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.

Longtime sorry, can't bring myself to watch. I can't begin to imagine...

Waterlego I agree. The foreskin provides a gliding action that makes masturbation and penetration easier and more fluid almost like a lubricant. The best analogy I can come up with is like ball bearings, although I'm not sure if that sounds a bit weird.

Disclaimer, I have only come across one circumcised man in my not extensive experience.

Thanks for your honest replies .

Crescent I'm really impressed by your breadth of knowledge on the subject. I've learned some new things here.

Think I'll bow out now. It's incredibly hot and muggy today so am going to go jump in the pool with the kids one last time before dinner. Night-night.

I meant UNcut! For the reasons trixy gives.

And @ ball bearings!

I've met a few English men (non-Muslim, non-Jewish), born in England, who were circumcised as babies. All quite posh. They'd be in their 40s now.

trixy "Waterlego I agree. The foreskin provides a gliding action that makes masturbation and penetration easier and more fluid almost like a lubricant. The best analogy I can come up with is like ball bearings, although I'm not sure if that sounds a bit weird"

Totally utterly agree! I was with two non-circ men before DH. When I got with DH, "handling" him was nigh-on impossible!!! Nothing to move up and down!!! very VERY strange. He told me he had to masterbate with lube as no skin to move up and down.

As for Royal Family being circumcised, Harry and William are not (according to google, I don't have any personal experience :o ). So even they have seen the light and ended the barbaric practice.

As I said previously, I'm not a fan of routine circumcision, but I'm not in favour of an all out ban either. However, the idea of parents deciding to cut a part of their child's genitals off as they find circumcised penises more visually and sexually pleasing (even if they also go on about hygeine, which is bollocks anyway, just wash the bloody thing) makes me a bit squirmy and uncomfortable.

And the comment about how all the men in one particular family having problems with infections - that implies, to me at least, that that particular family has hygiene problems/don't know how to wash a willy.

The HIV thing is a complete red herring in the context of civilised society.

Routine circumcision of infants can make sense in areas where there is social disarray and widepread HIV.

In the UK in 2012 it is bonkers. If you're that worried about HIV then you should wait until DS is old enough to have a chat about it and decide for themselves.

If, on the other hand, you're just using HIV as an excuse to conservatively go along with an arbitrary medieval ritual... then you are putting the interests of you/your family/your culture above the interests of your child.

Suppose I had dictatorial powers and decided your husband should have his foreskin removed because it amuses me. How would you feel about that? That's exactly how circumcised infants are treated.

FIL has said to me that it's ok, because they they don't remember the pain. Ah well that makes all bodily violations ok if the person doesn't remember!

I am sure if he heard this news he would be thinking "Damn! You can't even chop part of your child off these days without the courts intervening!"

As an aside, would an all out ban benefit anyone? It would be driven underground and more of the men who come round to do it in your kitchen would be employed instead of doctors.

I'm guessing that an all out ban on ritual circumcision without consent would lead to the overwhelming majority of parents simply waiting until the child can legally consent - what they do then is a private matter, though I suspect many children would politely decline the procedure.

Surely only a tiny minority would get some back-street bodger in? A few prosecutions in the media, including of people getting it done abroad, would help. In my opinion it's probably a price worth paying to civilise these people. The notion that you have primacy over your child's body, rather than them, belongs in that byegone age when a man was seen to have primacy over his wife's body. Get with it people!

I'd also like to see some civil cases of men circumcised as infants suing their parents and/or the person who did it to them. That would help.

Thanks, Mrs Bethel, for making your real views lear - We're not "civilised". The idea that Jews and Muslims aren't civilised certainly belongs to a bygone age, as does the obsession with a fairly minor procedure, that no-one I have ever met regrets. Jewish children don't seem to have notably diminshed life chances in this country, but maybe this is just my impression.

Does anyone seriously think a law would be practicable? Apart from being an obvious vote loser, how would it be policed? Perhaps some of the commentaers on this thread could help set be a sort of "willy inspectorate". Children done for medical reasons, or before the new law comes in, could wear a special bracelet to avoid being taken away by inspectors.

Mrs Bethel - "it's probably a price worth paying to civilise these people" - who do you mean by "these" people. Let me guess, some of your best friends are Jews/Muslims*?

*delete as applicable.

What I find ironic is that less than 100 years ago, Germans were throwing Jewish baby boys in the air and shooting them for fun. Now they are so concerned about Jewish wellbeing that they are going to deny us a part of our tradition and culture. Their concern is only 60+ years too late.

how to police?
how about the weigh in's at the gp/hv?

Primafacie I hadn?t read the whole thread and missed the posts about it being a trend in royal/upper class families. Apologies to you for accusing you of snobbery where none was intended. Maybe the posh boys of my encounters were of the lower level of the top level. Mmm love the British class system.

I certainly get what other people are saying in regards to the foreskin aiding stimulation. Nature designed the foreskin for exactly this purpose, to help with the smooth gliding action. I?ve only ever been with two circumcised men and it did require some, umm, re-jigging of my manual technique.

And this talk of ?all the uncircumcised men I know needed medical intervention due to infections?. Really?? Do these people never wash? Hand on heart I can honestly say I?ve never heard of a man being circumcised due to ?constant infections? or any infection for that matter. The only men I know who?ve been circumcised in adult life have had it done as there foreskin was too tight causing pinching during sex. Neither of them regretted it as they were no longer in pain. I have heard of men though who?ve reported decreased sexual sensation post adult circumcision.

I suppose if you manage to go through life without ever seeing a foreskin the idea of a man having one would be quite strange. I do think however, and not in a condescending European way, that the reasons Americans are so pro-circumcision is that they?re repulsed by foreskins. Why else would they constantly be described as unclean, dirty, ugly etc. They?re just a bit of skin. A useful bit of skin at that. If evolution sees fit to hang on to the foreskin that?s good enough for me. I?ll trust that rather that some hangover from a Victorian kind of prudishness.

And as much as I don?t agree with circumcision I?m not sure a ban is the right way to go. Banning things doesn?t stop them happening it just drives them underground making them potentially much more dangerous. Back street abortions anyone?

Whether you find it ironic or not Cookiewise, surely it is a good thing that the Germans have moved on from shooting Jewish baby boys to protecting them?

Seriously, watch the link to the video I posted above. It's heartbreaking. That poor baby. As I said, I couldn't bring myself to watch it all but felt it was something I should watch a bit of if I could so that I could feel no doubt when putting forward my opinion on circumcision.

If a consenting adult wants to do something to themselves either for religious/cultural purposes, or even for vanity then I see no problem. Why would it be so unthinkable for jews and muslims to wait until the child is an adult, or at least a lot older so that he can give his consent?

You're damn right that the burden of proof to justify carrying out a controversial, irreversible procedure should be far far higher than pointing out that the ethics and methodology of the studies used may be flawed and carrying out further unbiased studies may be a good idea .

How naive to think everything you read in a scientific journal is of a high quality. One of your links is to the Lancet. Remind me again where Andrew Wakefield's MMR research was published?

All these things should be read with a healthy level of scepticism particularly when there seem to be so many studies with conflicting conclusions.

damn, that video is horrific, and the doc is so matter of fact.

barbaric.

Oh how stupid of me, religion and healthy levels of scepticism don't exactly go hand in hand do they?

SamG76, Cookiewise

By "these people" I mean people putting their beliefs above the welfare of their children. Lots of Jewish and Muslim people actually wait and let their child choose. That is civilised.

If they do it without consent then, yes, they are uncivilised, whatever their particular reasons for removing the right of the child to choose.

You'll see it's the notion of primacy over a child's body that I find uncivlised.

By "these people" I mean people putting their beliefs above the welfare of their children. Lots of Jewish and Muslim people actually wait and let their child choose."

Not where I live they don't. I doubt if there's a single child at my DS's school (which is a pretty liberal one) who has the chance to "choose". As I said previously, I don't think the general welfare of Jewish children is notably worse than anyone else's but I stand to be corrected.

That is civilised.

Well, we've all got different ideas of civilised. In many countries, abortion would be considered uncivilsed, as would births out of wedlock.

It's an infringement on the child's right to choose whether they have it done. Supoose they grow up to a different/no faith and would prefer a foreskin? Who are you to choose?

There's no such thing as a Christian/Jewish/Muslim baby. They haven't chosen yet.

Yes, it's a fairly minor assault in the grand scheme of things. But if that, and insinuations of prejudice, are the best arguments you've got then you must realise you're on the wrong side of the debate.