cogtest

I think we are doing circumcisions for just some of the same reasons other cultures practice what we refer to as FGM or female genital mutilation. It's been going on for such a long time and no one wants their child to be the one without it. The procedure has gotten safer and now there is at least some anesthesia used for circumcisions, but the principle is still there. We are still forcibly changing the sex organs of our children with the danger, though minimal, of there being complications. As Dr. Whiting says Dr's are now saying this procedure is not necessary or even better in the long-term for the child. In a lot of areas in the US it's not really a question as to whether or not your doctor will circumcise your child. It's almost a given, and parents are just told when to come and get the procedure done. So, overall I think societal pressure to conform to this standard of what an acceptable looking penis is has caused parents to continue to allow circumcisions to be performed on their children.

Maybe I'm mistaken about the process and surgery, but circumcision has never been something that I see parallel to female genital mutilation. Maybe I have simply been desensitized to the idea, or maybe its because I'm female, but does everyone else view the two procedures as the same? I question the assertion that its just a cultural practice; didn't people legitimately use to believe that it was a health safety concern? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's taking it a step too far.

This could be an example of a meme that has been replicated through culture. Originially the idea was created that circumcision was necessary for a person's health, and this idea spread throughout our culture until most Americans have become circumsized. Although now health experts find it as an unnecessary practice, the meme has shaped cultural views in what a penis should look like. As a result, people will still circumsize their children so they won't be socially ostracized. The parents probably see that the small chance of damaging the penis in the circumsision is less likely than the chance of reproductive failure through social otracism if the child wasn't circumsized.

I think it might be a practice of conformity, at least in places where the norm is circumcision. Even though it started off as, and still is, a religious custom, no parent wants their kid to be the only one in the locker room with a funny looking package.

I agree with most of the comments that reiterate male circumcision as a product of culture in the United States. Although studies have proven that infants “shriek” in pain from this procedure that involves fatal risks, many parents choose in favor of circumcision to avoid the locker room heckling. It seems as though Western culture values norms and social standing. Parents are willing to take the medical risks to ensure a better social environment for their children. On the other hand, I know of many parents who have recently decided against circumcision. They think the procedure is a form of cruelty since the American Academy of Pediatrics says there are no benefits to the operation except in specific cases. The United States has seen a decrease in the popularity of these operations. Perhaps the cultural norm is changing.

While it is probably true that parents choose circumcision to prevent locker room heckling, I don't think this is the only (or even the main reason). If this were true, why is obesity such a problem in the U.S.? A very fat kid may be made fun of in the locker room more so than a kid with a funny penis would, and the very fat kid would definitely be more socially ostracized since his shortcoming would be more publically visible. Why aren't cosmetic procedures for kids with big ears common? What about children who are made fun of for a variety of other image-related reasons? Yet, parents across the nation often overlook these issues, while faithfully conforming to the notion of circumcision.

I think that many parents may choose circumcision simply because they are not aware of the fact that an uncircumcised penis can still be fully functional, healthy, AND clean. In fact, I have always heard, until now, that an uncircumcised penis cannot be as clean as its circumcised counterpart due to the build-up of bacteria underneath the foreskin. However, now that it has been shown that an uncircumcised penis can be just as clean, perhaps parents still choose tradition simply because they do not know.

The whole idea of circumcision just seems silly to me. Unless you're bound by Jewish custom, why risk the pain, the blood loss, and the slight possibility of a surgical mistake if there are no significant benefits?

As a defense to my prior statement I offer more reasons why I think circumcision is very much like fgm. In studies conducted in Kenya notably where people were asked to list reasons for performing clitorodectomies they time and time again stated that cleanliness was one issue as well as aesthetics. Women are much more desirable to their husbands if they have this procedure done. Like circumcisions clitorodectomies are also done against the child's own wishes and the culture is one that propagates this practice. Religion is another reason fgm is practiced, which has been traditionaly a reason supporting circumcision for many. It is also arguable that circumcisions like clitorodectomies originate out of some desire to repress sexuality and sexual desires. Again, I argue that when you look at the origin, the tradition, and the justifications for both of these practices you will find them to be much more similar.

I think Keary has a good point. I've never thought of FGM and circumcision as being similar, but it is a different way to look at it. However, I see two very important differences between the practices. First, circumcision removes a foreskin that has no purpose whatsoever. A penis without a foreskin functions just as well as one with. On the other hand, removal of the female clitoris has negative effects on the female sexually. Second, we also have to examine how these procedures are executed. Circumcision is a routine procedure done with anesthesia, in hospitals, and with sterilized instruments. There have been many reports of FGM being done with rusty razors, sharp rocks, scissors, etc. that are not sterilized. As a result of this, many girls suffer severe blood loss and infection. However, I do agree with Keary in that these two practices have similar principles. Why is it, then, that circumcision is acceptable and routine, while FGM is considered a terrible women's rights violation?

In response to Eugina's question... I think it is all a matter of cultural perspective. We clearly aren't using rusty razors and sharp rocks for circumcision. If a majority (previously) believed that this was beneficial to a male's health, then of course most parents would want their child to have the procedure done. The negative effects and dangerous consequences of FGM do not seem (to our culture) in any way beneficial. However, like Keary said, cultures that practice FGM list benefits (i.e. becoming more desirable to their husbands) that are not viewed as important in our own culture. Now that we know that circumcision serves no health benefits, our culture may stop this practice. Perhaps it will not be until the listed "benefits" of FGM in other cultures (religion?) become less important that this procedure is no longer done.

I agree with Tom that circumcision is most likely a result of cultural pressure, but I think that whether or not a man is circumcised has little to do with his reproductive sex. While it may effect random hookups, I doubt there are many cases where sex with the intent of reproduction was turned down because of the shape of their penis. It is more likely that parents choose to have the procedure done because they fear the "locker room" rejection and they feel the social pressure for themselves to do what good parents have done for decades.
But the pressure on parents is constantly changing. Healthcare is always coming out with "groundbreaking" new studies that completely contradict what they have told us before and the public is very quick to alter their lifestyle to do the new healthy thing. Since the new parent crowd is very susceptible to the newest studies because of all the baby books they read, I believe that when the news that circumcision has little healthcare value becomes common knowledge, the norm for circumcision will very quickly reverse and withing fifteen years it will be the kids that have been circumcised being laughed at in the locker room.

Thanks!!! movado watch Very nice site.I enjoy being here.

Wir sind froh, Sie auf unserem neu zu sehen! Wir hoffen, da? rolex replicas Sie das neue Design und die Bequemlichtkeit der Benutzung bewerten Sie.