Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device

It Should Be Illegal

it is child abuse plain and simple. i disowned my mother for it. any parent that would allow such an attrocity should be imprisoned.

omegastar013 omegastar013 26-30 5 Responses Oct 17, 2009

Your Response


Yes, you are right. It is Child Abuse, in that it abuses the child's inability to say "No, I will make my own decision when I am 18 and until then leave MY body alone."<br />
<br />
I am from southern Europe and I will not succumb to 'America bashing', but I think you are right. It was seen as a way of being somehow superior. In the UK it was progressed by puritanical Victorian attitudes which remained until the 80's. In Africa it is still seen as a way of preventing STD's and AIDS, which is utter nonsense and in Eastern and Central Europe certain religious groups maintain their dark age rituals.

omegastar013 and Tiffany22080: both of your profiles state that you are under 30. You cannot imagine what is was like before the 1980s. Most American hospitals circumcised with a vengeance, by default. There was NO support in print for leaving a child intact. Most ob-gyns, if asked, urged it (they stood to profit from that advice, of course). Mothers who tried to refuse were not infrequently treated in an insulting and abusive manner, using discourse tthat appealed to base fears of raising a nonconforming child. Even though the tip of the penis is about as private as it gets, having a penis tip whose appearance deviated from that of the majority was seen as a grave Faux Pas, a major social handicap.<br />
<br />
I blame American medicine, American prudishness, and the American middle class fear of nonconformity, and not individual parents. In those days, the vast majority of parents had no opportunity to make an informed choice.<br />
<br />
Circumcision without anesthesia is child abuse and sexual violence. Again, I blame American medicine for that.

I have always said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I am so glad I was not born a male for surely I would have been subjected to this horrid sexual ritual. As it is, I avoided it by my gender and my sons avoided it because of the research I did during the first one's pregnancy. I wouldn't have gone as far as disowning my parents but they would have never been allowed to forget my extreme disgust and uttter horror of having that done on me. And yes, I agree that RIC is child abuse.

You guys are getting carried away. Until Mothering magazine began publishing articles critical of routine infant circ (RIC), starting around 1977-78, there was ZERO support in print for leaving the penis alone. The AAP formally ruled that RIC was unnecessary, but this ruling received little publicity until about 1980 or so.<br />
<br />
Between 1940 and 1980, most USA maternity wards circumcised every baby boy within 48 hours of birth, unless the mother explicitly ob<x>jected. She usually was not asked if she approved. I would not bet that antenatal classes in those day always discussed this tender topic. Tens of millions of American men are circumcised simply because that was the default option.<br />
<br />
Doing it without anesthesia enjoyed the full support of the American medical profession. I blame them for reaching this appalling and irrational conclusion.<br />
<br />
Given these realities, I refuse to blame American parents who have raised circumcised sons.<br />
<br />
That the foreskin has sexual advantages is a conversation that mainstream USA began having with itself only 10-15 years ago.

Right on!!! I have 3 sons and none are circumcised. I think its a horrible ritual and honestly its not even medically neccesary.