Forum menu
she didn’t want him to be teased for looking different from the other boys.
Because we all remember those days spent in the playground comparing our willies.
Did your school not have showers then?
That’s a great article, @Cougar. I wish I had have seen it before. I have just shared it with MrsSR.
Yeah, really interesting I thought.
BTW,
I am not an advocate FOR circumcision for boys, but I would object if people said that it should be outlawed. I think it should still be available as an option.
A concern in the US is that it's considered so routine that there's cases of doctors doing it without even asking the parents because it's just What You Do. I've read a few tales of anti-circumcision parents being very cross about this.
I disagree that it should be an option for no reason, but unfortunately banning anything is problematic if people are determined enough. You'll just end up with back-street surgeries and DIY jobs which is a far worse scenario (see what happens in places where abortion is banned). I do believe that there should be tighter control around it at least, it should be discouraged and be something parents actively have to request. Enforcing having it done by someone who is actually surgically qualified rather than exercising religious privilege would be a start.
Did your school not have showers then?
Yes, but I don't recall us standing there comparing our cocks.
Basically, I think her fears were a bit of a moot point.
Yes, but I don’t recall us standing there comparing our cocks.
Kinda hard not to notice though, and it only takes one kid to start taking the piss before they're all at it.
Anyway, I'm only passing on what she said, I wasn't agreeing with it.
Maybe because random strangers are reluctant to divulge such personal information.
Have you actually asked random strangers their experiences or lack of regarding male circumcision ?
Have you actually asked random strangers their experiences or lack of regarding male circumcision ?
Sure. Who hasn't?
You’ll just end up with back-street surgeries and DIY jobs which is a far worse scenario (see what happens in places where abortion is banned).
Better legalise FGM then....
You're just rationalising contradictions in your own logic.
It was a trend in North America to circumcise boys when I was born, so I, along with all my brothers, was done. And seeing what two of my own little guys have gone through with periodic infections makes me glad I was.
Where are you guys putting your penises?
Better legalise FGM then….
You’re just rationalising contradictions in your own logic.
I think that the point is that male circumcision is (rightly or wrongly) widely accepted as acceptable in our society, whilst FGM isn’t. It’s legislation by moral pragmatism rather than moral absolutism, which I expect most legislation has to be in order to pass.
Cougar, thanks for the article, it made interesting reading. Although, it does seem to seek to somewhat narrow the gap between FGM and male circumcision don’t you think? Possibly more than I would want or dare to, for fear of being accused of GeeTeeism, which I think I’m a whisker away from being accused of anyway.
I think that the point is that male circumcision is (rightly or wrongly) widely accepted as acceptable in our society, whilst FGM isn’t. It’s legislation by moral pragmatism rather than moral absolutism.
Well, that and they're not the same.
Saying X is accepted and legal and Y isn't, it doesn't then follow that Y should be legal or X should be illegal just because there's very very tenuous link.
Tobacco and weed
Alcohol and cocaine
Knives and guns
Why is it always a mate ? A mate does this, A mate says that, my mate can do wheelies ner, ner,nernernerr !
Maybe my lack of any useful input is due to my lack of mates.
Ok here goes. I was circumcised when I was about 48-49 as I was having probs with a tight foreskin, used to get really sore for no apparent reason. The girls loved me cos I could go forever but in reality it wasn't good for me. I'm pleased I had it done & there's definately been no loss of sensitivity since! (14 yrs ago)
HTH.
Well, that and they’re not the same... ...there’s very very tenuous link.
A ‘very very tenuous link’? Come on.
Firstly; I need to emphasise that I am not trying to lessen or take away that FGM is cruel, barbaric and heinous practice. It absolutely is, and I’m glad that there is a specific law against it, and even more so that it has now been successfully brought to bear. Took long enough, sadly.
There are differences between FGM and male circumcision I agree. They are anatomical, of severity of impact on the victim, and of societal blindness to an accepted convention. However the similarities are indisputable, and cannot be described as tenuous; the arguments that can be found both for and against both are remarkably similar, if if made by very different groups of people. The fundamental fact that they are both removing human tissue without the consent of the human in the case of the practice on infants. The fact that they are both advocated largely for custom and religious reasons rather than medical reasons. The fact that they have both been historically justified for reasons of controlling or reducing sexual response. The fact that the advocates of both practices tend to be those who have ‘had it done to them and it didn’t do them any harm’. I could go on.
Please, read Cougar’s linked article. It’s a lot more of a big deal and a lot more traumatic than it’s proponents would have us believe, and than I realised. Just because we happen to accept it as mostly normal in our society, shouldn’t mean that it it remains unchallenged in practice.
Tobacco and weed
Alcohol and cocaine
Knives and guns
How about;
Stealing from a bank and stealing from a charity
Hitting a bloke or hitting a woman
Defrauding your employer or defrauding the taxman
Similar/same crimes, linked more than tenuously. Variations of severity, impact on the victim and societal willingness to turn a blind eye.
An article that expresses my position more eloquently than I could hope to.
Cosmetic circumcision is banned In Australia for kids and Iceland has proposed it. Religious freedom should not be extend to non-consensual cosmetic surgery. Sooner it is banned the better.
V8ninety, are you saying any of that from personal experience or just campaigning on behalf of "a mate" as someone on the last page put it.
I can't comment on the impacts of fgm from personal experience, they sound pretty horrific. But circumcision, ive had more traumatic haircuts. So based on being 50% more qualified than most to draw a conclusion, they're not the same.
Taken to absurdity, where do you stand on non medical haircuts for under 18's? Sure if the kids got nits or its getting trapped in stuff, but what about just getting a haircut to meet the social norms of your peer group?
Cosmetic circumcision is banned In Australia for kids
It's banned in public hospitals, but not private hospitals.
I think Iceland is the first country to consider a total ban.
But circumcision, ive had more traumatic haircuts.
How many nerve endings do you have in your hair? And it must be troublesome having your foreskin resnipped every 8-10 weeks. I’m sorry but that argument doesn’t stand up (so to speak 😉)
they’re not the same.
I have not said that they are. See my previous post.
My interest (I’m not campaigning, I’m just discussing it on a MTB forum) is not personal. As my OP stated, the recent news coverage of FGM got me thinking about what I thought of as a legislated inequality (I was told that was an incorrect assertion, and IANAL, but no reasons were given). My interest is mainly of challenging accepted cultural norms; I tend to think that when society’s position seems to be ‘because it’s always been that way’ or ‘because god says so’, it’s healthy to always ask ‘but why?’.
I haven’t heard a coherent argument in favour of male circumcision of infants for cultural, religious or superstitious reasons yet, but I’m still listening. I do tend to think that the medical principle of informed consent (and if not possible as in the case of an infant, acting in their best interests, doing the least harm possible) should apply, whether the individual be male or female, and I remain interested as to why others disagree.
The only reason ritual male circumcision is lawful is because people would continue to practise it in their own home, in unhygienic conditions.
Ritual circumcision isn't done on the NHS (although some hospitals will do it for free to prevent the risk of it being done at home), Dr's can refuse to consent and it requires the agreement of both parents in writing.
The boy can sue his parents/guardian under the human rights act when he's old enough to think WTF have they done
However the similarities are indisputable, and cannot be described as tenuous
You're both arguing extremes of the same argument.
There is a similarity in so far as they're both non-consensual and unnecessary surgery. However the severity of the procedures is vastly different. Consider that we've mostly stopped calling it "female circumcision" and now refer to it as "female genital mutilation." Think about that for a moment.
Genital.
Mutilation.
Two words that should never be in the same sentence. Two infants are put in for unnecessary cosmetic surgery; one has his little finger amputated, the other has her arm cut off. Are they comparable?
I haven’t heard a coherent argument in favour of male circumcision of infants for cultural, religious or superstitious reasons yet, but I’m still listening.
Speculating: there was perhaps an argument for it for hygiene reasons back in the Middle East where washing facilities weren't great and sandstorms were likely. In the modern day it's probably gained popularity to discourage masturbation.
I have not said that they are. See my previous post.
But you keep talking about them in the same breath.
Can you just stop.
Two infants are put in for unnecessary cosmetic surgery; one has his little finger amputated, the other has her arm cut off. Are they comparable?
And this somehow means the former should be legal, because?
Well, it doesn't, but that wasn't really my point.
In an ideal world I'd like to see it banned and for the practice to stop, at least until the victims are of an age of consent. However prohibition has proved time and again not to work particularly well so whether this would be a good idea in practice or not I honestly don't know.
Two infants are put in for unnecessary cosmetic surgery; one has his little finger amputated, the other has her arm cut off. Are they comparable?
I’m slightly frustrated at my own apparent inability to express the fact that I completely agree in regard to the differences of severity. However, the article you previously posted has moved my opinion towards thinking that the two procedures are comparable; not the same, but they have parallels that are important, specifically in regard to consent, and in regard to the right of an infant not to be assaulted. I don’t think that ‘it’s only a little bit of skin’ or we’ve always done it’ or ‘God tells us to’ should be adequate defense to what should be an offence against the person. Yet they apparently continue to be so long as the victim is male.
In regards to FGM being termed as such, that is only in our society. You’ll find that in different societies there are people arguing eloquently in support of continued FGM. Also, there are apparently a whole range of degrees of FGM, ranging from ‘just a tiny ritual knick’ to the already aforementioned horrors. The least invasive and often supported forms involve a small strip of skin being cut from the clitoral hood, leaving all other structures unaffected. This is still illegal in the U.K. (and rightly so, for all of the same reasons that I have previously argued) but is actually less traumatic and involves less tissue loss than legal male circumcision. How is that difference due to infant gender morally defensible?
The only reason ritual male circumcision is lawful is because people would continue to practise it in their own home, in unhygienic conditions.
I accept that that is probably true, but it could (and probably is) also be used as an argument to keep FGM (in its mildest forms at least) legal.
prohibition has proved time and again not to work particularly well so whether this would be a good idea in practice or not I honestly don’t know.
But FGM, in all its forms, IS prohibited, and yes it does still occur in back streets. Is this a good argument for it not to be prohibited?
Yeah... no.
There may well be degrees of mutilation but it would be prudent to ascertain which forms are more prevalent before drawing any sort of conclusions as to whether "a little bit of mutilation" should be acceptable (be that legally, socially or morally).
I guess what needs to change isn't the law but rather cultural attitudes. The only way you're effectively going to change behaviour is stopping people from wanting to do it.
I don’t think that ‘a little bit of mutilation’ of an infant should ever be acceptable, male or female. And for there to be a difference due to gender is just weird, and archaic. I think (hope?) that in one hundred years society will look back on all forms of ritual genital mutilation of babies as unenlightened savagery.
I guess what needs to change isn’t the law but rather cultural attitudes...
I am sure you are right, but the same could be said for FGM, and banning it has been an important step in that direction I think. If the law condones a practice, arguments against it are always going to be weakened.
Vagina surgery 'sought by girls as young as nine'
Girls as young as nine are seeking surgery on their genitals because they are distressed by its appearance, the Victoria Derbyshire show has been told.
Dr Naomi Crouch, a leading adolescent gynaecologist, said she was concerned GPs were referring rising numbers of young girls who wanted an operation.
Labiaplasty, as the surgery is known, involves the lips of the vagina being shortened or reshaped.
The NHS says it should not be carried out on girls before they turn 18.
In 2015-16, more than 200 girls under 18 had labiaplasty on the NHS. More than 150 of the girls were under 15.
Some experts fear that pornography and images viewed through social media are leading young girls to have unrealistic perceptions of how their genitals should look.
FFS! That's messed up, what the hell have we done to this generation?
It's not a generational thing. We've been telling girls that they aren't good enough and need to be thinner / fatter / taller / shorter / whiter / darker for about as long as we've had girls. Cosmetic flange surgery is just another spoke in a way way larger wheel.
(And I suppose the other side of the coin for boys there is, "is it big enough?")
I’m interested to see what sort ofsentence this barbarian will receive.
up to 14 years.
Outrage is a hugely over-used term in this social media age, but I'm outraged about this case. Delighted the first conviction has been secured. I'm not pro or against male circumcision really, indeed until I trvelled to the US, I was unaware it was standard practice there and not here. One of my nephews was circumcised on religous grounds, the one thing my non-practicing sister agreed to. I'm aware of the health debates too (and would have probably benefitted myself in hindsight). It just wasn't a thing.
But the cases of FGM such as this one are in a completely different league. Outrage is the right term. A hefty sentence can be expected.
In related news, Chope is at it again.
Odious piece of shit.
He always allows his mate's bills through on the nod so he's not that bothered by the parliamentary scrutiny argument.
That's Sir Chope to you. Know your place pleb.
Just seen my Series Link set for Storyville is going to record “Defying the Cutting Season” bbc4, 10:30 tonight.
I won’t be watching, but some may want to know.