Iceland proposes ban on male circumcision

[Deleted]

Completely agree! You should never be allowed to do these kind of things to children. If you want to be circumcised, for whatever reason, you can do so when you can consent. It is unbelievable that you would force this on non-consenting children.

[Ermelloth]

I'm of Jewish origins and I oppose circumcision. Indeed, it's a barbaric practice that, imo, has no place in modern world. Unless it's a medicinal necessity (phimosis cases, etc.)

[Deldavala]

Perhaps male circumcision should be done only on consenting adults but it is hard to imagine someone would want to undergo that procedure at an age when they are used to having foreskin and the procedure becomes more serious. Especially when there are widely believed yet unsubstantiated claims that it reduces sensation.

So if most people, if given the choice of circumcision at a consenting age, would chose not to do it. It kinda proves that its not something you should do on non-consenting children(unless its medical ofc)

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

if only parents could be held responsible for shit they do to their children?
Wait, they can.

I might be reading it wrong, but doesnt the article mention that its just circumcision actually done inside Iceland thats banned?

[Blobfish]

I am Circumcised and never had an STD

I did have a few flings with naughty ladies in my 20s & 30s

Maybe I was lucky, but research does show that Circumcised Males have less STDs

http://www.health.com/health/conditi...272051,00.html

Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV), but not syphilis.

This finding—published in a March, 2009 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine—adds to the evidence that there are health benefits to circumcision, the surgical removal of the penis foreskin, usually performed on newborns shortly after birth. It was already known that circumcision can reduce the risk of penile cancer, a relatively rare disease, as well as the risk of HIV infection.

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

Also "MGM" is a hotel in Las Vegas and a company that makes movies. That is not a proper term for describing circumcision and it arguably trivializes FGM.

cmon dawg, you are essentially saying that calling the fucking cutting off of male genital skin genital mutilation somehow trivialises the genital mutilation of females?
really man? really?

should we somehow ignore our issue because cases of female genital mutilation are more severe? (though less widely spread btw (cos unlike circumcision they are not a fucking norm))

[Deletedaccount1]

So if most people, if given the choice of circumcision at a consenting age, would chose not to do it. It kinda proves that its not something you should do on non-consenting children(unless its medical ofc)

It is an easier procedure to perform on children, they do not need to be sedated and they are not likely to feel pain. The risks and pain increase as an adult. Like I said earlier, if you waited for everyone in the developing world to get the procedure done as an adult you would likely see a sharp increase in HIV rates because many people in Africa don't wait until they are 18 to have sex or have kids. I would argue that every circumcision has medical benefits.

- - - Updated - - -

cmon dawg, you are essentially saying that calling the fucking cutting off of male genital skin genital mutilation somehow trivialises the genital mutilation of females?
really man? really?

should we somehow ignore our issue because cases of female genital mutilation are more severe? (though less widely spread btw (cos unlike circumcision they are not a fucking norm))

FGM is the norm in some parts of the world. It is also unequivocally, much worse than male circumcision. As I said earlier, type 3 FGM (the most common and most severe) is more akin to removing the entire male apparatus. If type 1 FGM were the norm, that comparison would be less egregious. Yet still, removing the clitoral hood has been shown to reduce sensation in women while removing male foreskin so far, has not been show to do so. It is not a fair comparison on any level and it is also a made-up acronym that you won't find in any dictionary or database.

[Deldavala]

It is an easier procedure to perform on children, they do not need to be sedated and they are not likely to feel pain. The risks and pain increase as an adult. Like I said earlier, if you waited for everyone in the developing world to get the procedure done as an adult you would likely see a sharp increase in HIV rates because many people in Africa don't wait until they are 18 to have sex or have kids. I would argue that every circumcision has medical benefits.

In the developing world I can see the argument for circumcision. Like you said the HIV, and the old arguments for cleanliness. But in the modern world where HIV is not widespread, cleanliness is basicly a non-issue since everyone can afford to shower atleast once a week, there is no need for circumcision besides religion or just general customs. So thats why I think circumcision should be a decsision made by someone of consenting age.

[Deleted]

Instead of banning male circumcision, they should legalize female circumcision. Seems only fair in countries with equal rights. I mean, it's just a bit of skin any way, right?

[Zephyr Storm]

All I know, is that once we have the technology to completely modify how a baby will look (eye color, hair color, body build, skin tone, etc etc), every single person in this thread so strongly against circumcision had better be there beating their chests and screaming how wrong it is. After all, that’s nothing more than the parents imposing their idea of a perfect child upon their unborn child who may not later agree with what their parents wanted for them.

If you don’t oppose that as well, then you all are nothing but a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

FGM is the norm in some parts of the world. It is also unequivocally, much worse than male circumcision. As I said earlier, type 3 FGM (the most common and most severe) is more akin to removing the entire male apparatus. If type 1 FGM were the norm, that comparison would be less egregious. Yet still, removing the clitoral hood has been shown to reduce sensation in women while removing male foreskin so far, has not been show to do so. It is not a fair comparison on any level and it is also a made-up acronym that you won't find in any dictionary or database.

aye i agree its infinitely worse, but that does not mean that getting our dick skin cut off is not an issue. to swell this kinda thinking into very extreme proportions; should we say that issues like crime in my own country are not important simply because there are bigger issues like wars, small or large, being waged in different parts of the world?
I believe you will answer in the negative to my exaggeration.

And though i understand that far from all kids who have been circumcised complain about it, the fact that most adults choose not to go through the process is a good indicator of what a kids opinion on it might be (in non-medical cases of course).

you can look at acronyms in two ways i feel:
1. every acronym is made up, because it needs to be made up to be used.
2. acronyms are simply a tool to shorten a phrase into an abbreviation or an initialism.

in either of those cases, the fact that its not in common use yet, simply means we should use it and you should stop thinking that just cos an acronym is not in common use means an issue is not present,

[Deleted]

The type of FGM that you describe is quite rare according to the WHO. Perhaps male circumcision should be done only on consenting adults but it is hard to imagine someone would want to undergo that procedure at an age when they are used to having foreskin and the procedure becomes more serious. Especially when there are widely believed yet unsubstantiated claims that it reduces sensation.

At least in Africa as well, if circumcision was only practiced on adults it would lose much of its benefit of reducing HIV rates among people under 18 which is a very common sexual demographic in that part of the world.

Also "MGM" is a hotel in Las Vegas and a company that makes movies. That is not a proper term for describing circumcision and it arguably trivializes FGM.

Just because something is rare doesn't mean that its not done nor does it mean that it isn't just as invasive or even less as MGM forms that are in practice.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...n-medical-myth
http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...giene-and-stds

MGM being somehow anti-aids is a myth, it really doens't affect HIV infection in any meaningful way.

Also, MGM is just as bad as FGM, it doesn't trivialize FGM. What you do however is trivializing MGM, somehow you are okay with mutilating the genitals of males for no apparent reason what so ever.

[Garnier Fructis]

All I know, is that once we have the technology to completely modify how a baby will look (eye color, hair color, body build, skin tone, etc etc), every single person in this thread so strongly against circumcision had better be there beating their chests and screaming how wrong it is. After all, that’s nothing more than the parents imposing their idea of a perfect child upon their unborn child who may not later agree with what their parents wanted for them.

If you don’t oppose that as well, then you all are nothing but a bunch of pathetic hypocrites.

I've long been against the idea of genetically modifying people for cosmetic reasons.

Though I strongly suspect that you're more interested in calling people hypocrites than making sure that people are consistent.

[Deleted]

Why not, by default, remove appendicitis to all babies.

By pro-circumsision's logic, it has only good effects. It's a simple procedure, with no negative effect and only good effects.
It even makes boy rad, cause a girl gotta love a man with a scar !

Why also not remove the pinky's foot. They serve no purpose for the modern human. If society found it more "aestetic" to remove it, would you be for it?

Cause let's be clear "it's more aestetic" is a cultural thing. You were raised that way, you ought to think that way.

And about the good effects of circumcision, it very much unclear if it has some or not. While in doubt, why would you take a permanent decision for your infant son? Yeah, if he wants it at manhood, good for him, why would i care. But for an infant, where there is no 100% proven benefit, why would you take the 0.4% - 2% chance of complication? (For vaccination, there is a 100% proven effects of them so don't even begin with that, even if there's complications)

[Deleted]

It is an easier procedure to perform on children, they do not need to be sedated and they are not likely to feel pain.

You do know that's wrong?
They totally feel pain - It's been done in MRI cameras to debunk this deeply delusional belief.

Like I said earlier, if you waited for everyone in the developing world to get the procedure done as an adult you would likely see a sharp increase in HIV rates because many people in Africa don't wait until they are 18 to have sex or have kids. I would argue that every circumcision has medical benefits.

The study in question, disputed to say the least, in any case We have condoms.

FGM is the norm in some parts of the world. It is also unequivocally, much worse than male circumcision.

Slight notice here though, Literally everything is illegal about FGM - Even things that are Completely comparable.

Yet still, removing the clitoral hood has been shown to reduce sensation in women while removing male foreskin so far, has not been show to do so. It is not a fair comparison on any level and it is also a made-up acronym that you won't find in any dictionary or database.

Yeah stop talking about this - You literally know nothing, Because removing the foreskin has been shown to reduce sensitivity.

[Deleted]

A few things,

You do not need to be an adult to give informed consent in many places in the developed world. If a young child wants to do it to belong in the religious community of their parents, they should be able to get it done. There are places with quite absolute restrictions on medical consent from minors of course but it is not the rule. The argument is mostly against doing it on an infant that cannot in any way be considered informed when the purpose is purely cosmetic. If your child loves going to church and wants to be circumcised to better belong to the community or if a teenager feels self conscious in the locker room and would rather be cut, let them do it, they can be sufficiently informed (barring mental disability).

Arguing about doing this in Iceland or in developed countries is not arguing it should be done everywhere. Of course in places where they barely have running water there are clear health benefits. I doubt that's the case in the OECD though.

People who compare male to female circumcision need to go check their privilege. There is absolutely no comparison to be made.

Being a minor makes you unable to make an informed consent, you simply can not make an informed decision like that when you are 8 or 9, even at 15 it would be hard to actually make the informed part of it really work. Specially religious reasons should be kept far away from this, parents could basically pressure their kids into undergoing this.
A teen feeling self conscious would not want to be mutilated because it would not be the norm anymore when these rules would go in effect. So no more pressure into mutilating your own body either, another good thing.
Finally, in a world without running water such an operation bares much more risk then it would in a hospital here. So even there this would not really be beneficial even if you would buy into the the whole "medical perks theory".

Its a barbaric practice that somehow is still accepted by some in society because of religion, there aren't any real benefits to speak of while risking severe unintended mutilation or even death. It might not happen all that often, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen at all either. So there is this risk that we take with infant boys for no apparent reason other then penis envy.

[Jyggalag]

I was 16 before I was circumcised for medical reasons. One of the most memorably horrific periods of my entire life. I had no idea what it was or that it needed to be done until my first sexual encounter, and was left rather embarrassed by the whole thing. I had to confess the issue to my mother, and despite her being extremely understanding and supportive, it was something that took me a long time to build up the courage to be able to talk about it.
I was out of school for over 2 months to recover and every day was hell. An infection had me go back for yet more stitches and added another 2 months to the recovery period.

The right decision in the end, but i'd have chosen to do it at birth if I could, and will be insisting that any sons I might have get it done right away.

[Deleted]

I was 16 before I was circumcised for medical reasons. One of the most memorably horrific periods of my entire life. I had no idea what it was or that it needed to be done until my first sexual encounter, and was left rather embarrassed by the whole thing. I had to confess the issue to my mother, and despite her being extremely understanding and supportive, it was something that took me a long time to build up the courage to be able to talk about it.
I was out of school for over 2 months to recover and every day was hell. An infection had me go back for yet more stitches and added another 2 months to the recovery period.

The right decision in the end, but i'd have chosen to do it at birth if I could, and will be insisting that any sons I might have get it done right away.

Just because you had this medical problem doesn't mean that everyone has this complication. The reason for a medical procedure like the one you had is only performed when it is beneficial to you, if there had not been any need for it, would you still want to do it now? Would you say to all males you meet now that they should go to the hospital and "have it fixed" right now because they might get an infection?

Then why would you want to do this to newborn babies if there really is no need for it?

[Noradin]

I was 16 before I was circumcised for medical reasons. One of the most memorably horrific periods of my entire life. I had no idea what it was or that it needed to be done until my first sexual encounter, and was left rather embarrassed by the whole thing. I had to confess the issue to my mother, and despite her being extremely understanding and supportive, it was something that took me a long time to build up the courage to be able to talk about it.
I was out of school for over 2 months to recover and every day was hell. An infection had me go back for yet more stitches and added another 2 months to the recovery period.

The right decision in the end, but i'd have chosen to do it at birth if I could, and will be insisting that any sons I might have get it done right away.

This sounds like a failure of your doctor (did you ever see one for regular checkups as a child?).
They should have caught this years earlier and in almost all cases this problem can be solved without surgery if caught at that time.
It is virtually impossible for a medical professional not to catch this problem if they check for it. Of course it invlolves touching there.

Anyways, your case would not be affected by this law, but I advise you to have your potential sons see a medical professional more often than you did for regular check-ups.

[Deleted]

Also, to those who think circumcision is just plainly more aesthetic, search for paracas skull modification and such. It was admitted by the society, with no negative effect and surely was found to be more aesthetic.

It is no less barbaric than circumcision.

ps : you can also look for lip plate and even lotus feet. It's all culturally admitted but barbaric nonetheless.