Why are so many Moos anti-circumcision?

I notice over on Moothering.commode that a lot of Moomies are "proud anti-circ" -- I wonder why so many of them are so adamant about that belief. I know having male children be "cut" is the norm in this country, and I understand it is sometimes done for health reasons (since, from what I know, Moos don't learn to or teach their child to retract the skin, and lot of nasty infections can occur from not cleaning that skin properly).

And what of the Moomies who claim circumcision is the same as female genital mutilation? Umm, how about no? FGM is done to prevent young girls from becoming promiscuous, according to the cultures that perform FGM - circumcision is usually done for health reasons (or for aesthetic reasons). I'm sure there's at least one Moo out there who wanted her son circumcised in hopes of destroying his future sex drive o he wouldn't love any woman but Momma. Hopefully she won't ever hare that with anyone.

I have heard plenty of stories of males who were uncut and something happened as they got older - like an infection, or the foreskin doing something odd, or the boy just not wanting to be the only one in the locker room with the weird penis. And the boys had to get circed anyway...for the ones who do not make that choice of their own volition (i.e. to make it look pretty), they usually really hate their parents for not getting the circumcision done during infancy (after they get the surgery and are in horrific pain afterwards).

And more often than not, no one teaches these boys about the proper hygiene for their intact parts because being uncut is not the norm (and Moomie usually doesn't care because she seems to just want to be able to tell everyone how she didn't torture her baybee by getting him cut)...and since retracting that skin seems to be an art form, if it's not done right, it can result in all sorts of infections that have to be cured by...yup...circumcision.

So what do you guys think? Is circumcision really that awful? Or are these Moos just trying to further make themselves out to be hip-cool mommas who are anti-everything-that-will-help-my-child-cuz-we're-pseudo-natchural?

Good question! And I'd agree with your mention of 'control' issues. There's nothing cows love more than the feeling they own their children.

Outside of members of the Jewish faith, boys go uncircumsized here in the UK. It's seen as a totally unnecessary procedure by the medical profession, in this day and age of personal hygiene awareness. Everyone has access to soap and hot water, so circumcision is about as necessary as, say, all males being required to be permanently bald their whole lives just in case they might develop lice, tangles, or a scalp problem at some point.

I think there's a 'problem' rate of fewer than one percent of boys, who might end up getting circumsized in middle-late childhood. My ex's brother is a typical example -- when he was about 6 years old he was having a bath and called down to his mum. Turns out he was cleaning himself, retracted the foreskin and couldn't then roll it back over afterwards. At that time (1970), the doc recommended emergency circumcision which was done under general anasthetic. The lad had a sore pee-pee for a few days afterwards and that was all. It is not something that ought to be the norm.

But as for cows who like to parade the fact they've chosen to do this or that to their children's genitals is once again complete overshare of personal information -- a big fat self-satisfying demonstration of power. Which leave sane non-parents laughing at them. How would they like it if their sons/daughters wore tshirts that read "My birth caused Janet Smith's labia to dangle down permanently by 1.2 inches"?

- - - - - - - -
"The death of creativity is a pram in the hallway"
- Cyril Connolly

You asked for my opionion on this issue and here it is:

I am totally opposed to circumcision and I applaud the parents who chose not to circumcise their sons. I am married to a man who is trying to restore his foreskin. He and many other men in his situation feel as though they have been robbed - it's a topic he's quite passionate about and I've learned a lot about the subject from him.

"And what of the Moomies who claim circumcision is the same as female genital mutilation? Umm, how about no? FGM is done to prevent young girls from becoming promiscuous, according to the cultures that perform FGM - circumcision is usually done for health reasons (or for aesthetic reasons). I'm sure there's at least one Moo out there who wanted her son circumcised in hopes of destroying his future sex drive o he wouldn't love any woman but Momma."

You're both wrong and right on that one. One thing that most people don't know in this country is that circumcision for non-religious reasons was started in the 1860's to reduce sexual pleasure and discourage masturbation, which at the time was thought to cause all kinds of illness, including mental illness. Male circumcision, like FGM, destroys some of the most sensitive, sexually responsive tissue in the body. This isn't an opinion. It's based on sound science:
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508429/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
These days, the popular opinion is that circumcision is done for health benefits. The evidence that it does have any health benefits at all is shaky at best and even the oft-cited research that circumcision reduces the rate of HIV transmission has been called into question.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
Not to mention, Doctors Opposing Circumcision have issued a statement about the increased risks of antibiotic-resistant staph infection. A healing circumcision wound makes a very attractive entry point for the infection (WARNING - the following link contains images that might be upsetting to some)
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/mrsa.html

But more to the point, since this is an operation that does make a significant change to a person's body, it really is something that should be left up to the individual, rather than having it forced on them as an infant. For this reason, I am also opposed to performing any kind of "corrective" surgery on an intersexed infant as well - especially since one of my best friends is intersexed (tetragametic chimera of the hermaphroditic variety) and had to live most of her life as the wrong sex because of a judgment call that someone else made about her body and her future. When you operate on an infant, you have no guarantee that said infant is going to grow up to be content with what was done to them.

Male Circumcision
I have mixed emotions about male circumcision at birth. Based on what I have read, there is little or no evidence that it's beneficial to the boy/man healthwise, but there's a great deal of evidence that there is loss of sensation. However, since most circumcized men never knew what it was like to have the foreskin, there is little to no anecdotal evidence which proves that point/objection one way or the other. I have asked every man (circumcized men) I have ever known very well if they would have chosen circumcision and they have all said yes. I have also asked the uncircumsized ones, I have two cousins whose parents were against it and two former boyfriends, and they say they are glad that they did NOT have it done. So, it appears that the men are happy with the results whichever they had done, or not. I never knew a male who would opt for circumcision as an older boy/teen though and certainly not any adult males I have ever known would stand in line to get cut. I do however, feel very strongly that whoever performs the circumcision should be extremely experienced/trained/knowledgeable to avoid some of the horrid mistakes which have happened on rare occasions. I think it ought to be a joint decision of the parents and considered a personal family matter, whatever the decision. If performed on an older male then it needs to be done by medical professionals and under anesthesia. I wish they would at least use a local on the babybee boys, but they may already and I just am not aware of it. I do NOT think it should be open for discussion like such casual conversation, "So, you are going to cook out on the BBQ tonight and BTW, was Shitford's dick cut when he was born?" Personally, I think a cut man looks better.

Female circumcision
While I am sure there are exceptions, I know of no reason a female should be subjected to circumcision. I have looked on female genital mutiliation sites in the past and they are rather graphic and specific in detailing how these take place and it's an absolute nightmare. If you have a strong stomach then google it and you can see plenty who have medical pictures of the mutiliations and it's rather gross. Basically, they forcefully hold down a young girl aged 8-12 and cut off all of her exterior genitalia including the entire clitoral region. Of course this is done without anesthesia or sanitary conditions. Then the remaining roomful of women are invited to poke their fingers into the bloody gaping hole that used to be her clitoris to make sure all of the tissue has been removed. Then, they pull what skin is leftover together and sew it up, down, and over her urethra opening and only leave a pencil eraser sized opening over part of the vaginal opening for sex and menstrual flow. Juding by the pictures I have seen, there is NO WAY this doesn't cause severely painful sex and isn't ripped wide open after childbirth. So, I am sure they just continue to re-suture it all up after each kyd and perhaps as needed to make their husbands happy. They all have recurrent vaginal and urinary tract infections and a host of other problems relating to incontinence, pain, emotional distress, etc.......for the rest of their lives. I am dead set against this procedure but I realize there are rare medical conditions that require a female circumcision. However, they need to be performed by medical professionals and under sanitary conditions and under anesthesia. I think that a medically necessary female circumcision is VASTLY different than female genital mutilation.

Sex reassignment surgery on infants/children
I formed my opinion on this one after watching a very well made documentary which involved the lives of several genetic males who were born with varying "deformed" penis'/genitalia including one botched circumcision and there was one who was genetically intersexed and they amputated all exterior evidence of his maleness and just called him HenriETTA instead of Henry, even though he was genetically XY. I was appalled that even in the 50's and 60's people could be so fucking stupid to believe that you could just cut off a genetic male's penis, surgically cut him a vagina, grow his hair out, stick a pink dress on him with a matching hair ribbon and expect him to behave like a female. The level of ignorance regarding these horrid choices is beyond my comprehension. I understand that outwardly they ALL had the best of intentions, but I tend to doubt their motives. I think that the parents didn't want a "freak" baybee and with a little prodding from the medical community they traded John for Johanna and had some absurd notion that a pink blanket would make him a her. I am COMPLETELY opposed to sex reassignment surgery on kyds. WHEN AND IF they decide to undergo this surgery, are able to make their own decisions about their own sexuality, should be the time when reassignment surgery takes place and not before.

Why are people so afraid of an intersexed person? Why are they so afraid that human intersexuality is actually a common occurrence in nature but has just been kept hidden for centuries? Personally, I believe it's because it would dispel the myth that biblically anything other than ONE man and ONE woman, who have all of the "correct" biological equipment, should marry and/or procreate. I think that possibly all of these "eunichs" of biblical times were perhaps either intersexed, transgendered, or possibly homosexual males rather than just castrated men like has always been believed. Since they didn't have reassignment surgeries back then and homosexuality was "out", this would be a logical deduction. LOTS of words are lost in biblical translations and afterall, the men who translated it to English were paid supporters of King James. So, I think that perhaps it's possible that they MAY have been so inclined to interpret scripture in a way which slanted to their boss' pious belief systems, rather than the truth.

In answer to the topic starter's original question about why are moocows so concerned and anti-circ is simple to me. It's the "in" cause to be for at this time and they are too narrow minded, shallow, and ignorant to develop their own opinions much like the extended breast feeding, co-sleeping, homeskooling, and SAHMoo-ism. These whores wouldn't know an original idea or opinion if it jumped up and bit them on their fat asses.

I'm for mc.

---

lab mom

Hmm. I personally prefer a partner with a circ. I think it tends to be cleaner--just my opinion. That said, I tend to think that in the case of kids, the question of whether or not to circ is akin to that of abortion. It's the guy's (or in the case of abortion, woman's) body; they should be the only ones to make the decision whenever they're ready. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of doing essentially cosmetic surgery on an infant. But if he's 18, and informed about all the pros and cons of either side, then he can make the choice for himself.

As to why modern moms are so hepped about anti-circ; well, they're making a show of how enlightened they are by rejecting those silly sheep who circ (and joining the silly sheep who don't circ).

Because it's new and trendy and all the moo's are doing it.

Just like not getting their kid vaccinated.

I'm not gonna comment on circumcision itself but...

>>>>>Because it's new and trendy and all the moo's are doing it.

Just like not getting their kid vaccinated.



I agree with the comment above. I feel that modern moos reject EVERYTHING our parunts did.

I try to analyze where that comes from on a 'group think' level.

Our parents spanked, and punished with groundings and the taking away of privileges, they don't.

Our parents didn't let us all look like Jabba the Hut on a mass level throughout the population, they do.

Our parentslet us go out and play and be active, basically pretty hands off, but we knew the limits they instilled in us, they don't and kids only play at home.

They breast feed a long time, our parents try to ween off (if affordable) and get on with their lives.

Our parents let us play, and let us read with them, etc etc, but now they have to go to gymboree, baby yoga, whatever other classes, to get their learning skills tuned up.

OUr parents made us part of THEIR lives, now kyds are the parunts lives.

Our parents must have put in more 'quality' time because it seems like we were more controled because they put their foot down, now parunts spend 24/7 with the brats and they ...act like brats, little to no self-control.

We went to the schools that were in the 'hood, if our parents didn't like them, they might send us to a parochial in the 'hood, now parunts move to high heaven for the "best" schools, or home-school.

Before the world was there to learn about and adapt to, now, the world is bubble wrapped as parunts are risk adverse and their brats are oh so fragile.

We worked as teens, right now, I don't know a Caucasian teen who works or does anything on their own, like drive themselves to college or pay for their own cell.

They over-analyze every aspect of parunting and come to the conclusion that the 'old' way is wrong and the new way is better. I can't help on some level, as a group, modern parunts have some deep-seeded hatred or resentment regarding their parents, but won't admit it out loud, so they declare New frangled ways for everything, including vaccinations and penis cutting on a mass level.

And, they are blind to the outcome of severely obese kyds, with scruvvy, small pox, and zero social skills, even amoungst themselves.

So many moo's are anti, because other moo's are.
If those same moo's were rubbing baby crap on their faces at night and dirnking urine, those same sheeple moo's would do the same.
Pathetic sheeple are useless and can't think for themself.

If we live in an age where it seems that many parents refuse to do really basic things like wean or potty train their children, they're probably also not teaching their children proper hygiene, which can cause significant problems if you are uncircumcised.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

With moo's nothing is private. They're more than happy to crow about their child's "achievements". "My daughter has a yeast infection because I didn't want to stifle her creative wiping technique", "My son is so clever, he's figured out that he can shit in the yard!", "Did I tell you about the corrective surgery they had to do on my flappy ol' vag?"

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me