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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.