Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing is, I know it's not easy to realize that other people consider circumcision to be a form of mutilation because that would logically mean that you authorized your child to be mutilated. Bottom line, that's the problem, isn't it? However, I do think that intent is important -- in fact, intent is crucial.
If someone took a staple and placed it against their child's head and stapled it with the intent to hurt, deface, harm, punish, "discipline," control, humiliate, or damage their child, that would be so wrong I can't imagine anyone on this board condoning that action. Mommabear, I'm sure you'd be among the first in line to be calling CPS on that person. However, we think nothing of it when we see the same activity happening in Claire's and call it "ear piercing." FWIW, I'm not calling ear piercing mutilation -- please, let's not go there, for God's sake -- but I am pointing out that intent (and context) can utterly transform an apparently hostile action into an apparently benign one.
As regards circumcision, I'm going to make a bold assumption here and assert that almost no one circumcises their child with the intent to hurt, deface, harm, punish, et cetera. I'm about as sure as I can be that the intent of nearly every single parent who circumcises is to follow local or religious custom, observe local aesthetic preference, and do what everybody else does. The fact that some people consider circumcision to be mutilation is a real shock for some people; the fact that it's not that different in several key respects from some other forms of female circumcision is also a shock because culturally, we have no problem considering that to be mutilation. My guess is that Somali parents who have infibulated their daughters feel pretty much the same way that American parents do who have circumcised their sons. They'd probably be shocked to think that they had done or permitted an act that others considered to be mutilation.
Because of intent, I don't think parents are to be blamed or condemned for this action. It's the action that I think is wrong, not the people, particularly since as I said previously, most of the folks who circumcized probably never thought twice about it -- they just did it because everyone else did, and if everyone else did, well, that's what you're supposed to do. What other people do is an extraordinarily powerful motivator for what we do ourselves.
Hope that helps.
Last edited by Charles Wallace; 08-11-2007 at 07:17 AM..
When I was born 31years ago, almost all boys were circumcized. This is no longer true. We can give medical pro's and con's for both sides. It is a personal decision. Of my friends that have had boys there is about a 50/50 split of cicumcized/uncircumcized boys. I also worked at a pediatric office and I'd say it's pretty close to 50/50 with the baby boys I've seen there.
I don't know what I'd do if I were to have a boy. Seeing I don't have a penis I think I'd leave that decision to my husband. I work in the medical field and I don't think it's a medical decision to me because there are pro's and con's for both. To me it is a personal decision.
As far as girls seeing it as "wierd" sexually, they look almost the same when erect - which I'd think is when it would matter the most.
For all of you who claim that circumcision decreases the risk of STDs, I strongly encourage you to read the actual study & the researchers' conclusions.
The study covered people living in Africa - not the United States - and amongst other things, they found a few towns in Africa where there was a higher incidence of circumcision & a lower rate of HIV/AIDS. That does NOT automatically mean that circumcision prevents contraction of STDs because there are many many other factors to consider. The study also states that HIV/AIDS is more prevalent in certain regions of Africa than in other regions. Can one then conclude that there is something inherent in the geological makeup of these regions - something in the very soil - that leads to higher rates of AIDS? Sounds like there are far more variations to consider.
On page 10 of the report, the researchers mention 2 cities where circumcision is more popular & HIV/AIDS is less prevalent: Yaounde (which is the capital city of Cameroon), and Cotonou (the largest city in Benin). And immediately after making that statement, the report says the following:
Quote:
Such findings, brought about by progress in epidemiology and improved understanding and models, illustrate the complexity of the dynamics of the epiodemic and also highlight number of lifetime partners and male circumcision as key factors in understanding the heterogeneity of the epidemic in Africa
In other words, the researches acknowledge that this is an extremely complex issue and that there are a diverse range of issues to consider. Should male circumcision and its connection to AIDS rates in Africa be studied? Certainly. But do they recommend circumcision as a way to reduce the rate of AIDS/HIV? NO.
Let it be known that the study DOES NOT in ANY WAY state that circumcision will protect a man from contracting or spreading STDs. Not even a little bit.
Indeed, if you read the conclusions of that study, you will see that at no time at all do they suggest that they should promote circumcision as a means to reduce AIDS/HIV infection. Instead, the conclusions focus on education, communication, and behavior modification (not body modification).
And on an anecdotal note ...
A very good friend of mine is currently working with an agency in southern Africa to increase availability of Ob/Gyn care and to increase sexual education in her region. The AIDS/HIV epidemic is a major issue for their organization. They focus their efforts on the ABCs mentioned in the report above.
A = Abstienence / Delay of sexual debut
B = Being faithful / partnership reduction
C = Condom use
Note: "C" does not stand for "circumcision".
When I was born 31years ago, almost all boys were circumcized. This is no longer true. We can give medical pro's and con's for both sides. It is a personal decision. Of my friends that have had boys there is about a 50/50 split of cicumcized/uncircumcized boys. I also worked at a pediatric office and I'd say it's pretty close to 50/50 with the baby boys I've seen there.
I don't know what I'd do if I were to have a boy. Seeing I don't have a penis I think I'd leave that decision to my husband. I work in the medical field and I don't think it's a medical decision to me because there are pro's and con's for both. To me it is a personal decision.
As far as girls seeing it as "wierd" sexually, they look almost the same when erect - which I'd think is when it would matter the most.
Teeg26, Great post - rational and logical. I agree with you that it is a personal decision and that there's pros and cons. I also would leave the decision to my husband for the same reason as you stated.
If a friend of mine asked me my opinion on this matter I would be inclined to state reasons for and against it. But there are those who are so against it that they don't see ANY pros to it at all. Some anti-circ. advocates (as this thread illustrates) see it as a form of mutilation (making it imperfect, crippled, damaged beyond repair) and that any argument that supports the "pros" is erroneous, misguided, and irrelevant - ignoring the fact that there just might be some truth on BOTH sides. It's a personal option as you said and one that - thankfully - is not going away anytime soon.
Mommabear2, I agree that it is a personal decision. My point is that the person who should make that decision is the owner of the penis. I do not own my son's penis and nor does my husband, so we will not have him circumcized. However, if he were to chose later in life to be circumsized, then that's his choice & he's allowed to make it.
Mommabear2, I agree that it is a personal decision. My point is that the person who should make that decision is the owner of the penis. I do not own my son's penis and nor does my husband, so we will not have him circumcized. However, if he were to chose later in life to be circumsized, then that's his choice & he's allowed to make it.
That's a hard one, because when he is older he may wish he had been circ., but what man would actually choose to go through it as an adult?
That's a hard one, because when he is older he may wish he had been circ., but what man would actually choose to go through it as an adult?
A previous poster in this thread said that s/he knew of some adult men who had chosen to have it done. The choice is there for those who want it. I simply feel that the person who makes the choice should be the person who owns the penis and foreskin in question.
And for those who argue that it is more painful to be circumsized as an adult, I have seen no evidence to support that. I imagine it would be quite painful at any time.
And for those who argue that it is more painful to be circumsized as an adult, I have seen no evidence to support that. I imagine it would be quite painful at any time.
This is also what I had in mind when I opted not to circumsize my son. Just because he could not articulate how much pain he's in, does not mean he isn't in pain. It's hard enough to watch the kids get their mandatory vaccinations and blood tests... a few weeks ago, my daughter actually fainted while they drew her blood for a routine test!
Anyway, since I'm posting anyway, I just wanted to say that I've really gained valuable knowledge on circumsicion from this forum alone. The fact-based stuff were eye-openers, but reading all sides of the issue really helped shaped the debate. Again, I voted for "either" on this poll. To be honest, when I made the decision about my son, it was just a gut instinct. It was not about fear of mutilation nor was it a conscious attempt to go against society. Like many have said, it was a very personal decision that turned out to work well for my son.
Finally, Charles Wallace, I do see the many parallels of female and male circumsicion. Thank you for bringing that into the thread.
Mommabear2, I agree that it is a personal decision. My point is that the person who should make that decision is the owner of the penis. I do not own my son's penis and nor does my husband, so we will not have him circumcized. However, if he were to chose later in life to be circumsized, then that's his choice & he's allowed to make it.
MrsSteel, that sounds like a perfectly thoughtful choice to me on behalf of your sons. I can totally see your viewpoint on that. If my husband said, "hey, let's keep the foreskin" I would be okay with that. I just disagree with people who see a man with a circumcised penis as damaged, multilated, imperfect, etc. That just doesn't seem right.
I was thinking about the one difference between male and female circumcision, being the intent to remove sexual pleasure/arousal for females. Do you think we can lump this into the social norms/religious beliefs? Because in many cultures, females are viewed as less than males whose sole purpose is to bear children and take care of the family. Though the intent to remove pleasure/arousal would be deemed cruel in America, perhaps it is not so in places where female circumcision is the norm.
Viewed this way, female and male circumcision would be exactly alike.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
to add about intent
