To approve of a German courts decision re circumcision

[SlipperyNipple]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Jewish by descent but an an agnostic. I think the time has come to say that being religious is not an excuse to carry out mutilation of small boys.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish?newsfeed=true

Obviously Female circumcision is already illegal but the same protection should be given to boys.

You are clearly picking and choosing which things to read and which things to ignore.

I find it interesting that many people say their OH is grateful that their parents opted for circumcision as babies. My mum asked my brother aged 10 if he would like to be circumcised like his dad. His response started with F and ended in Off! No regret that he hadn't been cut.

After my sons medical circumcision due to the condition he had, we had to retrain his bladder as he dribbled urine.

This caused meatal ulcerations which were realy painful. The consultant said it is extremely common in baby's circumcised.

Basically what it is is urine burns, the foreskin protects the tip of the penis from this happening. It was still happening a year after the circumcision

Moomin :( your poor sons!

It wasn't very nice, at first I thought his pants were too tight and maybe rubbing as it looked like a little sore. Or maybe he was being abit rough with it.

The last time he complained of it he was 12. He's 17 now so probably wouldn't mention it to me unless it was bad. Obviously baby's are more at risk due to wearing nappys. The consultant said not many people realise what it is.

My baby is 7 months old and he's never had a sore looking willy - red or dry or sore looking in any way.

By the way baby's means belonging to the baby. It's babies for plural.

I'm American, and been told by other women here that women have to be "very careful" hving sex with un-cut guys as it causes infection how has the human race managed to do so well. all this moldy cock going around

traceys husband in circumcised, for him to decide not to circumcise his son would require him to admit that something at best pointless but probobly actually detrimental had happend to a part of his body he associates with verility.
how many guys are unhappy with their penises?
how many guys will admit to being unhappy with their penis?

the most minor form of FGM is comparable with male circumcision, who would have have a problem shouting loadly to stop a cultural practise like that being carried out on a daughter?, even though it wont effect her really, just a tiny peice of unessential tissue will be removed, which will actually save some money on soap!
it isnt just because some more brutal forms of FGM would ruin a girls life and therefore scary by assosiation , it's because female circumcision isnt culturaly in our society, to cut a girls genitals make most of us recoil where a boys forskin being removed has less of a shock factor.......it's just what you accept in your culture.

Ok medtwat iphone keeps correcting, signal is bad and I'm 7 weeks pg and have been bleeding so can't be arsed to keep fighting with the iPhone spelling ok?

I find it extremely patronising and sexist to suggest that Tracey just 'agreed with her husband', as if she is incapable of independent thought and research. And I also understand her thinking on anti-circumcision/anti-choice. It's to do with the horror videos that bear no relation with real life, and the name calling to mothers who choose to have it done - this thread has had barbaric, monster, child abuser, nearly-as-bad-as-child-sacrificer, and I am sure I am forgetting loads more.

I find it really sad that some posters are saying they could never be friends with a mum who had her sons done. Do they even realise they are actually saying they could never contemplate a friendship with a Jewish or Muslim person?

If I may just suggest a different analogy - circumcision is not that different from getting a tongue tie snipped. As I understand it (not based on personal evidence), most of the time the tongue tie is snipped in the first few weeks of life, because the baby has difficulty breastfeeding - but there is no way of knowing whether the TT is actually causing the difficulties, or whether these would just resolve naturally as mother and baby get used to the drill. The baby cannot give consent, and the mother often requests it because BFing is painful for her, not the baby.

There is also an alternative to BF'ing, so it is not strictly necessary to have it done - you could FF instead. Of course bf is shown, on a population level, to reduce the risks of certain illnesses - same as circumcision then :)

There is a difference though - a TT is often snipped with no pain relief at all. :(

Oh, and we don't usually refer to babies who had it done as mutilated - or their mums as monsters and child abusers...

a freind of mine is muslim and i told him exactly what i think of his removing healthy tissue from his sons body, he's still my freind though.

muslims dont need to circumcise anyway, it isnt in the quoran, it's a cultural practise that pre-dates islam.

If I may suggest an alternative analogy, Primafacie - circumcision is not that different from having the clitoral hood removed, and Western society would refer to babies who had it done as mutilated - and their parents as monsters and child abusers.

But what are the benefits of removing the clitoral hood? You do know that FGM carries very serious risks, including the risk of infertility because of infections caused by non-sterile environment?

Primafacie

Benefits of removing clitoral hood are:

• Greater sensitivity (improving sexual pleasure)
• Aesthetically pleasing (subjective, of course)
• More hygienic (smegma can form around it)

Same reasons you often see for male circumcision. Male circumcision also carries serious risks if done in non-sterile environments - any surgery does.

Eccles, that is utter nonsense. You should read the WHO's position statement on FGM here. There are NO BENEFITS to FGM, only harm, even for type one (removal of the prepuce), which by the way is extremely rare and not representative of the reality of FGM. But don't let reality get in the way of your argument...

I do not condone circumcision being performed in a non sterile and safe way either. I don't think anyone does. FGM is systematically performed in non-sterile conditions.

And crescentmoon has very obligingly and repeatedly posted links to the studies that show the health benefits of circumcision. If you really believe that FGM has the same benefits, I urge you to do the same so I can reconsider my position. Good luck with that, though.

Oh and don't forget that removal of the clitoral hood was the cultural norm in some places and seen as unclean not to have it removed and I'm sure there's some religion imaginary friend somewhere that requires it.

Are you getting the irony yet primafacie?

Trixy, why are you directing this at me?

Um, you asked about the benefits of removing the clitoral hood, I'm adding some points that ecclesvet forgot?

Do you think they sound ridiculous but oddly familiar?

Prima, there is no solid evidence showing any health benefits to male circumcision, certainly not for Western countries.

The WHO say that Types I and II are the most common, 85%, but they don't break it down past that - there's no way of knowing if type Ia is the minority.

In the BMA guidance for male circ., evidence for the supposed beneficial effects is described as ?equivocal?, ?inconclusive?, ?not convincingly proven?, ?contradictory?, causing ?significant disagreement?, lacking consensus and, ultimately, ?insufficient?. The BMA concludes that ?evidence concerning the health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be justification?.

But don't let reality get in the way of your argument...

Oh, I see. I meant what are the health benefits of FGM. I thought that was clear from the rest of my post.

You are right that, like circumcision, FGM is a cultural/religious practice. Unlike circumcision however, it is a practice that carries very significant, permanent health risks, and has no known health benefits whatsoever. It is used to perpetuate male domination and is a blatant violation of women's rights. To equate circumcsion with FGM is to deny the gravity and horror of FGM. As a feminist, I find that offensive.

I agree that fgm is beyond despicable. But the point being made here is that you can use the same arguments to justify any kind of circumcision and that when you look at it from that point of view you see how ludicrous the arguments for male circumcision are. This isn't to say fgm and mgm are the same, but mgm is still wrong.

Eccles, the WHO states that removal of the prepuce only happens in "very rare cases". I take that to mean it is not representative of the practice of FGM as a whole. Can we agree on that?

Are you referring to the 2006 BMA guidance? The one that predates all the recent research on HIV, HPV, stis, prostate cancer, etc?

completely agree

But Krum - no, you cannot use the same arguments because one of them is extremely dangerous, while the other is safe and, in some circumstances, a protection against some diseases.

Off to bed now!