Making genital mutilation illegal and means of enforcement.

[Arctish]

No, losing a finger creates negative effects. That kind of kills the comparison.

... says the person who used murder and jaywalking for comparison.

I know several people who lost fingers or parts off fingers. They still have almost fully functional hands, much like a circumcised male has a functional penis despite lacking the gliding action the foreskin provides during intercourse and sensitivity in the glans*. But the loss of a thumb would severely impact one's ability to use their hand, much like the more extreme forms of FGM severely impact the ability of women to participate in or enjoy sex.

Foreskin and clitoral hood and/or clitoris and/or labia vs. fingers and thumbs. I think parents should not be allowed to remove any of them from their kid's bodies without a genuine need to alleviate suffering or to save life and limb.

ETA: *assuming the circumcision wasn't botched, that the doctor didn't remove too much flesh thereby making erections painful for the guy, that the penis healed evenly and the scar tissue doesn't constrict or cause the erect penis to be bent or pulled to one side and doesn't cause an unpleasant pulling or stretching sensation during intercourse, and that there was no infection (YHWH forbid the kid gets MRSA or HIV).

 

[LordKiran]

If you lose the tip of one of your fingers, it makes it slightly more difficult to pick your nose with that finger and you might have to use one of the other nine to do so. That makes it a more serious issue than male circumcision. The level of triviality of male circumcision means it has no place in a discussion about female circumcision.

Who decides what is trivial and what isn't? Is there a committee? I didn't ask you to restate your personal value judgements between the two types of genital mutilation. I asked you to tell me what a "Negative effect" is. I ask because it seems very vague, as if it could be applied to anything if you try hard enough.

I'd say that all the doctors who've studied the matter and not found enough valid reasons to recommend either for or against it because it's neither essential nor detrimental to the kids' health. There are slightly more potential positives in adulthood than there are potential negatives, but really it's not a big enough issue to give two shits about either way, especially given that the vending machines in the hospital lounge carry both Snickers and Mars Bars, which are pretty much the same thing and taking up a slot for both of them limits one's snack choices and, since there's only 24 hours in a day, they should spend their limited time focusing on that more serious matter. That's what I mean by trivial.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is a very serious matter and the impact of it should not be diminished by grouping it in with irrelevancies.

I group them because they both involve the same issue. Do children have the right as individuals to not have their bodies violated/mutilated for religious or cultural purposes? I believe so. The degree to which one is worse than the other is irrelevant to me beyond potential punishments, but both should be illegal for the sole reason given above, that doesn't change just because you declare one to be worse than the other.

 

[Toni]

I'd say that all the doctors who've studied the matter and not found enough valid reasons to recommend either for or against it because it's neither essential nor detrimental to the kids' health. There are slightly more potential positives in adulthood than there are potential negatives, but really it's not a big enough issue to give two shits about either way, especially given that the vending machines in the hospital lounge carry both Snickers and Mars Bars, which are pretty much the same thing and taking up a slot for both of them limits one's snack choices and, since there's only 24 hours in a day, they should spend their limited time focusing on that more serious matter. That's what I mean by trivial.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is a very serious matter and the impact of it should not be diminished by grouping it in with irrelevancies.

I group them because they both involve the same issue. Do children have the right as individuals to not have their bodies violated/mutilated for religious or cultural purposes? I believe so. The degree to which one is worse than the other is irrelevant to me beyond potential punishments, but both should be illegal for the sole reason given above, that doesn't change just because you declare one to be worse than the other.

Well, one is much worse than the other, from a functional point of view.

As far as I've been able to find, there is no actual medical benefit to any form of female 'circumcision.' There are medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether those benefits outweigh the potential negative effects are something that should always be seriously considered by parents, and by medical practitioners. I would never advocate one way or the other for male circumcision except to say that I don't think it should be illegal. I do think that female circumcision and mutilation should be because there is absolutely zero medical reason to perform these.

 

[TSwizzle]

I wanted to make a separate thread for a subject in the gender egal thread so as not to derail that one.

I'm going to throw my cards on the table by saying that I think genital mutilation is among the most barbaric practices that we still allow in the western world conceptually.

In the UK at least and I suspect most of Europe, female genital mutilation is against the law. Male genital "mutilation" I think is legal.

The question is to what degree such prohibition laws should be enforced and how.

Well, it's very difficult.

A man has been cleared of arranging female genital mutilation on his daughter when she was nine. The defendant, a 50-year-old solicitor who cannot be named for legal reasons, was accused of beating his children and organising for FGM to be carried out on his daughter on two occasions. At the trial at the Old Bailey in London he denied the charges against him and said he had never threatened to have his daughter cut.

Teh Grauniad

This is only the second case to have reached the courts, I think. A couple of years ago, The Guardian was very vociferous about the problem of FGM in the UK. But despite the frightening numbers of victims of FGM there has been zero success in prosecutions. Perhaps its just not as big a problem as feared.

 

[LordKiran]

I'd say that all the doctors who've studied the matter and not found enough valid reasons to recommend either for or against it because it's neither essential nor detrimental to the kids' health. There are slightly more potential positives in adulthood than there are potential negatives, but really it's not a big enough issue to give two shits about either way, especially given that the vending machines in the hospital lounge carry both Snickers and Mars Bars, which are pretty much the same thing and taking up a slot for both of them limits one's snack choices and, since there's only 24 hours in a day, they should spend their limited time focusing on that more serious matter. That's what I mean by trivial.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is a very serious matter and the impact of it should not be diminished by grouping it in with irrelevancies.

I group them because they both involve the same issue. Do children have the right as individuals to not have their bodies violated/mutilated for religious or cultural purposes? I believe so. The degree to which one is worse than the other is irrelevant to me beyond potential punishments, but both should be illegal for the sole reason given above, that doesn't change just because you declare one to be worse than the other.

Well, one is much worse than the other, from a functional point of view.

As far as I've been able to find, there is no actual medical benefit to any form of female 'circumcision.' There are medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether those benefits outweigh the potential negative effects are something that should always be seriously considered by parents, and by medical practitioners. I would never advocate one way or the other for male circumcision except to say that I don't think it should be illegal. I do think that female circumcision and mutilation should be because there is absolutely zero medical reason to perform these.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say female circumcision is wrong for simply having no medical benefits but then go along with people choosing to do so for male children on the merits of religious/cultural significance. I denounce those as illigitimate reasons to have your children operated upon entirely. If a person wants to self-inflict genital mutilation for personal reasons that's one thing. Entirely another to inflict it upon someone who cannot consent to the superfluous surgery.

I'm reasonable enough to make allowances for surgeries that are medically justifiable ("Medically justifiable" being its own can of worms I'm sure.) But I don't agree that female genital mutilation should alone be illegal within the context of religious/cultural rites inflicted upon minors.

 

[bilby]

I'd say that all the doctors who've studied the matter and not found enough valid reasons to recommend either for or against it because it's neither essential nor detrimental to the kids' health. There are slightly more potential positives in adulthood than there are potential negatives, but really it's not a big enough issue to give two shits about either way, especially given that the vending machines in the hospital lounge carry both Snickers and Mars Bars, which are pretty much the same thing and taking up a slot for both of them limits one's snack choices and, since there's only 24 hours in a day, they should spend their limited time focusing on that more serious matter. That's what I mean by trivial.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is a very serious matter and the impact of it should not be diminished by grouping it in with irrelevancies.

I group them because they both involve the same issue. Do children have the right as individuals to not have their bodies violated/mutilated for religious or cultural purposes? I believe so. The degree to which one is worse than the other is irrelevant to me beyond potential punishments, but both should be illegal for the sole reason given above, that doesn't change just because you declare one to be worse than the other.

It seems to me (IANAL) that both should meet the criteria for 'Assault occasioning bodily harm' in my local jurisdiction (per section 339 of the Criminal Code 1899):

339 Assaults occasioning bodily harm

(1) Any person who unlawfully assaults another and thereby does the other person bodily harm is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

(3) If the offender does bodily harm, and is or pretends to be armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument or is in company with 1 or more other person or persons, the offender is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

(4) The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 , sections 108B and 161Q also state a circumstance of aggravation for an offence against this section.

(5) An indictment charging an offence against this section with the circumstance of aggravation stated in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 , section 161Q may not be presented without the consent of a Crown Law Officer.

(The circumstances of aggravation referred to above are intoxication; and serious organised crime, neither of which would apply)

Section 1 of the Criminal Code 1899 defines bodily harm as "any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort."

It is arguable that both also meet criterion a) for grievous bodily harm, which Section 1 defines as:

(a) the loss of a distinct part or an organ of the body; or

(b) serious disfigurement; or

(c) any bodily injury of such a nature that, if left untreated, would endanger or be likely to endanger life, or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health;​

whether or not treatment is or could have been available.​

Criterion c) might well also apply in many cases of female genital mutilation.

The maximum penalties for grievous bodily harm in Queensland are twice those for bodily harm.

So it would appear that circumcision of any kind is already unlawful in the State of Queensland; Whether this has ever been tested by the courts, I do not know (IANAL), but if there is no precedent for declaring that the above does not apply in the case of circumcision, and until a case is brought before the court and precedent is set, the issue is more one of enforcement than one of legislation.

Certainly the above assessment is broadly in agreement with the conclusions of the 1993 Queensland Law Reform Commission Miscellaneous Paper #6 [pdf] - As far as I am aware, the Family Law Court has not set any precedent on the issue since that paper, but I might well be mistaken on that point. Basically, the government and courts are hugely reluctant to consider this issue in the case of male circumcision, and presumably will keep kicking the can down the road for as long as they possibly can.

In addition to the above quoted sections of the Criminal Code, QLRCMP#6 discusses other possible criminal and misdemeanor charges that may be applicable, in section 4 (starting on page #13 (pp 19)) of the above-linked .pdf file, which reads (in part):

In the absence of 'real' consent, circumcision of male infants would fall within the definition of assault under section 245 of the Queensland Criminal Code. It might also be an offence endangering life or health. A number of criminal offences may be committed depending on the circumstances of the case

So even the (relatively) trivial male circumcision is likely already unlawful, but not currently prosecuted; While the more serious female genital mutilation is prosecuted and, quite rightly, regarded as a serious crime.

The above-linked QLRCMP#6 [pdf] provides a very detailed consideration of the various legal, ethical and medical issues around male circumcision, as they relate to Queensland law, and is well worth a read if people have an interest in the subject.

 

[LordKiran]

It seems to me (IANAL) that both should meet the criteria for 'Assault occasioning bodily harm' in my local jurisdiction (per section 339 of the Criminal Code 1899):

339 Assaults occasioning bodily harm

(1) Any person who unlawfully assaults another and thereby does the other person bodily harm is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

(3) If the offender does bodily harm, and is or pretends to be armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument or is in company with 1 or more other person or persons, the offender is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.

(4) The Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 , sections 108B and 161Q also state a circumstance of aggravation for an offence against this section.

(5) An indictment charging an offence against this section with the circumstance of aggravation stated in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 , section 161Q may not be presented without the consent of a Crown Law Officer.

(The circumstances of aggravation referred to above are intoxication; and serious organised crime, neither of which would apply)

Section 1 of the Criminal Code 1899 defines bodily harm as "any bodily injury which interferes with health or comfort."

It is arguable that both also meet criterion a) for grievous bodily harm, which Section 1 defines as:

(a) the loss of a distinct part or an organ of the body; or

(b) serious disfigurement; or

(c) any bodily injury of such a nature that, if left untreated, would endanger or be likely to endanger life, or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health;​

whether or not treatment is or could have been available.​

Criterion c) might well also apply in many cases of female genital mutilation.

The maximum penalties for grievous bodily harm in Queensland are twice those for bodily harm.

So it would appear that circumcision of any kind is already unlawful in the State of Queensland; Whether this has ever been tested by the courts, I do not know (IANAL), but if there is no precedent for declaring that the above does not apply in the case of circumcision, and until a case is brought before the court and precedent is set, the issue is more one of enforcement than one of legislation.

Certainly the above assessment is broadly in agreement with the conclusions of the 1993 Queensland Law Reform Commission Miscellaneous Paper #6 [pdf] - As far as I am aware, the Family Law Court has not set any precedent on the issue since that paper, but I might well be mistaken on that point. Basically, the government and courts are hugely reluctant to consider this issue in the case of male circumcision, and presumably will keep kicking the can down the road for as long as they possibly can.

In addition to the above quoted sections of the Criminal Code, QLRCMP#6 discusses other possible criminal and misdemeanor charges that may be applicable, in section 4 (starting on page #13 (pp 19)) of the above-linked .pdf file, which reads (in part):

In the absence of 'real' consent, circumcision of male infants would fall within the definition of assault under section 245 of the Queensland Criminal Code. It might also be an offence endangering life or health. A number of criminal offences may be committed depending on the circumstances of the case

So even the (relatively) trivial male circumcision is likely already unlawful, but not currently prosecuted; While the more serious female genital mutilation is prosecuted and, quite rightly, regarded as a serious crime.

The above-linked QLRCMP#6 provides a very detailed consideration of the various legal, ethical and medical issues around male circumcision, as they relate to Queensland law, and is well worth a read if people have an interest in the subject.

Well I'd be interested to see the outcome in court (But doubt I'd be surprised by the results) I understand that in the grand scheme of things most people don't share my open contempt for the practice even if it's not something they'd want for theirs. I'm willing to accept that female circumcision should probably be a higher priority in legislating against it. (Though I honestly think a fair share of brown-scare has something to do with that particular prioritization.) Thing is, even if we make it a matter of degrees I still think circumsision should be further regulated to stamp out the cultural/religious practice on children because I find it to be fundamentally incompatible with my notions of individualism and the rights of that individual. You can't decide for your child to induct him or her into your faith via physically altering his or her body. I don't feel the need to compromise that point and in fact feel justified in not compromising.

 

[Toni]

Well, one is much worse than the other, from a functional point of view.

As far as I've been able to find, there is no actual medical benefit to any form of female 'circumcision.' There are medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether those benefits outweigh the potential negative effects are something that should always be seriously considered by parents, and by medical practitioners. I would never advocate one way or the other for male circumcision except to say that I don't think it should be illegal. I do think that female circumcision and mutilation should be because there is absolutely zero medical reason to perform these.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say female circumcision is wrong for simply having no medical benefits but then go along with people choosing to do so for male children on the merits of religious/cultural significance. I denounce those as illigitimate reasons to have your children operated upon entirely. If a person wants to self-inflict genital mutilation for personal reasons that's one thing. Entirely another to inflict it upon someone who cannot consent to the superfluous surgery.

I'm reasonable enough to make allowances for surgeries that are medically justifiable ("Medically justifiable" being its own can of worms I'm sure.) But I don't agree that female genital mutilation should alone be illegal within the context of religious/cultural rites inflicted upon minors.

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.


FWIW, I find much of the arguments in this and similar threads to arguments for and against cochlear implants and even the pros and cons of sign language vs implants + lip reading. I feel fairly confident that I know what decision I would make for my child (in favor of cochlear implants baring any medical contraindications) should that situation have occurred. But this is not a slam dunk among the hearing impaired. There is a tremendous amount of controversy.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, one is much worse than the other, from a functional point of view.

As far as I've been able to find, there is no actual medical benefit to any form of female 'circumcision.' There are medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether those benefits outweigh the potential negative effects are something that should always be seriously considered by parents, and by medical practitioners. I would never advocate one way or the other for male circumcision except to say that I don't think it should be illegal. I do think that female circumcision and mutilation should be because there is absolutely zero medical reason to perform these.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say female circumcision is wrong for simply having no medical benefits but then go along with people choosing to do so for male children on the merits of religious/cultural significance. I denounce those as illigitimate reasons to have your children operated upon entirely. If a person wants to self-inflict genital mutilation for personal reasons that's one thing. Entirely another to inflict it upon someone who cannot consent to the superfluous surgery.

I'm reasonable enough to make allowances for surgeries that are medically justifiable ("Medically justifiable" being its own can of worms I'm sure.) But I don't agree that female genital mutilation should alone be illegal within the context of religious/cultural rites inflicted upon minors.

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.


FWIW, I find much of the arguments in this and similar threads to arguments for and against cochlear implants and even the pros and cons of sign language vs implants + lip reading. I feel fairly confident that I know what decision I would make for my child (in favor of cochlear implants baring any medical contraindications) should that situation have occurred. But this is not a slam dunk among the hearing impaired. There is a tremendous amount of controversy.

But we're not talking about cases where it is medically beneficial are we? I mean if we're going to say that the debatable benefits of circumcision as a general practice constitute a medical benefit then where does the line stop? Could I then claim that plastic surgery is medically beneficial since pretty children might find more success in social situations? Could I then (In the interest of my child) opt to have them surgically altered at my whim? Why not? What makes this different from any other surgical procedure done outside the bounds of medical necessity at the whim of the parents?

 

[Toni]

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.


FWIW, I find much of the arguments in this and similar threads to arguments for and against cochlear implants and even the pros and cons of sign language vs implants + lip reading. I feel fairly confident that I know what decision I would make for my child (in favor of cochlear implants baring any medical contraindications) should that situation have occurred. But this is not a slam dunk among the hearing impaired. There is a tremendous amount of controversy.

But we're not talking about cases where it is medically beneficial are we? I mean if we're going to say that the debatable benefits of circumcision as a general practice constitute a medical benefit then where does the line stop? Could I then claim that plastic surgery is medically beneficial since pretty children might find more success in social situations? Could I then (In the interest of my child) opt to have them surgically altered at my whim? Why not? What makes this different from any other surgical procedure done outside the bounds of medical necessity at the whim of the parents?

Now you’re really off the rails. There are genuine medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether these are sufficient is for parents and the child’s physician to make.

As for cosmetic surgery: in fact, parents do make such decisions for their children. It can be a fine line: a couple of my kids had braces. There is little doubt that they would have lived perfectly fine lives without orthodontia. But their oral health is probably better over their lifetimes than it would have been without. Better oral health =!better whole body health.

Parents choose to get their children nose jobs for aesthetics, but it can also provide real health benefits to correct a deviated septum, for example.

Contacts vs glasses? Aesthetics might drive the desire but sometimes contacts are a significantly better way to correct a vision problem.

 

[LordKiran]

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.


FWIW, I find much of the arguments in this and similar threads to arguments for and against cochlear implants and even the pros and cons of sign language vs implants + lip reading. I feel fairly confident that I know what decision I would make for my child (in favor of cochlear implants baring any medical contraindications) should that situation have occurred. But this is not a slam dunk among the hearing impaired. There is a tremendous amount of controversy.

But we're not talking about cases where it is medically beneficial are we? I mean if we're going to say that the debatable benefits of circumcision as a general practice constitute a medical benefit then where does the line stop? Could I then claim that plastic surgery is medically beneficial since pretty children might find more success in social situations? Could I then (In the interest of my child) opt to have them surgically altered at my whim? Why not? What makes this different from any other surgical procedure done outside the bounds of medical necessity at the whim of the parents?

Now you’re really off the rails. There are genuine medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether these are sufficient is for parents and the child’s physician to make.

As for cosmetic surgery: in fact, parents do make such decisions for their children. It can be a fine line: a couple of my kids had braces. There is little doubt that they would have lived perfectly fine lives without orthodontia. But their oral health is probably better over their lifetimes than it would have been without. Better oral health =!better whole body health.

Parents choose to get their children nose jobs for aesthetics, but it can also provide real health benefits to correct a deviated septum, for example.

Contacts vs glasses? Aesthetics might drive the desire but sometimes contacts are a significantly better way to correct a vision problem.

I wouldn't say I'm off the rails, more testing to see where you'd draw a line. (To your credit you remain consistent, respect!) Also, I shouldn't say there aren't benefits to circumcision period, forgive my poor wording that made it seem that way. I think I conceded earlier on that there are valid medical reasons for seeking circumcision, but I'm not sold on the general benefits being sufficient to justify circumcision being a general practice applied to the general population, especially when speaking of people who are too young to make decisions for themselves.

I'll further admit that you bring up some interesting points that I hadn't considered regarding plastic surgery and that upon further reflection I can see other circumstances where one might want to cover up/mitigate bad injuries to avoid unwanted attention/self consciousness in young children.

I'm not really sure where that leaves me to be honest.

 

[Frikki]

Well, one is much worse than the other, from a functional point of view.

As far as I've been able to find, there is no actual medical benefit to any form of female 'circumcision.' There are medical benefits to male circumcision. Whether those benefits outweigh the potential negative effects are something that should always be seriously considered by parents, and by medical practitioners. I would never advocate one way or the other for male circumcision except to say that I don't think it should be illegal. I do think that female circumcision and mutilation should be because there is absolutely zero medical reason to perform these.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say female circumcision is wrong for simply having no medical benefits but then go along with people choosing to do so for male children on the merits of religious/cultural significance. I denounce those as illigitimate reasons to have your children operated upon entirely. If a person wants to self-inflict genital mutilation for personal reasons that's one thing. Entirely another to inflict it upon someone who cannot consent to the superfluous surgery.

I'm reasonable enough to make allowances for surgeries that are medically justifiable ("Medically justifiable" being its own can of worms I'm sure.) But I don't agree that female genital mutilation should alone be illegal within the context of religious/cultural rites inflicted upon minors.

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.

So if there was a group of people that was told by their god to remove a nipple from boys and doing so lowered the chance that boys would get breast cancer later in life, would you support removing nipples from boys being legal?

 

[angelo]

There are no valid reasons [ unless it's for medical reasons ] for genital mutilation. It's widely practiced by certain ethnic communities and most times ignored by the authorities because they may be labeled racist.

 

[Toni]

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.

So if there was a group of people that was told by their god to remove a nipple from boys and doing so lowered the chance that boys would get breast cancer later in life, would you support removing nipples from boys being legal?

Again, there are zero reasons medical reasons to remove a nipple from a boy. Male circumcision may have started before there was modern medical evidence that there could be benefits to male circumcision, but that doesn't mean that we don't know that there are valid medical reasons today.

And again: I would never advocate one way or another with regards to male circumcision for any parent who has to make that decision, except to be informed. I admit that I am heavily influenced by adult men who were circumcised as infants and who have assured me that they could not possibly imagine how they would handle it if sex were more fun than it is for them in their circumcised state. I think one said something about how he didn't know how he'd ever manage to actually accomplish anything else. I also am influenced by the child who had to have a circumcision when he was 2 because of the extreme discomfort and pain he experienced due to phimosis.

I haven't actually asked the current parents of any young boys or infants today if they had their sons circumcised and if their circumcision matched their father's (assuming he was circumcised.) One person I know (my generation) was convinced to circumcise their son by her husband who wanted his son to 'match' him. They felt the medical pros/cons were equal and that ultimately, it would be easier for the boy if he 'matched' his father. What they didn't know was that circumcisions as practiced at that time/place removed less foreskin. His mother/Baby's grandmother even exclaimed when she changed Baby for the first time: 'I thought you said you were having him circumcised!' So much for matching.

Back when my own kids were babies/young, I belonged to a babysitting co-op so I changed a number of diapers of kids who did not belong to me. Indeed, the circumcisions on the boys did not look much like the circumcised adult males I was familiar with.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not 'having it both ways.' Gender has nothing to do with my opinion. Medical benefit does. I also am certain that cultural norms and the experiences as related to me by men also inform my opinion that male circumcision is unlikely to cause actual harm. The most common comment I've heard from men who have been circumcised is that if being uncircumcised made sex more fun, they didn't know how they would be able to handle it.

So if there was a group of people that was told by their god to remove a nipple from boys and doing so lowered the chance that boys would get breast cancer later in life, would you support removing nipples from boys being legal?

Again, there are zero reasons medical reasons to remove a nipple from a boy. Male circumcision may have started before there was modern medical evidence that there could be benefits to male circumcision, but that doesn't mean that we don't know that there are valid medical reasons today.

And again: I would never advocate one way or another with regards to male circumcision for any parent who has to make that decision, except to be informed. I admit that I am heavily influenced by adult men who were circumcised as infants and who have assured me that they could not possibly imagine how they would handle it if sex were more fun than it is for them in their circumcised state. I think one said something about how he didn't know how he'd ever manage to actually accomplish anything else. I also am influenced by the child who had to have a circumcision when he was 2 because of the extreme discomfort and pain he experienced due to phimosis.

I haven't actually asked the current parents of any young boys or infants today if they had their sons circumcised and if their circumcision matched their father's (assuming he was circumcised.) One person I know (my generation) was convinced to circumcise their son by her husband who wanted his son to 'match' him. They felt the medical pros/cons were equal and that ultimately, it would be easier for the boy if he 'matched' his father. What they didn't know was that circumcisions as practiced at that time/place removed less foreskin. His mother/Baby's grandmother even exclaimed when she changed Baby for the first time: 'I thought you said you were having him circumcised!' So much for matching.

Back when my own kids were babies/young, I belonged to a babysitting co-op so I changed a number of diapers of kids who did not belong to me. Indeed, the circumcisions on the boys did not look much like the circumcised adult males I was familiar with.

You keep bringing up this red herring of phimosis. Nobody here is arguing against medically necessary procedures for the health and well-being of children! Those issues can easily be taken care of when the child is old enough to express discomfort.

What we are talking here is about all the other cases where such a procedure *isn't* medically necessary. Please quit misdirecting and conflating these two very different circumstances.

There are plenty of genital problems for which modifications are necessary for on vaginal/vulval regions, too. But somehow people seem to be able to keep themselves from conflating *those* issues. What would you say if I said every girl should have her hymen cut at birth? Would that be FGM to you?

 

[Toni]

Again, there are zero reasons medical reasons to remove a nipple from a boy. Male circumcision may have started before there was modern medical evidence that there could be benefits to male circumcision, but that doesn't mean that we don't know that there are valid medical reasons today.

And again: I would never advocate one way or another with regards to male circumcision for any parent who has to make that decision, except to be informed. I admit that I am heavily influenced by adult men who were circumcised as infants and who have assured me that they could not possibly imagine how they would handle it if sex were more fun than it is for them in their circumcised state. I think one said something about how he didn't know how he'd ever manage to actually accomplish anything else. I also am influenced by the child who had to have a circumcision when he was 2 because of the extreme discomfort and pain he experienced due to phimosis.

I haven't actually asked the current parents of any young boys or infants today if they had their sons circumcised and if their circumcision matched their father's (assuming he was circumcised.) One person I know (my generation) was convinced to circumcise their son by her husband who wanted his son to 'match' him. They felt the medical pros/cons were equal and that ultimately, it would be easier for the boy if he 'matched' his father. What they didn't know was that circumcisions as practiced at that time/place removed less foreskin. His mother/Baby's grandmother even exclaimed when she changed Baby for the first time: 'I thought you said you were having him circumcised!' So much for matching.

Back when my own kids were babies/young, I belonged to a babysitting co-op so I changed a number of diapers of kids who did not belong to me. Indeed, the circumcisions on the boys did not look much like the circumcised adult males I was familiar with.

You keep bringing up this red herring of phimosis. Nobody here is arguing against medically necessary procedures for the health and well-being of children! Those issues can easily be taken care of when the child is old enough to express discomfort.

What we are talking here is about all the other cases where such a procedure *isn't* medically necessary. Please quit misdirecting and conflating these two very different circumstances.

There are plenty of genital problems for which modifications are necessary for on vaginal/vulval regions, too. But somehow people seem to be able to keep themselves from conflating *those* issues. What would you say if I said every girl should have her hymen cut at birth? Would that be FGM to you?

It's not a red herring. Frankly, the poor kid expressed pain and discomfort from birth until he was circumcised. His parents worked pretty hard with their pediatrician and child care providers to avoid circumcision.

Did I say that his experience influenced my own decisions? Nope. I just said it did influence my opinion: that there are valid reasons for a parent to decide that circumcision is right--not just ones that might or might not happen 50 years down the road but things that can affect the boy from infancy onward. That little boy is now a full grown man with a spouse and children of his own. His parents had other children after he was born, two of whom were boys. They had their sons circumcised to prevent the issues the oldest had.

I know what decisions my husband and I made when our sons were born. I know why we made those decisions.

And finally, I would never advise a parent to circumcise--or to not circumcise.

Issues with regards to a deformity, genital or otherwise, that is causing an issue would merit whatever medical treatment is determined to be best.

 

[Jarhyn]

Again, there are zero reasons medical reasons to remove a nipple from a boy. Male circumcision may have started before there was modern medical evidence that there could be benefits to male circumcision, but that doesn't mean that we don't know that there are valid medical reasons today.

And again: I would never advocate one way or another with regards to male circumcision for any parent who has to make that decision, except to be informed. I admit that I am heavily influenced by adult men who were circumcised as infants and who have assured me that they could not possibly imagine how they would handle it if sex were more fun than it is for them in their circumcised state. I think one said something about how he didn't know how he'd ever manage to actually accomplish anything else. I also am influenced by the child who had to have a circumcision when he was 2 because of the extreme discomfort and pain he experienced due to phimosis.

I haven't actually asked the current parents of any young boys or infants today if they had their sons circumcised and if their circumcision matched their father's (assuming he was circumcised.) One person I know (my generation) was convinced to circumcise their son by her husband who wanted his son to 'match' him. They felt the medical pros/cons were equal and that ultimately, it would be easier for the boy if he 'matched' his father. What they didn't know was that circumcisions as practiced at that time/place removed less foreskin. His mother/Baby's grandmother even exclaimed when she changed Baby for the first time: 'I thought you said you were having him circumcised!' So much for matching.

Back when my own kids were babies/young, I belonged to a babysitting co-op so I changed a number of diapers of kids who did not belong to me. Indeed, the circumcisions on the boys did not look much like the circumcised adult males I was familiar with.

You keep bringing up this red herring of phimosis. Nobody here is arguing against medically necessary procedures for the health and well-being of children! Those issues can easily be taken care of when the child is old enough to express discomfort.

What we are talking here is about all the other cases where such a procedure *isn't* medically necessary. Please quit misdirecting and conflating these two very different circumstances.

There are plenty of genital problems for which modifications are necessary for on vaginal/vulval regions, too. But somehow people seem to be able to keep themselves from conflating *those* issues. What would you say if I said every girl should have her hymen cut at birth? Would that be FGM to you?

It's not a red herring. Frankly, the poor kid expressed pain and discomfort from birth until he was circumcised. His parents worked pretty hard with their pediatrician and child care providers to avoid circumcision.

Did I say that his experience influenced my own decisions? Nope. I just said it did influence my opinion: that there are valid reasons for a parent to decide that circumcision is right--not just ones that might or might not happen 50 years down the road but things that can affect the boy from infancy onward. That little boy is now a full grown man with a spouse and children of his own. His parents had other children after he was born, two of whom were boys. They had their sons circumcised to prevent the issues the oldest had.

I know what decisions my husband and I made when our sons were born. I know why we made those decisions.

And finally, I would never advise a parent to circumcise--or to not circumcise.

Issues with regards to a deformity, genital or otherwise, that is causing an issue would merit whatever medical treatment is determined to be best.

So tell me again how this is in any way different from making the proclamation that it is OK for parents to elect *at birth* to cut off the hymen of female children regardless of the actual presence or absence of a deformity there. It's 100% a red herring.

You are just trying to defend unethical decisions you and others make because you happened to have been the ones who made those unethical decisions

 

[Toni]

It's not a red herring. Frankly, the poor kid expressed pain and discomfort from birth until he was circumcised. His parents worked pretty hard with their pediatrician and child care providers to avoid circumcision.

Did I say that his experience influenced my own decisions? Nope. I just said it did influence my opinion: that there are valid reasons for a parent to decide that circumcision is right--not just ones that might or might not happen 50 years down the road but things that can affect the boy from infancy onward. That little boy is now a full grown man with a spouse and children of his own. His parents had other children after he was born, two of whom were boys. They had their sons circumcised to prevent the issues the oldest had.

I know what decisions my husband and I made when our sons were born. I know why we made those decisions.

And finally, I would never advise a parent to circumcise--or to not circumcise.

Issues with regards to a deformity, genital or otherwise, that is causing an issue would merit whatever medical treatment is determined to be best.

So tell me again how this is in any way different from making the proclamation that it is OK for parents to elect *at birth* to cut off the hymen of female children regardless of the actual presence or absence of a deformity there. It's 100% a red herring.

You are just trying to defend unethical decisions you and others make because you happened to have been the ones who made those unethical decisions

No, but you are extremely attached to your belief. I respect that. You are free to offer whatever advise you would like to parents regarding circumcision for their sons.


My belief is that it is up to the parents, with best medical advise to make the decision regarding circumcision. There are known health benefits, short and long term to circumcision. Negative medical outcomes are exceedingly rare. Aside from potential medical benefits, it truly is a matter of personal belief about which is 'better.'

There are no, absolutely ZERO positive medical outcomes for cutting open the hymen of an infant girl.

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

I'll talk about my decision.

I have two sons, one of whom was born in the US and we got him circumcised just because. The second was born in Japan and nobody at the hospital there had done a circumcision, so we decided to skip it. So, we have one kid who's cut and one who isn't.

Nobody particularly gives a shit either way because it's a weird issue to work up an emotion about when there's just so many people putting gum under bus seats and being too slow when merging onto highway on-ramps.

 

[Toni]

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

I'll talk about my decision.

I have two sons, one of whom was born in the US and we got him circumcised just because. The second was born in Japan and nobody at the hospital there had done a circumcision, so we decided to skip it. So, we have one kid who's cut and one who isn't.

Nobody particularly gives a shit either way because it's a weird issue to work up an emotion about when there's just so many people putting gum under bus seats and being too slow when merging onto highway on-ramps.

Your indifference doesn't lessen the fact that you are still guilty of child abuse.

Wow.

So, how many sons do you have?