Wow; it's only circumcision..

[Chloejp91]

Before I get killed, I'm not suggesting it is only circumsion, that's just the title of this thread.

I'm due in less than 4 weeks and I'm having a boy. I'm definitely going to circumcise him. It's part of my culture and my partner's culture so it's going to be done. I just feel sad that it's seen as such a bad thing, where there are some benefits to it.

Anyone circumsised/circumsizing their sons?

The website isn?t about Jews on the edge of the community though, they?re practicing Jews, some of them are highly educated in scriptures. There are referenced articles on that site.

Hazing continues despite it being done to the person who is now doing it. To not do it again would be to accept it is wrong and that people who were supposed to protect you didn?t.

Do you really not pick and mix? An eye for an eye? Some of the laws in the books of Moses are pretty shocking by modern standards, do you keep all of them?

MumNWLondon of course you understand my post and my analogy - you are after all an intelligent person, that much is clear.

However, I also understand that you have been brought up in a blind faith which has indoctrinated and brainwashed you and does not allow you to challenge or question anything that you have been told. Being an orthodox jewish woman doesn't look like being a whole lot of fun from what I've seen on TV.

So I feel very sorry for you in one way but I feel far more sorry for the children you allowed to be abused. First and foremost a child should expect to be protected by its parents and clearly you have failed most spectacularly. To then all but say that you can't worry about that because "jewish law" takes presedence over everything is absolutely sickening.

I doubt you've read the link I gave you to the jews against circumcision website but if you did you would see that they are not jews on the "fringes of the community" they are adherent jews who believe that it is absolutely possible to practice judaism without abusing children.

Be under no illusion that ritual genital mutilation is child abuse and child sex abuse too.

I make no apology for attacking you when you log on here to tell us that you are aware of how barbaric it is yet are still prepared to perpetrate it against your own children, and stand by while it happens to many other children in your community too.

I wouldn't be any easier on a paedophile so why should I treat you any differently just because you claim to feel morally obliged to follow "jewish law".

excellent post genevieve.

Exactly - If a paedophile who mutilated children claimed he was doing it because of his religion, he wouldn't get away with it!

I see no difference.

How exactly can circumsicion not be classed as sexual assault??? A person who perpetuates sexual assault on a minor is called a paedophile. A person who assists a person in a sexual assault on a child is an accessory in my view.

If someone pinned you down without your permission and lopped off part of you sexual organs, well??? What else could you call that??

If it was your ear it would be assault.

If it is a sex organ then it is sexual assault.

Watch the video, read the links and do the math for yourselves. We alledge to live in a civilised society. How wrong are we.

Kickarse,

It is so easy to be glib as you are. So, every jew is a paedophile who has sexually assaulted his children? There is no um er answer to that one. It is either "yes" or "no". Motivation matters. To commit any kind of offense you need a guilty mind (mens rea) as well as committing a guilty act (actus rea). In addition, the long term pros vs the short term cons need to be balanced.

I was circumcised. I am pleased for any number of reasons that I was. Not really being religious and having not married a jew, I still wanted to get my children circumcised for health reasons. They do exist, especially to do with the transmission of sexual diseases. Come the time, though, I could not face doing it for visceral reasons. On the other hand, I could never condemn anyone who did.

And, as for a few bizarre people trying to "regrow" their foreskins, they are a tiny minority of circumcised men. Most, when asked, are v pleased that they had it done.

Oh for God's sake Larrygrylls

If you research paedophilia you will see that they also convince themselves that the sexual assault they are perpetrating against children is in the child's best interests and what the child wants.

Denial is an extremely efficient form of psychological defence. It protects paedophiles from feeling guilt - so in your argument this means they have not committed a crime?

From reading your's, Sum04's and MumNWLondon's arguments and rationales for circumcising your children it would also seem as if you are all operating in a state of extreme denial.

Although you do seem to have some sense that circumcision may be wrong "I still wanted to get my child circumcised for health reasons... Come the time, though, I could not face doing it for visceral reasons"

Can I ask what your visceral reasons are?

Of course,

I could not face putting my tiny baby in that much discomfort (or take the tiny risks associated with the procedure), even if I felt it was right in the long term. That does not make it wrong, maybe it just makes me weak.

On the other hand, I allowed my 5 week old son to undergo all sorts of invasive and unpleasant procedures a week ago, as it was medically necessary. So, you do have to balance short and long term. And there are good long term reasons for circumcision.

Larrygrylls how can you call yourself weak for protecting your tiny baby from pain and the risks of surgery/anaesthesia??
From what I understand [and have researched] circumcision [unless there is a hypospadia, etc] is a completely unnecessary procedure.

Can I ask you what you understand are the good long term reasons for circumcision?
Everything I have read states there is no medical basis for it. Perhaps you could provide us with a link to a site that explains the reasons for circumcision?

larrygrylls you said:

"On the other hand, I allowed my 5 week old son to undergo all sorts of invasive and unpleasant procedures a week ago, as it was medically necessary."

Presumably those invasive and unpleasant procedures were necessary to protect and preserve your child's health and ensure his/her wellbeing going forwards?

Surely no decent parent would subject their child to such procedures if they weren't necessary?

In the absence of a pressing clinical reason to perform it, circumcision is a totally unneccessary prodecure and no one should be looking to put a child through it - and what's more, shouldn't be allowed to under any circumstances.

All the perceived "benefits" of circumcision are extremely dubious and an uncircumcised penis poses no more of a risk to anyone than a circumcised penis if it is kept clean.

Also, the views of men who claim to be glad they were circumcised don't count in my view. They have no understanding of what life would be like without having it done and the fact that they can't remember the pain just doesn't stand up.

I seriously don't understand the double standard that exists re: male and female ritual genital mutilaton either. There should be no degrees of this. It is utterly wrong in both cases and should not be allowed to continue.

Sorry larrygrylls but your opinion is as useful as someone defending hazing having been through it and put others through it. It's self protection.

Not one medical authority in the world supports RIC and not one medical authority agrees there are health benefits.

Why do the states have a worse sexual health record than the UK? If RIC genuinely protected from STDs they should have less prevalence than us. Why are British boys not being done preadolescence from the complications that supposedly happen to them? Why are old men in care homes not being rushed in to have it done because they get so infected? Because we do not see the downsides of intact men in the UK that we should be seeing if the US is to be believed.

Jews circumcise to make a sacrifice (and I'm saying this without defending it) if it's supposed to be a sacrifice that means giving up something important for God does not accept sacrifices that do not matter. Only since Kellogg et al has there been "health benefits" to RIC. It started as a means to stop masturbation and continued with whatever the fad of the day was - hence the current health benefit being HIV protection.

Personally I would not want to tell my children they have an inbuilt protection from HIV that means they only have 50% chance of getting the virus. That's misleading, sleep with someone unprotected twice and you're now at risk? I'd rather teach them safe sex - even if I believed in the 50% reduction, which I've not seen any accepted evidence for.

Medically necessary versus Medically unnecessary.

That just about sums it up.

Its Unnecessary.

Its Cruel.
Its Assault.

Its Sexual Assault.
Its Painful.
It has no Medical Benefits.

Oh and did I mention that its UNNECESSARY?

Oh and by the way, If its being done for religious reasons as a sacrifice and yet you are claiming all these medically proven to be wrong benefits and many seem to alledge that it doesn't hurt then surely its not actually a sacrifice at all is it?

Larry, you have a modified penis, if you are happy with that thats great, jolly good for you. Guess what?? If you had been left intact I bet you would have been very happy with your foreskin and if someone had tried to forcibly remove it without anasthetic you would have done everything in your power to prevent them.

As for men who try to regrow their foreskin, really, they are not bizarre. They have had something taken from them and they want it back. If their attempts can improve their lives and make them happier then that seems very reasonable to me.

As for glib, to me this is a very simple subject.

Is it right to cut babies genitals off without anasthetic?

No.

That is my opinion, I hold this opinion after watching lots of footage of circumsions. Reading lots of information. Taking into account medical proffesionals opinions regarding, benefits and negatives. Looking at the risks involved. Considering the problems caused to many men on reaching adulthood who are left with problems from their circumcision.

I am not calling myself an expert in circumcision, but I am someone who has investicated the subject much further than most.

Ironically most mothers/fathers whose families/ communities practise circumcision do not investigate any of the above, because it is considered as normal in their society as the cutting of the cord.

I don't care what religion a person practises as long as it doesn't harm someone else, when it harms the most defensless in society I think that is horrendous.

I have heard that there may be a test case coming to court in the UK. I'm hoping that there is and that this case can prompt a change in the law. I would like to see non medical neccesity circumcision banned in the UK as FGM is.

KickArseQueen you've summed that (sacrifice) up better than I did. If I was God and people were saying "here have this manky bit of skin we don't need as a sacrifice to show how much we love you" I'd be insulted!

Apparently the case was supposed to have been heard in 2010 but has been delayed. I've not heard too much about it but very interested if anyone knows more. I'm assuming it's on the "causing a doctor to perform unnecessary surgery on a child" but I'm sure there are many laws that could apply.

I've just remembered the story of a couple who heated a butter knife and used it to carve their initials in each others rear end. A friend reported them to the police and they were done for GBH!

Thanks confuddled, and recently there was a case of a man branding his children to show they belonged to him and he sited the practise of RIC to get him off....
Two wrongs make a legal right???

There are plenty of very educational links on this thread.
If anyone wanted to educate themeselves on the facts - not biased, but informative. So that they could make their own educated, knowledgable decision without making assumptions about what is actually involved, the links here would be a good start.

Some of them are disturbing, but if you can't face the reality of the word, then you shouldn't subject a child to it IMO.

Kickarse,

OK, I think you have answered me. 99% of Jewish and Muslim people have sexually assaulted their infant children.

Genevieve,

I am quite surprised by the double standard whereby females are assumed to be able to empathise with males but not vice versa. So, I, as a circumcised man, cannot have a view on male circumcision which has validity but you, as a (presumably uncircumcised) woman can.

Also there is a HUGE difference in female and male circumcision. From what I have read an overwhelming majority of circumcised women cannot experience orgasm. Male circumcision makes absolutely no difference to male sexual response (I assure you it certainly does not stop men masturbating!). Female genital mutilation is more like cutting the penis off (the clitoris is the analogous organ in a female).

Larry, You as a happily circumcised man appear to have difficulty showing any empathy for the men who are unhappily circumsised and see them as "bizarre", just because you are happy with the situation does not mean it will be right for everyone.

If you haven't already, please go ahead and read the testemonies of these men, there are hundreds and you are only 1 saying its great.

Doesn't give a good ratio of sucess in my view.

Then when you are done, please explain to me exactly how you think removing the foreskin decreases the chances of stds?

Do you know something / have some evidence that medical proffesionals all over the world have missed? Because not 1 nation has found evidence that it is beneficial.

All the info I have found shows that it is irrelevant whether a person has a foreskin or not in the STD stakes. Lots of people have researched for this thread and others like it, not once has a positive aspect been found that was proven to be a fact.

Please feel free to link me to the evidence you have found that can prove 1 positive aspect to RIC.

larrygrylls amputation not circumcision was to stop masturbation, it's even been said by modern doctors the more the better.

There is a female version as women do indeed have a foreskin and last year the US was looking at making it possible for doctors to perform it. It was thrown out as being cruel/ barbaric/ inhuman...

Would I accept someone who said hazing should be legal who had been through hazing and performed hazing on someone else? No.

KickArseQueen - I come from a community where all the men have been circumcised and I have never encountered a man who is unhappy about it. The hundreds that you talk about pale in comparison to the actual number of men that were circumcised as children and have absolutely no problem with it. Your view that it doesn't give a good ration of success is nonsense and completely without foundation.

*ratio not ration

The definition of sexual abuse is forcing an unwanted sexual activity on a person - circumcision is not in any way a sexual activity.

I also find it very strange that so many of you have what appears to be an unhealthy obsession with researching circumcision in infants when it is not something that you would consider for your children or which is not a religious/cultural belief in your society.

No, it's abuse of a persons sex organs which is why doctors can sexually abuse women during birth. They're not trying to have sex with them (apart from Dr Hilary, but that was his own wife ) but they still abuse their sex organs.

I think if you've been circumcised and live in a culture/community where it happens to all males then you'd have no reason to be unhappy - thank goodness. As a straight man you wouldn't be playing with other men's penises either, so how would you know any different?

As someone who's experienced both I can say that the physical appearance of a circumcised penis is 'neater', but goodness the uncircumcised ones are far more fun!

I really struggle to believe that people still do this.

three reasons why circumcision is now defunct

1. condoms
2. soap
3. child protection laws

It's a disgusting way to treat a helpless infant and you should be ashamed of yourselves for failing your sons so badly.

I do wonder how many people will be willing to continue if this test case proves sucessful? Would you be willing to break the law for your faith?

The official definition is "sexual abuse involves forcing or enticing a child or young person to take part in sexual activities including prostitution, whether or not the child is aware of what is happening. The activities may involve physical contact, including penetrative (e.g. rape, buggery or oral sex) or non-penetrative acts. They may include non-contact activities, such as involving children in looking at, or in the production of, pornographic material or watching sexual activities, or encouraging children to behave in sexually inappropriate ways" (DfES, 2006)