To be absolutely steaming about the fact that people think unnecessary genital mutilation is OK?

[Gunnerbean]

I've been having a debate about this on another site and am staggered by the amount of people who are quite blase about it and can't get worked up about it and seem to think it's perfectly OK, and even perfectly acceptable!!

FFS if you smack a child on the street you risk arrest for assault or abuse yet people are allowed to unnecssarily ritually circumscise male babies without anaesthetic? It beggars belief that this has a place in a so-called enlightened civilised society and can be legal.

I have literally got steam coming out of my ears, some of the exchanges I've had have made my heart literally pound with anger and I think my feelings on this issue might actually make me able to understand how strongly those animal activists feel!!!

I think I need to have a lie down...

I feel very strongly that it should be illegal and condemned.

It's hard to say that we think cutting bits off children is abusive without upsetting those who have done, but let's not make it personal. Most people who did it didn't think it was cruel did they.

As I've said before if everyone around you does it and all the people before them then you think YOU are the one making a fuss over nothing.

There is an important line between doing something that is later considered abuse and intentionally abusing.

Times change and now we have strong rules about hurting children so NOW it is wrong. Doing it now or allowing or it to be done would be abuse.

You said the way I talk about my children is sad, THAT is personal. I'm a good parent, thanks, although not perfect, and wouldn't insult my children. I found it rude, I was being polite until the insults accumalated. I hate the fact that on this website, one poster gets insulted by a few people at the same time. I don't gang up on people, so don't expect to be ganged up on, people think they're being subtle but I read the insults as they're intended.

And no I can't spell accumlated properly before I get ripped apart for that, again in typical Mumsnet style.

I wonder what would happen if one of these little boys grew up resentful of what had ben done to him as a boy and decided to make a claim against those who had done it to him as a baby?

How would it be looked at if it were then shown to have been done not for any medical reason but because of the adults' tradition and beliefs? I suspect that in the eyes of the law it would appear to be abuse would it not?

I don't understand how in this day and age where people talk about the rights of the unborn child, and how there are so many agencies etc there to ensure that children are not harmed in any way, this practice is allowed to continue - it is causing unneccessary pain on a child is it not?

I don't think its a case of people ganging up on you - just a case of lots of people disagreeing with you.

I thought it was sad saying 'cocks' about a baby's penis. Went through me.

Disagreeing doesn't need to include accusations of defering to men which is VERY insulting because I'm in an abusive relationship and still give as good as I get regardless, being called a child abuser, as well as sad and sickening. Why is everyone denying I was insulted? I read insults as insults, thinly veiled or not.

OK jellybeans sorry for bringing your children into it. I thought you were accusing me of being insulting about my children . Language is different strokes to different folks.

I just found it a sad choice of words.

EXPENSIVE present list, now Anniemac

There is some truth in the claim that it reduces sensitivity so a claim wouldn't be without justification on those grounds alone.

I had it done much later for medical reasons so there was no choice, but if it had been done to me to please god I wouldn't be happy about it.

The actual pain as one poster put it is inflicted when they are too young to remember. That was supposed to be a defense, but actually makes it worse doesn't it.

Going to go back and read the whole thread but thought I would comment. My husband was circumcised (at age 9) due to infections and my greatest fear was that when I had a son he may have to be circumcised also. Because my husband was circumcised (medical procedure) I only knew of a circumcised penis but would not have wanted to put my son through this as I could see the hang-ups that my husband had (he had slight scar tissue which made him not very confident) but it worked fine (satisfied me - too much information? - and produced 3 beautiful children). At age 5 my son started developing infections (fungal and bacterial) and it always seemed that if the doctors treated the infection as fungal it turned out to be bacterial and vice versa. When he was 9 he also had to be circumcised. I was beside myself with worry (not only for my son going through the operation but how he would feel as a 'man/boy' afterwards but I had to be strong and support the medical profession (after seeking lots of second opinions)). The procedure was very quick and he was sore for about 24 hours. He has had no repercussions, has no scar tissue (when it was healing I had to check to make sure that no scar tissue was forming) and he is absolutely fine about his penis.

As a women, when my husband left (and me being only knowledgeable of circumcised willies) it took me a while to get used to my boyfriend's (uncircumcised) willy as they do need to be treated differently.

I am not in favour of circumcision for religion reasons (but can understand the preference if your religion sanctions it) and would much rather my son did not have had to be circumcised but as long as he grows up feeling fine and dandy in his penis, how it looks and how it works, then that will be fine.

I run our company's private medical scheme and I am continuously surprised at the amount of employees (ranging from 20 to 40+) asking whether circumcision is covered under the scheme.

just because a child doesn't remember the pain means nothing. I could smack my child really hard and I suspect they would forget it in a couple of months .... but it would still hurt now and would be wrong

But doing it for medical reasons is totally different from doing it because of your tradition, when there is no medical reason involced.

On the relationship between AIDS and circumcision, there is more updated information on the World health organization:
[http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/]
I would not do it. It is very weird for me to do it. However, I allowed my mum to pierce my daughter's ears when she was 1 month old. So here it goes: because of my cultural background I thought it was fine to pierce a newborn baby because she was a girl
However, I would not go for a circumcision because of the same cultural background despite evidence of possible benefits against a terminal disease.

I wonder whether my decision would be the same if this was a vaccine. I mean, would I use it if there was evidence that it would prevent AIDS (at same rate, 60%)

no probs didn't mean to offend anyone either or be personal.

Oh dear.
I think religion has no place in deciding whether or not to cut off foreskin or any other skin.

That is one perspective. But in some cultures the religious and traditional reasons are just as important. They wouldn't consider NOT circumcising. It's poles apart. No traditional Turkish parents would have their boy growing up without it because he wouldn't be a warrior. There'd be great shame attached to that. I don't think the two opinions can be reconciled.

jung - even if you were insulted - get over it. What ever happened to "sticks and stones..."

I don't really get the whole distinction between - I'm allowed to disagree with you, but God forbid I should insult you! Particularly when such insult is felt because of something which might not be known to the person accused of doing the insulting.

this is one of my 'I'm so glad I'm atheist' moments.