Maybe an urban legend? - Page 3

[nd_deadhead]

My grandpa was circumcised in his 70's - I have no idea why, though I know it was health-related (or at least that's what they were told). I was 7 or 8 years old at the time - it was the late 60's.

I have an Internet friend who was circumcised as an adult because of paraphimosis - definitely not his choice, and he's still unhappy aobut it.

I have a coworker whose husband chose to get circumcised (she told me this when I was pregnant, and the subject came up). I don't know her well enough to ask for details, though I got the impression it was primarily a "locker room" concern for him. I would love to know how they both feel about it now, 15 years later.

A neighbor's son was circumcised at age 5 - I would bet big money that the diagnosis was "phimosis".

[stayo22]

Originally Posted by tropicana 

don't you think that this is b/c the doctors get paid so much to do circumcisions? i'm personally of the belief that this is pretty much what it's ALL ABOUT. this is exactly why the doctors hype it up and exaggerate any perceived "health" or "cleanliness" issues, while downplaying the (very real) risk of severe hospital born infection, medical errors and diminished sexual capacity FOR LIFE. 

and people buy it b/c in our culture at least, doctors are treated as "Gods" who know it all. 

i personally think it's about time (long past time) to pull back the curtain so to speak, to reveal the truth, to stop these misguided doctors in their tracks, who have no appreciation for healthy intact bodies and IGNORE a helpless baby's intense and shocking pain... just to make $300 off a non-medical, unnecessary, cosmetic surgery done without anaestesia.

i applaud the presence of this forum, and the work of national organizations bringing this issue to light and revealing the truth.

I think the  VERY reason dr.'s are so quick to circ is because and I quote from my pediatrician... "IT IS EASY MONEY!"  My ped does not circ but has lots of friends who do.  I was shocked when she said that but it really resonated with me.  She said for what they get paid for a 15 minute procedure....makes every dr. quick to recommend it.  Scary but TRUE.

[LonelyPageTurnr]

The point of my post was that most people are pretty uneducated about FGC, and think that all or most of it is ex/inf, the most drastic kind.  Since this has been made such an issue over the last 20 years, and it's not a cultural norm, they have unreasonable feelings about it.  Some FGC is more invasive than MGC here, but some MGC elsewhere (penile subincision for instance) is much more invasive than many types of FGC.   The unreasonable feelings aren't that it's bad, but that it's like, the worst thing in the world.  In some cases, it absolutely is, and in some cases, I feel that it's not so much.

I'm not sure I'm explaining this right, but I am trying.  In other words, people's opinions about FGC are so unreasonable that the blog of the little girl being circumcised is far far more horrifying than what's done on a daily basis to boys here, and that's just messed up.  Was she harmed?  Yes, but not compared to what's done to boys here every day.  So I don't think their reactions can be used as a gauge for anything.  Further, I think that comparing the two, when American culture is so vehemently repulsed by FGC and accepting of MGC is a bad move, and not likely to win very many arguments.

Originally Posted by Storm Bride 

Okay. You know different people than I do. I've never met anybody who isn't horrified by the idea of any kind of FGM, no matter how slight it is.

But, the post you were originally answering said, "Most people are horrified at the thought of FGM, so I hope it made her realise that Circumcision is not much different.". That's what was being addressed - people's horror at FGM. So, what level of FGM is required to inspire horror/disgust is absolutely relevant to that quote.

Nobody's making up comparisons. Yes - the most severe forms of FGM are more severe than RIC...but that's like saying it's an "invalid" comparison if someone is horrified at chopping off a finger, and compares it to chopping off a hand. The loss of the hand is obviously more severe and drastic - but it doesn't make the loss of the finger any less of an assault or mutilation. This weird mental divide we have between removing infant boy's foreskins to lessen sexual pleasure (and that is where it came from, in the non-Jewish American culture) and cutting up female genitals to lessen their sexual pleasure is really weird.