Circumcision?

[Claire236]

I've never started a thread in AIBU before as it can be quite scary so please be nice. My dh was circumcised as an adult for medical reasons & ds1 had to have an operation so has in effect been circumcised. ds2 (almost 5 months) is as nature intended but I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to have him circumcised. Firstly as that way he will grow up looking the same as his brother & dad which I think could make a difference to how he feels when he gets a bit older. Secondly because it seems more hygenic. I'm unsure due to the fact that ds1s op for horribly painful & I wouldn't want to put ds2 through that for no good reason. I haven't spoken to my GP about this so don't know when is normal to have it done or anything but I'd really like to know if people think I'm BU considering this.

If the men in your life are happy having been mutilated, good for them. If they were unhappy about it they had no say in the matter so tough shit.

Forward- an anti female genital mutilation site.

NOCIAC-anti male genital mutilation site.

Yes but do they see it as mutilation??...if they dont do you see that as some kind of denial?..some people see piercing as multilation...or tattoos...one man/womans mutilation is not always anothers..

Ladybiscuit and all the others who don't seem to get the point of what I am saying I think this sums it up:

"IF THE MEN IN YOUR LIFE ARE HAPPY HAVING BEEN MUTILATED, GOOD FOR THEM!"

This is the type of cr*p that we come up against, sadly.

These people don't care WHY you have had it done. And if it were your son having to deal with this S*it you would also want to defend them I'm sure.

These people don't think you have any right to have this operation done even if you DO have a medical reason - they really WON'T do an op in this country unless you have a bl**dy good reason for having it done!!

Not a single person here has said you shouldn't get a circumcision done if there's a medical reason. I doubt you will find anybody anywhere in the world who would argue against it.

You're attacking an argument that nobody is making.

Tiggy - when you call my husband and son MUTILATED how the hell do you think I will react?

You are making NO arguments that I can see, just name calling.

I hope your children never have to have an operation and be called MUTILATED as you will then know just how I feel right now. Your comments are disgusting.

You are attacking an argument that nobody is making.

Still.

If a child has to have an operation it's in their best interests to have it done.

Your pathetic attempts to misrepresent me are disgusting.

I have a three month old son and soon after he was born my brother phoned me to ask if we were having him circumcised. He begged me not to do it as he was circumcised as a baby and says it has caused him a lot of problems in life and would hate to think the same would happen to his little nephew. It is your decision, but obviously is not to be taken lightly.

I have quoted you directly and you are the one who's remarks are disgusting.

Are you calling all circumcised men MUTILATED OR ONLY THE ONES YOU CHOOSE???

TiggyD, a serious question - not being pissy - but what exactly are you saying? That if it's done for non-medical reasons, the boy is mutilated, but if it's done for medical reasons, the boy is not? Or are they both mutilated but one can't be helped? I'm not quite clear.

Ladybiscuit -

If my son had had an operation on his toe do you think people call him MUTILATED, BUTCHERED OR IMPOTENT or even feel they had the right to comment on it? Welcome to the world of having a circumsised son!

i think the mutilation argument is overstating things. are little girls who get their ears pierced "mutilated"?

i didn't consider getting DS circumcised, because it seems unnecessary, yet there is a very strong and medically substantiated argument for it on the grounds of STD transmission being significantly reduced.

there's also a good chance he will be ridiculed if we go to live in my home country, where the majority is circumcised. I guess that will be his problem and he can blame me then if he wants.

boys and men not getting naked together? locker room for sports, perchance?

I wouldn't be commenting on it at all if you hadn't posted on this thread. I have never commented on a man's penis to him. Would be terribly rude IMO.

If I had chopped off my son's toe because it was medically necessary, then if you told me I'd mutilated him, I'd think you were barking. If I'd done it because I thought it was more aesthetically pleasing then I might be a bit more defensive.

For the umpteenth time, no one has said that circumcising your DS for a medically necessary reason is mutilating them. Not a single person.

I also (if I knew you and happened to see your son's penis) would not make a comment on it. But if someone starts a thread asking if they should get their son circumcised when there is no medical, cultural or religious justification for doing so, then I will challenge that.

Ladybiscuit - I do think your heart is in the right place but sometimes in challenging things like this you can cause great offense to those who have no choice in the matter.

If you call men who have had this op very horrid names it affects all who have had it done surely you can understand that?

If you were in my position I have a feeling you would feel gutted at the names and insinuations made. I don't know if you have children but if you have just imagine having to have them operated on then having to justify it to everyone and explain why then having your child described as mutilated, butchered, impotent. Then having to explain to your child what these terms mean and that the people are talking s*it and he will be able to have sex and have a family and that women are not going to be repulsed at what they see and that he is not a mutilated monster.

Why do people think they have the right to talk about circumsised boys / men in this way?

point of order: google "genital mutilation", circumcision is in this category.

Every chid who underwent circumcision for non-medical reasons should be able to sue their parents.

according to a search engine? glad we got that sorted with the proper authorities!

I don't see where the issue is. Everyone so far has agreed that circumcision is a good thing and should be done when medically necessary.

Some people say it is mutilation when done without a medical reason. Just as removing a kidney, or the appendix, or certain teeth or tonsils.... would be. Because the child has no possibility to speak out in these matters.
No one thinks medicine is wrong, what is regarded as wrong is doing a surgery on a child that does not have a problem, possibly causing difficulties.

I have the feeling some people just want to misunderstand this somehow.

"your critisisms of circumsised men are not differentiating between those done for medical reasons or religious."

I've made no complaints when medically necessary, but have stressed that for me, medical reasons are the only acceptable reasons.

I'll be first to agree I've attacked religious dogma for it being done, especially as young men have this forced on them without a chance to veto the decision (which I consider abuse).

Would love to know where I am supposed to have criticised men for being circumcised! I have suggested that I suspect there may have been changes to the glans which affect aspects of their sexual experience, but such thoughts have been dismissed with comments like "my DS has lost no sensitivity..."

Nobody is calling circ'd men names, they are calling their parents names. And rightly so.
My general principle is to leave mny children with the body parts they were born with unless there is a proper medical reason to remove them, and not to operate on them unless we have to.
Personally I find the idea of removing a bit of them because I think its nicer both bizarre and abusive.

so calling them 'mutilated' is not calling them names?

No, its a descriptive word. Tosser is name calling. Or twat.

Its accurate.
mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part.

1. To disfigure by damaging irreparably.

1. To make imperfect by excising or altering part.

See, mutilated.

hmmm...so you would tell an person without a leg/arm they were mutilated to their face?..you regard a man without a fore-skin as mutilated?..same as a pierced person or tattooed person?...or person with a facial disfigurement?...interesting...not insulting at all..

In case whoever asked me is still wanting to know, my circumcised lovers were best because they really loved sex. That's why I don't think they had any problems with sensitivity. Though of course they might have been even more into it if they'd had foreskins, who knows?

I wasn't suggesting, by the way, that two of my limited selection of men was in any way representative of the whole of mankind, or that it meant they should all be circumcised.

Did anyone else notice the reference to some poor boy keeping his foreskin in a jar? Yuk.

I would say that a person who had their arm chopped off for no good reason, or had been disfigured in the face by their parents because they liked the look of it had been mutilated. Wouldn't you?

My DH is circumcised, and he agrees with me that doing it to a child without proper medical reason is mutilation.

Its not insulting, its a factual description.

Ugly and fat are also descriptive, but that doesn't mean it's OK to go around calling people that???
The original posting on this thread had a lot of substance, and was a genuine question, but what has come out of it is truly unbelievable.
Are there any guys on this thread that are actually circumcised?
I am, and I don't go running around calling uncircumcised men cheese infested hooded villains!!! On the same lines, I don't expect anybody to go around calling me mutilated!!!
Either way, I have my opinions as well as the next person, and I can honestly say I cannot comment on whether my sex life would be better with a foreskin, but I can say I have never had an issue, and I wouldn't want my foreskin back even if I had the option. Bearing in mind I never had a choice when I was circumcised, and it wasn't on religious or medical grounds. I know loads of men that are circumcised, and also loads that are uncircumcised. I know of at least 6 friends that foreskins have split during sex, and sore after sex even without being split. I've also had girlfriends that complained about foreskins when performing oral sex (not being clean etc.) None of these issues occur with a circumcised penis.
I'm not on this thread to try and convince anybody that circumcision is wrong or right, but for me I wouldn't change it for the world.

Meant to add, read the definition, its not something that you are, its something that has been done to you.