Circumcision at birth?

I suppose its a religious thing too.

Maybe its about control, revenge?It happened to the father sio the father wants it done to his sons.I can hear a father saying 'Well its never done me any harm!!'

Maybe its about wanting to be part of a certain group.

Maybe the guys were circumcised while babies and didnt have a choice in the matter.
Did you ask them how old they were when they were circumcised?
Do you think many would choose to have it doen when they were 10-12 years old if it wasnt done when they were babies?

There is female circumcism too but I think its doen for different reasons.Personally I wouldnt like it to be done to me at any age for any reason.

That part of the male and female body is supposed o be treated nicely.

You say about effecting the recipients mental health.
I know of a story of a twin boys circumcision going wrong(it was lasered)half of it was accidntly cut off so the rst of it was removed and the boy was brought up as a girl.The doctor thought it was a simple case of nurture over nature.
Lots of things happened in the guys life as he grew up.
All I know is that he killed himself a couple of years back, and then his twin killed himself too.

Ok, Ive just read the thread is called 'Circumcism at BIRTH'.So ignore some of my comments.
I still think they would think differently if they were expected to have in done when they are older.

You don't count females as people? That's pretty old-fashioned . . .

Re: Circumcision at birth?



I just know it made me gay and prone to wanting to eat tons of chocolate while reading Proust (or at least Swann's Way). Not to mention that it made me deathly afraid of alien autopsies and tax accountants.




Okay on a more serious note, people will defend or attack just about anything and the main fact of the matter is that I have yet to find a circumcised man who actually recalls the procedure. It happened, move on, get on with life...unless you want to get into the entire foreskin restoration malarkey which is out there.

Stalking the perfect foreskin.
I don't have anything. That phrase sudenly occurred to me. I am not circumcised and I am always surprised that people really care.

I am circumcised and I am always surprised that people really care!

Im not circumcised and Id be very peed off that someone had messed with that part of me without my say so.If its not of any real benefit, keep your mits off!!
If im gona have it done itl be on my decision.

I am circumcised and I think it's an demented form of unenlightened archaic mutilation. There is nothing to cover my oh-so-sensitive head when not erect. How stupid is that?

Maybe we should be removing the clitoral hood on women too or performing clitoridectomies?

All told, about 80 million women have had clitoridectomies; about 80 million women have undergone genital mutilation. Although most clitoridectomy victims are Muslims, it has also been practice by Christians, animists, and some Ethiopian Jews. Clitoridectomies were also occasionally recommended to "cure" female masturbators and women with "loose" moral virtues in the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century United States.
http://wgst.intrasun.tcnj.edu/newsletter/archives/april1993.html

It seems to have alot to do with *what other people want* for the person about to be mutilated.

A penis is beautiful no matter how you cut it (or don't).

Well I know mine is

It seems like it might have made more sense before there was indoor plumbing. Still, I don't think it's fair to compare it to female circumcision, unless we started cutting the heads of men's penises off.

and by using the word mutilated you hit upon the word that those who are opposed to circumcision so readily use as their key word. Fact of the matter is, that there are men who still have their foreskin who look as though they have been mutilated. The circumcision itself is a simple procedure (either done medically or through religious procedure) it is not a mutilation. It follows a particular format. The word mutilation calls to mind a machete being swung wildly through the air and lopping away at whatever it happens upon. A standard circumcision is not performed that way. Needless to say there are risks but then again, life is filled with risks. Mutilation is a harsh word, and in my book an incorrect one.

It isn't mutilation to cut off a perfectly healthy organ of the body for religious or psudeo-medical reasons?

No.

It is a correctly used word.

mutilation.
mu·ti·late ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Assuming I did make a direct and specific comparison (which I did not, it was in fact a point of interest as a relative comparison) would you then accept that the removal of the clitoral hood is OK or removal of portions or all of the inner and/or outer labia?

Assuming I did make a direct and specific comparison (which I did not, it was in fact a point of interest) would you then accept that the removal of the clitoral hood is OK and/or the removal of portions or of all of the inner and/or outer labia is OK?

A comparison is a comparison, I don't really think it matters whether it was direct, specific, relative, or twice removed.

I would not suggest that removing any female parts is ok.