A lot of these operations are done as a matter of routine in the US, and I believe you almost have to insist on it not being done to your newborn male baby child (but I could be wrong) -- a sort of ''you have to opt-out'' rather than ''you have to opt-in" policy.
There are religious groups who insist on this being part of their religious atttibutes, but never is the child consulted on whether he wants this operation done. This is why some countries are now banning this practice on children who cannot give their consent and are thus deprived of their right to keep their bodies unharmed. This operation is akin to the genital mutilation some little girls are exposed to in some cultures and some countries. Completely unacceptable!
Of course circumcision is also big business... So that aspect should not be forgotten.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
It's a barbaric ritual that should be outlawed.
•
Geminize Wrote:...
After weighing the evidence, I came to consider circumcision to be unnecessary genital mutilation. I'm hoping some day my son (and his partner) will thank me.
I commend you for your choice. The story of my younger brother who was born in the United States is an interesting one. The doctor, as a matter of routine, wanted to circumcise him, and my mother had to convince him to leave the child alone. Little did she know that he would later have to have the operation done (not sure now why, he didn't disclose), but at least it was HIS choice to have it done, his foreskin was not something his mother and father deprived him of at birth when he was unable to speak for himself.
Note that of the four brothers, none of us were circumcised (apart from my brother when he found he had to have the medical procedure for reasons that only he ever knew). Incidentally (I know I've written this story before but, it bears repeating), it didn't prevent him from catching the HIV and later dying of AIDS... So that excuse is out of the window, as far as I'm concerned.
•
As with any operation there is still some amount of risk. Maybe in the US the risk is minimal on account of hygiene being respected (we hope), it still remains an operation and therefore can result in infections or botched jobs.
•
It was religious at first, but even when doctors started to look down on religious reasons they took on much of the Christian worldview of the time and advocated circumcision to prevent masturbation (which they felt at the time would cause physical & mental disabilities, and they were also known for cliterectomy on women with powerful orgasms as well).
Since then the smug bastards dropped their attitudes, but nevertheless it remains yet another vastly overpriced procedure so the reason today is $$$ (can you get any more American?). A nurse I used to know realized it was barbaric and forbid the doctors to do it, but then they doped her up and got her husband to sign a form allowing them to do it (and bill them an obscene price), something she never forgave either her husband or the doctor for.
•
princealbertofb Wrote:Note that of the four brothers, none of us were circumcised (apart from my brother when he found he had to have the medical procedure for reasons that only he ever knew). Incidentally (I know I've written this story before but, it bears repeating), it didn't prevent him from catching the HIV and later dying of AIDS... So that excuse is out of the window, as far as I'm concerned.
We agree on the issue of circumcision, but I recommend not making health decisions based on anecdotes. Circumcision may slightly reduce the risk of contracting HIV, but no one should claim it will "prevent" it. Just like frequent hand washing reduces the risk of catching the common cold, but it doesn't prevent catching a cold.
Interestingly, some studies show a reduced risk of HIV infection for circumcised heterosexual men, but not for circumcised homosexual and bisexual men. This is most likely because anal sex is generally more risky than vaginal sex for transmission of HIV. These are broad generalizations, however. Condom use, good hygiene, number of sex partners and other factors will, of course, make a big difference for individual men.
•
if only allowed concenting men to have the operation the practice would stop.
•
I do not see any long lasting negative results from being circumcised. I don't condemn the doctor who did it to me, or my parents for choosing it. People have their preferences but I don't see anything to dramatize.
I find it more aesthetically pleasing, myself
•
curiousanon Wrote:I do not see any long lasting negative results from being circumcised. I don't condemn the doctor who did it to me, or my parents for choosing it. People have their preferences but I don't see anything to dramatize.
I find it more aesthetically pleasing, myself
There are some issues with it, though; an infant's penis is not fully developed, therefore a doctor cannot predict how much removal is too much, and whether it will affect the development of the adult penis. The skin of an engorged adult penis with a foreskin has enough skin to allow for it's full expansion, whereas the circumcised penis may not have as much room. Sure, the skin may stretch during adolescent development, but then there was no reason to remove as much...
/ramble
•
And while rare, full castration has been known to happen through circumcision. And though maybe the procedure has become more humane (the clip I saw was decades old) it's an excruciating process for the infant...and for no good or valid reason (that is, it's not in the best interest of the child).
I'm glad that those who were so mutilated are able to come to peace with it when they can, but I still condemn the parents & doctors, just as I do those who circumcise women (by women, and many say they're grateful for it because they'd have no place in their society without it), but I know many think differently. It's like how many swoon as Rhett abuses and rapes Scarlett and yet many argue it's not rape, it's "forcible seduction" and the difference being she liked it (even if it shamed her both for the rape and enjoying it). Ok, if you think being forced to have sex while struggling and shouting no isn't rape that's your prerogative, and if it happens to you then feel free not to press charges (but don't expect anyone else raped later by the same person to be so understanding), but had she pressed charges (even if proven she had an orgasm from it) I'd have voted to convict as would many others (granted, that wouldn't happen in the time either the story happened or when it was created, but that's beside the point).
•
|
