Is Circumcision Right or Wrong? [Archive]

Elizabeth I

25th September 2011, 12:45 PM

I didn't say that very well, I realize. Look, I was so easily embarrassed, that I couldn't even look while I hung up my husband's underwear on the clothesline. I really didn't think I'd be able to teach my boys how to take care of their foreskins. I was just a kid myself.

And I've said I was wrong, so please don't flog me for things I cannot now change.
And for a long time in the U.S. it was presented to new mothers as a health issue, not just a hygiene issue. My husband and both my little brothers were circumcised.

ETA - however, asking as someone who can have no personal knowledge of the effects of the procedure, would someone mind sharing specific objections? Mostly all I've heard seems to amount to, "they had no right," and, actually, they did. They were your parents, and they either believed circumcision was better for your health or that it was necessary for religious reasons. That's not to say anyone has to agree, and I'd like to hear specifically what the disagreements are (aside from the obvious one that there's no evidence that the religious reasons are right.) Thank you!

slingblade

25th September 2011, 01:08 PM

Well, Elizabeth, for me now, the main problem is that it was their foreskin, not mine. I was badly misinformed, and I should have left their bodies alone in this regard and let them decide for themselves, later. It wasn't something that was going to kill them. It could have been left.

bikerdruid

25th September 2011, 01:14 PM

And for a long time in the U.S. it was presented to new mothers as a health issue, not just a hygiene issue. My husband and both my little brothers were circumcised.

ETA - however, asking as someone who can have no personal knowledge of the effects of the procedure, would someone mind sharing specific objections? Mostly all I've heard seems to amount to, "they had no right," and, actually, they did. They were your parents, and they either believed circumcision was better for your health or that it was necessary for religious reasons. That's not to say anyone has to agree, and I'd like to hear specifically what the disagreements are (aside from the obvious one that there's no evidence that the religious reasons are right.) Thank you!

as a circumcised male, and as someone who has always found the circumcised penis more attractive, i'm biased.

Milbrandt

25th September 2011, 01:22 PM

And ETA - however, asking as someone who can have no personal knowledge of the effects of the procedure, would someone mind sharing specific objections? Mostly all I've heard seems to amount to, "they had no right," and, actually, they did. They were your parents, and they either believed circumcision was better for your health or that it was necessary for religious reasons. That's not to say anyone has to agree, and I'd like to hear specifically what the disagreements are (aside from the obvious one that there's no evidence that the religious reasons are right.) Thank you!

Actually I don't think they have the right. They might be the parents, but that doesn't give them a free pass to do whatever they like with their son's foreskin.
I still have mine and I'm very glad I have. Without getting too much into detail, let's just say there's a lot of feeling in it, and I'd never have it removed for any other reason than if it would threaten my health.

If parents think it's necessary for religious reasons, they can believe that. But they believe that, not the child itself. To me it's not about the right or beliefs of the parents, because it's not their body. The way I see it, they have nothing to say in the matter. When the child is old enough (say, 18 years) to decide for himself, let him decide. Of course they could still be influenced by their parents to have it done, but then at least they've had the chance to play with their foreskin and know what it feels like.

As for the medical part, I'm no expert on that, but from all that I've read and heard about it, it's just not necessary. If there are no direct health risks caused by the foreskin, leave it on there. Just wash it like you wash other parts of your body. Nobody goes around chopping off their child's ears because they might get infected when you don't wash them.

maggot9779

25th September 2011, 02:11 PM

I think it's cruel to do it to a kid without their consent. It seems to me it's highly necessary and pretty much the only "benefit" is aesthetics.

If it's for a medical reason is another story.

Beerina

25th September 2011, 02:12 PM

The god who recommended them is a psychotic ass who should have his infinite head guillotined as a sick, diseased pervert.

Spaghetti

25th September 2011, 02:12 PM

I think it is wrong to circumcise a male, for the same reason it is wrong to circumcise a female. These days with good hygiene there is no problem with a foreskin.

I have read that removing the foreskin removes a bunch of very sensitive nerve endings, so the pleasure experienced during sex is reduced. Also, it causes unnecessary pain in the infant and i have also heard if done wrong can cause problems later in life with erections (tight skin and sometimes tearing). Also I have heard some males feel insecure about not being fully "intact".

FWIW, I was with a girl not too long ago who had been with only one uncircumcised male before and she said the last guys was "messy". She was surprised at how normal mine was, and she asked a couple times if I was sure that i wasn't circumcised (I'm not). So i guess foreskin runs the gamut of being neat and tidy, to large and unwieldy (like labias I guess).

catsmate1

25th September 2011, 02:44 PM

I think it's cruel to do it to a kid without their consent. It seems to me it's highly necessary and pretty much the only "benefit" is aesthetics.

If it's for a medical reason is another story.
I think you mean 'unnecessary'.

hodgy

25th September 2011, 03:01 PM

Its a nasty mutilation - I think its disgusting for anyone to support it.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 03:02 PM

Bram Kaandorp

25th September 2011, 03:10 PM

Directed at people who are all for it:

Just as a thought experiment, switch "foreskin" with "ear", and see if the same arguments still ring as true.

"It's more hygienic": Sure, but if you clean out your ears regularly, there's no problem.

"It's aesthetically pleasing": Not to everyone.

"It's our culture": I'm not even going into that one, because I fear I might become too offensive.

"It's our religion": Your kid is not even old enough to speak, let alone participate in religion.

It's just not justifiable.

Luckily I haven't had the misfortune, but I do hope people will see reason, and stop this barbaric ritual.

And if the "ear" analogy is too gross, just replace "baby boy" with "baby girl", and see if you still like the general idea.

hodgy

25th September 2011, 04:04 PM

Circumcision is a strange debate. On its face, it is mutilation derived from religious (possibly derived from tribal how far apart are they anyways) tradition. There however is a zeitgeist acceptance of it as far as aesthetics go, and a child has no rights other than that by proxy of the parents in this particular case. The question should be phrased: "Should a child be protected from this mutilation even against the wishes of the parents?" same as you protect a child from endangerment from families who are retarded and don't give their kid proper nutrition (damned hippies :D)

A child should be protected from it in the same way that a child should be protected from having his / her left little finger cut off arbitrarily. Yes - children should be protected against such mutilation against the wishes of the parents if necessary.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 04:12 PM

Leumas

25th September 2011, 04:15 PM

When the Mohel (or Doctor) does it right it is no problem later in life and for a person acculturated in a circumcised society, the look of an uncircumcised one may even feel abnormal.

However, botched circumcisions abound. There are the slightly wrong ones where too much skin is taken off and the victim will forever have discomfort or even pain during an erection.

In cases of complete incompetence the penis is damaged and the poor victim will forever have problems in life.

Here is a case where a poor boy had his penis damaged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer). The parents of the boy were convinced by a psychiatrist to do an operation to convert the boy into a girl and to bring him up as a girl.

The EXPERIMENT by the vile Psychologist was to prove that GENDER is nurtured not natured.

The case is one of the most tragic things I have ever seen. But my interest in the case is beyond a botched circumcision. My interest is in how the psychologist DENIES that he was proven wrong despite the fact that the boy rejected his nurtured new gender upon puberty. He never wanted to play with dolls and wanted to play more with his twin brother's toys instead. In adolescence he desired girls and was disturbed by the perceived abnormality thinking he was a girl. Later he discovered the truth and tried to live as a man but committed suicide in the end.

The psychologist NEVER admitted that he was wrong and that Gender is natured and not nurtured.

The BBC did a documentary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HfAhLuZZ5o&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL)on the whole thing. Here is part 1 of 5. The next part should play automatically upon completion of the video. If not make sure to find all the parts.

0HfAhLuZZ5o&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Bram Kaandorp

25th September 2011, 04:15 PM

First off, I doubt it's fine to equate cutting off a finger with circumcision. Circumcision arised out of tradition and is currently fine, if a bit wavering as far as zeitgeist concerns. You can pretend to call it similar to finger cutting, but I think you're playing with emotions more than constructing a good argument. That's just my opinion.

So now we're talking about removing the foreskin off a baby's penis, mostly done out of tradition. The right to choose can't exist; the baby cannot choose. Only the parents can by proxy as given by law, so what you'd have to do is change THAT attitude if you want to influence the zeitgeist.

I think it can also be said that there is no analogy we can use that is sufficient.

I mean, what can we possibly use as a sufficient analogy for genital mutilation of a baby?

hodgy

25th September 2011, 04:31 PM

First off, I doubt it's fine to equate cutting off a finger with circumcision. Circumcision arised out of tradition and is currently fine, if a bit wavering as far as zeitgeist concerns. You can pretend to call it similar to finger cutting, but I think you're playing with emotions more than constructing a good argument. That's just my opinion.

So now we're talking about removing the foreskin off a baby's penis, mostly done out of tradition. The right to choose can't exist; the baby cannot choose. Only the parents can by proxy as given by law, so what you'd have to do is change THAT attitude if you want to influence the zeitgeist.

I don't care about tradition nor 'zeitgeist'. Its a mutilation made for religious reasons and I think disgusting. We could choose other arbitrary things to chop off our babies and these would be equally disgusting. Indeed, the poor mites cannot express their pain (except for crying) so it must be ok....

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 04:35 PM

I think it can also be said that there is no analogy we can use that is sufficient.

I mean, what can we possibly use as a sufficient analogy for genital mutilation of a baby?

For some reason I agree with that first sentence, and then the second feels like an appeal to absurdity/emotion, I dunno. I think it's better to say "circumcision does harm, not good" which I find more...rational. I think that's an indictment of my scrutiny though.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 04:37 PM

I don't care about tradition nor 'zeitgeist'. Its a mutilation made for religious reasons and I think disgusting. We could choose other arbitrary things to chop off our babies and these would be equally disgusting. Indeed, the poor mites cannot express their pain (except for crying) so it must be ok....

We can't choose arbitrary things to chop off (well I am sure we could, but that is not the case here), you're conflating some stupid appeal to emotion with what actually is going on. If you're going to argue for something, do it rationally.

I'm sure you find it disgusting however, and I find it disgusting too. But if you want to change something, you have to educate and raise awareness logically; appeals to emotion get little headway.

Keep a level head in other words. I would dare say that circumcision was not really religious but a mix of superstition and practicality at the time, and became mixed with religion later, as many religious dietary laws are.

Bram Kaandorp

25th September 2011, 04:41 PM

We can't choose arbitrary things to chop off, you're conflating some stupid ppeal to emotion with what actually is going on. If you're going to argue for something, do it rationally.

I'm sure you find it disgusting however, and I find it disgusting too. But if you want to change something, you have to educate and raise awareness logically; appeals to emotion get little headway.

And maybe we should look at the reasons given in favour of circumcision, which are mostly emotional/faith based, so we should almost by definition go the other way.

Not that I advocate "they do x, so we should do y". I just mean that their reasons fail because they are mainly emotional/faith based, so we should learn from that.

But I still stand by my posts, even if they don't change anything.

Darth Rotor

25th September 2011, 05:21 PM

It may be a small wrong, but still it is wrong.

Speak for yourself. :cool:

Darth Rotor

25th September 2011, 05:25 PM

Why don't you all go to the mega thread, and read from a few folks about the apparent (never saw it coming) advantage of circumcision reducing the risk of aids spreading. I'd never have heard of that until I read stuff on this forum.

My parents got the medical advice of "it's good for x, y, z" health reasons.

Dad isn't trimmed.

His sons are.

All is well, remain calm.

I suppose that the down side was that

1) I had one less method available for jacking off when I was a young'n.
2) ladies who preferred the turtleneck would find my presentation unappealing.

Life goes on.

I don't get the rage, nor the energy, that accompanies this topic.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 05:27 PM

And maybe we should look at the reasons given in favour of circumcision, which are mostly emotional/faith based, so we should almost by definition go the other way.

Not that I advocate "they do x, so we should do y". I just mean that their reasons fail because they are mainly emotional/faith based, so we should learn from that.

But I still stand by my posts, even if they don't change anything.

I agree, though I think you quoted the wrong post; the one you quoted was directed at hodgy. I think that circumcision does harm, not good*. That's my rationale to argue against it. I think you need to make a valid argument that isn't reactionary such as "they do x, so we should do y" which you yourself don't advocate. Circumcision has a faith base to it, but my family isn't religious, they never were, but I was circumcised because that's just the zeitgeist. They never saw it as a religious thing when they made me have it (as a baby of course) and same for my brothers. If you're going to appeal to those people, do you think something like "because it's emotional/faith based" will resonate with them? I doubt that.

That's all I'm trying to say. You can argue against circumcision easily and with less poisoning of the well by just saying "It does harm, not good"

*There may be health benefits, Darth Rotor mentioned some, but I don't know if they're true or significant (if you want to stop AIDS, don't share needles and wrap your tool) and even then as far as say, cleanliness goes...soap and stroke dude, soap and stroke...

Irony

25th September 2011, 05:28 PM

I think it can also be said that there is no analogy we can use that is sufficient.

I mean, what can we possibly use as a sufficient analogy for genital mutilation of a baby?

I think cutting a small notch in a baby's ear could be considered roughly equivalent. It's unnecessary, painful, it could cause problems in rare cases and shouldn't be done, but it's not "mutilation". Mutilation implies something significant and life-effecting, not something which will in the vast majority of cases have no ill effect. If someone was mislead by doctors or other authority figures that doing it would improve the health of their child then it's understandable why it was done, and something that should be gently corrected, not something to go screaming and hollering about.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 05:34 PM

I think cutting a small notch in a baby's ear could be considered roughly equivalent. It's unnecessary, painful, it could cause problems in rare cases and shouldn't be done, but it's not "mutilation". Mutilation implies something significant and life-effecting, not something which will in the vast majority of cases have no ill effect. If someone was mislead by doctors or other authority figures that doing it would improve the health of their child then it's understandable why it was done, and something that should be gently corrected, not something to go screaming and hollering about.

On that subject, I think mutilation has become a bit taboo when it comes to genital mutilation in other parts of the world which is a cultural tradition to inhibit female libido and is often thought of as a method to subjugate women. Obviously these reasons seem inhumane.

But again, I'm circumcised and I live in a family who is and there is no knowledge, no agenda or even preconception of tradition or inhibition of libido so are they comparable then? On its face it seems like they are, but once you actually scrutinize it, they're too different to conflate in my opinion.

Bram Kaandorp

25th September 2011, 05:38 PM

I agree, though I think you quoted the wrong post; the one you quoted was directed at hodgy. I think that circumcision does harm, not good*. That's my rationale to argue against it. I think you need to make a valid argument that isn't reactionary such as "they do x, so we should do y" which you yourself don't advocate. Circumcision has a faith base to it, but my family isn't religious, they never were, but I was circumcised because that's just the zeitgeist. They never saw it as a religious thing when they made me have it (as a baby of course) and same for my brothers. If you're going to appeal to those people, do you think something like "because it's emotional/faith based" will resonate with them? I doubt that.

That's all I'm trying to say. You can argue against circumcision easily and with less poisoning of the well by just saying "It does harm, not good"

*There may be health benefits, Darth Rotor mentioned some, but I don't know if they're true or significant (if you want to stop AIDS, don't share needles and wrap your tool) and even then as far as say, cleanliness goes...soap and stroke dude, soap and stroke...

Saying to them that it's emotional/faith based won't accomplish much; agreed.

However, keeping in mind that the arguments they use are mostly emotional/faith based will at least give a good base to start with arguments.

For instance, the emotional "my kid would feel the odd one out when showering after sports" could be countered with: "That could also go for big ears, flat feet, freckles, you name it. Doesn't mean we remove or correct them at birth."

But it is very important to understand that it's an emotional argument, and that it shouldn't be countered with the equivalent of shouting "what, are you crazy?", since that might scare them into the "circumcision is bad" position, in stead of getting there through reason. Worse still, they might decide to throw away your arguments altogether because you called them idiots.

Please note, I know that you know this, I'm merely clarifying my position.

Leumas

25th September 2011, 05:41 PM

And maybe we should look at the reasons given in favour of circumcision, which are mostly emotional/faith based, so we should almost by definition go the other way.

Not that I advocate "they do x, so we should do y". I just mean that their reasons fail because they are mainly emotional/faith based, so we should learn from that.

But I still stand by my posts, even if they don't change anything.

Actually I have personally known of ADULT circumcisions that HAD to be done due to infection etc. The persons involved usually found it traumatic psychologically later on.

So there is a case for MEDICAL reasons. And if that is so then clearly doing it in childhood when the trauma would not be remembered and where the person would grow up with the looks is perhaps a desirable thing??

The religious practice stems from a cultural practice made religious. The cultural practice may stem from a DISCOVERY of a NEED and thus it became culturally preferred.

If you notice the practice seems to be more prevalent in cultures living in desert or tropical habitats.....there might be a better chance of infections etc. in these regions.

Also cleaning after ejaculation or intercourse is a LOT easier. I can imagine problems arising due to entrapped semen in the skin fold if not cleaned thoroughly after every ejaculation. And with children and adolescents and even not so clever men personal hygiene is not highly prevalent.

There is a reason for the expression “wet behind the ears”. If children can’t dry themselves well enough to give rise to the expression then imagine about the innards of that fold of skin. Especially in hot humid or sandy smelly environments.

I can really imagine the practice arising from a prevalence of incidents of HAVING to perform the operation while growing up or later when the guys became more acquainted with their sheep and females. ;)

Dragonrock

25th September 2011, 05:41 PM

I'm against chopping off bits of people for not reason other than tradition or religion. I would favor outlawing the practice on anyone under the age of 18 except for medical reasons. The problem would be people saying things like "I have an great uncle who died of wiener cancer so I want to lop off some of my kid's dingus to be sure."

Having been circumcised as a child I don't know what it's like to be intact, but I have found that the area behind the glans where the foreskin used to be attached has a different level of sensation from the part further down.

But, regardless of how it may or may not affect sexual pleasure, it's still wrong to remove parts of children when those parts present no danger to the welfare of the child.

ETA: And it's not up to those who are against the practice to explain their position any more than it's the place of an abused woman to explain why she didn't deserve to be hit.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 05:46 PM

<snip>

Please note, I know that you know this, I'm merely clarifying my position.

I understand, I just think it's unnecessary. I mean you yourself find that the opposition's pleas to emotions/faith are not only unnecessary but misdirected and I myself find that you shouldn't meet their arguments with a similar level type.

That being said, you are NEVER going to win the circumcision argument with this argument. If you want to change things, you need to determine an infant's rights against the rights of the parents by proxy. You said yourself a parent may feel a weight of responsibility for health reasons or simply making the kid "abnormal, just like everyone else" but I think if you just raise their consciousness, and not meet them with gnashed teeth you'll make more headway.

Bram Kaandorp

25th September 2011, 05:48 PM

Actually I have personally known of ADULT circumcisions that HAD to be done due to infection etc. The persons involved usually found it traumatic psychologically later on.

So there is a case for MEDICAL reasons. And if that is so then clearly doing it in childhood when the trauma would not be remembered and where the person would grow up with the looks is perhaps a desirable thing??

The religious practice stems from a cultural practice made religious. The cultural practice may stem from a DISCOVERY of a NEED and thus it became culturally preferred.

If you notice the practice seems to be more prevalent in cultures living desert or tropical habitats.....there might be a better chance of infections etc. in these regions.

Also cleaning after ejaculation or intercourse is a LOT easier. I can imagine problems arising due to entrapped semen in the skin fold if not cleaned thoroughly after every ejaculation. And with children and adolescents and even not so clever men personal hygiene is not highly prevalent.

There is a reason for the expression “wet behind the ears”. If children can’t dry themselves well enough to give rise to the expression then imagine about the innards of that fold of skin. Especially in hot humid or sandy smelly environments.

I can really imagine the practice arising from a prevalence of incidents of HAVING to do while growing up or later when the guys became more acquainted with their sheep and females. ;)

Yes, of course there are cases where circumcision would be necessary. However, to some people it seems as prudent as pre-emptive tonsillectomy (although apparently that practice is in decline, luckily).

Maybe tonsillectomy is the analogy we should use (if analogies would ever be successful)

Bram Kaandorp

25th September 2011, 05:51 PM

ETA: And it's not up to those who are against the practice to explain their position any more than it's the place of an abused woman to explain why she didn't deserve to be hit.

Somehow, that sentence made me go "Aha! Now I understand!"

Leumas

25th September 2011, 06:10 PM

In the Talmud there is a decree that a boy who has had two brothers before him die from circumcisions must not be circumcised.

Could this indicate some genetic tendency to die from it?

Imagine the tragedy of the parents who have to see TWO boys die before they are allowed to stop the practice.

ETA: Haemophelia?

Leumas

25th September 2011, 06:29 PM

Yes, of course there are cases where circumcision would be necessary. However, to some people it seems as prudent as pre-emptive tonsillectomy (although apparently that practice is in decline, luckily).

Maybe tonsillectomy is the analogy we should use (if analogies would ever be successful)

Have a look at this wiki article about the Smegma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smegma#Males). In particular pay good attention to the picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smegma_Penis_Closeup.png)shown there.

I can imagine this causing all sorts of trouble in the case of bad hygiene.

Leumas

25th September 2011, 06:43 PM

Yes, of course there are cases where circumcision would be necessary. However, to some people it seems as prudent as pre-emptive tonsillectomy (although apparently that practice is in decline, luckily).

Maybe tonsillectomy is the analogy we should use (if analogies would ever be successful)

Actually that is not a bad analogy at all.

When I was a toddler I was a very very sickly boy and always had all sorts of illnesses. After my tonsillectomy I became a vibrant healthy 5 years old and hardly ever had a problem later in life other than ear infections after swimming which I loved to do a lot. I learnt later that a good cleaning with alcohol would prevent the infection. Fortunately no one thought about performing an Odioectomy :D

Leumas

25th September 2011, 06:57 PM

Walabio

25th September 2011, 07:59 PM

¡Sexual genital mutilation is wrong, whether done to boys, intersexed*, or girls!

* Doctors routinely fix intersexed infants so that they _"*LOOK*"_ normal but are sexually nonfunctional with little sexual function. Doctors should be limited to medically necessary procedures for the medically necessary needs of intersexed children.

Ryokan

25th September 2011, 08:13 PM

By the way....this topic and things like tonsillectomy and appendectomy and other such things show that ours is an Imbecilic Design for sure.

Why would an intelligent designer put inside us things that are useless and can actually cause us to die were it not for medical interventions? (and even with medical intervention especially in the days of old we would still die)

Not to mention the myriad of ways that functional things are vulnerable to failures. And don't even get me started on organisms that have no purpose in life other than to infect us, thus killing us in due process.

Sure, as long as you don't include the foreskin in that, as the foreskin has a very vital function. The head of the penis is very sensitive, and the foreskin protects it.

As for smegma, I've personally never seen any on my penis. But then, I wash it now and then. The fear of stuff getting stuck underneath it after ejaculating also sounds weird to me.. The skin is pretty tight around the head, and really doesn't leave a lot of room for stuff to collect there, especially since the skin is actually retracted during those moments when ejaculation happens. And again, I wash it now and then.

Ryokan

25th September 2011, 08:18 PM

Also, let's not forget the best part about being uncircumcised.. It makes it so much easier to masturbate! :)

JJM 777

25th September 2011, 09:41 PM

If this is a serious attempt to begin a debate on the merits of circumcision
The OP did not ask about "merits" of circumcision. It asked is it ethically right or wrong. The answer is no, if the subject is unable to form an informed opinion and give consent, which usually is the case.

Lowpro

25th September 2011, 10:05 PM

The OP did not ask about "merits" of circumcision. It asked is it ethically right or wrong. The answer is no, if the subject is unable to form an informed opinion and give consent, which usually is the case.

The parents get an informed opinion (at least I hope they do) and give consent. What else can be expected? The infant be coherent at age 5 minutes?

Andrew Wiggin

25th September 2011, 11:57 PM

Also, let's not forget the best part about being uncircumcised.. It makes it so much easier to masturbate! :)

I think this is at the root of the christian insistence on circumcision. Make it hard for the little guys to get much pleasure, and they'll stay pure...

Doesn't work though. As another poster mentioned, teen boys regardless of religion 'beat it like it owes them money'.

zooterkin

26th September 2011, 12:06 AM

There however is a zeitgeist acceptance of it as far as aesthetics go

There is? I didn't know people spent that much time looking at penises that there was an accepted look for them. I'd also note that your zeitgeist is country-specific (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Prevalence). Circumcision is not routinely done in European countries the way it is in the US, for example.

Darat

26th September 2011, 12:20 AM

On that subject, I think mutilation has become a bit taboo when it comes to genital mutilation in other parts of the world which is a cultural tradition to inhibit female libido and is often thought of as a method to subjugate women. Obviously these reasons seem inhumane.

But again, I'm circumcised and I live in a family who is and there is no knowledge, no agenda or even preconception of tradition or inhibition of libido so are they comparable then? On its face it seems like they are, but once you actually scrutinize it, they're too different to conflate in my opinion.

They only appear "too different" because your culture does not recognise female genital mutilation. However when looking at it from an anthropological stance the rationales given to support male and female genital mutilation are the same in the cultures which allow it. So both female and male genital mutilation will be explained as "more hygienic", "aesthetically pleasing" and so on. (Obviously my comments are only regarding the majority of FGMs type 1 and some type 2 - WHO definitions).

Ryokan

26th September 2011, 12:44 AM

I think this is at the root of the christian insistence on circumcision. Make it hard for the little guys to get much pleasure, and they'll stay pure...

I think you'll find that the Christian insistence on circumcision is unique to just one country.. :) Outside the US, circumcision is seen as a distinctly Jewish or Islamic tradition, not a Christian one. Circumcision was actually banned by the Catholic church, and I suspect the main reason for the Church's reversal on that stance was that so many of their American members insisted on doing it anyway.

Arcade22

26th September 2011, 01:24 AM

I don't care if people cut their own penises in half down the middle or cut it off entirely (and I've seen pictures of people who have done this!) but when they start disfiguring the penises of babies who can't undertstand the consequences let alone speak then i get pissed off.

Oh, and the aesthetics argument is so hilarious. Won't someone come forward and adovcate the superiour beauty of burn victims also?

zooterkin

26th September 2011, 01:47 AM

I think you'll find that the Christian insistence on circumcision is unique to just one country.. :) Outside the US, circumcision is seen as a distinctly Jewish or Islamic tradition, not a Christian one. Circumcision was actually banned by the Catholic church, and I suspect the main reason for the Church's reversal on that stance was that so many of their American members insisted on doing it anyway.

Having just read Christopher Hitchen's polemic against the death penalty (http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/christopher-hitchens-staking-a-life.php), and his conclusion that it largely persists in theocracies, I did wonder how well the list of countries which routinely practice circumcision match up with those that have the death penalty.

catsmate1

26th September 2011, 02:10 AM

Having just read Christopher Hitchen's polemic against the death penalty (http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/christopher-hitchens-staking-a-life.php), and his conclusion that it largely persists in theocracies, I did wonder how well the list of countries which routinely practice circumcision match up with those that have the death penalty.
Probably not very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 03:09 AM

The parents get an informed opinion (at least I hope they do) and give consent. What else can be expected? The infant be coherent at age 5 minutes?

The parents could try to exercise what I call "patience".

In other words, wait until the kid is 18 (or whatever the equivalent is in other countries), and let him/her (yes, I said her, because I include the whole world in this one) decide for themselves, after having heard all the pros/cons of the operation.

rocketdodger

26th September 2011, 06:14 AM

I have stopped trying to debate this issue in terms of costs vs. benefits because it is just so subjective ( how costly the costs are, and how beneficial the benefits are ).

I started just using hard data -- look at the number of educated societies around the world that support the idea, and why they support it, and you have your answer.

The only reason it is still as popular as it is, where it remains popular at all, has more to do with lingering cultural biases than anything else.

I say if most of the countries of Europe frown upon something, it is probably not a good idea.

JJM 777

26th September 2011, 07:05 AM

The parents get an informed opinion (at least I hope they do) and give consent.
This is as legitimate as Osama Bin Laden giving consent to killing a few Americans. Hmm, or Bush giving consent to killing a few Iraqis.

What else can be expected? The infant be coherent at age 5 minutes?
That no permanent damage be done to a person´s body until he is of age to decide about it himself.

AvalonXQ

26th September 2011, 07:17 AM

We had a baby boy recently. I did some research and asked some questions.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has this policy statement (http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686) on the subject.

Based on the facts presented in that policy statement, along with the shared experiences of an older male relative who was circumcised as an adult, we decided to get our son circumcised (using DPB anesthetic). I watched.

Dave Rogers

26th September 2011, 07:24 AM

Based on the facts presented in that policy statement, along with the shared experiences of an older male relative who was circumcised as an adult, we decided to get our son circumcised (using DPB anesthetic). I watched. The baby experienced less signs of discomfort during the procedure than he did during the state-mandated PKU test (which involved puncturing the heel and squeezing out a fair amount of blood).

Having assessed the relative costs (apart from the rather obvious one that the heel puncture will heal up leaving no missing tissue), how would you assess the relative benefits?

Dave

AvalonXQ

26th September 2011, 07:27 AM

Having assessed the relative costs (apart from the rather obvious one that the heel puncture will heal up leaving no missing tissue), how would you assess the relative benefits?

Dave

Lowers the risk of UTI, lowers the risk of carrying certain STDs, eliminates possibility of tearing and other similar problems. Moderate benefit.

PKU test is state mandated; I was not given the actual probabilities of any of the diseases being tested for in order to compare benefits.

sgtbaker

26th September 2011, 07:38 AM

Abooga

26th September 2011, 07:45 AM

Hitchens debating circumscition with a rabbi. Absolutely brilliant!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4

Arcade22

26th September 2011, 07:52 AM

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 07:59 AM

So what happens when your son grows up hating you because you decided to mutilate his penis?

"We did it because we love you."

That should suffice to alienate even the most parent-loving of children.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 08:53 AM

Lowpro

26th September 2011, 08:56 AM

This is as legitimate as Osama Bin Laden giving consent to killing a few Americans. Hmm, or Bush giving consent to killing a few Iraqis.

Can't drink from this well anymore...

That no permanent damage be done to a person´s body until he is of age to decide about it himself.

Well no crap sherlock this idea is obvious, let the person decide for themselves. Only that's not how the situation is EVER handled. An infant will never be able to make a decision because they're an infant. You have to have the parents issue decisions by proxy.

Look this is a stupid argument because we both agree, but you're just toxic to talk to JJM.

I Ratant

26th September 2011, 09:02 AM

I think you'll find that the Christian insistence on circumcision is unique to just one country.. :) Outside the US, circumcision is seen as a distinctly Jewish or Islamic tradition, not a Christian one. Circumcision was actually banned by the Catholic church, and I suspect the main reason for the Church's reversal on that stance was that so many of their American members insisted on doing it anyway.
.
I'd never heard of jacking off as anything but a sin, when I was snapping mackerals.
Even the occasional nocturnal emission was a sin.
Since engaging in a regular program of self-abuse, the nocturnals haven't occurred. :p

Schrodinger's Cat

26th September 2011, 09:04 AM

Wow, do you two even have sons?

My boys don't hate me. We've talked about this. And they certainly don't feel mutilated. They feel, in fact, like everyone else in their peer group. They don't know anyone their ages who's uncircumcised, either.

Could you possibly appeal to emotion any more strongly? Because I think I could manage to get even more pissed off than I already am. Go ahead. Try.

Agreed. What a stupid argument, and I'm not even pro circumcision. I don't know anyone who hates their parents or even cares that they are circumsized. While internet forums tend to light up about this issue, I really don't think it's something most people really care about one way or the other. All the guys I know who I've talked about it with who are circumsized are fine with being circumsized, and all the guys I know who I've talked about it with who aren't circumsized are fine with it too.

You could just as easily say, "Well, what do you do when your kid has to get a circumcision for medical purposes later in life and hates you for not circumsizing him as an infant?"

Your kid could potentially hate you for anything you do. For instance, Arcade, there are posts you've made on this forum that if I was your kid and I read them, I would think you were much worse a person than someone who circumsizes their child.

So what do you do when your kid finds out about your internet posts as an adult and hates you for it? Huh? What are you gonna do then?

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 09:04 AM

I Ratant

26th September 2011, 09:05 AM

slingblade

26th September 2011, 09:13 AM

I have no children, but I can imagine that if a son who wasn't happy about his circumcision asks his parents "Why did you do this to me?" (I'm not talking about those sons who don't really care or are happy about it, so don't worry, I'm not talking about you), and the response they get is "because we love you", then it might not go over very well.

It isn't meant as a suggestion, but simply as a remark.

Then, thinking critically, do both of us a favor and imagine the son who never brings it up because he isn't fussed by it. And who, when his mother asks him about it one day says, "Well I can't miss what I've never had. Maybe it would have been nice if you'd waited, but then again, I'd have felt like a freak in school, because none of my friends were snipped. So, no, it doesn't bother me."

There. Try imagining that conversation, too. Be fair.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 09:18 AM

.
Is lowering the risk from very slight, with a properly cared for member (taught good personal hygiene, and proper selection of partners), to somewhat less than very slight any reason for the mutilation?

Go back in time to when I was 19, and my cervical-cancer surviving mother, and both of my obstetricians and my pediatrician, were strongly recommending this to the first-time mother and 19-year-old married girl I was then. Tell me then. Because I wasn't hearing your point of view from anyone, back then.

Go back to when no one had yet heard of HPV, and so my mother thought it was my father's nastiness about his person that almost killed her.

Go back, and deal with these appeals to emotion as well. Then maybe you can see why doing so now for the opposing viewpoint isn't any better an argument.

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 09:19 AM

Then, thinking critically, do both of us a favor and imagine the son who never brings it up because he isn't fussed by it. And who, when his mother asks him about it one day says, "Well I can't miss what I've never had. Maybe it would have been nice if you'd waited, but then again, I'd have felt like a freak in school, because none of my friends were snipped. So, no, it doesn't bother me."

There. Try imagining that conversation, too. Be fair.

I have no children, but I can imagine that if a son who wasn't happy about his circumcision asks his parents "Why did you do this to me?" (I'm not talking about those sons who don't really care or are happy about it, so don't worry, I'm not talking about you), and the response they get is "because we love you", then it might not go over very well.

It isn't meant as a suggestion, but simply as a remark.

The highlighted part shows that I can imagine such a conversation, and that I won't bother you about that. If a child is not bothered by his body, why should I tell him he should (unless if he's actively hurting himself of course)? In short, no hard feelings.

What I tried to do was to see how I might react in a situation if I were unhappy about my circumcision (I am not circumcised, hence the thought experiment). I also understand that I will never fully understand the underlying motivations and such, since I live in the Netherlands, where circumcision just isn't as prevalent.

Dave Rogers

26th September 2011, 09:24 AM

Lowers the risk of UTI, lowers the risk of carrying certain STDs, eliminates possibility of tearing and other similar problems. Moderate benefit.

PKU test is state mandated; I was not given the actual probabilities of any of the diseases being tested for in order to compare benefits.

PKU, I see from Wikipedia, has a US incidence of about 1 in 15,000, and if undiagnosed can result in mental retardation, brain damage and seizures. It also can't be prevented, obviously, by sensible sexual behaviour. UTIs are pretty trivial, causing short-lived discomfort and responding well to antibiotic treatment; they occur in typically 1% of boys, whereas the rate of complications from circumcision is typically 2%, again from Wikipedia. The only "certain STDs" that may have lower transmission rates in circumcised males are HIV and HPV; condoms are vastly more effective at preventing both, as well as most of the ones that circumcision doesn't affect. If you think the two procedures are in any way similar in terms of cost/benefit, then you're fooling yourself; the PKU test offers concrete benefit for minimal short-term and zero long-term cost, whereas on balance the medical profession can't claim that circumcision offers any benefits at all.

Dave

slingblade

26th September 2011, 09:25 AM

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 09:30 AM

Well, sorry guys, but I've just read post after post about what a foul mother I was and how I deliberately mutilated my children, and it didn't seem that anyone was bothering to understand why or how it might have happened.

One can only read so much of that before one takes off the gloves and comes out swinging.

Have you also read the reasonable posts stating that circumcision can be necessary in some cases? Because they are there.

I don't oppose circumcision in its entirety. I oppose circumcision when there is no direct medical necessity for it.

Cheers

Dave Rogers

26th September 2011, 09:30 AM

Hey everyone, how's the debate going? :) I did not expect it to go so far.

From experience, it'll go a great deal further, and after about twenty pages of acrimony nobody will have changed their mind.

Well, sorry guys, but I've just read post after post about what a foul mother I was and how I deliberately mutilated my children, and it didn't seem that anyone was bothering to understand why or how it might have happened.

Slinglade, it seems perfectly clear to me that you made what you honestly believed was the best decision for your children on the basis of the information you had available, and that's the most anyone can ask of any parent. As you say, the information you had wasn't the best, but (a) that's not your fault, and (b) clearly it wasn't a big deal for them.

Circumcision without a specific medical cause, given the information that's currently available, seems to me to be about as minor a wrong as it's possible to do to someone while still negating the possibility of ever putting it right; but, however close to the line it may lie, it seems perfectly clear to me that it's on the wrong side of it.

Dave

Professor Yaffle

26th September 2011, 09:31 AM

Well, sorry guys, but I've just read post after post about what a foul mother I was and how I deliberately mutilated my children, and it didn't seem that anyone was bothering to understand why or how it might have happened.

One can only read so much of that before one takes off the gloves and comes out swinging.

Sling, there are plenty of us reading who *do* understand (or at least one anyway), but just don't care to get involved in yet another circumcision thread.

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 09:34 AM

From experience, it'll go a great deal further, and after about twenty pages of acrimony nobody will have changed their mind.

Slinglade, it seems perfectly clear to me that you made what you honestly believed was the best decision for your children on the basis of the information you had available, and that's the most anyone can ask of any parent. As you say, the information you had wasn't the best, but (a) that's not your fault, and (b) clearly it wasn't a big deal for them.

Circumcision without a specific medical cause, given the information that's currently available, seems to me to be about as minor a wrong as it's possible to do to someone while still negating the possibility of ever putting it right; but, however close to the line it may lie, it seems perfectly clear to me that it's on the wrong side of it.

Dave

Totally seconded. I wish I could put it as elegantly.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 09:35 AM

So....I can go back to my corner now? Cuz I was happy there. ;)

slingblade

26th September 2011, 09:37 AM

Sling, there are plenty of us reading who *do* understand (or at least one anyway), but just don't care to get involved in yet another circumcision thread.

:boxedin:

And Dave's wrong on one minor point: it was from reading the threads in the past about this that I came to change my mind on it. Until then, I hadn't given it any thought. After, I realized it probably wasn't the best thing to do.

Minds do get changed. :)

AvalonXQ

26th September 2011, 09:57 AM

Yeah, I think I'm a much fairer target than Sling for any criticism. After all, a) I actively sought out and considered both medical and personal advice for my decision, and b) I made my decision less than a month ago.
So if you have an issue with circumcision without medical necessity today, have a beef with my decision, not Sling's. She had much less opportunity to acquire good information and made her decisions a long time ago.

Schrodinger's Cat

26th September 2011, 10:01 AM

Circumcision without a specific medical cause, given the information that's currently available, seems to me to be about as minor a wrong as it's possible to do to someone while still negating the possibility of ever putting it right; but, however close to the line it may lie, it seems perfectly clear to me that it's on the wrong side of it.

Dave

Also, while that information is available, it's not that widely available.

Like Sling, I used to not give circumcision a second thought. It was something just about every guy I knew had done, and just about every parent I knew did to their kid. I haven't heard any news reports about it. I believed it was a lot safer for the child to be circumcized, and I had overestimated the medical advantages of it. I'd read articles in recent years from major magazines, but they actually leaned pro circumcision, highlighting the fact it seems to reduce the spread of STDs (which of course can also be reduced by safe sex).

I only learned about the dangers of circumcision by two sources, by reading "As Nature Made Him; the Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl" (the case of poor David Reimer who was discussed earlier in the thread) and internet blogs like that of Christopher Hitchens.

I actually think that even today, the cons of circumcision aren't that widely known in America while the benefits are very emphasized, and that a lot of people just simply think that it's something you're "supposed to do" to your child, and that it is better for them.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 10:11 AM

Also, while that information is available, it's not that widely available.

Like Sling, I used to not give circumcision a second thought. It was something just about every guy I knew had done, and just about every parent I knew did to their kid. I haven't heard any news reports about it. I believed it was a lot safer for the child to be circumcized, and I had overestimated the medical advantages of it. I'd read articles in recent years from major magazines, but they actually leaned pro circumcision, highlighting the fact it seems to reduce the spread of STDs (which of course can also be reduced by safe sex).

I only learned about the dangers of circumcision by two sources, by reading "As Nature Made Him; the Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl" (the case of poor David Reimer who was discussed earlier in the thread) and internet blogs like that of Christopher Hitchens.

I actually think that even today, the cons of circumcision aren't that widely known in America while the benefits are very emphasized, and that a lot of people just simply think that it's something you're "supposed to do" to your child, and that it is better for them.

I read that story, too. I don't think I had realized before it that such damage could be done--it simply hadn't occurred to me.

Agree that it's presented most often here as "what you do," and simply accepted as such. Not trying to argue fallaciously, but if it were a horrible, stigmatizing, mutilating thing, men would surely have been up in arms about it long before this, wouldn't they? There should have been a massive hue and cry at some point in at least my past, that somehow I completely missed. Every boy/man I slept with but one (and I had more than my share) was cut. The one who wasn't, I didn't meet until after I had my kids and was separated pending divorce from my first husband. So I was dating. He was my first, and I frankly found it weird. My husband today is uncut. It's not so weird anymore. ;)

zooterkin

26th September 2011, 10:35 AM

So....I can go back to my corner now? Cuz I was happy there. ;)

:hug2

Schrodinger's Cat

26th September 2011, 10:44 AM

The highlighted part shows that I can imagine such a conversation, and that I won't bother you about that. If a child is not bothered by his body, why should I tell him he should (unless if he's actively hurting himself of course)? In short, no hard feelings.

What I tried to do was to see how I might react in a situation if I were unhappy about my circumcision (I am not circumcised, hence the thought experiment). I also understand that I will never fully understand the underlying motivations and such, since I live in the Netherlands, where circumcision just isn't as prevalent.

When I was a kid, I was bullied, luckily briefly as I moved to another school. I went to my parents for help, and they gave me the whole, "kids will be kids, and you have to deal with this on your own." They refused to even call my school about it. That didn't work at all. I tried sticking up for myself, ignoring them, etc. But I was a small, nervous kid, the kids bullying me were very frightening to me and just laughed at my attempts to deal with it myself, and the bullying got worse.

When I was older, I talked to my parents about this, about how I had needed them, that I lacked the capability to deal with the bullying on my own, and how them refusing to help me had not made me stronger or more independent, it had just made everything worse.

Their response to me was basically, "We're sorry. We made a mistake, and we're sorry if our actions upset you. If you have children, you can do things differently than we did with you."

I was perfectly satisfied with that answer. No hating of my parents necessary.

I Ratant

26th September 2011, 10:50 AM

Well, sorry guys, but I've just read post after post about what a foul mother I was and how I deliberately mutilated my children, and it didn't seem that anyone was bothering to understand why or how it might have happened.

One can only read so much of that before one takes off the gloves and comes out swinging.
.
Hey, ain't no one said you were foul, just misinformed.
Circumcision has only a religious foundation, and that is to separate the "chosen" from the unwashed heathen masses... as does the even worse clitoridectomy, the foulest idea any religion crazed monster could have come up with.

I Ratant

26th September 2011, 10:53 AM

Also, while that information is available, it's not that widely available.

Like Sling, I used to not give circumcision a second thought. It was something just about every guy I knew had done, and just about every parent I knew did to their kid. I haven't heard any news reports about it. I believed it was a lot safer for the child to be circumcized, and I had overestimated the medical advantages of it. I'd read articles in recent years from major magazines, but they actually leaned pro circumcision, highlighting the fact it seems to reduce the spread of STDs (which of course can also be reduced by safe sex).

I only learned about the dangers of circumcision by two sources, by reading "As Nature Made Him; the Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl" (the case of poor David Reimer who was discussed earlier in the thread) and internet blogs like that of Christopher Hitchens.

I actually think that even today, the cons of circumcision aren't that widely known in America while the benefits are very emphasized, and that a lot of people just simply think that it's something you're "supposed to do" to your child, and that it is better for them.
.
When I was a young'un...waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back when, the -only- time circumcision ever came up was on the holy day devoted to it.
Never encountered it for another 30 some years, when one of my co-workers had it performed... the bandage was hilarious! :(

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 10:53 AM

When I was a kid, I was bullied, luckily briefly as I moved to another school. I went to my parents for help, and they gave me the whole, "kids will be kids, and you have to deal with this on your own." They refused to even call my school about it. That didn't work at all. I tried sticking up for myself, ignoring them, etc. But I was a small, nervous kid, the kids bullying me were very frightening to me and just laughed at my attempts to deal with it myself, and the bullying got worse.

When I was older, I talked to my parents about this, about how I had needed them, that I lacked the capability to deal with the bullying on my own, and how them refusing to help me had not made me stronger or more independent, it had just made everything worse.

Their response to me was basically, "We're sorry. We made a mistake, and we're sorry if our actions upset you. If you have children, you can do things differently than we did with you."

I was perfectly satisfied with that answer. No hating of my parents necessary.

I was lucky enough that my parents did intervene, since, just like you, I wasn't up to it.

Still, it's good that you could talk about it later on, and that it wasn't a closed subject.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 11:04 AM

.
Hey, ain't no one said you were foul, just misinformed.
Circumcision has only a religious foundation, and that is to separate the "chosen" from the unwashed heathen masses... as does the even worse clitoridectomy, the foulest idea any religion crazed monster could have come up with.

No, not me personally. Just including me in the group of "mutilating monsters." I must be seen as one, too, since I've admitted my boys were circumcised. That was close enough to home that it hurt. Which is why appeals to emotion aren't good argumentation. ;)

Daald

26th September 2011, 11:14 AM

I was circumcised at 13 so I have the experience of the before and after. In my country of birth they don't circumcise when you are born. It is something that is done later in life. I always dreaded it. I thought it was something that I had to do as part of growing up.

After it was done I didn't think about it anymore and was glad it was done. I had no problem besides the week in recovery. I even liked my penis now because I think the uncircumcised penis looks better.

At around 20 I blew up at my mother about why she had allowed this to be done to me. Her reason: Well you were not hitting puberty yet and look at you right after you sprouted right up. Clearly a misinformed decision but you can't go back on it. I like the fact that it was done but I dislike the reasons and the fact that I wasn't given a say so. I wished that it was simply done to me when I was a baby.

Now that I am having a boy I had to think what to do. Will the kid be like me? Will he want it done early so he doesn't have to remember it later? Will he want it uncircumcised? I was back and forth on this for a while and I decided on the logical course of not doing it. If he wants it done he can have it done when he is older(which basically means he will never get it done).

catsmate1

26th September 2011, 11:25 AM

PGH

26th September 2011, 11:30 AM

I Ratant

26th September 2011, 11:31 AM

And the not insignificant risk of the child dying while undergoing the procedure?
.
And in later life...
At the public urinals..
"Circumcised by Rabbi Shlomo, I see."
"How can you tell?"
"He cuts on the bias, you're pissing on my foot."

catsmate1

26th September 2011, 11:32 AM

Sling, there are plenty of us reading who *do* understand (or at least one anyway), but just don't care to get involved in yet another circumcision thread.
You're probably right.

Goodbye thread.:aaa!

ZirconBlue

26th September 2011, 11:42 AM

I don't know anyone who hates their parents or even cares that they are circumsized.

Now you do. I don't hate my parents, but I'm certainly resentful that my body was altered without my consent for no medically-necessary reason.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 11:50 AM

Now you do. I don't hate my parents, but I'm certainly resentful that my body was altered without my consent for no medically-necessary reason.

And that would be what changed my mind: failing to see I was doing something to my children they didn't really need, and never even thinking they might one day have a say about it.

Schrodinger's Cat

26th September 2011, 12:35 PM

Now you do. I don't hate my parents, but I'm certainly resentful that my body was altered without my consent for no medically-necessary reason.

May I ask how old you are?

Unless you're very young, I doubt that your parents were any different than sling. They probably had no idea there was anything wrong with what they were doing and in fact probably thought it was what they were supposed to do and probably had this reinforced to them by medical providers at the time.

Assuming that's the case, why would you resent your parents for what they thought was a medically appropriate procedure for you?

Of course, I don't even know if you're American born. Maybe you're from some place where there was a lot more accurate information out about circumcisions so this wouldn't apply at all.

Also, my point is that circumcision does not seem to be a common thing to hate your parents for. The fact that you as an individual nearly hate your parents doesn't really change that. There are still a million other things a person could hate their parents for, including not being circumcised, so "your kid will hate you" is still a crap argument.

Also, I don't really think I "know" you. You're a person on the internet I've never met in real life and who I know nothing about. When I say "I know" someone, I mean in real life. I don't really count casual internet interactions with "knowing a person."

Arcade22

26th September 2011, 12:40 PM

Wow, do you two even have sons?

No?

My boys don't hate me.

Good. Very good actually. There's nothing worse than dysfunctional families.

We've talked about this. And they certainly don't feel mutilated.

And I've talked to plenty of Americans who feel resentment and anger that their parents decided to cut into their penis when they were a baby for bloody religious reasons and the fact that everyone does it!!11!

Apparently the possibility of that is of zero consequence to some people.

They feel, in fact, like everyone else in their peer group. They don't know anyone their ages who's uncircumcised, either.

And again i know plenty who resent it.

Could you possibly appeal to emotion any more strongly? Because I think I could manage to get even more pissed off than I already am. Go ahead. Try.

Okay, if i offended anyone then I'm sorry. Sometimes i can't keep myself from being an *******.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 12:44 PM

Add me to the list of people who thought it was harmless and now feel otherwise. A little knowledge can sure change things.

What surprises me are the responses I get from women who are for it. They think it's perfectly fine because they prefer the look of a cut penis. I'm not exactly crazy about the look of the vagina. That doesn't give me the right to hack off the bits I don't care for.

I just don't see how anyone can look down on the genital mutilation of girls in the middle east and at the same time justify cutting the tip of the penis off newborn boys.

Not being a guy, I get a little confused by the terms used. I thought the foreskin was a sheath, and the tip of the penis was the bulbous end, the "mushroom head" part. Please explain for my edification how the sheath of skin is considered the tip, because I sincerely do not know. And because I do not know, this terminology sounds a little...excessive. As far as I ever saw when changing their diapers, the tips of my sons' penises were left intact.

Afterthought: I wouldn't have made the equivocation you speak of as a young mother, because back then, I had never heard of female genital mutilation. If I had, it likely would have figured hugely in my decisions. But I can't be held responsible for not accounting for something I didn't know existed.

Bram Kaandorp

26th September 2011, 12:46 PM

slingblade

26th September 2011, 12:54 PM

I think it is referred to as the tip, since it usually sticks out slightly when it is in flaccid state.

Thanks for that. Given that, I still think it's a confusing term to use, as another part of the penis is also clearly called the tip, and I don't see how it can have two of them.

Besides, the cutting around the shaft is actually done near the base, isn't it?

PGH

26th September 2011, 01:02 PM

Not being a guy, I get a little confused by the terms used. I thought the foreskin was a sheath, and the tip of the penis was the bulbous end, the "mushroom head" part. Please explain for my edification how the sheath of skin is considered the tip, because I sincerely do not know. And because I do not know, this terminology sounds a little...excessive. As far as I ever saw when changing their diapers, the tips of my sons' penises were left intact.

Afterthought: I wouldn't have made the equivocation you speak of as a young mother, because back then, I had never heard of female genital mutilation. If I had, it likely would have figured hugely in my decisions. But I can't be held responsible for not accounting for something I didn't know existed.

Oh the confusion is almost certainly my fault. I just referred to it as the tip of the penis because it's at the end. Sheath is a much more accurate term.

And like you my mother almost certainly never gave it any thought, just did what was common for the time. As mothers are doing right now. I would never put any blame on her for it. Not even a little. It's a cultural practice so the culture is to blame. You shouldn't feel bad at all, even if other people are trying to make you. Odds are most of them also found out the truth about circumcision 2 weeks ago and have become these sudden moral crusaders looking to attack women for things they themselves would have done very recently.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 01:04 PM

Oh the confusion is almost certainly my fault. I just referred to it as the tip of the penis because it's at the end. Sheath is a much more accurate term.

And like you my mother almost certainly never gave it any thought, just did what was common for the time. As mothers are doing right now. I would never put any blame on her for it. Not even a little. It's a cultural practice so the culture is to blame. You shouldn't feel bad at all, even if other people are trying to make you. Odds are most of them also found out the truth about circumcision 2 weeks ago and have become these sudden moral crusaders looking to attack women for things they themselves would have done very recently.

You know what, that actually helps me feel a little better about the discussion. Thank you. :)

Schrodinger's Cat

26th September 2011, 01:05 PM

I just don't see how anyone can look down on the genital mutilation of girls in the middle east and at the same time justify cutting the tip of the penis off newborn boys.

My guess is that if FGM was restricted to type I, it wouldn't be anywhere near as controversial, and would be considered analagous to male circumcision.

However, what the media and women's rights groups talk about isn't the "mild" types of female circumcision. It's the most extreme types, the kind where the entire outside of a woman's sexual organ is hacked off and the vagina is sewn shut. Not only does this make sexual pleasure impossible, it makes sex excrutiatingly painful, not to mention even simply urinartion or menstration. The risks of complications and death with these extreme kinds of mutilation are also much more common, and girls die or become very ill or sick pretty frequently from infection, in childbirth, or from complications later in life.

Also, even type II female genital mutilation can involve the removal of the entire clitoris and labia, which can prevent a female from feeling sexual pleasure even if it doesn't necessarily result in constant pain. Obviously, circumcised men can still feel sexual pleasure even though they have had some nerves removed, so that's another reason people may be okay with one and not the other - even though one could argue that that's just a matter of degree.

Before, I myself was against female circumcision and not male circumcision. The reason was that I had read or heard personal narriatives from women who had received circumcisions who said things like "every time my husband had sex with me, I wanted to die the pain was so bad" "even urination is like torture to me," etc. Whereas I never heard anything like this from any man who had been circumcised. That made me be okay with one and not with the other.

I'd never heard about botched circumcisions with males and the horrible effects they can have. I also was ignorant of the fact that male circumcision was a cultural practice and not a normative, medically relevent procedure that was pretty universal - that for instance, circumcision rates in Europe are much much lower and more restricted to religious practitioners. I didn't know that, like female circumcision, male circumcision was a cultural, medically unwarranted, and even dangerous practice.

But now that I am more informed about male circumcision, I think it is wrong as well.

PGH

26th September 2011, 01:07 PM

You know what, that actually helps me feel a little better about the discussion. Thank you. :)

Sling if circumcising your kids is the worst thing you do to them they've had extremely charmed lives.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to resume trying to make my daughter a chubby lesbian so I don't have to worry about her dating boys.

citizenzen

26th September 2011, 01:12 PM

Sling if circumcising your kids is the worst thing you do to them they've had extremely charmed lives.

Perhaps.

But I'm on the side that says lopping off parts of your child's body simply to conform to a social convention is a shame.

It may not be the worst injury that you inflict upon your child, but it is still an unnecessary one.

Dave Rogers

26th September 2011, 01:14 PM

Not trying to argue fallaciously, but if it were a horrible, stigmatizing, mutilating thing, men would surely have been up in arms about it long before this, wouldn't they? There should have been a massive hue and cry at some point in at least my past, that somehow I completely missed.

That, in particular, I find strange. Having had the experience of caring for a newborn baby (well four of them, actually!), I know how protective a parent can feel, how determined not to let harm come to the most precious person in their world. I remember feeling utterly, utterly awful when, the first time I cut my daughter's fingernails, I drew a little blood (not actually that uncommon, as the skin of the fingertip often starts off covering the end of the nail). I simply can't imagine how anyone, knowing it would do no good, would want to do something like that, but that would permanently leave a part missing. But stigma are where society chooses to see them, and it appears that, in the USA, foreskins are stigmatised rather than their needless removal.

The history of circumcision in the UK, though, shows just how little this weighs on anybody's mind. In 1949, the newly-formed National Health Service decided that circumcision would not be offered as a free service. In a society where people now simply take it for granted that medical care will be freely given, very few people bother to pay for a service; in our society, if you have to pay for a medical procedure, that pretty much proves that it isn't necessary. (That's as opposed to waiting for it, which is more or less taken as proof that it is necessary.) So, stigma and public opinion be damned; for the most part, we just don't bother. And, as you might expect, the 94% of men in the UK who have foreskins aren't regarded as somehow abnormal; we're regarded as normal, and by any reasonable definition of the word, in this respect we are.

Tom Sharpe once wrote that educational politics features the most bitterly fought battles because the stakes are so low. The same, it seems to me, is often true of discussions of circumcision.

Dave

PGH

26th September 2011, 01:16 PM

Perhaps.

But I'm on the side that says lopping off parts of your child's body simply to conform to a social convention is a shame.

It may not be the worst injury that you inflict upon your child, but it is still an unnecessary one.

And I'm in agreement with you. But honestly most people simply do not realize. That's the thing about a cultural standard. People do it because everyone does it and no one thinks about it. Why would they do anything else? Without being properly informed it would be odd NOT to circumcize a child (in a culture where circumcision is dominant).

Teaching people is a lot more valuable than judging them. That's been something I've struggled to learn.

IDB87

26th September 2011, 01:22 PM

Recently there has been talk about the harmful effects of circumcision

http://i53.tinypic.com/2qizi8p.jpg

Schrodinger's Cat

26th September 2011, 01:32 PM

That, in particular, I find strange. Having had the experience of caring for a newborn baby (well four of them, actually!), I know how protective a parent can feel, how determined not to let harm come to the most precious person in their world.

To be fair though, plenty of things that aren't controversial can harm your kids, way worse than the pain of a circumcision (assuming there are not complications). I know several kids who received permanent, life long injuries due to playing sports as a kid. My friend's brother almost died when his spleen ruptured after a tackle in junior high football practice.

Heck, I hurt myself a few times in sports, one such injury actually required me to have several painful dental surgeries over the course of my life, including this past year, 18 years after the initial injury. Even aside from my injuries, sometimes playing sports really hurt, just from the strenuous activity involved.

Of course, I'm not saying your kid playing sports is the same as your kid getting circumsized. I'm just saying there are plenty of things parents do that can bring harm to your kid that aren't the least bit controversial.

And if you were one of the parents who thought that there was a medical benefit to your child getting circumsized (as many parents believe, especially in years gone buy), the fact that it "hurts" I don't think is something that automatically makes parents refrain from doing something to their child.

Ron_Tomkins

26th September 2011, 01:52 PM

slingblade

26th September 2011, 01:56 PM

The doctors tell us they don't think it causes that much pain. Bear in mind, they don't let us watch them do it, and see our babies screaming! Maybe in Jewish circles, everyone gets to see it, but we Gentiles aren't permitted to watch. And in my youth, it was emphasized repeatedly that it was beneficial to their health. We do or allow things all the time that hurt our kids, but that are beneficial to them. Like the damned dentist, okay?

Abstractualize that and ask yourself how any loving parent can force their children to sit still while a stranger shoves needles and drills and picks into their tender, tiny mouths, hmmmm? Or force them to allow wires to be inserted, banded around their teeth, and then tightened every couple of weeks, causing sometimes excruciating pain, all for the sake of a cosmetically correct smile. Should that be stopped too, or does the good that proper dental care does far outweigh the pain involved, which is sometimes considerable pain?

slingblade

26th September 2011, 01:58 PM

And I never understood that argument that cutting the foreskin is cleaner. How the hell can it be cleaner when the foreskin is supposed to be there to protect the head of the penis from all the dust and dirt it enters in contact with? Isn't it like saying that cutting off your eyelids is cleaner? Aren't the eyelids protecting the eyeball from dust pretty much in the same way that the foreskin is protecting the penis from dust?

Um....my first husband never had a dusty dick.

"Cleaner" only means that without the foreskin to hold it there, smegma rarely builds up on a cut penis. My father, according to my mother, was so filthy his penis stank. It got to where she wouldn't let him touch her anymore without a bath, and so they rarely had sex, because he would rarely bathe.

Is is more clear to you now?

AvalonXQ

26th September 2011, 02:01 PM

The doctors tell us they don't think it causes that much pain. Bear in mind, they don't let us watch them do it, and see our babies screaming! Maybe in Jewish circles, everyone gets to see it, but we Gentiles aren't permitted to watch.

There was not a single procedure they performed on my son in the hospital where I was not present.

I watched the circumcision; any parent was allowed to accompany the child to watch.

Fun fact -- there is no non-emergency procedure in the hospital for which the parents can't be in the same room.

I asked that ahead of time. I also researched our rights under state law to make sure we didn't get the run-around at the hospital.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 02:02 PM

Well, all I know is that in 1978 and 1980, they didn't let me watch.

AvalonXQ

26th September 2011, 02:04 PM

Well, all I know is that in 1978 and 1980, they didn't let me watch.

Yes, things have changed for the better.

Not too many decades before that, they wouldn't even let the father in to watch the birth.

Nowadays, nurseries are more and more only for special needs babies. Your healthy baby sleeps in your room from Night 1, never leaves your room except for certain tests and procedures.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 02:14 PM

With my first son, Avalon, he was kept in the nursery except for feedings.

By the time my second son was born, more room time was being allowed, but I couldn't really do it, as I'd also been sterilized, and was feeling too bad from the surgery to have him with me much. I took advantage of the care they offered so I could recover faster. In addition, my younger son was a bit premature, and jaundiced. He stayed in hospital 19 days. I only stayed four, and then they made me go home, without him.

It is better now, I will definitely agree with you.

Daald

26th September 2011, 02:28 PM

And I never understood that argument that cutting the foreskin is cleaner. How the hell can it be cleaner when the foreskin is supposed to be there to protect the head of the penis from all the dust and dirt it enters in contact with? Isn't it like saying that cutting off your eyelids is cleaner? Aren't the eyelids protecting the eyeball from dust pretty much in the same way that the foreskin is protecting the penis from dust?

It's a cleaning issue that has to be taught to you. Normally you have to learn from a young age to pull the foreskin back and wash thoroughly. If you don't do this from a young age it gets harder to pull the entire foreskin back without the head burning so you don't get it completely clean. (This was one of the reasons people would push for circumcision in my country of birth) Stuff can stay there for some time and it could cause infections.

With eye balls the story is different because nothing can really stay below your eye lid for long and it would come out at the side of your eye pretty quickly.

Ryokan

26th September 2011, 02:53 PM

No one ever taught me to clean my dick. Ever. I've still never seen any smegma, even at times when I've gone days and weeks without showering. I know it exists, as I've heard stories and seen pictures, but never on my own equipment.

Dave Rogers

26th September 2011, 03:07 PM

Abstractualize that and ask yourself how any loving parent can force their children to sit still while a stranger shoves needles and drills and picks into their tender, tiny mouths, hmmmm? Or force them to allow wires to be inserted, banded around their teeth, and then tightened every couple of weeks, causing sometimes excruciating pain, all for the sake of a cosmetically correct smile. Should that be stopped too, or does the good that proper dental care does far outweigh the pain involved, which is sometimes considerable pain?

Even dentistry isn't all that clear-cut, actually. The "cosmetically correct smile" isn't something we bother all that much about either on this side of the pond; as long as a set of teeth are functional and won't cause pain, they'll usually be left as they are. But, yes, of course we'll allow our children pain when it's clearly outweighed by the benefits, and anyone who honestly believes that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the pain is making what they believe to be the best decision. The attitude I would take issue with is that of parents who realise that it doesn't make much difference either way, but go ahead and do it anyway because it's just what everybody does. That isn't a good enough reason for me to cause my child irreparable harm, however trivial.

Dave

I Ratant

26th September 2011, 03:07 PM

I have.
Uggers!
Nothing regular showers couldn't handle.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 03:54 PM

http://i53.tinypic.com/2qizi8p.jpg

Since the topic is in the thread title, I have to ask why you even bothered to open the thread.

Ron_Tomkins

26th September 2011, 10:29 PM

Um....my first husband never had a dusty dick.

"Cleaner" only means that without the foreskin to hold it there, smegma rarely builds up on a cut penis. My father, according to my mother, was so filthy his penis stank. It got to where she wouldn't let him touch her anymore without a bath, and so they rarely had sex, because he would rarely bathe.

Is is more clear to you now?

Ok let me explain from the beginning:

Dust and dirt naturally accumulate on any surface that is exposed. Any surface. If such surface is covered by a permeable cape of any material, it is automatically protected from dust and dirt.

Therefore, a penis with foreskin is protected from dust and dirt particles.
Yes, it does accumulate that grease that does get stinky if you don't clean it. But of course, as long as you clean it, it should not be a problem.

So how is it cleaner to have a penis that is completely unprotected from exposure to dust, dirt and contact to rough surfaces?

Alan

26th September 2011, 10:56 PM

Ok let me explain from the beginning:

Dust and dirt naturally accumulate on any surface that is exposed. Any surface. If such surface is covered by a permeable cape of any material, it is automatically protected from dust and dirt.

Therefore, a penis with foreskin is protected from dust and dirt particles.
Yes, it does accumulate that grease that does get stinky if you don't clean it. But of course, as long as you clean it, it should not be a problem.

So how is it cleaner to have a penis that is completely unprotected from exposure to dust, dirt and contact to rough surfaces?
In that example, the foreskin will get the dust and dirt and such and so it's not really a cleaner situation.

Um....my first husband never had a dusty dick.

"Cleaner" only means that without the foreskin to hold it there, smegma rarely builds up on a cut penis. My father, according to my mother, was so filthy his penis stank. It got to where she wouldn't let him touch her anymore without a bath, and so they rarely had sex, because he would rarely bathe.

Is is more clear to you now?
If he was circumcised, I doubt things would be much better. The key factor was his rare bathing, not his foreskin.

slingblade

26th September 2011, 11:10 PM

Ok let me explain from the beginning:

Dust and dirt naturally accumulate on any surface that is exposed. Any surface. If such surface is covered by a permeable cape of any material, it is automatically protected from dust and dirt.

Therefore, a penis with foreskin is protected from dust and dirt particles.
Yes, it does accumulate that grease that does get stinky if you don't clean it. But of course, as long as you clean it, it should not be a problem.

So how is it cleaner to have a penis that is completely unprotected from exposure to dust, dirt and contact to rough surfaces?

First, shut up.

:p

Let's cut to the chase: you asked what women mean by it. I told you what they probably mean by it. Does that make them correct, of is it just what they mean?

So it could be a perceptual bias.

How much dust and dirt is one really exposed to under two layers of clothing, anyway? Would you perceive your arm being "cleaner" if exposed to the air, or if wearing a skin sleeve with "grease" in it?

Okay then.

And shut up. :cool:

zooterkin

26th September 2011, 11:39 PM

How much dust and dirt is one really exposed to under two layers of clothing, anyway? Would you perceive your arm being "cleaner" if exposed to the air, or if wearing a skin sleeve with "grease" in it?

I forget which comedian it was (possibly the late, great, Alan Coren) who asked why we wash our hands after handling our penis rather than the other way round, given that one is, as you say, protected from the world and the others are exposed to all the germs going.

MRC_Hans

26th September 2011, 11:47 PM

I forget which comedian it was (possibly the late, great, Alan Coren) who asked why we wash our hands after handling our penis rather than the other way round, given that one is, as you say, protected from the world and the others are exposed to all the germs going.

Well, there are certainly some public toilets where I don't wash my hands. Typically two reasons:

1) There is sure to be more germs on the tap than on any part of me.
2) Having to touch the door handle on the way out will destroy any effect of washing, anyhow.

Of course, in China, there is usually a third reason, also:

3) There are no facilities for washing your hands. Or if there are, too many people have mistaken them for other facilities.:boggled:

- Thank Ed for antiseptic hand gel. :cool:

Hans

ZirconBlue

27th September 2011, 06:12 AM

May I ask how old you are?

Unless you're very young, I doubt that your parents were any different than sling. They probably had no idea there was anything wrong with what they were doing and in fact probably thought it was what they were supposed to do and probably had this reinforced to them by medical providers at the time.

Assuming that's the case, why would you resent your parents for what they thought was a medically appropriate procedure for you?

Of course, I don't even know if you're American born. Maybe you're from some place where there was a lot more accurate information out about circumcisions so this wouldn't apply at all.

Also, my point is that circumcision does not seem to be a common thing to hate your parents for. The fact that you as an individual nearly hate your parents doesn't really change that. There are still a million other things a person could hate their parents for, including not being circumcised, so "your kid will hate you" is still a crap argument.

I'm 39, and am American. All you say is true, and is why I don't hate my parents. When I say I am resentful, I am referring to resentment toward the entire culture and set of irrational customs that made circumcision the default setting in the US. My parents were only a small part of that.

Also, I don't really think I "know" you. You're a person on the internet I've never met in real life and who I know nothing about. When I say "I know" someone, I mean in real life. I don't really count casual internet interactions with "knowing a person."

That's fine. But,

A) I still feel compelled to chime in whenever people make statements about not knowing anyone that is upset by having been circumcised. The common belief is that men are generally content with whichever decision their parents opted for. Maybe you don't really "know" me, but at least now you've got a data point in opposition of that belief. And you can put a face to that data point, even if that face is a doubtful owl.

2) You're much more likely to get frank, honest discussion of this sort of thing with the shield of internet anonymity than you are in real-life, face-to-face conversations. Only on the internet have I ever discussed my personal feelings about it.

JJM 777

27th September 2011, 07:11 AM

Of course, in China, there is usually a third reason, also:

3) There are no facilities for washing your hands.
We who would like to wash our hands before dining, have noticed that you don´t need to go to China to be deprived of the possibility of washing your hands. Every other small Subway or McDonald´s doesn´t have a toilet, or a public water basin either. Those that have a toilet, often have the toilet somewhere in second floor, obviously the customer is not designed to wash his hands, end of topic.

brodski

27th September 2011, 08:06 AM

the fact that it "hurts" I don't think is something that automatically makes parents refrain from doing something to their child.

Can I ask why you put hurts in inverted commas?

ETA: That may have sounded more aggressive than I intended. But take it from me, it hurts. A lot.

Ron_Tomkins

27th September 2011, 08:08 AM

First, shut up.

:p

Let's cut to the chase: you asked what women mean by it. I told you what they probably mean by it. Does that make them correct, of is it just what they mean?

So it could be a perceptual bias.

How much dust and dirt is one really exposed to under two layers of clothing, anyway? Would you perceive your arm being "cleaner" if exposed to the air, or if wearing a skin sleeve with "grease" in it?

Okay then.

And shut up. :cool:

Good point. I just always felt that the penis itself is particularly more sensitive to exposure to anything, even if it's contact with clothing which does get dirty as well, so it's not 100% clean. But maybe it's just me being used to my penis remaining uncircumcised and thus, as protected and as moist as my eyeball. Like, I would not want my eyeball lacking the protection it currently has behind its eyelid keeping it always clean and moist, know what I mean?

slingblade

27th September 2011, 08:44 AM

Can I ask why you put hurts in inverted commas?

ETA: That may have sounded more aggressive than I intended. But take it from me, it hurts. A lot.

I don't mean to sound insensitive to the post, but...Brodski! Hi! :D Welcome back!

brodski

27th September 2011, 08:47 AM

I don't mean to sound insensitive to the post, but...Brodski! Hi! :D Welcome back!

Cheers.

slingblade

27th September 2011, 08:50 AM

Good point. I just always felt that the penis itself is particularly more sensitive to exposure to anything, even if it's contact with clothing which does get dirty as well, so it's not 100% clean. But maybe it's just me being used to my penis remaining uncircumcised and thus, as protected and as moist as my eyeball. Like, I would not want my eyeball lacking the protection it currently has behind its eyelid keeping it always clean and moist, know what I mean?

I actually do know what you mean, because of my husband. :)

Ron_Tomkins

27th September 2011, 08:56 AM

I actually do know what you mean, because of my husband. :)

So.... are you saying he's a living example of why people should not get circumcised? ;)

Schrodinger's Cat

27th September 2011, 09:03 AM

Can I ask why you put hurts in inverted commas?

ETA: That may have sounded more aggressive than I intended. But take it from me, it hurts. A lot.

Sure, sorry about that, that was confusing. I was just trying to single out it hurts as an argument by itself against circumcision. It would have been more appropriate for me to have used italics rather than quotation marks. I was not trying to imply that I am dubious to the claim that it hurts, I assure you, I certainly am not. :)

brodski

27th September 2011, 09:07 AM

Thanks for that. Given that, I still think it's a confusing term to use, as another part of the penis is also clearly called the tip, and I don't see how it can have two of them.

Besides, the cutting around the shaft is actually done near the base, isn't it?

In a newborn the foreskin is fused to the glans ("mushroom head" if you like) so it is the tip, kind of- but yes it is potentially confusing and the confusion could be played on for emotional effect.

No, the cutting isn't (usually) done near the base.

brodski

27th September 2011, 09:12 AM

Sure, sorry about that, that was confusing. I was just trying to single out it hurts as an argument by itself against circumcision. It would have been more appropriate for me to have used italics rather than quotation marks. I was not trying to imply that I am dubious to the claim that it hurts, I assure you, I certainly am not. :)

ah ok. That makes sense. The argument is often put forward that it doesn't hurt (Slingblade has mentioned in this thread that she was told by doctors that it didn't hurt, for instance) , which is why I challenged it.

I agree that the fact that it is a painful procedure isn't necessary an argument against it, if any benefits outweigh the pain. This is a standard equation done in medicine. But to deny that there is any real pain at all (which some people do) is odd.

slingblade

27th September 2011, 09:29 AM

In a newborn the foreskin is fused to the glans ("mushroom head" if you like) so it is the tip, kind of- but yes it is potentially confusing and the confusion could be played on for emotional effect.

No, the cutting isn't (usually) done near the base.

Okay, then I remain misinformed on it, and apologize for that.
And thank you for clearing up the confusion of terms. :)

ETA: to be clear on my part, the doctors never told me it didn't hurt. They said they didn't think it hurt much. And that babies forget.

slingblade

27th September 2011, 09:31 AM

So.... are you saying he's a living example of why people should not get circumcised? ;)

I don't think I'm saying that. I know one thing I'm saying is that I've now had just as much experience with an uncut man as I had with the cut men I've known. I understand the differences now. I am almost perfectly ambivalent on which I'd prefer, from my female viewpoint.

I can't say which is better from a male viewpoint, and will probably never be able to do that.

Professor Yaffle

27th September 2011, 09:34 AM

Schrodinger's Cat

27th September 2011, 09:44 AM

But, yes, of course we'll allow our children pain when it's clearly outweighed by the benefits, and anyone who honestly believes that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the pain is making what they believe to be the best decision. The attitude I would take issue with is that of parents who realise that it doesn't make much difference either way, but go ahead and do it anyway because it's just what everybody does. That isn't a good enough reason for me to cause my child irreparable harm, however trivial.

Dave

I agree, though for me what makes me most against circumcision for any theorhetical boys I may have is not so much the pain at the time, or making decisions about their body (though certainly those factor into it), but more the fear of something going wrong.

The chances of serious injury and death may be very small, but for me, even that small amount of risk just isn't worth it for a procedure that isn't medically necessary.

brodski

27th September 2011, 09:56 AM

Okay, then I remain misinformed on it, and apologize for that.
And thank you for clearing up the confusion of terms. :)

ETA: to be clear on my part, the doctors never told me it didn't hurt. They said they didn't think it hurt much. And that babies forget.

There is no need to apologize for being misinformed. Especially when there is so much misinformation out there.

IDB87

27th September 2011, 10:02 AM

Since the topic is in the thread title, I have to ask why you even bothered to open the thread.

Boredom? Morbid curiosity? Strong desire to use image macros?

Or perhaps I just got to the 60th page of Thunder's nightmare, and saw this thread and threw my hands up.

:D

slingblade

27th September 2011, 10:12 AM

Boredom? Morbid curiosity? Strong desire to use image macros?

Or perhaps I just got to the 60th page of Thunder's nightmare, and saw this thread and threw my hands up.

:D

I can't say I don't understand all that. Carry on. ;)

epepke

27th September 2011, 10:25 AM

I think its the case that the medical establishment was, for a long time, in denial that newborn babies felt pain of any sort or source. Didn't they use to operate on newborns without anaesthesia?

Yes. It has been changing since the 1990s.

Anyway, I find routine circumcision wrong. It's elective surgery not done for a bona fide medical purpose on individuals too young to consent. (Obviously, if there is a bona fide medical reason, then it's warranted.)

That should be sufficient reason to consider it wrong. That it isn't seems to me to show how ingrained bias toward circumcision is in America.

Consider an alternate universe in which 19th century moralists were more outraged at the practice of earlobe-nibbling than masturbation and somehow convinced Americans to have their infants' earlobes amputated at birth. Most of the justifications used for routine circumcision would apply even more strongly. They get stinky if unwashed, and they're closer to the nose under usual circumstances. They are more often uncovered in public, even in San Francisco and Berkeley.

ZirconBlue

27th September 2011, 12:38 PM

We who would like to wash our hands before dining, have noticed that you don´t need to go to China to be deprived of the possibility of washing your hands. Every other small Subway or McDonald´s doesn´t have a toilet, or a public water basin either. Those that have a toilet, often have the toilet somewhere in second floor, obviously the customer is not designed to wash his hands, end of topic.

That's odd. In the US, restrooms are ubiquitous in places that serve food. I'm not sure if that's by law or by custom, but I can't remember a single restaurant that didn't have a public restroom.

zooterkin

27th September 2011, 02:26 PM

That's odd. In the US, restrooms are ubiquitous in places that serve food. I'm not sure if that's by law or by custom, but I can't remember a single restaurant that didn't have a public restroom.

Same in the UK; pretty sure it's a legal requirement that if you can eat on the premises that there must be a toilet available.

jdp

27th September 2011, 04:20 PM

To answer the original questions, no doubt about it, non-therapeutic circumcision, by proxy consent, of boys is wrong.

It seems to continue, mainly in North America (secularly), due to the fact that it's been so fossilized in the culture that even medical professionals don't think about it rationally or ethically. This also leads to, among other things, misconceptions about hygiene for example:

It's a cleaning issue that has to be taught to you. Normally you have to learn from a young age to pull the foreskin back and wash thoroughly. If you don't do this from a young age it gets harder to pull the entire foreskin back without the head burning so you don't get it completely clean. (This was one of the reasons people would push for circumcision in my country of birth) Stuff can stay there for some time and it could cause infections.

With eye balls the story is different because nothing can really stay below your eye lid for long and it would come out at the side of your eye pretty quickly.

As the follow up poster noted, it's nothing that has to be 'taught'.

No one ever taught me to clean my dick. Ever. I've still never seen any smegma, even at times when I've gone days and weeks without showering. I know it exists, as I've heard stories and seen pictures, but never on my own equipment.

In fact, the foreskin is typically fused to the glans often until early childhood. Many boys can't fully retract their foreskins until 10 or 11 and a parent trying to do it early, thinking it needs to be 'washed thoroughly', can lead to the very problems they think washing would avoid. The best advice is to leave it be, the boy will figure it out.

I'm 39, and am American. All you say is true, and is why I don't hate my parents. When I say I am resentful, I am referring to resentment toward the entire culture and set of irrational customs that made circumcision the default setting in the US. My parents were only a small part of that.

I think this is a reasonable position. I have met individuals who do regret having been circumcised and they have just cause for that. But I believe that their anger needs to be directed at the cultural influences that allow it to continue and the doctors who to this day don't take a rational, ethical stance on the issue, particularly in the US. Most doctors whom I've spoken with on this issue admit there is no real benefit but continue to do it because the parents insist. Basically the physicians won't take a stand.

There are exceptions though for instance, the Dutch are beginning to take an active role against non-therapeutic circumcision (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/09/doctors_campaign_against_risky.php), they don't do it much anyway.

Incidentally, I recently attended a screening of an independent documentary on the subject from a Jewish perspective. It is being shown in 30 US cities through November though you can see much of the film on its website (http://www.cutthefilm.com/Cut_Website/The_Film.html). Each screening is followed by Q & A with the director and sometimes one or two guests. I found the Q & A of several of the screenings to be very interesting to listen too. They're being posted on iTunes (http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-cut-podcast/id452165277) and on the film's website. Just in case anyone was interested. :)

Darth Rotor

27th September 2011, 07:24 PM

So what happens when your son grows up hating you because you decided to mutilate his penis?
He can rename him Arcade.
Well, sorry guys, but I've just read post after post about what a foul mother I was and how I deliberately mutilated my children, and it didn't seem that anyone was bothering to understand why or how it might have happened.

One can only read so much of that before one takes off the gloves and comes out swinging.
:cool:
As before, I really suggest that those who claim no medical benefit to circumcision check out the mega thread from a year or two or three ago. Ivor and Skeptic Ginger figured in it, and Loss Leader, and a few others.

It was there that I was first exposed to the studies done that showed a correlation between circumcision and reduced threat of AIDS being contracted.

Apparently, not as good as wrapping the rascal, but a number greater than zero.

Mind you, it's not the method I'd offer as first choice ... but there you have it.

For all who are interested:

Go Read That Mega Thread. If you get past the silly crap like what Arcade posted here, and there is plenty of it, there is some interesting discussion.

Outta here.

Halfcentaur

27th September 2011, 07:38 PM

Compare the scent of an unwashed vagina or anus to an unwashed uncut penis. I don't understand why one can be washed but not the other.

jdp

27th September 2011, 07:56 PM

Compare the scent of an unwashed vagina or anus to an unwashed uncut penis. I don't understand why one can be washed but not the other.

It certainly does boggle the mind.

Ron_Tomkins

27th September 2011, 09:08 PM

Oh, sorry fellas. I was busy chopping some wood. Where were we?

slingblade

28th September 2011, 12:33 AM

Compare the scent of an unwashed vagina or anus to an unwashed uncut penis. I don't understand why one can be washed but not the other.

Well, as soon as someone says it can't be, then you can ask them.

Dave Rogers

28th September 2011, 01:28 AM

Oh, sorry fellas. I was busy chopping some wood. Where were we?

Still arguing over whether the wood should have been chopped in the first place.

Dave

JJM 777

28th September 2011, 02:24 AM

My father, according to my mother, was so filthy his penis stank. It got to where she wouldn't let him touch her anymore without a bath, and so they rarely had sex, because he would rarely bathe.

Is is more clear to you now?
No, it is not clear why this obvious problem was left unsolved (the problem that he did not take care of his personal hygiene, which opens the door to many a health problem and social stinkma) -- and instead you go cut his penis.

:boxedin:

Andrew Wiggin

28th September 2011, 02:36 AM

I think you'll find that the Christian insistence on circumcision is unique to just one country.. :) Outside the US, circumcision is seen as a distinctly Jewish or Islamic tradition, not a Christian one. Circumcision was actually banned by the Catholic church, and I suspect the main reason for the Church's reversal on that stance was that so many of their American members insisted on doing it anyway.

I guess I should specify AMERICA christian then. Some of our early colonists were folks so uptight ENGLAND kicked them out...

epepke

28th September 2011, 02:43 AM

Well, as soon as someone says it can't be, then you can ask them.

Not washing vaginas was one of the themes of Even Cowgirls Get the Blues and, come to mention it, most of the 1980s.

GlennB

28th September 2011, 02:45 AM

As before, I really suggest that those who claim no medical benefit to circumcision check out the mega thread from a year or two or three ago. Ivor and Skeptic Ginger figured in it, and Loss Leader, and a few others.

It was there that I was first exposed to the studies done that showed a correlation between circumcision and reduced threat of AIDS being contracted.

Apparently, not as good as wrapping the rascal, but a number greater than zero.

It might well be true that circumcision leads to a slightly reduced risk of contracting HIV for certain people. But the fallacy in promoting circumcision as a general way of reducing HIV incidence is pretty obvious.

jdp

28th September 2011, 04:21 AM

I guess I should specify AMERICA christian then. Some of our early colonists were folks so uptight ENGLAND kicked them out...

Except that it wasn't even those uptight puritans that practiced circumcision. In the US, the practice was introduced around the Victorian period by prudes who believed it would help boys stay clean. Clean at this time was a euphemism for preventing masturbation, clean in thought and deed. Of course today we use the same reason but the definition has changed. Though we are no more correct than they were.

pgwenthold

28th September 2011, 08:11 AM

Except that it wasn't even those uptight puritans that practiced circumcision. In the US, the practice was introduced around the Victorian period by prudes who believed it would help boys stay clean. Clean at this time was a euphemism for preventing masturbation, clean in thought and deed. Of course today we use the same reason but the definition has changed. Though we are no more correct than they were.

And this, in a nutshell, is what probably bothers me the most about circumcision from an ethical standpoint.

It is obvious that circumcision is a cultural phenomenon. Well, religious and cultural, but I will skip talking about religious rituals. So let's consider the cultural aspect. The US, among other countries, is largely circumcised (although that is also becoming very regionalized - there are growing pockets in the US of non-circ, to the point where the majority are actually non-circed overall these days). Then there is Europe, where no one is. Let's not fool ourselves - these tendencies are not driven by any actual health issues. It's culture.

So one asks the question, why does the US have a culture of circ? As noted, it hasn't always been that way. Indeed, up until the Victorian era, it wasn't. It is Dr Kellogg who is generally credited with starting the circumcision movement, and, as jdp, as a means for reducing masturbation among young boys. IOW, it was a part of the plan for sexual repression arising in the Victorian era. Now, whereas one can debate the effectiveness of such a plan, it does not matter because that was the objective: circumcise boys to get them to stop masturbating.

Now, as time went on, attitudes change. People discovered that it really doesn't stop boys from masturbating, but instead of dropping the practice, it persists, mainly via cultural momentum. Now instead of justifying it on the grounds of stopping masturbation, it is justified, ultimately, on an aesthetic basis, with "it's the way things are done now." Oh sure, over the next century, strong advocates desperately seek to find ways to legitimatize the procedure, and grasp for any possible reason they can, but nothing they come up with are sufficiently to persuade those not already practicing culturally. So it remains pretty much a cultural issue.

And this is where it bothers me. I really have a hard time accepting and participating in a purely cultural practice that originates with an attempt at sexual repression. Maybe it is a result of growing as a boy and facing issues of whether I should feel guilty about my masturbation habits, but I don't, and I don't think anyone else should either. To me, circumcision in the US is a legacy of that movement to stop masturbation, and that's it. It doesn't stop masturbation, and even if it did, I do not support the belief that masturbation needs to be stopped. If it weren't for that very offensive movement, I think the US would never have picked it up as a cultural practice.

I know we all like to think of ourselves as objective, rational beings, but no, we are products of our culture. Think about it - the midwest of the US is overwhelmingly circumcised. Europe is overwhelmingly not. Do you honestly think it is because folks in the midwest are all objective and rational, whereas everyone in Europe is not? Or vice versa? Of course not. They are products of their cultures, and their behaviors reflect the cultural bias. So do yours and mine. And while the correlation won't be perfect, I think you will find that circumcised men are far more likely to be supportive of circumcision, whereas non-circed are more likely to not be supportive (don't waste our time with anecdotes either way). Similarly, women who grow up in a culture of circ'd men tend to find it more attractive, whereas those who grow up around non-circ'd men tend to find that more attractive.

I gave up pretending this was a medical decision long ago. It's not, no matter how much people want to act like it is.

brodski

28th September 2011, 08:18 AM

I think you will find that circumcised men are far more likely to be supportive of circumcision, whereas non-circed are more likely to not be supportive (don't waste our time with anecdotes either way).

I would modify this somewhat to cut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is normal or usual tend to be pro and uncut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is rare tend to be anti.

zooterkin

28th September 2011, 08:22 AM

I would modify this somewhat to cut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is normal or usual tend to be pro and uncut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is rare tend to be anti.

Indeed, it's a good example of how we judge what is normal, and how difficult it can be to put aside biases that are so in-built due to, for instance, our culture that we may not even be aware that they exist.

pgwenthold

28th September 2011, 08:44 AM

I would modify this somewhat to cut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is normal or usual tend to be pro and uncut men who grow up in a culture where circumcision is rare tend to be anti.

Well, I think that is true, too, but I also think that personal situation makes a big difference. Consider what about non-circ'd guys in the US? Are they on the whole pro-circ or anti? I argue that they are, on the whole, anti-circ. Granted, they are less likely to be anti-circ than someone who grew up in Europe, but their person situation does influence them (for example, they will be aware of the false claims - do you think they will accept the claim that they should be cut because it is too dirty? No offense, of course ("Are you saying my non-circ'd penis is dirty?")

brodski

28th September 2011, 11:39 AM

Consider what about non-circ'd guys in the US? Are they on the whole pro-circ or anti? I argue that they are, on the whole, anti-circ.

Part of of the issue here relates to the imbalance of the positions. If a guy who was not circumcised as a child is strongly pro-circumcision then they can have the operation as an adult, they would therefore mostly be counted as cut guys in favour of circumcision. If a guy was circumcised as a child but is strongly anti circumcision, then they have no real option but to put up with it.*

The uncut pro-circ guys tend to select themselves out of existence as it were.

*this brings us back to the original subject of the spam op, so called "foreskin restoration". This is pretty much unmitigated woo and is based on a misunderstanding of what circumcision does. Much of the foreskin is not skin, it is a membrane and much of what is skin is more densely packed with specific types of nerve endings than the rest of the skin of the penis. Stretching the remaining skin so it covers the glans may restore the look of a foreskin, but not the function.

slingblade

28th September 2011, 01:33 PM

No, it is not clear why this obvious problem was left unsolved (the problem that he did not take care of his personal hygiene, which opens the door to many a health problem and social stinkma) -- and instead you go cut his penis.

:boxedin:

I'm trying to explain the origins of certain misconceptions I had. If you cannot understand that I recognize them as being misconceptions, and am only explaining how I came by them, then we've nothing else to talk about.

Don't persist in being deliberately obtuse to score points. It's childish in the extreme.

(And you conflated a couple of the "he's" in your ridiculous rant: I was talking about my father. I never cut his anything.)

pgwenthold

28th September 2011, 01:38 PM

Part of of the issue here relates to the imbalance of the positions. If a guy who was not circumcised as a child is strongly pro-circumcision then they can have the operation as an adult, they would therefore mostly be counted as cut guys in favour of circumcision.

Yeah, but if that is your indicator, then it remains that non-circ'd guys are overwhelmingly going to be anti-circ, because the number that actually get circ'd as adults is pretty small.

Do you really think that adding "circ'd as adults" into the results for "non-circ'd but pro-circ" will swing the balance, even in a culture of circumcision? I mean, how common is it? 1%?

That's why I agree that you are right, BUT I don't think it has a significant effect.

epepke

28th September 2011, 01:51 PM

So one asks the question, why does the US have a culture of circ? As noted, it hasn't always been that way. Indeed, up until the Victorian era, it wasn't. It is Dr Kellogg who is generally credited with starting the circumcision movement, and, as jdp, as a means for reducing masturbation among young boys. IOW, it was a part of the plan for sexual repression arising in the Victorian era. Now, whereas one can debate the effectiveness of such a plan, it does not matter because that was the objective: circumcise boys to get them to stop masturbating.

Absolutely right. A few minor points. 1) The Road to Wellville is a funny movie loosely based on Kellogg. 2) It continued for quite some time; the Reverend Graham, who also gave us the Graham cracker, was big on it. 3) Physical health arguments date from about WWI. 4) The US had considerably stronger Victorianism than did actual Victorian England.

AvalonXQ

28th September 2011, 02:21 PM

Q: Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

A: No.

/thread

Bram Kaandorp

28th September 2011, 02:25 PM

Q: Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

A: No.

/thread

No what?

:boxedin:

jdp

28th September 2011, 02:32 PM

I'm trying to explain the origins of certain misconceptions I had. If you cannot understand that I recognize them as being misconceptions, and am only explaining how I came by them, then we've nothing else to talk about.

Don't persist in being deliberately obtuse to score points. It's childish in the extreme.

(And you conflated a couple of the "he's" in your ridiculous rant: I was talking about my father. I never cut his anything.)

I think your situation is probably pretty understandable. It comes down to doctors not providing accurate information to parents and parents acting on that. Before about say 10 years ago, it was difficult to find comprehensive information on circumcision. For example, most Americans wouldn't have known, or it would have been difficult to learn, that circumcision (secularly) was rarely practiced outside North America. Many may still not know that but it's easy to learn that now.

What I can't understand is why it still persists.

Darth Rotor

28th September 2011, 08:55 PM

Since the topic is in the thread title, I have to ask why you even bothered to open the thread.

Well, there was a lot of cock in it ... now and again, one just has to have a peek, right? :cool:

:duck:

@ GlennB

So, you read my posts in response? :D We agree.

Andrew Wiggin

29th September 2011, 02:20 AM

This is actually a topic near and dear to my heart, for certain values of heart that extend below the waist. I was not circumcised at birth, but due to an accident that left a scar and some tearing to my foreskin, I had to get it taken off. I wish there had been a different option. Sex was better with a foreskin. Sensation was very different, and better than what I have now. There were no hygeine issues (I'm a big sweaty guy, I bathe daily lest I become a big sweaty stinky guy, and even then the stink is not somehow localized to the genitals) Count me firmly in the circumcised but anti-circ camp. I haven't pursued foreskin restoration because it doesn't restore feeling, and it wasn't the appearance that I liked, but rather the feeling.

Darat

29th September 2011, 02:34 AM

...snip... Oh sure, over the next century, strong advocates desperately seek to find ways to legitimatize the procedure, and grasp for any possible reason they can, but nothing they come up with are sufficiently to persuade those not already practicing culturally. So it remains pretty much a cultural issue.

...snip...

It's often said it is a procedure looking for a reason. And it is a shame to see how people who are for MGM have grasped onto the "helps prevent AIDS infections". At long last there is a reason if you live in a society that doesn't have good hygiene, poor healthcare, large endemic AIDS infection rates amongst heterosexuals, poor distribution of all forms of contraception and with little to no education about sexually transmitted diseases that a circumcision can very slightly reduce the rate of infection. How that can be considered a reason to have a male child in the USA circumcised is beyond me.

Interestingly in some of these threads when asked if we found the same slight reduction in infection rates in females as a result of FGM would they have their female children circumcised they say they wouldn't.

JoeBentley

29th September 2011, 03:05 AM

So one asks the question, why does the US have a culture of circ? As noted, it hasn't always been that way. Indeed, up until the Victorian era, it wasn't. It is Dr Kellogg who is generally credited with starting the circumcision movement, and, as jdp, as a means for reducing masturbation among young boys. IOW, it was a part of the plan for sexual repression arising in the Victorian era. Now, whereas one can debate the effectiveness of such a plan, it does not matter because that was the objective: circumcise boys to get them to stop masturbating.

Indeed.

It's over a century later and we're engaged in a practice that is best not necessary (and that's putting it lightly in my opinion) because the religious nutcase that invented Cornflakes thought it would keep boys from jerking off.

*Sighs* I love this country.

pgwenthold

29th September 2011, 04:38 AM

Indeed.

It's over a century later and we're engaged in a practice that is best not necessary (and that's putting it lightly in my opinion) because the religious nutcase that invented Cornflakes thought it would keep boys from jerking off.

Correction: his brother invented cornflakes

But otherwise, that is a fair and succinct description, yes.

Dave Rogers

29th September 2011, 05:40 AM

Q: Is Circumcision Right or Wrong?

A: No.

/thread

And yet, the thread does not end, indicating that we are not bound to consider your pronouncement the final word on this matter.

Dave

Daald

29th September 2011, 08:58 AM

As the follow up poster noted, it's nothing that has to be 'taught'.

I would disagree. I didn't know how to properly clean it when I was younger. So I needed to be taught. If everyone else knows instinctively then good for them. I guess I'll be the idiot.

Ryokan

29th September 2011, 09:20 AM

And yet, the thread does not end, indicating that we are not bound to consider your pronouncement the final word on this matter.

But he knows a guy who did it, and he says it's awesomesauce! From Avalon's glee at cutting of bits of penises, I'm considering doing it myself!

Or not. It's so easy to masturbate.. I'll never give it up! Neveeer! :p

jdp

29th September 2011, 10:22 AM

I would disagree. I didn't know how to properly clean it when I was younger. So I needed to be taught. If everyone else knows instinctively then good for them. I guess I'll be the idiot.

I certainly wouldn't say "You're an idiot." The high level instructions are to retract, rinse and replace. This is something most teen boys will end up doing in the shower anyway except they'll add repeat to the steps and increase the frequency a couple dozen times. So I do think this is in some sense an instinctive process.

Daald

29th September 2011, 10:52 AM

I certainly wouldn't say "You're an idiot." The high level instructions are to retract, rinse and replace. This is something most teen boys will end up doing in the shower anyway except they'll add repeat to the steps and increase the frequency a couple dozen times. So I do think this is in some sense an instinctive process.

I understand that as a teenager you would do that since experimentation will lead you down that path. My original message was about young kids that wouldn't do that or might be freaked out by the fact that it can be pulled back. A simple message from a parent at a young age that it is fine and they should do it would go a long way. They are the ones that need to be taught.

jdp

29th September 2011, 11:00 AM

I understand that as a teenager you would do that since experimentation will lead you down that path. My original message was about young kids that wouldn't do that or might be freaked out by the fact that it can be pulled back. A simple message from a parent at a young age that it is fine and they should do it would go a long way. They are the ones that need to be taught.

And I certainly agree a simple message about it would be fine. But a few things have to be realized. First, most boys can't retract their foreskins until (on average) about 11. So for young boys (those a parent might still be bathing) don't need to clean beneath their foreskins, trying to do so may cause damage; just sitting in and splashing around in the tub is sufficient. Second, even after a boy reaches that point, it's not necessary that it be cleaned everyday. Is it optimal? Sure. But it's no more problematic than any other body part after not showering a week or more.

Daald

29th September 2011, 11:15 AM

And I certainly agree a simple message about it would be fine. But a few things have to be realized. First, most boys can't retract their foreskins until (on average) about 11. So for young boys (those a parent might still be bathing) don't need to clean beneath their foreskins, trying to do so may cause damage; just sitting in and splashing around in the tub is sufficient. Second, even after a boy reaches that point, it's not necessary that it be cleaned everyday. Is it optimal? Sure. But it's no more problematic than any other body part after not showering a week or more.

We are in agreement then.

Now a question. Why do you say it can't be pulled back before 11? Is it impossible, impractical or hearsay? I have heard from some people that they were instructed to pull back and wash at a young age (younger than 11 was the implication). Were they mistaken?

Thanks

Darat

29th September 2011, 11:23 AM

pgwenthold

29th September 2011, 11:30 AM

We are in agreement then.

Now a question. Why do you say it can't be pulled back before 11? Is it impossible, impractical or hearsay? I have heard from some people that they were instructed to pull back and wash at a young age (younger than 11 was the implication). Were they mistaken?

Thanks

The proper approach is to not force it back, and you should only retract when it is readily retractable. That develops naturally over time as it loosens on its own, generally as a result of erections. However, the rate at which that happens is highly variable. I have seen estimates (maybe it was from jdp) that the median age this occurs is as high as 11, although I've generally heard younger.

Our 3 year old's foreskin is loosening, and there have been times when we thought it was getting there, but then it seems to stop retracting, and if we try it hurts, so we don't bother. Now, he gets a lot of erections (like his dad :)), and has been since he was really young, so that can contribute. His 1 yo brother (as of Tues!) is not like that. I don't think I've ever seen him with an erection, although he does play with himself, like, constantly (again, similar to his dad :)) His foreskin isn't close to retracting, Actually, it's a little narrow right now, and at his 9 mo wellness, the NP inquired whether he had any urination issues. Not that we can tell, that's for sure, because he fulfills his wet diaper quota.

It is certainly the case that there is a lot of bad advice about hygiene, and I attribute it to inexperience of doctors in the US dealing with it. As far as I can tell,

Rule 1 : don't force anything. It will retract when it is ready to retract, and when that happens, you will be able to tell because it will occur easily and without pain. If you encounter anything else, don't bother.

Rule 2: There is no timeline, so don't feel you need to break Rule 1

Daald

29th September 2011, 12:12 PM

Thank you for the information Darat and pgwenthold.

pgwenthold

29th September 2011, 12:45 PM

Thank you for the information Darat and pgwenthold.

Actually, I found the website that Darat linked to be very useful. The nice part of it is that it is a legitimate medical website, but from a perspective where non-circumcision is the default, and it is not with an agenda.

I think my summation is fair, but note that has just been my conclusions based on reading things like Darat posted.

Mudcat

29th September 2011, 01:06 PM

Obviously the religionists practice of circumcision is right. If it weren't than why would they forcibly commit it before the child involved could make an informed decision to get it done? :rolleyes:

jdp

29th September 2011, 07:47 PM

We are in agreement then.

I would say for the most part we seem to be in agreement, unless I missed something. ;) The thing is I think in most cases boys will work this out for themselves though of course I see no reason that parents can't explain it or that it shouldn't also be explained in say a health class. But having said that, they shouldn't be made to feel that there is say some time table and parents shouldn't feel there is either. They shouldn't worry, for example, that their five year old's foreskin doesn't retract at all. Being able to retract their foreskin isn't something that a parent needs to follow and the child needs to say make some steady progress on by some arbitrary point. And in general, parents don't need to worry about it at all. I think that not knowing these things contribute to the 'hygiene' myths with regard to intact boys.

Now a question. Why do you say it can't be pulled back before 11? Is it impossible, impractical or hearsay?

Others have covered this pretty well already. That is an average age when boys can fully retract their foreskin. The process to get to that point varies greatly from one to another. A very small percentage are born with their foreskins separated from the glans but for most, it's a gradual process which may not end until puberty.

The problem for parents, and medical practitioners for that matter, who are not familiar with the process is that they could cause problems by trying to retract a boy to say 'make sure he cleans'. This could cause tearing which might cause infection and might eventually lead to phimosis. The best advice with regard to this issue is that only the boy should ever retract his own foreskin, clearly there are exceptions.

I have heard from some people that they were instructed to pull back and wash at a young age (younger than 11 was the implication). Were they mistaken? Thanks

Not necessarily. As I said a good message would be to instruct the boy that they will eventually need to do this but when they start is when they're ready. The message shouldn't be, "By XX you should be able to do this and that and if not there is a problem." I also wouldn't say 'wash', rinsing is usually more than enough.

ETA: I like Darat's link. It sums it up pretty well.

Minoosh

29th September 2011, 08:21 PM

This may have come up already - do you want your kid to have a weird wiener that might draw taunts in the boys' locker room? It's one small consideration.

I don't equate it to female circumcision at all. Removal of the clitoris and sometimes scraping away the labia, sewing the vagina closed except for a small opening for menstruation, then cutting the woman open with a knife at marriage is a lot more serious.

One guy I know says he's exquisitely sensitive due to his intact-ness so sex is better. Really that was too much information.

Ryokan

29th September 2011, 08:36 PM

This may have come up already - do you want your kid to have a weird wiener that might draw taunts in the boys' locker room? It's one small consideration.

Elective surgery on children's bodies to make them fit in? What do you do with children who draw large taunts because they have a big nose or big ears?

And isn't this sort of a vicious circle? Some time ago, circumcision became a fad in the US. And now that the majority are, you have to keep doing it, otherwise those who aren't are seen as 'abnormal'. It's an incredible argument.

Believe me, kids will find something to taunt other kids with with anyway, whether it's that their parents didn't cut of bits of their penis, or big ears, or red hair, or what have you.

I don't equate it to female circumcision at all. Removal of the clitoris and sometimes scraping away the labia, sewing the vagina closed except for a small opening for menstruation, then cutting the woman open with a knife at marriage is a lot more serious.

Perhaps if you informed yourself a little better? Not all female circumcision is as you describe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision#Types_I_and_II

Type I female circumcision is directly comparable to male circumcision, as it only removes the clitoral hood. Now that you know that, are you still against it?

One guy I know says he's exquisitely sensitive due to his intact-ness so sex is better. Really that was too much information.

Yes, decades of not having the head of the penis chaffing against your underwear will do that.

But if you're too squeamish to discuss the topic, why are you here? :)

Minoosh

29th September 2011, 09:21 PM

Elective surgery on children's bodies to make them fit in? What do you do with children who draw large taunts because they have a big nose or big ears?

My concern isn't about "fitting in," exactly. It's more about the kid's well-being. If he liked his big ears, fine. If he came home crying every day, if he's plagued by shame and lack of confidence, I'd give him the choice if it were at all feasible. And BTW I don't agree an uncircumcised penis is "abnormal." I suppose you could put off circumcision and let the kid decide.

I know it would be ideal to persuade the child to ignore teasing and accept himself as he is but that's tough to do.

Believe me, kids will find something to taunt other kids with with anyway, whether it's that their parents didn't cut of bits of their penis, or big ears, or red hair, or what have you.

If I loved my kid and could change a perceived flaw that was making him miserable I'd do it for the confidence he would gain - confidence that might make him less likely to be bullied.

Perhaps if you informed yourself a little better? Not all female circumcision is as you describe.

I didn't say it was. And why the gratuitous dig? I'm curious what people get out of that.

Type I female circumcision is directly comparable to male circumcision, as it only removes the clitoral hood. Now that you know that, are you still against it?

Not necessarily. I don't know the long-term consequences of removing the clitoral hood. Here's a great opportunity to look it up yourself so you can take another jab at me and maybe make yourself feel better.

Yes, decades of not having the head of the penis chaffing against your underwear will do that.

I imagine that would toughen it up pretty good. I'm not "squeamish" about the subject. This coworker brought it up out of nowhere and it wasn't a detail of his life I particularly wanted to know. He seemed really interested in talking about it, and I wasn't.

jdp

29th September 2011, 09:52 PM

This may have come up already - do you want your kid to have a weird wiener that might draw taunts in the boys' locker room? It's one small consideration.
My concern isn't about "fitting in," exactly. It's more about the kid's well-being. If he liked his big ears, fine. If he came home crying every day, if he's plagued by shame and lack of confidence, I'd give him the choice if it were at all feasible. And BTW I don't agree an uncircumcised penis is "abnormal." I suppose you could put off circumcision and let the kid decide.

I am not sure for a normal body part, as opposed to say a birth defect, this is a reasonable consideration at all. As Ryokan noted, kids will make fun of a child for anything is is/has or is not/has not. It could be their red hair, their freckles, perhaps he is overweight, too thin, too short, too tall, perhaps his parents work in an undesirable profession, or they're poor the list goes on and on forever. His penis will probably be one of the least noticeable traits to be honest. There are better ways to build confidence then to try and carve a child in their peer's image.

I didn't say it was. And why the gratuitous dig? I'm curious what people get out of that.

Actually, the way you wrote it, at the very least you implied that if there were more than one kind they are all then unquestionably worse than male circumcision.
I don't equate it to female circumcision at all. Removal of the clitoris and sometimes scraping away the labia, sewing the vagina closed except for a small opening for menstruation, then cutting the woman open with a knife at marriage is a lot more serious.

The fact is this is not the case. Female circumcision is an umbrella term which actually covers a range of procedures. Some are clearly more damaging than male circumcision while others are much less. Despite the fact that some types of female circumcision are less damaging than male circumcision all forms of it are illegal to perform on a minor absent medical need.

I do equate the two depending on the degree, they are performed for essentially the same reason. What I can't wrap my head around though is why women are protected without regard to the degree, reason, or conditions of a female circumcision but men aren't protected at all.

Prometheus

29th September 2011, 10:04 PM

I understand the arguments against it, and from a rational standpoint they seem right to me. Nevertheless, I find myself unable to feel more than a slight twinge of guilt about having had my sons cut. I've felt worse about a wide variety of quite minor indiscretions, in fact. I'd say my feeling toward it is about 90% ambivalence and 10% unease. To me, the fact I can easily see how wrong it is while not being able to generate an appropriate emotional response is testament to the power of the cultural inertia involved.

Actually, I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't think about the topic much at all until after my first son was cut. I didn't even realize that I was myself cut until well into adulthood. I'd simply never seen an uncut penis. I vaguely knew that the Jews cut something down there, but I didn't really know what it was, or that I didn't have one. It simply wasn't discussed at all, at any time, during my upbringing. I've never felt any resentment or sense of loss at having been cut myself. Of course I'm aware that I'm missing out on a different experience of sex, but I really don't know what that is, and I can't imagine enjoying sex more than I already do.

When my wife wanted to have our first son cut, I knew it was unnecessary, but I'd never encountered the opinion that it was actually wrong, I went along out of sheer ambivalent complacency. Before my second son was born, I'd already realized that it was wrong, but again I went along with my wife's wish, mainly out of cowardice, this time--I simply didn't want to ever be in the position of explaining to my first son why his brother had something that he did not. And again, I don't feel that bad about it. Even worse, I threw a fit when my wife wanted to have our baby girl's ears pierced. I did not allow it to happen, and I used all the same arguments that anti-circ people use in order to protect my little girl from that barbaric practice. Call me a hypocrite. I'm still not gonna get much worked up about it. I'm a lot more worried about other aspects of parenting.

Maybe they'll resent me for it when they grow up. I hope not. On the other hand, I fully expect, despite my best efforts, to give them plenty of other reasons to resent me anyway.

abaddon

29th September 2011, 11:05 PM

I just cannot find myself understanding pretty much most of the posts here.

Female genital mutilation is abominable, but male genital mutilation is not.

Are you for real?

pgwenthold

30th September 2011, 04:28 AM

This may have come up already - do you want your kid to have a weird wiener that might draw taunts in the boys' locker room? It's one small consideration.

Exactly when will this happen?

Most of the time when kids are likely to be doing this, they will be too young to be showering together in the boys locker room. And when they are old enough to be showering in boys locker room, the usual response is going to be, "What are you doing looking at my wiener?"

This is actually a very poor consideration. If the kid gets picked on for having red hair, would you as a parent 1) tell them they are special in the way they are made and the other kids are wrong, or 2) shave it off?

Note that this is even less of an issue than circ because red hair grows back.

truethat

30th September 2011, 04:51 AM

mutilating your child's genitals for aesthetic purposes is just plain wrong. I have two that are and one that isn't. Not a G-d dang bit of difference at all.

and the "looking at the personables" bit is also a joke. Not once in years has any of them checked out the others and had angst about the "difference"

FYI when girls are in locker rooms, they also don't check out each others vajayjays that I can recall.

jdp

30th September 2011, 05:49 AM

I understand the arguments against it, and from a rational standpoint they seem right to me. Nevertheless, I find myself unable to feel more than a slight twinge of guilt about having had my sons cut.

...

Maybe they'll resent me for it when they grow up. I hope not. On the other hand, I fully expect, despite my best efforts, to give them plenty of other reasons to resent me anyway.

I think your post is emblematic of how baked into our society this procedure is. As I believe George Bernard Shaw said: “Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity, and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.”

My guess would be that your sons would likely not resent you but it would be my hope that they consider the issue more when they have a son. I see this happening more and more because most people now know even long before they have a son that it is unnecessary. As opposed to even 10 years ago, it was more difficult to learn that if you lived in the US where you either thought men were simply born that way or that circumcision was absolutely necessary for their wellbeing.

sloinker

30th September 2011, 11:42 AM

I am an un-circumsised American born At Stanford medical center in 1960. My mother was something of a hippie before there were hippies and she didn't have any of us boys,(4), circumsised. My father was born in the South in the 1930's and he is also un-circumsised. From a young age I was taught at bathtime to retract the skin and wash the glans with soap and water.
I felt somewhat self conscious as a teen when in the locker room at shower time because I was usually the only one around that was intact. Looking back I probably would have preferred the circumsision in school but as an adult I am glad I am uncut. My only child is female and chances are nearing 100% that I won't have any other offspring. I am still unsure if I was to have a boy what I would have done as far as the circumcision decision.

Minoosh

1st October 2011, 02:12 PM

Exactly when will this happen?

Most of the time when kids are likely to be doing this, they will be too young to be showering together in the boys locker room.

Sloinker, above, gives a more creditable example than I could and apparently it wasn't any big deal. My point was that societal norms (rightly or wrongly) sometimes matter when kids are being mean. Developmentally "being mean" is probably a different phase than "showering together," though Stephen King got a lot of mileage out of combining them.

MoeFaux

1st October 2011, 03:03 PM

Wrong. I mean, it's just wrong. It's a damn shame how many men are circumcised. :(

slingblade

2nd October 2011, 01:25 AM

FYI when girls are in locker rooms, they also don't check out each others vajayjays that I can recall.

No, we didn't.

We checked out each other's boobs.

Bram Kaandorp

2nd October 2011, 12:07 PM

No, we didn't.

We checked out each other's boobs.

With an entire industry to support the insecure girls.

Too bad. But at least that doesn't happen when the girl is a baby. Perish the thought...

AvalonXQ

6th October 2011, 10:33 PM

With an entire industry to support the insecure girls.

Two, actually.
The brassiere industry to make breasts appear larger.
The cosmetic surgery industry to make them actually larger.

Leumas

7th October 2011, 07:08 AM

Two, actually.
The brassiere industry to make breasts appear larger.
The cosmetic surgery industry to make them actually larger.

Add to the above:

The Makeup industry
The Nail extensions industry
The Hare Coloring Industry
The Artificial Eye Color Lenses Industry
The Collagen Injection Industry
The Diet pills and other paraphernalia Industry
The Augmentation industry
The Reduction Industry
The Changing Industry
The entire damned FOOL MEN and change who you are INDUSTRY

Peter@Beoworld

7th October 2011, 08:17 AM

LizardmanSpike

7th October 2011, 08:18 AM

Bram Kaandorp

7th October 2011, 10:41 AM

Add to the above:

The Makeup industry
The Nail extensions industry
The Hare Coloring Industry
The Artificial Eye Color Lenses Industry
The Collagen Injection Industry
The Diet pills and other paraphernalia Industry
The Augmentation industry
The Reduction Industry
The Changing Industry
The entire damned FOOL MEN and change who you are INDUSTRY

All are unrelated to slingblade's post, which was not about men.

truethat

7th October 2011, 11:55 AM

Add to the above:

The Makeup industry
The Nail extensions industry
The Hare Coloring Industry
The Artificial Eye Color Lenses Industry
The Collagen Injection Industry
The Diet pills and other paraphernalia Industry
The Augmentation industry
The Reduction Industry
The Changing Industry
The entire damned FOOL MEN and change who you are INDUSTRY

I've always loved how women try to blame men for the crap they buy into. How about the "stop letting other people tell you what you ought to be, and grow a spine industry" that women love to ignore.

cornsail

7th October 2011, 01:33 PM

Keeper

7th October 2011, 01:35 PM

ApolloGnomon

7th October 2011, 01:40 PM

Aftering reading a different thread on JREF about circumcision, my wife and I decided to not have our son circumcised. At 5 months old it doesn't seem like he is any dirtier becuase of it. If he wants to have it cut off when he is 18 he can go and do it.

We made the same choice. I couldn't think of any good reason to void the warranty on a brand new human.

My boys are now 9 and 11, and have never had any issues with it.

Andrew Wiggin

8th October 2011, 03:50 AM

I'd like to point out that I've been in many public showers, both as a child and as an adult, and never had anyone point and laught at my genitals, or in fact take much note of them at all. It's something people fear might happen, but I don't believe it is something that DOES happen. I've got it filed next to 'chased by bigfoot' and 'bitten by vampires' with the rest of the childhood fears that turned out to be entirely imaginary.

noch1Narr

8th October 2011, 02:48 PM

I offered serious objections when my middle son and his wife were expecting boy/girl twins and son replied that they'd have the boy circumcised because they didn't want him be ridiculed in locker room showers....of course I was overruled, because "we as parents have the right to decide what's best for the child"....Haven't been on speaking terms with son&daughter-in-law ever since.
I agree with all of you above who have voiced their opinion that circumcision is WRONG, for whatever "reasons", especially when performed even though lots of literature exists that makes it clear that this procedure is UNNECESSARY in 99.99% of cases.

pgwenthold

9th October 2011, 11:43 AM

of course I was overruled, because "we as parents have the right to decide what's best for the child"

...even if we have to invent a reason to decide what is best.

Clearly, it was a case of decide first, find a reason later.

jdp

10th October 2011, 01:56 PM

We had a very good lecture by a paediatric surgeon yesterday - and circumcision was one of the topics. His view was that except in very rare cases, this is never justified on medical grounds. He also showed us a reply by a previous professor of paediatric medicine in Newcastle, where I practice. This can be found here - http://www.cirp.org/library/general/spence1/
I wish I wrote letters like that!

Peter was this in the UK? If so, that sentiment doesn't surprise me. Most physicians outside North America, particularly the US, would share that opinion.

Aftering reading a different thread on JREF about circumcision, my wife and I decided to not have our son circumcised. At 5 months old it doesn't seem like he is any dirtier becuase of it. If he wants to have it cut off when he is 18 he can go and do it.

We made the same choice. I couldn't think of any good reason to void the warranty on a brand new human.

My boys are now 9 and 11, and have never had any issues with it.

Congratulations to both of you it's always nice to hear when Americans have turned this down.

I offered serious objections when my middle son and his wife were expecting boy/girl twins and son replied that they'd have the boy circumcised because they didn't want him be ridiculed in locker room showers....of course I was overruled, because "we as parents have the right to decide what's best for the child"....Haven't been on speaking terms with son&daughter-in-law ever since.
I agree with all of you above who have voiced their opinion that circumcision is WRONG, for whatever "reasons", especially when performed even though lots of literature exists that makes it clear that this procedure is UNNECESSARY in 99.99% of cases.

At least you tried noch; it's a tradition that dies hard. Difficult to figure out why though.

...even if we have to invent a reason to decide what is best.

Clearly, it was a case of decide first, find a reason later.

It almost always is.

AmandaM

11th October 2011, 12:56 PM

I'm just curious how you all would respond to the argument that "baby boys should look like their daddies."

I'm not sure what this means, but I've heard this argument by circd men for having their boys circd. Is there a concern that the child will think he's weird or different for having an intact penis when dad's is cut?

Also, I'm not aware of the AAP's stand on dads being naked around their kids. At what point do you not run around flashing your wieners at each other? :)
Is there a time frame after which it's not okay for son to see dad naked? Because if it seems like that time window is relatively short (like 3 years or so) then the kid couldn't really develop issues about how his body is that much different that dad's, can he?

cornsail

11th October 2011, 01:51 PM

I don't think a baby's penis would look like his dad's regardless. :p

jdp

11th October 2011, 02:05 PM

I'm just curious how you all would respond to the argument that "baby boys should look like their daddies."

Penn Jillette made a pretty funny observation about this issue:
http://youtu.be/3yRFNciRUAk

Cracked me up the first time I watched it.

dafydd

12th October 2011, 02:35 AM

One for our British readers. Have you heard about the Jewish boy who was crying on the steps of the synagogue because somebody had nicked his pullover?

For those over the pond.

'Nicked his pullover' also means 'stole his sweater'

AmandaM

12th October 2011, 09:19 AM

Penn Jillette made a pretty funny observation about this issue:
http://youtu.be/3yRFNciRUAk

Cracked me up the first time I watched it.

That's brilliant! I'm sending it to daddy.

ZirconBlue

12th October 2011, 12:21 PM

I'm just curious how you all would respond to the argument that "baby boys should look like their daddies."

It's a dumb argument. I don't recall ever even seeing my father's penis, let alone comparing mine to his. I don't think my experience in that regard is atypical.

pgwenthold

12th October 2011, 01:08 PM

It's a dumb argument. I don't recall ever even seeing my father's penis, let alone comparing mine to his. I don't think my experience in that regard is atypical.

And even in places where it is easy for kids to compare themselves against their parents we don't care if they don't look alike. As I've asked before, I'm bald, so does that mean that we need to shave our kids' heads to make sure they look like me?

It's claim that fails on so many levels. If that's the best someone can come up with, you know that they haven't put any thought into it at all.

abaddon

12th October 2011, 01:17 PM

It's a dumb argument. I don't recall ever even seeing my father's penis, let alone comparing mine to his. I don't think my experience in that regard is atypical.

If you knew my father you would know for certain it was atypical.

My father is a very private man.

Captain Obvious

12th October 2011, 01:30 PM

Circumcision is wrong, whichever way you cut it.

ZirconBlue

12th October 2011, 01:41 PM

Circumcision is wrong, whichever way you cut it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/68904e41966d64e30.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=23881)

jdp

12th October 2011, 01:59 PM

That's brilliant! I'm sending it to daddy.

Always glad to help. :)

Circumcision is wrong, whichever way you cut it.

The pun was appreciated but I might modify this to instead be, 'non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and children is wrong, whichever way you cut it.' Essentially meaning the routine circumcision that occurs mostly in North America, the US in particular.

There are a few therapeutic reasons why infants and children may need to be circumcised. And adults should be free to "personalize" their bodies in which ever way they see fit.

Schrodinger's Cat

12th October 2011, 02:12 PM

Came across this article the other day:

It's titled "In defense of Circumcision" andthe doctors arguing in its favor are from John Hopkin's University, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/04/news/la-heb-circumcision-20111004

This is why I really take issue with people who portray Americans as evil or horrid for circumcising their children.

For the longest time, I was in favor of circumcision, because whenever I see articles in favor of circumcision, they are usually backed up by doctors of an impeccable pedigree. Very well respected medical journals have also encouraged circumcision, mostly on the basis of arguments like this:

“If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV [high-risk human papillomavirus] by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention,” Drs. Aaron Tobian and Ronald Gray write in Wednesday’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

Which is a good point. But the other point is that teaching your kid safe sex can accomplish the same goal without the need for circumcision.

On the other hand, whenver I saw anti circumcision articles, they were invariably from woo sources. The kinds of people who also wrote articles against vaccination and chemotherapy. These were literally the only places I ever saw people arguing against circumcision.

In fact, in the article above, the doctors actually do compare not circumcising a child with not vaccinating a child, which is an argument I've heard a lot from the medical community. It is portrayed as irresponsible not to circumcise your child.

The only reason I even found out more information about circumcision, or that it isn't practiced routinely in Europe, was because I lived in Europe and went to saunas and saw, woah, none of these guys are circumcised, and then happened across some blogs there by people like Christopher Hitchens and others (mostly Europeans) on science blog discussing the practice. It was simply not information that was prevalent or easily available to me.

It's one thing to fault the medical establishment and media in America's portrayel of circumcision, but another to fault the parents. Many of them think they are doing the medically appropriate thing.

The other thing is aside from forums like this, I don't ever see the media portray stories of men who fault their parents for circumcising them, but I have seen many in which uncircumcised men rail against their parents both for social consequences of not being cut (i.e. a girl is turned off by it, they are teased, etc) or because they had to have it later in life for medical reasons, and faulted their parents for not having it down in infancy when it was a simpler, less dangerous procedure (as the risk factor is higher when you do it at an older age), and also at an age where he wouldn't have been old enough to remember the pain and discomfort that follows a circumcision.

Americans are presented with a very one sided argument. I've tried to talk to my hubby about this but he's incredibly pro circumcision and there's just no convincing him otherwise. But as we don't plan to have our own kids, just maybe do foster care or adopt older children, it's not really worth arguing over.

I offered serious objections when my middle son and his wife were expecting boy/girl twins and son replied that they'd have the boy circumcised because they didn't want him be ridiculed in locker room showers....of course I was overruled, because "we as parents have the right to decide what's best for the child"....Haven't been on speaking terms with son&daughter-in-law ever since.
I agree with all of you above who have voiced their opinion that circumcision is WRONG, for whatever "reasons", especially when performed even though lots of literature exists that makes it clear that this procedure is UNNECESSARY in 99.99% of cases.

You were split off from your son and grandchildren over this? May I ask who cut off communication, you or your son? Feel free to not go into it, just curious.

jdp

12th October 2011, 03:36 PM

Came across this article the other day:

It's titled "In defense of Circumcision" andthe doctors arguing in its favor are from John Hopkin's University, one of the most prestigious medical schools in the country.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/04/news/la-heb-circumcision-20111004

This is why I really take issue with people who portray Americans as evil or horrid for circumcising their children.

I am not sure if that I would call them evil but misinformed. Something you've clearly observed when you discuss the matter.

For the longest time, I was in favor of circumcision, because whenever I see articles in favor of circumcision, they are usually backed up by doctors of an impeccable pedigree. Very well respected medical journals have also encouraged circumcision, mostly on the basis of arguments like this:
“If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV [high-risk human papillomavirus] by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention,” Drs. Aaron Tobian and Ronald Gray write in Wednesday’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn.

Which is a good point. But the other point is that teaching your kid safe sex can accomplish the same goal without the need for circumcision.

Personally, I find the analogy with vaccines to be very poor. When I think of vaccine, I am thinking of long term, substantial risk reduction to infection from just about any possible source. For example the measles vaccine, I believe, has an efficacy in excess of 95%. The small pox vaccine eradicated the disease in nature and polio is today being targeted for eradication too. Having that in mind I think it is irresponsible, and even dangerous, to even consider drawing such an analogy.

Besides that there are other mitigating factors. We have an HPV vaccine which is again extremely effective and available to boys. And the prevalence of HIV in most first world countries is low, especially the risk for F->M transmission which is what that value applies too.

On the other hand, whenver I saw anti circumcision articles, they were invariably from woo sources. The kinds of people who also wrote articles against vaccination and chemotherapy. These were literally the only places I ever saw people arguing against circumcision.

I would disagree Schrodinger. There are plenty of non-woo sources where the same information had been assessed and a separate conclusion was reached. For example, the Royal Dutch Medical Association put out a formal statement last year and followed up with this press (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/09/doctors_campaign_against_risky.php) release only a few months ago.

The Dutch doctors federation KNMG has again called on ministers, MPs and human rights organisations to speak out against the practice of circumcising young boys.

Doctors from the Norwegian medical association made a similar statement the year (http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/top-norwegian-doctor-wants-circumcision-phased-out/) before.

And the Australasian Royal College of Physicians 2010 position statement available on their site (http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E).

After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australiaand New Zealand.

They do go on to say that despite the fact that there is no evidence of substantial benefit, parent's should still be able to choose it. To me that's a bit of a cop out.

In fact, in the article above, the doctors actually do compare not circumcising a child with not vaccinating a child, which is an argument I've heard a lot from the medical community. It is portrayed as irresponsible not to circumcise your child.

I think that argument is nothing but sophistry.

The only reason I even found out more information about circumcision, or that it isn't practiced routinely in Europe, was because ... It was simply not information that was prevalent or easily available to me.

I think this contributes to American's misunderstanding of the issue. If you spend your whole life immersed in a culture that says such a thing is OK it is difficult to see how that may not be the case. Consider how difficult it might be for an American 10 or 20 years ago to dig up what doctors in other parts of the first world thought about this procedure, as a routine one that is.

It's one thing to fault the medical establishment and media in America's portrayel of circumcision, but another to fault the parents. Many of them think they are doing the medically appropriate thing.

Americans are presented with a very one sided argument. I've tried to talk to my hubby about this but he's incredibly pro circumcision and there's just no convincing him otherwise. But as we don't plan to have our own kids, just maybe do foster care or adopt older children, it's not really worth arguing over.

I saw an interesting new study (http://www.jmhjournal.org/article/S1875-6867%2810%2900050-3/abstract) that pretty much told me something I already knew.

Basically, those who are circumcised (doctor or not) are going to believe that there was/is a good reason for it. Those who are not are going to be a bit more skeptical.

Schrodinger's Cat

12th October 2011, 03:51 PM

I would disagree Schrodinger. There are plenty of non-woo sources where the same information had been assessed and a separate conclusion was reached. For example, the Royal Dutch Medical Association put out a formal statement last year and followed up with this press (http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/09/doctors_campaign_against_risky.php) release only a few months ago.

Doctors from the Norwegian medical association made a similar statement the year (http://theforeigner.no/pages/news/top-norwegian-doctor-wants-circumcision-phased-out/) before.

And the Australasian Royal College of Physicians 2010 position statement available on their site (http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=65118B16-F145-8B74-236C86100E4E3E8E).

Well, remember, I'm specifically talking about Americans here, and you've listed all foreign sources.

But in any event, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these sources don't exist out there in the world, or that there aren't any non woo sources in America.

I'm just saying that's not what you see in the media, in my experience anyways. When I've read major American publications, be it journals or news magazines or newspapers, etc, I've only seen pro circumcision arguments, backed up by prestigious doctors, hospitals, and medical journals. Whereas whenever I've seen stuff that was anti circumcision, it was always on a place like Huffington Post or some such organization that is known for peddling anti science woo, often by authors who I knew also to be, for example, also vaccination. So I never took them seriously.

I'm not saying there aren't credible sources out there, only that I had to go looking for them to find them. They weren't just available to me as an average American. And as you state, in a culture where it is so common as to be considered routine, people aren't that likely to go looking for information. I certainly didn't, I just took it for granted that circumcision was medically appropriate. I just happened upon it on pretty obscure blogs that opened my eyes.

jdp

12th October 2011, 04:11 PM

Well, remember, I'm specifically talking about Americans here, and you've listed all foreign sources.

But in any event, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying these sources don't exist out there in the world, or that there aren't any non woo sources in America.

I'm just saying that's not what you see in the media, in my experience anyways. When I've read major American publications, be it journals or news magazines or newspapers, etc, I've only seen pro circumcision arguments, backed up by prestigious doctors, hospitals, and medical journals. Whereas whenever I've seen stuff that was anti circumcision, it was always on a place like Huffington Post or some such organization that is known for peddling anti science woo, often by authors who I knew also to be, for example, also vaccination. So I never took them seriously.

I'm not saying there aren't credible sources out there, only that I had to go looking for them to find them. They weren't just available to me as an average American. And as you state, in a culture where it is so common as to be considered routine, people aren't that likely to go looking for information. I certainly didn't, I just took it for granted that circumcision was medically appropriate. I just happened upon it on pretty obscure blogs that opened my eyes.

I know, but it seemed to me as if you were saying that you never see any reputable sources that argue against circumcision. I am just saying to see that, if you're in the US, you really have to dig a bit. I think the reason you see this is because circumcision is so fossilized into our culture that critical thinking on the matter rarely takes place at any level from layman to researcher to doctor.

Leumas

13th October 2011, 12:08 AM

I've always loved how women try to blame men for the crap they buy into. How about the "stop letting other people tell you what you ought to be, and grow a spine industry" that women love to ignore.

I don't think that is what Leumas was saying.

But you are right, woman are often (not always) harsher judges of each others' appearances than men are.

I am a man.... You misunderstood what I was saying I think.... I was saying that all that stuff they do is to FOOL men....not that men actually demand it.

I agree with Cornsail.....women, mostly, do all that for other women really, more than they do it for men.

I used to BEG and PLEAD with my wife to stop putting on makeup and stupid me… I thought that she was doing it for me and if I told her that I liked her more without makeup, then she would stop....how stupid was I….. I don’t even know what her real hair color ever was.

If women stopped buying meaningless crap half the national debt would be halved. Just stopping redecorating the house twice a year and then having a party to show it off, may actually bring us out of the depression…:D

JJM 777

13th October 2011, 01:54 AM

in the US, you really have to dig a bit. I think the reason you see this is because circumcision is so fossilized into our culture that critical thinking on the matter rarely takes place at any level from layman to researcher to doctor.
Here in Finland a Jewish father recently was sued to court for violent assault, after getting his son circced. Circumcision is practically unknown here, and the national doctors association takes the stance that removing healthy tissue for no reason is against their ethical code. In some ways the frontline is in Scandinavia and Netherlands etc. where mankind evolves forward. (OT side note: the Dutch evolve also physically though, they are the tallest people on earth.)

zooterkin

13th October 2011, 03:43 AM

Here in Finland a Jewish father recently was sued to court for violent assault, after getting his son circced. Circumcision is practically unknown here, and the national doctors association takes the stance that removing healthy tissue for no reason is against their ethical code.

Is that a test case, or is the Jewish population in Finland close to zero? Or was there something unusual about this particular case? Just wondering why that should happen now.

In some ways the frontline is in Scandinavia and Netherlands etc. where mankind evolves forward.
Um, what?

Professor Yaffle

13th October 2011, 03:48 AM

The Finnish cases I could find:

In August 2006, a Finnish court ruled that the circumcision of a four-year-old boy arranged by his mother, who is Muslim, to be an illegal assault. The boy's father, who had not been consulted, reported the incident to the police. A local prosecutor stated that the prohibition of genital mutilation is not gender-specific in Finnish law. A lawyer for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health stated that there is neither legislation nor prohibition on male circumcision, and that "the operations have been performed on the basis of common law." The case was appealed [25] and in October 2008 the Finnish Supreme Court ruled that the circumcision, " carried out for religious and social reasons and in a medical manner, did not have the earmarks of a criminal offence. It pointed out in its ruling that the circumcision of Muslim boys is an established tradition and an integral part of the identity of Muslim men".[26] In 2008, the Finnish government was reported to be considering a new law to legalise circumcision if the practitioner is a doctor and if the child consents.[27]
In February 2010, a Jewish couple were fined for causing bodily harm to their then infant son who was circumcised in 2008 by a mohel brought in from the UK. Normal procedure for persons of Jewish faith in Finland is to have a locally certified mohel who work in Finnish healthcare perform the operation. In the 2008 case, the infant was not anesthetized and developed complications that required immediate hospital care. The parents were ordered to pay 1500 euros in damages to their child.[28]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_law#Finland

Charges against parents who subjected their week-old son to circumcision without anaesthetic have been dropped by the Helsinki Court of Appeal. The ruling, handed down on Wednesday 30th March, concluded that the boy’s legal guardians were not guilty of incitement to assault and battery when allowing an English rabbi with no medical training to perform the traditional Jewish procedure on their newborn son.
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/04/09/charges-dropped-in-circumcision-case/#ixzz1aeqgiTng

JJM 777

13th October 2011, 06:59 AM

Is that a test case, or is the Jewish population in Finland close to zero? Or was there something unusual about this particular case? Just wondering why that should happen now.
It happens now and not 50 years ago, because nowadays the law is critical about circumcision. The Finnish population did not do it 50 years ago either, but neither was there much immigrant population who would do it and draw public attention to the issue.

Circumcision of boy children is not directly illegal in Finland. Not yet. But it is extremely rare, only done by our few Jews and a growing population of Muslim immigrants. Which tells a lot about its reasonability already. 99% of doctors are neither of these, hence their ease to take a critical and objective stance about the issue.

zooterkin

13th October 2011, 09:18 AM

It happens now and not 50 years ago, because nowadays the law is critical about circumcision. The Finnish population did not do it 50 years ago either, but neither was there much immigrant population who would do it and draw public attention to the issue.

Circumcision of boy children is not directly illegal in Finland. Not yet. But it is extremely rare, only done by our few Jews and a growing population of Muslim immigrants. Which tells a lot about its reasonability already. 99% of doctors are neither of these, hence their ease to take a critical and objective stance about the issue.

The links Professor Yaffle gave suggest that this case (I assume both links refer to the same case) was unusual in that the normal procedure was not followed, and there were complications.

In February 2010, a Jewish couple were fined for causing bodily harm to their then infant son who was circumcised in 2008 by a mohel brought in from the UK. Normal procedure for persons of Jewish faith in Finland is to have a locally certified mohel who work in Finnish healthcare perform the operation. In the 2008 case, the infant was not anesthetized and developed complications that required immediate hospital care.

cornsail

13th October 2011, 09:36 AM

If women stopped buying meaningless crap half the national debt would be halved. Just stopping redecorating the house twice a year and then having a party to show it off, may actually bring us out of the depression…:D

Saving is a good thing to do individually, but you have it the wrong way round. It's overspending that's good for the economy and the government's tax revenue.

cornsail

13th October 2011, 10:04 AM

“If a vaccine were available that reduced HIV risk by 60%, genital herpes risk by 30%, and HR-HPV [high-risk human papillomavirus] by 35%, the medical community would rally behind the immunization and it would be promoted as a game-changing public health intervention,” Drs. Aaron Tobian and Ronald Gray write in Wednesday’s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn.
Which is a good point. But the other point is that teaching your kid safe sex can accomplish the same goal without the need for circumcision.

I wouldn't take a vaccine that had an equal chance of damaging me due to complications as it did preventing a disease, that involved cutting off part of my body and that lead to decreased sexual pleasure.

The fact that it's an infant just increases the number of cons: lack of personal choice and the chance that inflicting that kind of pain on an infant may be psychology dangerous considering how developmentally critical the first couple years of a childs' life are.

When you look at it purely in terms of the reduced HIV/herpes risk, of course it's going to seem great.

cornsail

13th October 2011, 10:08 AM

cornsail

13th October 2011, 10:14 AM

I've seen conflicting reports on circumcision rates, but the highest I've seen for current US rates is still under 60%, which should not be abnormal to the point of concern.

Ivor the Engineer

13th October 2011, 11:48 AM

<snip>

When you look at it purely in terms of the reduced HIV/herpes risk, of course it's going to seem great.

Those headline figures also don't take into account risk compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation), whereby people have more unprotected sex because they think they're protected by being circumcised.

Even if the risk reduction was maintained over time, it's red herring anyway. There are far less invasive and drastic ways to deal with or prevent problems that might arise more often when a child/man is not circumcised.

The bottom line is that people want to chop bits off their kids for emotional reasons (e.g., group membership, aesthetics, etc.) and then go looking for plausible rationalisations based on science.

Why physicians are still offering this service I have no idea. The excuse often offered up is that if they didn't provide the service for parents then more infants and children would have 'back-street' circumcisions, resulting in greater numbers of botched procedures and complications. Another is that the medical profession is there to serve the public and shouldn't be trying to direct public opinion on the issue one way or the other.

What few physicians seem to acknowledge is that their patient is the child and is both perfectly healthy and very unlikely to need a circumcision before he is able to decide for himself. That the parents wish the physician to physically assault their child should be irrelevant, as should any concern that they might take the child to someone less able if he or she does not oblige.

brodski

13th October 2011, 11:54 AM

Why physicians are still offering this service I have no idea.
Market forces, coupled with the fact that like ritual slaughter without pre-stunning the protections of the religious freedoms of the Jewish and Muslim communities would make it effectively impossible to ban.

zooterkin

13th October 2011, 02:26 PM

Market forces, coupled with the fact that like ritual slaughter without pre-stunning the protections of the religious freedoms of the Jewish and Muslim communities would make it effectively impossible to ban.

They managed to ban shechita in Sweden.

jdp

13th October 2011, 02:33 PM

The links Professor Yaffle gave suggest that this case (I assume both links refer to the same case) was unusual in that the normal procedure was not followed, and there were complications.

Actually, there were two separate cases one involving a week old Jewish child who was circumcised by someone not certified in Finland and a Muslim child. I think in both cases the court dropped the ball, the conviction and fines should have stood. JJM is right though Finland is another example of a country that is out in front on this issue but even here we see that legal remedies aren't yet possible.

jdp

13th October 2011, 02:39 PM

I think one of the main reasons people circumcise in the United States is because they want their child to be "normal" within their society. What they probably don't realize is that despite the fact that circumcised adults are the norm here today, it won't be the case when your newborns are adults. The circumcision rate in the US in 2009 was only 32.5 percent (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/u-s-circumcision-rates-on-the-decline/).

I don't believe those numbers for a second. The 60% you suggest in your next post is probably closer to the truth. Also in the US the figures are strongly regionally dependent. The West Coast has some of the lowest rates while the Mid-West has some of the highest rates. The trend is in decline though just not fast enough.

Market forces, coupled with the fact that like ritual slaughter without pre-stunning the protections of the religious freedoms of the Jewish and Muslim communities would make it effectively impossible to ban.

You're probably right on this. I think a good first step would be to abolish it from routine secular practice in places where it still exists. Doctors would simply not offer it for non-therapeutic reasons. In Finland, Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the UK for example the doctors could just agree to no longer offer the procedure and it should be discouraged. Those performing it for religious reasons, such as the local Jewish populations, already have people available to perform it anyway.