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.

As a human being I find it offensive that parts are sliced off baby boys for no good reason.

Of course FGM is not the same because usually the clitoris is removed as well and other such horrors , which was why we specifically said removal of the clitoral hood which is removal of skin although still horrific. Perhaps a better comparison would be a labiaplasty as routine as there are certain hygiene benefits and probably if it was commonplace and people were determined to justify it there would be some study showing some spurious benefit that could be otherwise achieved by good hygiene or wearing a condom.

However the point was that similar ridiculous arguments are used to justify routine circumcision.

DP also says he is pleased that his foreskin was removed without his consent. I maintain that he was robbed.

DP's body was changed irreparably, and he is conditioned to feel grateful for it.

I'm just not in to hurting babies.

FGM comparison is the most viscerally compelling part of the anti-circumcision case, but it?s also the most disingenuous. In the first place, FGM as its performed is just horrific: short-term mortality is around 10%. Another quarter of the victims die due to later complications. And those who survive are largely deprived of future sexual pleasure. Anyone who claims that circumcision has similar consequences is out of their mind.

FGM is frequently defended on the grounds that it reduces female sexual pleasure and increases male sexual pleasure. In other words, FGM is the result of sexism?gender-base violence. Muslim, Jewish and North American men, by contrast, are not oppressed.

If FGM were not incredibly dangerous, if it didn?t radically change its victims? sex lives, and were it not part of pervasive, brutal discrimination, then you?d have an analogy.

Removal of the foreskin does radically change a man's sex life.

The sad thing is they don't know it because the choice was taken away at birth.

FGM has such high mortality rates because it isn't done with proper medical equipment.

The analogy is valid because in many tribes, this is their culture. I find it abhorrent, but it's either all religious beliefs have the right to mutilate their kids, or no one does.

I'm in the no one does camp.

Lurking, no it does not radically alter sex life. There are studies of men who were circumcised as adults, and there was no significant difference before and after.

Good grief.

Studies of men circumcised as adults through choice or medical reasons?

The thing is there's no easy and definitive answer to whether routine circumcision detrimentally affects a man's sex life.

Most men may suffer no obvious long term problems.

But for the few that suffer complications it may well have a detrimental affect on their sexual functioning and self-confidence - so you can't say to them that it was a good thing, especially when there was no need for it to be done in the first place.

Primafacie:I find it extremely patronising and sexist to suggest that Tracey just 'agreed with her husband'

Please explain to me how I was being patronising? I have never heard of a non Jewish/Muslim baby boy being circumcised at birth in the UK for cosmetic reasons. Ever. The only men I know who are circumcised had it done in teenage years. My point was that if she had stayed in the UK, had a son in the UK it is extremely unlikely that the baby would have been circumcised. That is a fact.

And of course pro-circumcisers are going to try and back up their argument with (very tenuous) medical evidence. They?re hardly likely to admit that their motivation comes from being culturally indoctrinated to be repulsed by foreskins. Who wants to admit to putting an infant through a pointless procedure?

Squoosh, maybe you don't know a lot of upper class people then - I can assure you it happens :)

It is totally patronising to believe that because Tracey has made a choice which is not mainstream in the UK, she must have been indoctrinated by her Canadian husband. Some people do their independent research and come up with their own opinions, you know.

Your reasoning is just a logical fallacy. Post hoc does not ergo propter hoc!

It is less likely though obviously. If she's with someone and living in a culture that sees circumcision as the done thing then she is more likely to sway towards doing it than if she were with and from someone/somewhere where circumcision is rare.
Why do you think each culture has their own practices that the majority of people follow? That is how socialisation works. Even if it is negative thing that's done, eg fgm, mgm,

Primafacie Oh so now you've moved onto implying that only the serfs and peasants are against circumcison, how very passive aggressive of you to try an turn this into a class issue, smiley face or not. And as it happens no, I don't know a lot of 'upper class people' as you put it. I have known a couple however and I can assure you both of them most definitely had a foreskin.

The fact remains that if Tracey had given birth in Britain to a British baby of a British father the child would not be circumcised.

Most people are not upper class, they are a tiny minority. So irrelavant. Also your basing this on personal experience, you cannot generalise.

methodological, legal and ethical concerns about the African HIV study

The principal investigators had a history of co-authoring papers promoting male circumcision

Participants in the immediate male circumcision groups also received two years of free medical treatment plus supportive counselling and safe-sex advice

In contrast, a parallel RCT into male-to-female sexual transmission of HIV in Uganda demonstrated that male circumcision increases male-to-female transmission of HIV.3 In the male-to-female trial, women were unwittingly exposed to HIV infection since male sexual partners subjected to male circumcision were already HIV-positive. Several women subsequently became HIV-positive following their participation in the trial, raising concerns about informed consent. While male circumcision has not been recommended for HIV-positive men, in real-life settings HIV testing cannot be assured and does not always occur prior to the circumcision intervention. The present critique raises several methodological, ethical and legal concerns with these trials, suggesting that the decision by WHO/UNAIDS to recommend male circumcision as a prophylactic HIV-preventive measure in sub-Saharan Africa was unwarranted.

How unbelievably irresponsible!!!!

Squoosh, get off your high horses. Other people have mentioned upthread that the Royal Family are circumcised and that lots of Eton boys are too, I was just referring to those posts, which I don't remember you getting pissed off about. You are the one who said you had never heard of a non-Jewish, non-Muslim infant circumcision in the UK. I am telling you they do happen, even though they are not very common.

Of course plenty of people of all classes oppose circumcision, I am well aware of that. But circumcision in England was traditionnally something the elite did. Nowadays, obviously, it's mostly Muslim families (as the UK has a tiny Jewish population).

Dear God.
This is such an unbelievably barbaric practice. For any non-medical reason.
I thought there could be no lower depths to what it entails until I watched the link about the practise where the blood is sucked away by the man performing it.
Honestly pls tell me that is a sick joke.

Interesting. I'm enjoying reading through all your posts. If we can bring this thread back to the Western world for a moment...

I have spent most of my teens and adulthood in a very WASPy, homogenous town outside of Toronto (very few Muslim and Jewish families here...mostly very wealthy UK expats). I've only ever had first-hand experience with the "cut" penis (does anyone say that in RL?). They have always been perfect in both health, function and appearance and made their owners very happy . DH is circumcised (like most Canadian men his age) but left the decision up to me; it wasn't a difficult one. I've never seen, or even heard of, an uncircumcised penis* (except my nephews and UK-born DB who ALL had infections requiring medical intervention). At the time I had my babies I'd been able to observe the experiences of friends, family, neighbours, co-workers with circumcised sons (quick, easy, uncomplicated, performed in a medical office by a trained and experienced doctor).

I'm interested to know how many posters on this thread have a partner that is circumcised or have been with a man that is? (as I know that I'm in the minority due to the fact that I'm not in the UK). Do any of them experience sexual dysfunction, dissatisfaction or regret?

*I am not a Ho trollop. I believe I have had a slightly less than average number of intimate partners .

FYI: I sometimes consult Mr. Tracey when I'm trying to make an important decision about things pertaining to the health and well-being of our children but usually completely ignore him come to my own decision based on facts, life-experience and instinct. I think the "marital indoctrination" hypothesis is hilarious (although I'm for women that do live in that reality).

My ex boyf was cut. His penis looked, how can I put this, rather rough at glans that was exposed. It had tiny groves in the skin. It was kind of rough and leathery and very lacking in sensitivity. Rather like himself actually. It was pretty clean though but I put that down to the fact that he showered daily and washed his cock in the process.

Tray, I've slept with billions (or scores, maybe) of men. Uncut:cut ratio is probably 80:20.

I've found circumcised men easier to handle and not noticed any difference hygiene-wise

Easier to handle
That makes up for cutting up a baby.

Watch this youtube clip and tell me honestly that you don't think it's barbaric. It was on a previous thread about circumcision - I could only watch part of it before I had to turn it off. YADNBU. It should be banned for minors unless for medical reasons.

I have found the cut ones more difficult to handle. There's no way to put it delicately really but I have found it easier to manually stimulate the uncut ones, personally, because the foreskin is designed to move which is useful in that situation.

Easier to handle how?

My DH was circ'd as a baby, it was the done thing in Oz back then (his mum feels very guilty about not stopping it) and, although he's a happy chap :) we agreed it never even entered our heads to leave our sons intact. I'll have to ask him whether he would rather have been given the choice himself.