or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Why so anti-circumcision?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why so anti-circumcision? - Page 2

post #21 of 78
I'll say that I am ANTI cir for EVERYONE, (ok not adults) but for boys and girls. regarless of the parents "choice" or religion....why...
1. not my penis....
2. Yes masterbation is better/easier, but so is sex. And I don't believe that either is something to be shamed. I want my son to have his whole penis so his sex life is 100% later on.
3. my dh is that he was cir...
post #22 of 78
I guess I should reword it, it's not that the reasons against are extreme, I guess I'm just wondering how there are two such extreme views on the matter.
Another reason why people can be so extreme about advocating circumcision, is because I think men have a very hard time coming to grips with the fact that something "bad" was done to their penis. I'm part of a message board that is predominantly populated by men, and when the great circ debate pops up from time to time, it's astounding how many men will pipe up with phrases like "I'm circ'd, and the ladies love it" (the ladies really don't care, dude...trust me) or "I'm circ'd, and I'm cleaner" (have a shower every few days and you'll be clean regardless). Or some will just retaliate with "I sure am glad I don't have a disgusting cock skirt" (yes, that's an exact quote). Men are very proud of their bits, and often will not budge on the issue, because I think maybe it forces them to look at themselves differently? You can throw every bit of research at them that you want, and they will keep their blinders on and continue to rave about the "benefits" of circ, and how they will have their sons cut because foreskin is "icky."

I think that cutting a child for cosmetic reasons, is about as extreme as you can get.
post #23 of 78
I am extremely anti circ.

Perhaps this is covered, I have not read through all the posts yet.....

But lets see:
Amputating a child's genitals.
While they are too young to protest.
With any anaesthesia.
without his consent.
without thought to the damages it will cause him later in life.
in most (though not all) cases to suit your own sexual preferences.

it's child abuse.
post #24 of 78
DS was not circ'ed b/c DH and I believe that our son was perfectly made--intact.
post #25 of 78
I just have to agree with what everyone else has said. I circ'd my eldest and I cry every time I think about how I allowed my son to be mutilated because my mom told me it was better for him. It's not, and the only difference between my intact and circumcized sons is the missing piece from my circ'd son.
post #26 of 78
Originally Posted by Attached Mama
It's called ignorance!!!!!

Doctors med books don't even have pictures of an intact penis from what I'm told.
This has been my experience. I'm working toward my BSN (bachelor's of science in nursing) on my way to being a CNM. And being as anti-circ as I am, I notice when the diagrams in my books have a circed penis. There is a quick mention of circumision for the removal of the foreskin, but it is never listed as "optional" or anything, just like it's what you "do." Kwim? In my current A&P text, I've noticed 1 or 2 intact penises and they are on pictures of more "ethnic" looking men. The white-looking men are all circed. It drive me insane, and I am really comtemplating drafting up a letter to the publishers of my textbooks every time I see it.
post #27 of 78
To respond to the OP:

I am anti-circumcision because I view it as calculated child abuse. No other part of a baby's body could legally be removed from a child for no medical reason. Want to cut off a toe? You're a psycho child abuser. Want to cut off the foreskin? Oh, that's the parents choice! Total bull.
post #28 of 78
Originally Posted by rolenta
I also noticed that one of the reasons in the article I read seemed to say you should leave the foreskin intact so that masterbation would be easier. Maybe I'm the minority here, but I don't exactly want to encourage masterbation.

i surely couldnt' guess if you aren't or are in any sort of majority, but i am curious about this...
1. what's wrong with masturbation?
2. do you actually think you're in control of another person's genitals enough that it matters whether you 'encourage' it or not?

Mama Q scratches head...
post #29 of 78
In a nutshell, I am anti-circ because my penis was wrecked in a botched circ and re-circ. It was ridiculous that it even happened and I'm the one who's had to live with it my entire life. Not my parents, not the doctors who convinced them it was necessary, not any religious group, and not my peers in the locker room. Me. It was my penis and it certainly wasn't MY choice.

Beyond that you can go into all the other obvious scientific evidence, logic and ration as to why it's a bunch of pseudo-medical quackery, but I know others here can do that far more eloquently. I know there's a lot of cultural brain-washing and old wive's tales out there (at least in the US) supporting circ; even living with a botch job, I still believed it was for the "better" for almost 30 years. But still, even then there was always this little voice in the back of my head telling me there was something really....macabre...with the whole concept of taking the perfect creation, a child, and hacking on his genitals as a welcome into this world.
post #30 of 78
Why so anti-circumcision? Because it's such an important issue!!!
post #31 of 78
I'm pro-intact. (Language is power). Everyone deserves to keep his/her body the way he/she was born, at least until he/she is old enough to consent (over 18.)
post #32 of 78
Originally Posted by Sheacoby
rolenta, do you think "it's cleaner" is a valid reason to circumcise females? Because of course that is one of the main reasons for FGM too.
The truth is there are NO real medical reasons to routinely circ boys (or girls). If you research the history of male circ you will find that those so called medical reasons keep changing as they get debunked.
I am against genital mutilation because it is a, painful, permanent , sexual alteration of a unconsenting person's body.
To me it is very EXTREME to cut of parts of babies genitals.
Very well said! In other parts of the world, the "it's cleaner" LIE is the reason why it's done in certain countries. Now if you're in the U.S., for example, and respond "But, that's idiotic!" and still believe it can be true for males, then you're totally brainwashed and haven't learned your lesson about genital integrity!
post #33 of 78
i am an intactivist because all children should be protected against child abuse - not just female children. Circumcision is child sexual abuse at it's core, and something I regretfully did not know when my first was born (and circ'ed) but now understand, and my third child, and second boy, is blissfully whole.

post #34 of 78
If it is cleaner to have the foreskin removed, it can't possibly be significant. If you believe in evolution, then you understand that any trait which prevents an individual from reaching reproductive age, interferes with reproduction, or reduces reproduction will eventually be phased out. If foreskins made males unhealthier, they would not have foreskins. All mammals have foreskins. All human have foreskins. So how could they possibly be a medical problem?

And as all mammals have foreskins, this also indicates that the existence of foreskins is about more than random chance getting passed along with no benefit or detraction from survivability (like blond hair or blue eyes, like having freckles, or there being such a wide variety of hair textures, ear lobe shapes). If all mammals have foreskins, this is an indication that it serves a legitimate health and reproductive purpose. If you notice, each mammal's foreskin is a little different, depending on the life habits of the particular species.

This simple logic is enough to make me question any medical evidence indicating that removal of this evolutionary necessary equipment is a good idea.

How about eyelashes? Talk about an un-necessary piece of equipment. They fall out and get caught in the eye. They concentrate particles and debris and microorganisms, predisposing the eye to infection. It's far cleaner to expertly slice off the tiny bit of eye-lid that holds these follicles. Really, that's not extreme, it's just carrying the circumcision logic to a part of the body that is considered socially desirable (and is present in nearly all mammals).

In our culture we are so accustomed to the idea of modifying male genitalia, that it is normal, it is okay. It is desirable and necessary. Like brushing teeth or trimming a child's hair. So comparing it to a part of the body that we consider healthy and normal and needed seems extreme. But that is your cultural perspective, not reality.
post #35 of 78
I think eyelashes actually help keep debris out of the eye...

... but in order for them to work properly they cannot be covered in mascara
post #36 of 78
I'm for one definetly anti-circ because

#1 we have no right to Automatically take off any part of our son's body especially the part of his genital especially before he even know what it is.

#2 Doctors are so money greedy that will pass along any debunked myth as in saying "foreskin causes this and that then boooooom automatic scare of health in parents they go circ the child just cuz of the "Doc Scare static"

If a doctor said not neccessary not benefical = means not benefical to their wallets
post #37 of 78
and the micro organisms actually help keep us healthier..
post #38 of 78
sorry ignorant question maybe but really are babies are still circd without anesthetic or pain killers? (I know thats the way it was done with dh's generation, but no one I've known so far in the last 10 years who has has not had pain meds or anesthetics)
post #39 of 78
Originally Posted by Prensa
I think eyelashes actually help keep debris out of the eye...
Yes, that's my point.

And the foreskin actually helps keep debris off the glans and out of the urethra.
post #40 of 78
Most babies are not given anaesthesia or adequate anaesthesia during the procedure. This is common and accepted practice. In fact, it is such an accepted concept, that people do studies on babies to find out if a certain anaesthetic is effective. To do this, they have to have control groups. Do you see what that means? Half the babies don't get anaesthetic so they can compare their reactions.

Can you imagine a study where they perform c-sections without anaesthetic so they can see if a new kind of anaesthetic is effective?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Why so anti-circumcision?