Iceland to ban male circumcision

[Melech 9,900]

4 minutes ago, Fable said:

The 'baby' has no interests - it can't feel pain, it's not conscious. The 'baby' has 0 wants. 

You could argue a lot of things would be 'safer' for those involved if it was legalised. I'm sure if Dog fighting was legalised, the dogs that where unfortunately inevitably going to be involved in dog fighting would probably be better off. I'm sure that they would have better access to veterinary care, as owners wouldn't be worried of being prosecuted for abuse or having their animals taken from them, there would be standards regarding the health of the dogs before such fights, there would be referees to make sure the dogs didn't fight to death. I don't think that is a good enough reason to have state-sanctioned animal abuse. Making dog fights illegal may lead to the animals involved having less protections - but ultimately protects the vast majority of dogs.

The number of parents who would risk their child's health even further by resorting to dubious methods would no doubt be small in numbers. For something that's not life threatening, not medically necessary and for a procedure that could still be done later in life (by the age of 15 or 16) the number of people willing to mutilate their child's genitals would be small. I don't think the parents who would circumcise regardless should be enough of a reason to have state-sanctioned genital mutilation.  Making circumcision illegal may lead some irresponsible, abusive parents to put their child in greater risk - but ultimately it protects the vast majority of children.

To dismiss the issue as "just a bit of skin" removed while ignoring the pain of the men who are expressing the shame, resentment, pain from their circumcisions is pretty insensitive I think. But you have shown no concern at all for the babies, children, adults who have undergone circumcision and have found it to be a traumatic, painful and largely upsetting event.

And the thing is, I think most people here are cool with circumcision - they just want to know that it was performed on a consenting, informed adult. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child.  We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

 

It's mutilation - it's what the victims of circumcision call it and it's just true from a definitional standpoint:

"to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts".

Of course it's not equivalent to FGM, but just because many forms of FGM are far worse does not mean that male circumcision isn't a form of mutilation. 

You can go read the testimony of hundreds of men here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

Studies and polls consistently show that uncircumcised men are far more likely to be dissatisfied with their circumcision status and far more likely to feel resentful of their circumcision than uncut men. Up to 30% of circumcised men report feeling unhappy with their circumcision status compared to 3.7% of uncut men.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/154/6/769.short

Bottom line is that  infant/child circumcision is an unethical medical practice that is performed on unconsenting and non-informed patients. It's a form of genital mutilation that studies have shown is traumatising, distressing and harmful.

Some studies such as this 2007 study by Lander et al: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/419531?redirect=true actually had to be discontinued because of ethical concerns. In studying the safety and effectiveness of current anesthetics used in circumsicion the babies without anesthetics endured so much pain that some began choking and one even had a seizure. When studying the circumcised infants they discovered the pain after the procedure was  “severe” and “persistent” regardless of whether they had used anesthetics or not.

Other studies (Taddio et al., 1997 ; Anand & Scalzo, 2000 ; Victoria et al., 2013) have shown found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems and that painful procedures including circumcision in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders.

Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).

Research has demonstrated that medical traumas in childhood and adolescence share many of the same psychological elements of childhood abuse, such as physical pain, fear, loss of control, and the perception that the event is a form of punishment (Nir, 1985; Shalev, 1993, Shopper, 1995). 

Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their circumcision experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault.  Kennedy (1986) detailed the psychological effects of circumcision in a case study describing the psychotherapy of a boy who was circumcised at three years of age. The sense of inadequacy, feelings of victimization, and violent sexual fantasies experienced during this boy’s adolescence were found to be both consciously and unconsciously linked to his experience with losing part of his penis (Kennedy, 1986).  In a study examining the psychological effects of circumcision on boys between four and seven years of age, Cansever (1965) used psychological testing to measure boys’ level of distress.  The results of the study indicated that circumcision was perceived as an aggressive attack on the body that left children feeling damaged and mutilated (Cansever, 1968).  Cansever (1968) also noted that these boys experienced changes in body image (with many feeling smaller and incomplete), feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, as well as a tendency to withdraw psychologically. 

I could go on and on with study after study, but it doesn't seem like you actually take the pain of these men seriously, it doesn't seem like you consider them at all when forming your opinion. The truth is the research shows circumcision is harmful when performed on infants and children - we don't interfere with the genitals of children in any other way, we consider it abusive, but for some reason people think subjecting them to a painful procedure that alters their genitals does nothing at all.

I really enjoy reading you posts. I wasn't educated at all about the topic, but your directing to studies etc is really interesting. 

[Dominic 11,922]

13 minutes ago, Fable said:

The 'baby' has no interests - it can't feel pain, it's not conscious. The 'baby' has 0 wants. 

You could argue a lot of things would be 'safer' for those involved if it was legalised. I'm sure if Dog fighting was legalised, the dogs that where unfortunately inevitably going to be involved in dog fighting would probably be better off. I'm sure that they would have better access to veterinary care, as owners wouldn't be worried of being prosecuted for abuse or having their animals taken from them, there would be standards regarding the health of the dogs before such fights, there would be referees to make sure the dogs didn't fight to death. I don't think that is a good enough reason to have state-sanctioned animal abuse. Making dog fights illegal may lead to the animals involved having less protections - but ultimately protects the vast majority of dogs.

The number of parents who would risk their child's health even further by resorting to dubious methods would no doubt be small in numbers. For something that's not life threatening, not medically necessary and for a procedure that could still be done later in life (by the age of 15 or 16) the number of people willing to mutilate their child's genitals would be small. I don't think the parents who would circumcise regardless should be enough of a reason to have state-sanctioned genital mutilation.  Making circumcision illegal may lead some irresponsible, abusive parents to put their child in greater risk - but ultimately it protects the vast majority of children.

To dismiss the issue as "just a bit of skin" removed while ignoring the pain of the men who are expressing the shame, resentment, pain from their circumcisions is pretty insensitive I think. But you have shown no concern at all for the babies, children, adults who have undergone circumcision and have found it to be a traumatic, painful and largely upsetting event.

And the thing is, I think most people here are cool with circumcision - they just want to know that it was performed on a consenting, informed adult. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child.  We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

 

It's mutilation - it's what the victims of circumcision call it and it's just true from a definitional standpoint:

"to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts".

Of course it's not equivalent to FGM, but just because many forms of FGM are far worse does not mean that male circumcision isn't a form of mutilation. 

You can go read the testimony of hundreds of men here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

Studies and polls consistently show that uncircumcised men are far more likely to be dissatisfied with their circumcision status and far more likely to feel resentful of their circumcision than uncut men. Up to 30% of circumcised men report feeling unhappy with their circumcision status compared to 3.7% of uncut men.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/154/6/769.short

Bottom line is that  infant/child circumcision is an unethical medical practice that is performed on unconsenting and non-informed patients. It's a form of genital mutilation that studies have shown is traumatising, distressing and harmful.

Some studies such as this 2007 study by Lander et al: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/419531?redirect=true actually had to be discontinued because of ethical concerns. In studying the safety and effectiveness of current anesthetics used in circumsicion the babies without anesthetics endured so much pain that some began choking and one even had a seizure. When studying the circumcised infants they discovered the pain after the procedure was  “severe” and “persistent” regardless of whether they had used anesthetics or not.

Other studies (Taddio et al., 1997 ; Anand & Scalzo, 2000 ; Victoria et al., 2013) have shown found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems and that painful procedures including circumcision in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders.

Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).

Research has demonstrated that medical traumas in childhood and adolescence share many of the same psychological elements of childhood abuse, such as physical pain, fear, loss of control, and the perception that the event is a form of punishment (Nir, 1985; Shalev, 1993, Shopper, 1995). 

Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their circumcision experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault.  Kennedy (1986) detailed the psychological effects of circumcision in a case study describing the psychotherapy of a boy who was circumcised at three years of age. The sense of inadequacy, feelings of victimization, and violent sexual fantasies experienced during this boy’s adolescence were found to be both consciously and unconsciously linked to his experience with losing part of his penis (Kennedy, 1986).  In a study examining the psychological effects of circumcision on boys between four and seven years of age, Cansever (1965) used psychological testing to measure boys’ level of distress.  The results of the study indicated that circumcision was perceived as an aggressive attack on the body that left children feeling damaged and mutilated (Cansever, 1968).  Cansever (1968) also noted that these boys experienced changes in body image (with many feeling smaller and incomplete), feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, as well as a tendency to withdraw psychologically. 

I could go on and on with study after study, but it doesn't seem like you actually take the pain of these men seriously, it doesn't seem like you consider them at all when forming your opinion. The truth is the research shows circumcision is harmful when performed on infants and children - we don't interfere with the genitals of children in any other way, we consider it abusive, but for some reason people think subjecting them to a painful procedure that alters their genitals does nothing at all.

Lets stop exposing infants and children to invasive, non-consensual, uninformed surgical procedures and instead allow them to make their own decisions when they reach maturity and are able to consent. Simple. 

Wow this post. Researched, thoughtful and well put together. Impressive

[ryanripley 86,575]

35 minutes ago, nobreaks said:

anti-circumcision nutjobs make me laugh omg enjoy your ugly dic

yet the "nutjobs" are the only ones providing science and facts  

[ryanripley 86,575]

39 minutes ago, Fable said:

The 'baby' has no interests - it can't feel pain, it's not conscious. The 'baby' has 0 wants. 

You could argue a lot of things would be 'safer' for those involved if it was legalised. I'm sure if Dog fighting was legalised, the dogs that where unfortunately inevitably going to be involved in dog fighting would probably be better off. I'm sure that they would have better access to veterinary care, as owners wouldn't be worried of being prosecuted for abuse or having their animals taken from them, there would be standards regarding the health of the dogs before such fights, there would be referees to make sure the dogs didn't fight to death. I don't think that is a good enough reason to have state-sanctioned animal abuse. Making dog fights illegal may lead to the animals involved having less protections - but ultimately protects the vast majority of dogs.

The number of parents who would risk their child's health even further by resorting to dubious methods would no doubt be small in numbers. For something that's not life threatening, not medically necessary and for a procedure that could still be done later in life (by the age of 15 or 16) the number of people willing to mutilate their child's genitals would be small. I don't think the parents who would circumcise regardless should be enough of a reason to have state-sanctioned genital mutilation.  Making circumcision illegal may lead some irresponsible, abusive parents to put their child in greater risk - but ultimately it protects the vast majority of children.

To dismiss the issue as "just a bit of skin" removed while ignoring the pain of the men who are expressing the shame, resentment, pain from their circumcisions is pretty insensitive I think. But you have shown no concern at all for the babies, children, adults who have undergone circumcision and have found it to be a traumatic, painful and largely upsetting event.

And the thing is, I think most people here are cool with circumcision - they just want to know that it was performed on a consenting, informed adult. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child.  We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

 

It's mutilation - it's what the victims of circumcision call it and it's just true from a definitional standpoint:

"to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts".

Of course it's not equivalent to FGM, but just because many forms of FGM are far worse does not mean that male circumcision isn't a form of mutilation. 

You can go read the testimony of hundreds of men here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

Studies and polls consistently show that uncircumcised men are far more likely to be dissatisfied with their circumcision status and far more likely to feel resentful of their circumcision than uncut men. Up to 30% of circumcised men report feeling unhappy with their circumcision status compared to 3.7% of uncut men.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/154/6/769.short

Bottom line is that  infant/child circumcision is an unethical medical practice that is performed on unconsenting and non-informed patients. It's a form of genital mutilation that studies have shown is traumatising, distressing and harmful.

Some studies such as this 2007 study by Lander et al: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/419531?redirect=true actually had to be discontinued because of ethical concerns. In studying the safety and effectiveness of current anesthetics used in circumsicion the babies without anesthetics endured so much pain that some began choking and one even had a seizure. When studying the circumcised infants they discovered the pain after the procedure was  “severe” and “persistent” regardless of whether they had used anesthetics or not.

Other studies (Taddio et al., 1997 ; Anand & Scalzo, 2000 ; Victoria et al., 2013) have shown found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems and that painful procedures including circumcision in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders.

Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).

Research has demonstrated that medical traumas in childhood and adolescence share many of the same psychological elements of childhood abuse, such as physical pain, fear, loss of control, and the perception that the event is a form of punishment (Nir, 1985; Shalev, 1993, Shopper, 1995). 

Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their circumcision experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault.  Kennedy (1986) detailed the psychological effects of circumcision in a case study describing the psychotherapy of a boy who was circumcised at three years of age. The sense of inadequacy, feelings of victimization, and violent sexual fantasies experienced during this boy’s adolescence were found to be both consciously and unconsciously linked to his experience with losing part of his penis (Kennedy, 1986).  In a study examining the psychological effects of circumcision on boys between four and seven years of age, Cansever (1965) used psychological testing to measure boys’ level of distress.  The results of the study indicated that circumcision was perceived as an aggressive attack on the body that left children feeling damaged and mutilated (Cansever, 1968).  Cansever (1968) also noted that these boys experienced changes in body image (with many feeling smaller and incomplete), feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, as well as a tendency to withdraw psychologically. 

I could go on and on with study after study, but it doesn't seem like you actually take the pain of these men seriously, it doesn't seem like you consider them at all when forming your opinion. The truth is the research shows circumcision is harmful when performed on infants and children - we don't interfere with the genitals of children in any other way, we consider it abusive, but for some reason people think subjecting them to a painful procedure that alters their genitals does nothing at all.

Lets stop exposing infants and children to invasive, non-consensual, uninformed surgical procedures and instead allow them to make their own decisions when they reach maturity and are able to consent. Simple. 

oh wow, this is insaneeeee! especially the PTSD parts!   thank you for this  

edit: i just realised that websites like webMD would never list any of these side effects when the proof is right here, how scary is that  

[Bebe 17,289]

6 minutes ago, ryanripley said:

oh wow, this is insaneeeee! especially the PTSD parts!   thank you for this  

edit: i just realised that websites like webMD would never list any of these side effects when the proof is right here, how scary is that  

Yeah it's shocking! I think it's just been conventional wisdom for so long that circumcision is completely fine that people haven't really questioned it - but when you think about it, it does make sense.

Like I mentioned, people recognise that an adult interfering with an infant or child's genitals in any other context is wildly inappropriate, damaging and traumatising - it makes sense that an extremely painful procedure that's performed on a infant/child's genitals, permanently physically alters how the genitals look and reduces sensation to the genitals would also be a damaging and traumatising event. It's difficult because the trauma so often occurs almost straight after birth, early into infancy, or during childhood, so many people don't really know the effect it's had on them. It's also difficult for people to associate their otherwise loving and supportive parents, with abuse - but most parents just don't know better.

It reminds me a lot about the debate on spanking as discipline, which happens to be another contentious argument. Spanking is falling out of fashion as more people learn about the effects spanking has on a child - but it was (and in some households still is) conventional wisdom that spanking was perfectly reasonable and had no long term impacts.

Studies show that it can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children but because the abuse is on minors, they internalise the abuse, they trust their parents or guardians and many grow up thinking "Well I was an aggressive, anti-social, crazy kid! What else could my parents do? It didn't have any negative effect on me!" not realising that those behaviours are probably actually symptoms caused by spanking and that those symptoms ended up being the justification for more spanking, which ended up as a cycle. 

I don't blame parents/guardians who circumcise their kids or spank them, I don't think they're evil people, they grew up the same way, they don't realise the harm and they think "well it's how I grew up and I seem okay, I'm sure it's good for my kids too". More and more people are recognising the harms of these things though which is good, it can just be hard to shake people out of these beliefs - because they grew up in a society where the behaviour is normal and often even encouraged.

 

[ryanripley 86,575]

4 minutes ago, Fable said:

Yeah it's shocking! I think it's just been conventional wisdom for so long that circumcision is completely fine that people haven't really questioned it - but when you think about it, it does make sense.

Like I mentioned, people recognise that an adult interfering with an infant or child's genitals in any other context is wildly inappropriate, damaging and traumatising - it makes sense that an extremely painful procedure that's performed on a infant/child's genitals, permanently physically alters how the genitals look and reduces sensation to the genitals would also be a damaging and traumatising event. It's difficult because the trauma so often occurs almost straight after birth, early into infancy, or during childhood, so many people don't really know the effect it's had on them. It's also difficult for people to associate their otherwise loving and supportive parents, with abuse - but most parents just don't know better.

It reminds me a lot about the debate on spanking as discipline, which happens to be another contentious argument. Spanking is falling out of fashion as more people learn about the effects spanking has on a child - but it was (and in some households still is) conventional wisdom that spanking was perfectly reasonable and had no long term impacts.

Studies show that it can lead to increased aggression, antisocial behavior, physical injury and mental health problems for children but because the abuse is on minors, they internalise the abuse, they trust their parents or guardians and many grow up thinking "Well I was an aggressive, anti-social, crazy kid! What else could my parents do? It didn't have any negative effect on me!" not realising that those behaviours are probably actually symptoms caused by spanking and that those symptoms ended up being the justification for more spanking, which ended up as a cycle. 

I don't blame parents/guardians who circumcise their kids or spank them, I don't think they're evil people, they grew up the same way, they don't realise the harm and they think "well it's how I grew up and I seem okay, I'm sure it's good for my kids too". More and more people are recognising the harms of these things though which is good, it can just be hard to shake people out of these beliefs - because they grew up in a society where the behaviour is normal and often even encouraged.

 

i remember reading a couple of years ago about how the circumcised babies do actually "remember" the pain of the procedure and i'm so glad to see that what i read wasn't complete bullsh*t   (not glad for the babies tho )

and i swear, i get in debates about spanking once a month and every. single. time, the other person has said "well i was spanked and i turned out okay" as some kind of microphone drop argument  thinking it's okay to hit a child means you did not turn out "okay"  

i was spanked and i did NOT turn out okay, but now that i know spanking is a very likely cause of my mental health problems, i will never lay a hand on my child. these people should just watch endless episodes of Supernanny! she turns the brattiest and nastiest children in good little angels without laying a finger on them (unless they need to be placed in the naughty corner )!

children don't need to be terrified into being good  

[Bebe 17,289]

1 minute ago, ryanripley said:

i remember reading a couple of years ago about how the circumcised babies do actually "remember" the pain of the procedure and i'm so glad to see that what i read wasn't complete bullsh*t   (not glad for the babies tho )

and i swear, i get in debates about spanking once a month and every. single. time, the other person has said "well i was spanked and i turned out okay" as some kind of microphone drop argument  thinking it's okay to hit a child means you did not turn out "okay"  

i was spanked and i did NOT turn out okay, but now that i know spanking is a very likely cause of my mental health problems, i will never lay a hand on my child. these people should just watch endless episodes of Supernanny! she turns the brattiest and nastiest children in good little angels without laying a finger on them (unless they need to be placed in the naughty corner )!

children don't need to be terrified into being good  

YESS! Supernanny is the greatest! Love that show so much.

Don't want to get too off topic, but I remember being in a class at uni once and the tutorial was discussing spanking and whether parents should spank - there was this young woman who, I swear to god, was talking about how her brother was spanked all the time as a kid, like VIOLENTLY with a belt that left bruises but he was totally fine and normal and in the same breath started talking about the time he tried to electrocute everyone with a taser or how he would have violent tantrums like when he chased them around with a knife trying to cut them 

I didn't say anything because it's awkward to criticise a person's family to their face... But I just sat there like... maybe the extremely violent beatings played a part in that? Obviously not all kids respond to spanking like that, and not all abuse is that extreme - but I was just sitting there thinking "He is normal to you, because you grew up in an environment where that was normal... I'm sitting here like 'fuuuuuuuuck, that's some insane and awful abuse no wonder he was such an emotionally ill-adjusted, violent child'"

 

[LeFreakCestChic 29]

THANK YOU. Having a child circumcised and mutilated because of your harmful religious beliefs is on another scale of vile. Stay woke, Iceland. 

[Economy 52,864]

10 hours ago, Stevo said:

Doesn't circumcision take away more sexual pleasure?

According to most men who got circumcised later in life, yes it does

[FentyGa 14,340]

I think it should only be allowed if someone decides they want it as an adult. Then you can make your own choices, whatever.

[Oscar2 28]

The only problem I have about circumscion is that we take away when we should be adding. 

[melon 3,668]

Classique case of traditions, gotta love(!) those antiquated beliefs!

I find it sad that circumcised men feel disgusted/scared by the natural state of a penis and that people are defending circumcision at birth.  

I think you’ll notice that most men here who are uncircumcised do not think foreskin is weird in the slightest. 

It is natural, you experience more sexual pleasure and if for medical or personal reasons a person wishes to be circumcised when they can consent, I don’t think anyone would argue against that.

How about instead of trying to justify slicing a baby by saying it’s more hygienic, just teach your sons how to wash properly and practice sex safely?  

I don’t know about the rest of the world but I got taught how to wash properly and take care of myself by my family and at school, is this such a hard thing to do?

[FameHookah 4,841]

On 18/2/2018 at 12:46 PM, tomsches said:

Ok, so maybe this is too much information. But I have been thinking about circumcision a lot. My foreskin is so tight that I have problems pulling it back. It might be some sort of Phimosis, but it's not that I cannot pull it back at all, it's just very uncomfortable and I have to stretch the skin first.

However, I can still have sex without a problem (as a top as well). Like, during sex it doesn't hurt. of course, I have to tell the guy not to pull it back too far. but other than that there's no problem at all.

But still I wanted to remove it just to be on the safe side health-wise. But I am scared that it will hurt afterwards or that it messes up my sex life... Any advice? 

same.. i had phimosis when i was a teen and my first erections hurt like hell, now i dont have it but the head of my d is so big and thick that i cannot pull it all the way without hurting, thank god im a bottom, but i topped my bf twice and i bleed thanks to that  i nearly fainted... never topped since then

[Orion 121]

On 2/18/2018 at 8:53 PM, Sneaky Oliver said:

I still don’t understand the meaning behind it  it’s not common in my country (I think) 

Honey, there is no meaning behind it. It is pure religious. Let's assume there was a real medical need for that then why uncut people are not facing any issues? It is just ignorance and abuse. 

[Orion 121]

3 hours ago, FameHookah said:

same.. i had phimosis when i was a teen and my first erections hurt like hell, now i dont have it but the head of my d is so big and thick that i cannot pull it all the way without hurting, thank god im a bottom, but i topped my bf twice and i bleed thanks to that  i nearly fainted... never topped since then

I don't know why but you sounded so cute here.