To be pretty uncomfortable with home circumcision

[EastofEast]

We get on very well with our neighbours and are pretty close but I was a bit shocked today, one of those moments where you find you really have opposing views on something quite fundamental.

Neighbour has a (gorgeous) two week old boy. She knocked on the door earlier to return my car keys (went to get a new battery for hers in my car) and I mentioned her new ds was unsettled for the first time ever; joking maybe he wasn't the perfect baby after all. My baby is demanding much more vocal about her needs. She said it was because he was circumcised today. I must have looked a little put off, I don't agree with it at all, as she then said 'oh he's doing really well. We were lucky the doctor came to house to do this one, all the others had to go to a clinic'. I was stunned, I'm amazed you're allowed to do such a thing at home in such an unregulated way. Frankly I wouldn't allow any deliberate harm to come to a child that wasn't medically necessary, but considering some people do do it I thought the rules would be tighter. We're both from (different) backgrounds which circumcise, although I refused to change my son, and I knew she'd do it after a related chat about whether fgm was that bad over a coffee one day but it's still upset me a bit the way it's done. The poor little thing is grumpy with loads of adults around to celebrate the event passing him round and round at 8.30pm.

I know the circumcision vs no circumcision has been done already, and not everyone shares my strong views, but at home? Should this be ok? I can't think of other similar procedures happening in a similar environment.

I just refuse to believe half the human population is not correct with out intervention

We have to intervene with 100% of the human population. God gave us hair and nails too. If you allow your baby's nails to grow longer then a week or two they are likely to scratch themselves badly. If an adult allows their nails to grow uncontrollably it would make life difficult. Same could be said of hair. We dont molt like animals we have to cut our hair when the need arrives. Both of these are examples of intervention with the natural form and condition of the human body. Just trying to say that comment about why God tells you to cut something off that has been given to you doesnt really stand.

Mutilate

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Maim

1. To injure, disable, or disfigure, usually by depriving of the use of a limb or other part of the body.
2. To make imperfect or defective; impair.

To answer you question I use mutilate or mutilation when referring to circumcision as it is genital mutilation in the same category as female genital mutilation yes I know it's much worse but just because something is worse it doesn't mean we can ignore the lesser offence.

As per definitions above it would be more accurate to use maim you have maimed your child as you have deliberately caused injury to your child.
If it is a required medical procedure then it wouldn't count as maiming in my book as you have surgically corrected a problem. No more than amputation of a limb would be

Is it not right that all body parts serve a purpose? Even the ones that seem redundant now had some function in our evolutionary past, right? I suppose nails continually grow because they would naturally get worn down or broken off? And I suppose it helps to stop dirt getting too deeply embedded if your nails keep growing. I'm just thinking aloud here, but presumably the foreskin serves a purpose too?

Thing is Cote, you can nit-pick and chew over semantics as much as you like and enjoy the praise from your pro-circumcision pals who keep popping up to egg you on. But the gleeful pleasure you seem to take in refuting anyone else's point of view is odd, at best and honestly, unlikely to change anyone's mind. IMHO, of course.

I don't use the word mutilate. I think it's unnecessarily emotive in this context. However, it is a word commonly used to describe surgical type interventions for mon medical reasons. It's a matter of context. Removal of a hand because of incurable injuries- amputation. Removal of a hand as a punishment- mutialtion. This dichotomy is generally accepted usage.

Would it be fair to summarise that non-religious people don't understand the religious, cultural and social enormity of circumcision. And that religious people don't understand the simplistic view that this is mutilation.

peaceful I've avoided answering your question because of the way some of my other posts have been picked apart, but I do think it's an interesting point so here goes.

My DS has had a medical circumcision and yes, I do think he's been mutilated, in the same way as I imagine any person who has had a bit of their body chopped off will feel mutilated. It's not very nice and it was a truly, truly difficult decision to have made. In fact, that is why he had to undergo the op twice, because the first attempt was to try and correct his issue while still retaining his foreskin.

The decision we made was right for his health (and future sexual health) but I still wish we didn't have to make it and I still regret that he is missing a part of his body.

Here's an idea. If people think they have been genuinely maimed by circumcision, why don't they ask to compete in the paralympics? I'm sure that would go down well with competitors who really have been maimed.

"I don't think anybody has a problem with comprehending English so much as finding some arguments incomprehensible"

People here had the prejudice that parents circumcise their boys for cosmetic reasons. They have been told several times that no, parents circumcise their boys for (some perceived, some real) hygiene & health reasons.

Wth is so "incomprehensible" about that?

Let go of your prejudices about why people are doing stuff and you might learn something. It's not that hard.

My friend wants to circumcise her (future) boys for cosmetic reasons. She can't be the only one.

Wilson - re "you can nit-pick and chew over semantics as much as you like"

Is that what you call winning an argument? You can't reply to what I say so now you are reduced to calling it all "nit-picking"? That's a bit sad, but whatever gets you through the day...

"enjoy the praise from your pro-circumcision pals"

My "pals"

You may not have noticed this in the 7 months or so that you have been on MN, but it is hilarious that you think the Muslim contingent you see on MN are my "pals". I have taught them the facts argued with them on 99% on all religion threads we came across and I'm pretty sure that until recently before they fell under my otherwordly charm they would have called me "the enemy".

"the gleeful pleasure you seem to take in refuting anyone else's point of view is odd"

Rest assured that I'm taking only limited pleasure in winning arguments against you: A 10-year-old could have refuted your last claim that vaccinable [sic] diseases are more prevalent than HIV because we vaccinate against them

Sorry, that was a bit of a useless post. She's obviously not typical, judging from this. Just happens to be the only person I know who has expressed an opinion on it either way.

Primafacie - That is a really interesting article with very good links.

In my first pregnancy I used an American forum (What to Expect). The majority of women having boys planned to circumcise them because of reasons like 'I want him to look the same as his dad' and 'I don't want him to get teased in the locker room'. Some mentioned future sexual partners finding it offputting as well. Purely cosmetic reasons!

Fox - Your friend sounds strange. I can assure you that Jews and Muslims don't circumcise because penis then looks nicer.

I have never believed in any God a single day in my life so I'm the farthest person from "religious" imaginable, but I know enough on this subject to know that in Judaism and Islam, it is done for hygiene & health reasons. (Some real, some perceived, and some arguably unnecessary in the age of 24h running hot water and soap - but hygiene & health reasons, nonetheless)

And Fox a benefit of not being circumcised is greater sexual sensitivity - but I don't suppose many men can compare this unless they've been circumcised as an adult so know what it's like withor without.

(I hope your morning sickness is better now btw!)

jelly I have a friend in USA who says she can't even look at a penis with a foreskin because she finds them 'gross'.

It's not an unpopular view either amongst her friends.

I guess they're so used to seeing penis' without them, they find the sight of a foreskin horrible.

I lived in Latin America for a while, my two eldest DCs were born there. It is standard practice that after the birth, girls have their ears pierced and boys are circumcised before leaving hospital. Now some of you here may not agree with that, but that is part of the culture there. Parents make informed choices to have these procedures done, and the circumcisions are carried out by qualified doctors. Our thoughts and beliefs are so culturally engrained that sometimes I believe we have to step back and accept that just because some people (and some cultures) examine the information and the evidence and make a different decision to us, it does not make them wrong.

(Of course I am not including FGM in this discussion)

jelly - You need to read Primafacie's link below.

You will especially find this part interesting:

... the key rallying cry of intactivists: That circumcision seriously reduces penis sensitivity and thus sexual pleasure. Study after study after study has proven this notion untrue. Some men circumcised as adults actually report an increase in sensitivity, while many report no appreciable difference; virtually none noted any notable decrease. Men circumcised as adults also almost universally report no adverse effect in overall sexual satisfaction following the procedure. (That fits with what my colleague Emily Bazelon found when she asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) And genital sensitivity in response to erotic stimulation is identical in circumcised and uncircumcised men. Don’t trust individual studies? A systematic review of all available data on circumcision came to the same conclusion.

Intactivists, then, aren’t disputing a few flimsy studies: They’re contradicting an entire field of research.

Worra I think it came up in an episode of Sex and the City as well where they were repulsed by a foreskin. I think in the US it really is a largely cosmetic choice which is on the decline as people become more aware of the arguments against it.

Cote what on earth has the amount of time I've been on MN got to do with anything? It's a number of years, by the way but I don't tend to get drawn into religious threads, nor do I keep a spreadsheet. Or use PA smileys.

Ok Cote I admit I wouldn't know about that and was just repeating what I had heard. But even if there is no benefit to having a foreskin, I still find the idea of infant circumcision appalling. And I do believe it is done for cosmetic reasons in many cases which I do feel to be indefensible.

"I have never believed in any God a single day in my life so I'm the farthest person from "religious" imaginable, but I know enough on this subject to know that in Judaism and Islam, it is done for hygiene & health reasons."

Is it? I thought in Judaism it's done because it's part of a covenant with god, and in Shia Islam because they believe Mohhamed demanded it. I believe Sunni Muslims have a slightly different interpretation- not clear on the details though.

If it is purely for health and hygiene reasons, they can stop now, because the benefits are practically non existent.

madoldbird

Our thoughts and beliefs are so culturally engrained that sometimes I believe we have to step back and accept that just because some people (and some cultures) examine the information and the evidence and make a different decision to us, it does not make them wrong.

(Of course I am not including FGM in this discussion)

Why are you not including FGM then?

Surely that negates everything you've just said?

We either accept that people do these things for their own reasons and become ok with it or we don't, surely?

madoldbird I think you have hit the nail on the head.

The more I read peoples arguments against circumcision the more convinced I am that this is cultural relativism at work.

The fact that only Wilson would call/think medical circumcision is also mutilation is telling.

Removal of a hand because of incurable injuries- amputation. Removal of a hand as a punishment- mutialtion. This dichotomy is generally accepted usage.

I dont think your comparison is correct. People do not circumcise their sons as a 'punishment'. They have different reasons but none of them are to punish them. Also amputation results in loss of function. FGM results in loss of function. They both result in the person having hardships in their life associated with that procedure. However circumcised men live absolutely normal lives.

I think you weaken the whole argument against FGM when you equate it to male circumcision.