circumcision...ugh

[EarnestImp]

i made you your own thread and you dodn't say ta...i'm upset now

Thanks, but it is rather sparsely furnished at the moment.

 

[dolf]

Thanks, but it is rather sparsely furnished at the moment.

*stamping my feet and pouting*

 

[bigcpl4fun]

my poor son...but he's having it done

and one of the first decisions i have to make as a mom is whether to traumatize him on the first or second day of his birth

Well, we had the same concerns when we had it done on our son 20 years ago. Wasn't anything to do with the religious aspect, since we're not Jewish. At the time the medical opinion of that time was that it wasn't necessary, don't put your chld through it, etc. Our decision was a practical one. I was circumsized, so if he eas, there was no problem with explaining the difference. And, no, one certainly never remembers the procedure.

Funnt thing is, I was reading an article about AIDS in Africa and how it ws less frequent among circumsized men. So, just maybe, there is something to it. Don;t know for sure.

Anyway, he's a happy healthy 20 year old, so we couldn't have messed up too bad.

 

[rakastuja]

Exactly. It is a weird American fetish (Canadian, too, but to a lesser extent).

Well I understand well if someone think cut looks better and other thinks uncut looks better. We all have our own likings after all.

What disturbs me is mother saying her son has unattractive penis as it is and wants to modify his body because of this.

Im sorry if that hurts someone's feelings but its just honestly what I thought...

 

[EarnestImp]

Well, we had the same concerns when we had it done on our son 20 years ago. ..... Our decision was a practical one. I was circumsized, so if he eas, there was no problem with explaining the difference. And, no, one certainly never remembers the procedure.

Wait...I'm confused...the reasoning is that if one person is circumciSed, then all of his descendants will have to be circumcised until the end of time, so no one will ever have to explain the difference?

 

[WhiteCheech]

better now than when he is 30

 

[EarnestImp]

What disturbs me is mother saying her son has unattractive penis as it is and wants to modify his body because of this.

Im sorry if that hurts someone's feelings but its just honestly what I thought...

Exactly. It is the painful surgical imposition of a sexual fetish (or preference or whatever) on the body of somone who is unable to give consent. This is just common sense, to somone who is not immersed in the practice.

There is nothing wrong with hurting people's feelings when it is done for the sake of expressing an opinion. This is a public forum. If people don't want others to express opinions about their customs and actions, then they shouldn't post and invite commentary in the first place.

 

[bigcpl4fun]

Wait...I'm confused...the reasoning is that if one person is circumciSed, then all of his descendants will have to be circumcised until the end of time, so no one will ever have to explain the difference?

It's called taking the easy way out.

Really though, every male in both families was circumsized and we all survived just fine. So, why change without a compelling reason ? What are the dire consquences to be avoided ? And it is easier to keep everything clean...we're lazy that way.

 

[EarnestImp]

It's called taking the easy way out. ....

Really though, every male in both families was circumsized and we all survived just fine. So, why change without a compelling reason ? What are the dire consquences to be avoided ? And it is easier to keep everything clean...we're lazy that way.

Well, one could avoid subjecting your kid to pain. One could stop an un-necessary surgery when it is known to be un-necessary rather than propagating it forward for another generation. One could show a certain amount of adaptability to changing medical knowledge, rather than blindly following outdated custom when one knows that the custom is at the very least erroneous. In other words, one could modify one's behaviour at every point so as to do the most rational, sensible, and humane thing under the circumstances.

Although I don't know how to help your with your lazy hygiene problem. If one were really that lazy, one should worry more about one's festering butt crack or pustulant vagina than about washing under a prepuce.

 

[bigcpl4fun]

Well, one could avoid subjecting your kid to pain. One could stop an un-necessary surgery when it is known to be un-necessary rather than propagating it forward for another generation. One could show a certain amount of adaptability to changing medical knowledge, rather than blindly following outdated custom when one knows that the custom is at the very least erroneous. In other words, one could modify one's behaviour at every point so as to do the most rational, sensible, and humane thing under the circumstances.

Although I don't know how to help your with your lazy hygiene problem. If one were really that lazy, one should worry more about one's festering butt crack or pustulant vagina than about washing under a prepuce.

So, you're saying there is nothing to it. THis is based on your vast medical knowledge ? Your should consider adding MD to your lit name.

Changing medical knowledge ? You mean like obesity is the number 2 killer, no, wait, let's make that numer 7 ? You mean like, it kills hundreds of thousands...hold on, let's make that tens of thousands ? Oh, and a little extra weight is healthier than "normal" weight , we really meant to say that.

Yeah, oh boy, just impress the hell out of me with medical research.

 

[EarnestImp]

Changing medical knowledge ? You mean like obesity is the number 2 killer, no, wait, let's make that numer 7 ? ....... Yeah, oh boy, just impress the hell out of me with medical research.

You have to go with the best medical knowledge available at the time. This means data driven, not custom driven or status quo driven.

If there no compelling reason to perform surgery on an infant, then one should not perform surgery on an infant. Yes, there is always uncertainty, but how can you rationally use the absence of solid evidence for a procedure to argue in favor of the procedure?

I'll provide an analogy, specially simplified for your benefit: There is no medical evidence that suggests that cutting off an infant's left earlobe provides a net medical benefit, though this result is not 100% certain. Therefore we should not cut off infants' left earlobes.

[size=-2]edit: remove superfluous word[/size]

 

[Gord]

Earnest Imp - I think you will find that circumcision is ingrained in the US as a normal procedure that you will be battling with people here

I ws a bit shocked at the stats of the no of babies who get their foreskin removed asa matter of routine - I dont know why this is so prevailent in the US

Granted the figures are coming down now as parents start to question why they are doing this piece of surgery on their babies

Girlfridays statement that she thought an uncircumsised penis both unnatractive and unhygenic - hence her reason for the surgery was pretty scary

 

[EarnestImp]

Earnest Imp - I think you will find that circumcision is ingrained in the US as a normal procedure that you will be battling with people here

I ws a bit shocked at the stats of the no of babies who get their foreskin removed asa matter of routine - I dont know why this is so prevailent in the US

I'm a Yank, actually, despite my location. The reason it is so ingrained is cultural momentum, as far as I can tell. Look at the start of this thread.

tgf11 was freaked at the pain she would inflict on her kid, but she was even more freaked at the thought of normal male anatomy, so psychologically she found it easier to "traumatize" (her word) her "poor son" (her words) than to accept his normal unaltered anatomy.

If you read books on Female Genital Mutilation in Africa (eg Lightfoot-Klein's 'Prisoners of Ritual'), the psychological motivations are the same - people are used to genitals looking one way, and they can't psychologically deal with anything different. It is easier to cut your kid than change your way of thinking.

The custom was abandoned with relative ease in the UK (yes, it was prevalent there too, though not with the same saturation) after NHS refused to pay for it in the 1950s, figuring it offered minimal benefits. There, the abandonment of the practice had the government's clout behind it, so the social norm quickly became intactness.

 

[TheOlderGuy]

an uncut penis is unhealthy and unattractive

i'm his mother, i can make that decision...he's having it done, no questions asked...and he'll be glad for it, trust me, i'm a woman, i know these things....think about it...kids start petting in their teens and american teenage girls ....well, let's just say they'd react to an uncut penis in a way that could cause insecurity and social rejection....which is a whole hell of a lot more painful and remembered than a circumcision at birth

i just feel sad it's gonna hurt....but i don't feel guilty in a sense that i'm second guessing my decision or even think it's a bad one

that's beyond idiotic.

to perform a barbaric and unnecessary mutilation on an infant because some insecure kids might tease him one day is quite abusive.

you really ought to get some facts before you act.

 

[Gord]

that's beyond idiotic.

to perform a barbaric and unnecessary mutilation on an infant because some insecure kids might tease him one day is quite abusive.

you really ought to get some facts before you act.

I found her justifications for the procedure pretty strange -

Its akin to ritual scaring in African countries - where boys and girls get given knife scars on their faces as babies ( and older ) for tribal recognition purposes - I am sure the same thought process must go through these mothers minds too

 

[Cheyenne]

I feel the same way...but the absolute obsession is by those who would subject a child to unanethetised surgery for the sake of an aesthetic preference born of Victorian anti-masturbatory hysteria. Intactness is normal, and circumcision is, in essence, a socially accepted amputation fetish. I can't understand people who don't just say 'OK, it isn't necessary, so we won't do it. We'll save a few bucks, and the kid won't suffer'.

Give it up already, you aren't going to change her mind about her son.

 

[onebadkitty]

I usually don't respond before reading the entire thread, but I read so many bashing girlfriday that I had to jump in. Enough already! Give the woman a break, she's already feeling a little angst at putting her son through some TEMPORARY pain, and she doesn't need folks putting more guilt on her. That's all we mothers need is MORE DAMN GUILT. I understand that it is probably more of a cultural thing, but I had my son circumcised (after much agonizing) for the same reasons - so he'd look like daddy, so he'd look like most of the other guys in the locker room. I agree that being rejected/teased/whatever during teen/young adult years is way more traumatizing that snipping some foreskin at birth. Yes, it hurts, I'm sure, but Male Doctors do perform it, so it must not be too bad, or they'd all object. His circumcised father, who by the way, is a perfectly well-adjusted adult who does not remember his procedure and was not warped by it at all was in total agreement with me.

With that said, I did specifically request a local anesthetic, and was told that in my particular hospital, that it is standard practice to anesthetize all little boy babies befor the procedure. I am told the only time my baby cried was when they strapped his little legs down, and as soon as they unstrapped him, he was fine. He felt no pain, just didn't like the part about being restrained - still doesn't, by the way.

Hugs and kisses to you, girlfriday and your baby, too. He'll be fine. Don't let anybody give you anymore crap.

 

[Guest]

my poor son...but he's having it done

and one of the first decisions i have to make as a mom is whether to traumatize him on the first or second day of his birth

He is "having it done", or you made the decision for him to be circumsized?

There's a difference.

 

[Guest]

that's beyond idiotic.

to perform a barbaric and unnecessary mutilation on an infant because some insecure kids might tease him one day is quite abusive.

you really ought to get some facts before you act.

I find that TheGirlFriday's comments about circumcision and the fear of her son being socially rejected, etc, are very representative of most Americans. The interesting thing is that the majority of the rest of the world (except for Jewish families) does NOT see circumcision as necessary, or being any more hygeinic, or even as a routine procedure. Go to any Latin American country, for example, and you would be hard pressed to find a circumsized guy. I would imagine that in most places around the world, a guy missing his foreskin might be stigmatized. So that brings me to the question: Why did the U.S. start instituting this practice as hygienic, routine, and important? And when did that happen in our culture?

 

[JammieDodger]

I usually don't respond before reading the entire thread, but I read so many bashing girlfriday that I had to jump in. Enough already! Give the woman a break, she's already feeling a little angst at putting her son through some TEMPORARY pain, and she doesn't need folks putting more guilt on her.

I'm sorry, but if you start a thread saying how worried you are about going through with something... and that something isn't neccesary... you're bound to get some people wondering why on earth you're doing it... as well as trying to persuade you not to for both your sake and the child's.

I don't get the temporary argument, all pain is temporary, its pain and stress at a very young age when a child is still developing we're trying to avoid here.

 

[Gord]

I usually don't respond before reading the entire thread, but I read so many bashing girlfriday that I had to jump in. Enough already! Give the woman a break, she's already feeling a little angst at putting her son through some TEMPORARY pain, and she doesn't need folks putting more guilt on her. That's all we mothers need is MORE DAMN GUILT. I understand that it is probably more of a cultural thing, but I had my son circumcised (after much agonizing) for the same reasons - so he'd look like daddy, so he'd look like most of the other guys in the locker room. I agree that being rejected/teased/whatever during teen/young adult years is way more traumatizing that snipping some foreskin at birth. Yes, it hurts, I'm sure, but Male Doctors do perform it, so it must not be too bad, or they'd all object. His circumcised father, who by the way, is a perfectly well-adjusted adult who does not remember his procedure and was not warped by it at all was in total agreement with me.

With that said, I did specifically request a local anesthetic, and was told that in my particular hospital, that it is standard practice to anesthetize all little boy babies befor the procedure. I am told the only time my baby cried was when they strapped his little legs down, and as soon as they unstrapped him, he was fine. He felt no pain, just didn't like the part about being restrained - still doesn't, by the way.

Hugs and kisses to you, girlfriday and your baby, too. He'll be fine. Don't let anybody give you anymore crap.

thats what happens at Lit - people post threads and then other people comment on them either for it or agaisnt it - I think though quite a few people did agree with her though

She didnt expect there not o be a reaction to her thread - if she didnt then she doesnt know Lit very well

 

[Cheyenne]

He felt no pain, just didn't like the part about being restrained - still doesn't, by the way.

Smart kid.

 

[JammieDodger]

I find that TheGirlFriday's comments about circumcision and the fear of her son being socially rejected, etc, are very representative of most Americans. The interesting thing is that the majority of the rest of the world (except for Jewish families) does NOT see circumcision as necessary, or being any more hygeinic, or even as a routine procedure. Go to any Latin American country, for example, and you would be hard pressed to find a circumsized guy. I would imagine that in most places around the world, a guy missing his foreskin might be stigmatized. So that brings me to the question: Why did the U.S. start instituting this practice as hygienic, routine, and important? And when did that happen in our culture?

I've thought that for a long time too, a major immigration of one population that digs circumcision must have occured... but I've always been stumped as to which culture it was and when they emmigrated...

I suppose it only takes one person to be circumcised at birth for others to have done the same for many generations to come... simply because that person will never understand what they're missing out on sexually. And the converse of that which occurs in places strongly against it. So maybe getting a whole culture to be pro-circumcision isn't so hard.

 

[EarnestImp]

I usually don't respond before reading the entire thread, but I read so many bashing girlfriday that I had to jump in. Enough already! Give the woman a break, she's already feeling a little angst at putting her son through some TEMPORARY pain, and she doesn't need folks putting more guilt on her. That's all we mothers need is MORE DAMN GUILT.

Yes, we do need MORE DAMN GUILT. If people have their kid strapped down to a board for (usually) unanesthetised surgery because of a personal aesthetic preference, then they should be subjected to the potential guilt of it. That's life. You do something that is potentially wrong, and you suffer guilt and are subjected to the opprobium of others.

Hell, I don't expect to change her mind. I do expect her to be aware that many people consider this to be an involuntary mutilation, and that her son could turn out to be one of those people. If you buy into the cultural values that see male circ normal, then you probably accept it. If you step back and realize that if you did a comparable thing to a girl (meaning any aesthetic, cultural, religous, or ritual genital modification), you end up in prison for five years in the USA, then you might be able to understand why there exists a different perspective that considers the practice barbaric.

To a large extent, it is about a consistent view of human rights and equality under law ... sauce for the goose is sauce for gander.

Don't like it? There's always the ignore button. Try it.

 

[Cheyenne]

Don't like it? There's always the ignore button. Try it.

You first.