Jana 8: Now with Instagram

[subsaharanafrica]

9 hours ago, AtlanticTug said:

Also the transmission of STIs is really misleading. Almost all the research and data on the matter is drawn from subsaharan Africa, where hygiene of genitals is vastly different than in the developed world, mostly due to a widespread lack of clean water and therefore showers and baths which are a daily (if not multiple times daily) occurrence in the west. 

What is your source for this? I’m not going to lie, the assertion that Africans are dirty and unhygienic is pretty gross. It is also not the case from anything I’ve witnessed or experienced. 

ETA: Do not conflate a lack of clean drinking water with a lack of water suitable for other purposes, like bathing. I can’t speak for all of the continent, but in the countries I’ve lived (one of which is a source of the big HIV study), people compulsively clean themselves, have a higher standard of personal hygiene than I do, and take pride in their appearance (they might not have new or fancy clothes but they’re always clean and always pressed). 

Edited February 14, 2019 by subsaharanafrica
ETA

[lumpentheologie]

1 hour ago, SweetJuly said:

Nevertheless, if such an operation were performed on a female infant we'd rightfully be outraged.

Why are we ok with it being done to a male infant then?

For me at least the answer to this question is that male circumcision isn't part of the control on women exercised by patriarchy. I don't look at it as doing something to a child's body in a cultural vacuum, so whereas female circumcision is part of a patriarchal system of control over women's sexuality, male circumcision seems to me to be about either community belonging or health preferences. Not to say that female circumcision as it's currently practiced doesn't include those reasons---they're just so contaminated by patriarchy as to be indefensible, at least to me. 

If the milder form of female circumcision you described was done on infant girls to show religious identity within a matriarchal or truly egalitarian society, I would probably be relatively okay with it.  But I think having a historical tradition also matters here--if people just out of nowhere wanted to start cutting off pieces of their children I wouldn't support that, but something that's long been a central part of (especially a very persecuted) religious identity is a different matter.

This might be an unpopular opinion, and I respect that others will disagree and understand why. But I think the question of individual rights (especially of children) vs the rights of cultural communities to perpetuate themselves is a complicated one, and I do think the US tends to fall a bit more on the side of communities (especially religious ones) than Europe often does. 

[QuiverDance]

14 hours ago, AtlanticTug said:

They were heavily criticized internationally as as been noted.

Also the transmission of STIs is really misleading. Almost all the research and data on the matter is drawn from subsaharan Africa, where hygiene of genitals is vastly different than in the developed world, mostly due to a widespread lack of clean water and therefore showers and baths which are a daily (if not multiple times daily) occurrence in the west. 

True, but vaccines also receive heavy criticism.  Criticism in and of itself isn’t convincing to me. On this particular issue, and only in my experience obviously, my push not to circumcise was completely based on emotion. My ex husband’s push TO do it was also emotional. Ultimately we consulted several doctors and their consensus supported my husband. How much of that was due to confirmation bias, I will never know. It’s definitely a bell that cannot be un ring, though, and it will always be a decision I question. 

[kachuu]

My favorite thing about this drift is that we are talking about penises in virgin Jana's thread.

 

[IReallyAmHopewell]

19 hours ago, QuiverDance said:

Going through with that is something I will always regret because I frankly tend to agree with you.  I hope my son doesn't end up resenting that decision, though knowing him I seriously doubt that will happen. 

My son, adopted at age 8, was not circumcised. Where we lived it was very, very odd. He was close to trauma from it and the teasing he got. At 13 I let him be circumcised. He was instantly much happier and more secure. Parents can hold whatever beliefs and convictions they like on this, but this is a pretty damned intimate thing for boys and can really, affect their self-esteem. If a Dad is involved in the boy's life especially, it is important to defer to him. We women do not stand and bare all every time we need to pee. The way schools are today, adults cannot always enter the restrooms. When you are "different" in any way you get picked on. My son was "cut" and never looked back. We know a few other adopted boys that did the same.

[just_ordinary]

36 minutes ago, IReallyAmHopewell said:

My son, adopted at age 8, was not circumcised. Where we lived it was very, very odd. He was close to trauma from it and the teasing he got. At 13 I let him be circumcised. He was instantly much happier and more secure. Parents can hold whatever beliefs and convictions they like on this, but this is a pretty damned intimate thing for boys and can really, affect their self-esteem. If a Dad is involved in the boy's life especially, it is important to defer to him. We women do not stand and bare all every time we need to pee. The way schools are today, adults cannot always enter the restrooms. When you are "different" in any way you get picked on. My son was "cut" and never looked back. We know a few other adopted boys that did the same.

I get your point and would have probably made the same decision. But I cannot help but wonder. We do everything to tell our girls that they are good the way they are. That their bodies are good the way they are and that they don’t need to alter them. I know children are vile in this regard and especially at this age but don’t we preach not to give into peer pressure? And don’t we try to raise them not to be bullies? I mean this is not about wearing a certain brand but having an operation to fit in. I would be horrified if my daughter wanted to have an operation to change her body (nose or boobs for example) just to fit in better. Obviously there are always exceptions when the mental health of someone is badly affected. I just think it’s sad that your son felt as if he should do it to not get picked on. It’s nice to hear that he is happy know but that should have been possible without even having to think about that. It must have been a hard situation for your family.

And I am shocked as I always thought boys would body shame in regard to height, hair, voice and muscle. Never ever thought they would pick on each other’s penises. That’s so cruel! And actually kind of weird?

[Icea]

This thread drift makes me feel like a fish out of water, because I’d say the only men in Sweden who are circumcised are jewish, muslim or did it for medical reasons. And I’m not sure if it’s even the majority of muslim and jewish men here. I’ve never heard anyone discuss the topic in Sweden because it’s so rare. 

(That said, I’m going to google it now and see if there are any stats)

 

ETA: It’s estimated that about 2000-3000 boys are circumcised in Sweden every year. Roughly 60 000 boys are born every year. All the links I could found when I skimmed through google was about muslim and jewish boys being circumcised in Sweden, confirmed to me that it is indeed very rare for non-jewish and non-muslim men to get circumcised here. 

Source (in Swedish): https://www.rikshandboken-bhv.se/livsvillkor/barn-som-riskerar-att-fara-illa/omskarelse-av-pojkar/

Edited February 14, 2019 by Icea

[Anna Bolinas]

8 hours ago, SweetJuly said:

Nevertheless, if such an operation were performed on a female infant we'd rightfully be outraged.

Why are we ok with it being done to a male infant then?

But many people aren't outraged by FGM. The idea that a female infant's bodily integrity is somehow more precious to the world than a male infant's is, frankly, preposterous.

(Keep in mind, too, that the woman in your example going to get a labiaplasty or a reduction of her clitoral hood is just as susceptible to social pressures as the hypothetical man who feels he has to get circumcised after bullying from peers. Women are told that our genitalia is disgusting, that it looks like roast beef or meat flaps, that the inner labia shouldn't protrude further than the outer labia because doing so is ugly.)

[kmachete14]

I feel very strongly that no infant should have their genitals cut off or altered unless medically necessary. My fiance disagreed, because he wanted our hypothetical son to "fit in" and "match" him. 

However, after reading an article about how intact men experience much more pleasure during sex, he changed his mind. He really thought the foreskin was a useless thing, like an appendix or the little tie from your gum to your lip. Similarly to how girls are often not taught about the function of the clitoris, many boys are not taught about the function of the foreskin (in the US). 

As a wild college girl, I was exposed to a variety of cut & uncut penii (lol) and did not notice a difference nor was I disgusted. However, I could perhaps imagine that an uncut boy may have received ridicule when younger, among an immature crowd. 

I felt embarrassed in 8th grade gym class when I was flat as a board and hadn't started puberty. I got over it, adult men never cared/commented, and I love my body. 

[nausicaa]

18 hours ago, 3SecondSideHugger said:

 Outside of religious circumstances, this is procedure is still really only common in America... *daily reminder that a world exists outside of the United States*

So, I'm actually not really a fan of circumcision, leaning towards @SweetJuly 's feelings on the matter.

But you seem to have skipped over some data. (I actually get the feeling you don't give much of a shit about circumcision, and instead are just seizing the opportunity to condescend to us lowly Americans about how dumb we are, but I'll add the following clarifications anyway for anyone who is interested.)

 

The U.S. is not the only country to have circumcision be common for non-religious reasons. Not at all. The circumcision rate is 91% in the Philippines (as compared to 71.2% in the U.S.). It is 45% in South Africa and about 75% in South Korea. It is 95% in the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Tonga, since circumcision is traditional to some Pacific Islanders.

Even those Canadians whom you find so logical and judicious have a circumcision rate of 32%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772313/table/Tab1/?report=objectonly

According to the World Health Organization (is that global enough for you, or is my dumb ass still forgetting a world exists outside the U.S.?) the prevalence of non-religious circumcision is 75% for the U.S. in comparison to 61% in other countries. 

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43749/9789241596169_eng.pdf;jsessionid=4477BCC49ABAD5513A26B5DC962A7A6D?sequence=1

 

And I'd argue saying "outside of religious circumstances" is kind of flippant when discussing this, considering ya know, there are about 6.5 million Jews and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Fifty countries are Muslim majority, and have sky high circumcision rates as a result. Wouldn't want to forget that a world exists outside your own country, 3SecondSideHugger...

Edited February 14, 2019 by nausicaa

[lumpentheologie]

It is definitely a thing in the US that uncircumcised boys and men are looked down on and treated badly by other boys and men.  At least in my generation (old millennial) I heard about it a fair bit from my brother and my first college boyfriend, who were both uncircumcised.  My brother wasn't circumcised because our mother was a hippy, and he was teased about it a lot growing up.  I think he was the only one who was different.  My former boyfriend (born to immigrant parents who didn't circumcise) also said he was tormented about it, and he was always ashamed and embarrassed of having a foreskin. My brother is gay and he said it was terrible to be a uncut gay man in America, guys were grossed out by him and rude about it.  He ended up getting circumcised in his early 20s because he couldn't deal with it. 

If I ever have a son I plan not to circumcise, but I do think this is a factor to consider in the US.  It's really sad and ideally it wouldn't be like that, but there's still a lot of stigma around being uncircumcised. We need to work on that by teaching our kids more about how different kinds of penises are normal. 

[CarrotCake]

This is one of the things that keeps on surprising me about the US. Like @Icea I am from a country where almost no is circumcised.

We do naked sauna here so I have seen quite a few penii (like the word ;-)) but only last year was the first time a saw a circumcised penis live (in the sauna).

[freshlemonade]

I'm sure that there are a lot of posters and lurkers reading this thread and feeling shamed for being "genital mutilators" (is that how it was worded?) because their sons are circumcised.     

Just wanted to put it out there that those of us who chose to circ are not awful, barbarian parents. 

I do however agree that it is important to be informed and educated about the topic.  I'm curious if there is any research on sexual pleasure based on studies of men who have had circumcisions as adults.  

[anjulibai]

Female genital mutilation is absolutely NOT the same as circumcision. It's just not, for oh so many reasons. 

[AussieKrissy]

From what I have seen around the social media news articles is that Australia is moving towards not circumcising, where as the generation before was majority circumcised.

One article pointed that it now tends to be more important to match friends rather than their father. 

If I would have had a son, I would not have circumcised him. I personally prefer circumcised men. Most men in my age bracket have been done and my experience with men who are not cut has not always been pleasant. That being said, I would still not have done my hypothetical son. I am also a single mother by choice, I don't know how much I would have taken the father's opinion to circumcise into account, because, you know he has one and I don't.

My nephew had to be cut for medical reasons at 4 and was in so much pain

I also know a adult male who also had to be done and he said that the change was horrible and that because he was cut he lost sensitivity because it was always "uncovered" and stimulated.

I think that is what sealed the deal for me in making the choice for any future hypothetical son. No cut and hope that I made the right choice for their future and that they did not need it for medical reason later on. 

 

[Mama Mia]

It’s interesting to see so many people talk about how circumcision has only been controversial in the US for the last 10 years. My boys are in their late 20’s / early 30’s, and for one of them ( don’t recall which ) , California Medicaid ( state insurance for low-income people ) covered the circumsion, for the other it didn’t. It’s gone back and forth on coverage a few times since then, IIRCC. 

There was a big study that came out sometime around that time that showed women were more likely to get cervical cancer if their partner was uncircumcised. I wonder how the advent of the HPV vaccine will impact that?

My area is very, very heavy on both immigrants from Mexico and Latin America, and extremely crunchy granola people - so Uncircumcised is not at all unusual here. My daughter chose to have her son circumcised and had to go out of County to a different Dr. Practice, neither her regular pediatrician or the hospital would do it. She had heard some horror stories from friends whose male family members  had to have it done as older children or adults because of infection, and didn’t want to deal with that.

I had been scared by my chronically oversharing grandmother who would tell the VERY detailed account of my uncle having to be circumcised in his teens because of infection ( WHY she told me this, as a child, I will never understand ) . Between that and the cervical cancer / sti/ fitting in thing , I decided to have my son’s circumcised. 

 

Edited February 14, 2019 by Mama Mia

[3SecondSideHugger]

4 hours ago, nausicaa said:

So, I'm actually not really a fan of circumcision, leaning towards @SweetJuly 's feelings on the matter.

But you seem to have skipped over some data. (I actually get the feeling you don't give much of a shit about circumcision, and instead are just seizing the opportunity to condescend to us lowly Americans about how dumb we are, but I'll add the following clarifications anyway for anyone who is interested.)

 

The U.S. is not the only country to have circumcision be common for non-religious reasons. Not at all. The circumcision rate is 91% in the Philippines (as compared to 71.2% in the U.S.). It is 45% in South Africa and about 75% in South Korea. It is 95% in the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Tonga, since circumcision is traditional to some Pacific Islanders.

Even those Canadians whom you find so logical and judicious have a circumcision rate of 32%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772313/table/Tab1/?report=objectonly

According to the World Health Organization (is that global enough for you, or is my dumb ass still forgetting a world exists outside the U.S.?) the prevalence of non-religious circumcision is 75% for the U.S. in comparison to 61% in other countries. 

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43749/9789241596169_eng.pdf;jsessionid=4477BCC49ABAD5513A26B5DC962A7A6D?sequence=1

 

And I'd argue saying "outside of religious circumstances" is kind of flippant when discussing this, considering ya know, there are about 6.5 million Jews and 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Fifty countries are Muslim majority, and have sky high circumcision rates as a result. Wouldn't want to forget that a world exists outside your own country, 3SecondSideHugger...

You are being a bit hostile, but I’ll respond. The original poster I replied to had made a comment about how the (American) rate is high so it seems to be the norm. I do feel obligated to remind people to think outside of the box sometimes.

I am actually American and not calling anybody dumb (?!). I hold citizenship in 3 countries, residencies in 2 of those and I hate to say that Americans tend to be the least worldly of the bunch. Again, I am American and am embarrassed by this and stereotypes about us often.

I truly appreciate that you responded with facts and research to read, because nobody else has. Though, You also seem to have chosen statistics that fit your argument. I see in that WHO article that overall, 

“Approximately 30% of males are estimated to be cir cumcised globally, of whom an estimated two thirds are Muslim”

I recognize that you were discussing the prevalence of religious vs. non religious, but I believe you highlighted stats that made the rate sound really high when it appears to still not be- globally speaking. 

“Using these assumptions, we estimate that approxi- mately 30% of the world’s males aged 15 years or older are circumcised (Table 2). Of these, around two thirds (69%) are Muslim (living mainly in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa), 0.8% are Jewish, and 13% are non-Muslim and non-Jewish men living in the United States of America”

So yes this is an estimate from that WHO paper and it goes on to explain when accounting for other things, their estimates could rise to 33%. Still not the majority. 

I am indeed in the middle on this argument and see a reason for either decision. There is plenty of research for either position, and like I said, I’d like people to make an informed decision rather than just doing something because it’s some “tradition”. I just saw a trend of “well most of America does it” and felt it necessary to show that there are other ways of life. I try not to be condescending, but when I get these vibes,  it makes me angry. I’m not usually argumentative, but these ‘Murica vibes in the age of Trump do get me worked up. 

 

[KeshetParparNesicha]

39 minutes ago, 3SecondSideHugger said:

I’d like people to make an informed decision rather than just doing something because it’s some “tradition”.

These are not mutually exclusive.

[SweetJuly]

15 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

But many people aren't outraged by FGM. The idea that a female infant's bodily integrity is somehow more precious to the world than a male infant's is, frankly, preposterous.

[...] Women are told that our genitalia is disgusting, that it looks like roast beef or meat flaps, that the inner labia shouldn't protrude further than the outer labia because doing so is ugly.)

In numerous Western countries, including the US, FGM is banned by law and (rightfully) considered absolutely abhorrent whereas male circumcision is not. Thus legally a female infant's bodily integrity is more precious in our part of the world.

(By the way, also men are told that their  genitalia are disgusting, that male genitalia are filthy and unaesthetic, foreskins are ugly, etc. IMO the world in general has a bit of a messed up relationship to genitalia, and it doesn't help anyone to pit one sex against the other.)

Bottom line is: The bodily integrity of ALL children should be precious to us, whether male, female or intersex

I understand why religious communities continue to practise male circumcision, but I just wish that at least secular people would stop and think twice before deciding to give the go ahead for their sons to be circumcised.

[SweetJuly]

14 hours ago, anjulibai said:

Female genital mutilation is absolutely NOT the same as circumcision. It's just not, for oh so many reasons. 

Yes, it can be. There are variations of it which are comparable to male circumcision.

And the reasoning brought forth by both men and women who practise it are frequently the same or very similar used by those who argue for men to be circumcised (more aesthetic, cleaner, healthier, etc). It's not "only" about controlling female sexuality

[Anna Bolinas]

9 hours ago, SweetJuly said:

In numerous Western countries, including the US, FGM is banned by law and (rightfully) considered absolutely abhorrent whereas male circumcision is not. Thus legally a female infant's bodily integrity is more precious in our part of the world.

(By the way, also men are told that their  genitalia are disgusting, that male genitalia are filthy and unaesthetic, foreskins are ugly, etc. IMO the world in general has a bit of a messed up relationship to genitalia, and it doesn't help anyone to pit one sex against the other.)

To your first point, it isn't illegal in the US. The federal law against FGM was struck down last year. 28 states have state bans against FGM, and 22 more have no specific laws. Also, there is a practice where the family sends the girl abroad to get cut so that, when she returns to the US or the UK, the person who cut her can't be prosecuted.

To your second point, I know that men face body shaming as well. But I would still argue it isn't near the degree of intensity that women face. And I feel like the reasonings behind male and female circumcision should be counted in any discussion. One of the major reasons behind FGM is to ensure purity and control female sexuality.

[AliceInFundyland]

9 hours ago, SweetJuly said:

Yes, it can be. There are variations of it which are comparable to male circumcision.

And the reasoning brought forth by both men and women who practise it are frequently the same or very similar used by those who argue for men to be circumcised (more aesthetic, cleaner, healthier, etc). It's not "only" about controlling female sexuality

Comparing the two is like a Venn Diagram. There is a very small space of overlap where they are comparable practices.

For the most part, in most of the world, FGM is performed on preadolescent females and yes, it overwhelmingly has to do with sexuality. It causes numerous complications. It is painful. It does not allow for female sexual functionality.

Now circumcision may not be necessary. But explain to me how it has become part of controlling male sexuality? The arguments do not overlap and should not be equated. I’m extremely bothered by that trend in this discussion.n

ETA: I am aware that a man who grows older can face body shame about his genitals and his sexuality. The situations are not comparable. In my opinion if we diverge down this path too much we start making excuses for barbaric cultural practices that oppress women. Women are still oppressed more than men. Men deserve fair say to their bodies. I believe that. It is not the same thing.

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by AliceInFundyland

[Pecansforeveryone]

Men have historically held the power in many societies through out history. (Please note, I did not say all.) No group of men is going to continue to support and mandate a practice that completely deprives men of their ability to orgasm even with threat of hell from an invisible deity. Yes, some forms of female circumcision involve merely "scoring/tatooing/trimming" of the labia. However, the far more common forms involve complete removal of the clitoris, thus depriving the woman of any ability to orgasm.  There may be medical benefits, even modest ones to male circumcision.  There simply is no documented medical benefit to female circumcision.  I hope no one ever feels pressure to circumcise their son. It may be an increasingly less relevant procedure. It is not, however, comparable to female circumcision. It would gave died out millennia ago if it were. 

[adidas]

Oh gosh I hate being in the minority because I am one of those people who cares about downvotes! I have debated about posting for a couple of days, since the discussion started.

When I was pregnant it came down to this for me: if I insist on the right to make choices about my own body (ie her body, her choice), I think it’s only fair to my children that I extend the same choice. So: his body, his choice.

Then later in the pregnancy I heard a few horror stories which really cemented my decision. The final decider was that my obgyn said circ causes more problems than it solves. I had no social, medical or religious reason to do it and we’ve never had any problems (they’re adults now).

I hear and respect the stories from overseas where people had terrible problems and had to be circumcised but it seems to be the opposite here (no idea why - is it because socially we discuss whatever is not the default?) ... I’ve known one person who had to have her boy done due to a congenital problem with the foreskin, but I’ve known 3 people whose sons had really serious complications from being circed.

[SorenaJ]

There are zero good arguments for circumcision for non-medical reasons. 

Don’t do it. It’s that simple.