Jaffa.. for most people i think they do it because it's for religious reasons. others do it because it makes them look "normal" and then there are those that think it's unclean if you don't, which i think is completly rediculous!
i really wasnt expecting so much feedback on this topic, i thought it would just be people disagreeing more than agreeing with me. i didnt realize that in other countries they didnt practice circumcision. im glad to hear this. and from the looks of it, it's declining in the u.s.
if you wouldnt do this to your girls, why do it to your boys? just because it's less skin on the boys compared to the girls?
In some female circumcisions, far less skin is removed than in a male circumcision (in a typical male circumcision 2/3 of the penile skin is removed). Many people do not know this, and associate all female circumcision with the most serious sort of female circumcision, infibulation. From reading the replies here, I see many people are blurring the three different sorts of female circumcision into one procedure, so I'll explain them here.
Clitoridotomy (type 1) involves only the removal, or the splitting of the clitoral hood. It is physiologically the same as male circumcision. Women can function sexually after a clitoridotomy, and advocates of the procedure even claim it is sexually beneficial to the woman, as the clitoris becomes exposed and easier to stimulate. I googled "Clitoridotomy", and immediately got an English language web-page advocating the procedure, claiming it was sexually beneficial.
Clitoridectomy (type 2) also called excision involves the partial or total removal of the visible part of the clitoris, as well was the clitoral hood and the labia. Clitoridectomy often results in painful sex. Blue Cross and Blue Shield paid for clitoridecomies as late as 1977.
Infibulation consists of removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, and the subsequent "sewing together" of the labia majora. 15% of all female circumcisions are infibulations. Infibulation makes sexual activity painful, and childbirth dangerous. Because a girl has been sewed up tightly, the labia major must be slightly opened before she can have sex. This is done by her husband on their wedding night; the infibulation acts as a type of permanent chastity belt.
So, why is male circumcision acceptable and female circumcision is not? A cause is that many people do not realize that not all female circumcisions are done to curb female sexuality, and not all female circumcisions result in painful sex. The campaign against female circumcision’s drive is benefited by the more extreme forms of female circumcision, and by this ignorance. In this case, ignorance is a good thing. Cultural imperialism also influences the double-standard.
Male circumcision caught on in Western Society during the Victorian era, a time in which curbing sexuality seemed to be a pass-time. Male and female circumcisions were performed to cure anything from insanity to syphilis to frequent masturbation. From the Victorian Era, the practice of male circumcision grew until the myths of its medical benefits were debunked some 35 years ago. I assume the discreetness of the female genitals was one of the reasons female circumcision did not catch on as male circumcision did. The standing familiarity society had with male circumcision through the Jewish community, and the newness of female circumcision, also contributed to the rapid growth of male circumcision.
Quote:
i think i mentioned in my post that my grandmother wanted me to have it done on my son, mostly for religious reasons, "bc the bible says so."
The Bible in Cornithians and Galatians also says it is not necessary, and depending on interpretation, even states not to do it. The Catholic Church in the 1400’s stated that those who practice circumcision risk eternal damnation. Back then the Catholic Church was much quicker to hand out eternal damnations, and I assume anti-semitism had something to do with that statement. Today, the Catholic Church does not directly take a position on non-theraputic circumcision, however is clear that it is not religiously necessary.
Christains who interpret the Bible as demanding circumcision come from societies where circumcision is a part of non-religious society, like American Christians, or from societies where circumcision was part of the culture before conversion to Christianity, like Ethiopian or Coptic Christains.
I am just the opposite of the poster who says everyone (male) she had dated and known or whatnot IS circumsized, cause all my guy friends except 1 are NOT circumsized. I live in Florida and she lives in NC so we are both in the states, i just think we both HAPPEN to know all of one way or the other. My husbane and son are both not circumsized.
Any guy I have ever known has not been circumsised.
I didnt know this was not the case all over the world (apart for religious reasons) until a friend went out with an American girl who thought it was dirty and unclean. I assume this would only be the case if a guy didn't wash himself properly?
If I had a child I would definately not wish for him to be circumsised and I hope that if I lived in the US I would not be swayed by societal/cultural trends.
greenejewels - If your doctor told you it was better then obviously you can't be blamed for the decision you made. I was referring more to parents who are asked, 'do you want your son circumcised?' and reply 'yes, why not - it'll look better!'
Talking something over with your doctor and taking their advice on board is exactly what I would have done in your position, and I think that's responsible. Your doctor was irresponsible though, and from what I've seen the motives were pretty suspect.
i totally agree with all of you. i dont think it should be done unless medical or religious reasons. and being that im not very religious i see no need in taking it away from him. just bc some may think it looks 'unnatural', i dont think it does, and i dont think it's 'unclean'.
i was reading your post Angiessw, and that made me think, a week after my son was born i moved to kentucky. i was living in Magoffin Co, in Salyersville. I lived there for a fair amount of time, and there was a man i was in a relationship with and he wasnt circumsized, i asked if that was normal up there, bc in florida for the most part, you hear about little boys being circumsized shortly after they are born. i talked to several men in that area and i dont think any of them are unhappy with what they have. not saying you're wrong. dont take it that way,sorry. it could be a different view since it's in a different area. i noticed in traveling that the eastern counties are totally different from those in the north or in the west. the town i lived in didnt even have a walmart, you had to drive 30-40mins either way to get to one. lol maybe that will give you some perspective of what im talking about.
i think i mentioned in my post that my grandmother wanted me to have it done on my son, mostly for religious reasons, "bc the bible says so." i thought about it for a while and oncei moved to ky i found absolutly no reason and the people there, including my family that lives there, backed me up 100%
thanks for the feedback girls. i dont feel i should have to justify to my mother in law the decisions i make for my children, but i guess she thinks i need to.
I live in Eastern KY. Twenty minutes from Salyersville. Floyd County is the next county over. My town has a walmart. Most of them do here. I work in the social work field and see lots of families. Anyway, like I said, all the men I know are (well all the men of my generation, older men like my dad's age are not). It became the norm for more of the "middle classes" and upper classes to have it done around the time everyone started being born in hospitals in my experience. I've been discussing this with family, etc, and everyone I know says their boyfriends/exboyfriends/husbands etc are circumsized. Then sometimes when I go into a client's home who has just had a baby they will say he's not circumsized because they're family does not do that, but it's rare and seems to be in the more rural areas of the county (the whole area is rural, but Prestonsburg and within like a twenty mile radius of it is less backwoodsy) and in the less educated population. Not that I am saying that people who have it done are uneducated, but thats pretty much my experience here.
when your being told by a doctor you trust how much healthier it is, and you know how almost socially unaccpetable an uncirumsized penis is where you live. you cannot say something like you did unless you experience the pressure first hand.
Agreed. I was wondering more about the parents who choose to do it now when the docs say it's not necessary for the baby's health.
i think once your child is older and if they decide they want to be circumsized then they should be able to. the argument there is, it's more painful when you're an adult. what difference does it make? either way it will be painful, child or adult.
Yes, but while it's painful both ways, you remember it as an adult and you don't if you have it done when you are first born.
To each his own, it's ridiculous trying to convince people of your opinions when you know if they were trying to do the same that you wouldn't change your beliefs.
if my sons doctor had said "it isnt cleaner, it isnt healthier" i wouldnt have done it. i dont have a penis! i trusted my male doctor and my sons father. am i sorry i did it? nope. hes a healthy, happy, beautiful little boy. would i do it if i had another son? im not sure. my DH who is NOT circumsized says he does want (if we have) his son circumsized for social reasons.
to the florida poster- thats strange isnt it? i actually talked to all the girls at work today and all but one of them said they had only been with circumsized men. only one girl had been with an uncircumsized guy, and he was from scotland. so who knows why us americans do it other then it was the norm for sooo long!
I asked my husband about this last night. He's only 38, comes from a Catholic family. He's first generation American (Italian family) and circumcized. It's odd that I've done more research about this than he has, but he still thinks that circumcision is for hygiene reasons, as well as religious. But that idea isn't unusual, as it's still believed on both sides of our families. They refuse to believe that it's not necessary.
You cannot post new topics in this board You cannot reply to topics in this board You cannot edit your posts in this board You cannot delete your posts in this board You cannot vote in polls in this board
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Private messages (0)
Log in
