Why do you care what I decide to do to my son's penis when he is born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a current of religious intolerance in the whole discussion here (other thread, but it a
Ways is that was on similar threads). I don't feel I have to apologize for being a proud Jewish woman, looking forward to raising a Jewish son. But I don't plan on having many people check out my sons dick. It's so odd to me that people are seeing all these other kids penises! And I'm not even prude. Just, why would hu be checking out my son?

I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Yes, seriously. Roughly half my friends do it, half don't. PP nailed it with the spanking comparison. I feel a rush of sympathy for the child, feel my estimation of the parent sink just a little, and move on.

And PP, when you have a kid you'll understand. They have their darn pants off a lot. I don't know any moms who hang out in mom group clusters that don't change diapers in front of one another, etc. It's not like you have to be some kind of pervy goon to notice - it's obvious and it's something you can see quite accidentally via peripheral vision without ever meaning to look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because it's my daughter who's going to have sex with him 16 or so years from now.

Ew.

Why is this a gross idea?

Hopefully not 16. Maybe 18. But, is it really going to matter to Larla anyway if she is getting down at 16?

What on earth that means. Girls who are 16 when they have interactions with penises (including 16-year-old penises) are such sluts that they don't even care if the penises have foreskins or not? Please explain.

Not a slut. Just saying that 16 year old girls having sex generally probably don't care if it's got a foreskin or not. And hopefully if same girl is interacting with penises, she hasn't seen or had that many to make an informative decision as to which she likes best. Look, don't want to argue, and maybe I'm in the minority here but at 16 I had no experience with penises and wouldn't know one the difference between the two. Hell, I still don't. I've only had uncircumsised ones. DH is uncircumsised, so I'm not having it done on DS that's on the way. I really didn't know this was a big deal until I found the topic on this board. But now I'm curious as to what circumsised one looks like...can I google that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced that the alleged benefits outweigh the fact that it is painful and takes a very personal choice from your child. Not to mention the risks. So I care. I think less of almost everyone I know because practically every penis I've seen other than those of my own sons has been cut. Sad.

I have never heard a grown man lament the fact that his parents decided to circumcise him as a baby. I have heard uncircumcised men complain and get circumcised as adults which is much more risky and difficult than as a baby.

[Anonymous]

In the same way I would care if you were mutilating your child in another way.

Otherwise, it would be perfectly logical to say, "Why do you care if I abuse my child?" or "Why do you care if I neglect my child?"

Gah. In a few decades, we'll look back and think, "How was that ever even a debate?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Anonymous wrote:

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

Yes. They are not comparable. Stop comparing them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the same way I would care if you were mutilating your child in another way.

Otherwise, it would be perfectly logical to say, "Why do you care if I abuse my child?" or "Why do you care if I neglect my child?"

Gah. In a few decades, we'll look back and think, "How was that ever even a debate?"

I doubt it. It is more like ear piercing. Not something I would do on a baby, but not something that is abusive or neglectful in any way. People are so dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced that the alleged benefits outweigh the fact that it is painful and takes a very personal choice from your child. Not to mention the risks. So I care. I think less of almost everyone I know because practically every penis I've seen other than those of my own sons has been cut. Sad.

I have never heard a grown man lament the fact that his parents decided to circumcise him as a baby. I have heard uncircumcised men complain and get circumcised as adults which is much more risky and difficult than as a baby.

I know an adult who did it OUCH! But he was tired of giving his partners diseases.

[Anonymous]

With this attitude, when I see a lovely baby boy in a blanket and think aww so cute! It creeps me out that others are thinking about his little penis...did they of didn't they? And getting ready to jump in with their opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Anonymous wrote:

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

Yes. They are not comparable. Stop comparing them.

Not PP but in cultures where this is done to women, they will say the same thing. It is a covenant with god and it is done for health reasons. Also, female circumcision ranges from a pin prick (much less invasive than male) to cutting the hood of the clitoris (directly comparable because the foreskin is the male equivalent of the clitoral hood) to cutting off and stitching up most of the genitalia (much more extreme). This is fact.

Also, I suggest you read up on the history of routine circumcision and you will find that it too was done to inhibit sexual pleasure of boys in prudish Victorian times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced that the alleged benefits outweigh the fact that it is painful and takes a very personal choice from your child. Not to mention the risks. So I care. I think less of almost everyone I know because practically every penis I've seen other than those of my own sons has been cut. Sad.

I have never heard a grown man lament the fact that his parents decided to circumcise him as a baby. I have heard uncircumcised men complain and get circumcised as adults which is much more risky and difficult than as a baby.

How many people have you had this discussion with? It doesn't come up in day to day conversation does it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Anonymous wrote:

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

Yes. They are not comparable. Stop comparing them.

Not PP but in cultures where this is done to women, they will say the same thing. It is a covenant with god and it is done for health reasons. Also, female circumcision ranges from a pin prick (much less invasive than male) to cutting the hood of the clitoris (directly comparable because the foreskin is the male equivalent of the clitoral hood) to cutting off and stitching up most of the genitalia (much more extreme). This is fact.

Also, I suggest you read up on the history of routine circumcision and you will find that it too was done to inhibit sexual pleasure of boys in prudish Victorian times.

Again, we made the decision for health reasons. Husband is circumcized, and has one damn fine sex life, if I say so myself. After talking to health practitioners about the pros and cons, we went with circumcision.


This is such a nonissue, I can't believe it.

[Anonymous]

Why do I care? I care because it is an inhumane practice to do this routinely to newborn boys.

Do I raise it with you? No. But if it comes up, I will not sugarcoat my dismay.

How do I know? Like others have said, when you've had kids you'll realize that at some point you see pretty much all your friends changing diapers in front of you or helping with potty training. Other times, people mention it.

What happens then? I will notice your son's stubby scarred penis and I will flinch. I will try not to do this noticeably for your sake because, what's done is done, and for all I know you may now be better informed and regret it (like my in-laws). But I will feel sympathy for your child, just as I would if you mistreated him in another way.

I will think less of you. I will wonder how you came to that decision, as an educated, smart woman, who I obviously share some values with or we wouldn't be friends. I will feel a little sorry for you too. Because you are either willfully ignorant and have followed what you perceive to be the fashion and had cosmetic surgery on your newborn boy, or you are delusional and have believed the very scant and disputed evidence on the topic without having done any full research into the cultural basis of this.

And then, I feel thankful that I wasn't railroaded into doing this, by a husband, by a doctor, by in-laws or by society. I feel thankful that my boys each have their whole penis and that neither of them will feel bad about this as they get older. I feel bad that at some point, be it 5 or 10, 15 or 20 years from now, when this waning practice is widely believed as archaic you will realize that you made the wrong decision, that you were on the wrong side of this issue and that you will regret it.

[Anonymous]

I don't, as long as you don't pull your sons pants down while walking down the street and bite it off like that angry father in China did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do I care? I care because it is an inhumane practice to do this routinely to newborn boys.

Do I raise it with you? No. But if it comes up, I will not sugarcoat my dismay.

How do I know? Like others have said, when you've had kids you'll realize that at some point you see pretty much all your friends changing diapers in front of you or helping with potty training. Other times, people mention it.

What happens then? I will notice your son's stubby scarred penis and I will flinch. I will try not to do this noticeably for your sake because, what's done is done, and for all I know you may now be better informed and regret it (like my in-laws). But I will feel sympathy for your child, just as I would if you mistreated him in another way.

I will think less of you. I will wonder how you came to that decision, as an educated, smart woman, who I obviously share some values with or we wouldn't be friends. I will feel a little sorry for you too. Because you are either willfully ignorant and have followed what you perceive to be the fashion and had cosmetic surgery on your newborn boy, or you are delusional and have believed the very scant and disputed evidence on the topic without having done any full research into the cultural basis of this.

And then, I feel thankful that I wasn't railroaded into doing this, by a husband, by a doctor, by in-laws or by society. I feel thankful that my boys each have their whole penis and that neither of them will feel bad about this as they get older. I feel bad that at some point, be it 5 or 10, 15 or 20 years from now, when this waning practice is widely believed as archaic you will realize that you made the wrong decision, that you were on the wrong side of this issue and that you will regret it.

Wow lady, get some therapy!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have issues with the claim "religious intolerance." There are areas around the world where some groups of people circumcise girls in the name of religion, and people call it genital mutilation.

Religious tolerance is one thing, but I think there are some practices done in the name of religion that should be questioned because they involve altering a child's (who is unable to consent) genitalia irreversibly.

Anonymous wrote:

Equating circumcision with female genital mutilation is nuts. They aren't remotely the same thing. One is done as a covenant with God (and for health reasons) while the other is to punish and control women to inhibit their sexual pleasure.

Yes. They are not comparable. Stop comparing them.

Not PP but in cultures where this is done to women, they will say the same thing. It is a covenant with god and it is done for health reasons. Also, female circumcision ranges from a pin prick (much less invasive than male) to cutting the hood of the clitoris (directly comparable because the foreskin is the male equivalent of the clitoral hood) to cutting off and stitching up most of the genitalia (much more extreme). This is fact.

Also, I suggest you read up on the history of routine circumcision and you will find that it too was done to inhibit sexual pleasure of boys in prudish Victorian times.

Again, we made the decision for health reasons. Husband is circumcized, and has one damn fine sex life, if I say so myself. After talking to health practitioners about the pros and cons, we went with circumcision.


This is such a nonissue, I can't believe it.

Again, you are delusional if you think there are health reasons that support this. Please let me know what they are and I will point you to the research that shows that you are wrong. I'm sorry that you were misinformed and that your ignorance has cause permanent scarring to your child.