to this website:

www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

You can dismiss it as "shit" if you like but here are a group of educated and enlightened Jews (their words not mine) who are saying that ritual circumcision is barbaric, primitive, torturous and has no place in modern Judaism. Jews are saying this about their own faith - not me. I'm just really glad to know they are saying it. So what does that make them in your book eh? Are they demonstrating "cultural anti-Semitism of a really shameless kind" too?

This leads me on to your accusation of me being ethnocentric. In fact, my views on unnecessary non therapeutic ritual and non ritual circumcision transcend any notions of ethnocentricity. I do not consider the views of my race/ethnic group/culture to be superior to others (my understanding of ethnocentricity). Indeed, many people from my own race/ethnic group/culture practice unnecessary non therapeutic ritual and non ritual circumcision. However, all sorts of people - both men and women - from different social backgrounds across racial/ethnic groupings/cultures different to my own the world over are fundamentally opposed, on moral, ethical and humanitarian grounds, to the practice of unnecessary non therapeutic ritual and non ritual circumcision for both genders. You see, this issue transcends all notions of race/ethnicity/religion. It is a human issue. A moral and ethical issue. So for the purposes of this debate, we are all from the same race - the human race. The above website "Jews Against Circumcision" proves that too.

You called me arrogant too. I know that I would never subject my child to a traumatic and painful procedure unless it was absolutely essential and irrefutably in his best interests. I do not believe that it is within a parent's gift to take the decision to cut off a healthy and functioning part of their child's body, thereby causing pain, suffering and trauma, without just cause or reason. I believe it is fundamentally ethically and morally wrong. If any of that makes me arrogant, or "cringeworthy" then so be it. I'm very happy to be both arrogant and cringeworthy at that rate.

And as for your comment: "Maybe the crazy part is that puppies' tails may not be docked?" I don't really understand what you mean.

We know that puppies tails may not be docked as legislation has been passed in many countries worldwide to protect dogs from having functioning parts of their bodies lopped off at the whim of their owners. The legislatures in these countries have seen fit to listen to the considered opinions of vets who have consistently argued that non therapeutic docking is very clearly not in the best interests of the animals. Ironically, however, legislation has not been passed anywhere as far as I'm aware to protect male infant human beings from having their foreskins lopped off at the whim of their parents.

I wonder if the dog owners were to say that docking was "an enormously important part of their religion" they'd get round the issue? That approach seems to work well enough with humans.

I would like my ovaries taken out when I'm done having children.

Perriwinkle Yes, there are some Jewish people who are not having their sons circumcised; they are few but vocal. Earlier I said why some do so even though they have reservations about it.

I suppose we should be relieved that you don't actually want to forbid it; I expect others do.

It's not going to stop anytime soon.

Perriwinkle, what exactly is your ethnicity/cultural background? I am asking because you say many people from your cultural background practice circumcision.

Every religion has its fringe. Jewish people against circ are a fringe. So is the Ku Klu Klanx to Christianity. Just as the KKK is not representative of Christians, the organisation you refer to is not representative of the Jewish people, who almost universally accept circumcision as an imperative of the faith.

By the way, any non therapeutic circumcision is referred to as ritual, so you do not need to use that terribly long winded expression "unecessary non therapeutic ritual and non ritual circumcision".

Primafacie I find it is imperative to be longwinded in describing the type of circumcision I am oppsed to out of necessity. Did you not notice way back at the start of this thread some people who'd had their son's circumcised in order to correct a medical problem took grave exception to my comments, even though I have no issue with medically necessary circumcisions?

I do not agree with your assertion that "any non therapeutic circumcision is referred to as ritual". Not in my book it is not. For me, a ritual circumcision always has a ceremonial aspect to it, that is why I like to draw a distinction between ritual circumcision (motiviated by religious belief) and unnecessary non ritual circumcision (i.e the type practiced in American hopsitals daily which is not motivated by any religious conviction but instead by spurious beliefs that it somehow is in the best interests of the child, or otherwise just "the done thing" in order to conform and fit in).

And as to your comments about the faction within Judaism who are choosing not to circumcise their sons as not being representative of Jewish people, I think you are missing the point I was trying to make entirely. Whilst this body is undoubtedly a small voice, it is nonetheless still a dissenting voice coming from within Judaism. MathAnxiety was happy to accuse me of being Anti-Semitic simply for holding the views I do so I was simply asking what she would call these Jewish people who hapapen to share my views and consider that it is absolutely possible to be faithful adherents to Judaism without perpetrating ritual abuse on children.

The KuKlux Klan were/are an unspeakably monstrous, morally bankrupt outfit and I'm sure that the members of the anti circumcision lobby within Judaism would be hugely offended by your analogy. They are simply a group of observant Jews who feel that ritual circumcision is, in their own words "...barbaric, primitive, torturous and has no place in modern Judaism." For them it is not an enormously important part of their religion.

Religions by their very nature, like all other dymamic social organisations, will develop and evolve over time. For you to be so dismissive of the views of these people, and the influence their views might garner over time, is myopic in the extreme.

As Andrewofgg said, "it's not going to stop any time soon" but rates will decrease through inevitable social change and that gladens my heart. I'm certainly not going to stop speaking out against it any time soon either.

And finally, CheefulYank good for you if you would like your ovaries taken out when you're done having children. At least you'll have the luxury of making that informed choice about your own body yourself...

I do think this thread is going anywhere, the 2 anti-circs left are clearly zealots so nothing anyone says will change their minds. Time to stop feeding it IMO.

It was just a musing. I'm terrified of ovarian cancer.

I wasn't trying to stir the shit earlier, I was genuinely curious with my question. If you are, as Posies said she is, pro-life, then: it is okay for a mother to decide to abort a five and a half month fetus, but not for a mother to prematurely deliver a five and half month baby and circumcise him? It's just an interesting thought rolling around in my head, I'm not trying to make this a pro-choice or life argument.

OOOH!

FULL HOUSE!!

I am neither pro life nor a zealot.

I am opposed to harming and disfiguring infants that's all.

But why do you care so much Posies? No one will force you to have your sons circumcised. It is really not mainstream in this country. The overwhelming majority of circumcised men are fine with it. Those who are not can make the decision not to circumcise their own sons. As it is, nearly all circumcised men want their sons circumcised, which does not indicate that they consider themselves to have been abused. Nor is it an inherently risky procedure - complications, most of them minor, occur in 0.2-0.4% of cases. Severe complications are extremely rare for infant circumcision.

Parents make choices and impose them on their children every minute of the day. The way you feed yours, how much telly they watch, how they are educated, how their emotional intelligence is stimulated are all aspects of parenting that bear much more important consequences on a child's development than circumcision does. So what is the point of focusing your energy on a practice that is safe, widely accepted, and that's got nothing to do with you and isn't being imposed on you? In other words, why can't you live and let live? Could it be because of the tabloid effect you get from telling others they are 'mutilating' and 'disfiguring' their sons, whereas denouncing actual neglectful abuse isn't nearly as headline grabbing, and requires much harder work?

There was a suggestion upthread that the 'educated, enlightened echelons of socitey' are rejecting circumcision. That is not what the WHO found in its review. In fact, circumcision is more common among those with higher education and socioeconomic status, both in Australia and the US. In the UK when it was practised it was mostly associated with the upper classes.

I don't subscribe to the notion that only the foolish follow this practice, I am constantly surprised what people do in the name of religion and culture. I guess I'm bothered because I think it's unbelievable in this day and age. But I am thankful everyday not to be bound by religion and all it's control.

Perriwinkle, what will be your position if the African data is expanded and studies in the West confirm that circumcision affords significant protection against STIs, HPV and HIV, and health bodies update their recommendation in favour of infant circumcision? Would you still think it is abuse for parents to follow the new recommendations?

When my older sisters and cousins were born, the accepted practice was to start babies on solids in the first few weeks - my cousin was given baby rice by a maternity ward nurse at 3 days old. I can assure you my aunt is the most loving, caring mother I have ever met. Should you judge her through the glass of your cultural bias, which is against infant weaning until 6 months, and state her to be a child abuser, when what she was doing was following the then current parenting fashion and medical advice?

Ah crap, I meant pro-choice. Oops. Sorry Posies. :)

I just think it's an interesting viewpoint...surely, at least technically, it's more "harmful" to a five and a half month fetus to be aborted than to be circumcised. But abortion's okay and circumcision is abuse.

I know it's not a comparable thing of course, it's just interesting to see what society views as acceptable. Or not. :)

S'alright

'And a gene cannot predict HIV.....so still that so called benefit is no such thing'

No, there is no genetic link to HIV . The point of circumcision is that it removes the foreskin, which plays a part in the physical transmission of HIV. Here is why possession of a foreskin may render a man more susceptible to HIV infection (and other infections):

'Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection.

wrt Jews against circumcision looking down their noses at others who circumcise -- 'Are they demonstrating "cultural anti-Semitism of a really shameless kind" too?' Yes, they are, in the opinion of those who circumcise and whose judgement they deride in terms that make it clear that they feel there is some superiority attached to not circumcising. There's a difference between just minding your own business and not circumcising your son, and not circumcising while at the same time telling others they are neanderthals for continuing to do it. That is where the cultural anti-Semitism comes in, in the holier than thou attitude. This is where you have gone wrong too.

Primafacie In the time honoured tradition of research, virtually every piece of research that has revealed this startling revelation has been countered and robustly refuted.

Recent research has found that there are genetic factors which make people of African descent more susceptible to HIV infection. The rates of transmission in African countries should not, therefore, be taken as being typical of the patterns of transmission in other countries. Nor should circumcision be seen as some sort of panacea.

Instituting a programme of widespread male circumcision is knee-jerk and will ultimately simply divert resources from researching the ultimate answer to this disease - a proven vaccine. It will also detract from other educating about other proven methods of transmission control - practicing safe sex and fidelity. Most importantly it will generate a false sense of security in males who have been circumcised. The desensitization of the penis that frequently results from male circumcision is likely to make men less willing to use condoms and worse still, to make them think that it is not necessary to use one at all as circumcision guarantees immunity. In short, a program of male circumcision very likely may worsen the epidemic.

The USA has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision whilst other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection. This proves that there is no proven link between low rates of HIV transmission and a high incidence of circumcision.

I wonder if you are aware of observational studies that have been done comparing the HIV infection rates of circumcised and uncircumcised women in various countries in Sub-Saharan Africa? These studies (similar to those advocating male circumcision as a means of HIV transmission control) have found a lower prevalence of HIV in circumcised women too.

A 1992 study of Senegalese prostitutes found that women who practice FGC had a significantly decreased risk of HIV infection compared to uncut women. For example, in Ziguinchor the infection rates were 21.4% among circumcised prostitutes and 38.1% in the overall study population (Kanki et al. 1992: 901). A study examining the 2003 data from the Kenyan Demographic and Health Survey found that circumcised women had a significantly lower rate of HIV infection than uncircumcised women (6.3% vs. 9.9%) and that women from ethnic communities with a lower prevalence of FGC were significantly more likely to be HIV positive than women from ethnic communities with a higher prevalence of FGC (Maslovskaya et al. 2009: 820). Another study analysing the 2003 Kenyan Demographic and Health Survey data also found that circumcised women had a lower HIV infection rate than uncircumcised women (5.9% vs. 10.2%), but when sociodemographic factors like age were considered this difference was no longer statistically significant (Yount & Abraham 2007: 73). A 2007 study that included a comparison of circumcised and uncircumcised men and women in Kenya found that adult circumcised men and women were both less likely to be HIV positive than those who were uncircumcised (5.5% vs. 9.9%). However, male and female virgins who had been circumcised where more likely to be HIV positive than uncircumcised virgins, and this can most likely be attributed to contaminated instruments and unhygienic practices that occur in the genital cutting of both men and women in traditional as well as clinical settings (Brewer 2007: 220).

Using the arguments you've put forward so far, I suppose you'd have to concede that these studies put forward a convincing argument too..?

I assume on this basis that you'd also advocate universal genital mutilation (of both women and men) in African countries as the preferred method of controlling transmission of HIV?

Like Posies, I am not a zealot either. I just care about this issue and take the opportunity to speak out against it wherever and whenever I can. It's a sure sign that someone has lost the argument when all they can come back with is "why do you care?" When the only useful analogy you have left to draw on is to compare mutilating the genitals of your defenseless, vulnerable innocent, perfect child who looks to you for comfort and protection with introducing him to baby rice a few weeks later than you did his older sister then I think you really are clutching at straws.

And Mathanxiety thank you for clarifying your views about the Jewish anti-circumcision lobby. Very enlightening but I have little interest in them really becaause they don't much matter in the in the grand scheme of things. Most important to me is that there are Jewish people looking to change things from within.

These people are not anti-Semites as you so hysterically call them. They are faithful adherents to their faith who are making their voices heard and, like me, they are motivated by what is right. They do not feel it is necessary to harm other people to practice thier faith. Who are you to judge them?

Good luck to them I say for standing up to the voices of dogmatic conservatism within their faith. Religions are dynamic organisations that can and do change and evolve over time. I have every hope that thanks to the efforts and conviction of truly good and decent people like them the rates of circumcision will fall still further in the USA as time marches on and society in general evoles.

Perriwinkle, the management of HIV epidemic in Africa is a very complex issue. No treatment or vaccine, if and as they become available, will ever give 100% protection against the disease, and there is a real risk that a vaccine will also give a false sense of security.

"The USA has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision whilst other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection. This proves that there is no proven link between low rates of HIV transmission and a high incidence of circumcision." No it doesn't 'prove' anything. Do you understand the difference between causation and correlation?

In order to explain the high incidence of HIV in te US, you need to consider different behaviours too, such as intraveinous transmission among drug users, which is extremely high, and HIV transmission through gay sex, on which few reliable studies have been made yet.

FGM and circumcision are not the same, and no amount of you trying to confuse the two will change that. There are NO HEALTH BENEFITS to FGM. Don't take my word for it - read the WHO statement here. The studies you refer to are not reliable - for instance, in the Senegalese study you refer to, once results were controlled for age, the association was not statistically significant. FGM carries significant risks, including a high risk of stillbirth, recurrent pain, and repeated UTIs, none of which is true of circumcision.

The baby rice thing was an ANALOGY, to try and make you see that people in different contexts than your small universe make different decisions in the perceived best interests of their children. Quite how that makes me 'clutching at straws', I honestly don't know. I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse.

Having said all this, I am tired of banging my head on a brick wall, and I officially bid you farewell. You will no doubt bask in the glory of victory and warm feeling of having won the argument :). But as a parting thought, I assure you that you haven't convinced me or, I suspect, anyone else on this thread. I just cba to put up with your insults anymore. I get the feeling you will not stop until one of us goes "omg, you were right all along, I AM a child abuser!", presumably so you can feel comparatively smug. I, on the other hand, sleep well at night knowing that I am teaching my children values of tolerance, and am confident they will grow up keeping at bay this insufferable superiority that embues your posts. Perhaps because I have a wonderful, welcoming mixed race/culture/religion family, and close and dear friends on every continent, I am aware that there is more than one way to see the world. Ramming your own values down others' throats rarely produces anything but contempt.

'Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States' According to this article, Perriwinkle, you are basically wrong. However, I doubt that will stop you blathering on.

'Considerations for the United States:
There are a number of important differences that must be considered in the possible role of male circumcision in HIV prevention in the U.S. Notably, the overall risk of HIV infection is considerably lower in the United States, changing risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness considerations. Also, studies to date have focused on heterosexual, penile-vaginal sex, the predominant mode of HIV transmission in Africa, while the predominant mode of sexual HIV transmission in the United States is by penile-anal sex among MSM. In addition, while the prevalence of circumcision may be somewhat lower in racial and ethnic groups with higher rates of HIV infection, most Americans are already circumcised, and it is not known if men at higher risk for HIV infection would be willing to be circumcised, nor if parents would be willing to have their infants circumcised to reduce possible future HIV infection risk. Lastly, whether the effect of male circumcision differs by HIV-1 subtype, predominately subtype B in the U.S. and subtypes A, C, and D in Africa, is also unknown.'

'The USA has a high rate of HIV infection and a high rate of circumcision whilst other countries have low rates of circumcision and low rates of HIV infection.'
You obviously have access to information that is not available to the Centers for Disease Control here .
US infection rates are lower than rates in Africa -- who knows how high they might be were it not for the high rate of circumcision in the US?
Your cockeyed idea that there is some genetic predisposition among African populations to HIV infection has absolutely no basis in fact.
Same goes for your notions about FGM, as dealt with by PrimaFacie.

'thank you for clarifying your views about the Jewish anti-circumcision lobby. Very enlightening but I have little interest in them really becaause they don't much matter in the in the grand scheme of things. Most important to me is that there are Jewish people looking to change things from within. ' Clutching at straws there, much? It goes without saying that you have little interest in facts here and that you prefer to indulge your prejudice instead, using your example of so-called 'enlightened', 'truly good and decent' Jews to cast the rest (the vast majority), and Muslims too, as comparative barbarians.

Here is a summary of an interesting table on adult prevalence of HIV infection:
Sub-Saharan Africa - 5%
Caribbean - 1%
Eastern Europe and Central Asia - 0.8%
Central and South America - 0.5%
North America - 0.5%
S and SE Asia - 0.3%
Oceania - 0.3%
Western and Central Europe - 0.2%
N Africa and Middle East - 0.2%
East Asia -

I hope you feel better for getting that little rant off your chest Primafacie.

I can tell that you harbour a lot of anger and frustration when you can't brow beat others into seeing your point of view. You have consistently resorted to using explicit insults, which have ranged from the petty to the downright outrageous and defamatory. That is something I have never done in simply expressing my opinions and you have worked yourself up into a lather over what you have inferred from what I have said.

I sincerely hope, for their sakes, that your approach to delaing with conflict of opinions doesn't rub off on your children.

As I've said Mathsanxiety, all research can be countered and refuted. The research you present supports your viewpoint, just as the research I present supports mine. There's plenty of both out there and I'm sure you must be aware that no research is ever completely neutral/objective and free from bias.

However, I think that as an efficacious approach to containing the transmission of HIV, education wins out over mutilation every time.

And as for the notion of anyone who perpetrates non therapeutic ritual and non ritual circumcision on infants being comparative barbarians...

If the cap fits, wear it I say.

What are your stats supposed to show math.

Aside from illustrating that there's justification at all for parents in the USA to mutilate their sons.

Thanks.

And if anyone would like to point out exactly why God likes men to be snipped I'm all ears, I get to keep all my bits.