An interesting discussion popped up on one of the hair forums that I frequent. Someone asked if she would circumcise a boy, she said no. Her hubby isn't, it is not custom there, so.. *shrug*

She then tells about this board she just reads where there is a whole forum on circumcision. It is so extreme that posters there want to make circumcision illegal and even charge parents with child abuse for choosing the procedure.

I mean.. talk about getting out of hand there. *shakes head*


As for me: I am not pro, I am not against either. Circumcision is not something I see as mutilation, as IS the case with the women's clitoris thing that I have heard is done.

Circumcision is mostly done for hygienic purposes, I don't see where it has any other good than that.

Would I circumcise my kid if I had one? No, it is not generic custom here. If it were, maybe yes.




What about you?

i don't think that i would bother. it seems outdated and barbaric and...having had a child and having stayed briefly in a maternity ward, i can tell you that people, especially professionals, tell parents "nooo. they don't feel a thing". bullshit, they don't!
you could hear them screeching down the hallway. also, i know someone that had a circumcision as an adult, for religious reasons, and he said it was very, very painful and especially when urinating.

Thanks Raven, you made me think of something: Let me add that I would only be ok with things if pain meds were added in the mix before the cutting starts!

In general I like my body unaltered (except for shaving and shorting the hair and clipping nails) I feel that this is the way I've been made this is the way I prefer to remain.... as for not considering this on par with female circumcision... how can you judge? Maybe it's more intrusive in the other case, but still... it's something irreversible that you do to somebody else without asking them, that's wrong in my book no matter what that is and what is the reason for it.

The difference with the women is that they actually -remove- the pleasuring device. It is the same as the penis being removed on a guy.

I'd say that is a bit more intrusive

I didn't have my son circumcised because his dad isn't. I might have if his dad was, but I'm glad now that we didn't do it. In fact did you know that in the USA more males are uncircumcised than circumcised?

After I had my son, the pediatrician came to see him, she asked me if I was going to have it done--when I told her no, she said, "good, there's no reason for it anyway." The idea that it is somehow more hygienic is false, circumcision is a religious practice, not a health practice. And the way I figure it, it's not like a tail, all boys are born with it, so it must be for something.

If he decides that he wants it done later, that's up to him.

And to add to the above, I don't have proof that more male are uncircumcised, I read it somewhere and sometime ago. Also, I think that claims about circumcision protecting against HIV and cancer and urinary tract infections are just basically excuses to keep on with the practice because it has been done for so long. I mean, we don't remove other things because they might get cancer, girls get UTI's much more frequently than boys (by the way, my son has never had one, nor my husband), what should we cut off to help prevent UTIs with them? Don't get me started on that HIV thing, chastity belts could help prevent HIV, but we aren't advocating them. Yes, penises with foreskin require a little more attention to detail cleaning, but so do vaginas.

I could probably keep going, but I should go to bed. Just felt compelled to add my ten cents.

You are absolutely right. I cannot understand the people who seemingly are convinced that it protects against HIV, utter nonsense.

In fact.. I think you get a higher chance of it. Considering it is spread by bodily fluids, and from experience I know circumcised erects get tighter around the head, it wouldn't amaze me if some massive extreme sex would tear something there. That is quite dangerous, I think.

I think it does, statistically... but condoms protect better. If you have to compare: have sex without condom but being circumcised with a HIV carrier or have sex wearing condom but without being circumcised guess which one of the situation is safer? And what about circumcised guys, will they think "I can have sex without condom because I'm protected by my circumcision"? That's ridiculous. I think this was proposed for Africa because religious idiots from there are more opened to the idea of circumcision than to idea of telling people to use condoms. As for me I think that some Darwin Awards should be distributed to people who don't wear it especially in high risk countries and high risk categories.... people are responsible for their behavior....

IF I were to have children and it was a boy, yes I would have him circumsized on the 8th day, as all generations before him have been.
It has a spiritual meaning, it is hygenic, it gives a connection to your people and a part of your identity, plus it can be done in a hospital if we'd want it done there instead of at home.