Ok, a question for you.
I know that body modification is popular with many folks. Tattoos and piercing are very common these days, even some of the more extreme practices like branding, face and body implants and tongue splitting are more main stream than they have been in thousands of years, but without exception they are practiced with the full consent of the “Victim” Indeed you not only have to want it, but you actually have to pay for someone to do it to you, you have a choice in other words. I assume in these situations, no one has any major moral problems with the practice for the most part.
However, is it right, that is, it morally right or acceptable in this day and age, to perform a circumcision on a boy or girl purely on religious or social grounds?
My view, can of worms time again, particularly with regard to the religious connection, however I feel that the practice should be banned for all people under the age of consent, once the person is allowed to have a tattoo legally, then they should also be able to get circumcised if they so wish.
Views, opinions?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Circumcision
last reply
67 replies
5.0k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Circumcision as you know is practised predominantly by various social groups as an expression of their faith and cultural rules. They don't bat an eyelid about it and will go on doing it whatever.
Equally, retaining the foreskin may well have been held in as much significance, in bye gone days; when religious differences were more pronounced.
Some of these operations do go badly wrong, particularly with female circumcisions. But there are already groups working, in such regions that practice this, to bring about change.
I just accept that its how the world turns. I think it would cause me a lot of concern if I was in one of those countries and I was ordered to have my own child operated on.
Then it would no doubt be very important how it was done. But I probably would not be in the position to have a say in it. I would just have to accept I was overpowered.
Which is what it is about. But as a baby you are very unlikely to carry those thoughts and feelings with you after the event.
Equally, retaining the foreskin may well have been held in as much significance, in bye gone days; when religious differences were more pronounced.
Some of these operations do go badly wrong, particularly with female circumcisions. But there are already groups working, in such regions that practice this, to bring about change.
I just accept that its how the world turns. I think it would cause me a lot of concern if I was in one of those countries and I was ordered to have my own child operated on.
Then it would no doubt be very important how it was done. But I probably would not be in the position to have a say in it. I would just have to accept I was overpowered.
Which is what it is about. But as a baby you are very unlikely to carry those thoughts and feelings with you after the event.
Quote by Stormwalker
but medical reasons aside, should we be systematically mutilating our children for religious and cultural reasons, or allowing others to do it?
personal opinion?
nope... don't think religion in particular should be used as a reason to inflict such practices on anyone, until the age of consent has been attained... and legal papers signed, and a thorough medical evaluation made of the potential participants current state of mind.... lol
then again, Im not allll the keen on religion on the whole, never mind some of the practices carried out in its name...
each to their own and all that, but blimey!
lp
I'm all for it for the health reasons alone.
Increasing the rate of male circumcision could slash cases of cervical cancer in women, according to a new report.
A team led by Xavier Castellsagué at Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona reviewed seven studies from five countries on a total of almost 2000 couples.
Women with "low-risk" partners - men who had previously had fewer than six sexual partners - had a similar risk of cervical cancer, whether their partner was circumcised or not. But women with "high-risk" partners were 58 per cent less likely to develop cervical cancer if their partner had been circumcised.
The team also found that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was present in almost 20 per cent of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than six per cent of circumcised men. HPV is sexually transmitted and contributes to the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Circumcision is important because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be especially vulnerable to infection.
A link between male circumcision and reduced risk of cervical cancer has long been suspected. But the new study quantifies that risk.
So get chopping boys ... its healthier for us swingers
DD
Increasing the rate of male circumcision could slash cases of cervical cancer in women, according to a new report.
A team led by Xavier Castellsagué at Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona reviewed seven studies from five countries on a total of almost 2000 couples.
Women with "low-risk" partners - men who had previously had fewer than six sexual partners - had a similar risk of cervical cancer, whether their partner was circumcised or not. But women with "high-risk" partners were 58 per cent less likely to develop cervical cancer if their partner had been circumcised.
The team also found that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was present in almost 20 per cent of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than six per cent of circumcised men. HPV is sexually transmitted and contributes to the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Circumcision is important because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be especially vulnerable to infection.
A link between male circumcision and reduced risk of cervical cancer has long been suspected. But the new study quantifies that risk.
So get chopping boys ... its healthier for us swingers
DD
Sex God
Good question this.
Many religious beliefs are rooted in practical public health or hygeine reasons.
Eating easily perishible meats in hot middle eastern countries - I think, originated to avoid widespread food poisoning.
I also think that circumcision was promulgated to avoid hygeine problems and this became part of a religion.
It is true that the health rationale for this is no longer valid - and so I would say that it is no longer valid on religious grounds. Unfortunately some people's blind adherence to religious practices is what discredits some religions.
So I say no - it is not right.
.
Many religious beliefs are rooted in practical public health or hygeine reasons.
Eating easily perishible meats in hot middle eastern countries - I think, originated to avoid widespread food poisoning.
I also think that circumcision was promulgated to avoid hygeine problems and this became part of a religion.
It is true that the health rationale for this is no longer valid - and so I would say that it is no longer valid on religious grounds. Unfortunately some people's blind adherence to religious practices is what discredits some religions.
So I say no - it is not right.
.
Quote by devondelight
I'm all for it for the health reasons alone.
Increasing the rate of male circumcision could slash cases of cervical cancer in women, according to a new report.
A team led by Xavier Castellsagué at Llobregat Hospital in Barcelona reviewed seven studies from five countries on a total of almost 2000 couples.
Women with "low-risk" partners - men who had previously had fewer than six sexual partners - had a similar risk of cervical cancer, whether their partner was circumcised or not. But women with "high-risk" partners were 58 per cent less likely to develop cervical cancer if their partner had been circumcised.
The team also found that Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) was present in almost 20 per cent of uncircumcised men, but in fewer than six per cent of circumcised men. HPV is sexually transmitted and contributes to the development of nearly all cases of cervical cancer. Circumcision is important because the inner lining of the foreskin is thought to be especially vulnerable to infection.
A link between male circumcision and reduced risk of cervical cancer has long been suspected. But the new study quantifies that risk.
So get chopping boys ... its healthier for us swingers
DD
Seriously, you would mutilate all male children because it will help lesson female cancer risk, bit harsh don’t you think? Follow that thought process onwards and see where it leads…….. :shock:
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc .. I much prefer a circumcised man to an uncircumcised man for giving oral sex. A lot of men taste aweful and I've even found bits :shock: around the glans :eeek: yes I know its to do with personal hygiene but it goes to show the truth about men having icky things lurking behind that foreskin.
The men I have been with don't have any problems with not having foreskin and they enjoy sex just as much as any other man. So if its healthier whats the problem. Certainly at 8 days old no one is going to remember the operation anyway.
DD
The men I have been with don't have any problems with not having foreskin and they enjoy sex just as much as any other man. So if its healthier whats the problem. Certainly at 8 days old no one is going to remember the operation anyway.
DD
Quote by Marya_Northeast
Why shouldn't people be allowed to follow the traditions and customs of their culture?
Firstly, it’s not just their customs its ours, that is, its a western thing too. Secondly, they should not be allowed because we are after all talking about genital mutilation of a child, many cultures have questionable customs, but is that sufficient reason to continue them?
Just because our society does not think it is right, does not make it wrong.
It’s child mutilation.
The western world do plenty that other cultures would balk at.
True, like this for example. So does it make it right?
Live and let live.
Quote by devondelight
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc ..DD
I'm not wishing to get personal on any level here DD, but unless there are medical reasons involved, breast implants, as far as Im aware, are a matter of choice, and again the proceedures would be done post age of consent and not for religious reasons... one of the points both Stormwalker & myself are making re circumcision... i think
>hope that makes sence?<
lp
No offence taken .. obviously you and Stormy decided in what you believe and are not going to change your mind on it. Thats your choice but I still maintain. I don't see it as mutilation as it doesn't actually stop a man from fully functional sex or urination .. mutilation to me means changing something so radically it cannot work as it was intended. For me the female cirmcumcision is mutilation cause they girl has her clitoris cut off and then her vagina and vulva sown up so she can't have sex and can only just pee out of a small hole. Now to me that is mutilation as the girls suffer terrible infections directly as a result of the operation where as male cirmcumcision does not interfere in the normal operating of the male part. I did say I agreed with it on health grounds rather than religious grounds. We will have to agree to differ here I think.
DD
DD
Quote by devondelight
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc ..
Women with implants have made a choice. Men circumcised for medical reasons or for religious or cultural reasons as adults have a choice, children don’t. Forget the rest, they are clearly well covered by law as it stands. My question is regarding children only and whether it is acceptable to perform such a procedure on someone who has no choice at all in the matter.
I much prefer a circumcised man to an uncircumcised man for giving oral sex. A lot of men taste aweful and I've even found bits :shock: around the glans :eeek: yes I know its to do with personal hygiene but it goes to show the truth about men having icky things lurking behind that foreskin.
Unpleasant I know but hardly worth undertaking mass cultural mutilation for is it?
The men I have been with don't have any problems with not having foreskin and they enjoy sex just as much as any other man. So if its healthier whats the problem.
No problem at all if its consensual, which it is not.
Certainly at 8 days old no one is going to remember the operation anyway.
Dose that make it ok then, and what about at ten or thirteen without any anaesthetic, what about female circumcision?
DD
BTW as i keep forgetting to post lots of neutral emoticons so folks know I’m not getting all nasty with it. Quote by Stormwalker
Why shouldn't people be allowed to follow the traditions and customs of their culture?
Firstly, it’s not just their customs its ours, that is, its a western thing too. Secondly, they should not be allowed because we are after all talking about genital mutilation of a child, many cultures have questionable customs, but is that sufficient reason to continue them?
No, it's not the "norm" for traditional British citizens to circumcise their young off-spring for anything other than health/medical reasons.
Who are we to tell other people what to do? To go against everything they believe in???
Just because our society does not think it is right, does not make it wrong.
It’s child mutilation.
If it's done wrong or "back street" yes. It causes genuine harm or injury. A basic male circumcision performed by a medical professional surely can't be considered "mutiliation" anymore than having your adenoids removed.
The western world do plenty that other cultures would balk at.
True, like this for example. So does it make it right?
Precisely. Society frowns on swinging. Doesn't make it wrong does it? Doesn't mean they have a right to stop us, does it?
Live and let live.
Quote by LondonPlaything
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc ..DD
I'm not wishing to get personal on any level here DD, but unless there are medical reasons involved, breast implants, as far as Im aware, are a matter of choice, and again the proceedures would be done post age of consent and not for religious reasons... one of the points both Stormwalker & myself are making re circumcision... i think
>hope that makes sence?<
lp
Yup! :thumbup:
Quote by LondonPlaything
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc ..DD
I'm not wishing to get personal on any level here DD, but unless there are medical reasons involved, breast implants, as far as Im aware, are a matter of choice, and again the proceedures would be done post age of consent and not for religious reasons... one of the points both Stormwalker & myself are making re circumcision... i think
>hope that makes sence?<
lp
hello what age of consent are you basing this on?
I was chopped when a baby and I have no recollection of it. It was done not for religious reasons but because I think it was thought a healthier option at the time. What DD says suggests that this is correct. My father was not chopped, nor did I get my son chopped, but at neither of those times was it advocated as desirable. As for performance and pleasure, I am well content with my lot.
Everything that I have heard and read about female circumcision sounds dreadful, and I would not wish this on anyone.
Everything that I have heard and read about female circumcision sounds dreadful, and I would not wish this on anyone.
Quote by felixx1416
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc ..DD
I'm not wishing to get personal on any level here DD, but unless there are medical reasons involved, breast implants, as far as Im aware, are a matter of choice, and again the proceedures would be done post age of consent and not for religious reasons... one of the points both Stormwalker & myself are making re circumcision... i think
>hope that makes sence?<
lp
hello what age of consent are you basing this on?
hello
sorry about that...popped off elsewhere...
errm...the legal age of consent that apply to all various forms of bodymodification I guess....
is it eighteen for tattooing?... that sounds ok to me...
however, Im niether a legal type, religious sort, nor a moral highgrounder... so it was simply a personal opinion...
yeah... eighteen, how does that sound?
lp
Sex God
When I had my first baby I was married to a man from a Catholic family. They were a nice family. Did'nt go to church every Sunday, but all the weddings, christenings and funerals were Catholic services including my wedding and my sons christening. Also all the men and boys in the family were circumcised. It was a catholic thing to do I was told.
It was'nt going to be the thing to do for my son I decided. He came out with a foreskin and unless he wanted to chop it off later it was staying.
I made the decision for him as he was'nt able to make the decision himself. I cried when he had the bloodtest on his heel done by the midwife. Thinking about him having his bits chopped about would have just about finished me off. :eeek:
I have been intimate with two willy's! 1 belonging to my Ex husband, it was circumcised as already mentioned and one belonging to Stormy which is'nt. As far as sex is concerned there is no reason for me to think that one is less hygenic than the other as both hubby's were very clean.
So FREE WILLY!!!! I say :giggle:
It was'nt going to be the thing to do for my son I decided. He came out with a foreskin and unless he wanted to chop it off later it was staying.
I made the decision for him as he was'nt able to make the decision himself. I cried when he had the bloodtest on his heel done by the midwife. Thinking about him having his bits chopped about would have just about finished me off. :eeek:
I have been intimate with two willy's! 1 belonging to my Ex husband, it was circumcised as already mentioned and one belonging to Stormy which is'nt. As far as sex is concerned there is no reason for me to think that one is less hygenic than the other as both hubby's were very clean.
So FREE WILLY!!!! I say :giggle:
Quote by Marya_Northeast
Why shouldn't people be allowed to follow the traditions and customs of their culture?
Firstly, it’s not just their customs its ours, that is, its a western thing too. Secondly, they should not be allowed because we are after all talking about genital mutilation of a child, many cultures have questionable customs, but is that sufficient reason to continue them?
No, it's not the "norm" for traditional British citizens to circumcise their young off-spring for anything other than health/medical reasons.
Who are we to tell other people what to do? To go against everything they believe in???
Just because our society does not think it is right, does not make it wrong.
It’s child mutilation.
If it's done wrong or "back street" yes. It causes genuine harm or injury. A basic male circumcision performed by a medical professional surely can't be considered "mutiliation" anymore than having your adenoids removed.
The western world do plenty that other cultures would balk at.
True, like this for example. So does it make it right?
Precisely. Society frowns on swinging. Doesn't make it wrong does it? Doesn't mean they have a right to stop us, does it?
Live and let live.
its perfectly normal for Jews, Muslims and many Catholics, to be routinely circumcised. It’s not big in the C of E to be sure.
I think it’s wrong to perform unnecessary medical procedures on children, I think it’s wrong to mutilate a childes sexual organs for no real reason. Do what you like to your self at 16 if you wish, just don’t do it to a child who has know choice in the matter
Would you be so happy if for example we had a cultural bent to remove inner labia as a matter of course?
I didn’t make myself clear then, by “this” I was talking about circumcision, not swinging.
Sex God
Quote by devondelight
They are not mutilated anymore than women with breast implants etc .. I much prefer a circumcised man to an uncircumcised man for giving oral sex. A lot of men taste aweful and I've even found bits :shock: around the glans :eeek: yes I know its to do with personal hygiene but it goes to show the truth about men having icky things lurking behind that foreskin.
The men I have been with don't have any problems with not having foreskin and they enjoy sex just as much as any other man. So if its healthier whats the problem. Certainly at 8 days old no one is going to remember the operation anyway.
DD
:shock: :shock: Fookin' hell!!
.
Quote by Stormwalker
When you say age of consent? age of consent for what?
Sorry Felixx, the same age you can have sex have a tattoo have a piersing etc.
But that is not the same for surgery a child under the age of sixteen can and do have the right to agree or disagree with medical treatment
The rights of parents in relation to medical matters concerning their children are subject to the ruling of the House of Lords in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority 3 All ER 402 (HL).
The case concerned a teenage child's right to consent to medical treatment without the parents' knowledge. Lord Fraser said that the degree of parental control varied according to the child's understanding and intelligence, and Lord Scarman further opined that parental rights only existed so long as they were needed to protect the property and person of the child. He said:
"As a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of 16 will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to enable him to understand fully what is proposed."
Quote by Stormwalker
I think it’s wrong to perform unnecessary medical procedures on children, I think it’s wrong to mutilate a childes sexual organs for no real reason. Do what you like to your self at 16 if you wish, just don’t do it to a child who has know choice in the matter
That is exactly how I feel :thumbup:
Not my body so I don't have the right to make decisions unless they are for medical purposes.
As for swinging with someone with or without a foreskin, I never give it a thought, they either have it or they don't
Quote by Stormwalker
However, is it right, that is, it morally right or acceptable in this day and age, to perform a circumcision on a boy or girl purely on religious or social grounds?
Personally I don't think it is.
I am going to refer to female genital mutilation (aka circumcision), as this is practised more widely for social rather than religious beliefs.
"The aim of the process is to ensure the woman is faithful to her future husband. Some communities consider girls ineligible for marriage if they have not been circumcised.
Girls as young as three undergo the process, but the age at which the operation is performed varies according to country and culture.
Health workers say that the operation is often carried out in unsanitary conditions.
Razor blades, scissors, kitchen knives and even pieces of glass are used, often on more than one girl, which increases the risk of infection.
Anaesthesia is rarely used.
Some girls die as a result of haemorraging, septicemia and shock.
It can also lead to long-term urinary and reproductive problems."
If anyone is unsure of what FGM is there are more grapic details
I realise the links are not the most up to date but the practice still goes on, and not for religious reasons for the most part. But to think that, "74,000 African women in Britain have undergone FGM and that 7,000 girls under the age of 16 are at risk" makes me want to raise awareness of the barbarity of the practice.
I saw a documentary on it quite a while ago now, a grandmother, a mother and a few aunts holding down a screaming 6 year old while she had her clitoris and labia cut off and her vagina sewn up, with a dirty scissors and a no anasthetic. Morally right?
Sex God
Quote by BiWelshMinx
However, is it right, that is, it morally right or acceptable in this day and age, to perform a circumcision on a boy or girl purely on religious or social grounds?
Personally I don't think it is.
I am going to refer to female genital mutilation (aka circumcision), as this is practised more widely for social rather than religious beliefs.
"The aim of the process is to ensure the woman is faithful to her future husband. Some communities consider girls ineligible for marriage if they have not been circumcised.
Girls as young as three undergo the process, but the age at which the operation is performed varies according to country and culture.
Health workers say that the operation is often carried out in unsanitary conditions.
Razor blades, scissors, kitchen knives and even pieces of glass are used, often on more than one girl, which increases the risk of infection.
Anaesthesia is rarely used.
Some girls die as a result of haemorraging, septicemia and shock.
It can also lead to long-term urinary and reproductive problems."
If anyone is unsure of what FGM is there are more grapic details
I realise the links are not the most up to date but the practice still goes on, and not for religious reasons for the most part. But to think that, "74,000 African women in Britain have undergone FGM and that 7,000 girls under the age of 16 are at risk" makes me want to raise awareness of the barbarity of the practice.
I saw a documentary on it quite a while ago now, a grandmother, a mother and a few aunts holding down a screaming 6 year old while she had her clitoris and labia cut off and her vagina sewn up, with a dirty scissors and a no anasthetic. Morally right?
I havent rid this as jen (my name for her) has forbidden it, she spent almost 45 minutes researching that, making me suffer waiting to talk to her
