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.

many things are a 'factual' description...said to a persons face would probably get you a slap!....and tbh you would deserve it!

my DH has been circed...and he does not see it in the same way as yours..hence the reason i say its is not a 'factual' description but a opinion...

No, you haven't read the description. You are seeing the word as a value judgement, not a description.Plus as I said, it cannot be a description of a person, but of an action against them.

I don't know what kind of people you talk to, but people i discuss things with don't slap each other. Do you often tell people they deserve a slap?

lol..it was not literal my dear [why am I not shocked by that statement]...it is a value judgement...you are saying to that person they are less of or different to another because of what they have had done to them or have chosen to have done to them...they have been 'mutilated' even if they feel that way or not

But you have excised and altered a part of your child's body mcp.

lmm - I really haven't got an issue at all with circumcised men or people who do it on health grounds. But I do think it's wrong to do it for any other reason. I think we'll have to agree to disagree here

Fine, lets use language in whatever way we feel like it, what is the point of actual definitions anyway?

Less of the my dear as well. I'm guessing patronising is a description you object to as well?

You can argue till you are blue in the face, but surgically removing body parts of children unnecessarily is mutilation. Thats why many civilised countries are seeking to ban it, and the european court of human rights is considering a motion to deem it torture, inhuman or degrading, contrary to article 3 of the human rights act.

If you feel the need to argue for surgical child abuse though, thats your right.

As i have said LadyB...to me its not about the reason per ce..but how it feels to that person...you are 'telling' a person they are 'mutilated' when they dont feel that way?..imo you are projecting your own feelings and position about a circumstance and issue other people do not feel the same way about..perhaps you saying how 'you'or 'google'feels about that issue... does that mean more than a human it has happened to?...are you saying they are in denial?

I said I thought it was mutilation to do it, not that circumcised men are mutilated. I can see a difference, even if you can't

In any event, the risk of upsetting those who have been circumcised without consent is a pretty weak argument for doing it.

I love 'my dear'and yes it's patronising ...I wont argue for surgical 'child abuse'....but i will argue that you cannot call a man 'mutilated' because they are circed because you choose to 'deem' that..

circumcision is 'multilation'...but to be circumcised is not 'mutilated'...

I cannot for one second imagine handing my baby over for an unnecessary, painful and frankly horrendous procedure. YABU.

LadyB, you may not have called circed men mutilated (just circumcision mutilation) but TiggyD definitely did. Language is about far more than just a dictionary definition, words have nuances too and the term mutilation is pejorative - are you honestly saying your DH wouldn't mind being called mutilated?

"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."

This is only "accurate" depending on your viewpoint as

1. the foreskin is not a limb or essential
2. and 3. people who have it done for religious/cultural reasons do not see it as disfiguring or making imperfect, quite the opposite.

There is nothing in this definition about "except for when it is medically necessary" so if you are going to follow the definition then all circumcised men have been mutilated. This could definitely be offensive to them and I think you should be hhonest about that.

What term would you prefer LordVauV?

Mutilated means done for no good reason. So men who have had it done for medical reasons are not mutilated. Those who have been done for no medical reason have been mutilated.
I ahve no problem with that definition. I can own the terms. But then I'm not the one arguing that its ok to remove parts of your child with a scalpel because you think it looks nice, so I'm not too worried about it.

Poor baby. I can hardly bear to hold my son whilst he gets his baby jabs, much less subject him to any sort of unecessary surgery.

I think it should be banned excepting religious or medical reasons full stop.

My DP is american (and not circumcised) and we had a random chat about this a while ago.

We both came to the conclusion that circumcision (except for medical reasons) is genital mutilation and should never be done to an unconsenting child.

I also fail to see the difference between male and female circumcusion. They both involve the removal of non vital "flaps of skin" with similar characteristics and purposes, and a certain propensity towards accumulating grot if not cleaned properly.

So to all those who have/are going to have their sons circumcised for non medical reasons presumably you will be having your daughters labium whiped off as well?

I am with runnybottom on this one, mutilation is chopping something off that is supposed to be there for not good reason. Saying you like the look is NO good reason.

Not really a hard concept to grasp. You like it because the whole family looks like it? no good reason to undergo surgery that can damage the child long lastingly (look, I said CAN, not will) and maybe resent you. If you really think that that's a good reason, maybe I should have my cornea taken out and a new one transplanted, just as my mum did. So we match again, with stitches and all.

And whoever said that girls have complained about men being unclean nuder their foreskin-if they do not follow simple rules of hygiene they would be unclean both being circumcised or not. Of course there is more room to "collect" under the foreskin, but an easy washing routine should mean there is nothing there. Honestly, if my guy wouldn't follow that there would be no sexual contact for me. Just because the foreskin is gone does not mean they won't come into contact with pee, germs etc. So I really don't see an advantage there.

ItsAll: I agree with you too! My labia is just a bit of skin too but I would not want it to be gone.

I think the terms circumcision and circumcised are good enough, LadyB.

That may be what it means, runnybottom, but that's not actually what LadyB's dictionary definition says.

I understand you're trying to condemn the parents who choose to have it done, and I understand why - you have every right to, I guess. But I think that you run the risk of actually offending, or at least pissing off the boys/men who are circumcised by saying they are mutilated or pitying them. Whether they were circumcised for medical reasons, or because it was inflicted on them by barbaric parents, they are not to blame, as has been pointed out by those who think they should be able to sue their parents. I also highly doubt that circed men would want your pity, I think that's quite a patronising attitude.

I also think that comparing it to female circumcision and having an appendix out is nonsensical, there are massive differences.

However, I do think OP should bear these views in mind as examples of the kinds of things that will be thought/said about her and her DS if she does go ahead and it will hopefully give her cause for serious consideration.

"I think it should be banned excepting religious or medical reasons full stop."

It looks like several people (not just men) object to the religious reason. I've no knowledge of what is claimed or how it is justified.

I suppose a Rabbi or Imman might be willing to disclose their (respective) religious reasoning. I know of no other 'faith' which requires it. If anyone knows, it might be interesting, to see just how many/ few there are.

I have not researched why tribes in other areas (perhaps only Africa, sorry, no knowledge if any other parts of the world consider this a preparation for manhood) so again, happy to accept information about this.

Well, I don't tend to have many conversations with men or boys in real life about their penises, let alone their status viz a viz circumcision, so I don't believe I will be insulting anyone actually. And I never mentioned pity either.
I don't pity my circ'ed DH, its not something that ever comes up, neither do I patronise him. I am however entitled to my opinion on the matter and to express it when appropriate, which as this is a debate thread on the matter, I would say it is.

I stand by my opinion, and if it makes the OP or anyone else think twice about it even if only because of the percieved judgement of others, Im very pleased. I do think it is barbaric, abusive, and should be illegal. I think it will be eventually.

"I do think OP should bear these views in mind as examples of the kinds of things that will be thought/said about her and her DS if she does go ahead"

Agreed. It would be nice to know what the reasoning was in N America (that caused it to be popular) and the current religious reasons for circumcision. Hygiene seems to be suggested, but there must be millions of men for whom this was never done and who apparently suffer no ill effects.

I'm still very puzzled about the description given by littlemoominmamma of her DH and DS as having been circumcised when she wrote "the end of their penis is still covered by skin unless erect" (sounds nothing like circumcision to me).

Moonacre - cheese infested hooded villains. Will have to remember that one.

I'm quite shocked by the reaction my OP has caused tbh. I expected a few strong opinions but not for the thread to go the way it has. I appreciate all of the politely stated opinions for & against. Some have been rather unpleasant & the sexual comments when I started a thread about my baby son make me feel slightly uncomfortable. fwiw my dh was circumcised as an adult due to his foreskin splitting during sex on more than one occasion & has no issues with sensitivity. I asked him having read some of the comments on here.

Not sure if my OP is even relevant anymore but for anyone who's interested I won't be going to speak to my GP about having ds2 circumcised. We'll wait & see what the future brings & hopefully he won't have the same problems as his dad.