Circumcision

[pdw709]

After finally getting hold of the complete 4 seasons of Penn & Teller Bullsh*t (not so easy in UK has its not offically released over here) I've been steadily wading my way through.

Imagine my surprise when I came to the Circumcision episode - I thought I already new all about this ghastly procedure. I had always assumed that it was confined entirely to the Jewish community but my jaw litterally hit the flaw when I realised that it's far more common infact it appears to almost be the norm over in the US. To watch those "so called" doctors trying to justify acts of barbarism, and to do so in a flipant and nonchalent manner really made my blood boil.

The worst was the assumption that its a "cosmetic procedure" on par with breast enlargement - try telling that to a new born baby. Surely any procedure could be done when the child is older with his consent.

Am I correct in thinking that the vast majority of men are indeed circumcised?

Phil

[Southwind17]

... but my jaw litterally hit the flaw ...

Which 'jaw' would that be, and would that be this 'flaw'? ;)

No, seriously, I believe the procedure is sometimes undertaken for medical reasons, although that might just be an excuse. As a 'matter-of-course' procedure I, too, agree that it's barbaric. Forget the 'hygeine' reasons too. If men are too lazy to wash underneath their foreskin then it's education and shower gel that's needed, not the surgeon's knife.

What I find even more barbaric is female circumcision. Both should be outlawed, especially in civilised society where the mechanisms exist to make it so.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I refer you to this thread.

Summary:

Circumcision might be useful if you (or your child is) planning on having unprotected sex in the third world, otherwise it's a cultural thing, that some believe should be tolerated because it does not damage the function of a man's penis enough to warrant intervention.

ETA: Southwind17, medically indicated circumcision is rare, especially for infants.

[Unalienable]

As a man who's not circumsized, I ask myself, "How much money would you have to pay me to undergo that procedure?" $100,000? No freakin' way. Maybe a million dollars, but only because I am a man of modest means. If I actually had a few million dollars in the bank, there's no way I'd do it for a million.

With that in mind, I think to force that upon a defenseless child against his will is positively criminal.

[lanienus]

While we laugh at tribes in some jungle who poke sticks in their lips or stretch their necks, are we really any different? Cutting off parts from newborn males seems rather primitive.

[fls]

After finally getting hold of the complete 4 seasons of Penn & Teller Bullsh*t (not so easy in UK has its not offically released over here) I've been steadily wading my way through.

Imagine my surprise when I came to the Circumcision episode - I thought I already new all about this ghastly procedure. I had always assumed that it was confined entirely to the Jewish community but my jaw litterally hit the flaw when I realised that it's far more common infact it appears to almost be the norm over in the US. To watch those "so called" doctors trying to justify acts of barbarism, and to do so in a flipant and nonchalent manner really made my blood boil.

The worst was the assumption that its a "cosmetic procedure" on par with breast enlargement - try telling that to a new born baby. Surely any procedure could be done when the child is older with his consent.

Am I correct in thinking that the vast majority of men are indeed circumcised?

Phil

I was also surprised to discover this. The numbers are gradually decreasing, particularly in states like California. We've had several long discussions about this - occasionally civil (:)). Don't assume that any of what P and T presented is representative, though.

Linda

[fls]

As a man who's not circumsized, I ask myself, "How much money would you have to pay me to undergo that procedure?" $100,000? No freakin' way. Maybe a million dollars, but only because I am a man of modest means. If I actually had a few million dollars in the bank, there's no way I'd do it for a million.

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

Linda

Self-selecting group. Those that would want more payment or benefit from the procedure before being prepared to be circumcised would not be in a randomized trial.

ETA: How many condoms would 36 Euro buy in Africa?

ETA2: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7305/139?view=full&pmid=11463681

How much would it cost to close the 1.9 billion condom gap for sub-Saharan Africa? At the international price of $0.025 per condom, the annual cost would be only $47.5m (£34m). However, as with drugs to treat HIV, the commodity costs are only the beginning. Service delivery costs (including promotion) are a greater challenge. Nevertheless, effective models for delivery are known and much infrastructure is in place or can be scaled up through existing successful mechanisms such as condom social marketing and clinics.2

But health programming of any sort requires concerted effort and resources. Finding ways to promote condom use and other prevention among high transmitting people is particularly important. Experience in Thailand shows such an approach can greatly reduce sexually transmitted infection and HIV.3

Relative to the enormity of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa, providing condoms is cheap and cost effective. All aspects of HIV control are important, but a first priority must be prevention.

Quite a few, it would seem.

[fagin]

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

Linda


As indigenous circumcisions, in Southern Africa at least, are done by witchdoctors (not pc I'm sure but not sure what they are called these days), with no anaesthetic, in unsanitary conditions and with no actual consent (they boys do consent but if they do not they will never be men), Eur 36 is seems quite a lot by comparison.
These are generally carried out on special circumcision camps lasting a weeks or so and every year there are numerous reports of infections, mutilations, and even deaths.

And as for female circumcision, the barbarity involved should be criminal.

[Southwind17]

While we laugh at tribes in some jungle who poke sticks in their lips or stretch their necks, are we really any different? Cutting off parts from newborn males seems rather primitive.

That's exactly the point. The pro-circumcision people are, as you suggest, 'rather primitive', hence the desire to end the practice in so-called civilized society.

p.s. That said, I'd probably undergo it for $1 million, but then I'd happily lose a little toe for that too! I don't suppose an application to the MDC would be entertained, would it!

[Walrus32]

Best advice I ever heard about having newborn boys circumcised was, "Hell no...let 'em grow up and wear it off!":D

[Ivor the Engineer]

That's exactly the point. The pro-circumcision people are, as you suggest, 'rather primitive', hence the desire to end the practice in so-called civilized society.

p.s. That said, I'd probably undergo it for $1 million, but then I'd happily lose a little toe for that too! I don't suppose an application to the MDC would be entertained, would it!

You do realize, don't you, that Linda is never going to talk to you again for making such a terrible slur against so many Jewish, Muslim and American parents?

:D

[Wildy]

They only had to pay African men 36 Euros to undergo the procedure.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298

Linda

I have heard of this study, they found that there was a benefit in circumcising men for the prevention of HIV transmission.

I will have to find the article(s), but later because I have to get to bed (Uni today), but I remember finding one that said that there was a danger of an increased chance of catching HIV for however long it takes for the skin to heal and another study that found that some of the circumcised men thought that they became 'invincible' to HIV and were more likely to put themselves into riskier situations because of this idea.

I did find this (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/) however.

ETA:And this (http://www.avert.org/circumcision-hiv.htm)

[kellyb]

such a terrible slur against so many Jewish, Muslim and American parents?

:D

Intolerance! Intolerance!

[pdw709]

Thanks for the link to the previous discssion - appologies for not doing a forum search and finding it myslef.

Its one hell of a long thread, and so i'm only 1 third of the way through it!

Cheers

[Jimbo07]

Deleted.

[Southwind17]

You do realize, don't you, that Linda is never going to talk to you again for making such a terrible slur against so many Jewish, Muslim and American parents?

:D

Hey, come on man, I'm only referring to the primitive ones! 'Parents', was that?!

[Loss Leader]

Oh, good. Another circumcision thread. Perhaps we should cut this one off at an early age.

[fls]

p.s. That said, I'd probably undergo it for $1 million, but then I'd happily lose a little toe for that too! I don't suppose an application to the MDC would be entertained, would it!

Depends upon what sort of growth there was, after.

Linda

[Southwind17]

Depends upon what sort of growth there was, after.

Linda

Mmm ... reminds me of the 'gonorrhoea of the big toe' joke, but I'd better not go there!

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Oh, good. Another circumcision thread. Perhaps we should cut this one off at an early age.


Just nip it, nip it in the bud!

[DavidCT]

In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Who circumcised Moby Dick?

Four skin divers.

[Walrus32]

Mmm ... reminds me of the 'gonorrhoea of the big toe' joke, but I'd better not go there!

Athlete's what?

[Damien Evans]

Someone I know was circumcised for medical reasons (very nasty infection). In that case it was necessary lest he either be in large amounts of pain for a long time or, erm, lose function. In those circumstances, circumcision is a damn good idea. In most other circumstances, It's not.

[Southwind17]

Athlete's what?

Go ahead, be a devil, get modded!

[Dabljuh]

Someone I know was circumcised for medical reasons (very nasty infection). In that case it was necessary lest he either be in large amounts of pain for a long time or, erm, lose function. In those circumstances, circumcision is a damn good idea. In most other circumstances, It's not.The real problem in such cases is usually premature, forcible retraction of the foreskin. The foreskin of a newborn usually does not retract until puberty - the mean age in denmark for the foreskin to become retractible has once been evalued as some 10 years. However in a society that considers the foreskin to be an useless appendage, and even newborns are tested on "phimosis" by trying to retract their foreskin, the biological age may be higher.

Basically the foreskin widens during puberty, similiar to the hymen and vagina which also widens then.

Chronic infections of the foreskin are usually caused by manipulation. That is, someone handles the foreskin rough, such that it infects. Parents who are told to wash under their son's foreskins do this, or doctors, who, as so often, have friggin clue about the biology.

Parents: Don't touch the foreskin. Beat the crap out of anyone, ESPECIALLY doctors who try that stuff - right away and without hesitation. The foreskin does not cause cancer or AIDS, end of story.

I do not consider BXO (a skin disease also known as lichen sclerosis) an indication for circumcision. The same disease occurs on females, and is treated without amputation of the affected skin areas.

Circumcision is virtually never useful on anyone younger than 70 years. For older people, skin cancers can rampantly grow everywhere, also on the foreskin. There, the surgical removal of a tumor on the foreskin may be confused with "Circumcision".

[Kumar]

Can it lead to not getting a sensation of urine and impacts therefrom?

[Southwind17]

Can it lead to not getting a sensation of urine and impacts therefrom?

Maybe, but that's a medical question Kumar. Suggest you stop taking the piss and start one of your own inimitable threads to answer it.

Hope this helps!

[Kumar]

Maybe, but that's a medical question Kumar. Suggest you stop taking the piss and start one of your own inimitable threads to answer it.

Hope this helps!

Cosmatic problem or probalems due to cosmatic changes is one thing, getting something else due to unnaturality is other thing. Tongue or no tongue, can make more changes than just not taste or cosmatic problems. We do get affects due to sensations alike cephalic phase effect.

[Southwind17]

Cosmatic problem or probalems due to cosmatic changes is one thing, getting something else due to unnaturality is other thing. Tongue or no tongue, can make more changes than just not taste or cosmatic problems. We do get affects due to sensations alike cephalic phase effect.

And what's this got to do with the price of fish?

[Walrus32]

Go ahead, be a devil, get modded!

I wouldn't touch that for a free weekend at Pismo Beach...

[Spiro]

There's still a serious point in here: what right does a Jewish, Moslem or 'hygienic' American parent have to inflict genital mutilation on an infant too immature to give their approval? Suppose I started a new religion and decided that God required the earlobes of newborn babies to be lopped off within weeks of birth. Does no harm; prevents cancer of the earlobe; satisfies the wishes of Ollie, the omnipotent invisible pink unicorn. Or maybe just a notch from the nostril: visible hallmark of a person who's faithful to the omnipresent power of the real truth that hovers in an invisible chariot and causes lightning.

Come on, folks: mutilation of the bodies of neonates without positive medical reason (i.e. essential to preserve vital function) is a moral and ethical outrage. We should take the same attitude to male genital mutilation as we do to female genital mutilation: they both suck!

[sthomson]

In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?

Does anyone have cold, hard facts to back up the assertation? From my admittedly very small sample group, "most" men aged 20-25 are not circumsized. Anecdotally, among my close male friends and siblings, 2 are circumcised (one is jewish, the other is WASP) and 5 are not. Of these 5 uncircumcised males, one had problems with some sort of foreskin infection as an adolescent (he wasn't really keen to go into the details).

Before we start getting all outraged, can we quantify if this is really a problem?

[Z]

I'd happily whack of their earlobes. And no religious requirement needed.

Then again, I believe whole-heartedly in a parent's right to modify the body of their children in any cosmetic way that does no permanent functional damage - and male circumcision, when done properly using modern techniques, does no permanent functional damage. As do a very FEW forms of female circumcision.

Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off. Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

And with that, I'll make my hasty retreat, as I'm about to be labelled eleven kinds of evil monster now... :D

Keep in mind, though, I'm also the guy that thinks the death penalty should be by publicly broadcast executions, that rapists should be castrated on first offense, etc...

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'd happily whack of their earlobes. And no religious requirement needed.

Then again, I believe whole-heartedly in a parent's right to modify the body of their children in any cosmetic way that does no permanent functional damage - and male circumcision, when done properly using modern techniques, does no permanent functional damage. As do a very FEW forms of female circumcision.

Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off. Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

And with that, I'll make my hasty retreat, as I'm about to be labelled eleven kinds of evil monster now... :D

Keep in mind, though, I'm also the guy that thinks the death penalty should be by publicly broadcast executions, that rapists should be castrated on first offense, etc...

Yay, we disagree on everything :) !

You must be very 'primative'.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<i>In the United States circumcision is performed on most males. I think the most common justification is personal hygiene not religion. What can you expect of anticeptic Americans?</i>

Does anyone have cold, hard facts to back up the assertation? From my admittedly very small sample group, "most" men aged 20-25 are not circumsized. Anecdotally, among my close male friends and siblings, 2 are circumcised (one is jewish, the other is WASP) and 5 are not. Of these 5 uncircumcised males, one had problems with some sort of foreskin infection as an adolescent (he wasn't really keen to go into the details).

Before we start getting all outraged, can we quantify if this is really a problem?

IIRC, the average was about 2/3 of newborns are circumcised in the US, about 1 million/year.

A couple of figures that stood out were in Nevada only about 14% of newborns were circumcised, while in New England it was about 80%. So there appears to be wide variation in circumcision rates in the US.

I wonder if female circumcision / FGC is taken as lightly in the middle east as male circumcision is in the west?

[Z]

Yay, we disagree on everything :) !

You must be very 'primative'.

I must be. Hmmm... let's see... what counts as 'primative'?

I don't fight; I don't abuse women or children (the argument over circumcision notwithstanding); I don't think men are the ultimate power; I defer to women regularly; I stay at home and do the cooking, cleaning, and child care myself; I cook healthy, vegetarian meals (and a couple of vegan meals, now that one of our kids has turned up with an extreme dairy allergy); I'm bisexual; I accept gays, straights, bis, polys, transgenders, and other situations as being acceptable and normal; I'm firmly against all forms of racism (including 'positive' racism); I watch science fiction, science documentaries, history documentaries, news, and occasional fantasy shows; I eschew all forms of sports television, wrestling, boxing, and other 'manly' competitions; I can swap a few components on a car, but can't stand mechanical work beyond a fuel pump or alternator; I hire out for plumbing and household maintenance jobs; I believe that violence is always a last resort, usually the last resort of the less intelligent mind; I teach my fourth grader at home because of his own mental issues, which has resulted in him being able to skip one grade generically and two in mathematics; I read 'stuffy' books (a book with less than a thousand pages isn't worth reading, generally) over a variety of topics; I couldn't - and wouldn't - hunt an animal, even for food, unless there were no other possible alternative; I hate fishing; I don't smoke cigars (but I do smoke briar pipes)....

These were all behaviors of the 'primative' man, weren't they? Or might I be wrong about a few of them? I'll have to ask my neighbor, the GIECO caveman, about this.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I must be. Hmmm... let's see... what counts as 'primative'?

I don't fight; I don't abuse women or children (the argument over circumcision notwithstanding); I don't think men are the ultimate power; I defer to women regularly; I stay at home and do the cooking, cleaning, and child care myself; I cook healthy, vegetarian meals (and a couple of vegan meals, now that one of our kids has turned up with an extreme dairy allergy); I'm bisexual; I accept gays, straights, bis, polys, transgenders, and other situations as being acceptable and normal; I'm firmly against all forms of racism (including 'positive' racism); I watch science fiction, science documentaries, history documentaries, news, and occasional fantasy shows; I eschew all forms of sports television, wrestling, boxing, and other 'manly' competitions; I can swap a few components on a car, but can't stand mechanical work beyond a fuel pump or alternator; I hire out for plumbing and household maintenance jobs; I believe that violence is always a last resort, usually the last resort of the less intelligent mind; I teach my fourth grader at home because of his own mental issues, which has resulted in him being able to skip one grade generically and two in mathematics; I read 'stuffy' books (a book with less than a thousand pages isn't worth reading, generally) over a variety of topics; I couldn't - and wouldn't - hunt an animal, even for food, unless there were no other possible alternative; I hate fishing; I don't smoke cigars (but I do smoke briar pipes)....

These were all behaviors of the 'primative' man, weren't they? Or might I be wrong about a few of them? I'll have to ask my neighbor, the GIECO caveman, about this.

Your not primitive Z, just incredibly biased:D

[fls]

Before we start getting all outraged, can we quantify if this is really a problem?

You're no fun!

"The proportion of male newborn infants circumcised during the birth hospitalization was 56 percent nationally, but ranged from 31 percent in the West to 78 percent in the Midwest." From "National Hospital Discharge Survey: 2003".

From Table 2 (http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/metcalf/#n4), the largest reason was hygiene at 69 percent, followed by social custom at 21 percent.

Linda

[sthomson]

Thanks Ivor and Linda - and this does somewhat hold with my crappy data - all of the uncircumcised males were born in the West.

[sthomson]

Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

You make a good point. My parents had my ears pierced when I wasn't old enough to make the decision (still pierced, too!)

Some parents take their children to tanning salons. Other parents dye their childrens hair to match their own.

Some parents still spank. Heck, some parents still used whipping rods and birch branches.

I don't personally agree with all these actions, but then again this (theoretical) child isn't mine. I'm not raising it, and I'm not responsible for it. None of these actions are necessarily illegal, so there's not much I can do about it but whine annoyingly.

[Skepticybe]

and male circumcision, when done properly using modern techniques, does no permanent functional damage.
New thread, same lies. This was demonstrated quite definitively in the other thread, yet you persist with spreading false information. The foreskin is functional, and loss of it always results in permanent damage and loss of function. You even cited some of the sources yourself, mistakenly thinking they supported your fantasy.
Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off.
I just love how you're so hasty to chop extra bits off of unconsenting innocent children, with little to no regard for the harm you may cause.

You remind me of those deaf parents who sought to ensure their child was born deaf as well. Your penis is less than fully functional, made so against your will, and now you're a rather extreme advocate for that same injury being inflicted on others. Yeah, I'd say you're responding to very 'primative' instincts when it comes to this issue.
I don't abuse women or children
Based on the standard you've articulated, nobody ever does. As long as proper pain relief is available.

[Andronicus]

"At present, there is controversy over whether or not circumcision is advisable from a medical standpoint. New information suggests there are potential mdical benefits to circumcision. Recent studies have concluded that male infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections than those who are. Further studies are needed to confirm this observation." The American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child 10 (Bantam Books, 1998 ed.).
"The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as inherent disadvantages and risks. Therefore, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician." Id.

[fls]

"At present, there is controversy over whether or not circumcision is advisable from a medical standpoint. New information suggests there are potential mdical benefits to circumcision. Recent studies have concluded that male infants who are not circumcised may be more likely to develop urinary tract infections than those who are. Further studies are needed to confirm this observation." The American Academy of Pediatrics, Caring for Your Baby and Young Child 10 (Bantam Books, 1998 ed.).
"The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as inherent disadvantages and risks. Therefore, we recommend that the decision to circumcise is one best made by parents in consultation with their pediatrician." Id.

In all honesty, I think that is merely a matter of conciliation on the part of the AAP. If you are determined to justify your decision (either as a parent or as a doctor performing the procedure), you can use the medical data. But from a neutral position, it's not good enough to over-rule "do no harm". I just don't think the AAP wants to come right out and say some people are Wrong, as physicians in the US operate in a somewhat different political climate.

Linda

[Loss Leader]

Incidentally, the countdown clock to my own son's circumcision stands at about twenty-two days, eleven hours.

[Andronicus]

I think the AAP is saying medically it is not necessary, however it is not harmful and there could be minor benefits. I don’t think fear of political repercussions is the cause. It would be just as easy to say there is no medical necessity but also no harm if there are religious or cultural reasons. Also, it is my understanding the AAP originally said in
1971 there is no medical benefit to circumcision. It was only in the late ‘80s through the ‘90s that the AAP stated there may be some medical benefit to circumcision. Online source: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/ (marked edits very anti-circumcision).

Anecdotally, I have had two acquaintances who decided not to circumcise at birth and then changed their minds when their boys were older. The most recent was about six months ago when a friend at work had her six year old boy circumcised. After two urinary tract infections, the doctor stated it would be a good idea. She absolutely regretted not doing it at birth.

[Andronicus]

Incidentally, the countdown clock to my own son's circumcision stands at about twenty-two days, eleven hours.

Congratulations!

[Loss Leader]

Congratulations!


Thank you. My wife is miserable but we're both very excited.

[Z]

In all honesty, I think that is merely a matter of conciliation on the part of the AAP. If you are determined to justify your decision (either as a parent or as a doctor performing the procedure), you can use the medical data. But from a neutral position, it's not good enough to over-rule "do no harm". I just don't think the AAP wants to come right out and say some people are Wrong, as physicians in the US operate in a somewhat different political climate.

Linda

I have to agree with that assessment. The AAP won't come out and flatly state that they believe circumcision to be harmful, even if it is harmful, until the general public view on circumcision shifts dynamically to a similar view as Europe holds.

To Skepticybe: Tell me one - just one! - relevant thing that I cannot or have not done or been able to do, having been circumcised. Just one. IF you can do that, I'll reconsider; if not, I'll stand by my opinion that a properly circumcised penis is unimpaired.

[arthwollipot]

For the record, I live in Australia, I'm 37, and I'm circumcised. Not for any particular reason that I'm aware (although I've never talked to my parents about it), but I think it was just the thing that was done to male babies in 1969. I'm not Jewish, and neither are my parents. I've never experienced any "loss of function" from not having a foreskin, nor have I experienced any medical difficulties whatsoever.

My son, however, is not circumcised. I just didn't see any point.

[Southwind17]

Earlobes, pinky toes, appendices, wisdom teeth, foreskins - whack'em all off. Pierce ears, noses, and belly buttons, give tattoos, etc. As long as it's all done hygenically, with as much pain relief as is available, and cared for properly, I'm all for it. Children are the responsibility of their parents, and the right for cosmetic and perceived hygenic alterations of the children belongs to the adult, and always has.

And with that, I'll make my hasty retreat, as I'm about to be labelled eleven kinds of evil monster now... :D

Keep in mind, though, I'm also the guy that thinks the death penalty should be by publicly broadcast executions, that rapists should be castrated on first offense, etc...

Only 11 kinds of evil monster? You're an eternal optimist too!

May I ask, what cosmetic 'alterations' did your loving parents violate (sorry, adorn) your body with, as a child (in addition to the apparent brain cavity reduction)?

Have you thought of emigrating to Iran, or Saudi? I think the 'way-of-life' might suit you better there!

[Southwind17]

To Skepticybe: Tell me one - just one! - relevant thing that I cannot or have not done or been able to do, having been circumcised. Just one. IF you can do that, I'll reconsider; if not, I'll stand by my opinion that a properly circumcised penis is unimpaired.

So why not have your nipples removed. They're more 'superfluous' than your foreskin.

[Southwind17]

I've never experienced any "loss of function" from not having a foreskin ...

Nor pleasure?

My son, however, is not circumcised. I just didn't see any point.

Good on ya mate. You can compare notes while shooting the breeze on a fishing trip some time!

[Southwind17]

Thank you. My wife is miserable but we're both very excited.

Mmm ... Munchhausens by Proxy comes to mind. Yes, I can appreciate the excitement now! Enjoy it while it lasts!

[arthwollipot]

Nor pleasure?

Not having any basis for comparison, it's hard to tell. Let's just say I've never had any cause for complaint.

[Southwind17]

Not having any basis for comparison, it's hard to tell. Let's just say I've never had any cause for complaint.

So you don't know what you might be missing then. That's good enough reason alone to turn me against it!

[arthwollipot]

It could be better? I think I would probably pass out.

[Southwind17]

It could be better? I think I would probably pass out.

You'll never know!

[Puppycow]

As a circumcised man, it never really occured to me that I was missing out on anything. My dad told me I was better off because its useless and just tends to get infected, like wisdom teeth or an appendix.

OTOH, my son was born here in Japan where circumcision is not a common practice, so he is uncircumcised.

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?

[Southwind17]

As a circumcised man, it never really occured to me that I was missing out on anything. My dad told me I was better off because its useless and just tends to get infected, like wisdom teeth or an appendix.

OTOH, my son was born here in Japan where circumcision is not a common practice, so he is uncircumcised.

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?

Not telling! ;)

Wait a minute, you mean your decision whether to circumcise your son was dictated purely by where you happened to be living at the time?!?

[Ivor the Engineer]

I think the AAP is saying medically it is not necessary, however it is not harmful and there could be minor benefits. I don’t think fear of political repercussions is the cause. It would be just as easy to say there is no medical necessity but also no harm if there are religious or cultural reasons. Also, it is my understanding the AAP originally said in 1971 there is no medical benefit to circumcision. It was only in the late ‘80s through the ‘90s that the AAP stated there may be some medical benefit to circumcision. Online source: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/ (marked edits very anti-circumcision).

The reason for the change in tone during the 80's & 90's was Edgar Schoen getting on the AAP task force. His dream is to have every male on the planet circumcised:eek: Now that he has left - or should that be has been removed from - the task force, its recommendations are less biased. It took them an embarrassingly long time to admit that circumcision is a painful procedure that requires proper anesthesia, such as a dorsal penile nerve block (Good) or ring block (Best). EMLA cream is not very good.

The only benefit worth arguing over is the reduced risk of infant UTI. The number of circumcisions required to avoid a single UTI is about 100. I.e., 100 males have to be circumcised so one of them avoids a UTI. UTI's are highly treatable, though there is a small risk of renal scarring or death and the treatment can be painful.

So, the decision is between:

Get circumcised and have a 100% chance of a painful procedure (that you will not explicitly remember).

OR

Don't get circumcised and have a 1% chance of painful procedure (that you will not explicitly remember).

Ironically, another AAP recommendation states that unnecessary traumatic procedures should be avoided so bonding between the mother and baby is not interrupted.

Anecdotally, I have had two acquaintances who decided not to circumcise at birth and then changed their minds when their boys were older. The most recent was about six months ago when a friend at work had her six year old boy circumcised. After two urinary tract infections, the doctor stated it would be a good idea. She absolutely regretted not doing it at birth.

If a six-year old is getting UTI's then normal foreskin is unlikely to be the cause of the problem.

[Ivor the Engineer]

As a circumcised man, it never really occured to me that I was missing out on anything. My dad told me I was better off because its useless and just tends to get infected, like wisdom teeth or an appendix.

OTOH, my son was born here in Japan where circumcision is not a common practice, so he is uncircumcised.

Unalienable: I would like to know: What's so great about a foreskin that someone would have to pay you a million dollars to remove it? Does it increase sexual pleasure that much?

The foreskin is more sensitive to light touch than the glans and has a roller-bearing function during masturbation and intercourse that most uncircumcised men find highly pleasurable. We save a fortune on lube!

[Southwind17]

We save a fortune on lube!

I'll bet you do! ;)

[Puppycow]

The foreskin is more sensitive to light touch than the glans and has a roller-bearing function during masturbation and intercourse that most uncircumcised men find highly pleasurable. We save a fortune on lube!

I see. So ballpark figure, how much would someone have to pay you to part with it?

Same question for other uncircumcised men. (The minimum amount that would make you seriously consider it.)

And does it matter if it hurt if I can't remember it?
Thinking about this gave me another thought: What's it like to be a human baby? Never mind what's it like to be a bat or a bee, we can't even really know what it's like to be a human baby, can we? Because none of us really remember. I have vague surreal recollections of toddlerhood. I even remember sucking on mommy's breast (and being weaned at age 2) but nothing earlier that I can trust.

Wait a minute, you mean your decision whether to circumcise your son was dictated purely by where you happened to be living at the time?!?
I didn't give it a whole lot of thought, to be honest. I guess I'm glad I didn't, although I'm not sure what I would have done at the time if offered the choice. I had it and my dad before me. He thought he was better off that way. I spent most of my life believing the same thing (although not giving it much thought because what could I do anyway?)

[Southwind17]

I see. So ballpark figure, how much would someone have to pay you to part with it?

Same question for other uncircumcised men. (The minimum amount that would make you seriously consider it.)

Very hard to answer seriously when not presented with the real-life scenario. I'd be inclined to say that I wouldn't even think about it for less than US$100k.

[fls]

I think the AAP is saying medically it is not necessary, however it is not harmful and there could be minor benefits. I don’t think fear of political repercussions is the cause. It would be just as easy to say there is no medical necessity but also no harm if there are religious or cultural reasons. Also, it is my understanding the AAP originally said in
1971 there is no medical benefit to circumcision. It was only in the late ‘80s through the ‘90s that the AAP stated there may be some medical benefit to circumcision. Online source: http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap/ (marked edits very anti-circumcision).

Yeah, I think those are all just slightly different ways of saying the same thing. The wording seems stronger (against) in statements from other countries, like this from the BMA..."The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view. Parental preference must be weighed in terms of the child’s interests." I just wonder how much of the wording in the AAP statement depends upon making sure it doesn't leave the practices of its members unsupported given that they have to deal with issues of third-party payers, litigation, and discrimination that may not be seen in other countries. I will admit that I may be overly paranoid about these things. :)

I also suspect that these various statements have little effect on the actual practice - that the practice depends more upon perceptions of what is the norm.

Anecdotally, I have had two acquaintances who decided not to circumcise at birth and then changed their minds when their boys were older. The most recent was about six months ago when a friend at work had her six year old boy circumcised. After two urinary tract infections, the doctor stated it would be a good idea. She absolutely regretted not doing it at birth.

I don't complain as long as the decision was made thoughtfully, with a realistic assessment of the benefits, rather than from habit.

Linda

[Southwind17]

I don't complain as long as the decision was made thoughtfully, with a realistic assessment of the benefits, rather than from habit.

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?

[fls]

Thank you. My wife is miserable but we're both very excited.

Since your wife is miserable, I assume she is still pregnant. And (if I recall correctly) you already have one child, so you know the due date thing is a farce (getting our hopes up only to dash them as the lumbering beast lives on). So what's the countdown all about?

Linda

[fls]

So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?

I didn't have my boys circumcised, if that's what you mean. But, it turns out that "medically necessary" can mean pretty much what you want it to, in this circumstance.

Linda

[Southwind17]

I didn't have my boys circumcised, if that's what you mean. But, it turns out that "medically necessary" can mean pretty much what you want it to, in this circumstance.

That's not what I meant (I didn't know you'd had any boys), but I suppose it answers my question. I agree that 'medically necessary' is open to interpretation, but it's threshold clearly lies way above the 'hygienically beneficial' justification.

Incidentally, neither I nor any of my three sons (11,7,7) are circumcised and none of us has ever had any UTIs or any other penile-related ailments. I guess none of us falls within the 1% that Ivor referred to earlier.

I'll make another point, too. I find it rather uncomfortable when the foreskin retracts, for whatever reason, whilst wearing underwear, especially when walking. That to me demonstrates the sensitivity of the glans, which presumably diminishes when circumcised, thereby leading to the suggestion of reduced pleasure during sex.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I see. So ballpark figure, how much would someone have to pay you to part with it?

£1,582,981.43

Though that isn't really the issue for me. I believe the child, when it is able, has the right to decide what bits of its body it wants modifying. Parents should only be making irreversible medical decisions for their incompetent children when there is deformity or immediate need, as should medical professionals.

Same question for other uncircumcised men. (The minimum amount that would make you seriously consider it.)

And does it matter if it hurt if I can't remember it?

Does raping someone matter if they've been drugged unconscious first?

[fls]

That's not what I meant (I didn't know you'd had any boys), but I suppose it answers my question.

What did you mean, then?

I agree that 'medically necessary' is open to interpretation, but it's threshold clearly lies way above the 'hygienically beneficial' justification.

I suppose it depends upon whether you take into consideration mental and social well-being, if only to recognize that these decisions are made within (and depend upon) a particular context.

Incidentally, neither I nor any of my three sons (11,7,7) are circumcised and none of us has ever had any UTIs or any other penile-related ailments. I guess none of us falls within the 1% that Ivor referred to earlier.

Yes, this pattern is fairly consistent in this and other threads. The perceived risk seems to depend heavily upon personal experience. Those who have had problems or know men/boys with problems due to their foreskin place a greater emphasis on the benefit of circumcision, and those without these experiences tend to dismiss them. It's one of the hardest biases to overcome, I think.

I'll make another point, too. I find it rather uncomfortable when the foreskin retracts, for whatever reason, whilst wearing underwear, especially when walking. That to me demonstrates the sensitivity of the glans, which presumably diminishes when circumcised, thereby leading to the suggestion of reduced pleasure during sex.

That observation isn't really born out by research (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?journalCode=jsm) that finds that the sensitivity under conditions of arousal is no different. And from a common sense point of view, circumcised men get erections and have orgasms, which is consistent with the idea that sexual pleasure depends upon sufficient sensitivity rather than an absolute amount. If most men have more than enough, then arguing about the degree to which there is excess baseline sensitivity is somewhat redundant, as it doesn't contribute to the experience.

Linda

[Z]

Only 11 kinds of evil monster? You're an eternal optimist too!

May I ask, what cosmetic 'alterations' did your loving parents violate (sorry, adorn) your body with, as a child (in addition to the apparent brain cavity reduction)?

Just circumcision. They couldn't afford anything else, and there was no cultural impetus to do so. (And no apparent brain cavity reduction - support of parental right of body modification of infants is not a sign of reduced intelligence or cognitive function. Kindly keep your ad-homs to yourself)

Have you thought of emigrating to Iran, or Saudi? I think the 'way-of-life' might suit you better there!

Not particularly, seeings as our views on the treatment of women are significantly different. Plus, I hate sand. And camels. Especially sandy camels. And how sandy camels treat women.

[[Is there a Godwin's Law variation for the Middle East yet?]]

[Z]

So why not have your nipples removed. They're more 'superfluous' than your foreskin.

If I could afford to do it, I would, as a matter of fact. The damned things react to everything - every bit of sweat, or salt water, or the slightest drop of temperature.

Care to fund the surgery? If you buy, I'll definitely do it.

[Loss Leader]

Mmm ... Munchhausens by Proxy comes to mind.


Or, you know, Jewish.

But thank you for giving me the opportunity to meet someone who believes anyone who disagrees with him must be mentally ill.

[Z]

Circumcised men also last longer - probably from the alleged reduced sensitivity - thereby providing more pleasure to their partners, from some studies, IIRC.

I know in my case, when having sex with a woman who has had previous uncircumcised partners, she found this to be true - that, on average, I was lasting 3 to 4 times longer than her prior uncut partners. In fact, the only real issue I tend to have is becoming too tired to continue prior to 'release', which I largely blame on being a 'fat bastard'.

The few uncut men I've known in the military, when the subject came up at all, regretted being uncut for precisely the same reason. Sure, sex might be more intense - but how many women REALLY want a 'minute-man'?

Obviously, this is hardly true of all men; we clean-cut gents have our share of quick-shooters, and I'm sure some whole fellows can last three hours or more at a go as I tend to... Honestly, though, I'd like to see some current research on this part of the subject.

[fls]

[[Is there a Godwin's Law variation for the Middle East yet?]]

Well, duh! Here's your chance to attach your name to it, and so attain immortality.

Linda

[Southwind17]

What did you mean, then?

The question can hardly be re-worded for added clarity, but I'll try:
So NO to circumcision then, unless medically necessary?
So, you don't agree with circumcision then, unless it's medically necessary?

I suppose it depends upon whether you take into consideration mental and social well-being, if only to recognize that these decisions are made within (and depend upon) a particular context.

'Mental and social well-being' of whom? Surely not the victim; he's too young even to appreciate what's happening. So you must be referring to the parent(s) then. To my mind, disfigurement of your own child in the selfish interests of your own social or mental well-being is a very lame and pusillanimous reason.

The perceived risk seems to depend heavily upon personal experience. Those who have had problems or know men/boys with problems due to their foreskin place a greater emphasis on the benefit of circumcision ...

I very much doubt that this reason alone determines many parents' decision, where the choice is otherwise completely open.

That observation isn't really born out by research (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?journalCode=jsm) that finds that the sensitivity under conditions of arousal is no different. And from a common sense point of view, circumcised men get erections and have orgasms, which is consistent with the idea that sexual pleasure depends upon sufficient sensitivity rather than an absolute amount.

I (and I suspect most un-circumcised men) can easily achieve orgasm without retracting the foreskin, if I so wish. The ability to achieve an erection and thereafter orgasm is not, therefore, determined by sensitivity of the glans. An exposed glans, however, does increase the sensation and experience immensely (well it does for me) during sex.

If most men have more than enough, then arguing about the degree to which there is excess baseline sensitivity is somewhat redundant, as it doesn't contribute to the experience.

Simply not true. I enjoy ice-cream, but on those rare occassions I've had an entire tub to myself ...!

[Z]

Well, duh! Here's your chance to attach your name to it, and so attain immortality.

Linda

Oh lovely - so everyone on the internet can mistakenly apply Z's Rule once Circumcision comes up, instead of when comparisons to Islam come up... :D

Of course, if you think about it - I DID cut my name down from 'zaayrdragon' to just 'z'...

:boxedin:

[Morrigan]

You make a good point. My parents had my ears pierced when I wasn't old enough to make the decision (still pierced, too!)

Some parents take their children to tanning salons. Other parents dye their childrens hair to match their own.

None of those alterations are permanent.


Some parents still spank. Heck, some parents still used whipping rods and birch branches.

What does corporal punishment have to do with the permanent body alterations of children? :confused:

Circumcised men also last longer - probably from the alleged reduced sensitivity - thereby providing more pleasure to their partners, from some studies, IIRC.
:newlol
First, you say the foreskin has no use, yet now, you "sort of" admit it DOES reduce sensitivity. Can't have it both ways, dear.
Second, I recall that studies posted in the older thread showed that women generally preferred uncut men because the sensation was more pleasurable with a foreskin (I'm sure Ivor or someone else has it bookmarked). You could at least try to hide your bias/selective reading...


I know in my case, when having sex with a woman who has had previous uncircumcised partners, she found this to be true - that, on average, I was lasting 3 to 4 times longer than her prior uncut partners.
An anecdote is not the singular of "data".

[Z]

And did the entire tub of ice cream not make you ill? Or made others uncomfortable watching you?

Moderation in all things [[including moderation]].

[Z]

None of those alterations are permanent.

Neither, apparently, is circumcision... What a strange world we live in.

[quote]:newlol
First, you say the foreskin has no use, yet now, you "sort of" admit it DOES reduce sensitivity. Can't have it both ways, dear.

Which is why I said 'alleged' increase.

Second, I recall that studies posted in the older thread showed that women generally preferred uncut men because the sensation was more pleasurable with a foreskin (I'm sure Ivor or someone else has it bookmarked). You could at least try to hide your bias/selective reading...

I said it was my recollection only, and that I'd like to see current research.

You could at least try to control your immature hostility, and read what was actually written.

An anecdote is not the singular of "data".

Nor did I claim that it was.

But, as usual, the anti-circ crowd immediately jumps to over-emotional attacks, ad-homs, and other fallacies, rather than simply discussing the issue reasonably.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Yes, this pattern is fairly consistent in this and other threads. The perceived risk seems to depend heavily upon personal experience. Those who have had problems or know men/boys with problems due to their foreskin place a greater emphasis on the benefit of circumcision, and those without these experiences tend to dismiss them. It's one of the hardest biases to overcome, I think.

I think it has more to do with parents thinking what happened to dad is normal, thus any reason will do when it is pointed out that it is actually bizarre behaviour.

It is disingenuous to portray people who oppose infant/child circumcision at the discretion of the parents as 'anti-circumcision', as if we have some irrational desire to stop all infant circumcisions, no matter what the cost to the infant.

That observation isn't really born out by research (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00471.x?journalCode=jsm) that finds that the sensitivity under conditions of arousal is no different. And from a common sense point of view, circumcised men get erections and have orgasms, which is consistent with the idea that sexual pleasure depends upon sufficient sensitivity rather than an absolute amount. If most men have more than enough, then arguing about the degree to which there is excess baseline sensitivity is somewhat redundant, as it doesn't contribute to the experience.

Linda

Penis envy, Linda?

[Southwind17]

And did the entire tub of ice cream not make you ill? Or made others uncomfortable watching you?

Actually, it did not. I'd go through the entire experience again tonight, if I could! Others? I wouldn't risk sharing that experience with ANYBODY!

Moderation in all things [[including moderation]].

... and predisposition to child abuse under the guise of tradition or spurious medical grounds?

[Z]

Actually, it did not. I'd go through the entire experience again tonight, if I could! Others? I wouldn't risk sharing that experience with ANYBODY!

Gluttony is hardly an attractive trait. But I understand now why you'd find it to be one.

... and predisposition to child abuse under the guise of tradition or spurious medical grounds?

You can cry all you want, but in our society, choosing elective bodily modification that is considered harmless is hardly child abuse... not from a legal stand point, nor from a common social one. IF the law changes, you then have every right to name-call; but until then, your opinion is merely empty ad-hom.

[Lonewulf]

I guess I would come into this discussion with some knowledge of this. I got my foreskin removed as a child, at like, 10 or so years old. I still somewhat remember it. It was painful, and took me a while to recover.

My parents had it removed thanks to an infection I had, I think. My parents didn't originally cut the foreskin when I was just born because they were afraid I might have hemophilia, thanks to my mom being descended from Polish nobility. :P

You can cry all you want, but in our society, choosing elective bodily modification that is considered harmless is hardly child abuse... not from a legal stand point, nor from a common social one. IF the law changes, you then have every right to name-call; but until then, your opinion is merely empty ad-hom.

If I was forced to have my foreskin removed as a child for no reason at all, yes, I would consider that child abuse. You may not agree with my definition, but I don't care if I agree with the "common" viewpoint or not. I disagree with the "common" viewpoint all the time. I don't have to have a lot of people agree with me to feel I'm right.

[ponderingturtle]

In all honesty, I think that is merely a matter of conciliation on the part of the AAP. If you are determined to justify your decision (either as a parent or as a doctor performing the procedure), you can use the medical data. But from a neutral position, it's not good enough to over-rule "do no harm". I just don't think the AAP wants to come right out and say some people are Wrong, as physicians in the US operate in a somewhat different political climate.

Linda

But the point is that there seems to be very little on either side. So it is not like if the risks and benifits where reversed they would be advocateing the procedure either. So the point you are coming from is a do nothing unless a significant benefit.

The favoring of inaction over action as a general principle is a long way away from the strong emotional reactions so many people in the anti circumcision camp have.

[ponderingturtle]

So you don't know what you might be missing then. That's good enough reason alone to turn me against it!

When looking online for information about the general satisfaction level of people who get circumcised as adults there seems to be very little to merit such a strong reaction in reported effects.

[Loss Leader]

When looking online for information about the general satisfaction level of people who get circumcised as adults there seems to be very little to merit such a strong reaction in reported effects.


In the studies that have been presented to me by anti-circs, the data seems to indicate that adult circumcision may have a deleterious effect on sexual satisfaction in some cases. However, I've seen absolutely no study of any cohort that shows that infant circumcision has a negative effect on sexual satisfaction.

This comports with my general belief that the brain is pre-wired for sexual gratification and, in the absense of a foreskin, just maps that response onto the now more-exposed glans.

[Ivor the Engineer]

But the point is that there seems to be very little on either side. So it is not like if the risks and benifits where reversed they would be advocateing the procedure either. So the point you are coming from is a do nothing unless a significant benefit.

The favoring of inaction over action as a general principle is a long way away from the strong emotional reactions so many people in the anti circumcision camp have.

The 'strong emotional reaction' is to the inflicting of pain and suffering for a highly unlikely benefit on a non-consenting individual.

[Ivor the Engineer]

When looking online for information about the general satisfaction level of people who get circumcised as adults there seems to be very little to merit such a strong reaction in reported effects.

Apart from this:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06646.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=bju

OBJECTIVE
To prospectively study, using a questionnaire, the sexuality of men circumcised as adults compared to uncircumcised men, and to compare their sex lives before and after circumcision.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS
The study included 373 sexually active men, of whom 255 were circumcised and 118 were not. Of the 255 circumcised men, 138 had been sexually active before circumcision, and all were circumcised at >20 years of age. As the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory does not specifically address the quality of sex life, questions were added to compare sexual and masturbatory pleasure before and after circumcision.

RESULTS
There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision.

CONCLUSION
There was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

[Ivor the Engineer]

In the studies that have been presented to me by anti-circs, the data seems to indicate that adult circumcision may have a deleterious effect on sexual satisfaction in some cases. However, I've seen absolutely no study of any cohort that shows that infant circumcision has a negative effect on sexual satisfaction.

This comports with my general belief that the brain is pre-wired for sexual gratification and, in the absense of a foreskin, just maps that response onto the now more-exposed glans.

That is a convenient way to look at the evidence. Another way would be to say that men circumcised in infancy have no idea what they are missing because they have never been able to experience it.

You could use your argument to justify impairing children in all sorts of other ways. The brain adapts to the body - That is not an excuse for parents to have their wicked way with the body just because the brain will adapt.

[Lonewulf]

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. --Thomas Paine

Sounds about right, here.

[Southwind17]

Gluttony is hardly an attractive trait. But I understand now why you'd find it to be one.

Thing is Z, I work out, so I can afford to indulge, now and then, and still remain fit. Some people, on the other hand, don't, mostly through lethargy and plain laziness. I've checked out your profile photo, and I think I understand your probable traits!

You can cry all you want, but in our society, choosing elective bodily modification that is considered harmless is hardly child abuse... not from a legal stand point, nor from a common social one. IF the law changes, you then have every right to name-call; but until then, your opinion is merely empty ad-hom.

'Elective' by whom? 'Harmless' in who's opinion? Starting to look a little 'selfish', now? So you can sleep soundly at night then because it's not 'illegal' nor 'socially unacceptable' in your 'society'. That conveniently avoids the moral and ethical questions, doesn't it! So if the law changes things you'll alter your behaviour accordingly, and without objection. That's a reflection of the shallowness of the humanitarian values you truly behold, I guess.

[Loss Leader]

That is a convenient way to look at the evidence. Another way would be to say that men circumcised in infancy have no idea what they are missing because they have never been able to experience it.


It's the only way to look at the evidence because there is no evidence. You cannot produce a single proper study that suggests that infant circumcision impacts sexual satisfaction. No such study exists.

Furthermore, considering the massive number of circumcised men on the planet, you'd think there would be no trouble identifying some sort of trend. Circumcised men should have higher rates of impotence or erectile disfunction. They might have higher rates of divorce or shorter relationships with women overall. Perhaps they give up on sex at a younger age than uncircumcised men. But the data does not indicate any of this.

It might be reasonable to suspect that infant circumcision might affect sexual satisfaction, but it is not reasonable to maintain that it does in the absense of evidence.

[sthomson]

None of those alterations are permanent.

Wait, did you just seriously claim that exposing children to elevated levels of UVA/B radiation is not a permanent, medical alteration that could cause deleterious effects in the future? I'm sure many medical doctors will strongly disagree with you on that.

Other potentially harmful things that parents do:
* Feed children too much fast food
* Give children sedatives (http://www.babycenter.com/viewPollResults.htm?pollId=1477231)
* Putting braces on children

I'm not saying I'm pro-circumcision, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that doing so is more harmful to a child's physical and mental state than any of the above.

Edited to add: my point is that parents make irreversible medical decisions for their children all the time, with potentially dangerous effects. Does this make them bad people or bad parents for not waiting until their children are 12 or older to decide anything? No, it's their job to make these sorts of decisions.

[Kaylee]

I grew up in a Jewish family and I was always told that circumcision was beneficial to the baby's health and much less painful if done at 8 days rather than waiting until later when the baby became a child or a man.

It looks like this thread has already debunked the health benefits. (Many ciricumcision health benefits assertions are also discussed and dismissed in this 1992 Journal of Nurse-Midwifery article also: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/ )

I looked for information that either confirmed or debunked the pain factor and found this paper: ( http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1022.x -- the link to download the 6 page pdf file is in the upper right corner of the web page).

Looks like that is incorrect also, per that paper a baby boy will normally feel more pain than an adult male during circumcision. Also while many friends and relatives (including me) have watched babies fall asleep shortly after the bris and regarded that as proof that it wasn't that painful for the infant, apparently studies show that babies go into a lethargic semi comatose state in reaction to the stress. :jaw-dropp



(Normally I would cut and paste some pertinant bits, but it wasn't possible for that paper -- but its a quick read and the information about the baby's pain is on the first two pages.)

[Henners]

I'm not saying I'm pro-circumcision, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that doing so is more harmful to a child's physical and mental state than any of the above.


While that is certainly true, in general, it is also true that the few dead ones don't complain much.

[Ivor the Engineer]

It's the only way to look at the evidence because there is no evidence. You cannot produce a single proper study that suggests that infant circumcision impacts sexual satisfaction. No such study exists.

Furthermore, considering the massive number of circumcised men on the planet, you'd think there would be no trouble identifying some sort of trend. Circumcised men should have higher rates of impotence or erectile disfunction. They might have higher rates of divorce or shorter relationships with women overall. Perhaps they give up on sex at a younger age than uncircumcised men. But the data does not indicate any of this.

It might be reasonable to suspect that infant circumcision might affect sexual satisfaction, but it is not reasonable to maintain that it does in the absense of evidence.

So long as circumcision does not reduce a man's pleasure from sex below that from other activities, why would you expect to see some sort of trend?

Infant circumcision is like forcing a person to wear glasses that make them slightly short sighted; being able to see is still fantastic and they would not wish to go blind.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Wait, did you just seriously claim that exposing children to elevated levels of UVA/B radiation is not a permanent, medical alteration that could cause deleterious effects in the future? I'm sure many medical doctors will strongly disagree with you on that.

Other potentially harmful things that parents do:
* Feed children too much fast food
* Give children sedatives (http://www.babycenter.com/viewPollResults.htm?pollId=1477231)
* Putting braces on children

I'm not saying I'm pro-circumcision, but frankly I haven't seen any evidence that doing so is more harmful to a child's physical and mental state than any of the above.

Edited to add: my point is that parents make irreversible medical decisions for their children all the time, with potentially dangerous effects. Does this make them bad people or bad parents for not waiting until their children are 12 or older to decide anything? No, it's their job to make these sorts of decisions.

How about this:

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/taddio2/

Interpretation
Circumcised infants showed a stronger pain response to subsequent routine vaccination than uncircumcised infants. Among the circumcised group, preoperative treatment with Emla attenuated the pain response to vaccination. We recommend treatment to prevent neonatal circumcision pain.

I'm always confused why this particular form of cruelty has to have long-lasting effects to be considered wrong. Anybody?

:confused:

[Loss Leader]

Infant circumcision is like forcing a person to wear glasses that make them slightly short sighted; being able to see is still fantastic and they would not wish to go blind.


Except, once again, you have absolutely no evidence that infant circumcision makes someone "slightly short sighted" - that it reduces sexual function or pleasure in any way whatsoever.

So, it's more apt to say that infant circumcision is like forcing a person to either wear glasses or not wear glasses in such a manner as to have no discernable effect.

[Lonewulf]

Except that glasses can be removed. Circumcision is permanent, and when given to infants, is always without consent.

Is there really still a debate about this?

[Loss Leader]

Circumcision is permanent, and when given to infants, is always without consent.


I have examined every possible option for gaining consent from my eight day-old son including asking him straight out, performing a little puppet show and strapping on that mind reading device Doc Brown had in Back to the Future. I'm pretty sure he's just going to lie there and ignore me.


Is there really still a debate about this?


Nope, there isn't. No single legislature or court in the western world has ever found a parent not to be able to consent to a circumcision on behalf of his/her son.

[ponderingturtle]

The 'strong emotional reaction' is to the inflicting of pain and suffering for a highly unlikely benefit on a non-consenting individual.

That is the job of parents making medical decisions for thier children. They make decisions for non consenting individuals.


There is no such major repercussion of this that makes it medicaly clear that one is vastly preferable to the other. If anything medicaly I would expect if the benefits of being uncircumcised where attached to a medical procedure it would be concidered much more highly unethical to perform that procedure on children than it is with the benifits and risks being the way they are.

Of course if you listen to most anti circ people, the diaparity is so great that if the state of being uncircumcised was the result of an irreversible medical procedure then it would hands down be right to do such a thing.

[Lonewulf]

I have examined every possible option for gaining consent from my eight day-old son including asking him straight out, performing a little puppet show and strapping on that mind reading device Doc Brown had in Back to the Future. I'm pretty sure he's just going to lie there and ignore me.

Ah, sarcasm. Nice.

Well, I'm sure your circumcision to your son was nothing like what I had when I was a kid. I mean, babies don't actually feel the pain, the recovery, and everything. A process that every human being should undergo because of the arbitrary desires of their parents.

I tried everything I could to get a little baby to consent to getting shocked by a taser because I thought it would be funny. Didn't work, so it must have been okay.

[ponderingturtle]

I grew up in a Jewish family and I was always told that circumcision was beneficial to the baby's health and much less painful if done at 8 days rather than waiting until later when the baby became a child or a man.

It looks like this thread has already debunked the health benefits. (Many ciricumcision health benefits assertions are also discussed and dismissed in this 1992 Journal of Nurse-Midwifery article also: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/ )

You do realize that they are a source that would never admit any benefit to circumcision right? You are citing propaganda as evidence.

[fls]

The question can hardly be re-worded for added clarity, but I'll try:

So, you don't agree with circumcision then, unless it's medically necessary?

I consider the decision to circumcise or not a private decision. I gave you my answer as to my private decision, but you said that wasn't what you meant. Does that mean you are asking me to make this a public decision - i.e. that I am answering for everyone?

'Mental and social well-being' of whom? Surely not the victim; he's too young even to appreciate what's happening. So you must be referring to the parent(s) then. To my mind, disfigurement of your own child in the selfish interests of your own social or mental well-being is a very lame and pusillanimous reason.

Mental and social well-being of the child. How could it possibly contribute to the well-being of the parents? I don't think there would be any expectation (other than lowering the risk of infant UTI's) that the benefit would be only for the present.

I very much doubt that this reason alone determines many parents' decision, where the choice is otherwise completely open.

As do I.

I (and I suspect most un-circumcised men) can easily achieve orgasm without retracting the foreskin, if I so wish. The ability to achieve an erection and thereafter orgasm is not, therefore, determined by sensitivity of the glans. An exposed glans, however, does increase the sensation and experience immensely (well it does for me) during sex.

Because of the tremendous range and variety of human sexual experience, I find it difficult to know what to make of individual descriptions. That's useful information to have, but surely you can see that it wouldn't be able to serve as proof against the practice?

Simply not true. I enjoy ice-cream, but on those rare occassions I've had an entire tub to myself ...!

The situation is not analogous. To stay with the ice cream example...an analogous situation would be, whether or not it took one spoonful or two, the ice cream headache is still just as painful.

Linda

[Loss Leader]

A process that every human being should undergo


Not every human being, just the boys.


because of the arbitrary desires of their parents.


Not arbitrary desires, religious desires.

[Lonewulf]

Not every human being, just the boys.
Aw, girls shouldn't be circumcised either? Why not?

Oh, right, THAT'S actually bad.

Not arbitrary desires, religious desires.
Ah, right, because the invisible man in the sky said it was okay, so it is...

[fls]

But the point is that there seems to be very little on either side. So it is not like if the risks and benifits where reversed they would be advocateing the procedure either. So the point you are coming from is a do nothing unless a significant benefit.

Yes. I have a bias in that direction (I've admitted to this in the past), as does medical ethics in general I think. Without that bias, the balance would be in favour of circumcision.

The favoring of inaction over action as a general principle is a long way away from the strong emotional reactions so many people in the anti circumcision camp have.

Yes. And that is one of the things that spurred my initial interest in this area - that this attitude is considered so inadequate by the anti-circ camp.

Linda

[Lonewulf]

Why is it that I have a certain opinion that I suddenly belong in a "camp"? Seriously.

[Octothorpe]

I had just given birth to my son in 1999, and I heard two doctors talking to the new mother across the hall. They asked her if she wanted her son circumcised. She did not know what that was, so they "explained" it to her, noting that the proceedure might reduce urinary tract infections and that it was routine and common. Basically they sold her the proceedure with a 10 second spiel. She bought it. Circumcision was not covered in any of my child birth classes and it was not something my midwife ever discussed with me.

To me it's both about uneducated parents and about doctors selling an unnecessary proceedure. I know its hardly news that doctors perform unnecessary proceedures, and sometimes even harmful ones because "we know best and that's the way we've always done things." I'm glad to see that the Amer. Academy of Pediatrics has come out against the proceedure.

I had a friend who's family physician asked her if she had her new baby circumcised. When she replied "No" he told her that if he had attended the birth he just would have done the proceedure automatically. My friend answered that her daughter would not have taken kindly to that, and found another doctor.

A few people asked why I didn't have my son circumcised, and didn't I think he would be unclean. I always replied that his ears would get dirty but that didn't mean I wanted to cut them off. I would teach him how to wash instead.

[fls]

I grew up in a Jewish family and I was always told that circumcision was beneficial to the baby's health and much less painful if done at 8 days rather than waiting until later when the baby became a child or a man.

It looks like this thread has already debunked the health benefits. (Many ciricumcision health benefits assertions are also discussed and dismissed in this 1992 Journal of Nurse-Midwifery article also: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/ )

Just to let you know, the cirp.org site presents information that is misleading and misrepresentative, giving an anti-circumcision bias. If you are interested in understanding these issues, I would suggest avoiding anti-circ sites.

Linda

[Morrigan]

Ah, right, because the invisible man in the sky said it was okay, so it is...
Come on, are you saying this is an arbitrary reason? You must hate Jews or something.

[Kaylee]

You do realize that they are a source that would never admit any benefit to circumcision right? You are citing propaganda as evidence.The Journal of Nurse-Midwifery isn't a legitimate peer reviewed journal? No, I didn't realize that. I still don't realize that actually -- I guess I have more research ahead of me.

ETA:

Just to let you know, the cirp.org site presents information that is misleading and misrepresentative, giving an anti-circumcision bias. If you are interested in understanding these issues, I would suggest avoiding anti-circ sites.
So the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery isn't a peer reviewed respectable journal?

[JoeEllison]

Why is it that I have a certain opinion that I suddenly belong in a "camp"? Seriously.

What you should be asking is, if you are in a camp, why haven't you gotten a T-shirt, or at least a hat.

[sthomson]

Aw, girls shouldn't be circumcised either? Why not?

Oh, right, THAT'S actually bad.

This is my favorite straw-man. Traditionally, when males are circumcised, it's a rite of passage, or a step towards "Manhood" and all the rights that entails. In cultures where women are circumcised, it's to mark them as property, to prevent them from giving away their virginity before it can be sold, or to punish them for some infraction or another. Often, it is done in unsanitary conditions, and has high risk of infections and other complications.

Again, I'm not pro-circumcision; I'm just pointing out that being circumcisions done in third-world conditions for the purposes of objectifying and subduing an entire class of women is NOT the same as circumcisions done in a sanitary hospital, for misguided but still somewhat harmless reasons. Again, if someone can produce a study that show circumcised males exhibit a loss of sexual pleasure comparable to the loss suffered by circumcised females, then I suppose the argument is more valid.

[Henners]

Not arbitrary desires, religious desires.

...because of a non-rational belief, in other words. Now that is abuse.

...and I should know for I am Kublai Kahn, and I expect to be accorded the respect that I deserve.

[fls]

While that is certainly true, in general, it is also true that the few dead ones don't complain much.

I know it's tempting to pull out the dead baby argument, but the point is that there are more dead babies from not having circumcision (from UTI's) than there are from having circumcision. Fortunately, there are very few of both.

Linda

[JoeEllison]

Of course, some women undergo "circumcision" in order to increase sexual pleasure... what a shock, right?

[fls]

Why is it that I have a certain opinion that I suddenly belong in a "camp"? Seriously.

My grouping is on the basis of characteristics, rather than just the opinion. But I have wondered about this as well. Why does there seem to be so little variation on this issue?

Linda

[Darat]

This is my favorite straw-man. Traditionally, when males are circumcised, it's a rite of passage, or a step towards "Manhood" and all the rights that entails. In cultures where women are circumcised, it's to mark them as property, to prevent them from giving away their virginity before it can be sold, or to punish them for some infraction or another.



Not really a good summary in many cultures that practice circumcision of females the reasons given are the same as for male circumcision i.e. hygiene, marks them as a full adult and so on. Also in most cultures that practices female circumcision it is controlled and carried out by the female culture. See: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ and http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html



Often, it is done in unsanitary conditions, and has high risk of infections and other complications.


That is the same for male circumcision in developing countries.



...snip... Again, if someone can produce a study that show circumcised males exhibit a loss of sexual pleasure comparable to the loss suffered by circumcised females, then I suppose the argument is more valid.

It seems a poplar misconception that female genital mutilation removes all pleasure from sex, this is just not the case for the vast majority of women who undergo the most prevalent type of genital mutilation. (See: http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.html)

[Darat]

My grouping is on the basis of characteristics, rather than just the opinion. But I have wondered about this as well. Why does there seem to be so little variation on this issue?

Linda

Is it not quite a black and white issue in that you either agree that parents can permanently alter the body of a child for non-medical reasons or you don't?

[ponderingturtle]

The Journal of Nurse-Midwifery isn't a legitimate peer reviewed journal? No, I didn't realize that. I still don't realize that actually -- I guess I have more research ahead of me.


I have no idea, I know that the hosting site does not care about accurate information if it gets in the way of the truth that they already know.

And just because a jounal is respected doesn't mean that the article isn't poorly exicuted. Or do you believe in the effectiveness of petitionary prayer because a group from Columbia said it worked? Just becuase it was later retracted would not stop it from being cited. It was published in a respectible journal.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes. I have a bias in that direction (I've admitted to this in the past), as does medical ethics in general I think. Without that bias, the balance would be in favour of circumcision.

That is nonsense. Circumcision causes about as many complications as UTI's it prevents.

Yes. And that is one of the things that spurred my initial interest in this area - that this attitude is considered so inadequate by the anti-circ camp.

Linda

No, the attitude I consider 'inadequate' is that of highly trained and professional physicians performing surgery on healthy infant males, causing about as many problems as they are potentially preventing.

That is why I'm okay with it being tried in Africa for HIV prevention.

PLEASE STOP WITH THE ANTI-CIRC. CAMP crap. If you want to pigeonhole me, refer to me as being in the "anti-pointless-surgery-on-children-that-hurts-them" camp.

[fls]

So the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery isn't a peer reviewed respectable journal?

The issues discussed were outside of their area of expertise. The article was strongly biased. Neither is good for an accurate overview.

Linda

[ponderingturtle]

Of course, some women undergo "circumcision" in order to increase sexual pleasure... what a shock, right?

And some men cut their penis down the middle for the same reason. But I don't think that some of the odder elements of body modification are relevent to this discussion.

[kellyb]

This is my favorite straw-man. Traditionally, when males are circumcised, it's a rite of passage, or a step towards "Manhood" and all the rights that entails. In cultures where women are circumcised, it's to mark them as property, to prevent them from giving away their virginity before it can be sold, or to punish them for some infraction or another. Often, it is done in unsanitary conditions, and has high risk of infections and other complications.

.

That's not entirely true. FGC is a meaningful social custom in many cultures that perform it, and it's not generally about any of the things you mentioned.
Excision of the prepuce (the 'foreskin' of the clitoris) is the most common form of FGC. It's quite often a tradition that marks entrance into "Womanhood", as well.

There are cultures that practice more brutal forms of FGC, and some do practice it to ensure virginity until marriage, but those are the exceptions rather than the norm.

http://www.childinfo.org/areas/fgmc/docs/U83FGM_9_web%20-%20Final%20version%20printed.pdf


“Even though cultural practices may appear
senseless or destructive from the standpoint of
others, they have meaning and fulfil a function
for those who practise them. However, culture
is not static; it is in constant fl ux, adapting and
reforming. People will change their behaviour
when they understand the hazards and
indignity of harmful practices and when they
realize that it is possible to give up harmful
practices without giving up meaningful aspects
of their culture.”
— Female Genital Mutilation, A joint
WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement, 1997



In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

[Lonewulf]

And some men cut their penis down the middle for the same reason. But I don't think that some of the odder elements of body modification are relevent to this discussion.
Why not?

If I wanted to cut someone's penis down their middle, without their consent, because of religious beliefs, should I be able to?

For that matter, what else can I justify for religious reasons? Give me a list of everything I can get away with if I hide behind religion.

[JoeEllison]

And some men cut their penis down the middle for the same reason. But I don't think that some of the odder elements of body modification are relevent to this discussion.

I think your inability to distinguish between a relatively safe medical procedure performed by a doctor in a hospital and "odd" body modification is rather telling. The whole things stinks of woo to me.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have no idea, I know that the hosting site does not care about accurate information if it gets in the way of the truth that they already know.

And just because a jounal is respected doesn't mean that the article isn't poorly exicuted. Or do you believe in the effectiveness of petitionary prayer because a group from Columbia said it worked? Just becuase it was later retracted would not stop it from being cited. It was published in a respectible journal.

Brilliant line of argument: any research that is peer-reviewed and published that comes out against circumcision (and so gets put on an anti-circ. site) is, by mere fact of being put on an anti-circ. site, invalid.

[ponderingturtle]

PLEASE STOP WITH THE ANTI-CIRC. CAMP crap. If you want to pigeonhole me, refer to me as being in the "anti-pointless-surgery-on-children-that-hurts-them" camp.

Then don't base your position on the propaganda from that camp. Use credible sources.

[ponderingturtle]

Brilliant line of argument: any research that is peer-reviewed and published that comes out against circumcision (and so gets put on an anti-circ. site) is, by mere fact of being put on an anti-circ. site, invalid.

Briliant strawman. I commend that as a perfect example of the how to construct a strawman.

As for being on an anti circ site, gee you don't seem to think that they are not doing exactly that, throwing out any study regardless of quality that does not show that circumcision is the evil that they know it is, while posting any thing published that supports their argument?

I have not seen any credible source that shows that there is a strong reason to think that either is arbitrarily better on average(circumcision is certainly much better for some people or else why would there be any medically justified circumcisions?)

[Z]

Thing is Z, I work out, so I can afford to indulge, now and then, and still remain fit. Some people, on the other hand, don't, mostly through lethargy and plain laziness. I've checked out your profile photo, and I think I understand your probable traits!

Yep - I admit to being lazy. Given my general state of health, my current sedentary life has had only one notable ill effect - an increase in snoring. Yes, I could certainly stand to lose a few pounds. But I don't indulge in gluttony - on any front - and in fact am healthier, pound for pound, than quite a few people who work out daily. In spite of my size, my blood pressure and coronary health are excellent, and my cholesterol counts are actually on the low side of normal. My physical strength is well more than is needed in my current lifestyle. My endurance is considerable - I see nothing wrong at all with walking 20 or 30 miles to get where I want to go, and have done so recently without losing breath. My skeletal system has one bone that has had numerous stress fractures and shin splints - but that began when I weighed a meager 167 lbs and first entered the military. Ironically, when I put on considerable weight - and it was a combination of fat and muscle, based on the fact I stayed on the overweight program for most of the 10 years I served - I also became stronger, healthier, and more able to endure stress and exercise. At 220 lbs, I was the sit-up champion of my unit.

Yes, I'm fat. And lazy. And happy to be both, considering my general health. IF some weight-related problem should rear its ugly head in the near future, I'd be easily able to drop the necessary weight. I already have a plan in place, just in case I'll need it.

But, to be honest, I enjoy being fat. I can't explain it - probably some sick fetish or other - but I'm happier now than I was 50 lbs ago.

'Elective' by whom? 'Harmless' in who's opinion? Starting to look a little 'selfish', now? So you can sleep soundly at night then because it's not 'illegal' nor 'socially unacceptable' in your 'society'. That conveniently avoids the moral and ethical questions, doesn't it! So if the law changes things you'll alter your behaviour accordingly, and without objection. That's a reflection of the shallowness of the humanitarian values you truly behold, I guess.

Indeed. I really have no concerns about morals, and the ethics of the situation are obviously in debate. As long as I perceive no negative effects in infant circumcision (and, likewise, no negative effects in not circumcising), I'll be quite pleased, no matter what the law says. As it stands, my own personal experience is that children with foreskins have a higher tendancy to have infections and foul-smelling members than those without - based on the children I've had a hand in raising (though, to be perfectly fair, since I started taking a hand in raising my stepsons, those infections and odors have dropped to almost nothing, which very well might mean that it's how the body is cared for, not what part is present, that determines these things). And as long as there seems to be a 50% reduction in the chance of contracting AIDS in circumcised men, I'll definitely push for infant circumcision.

Sadly, my stepsons' father is firmly in the anti-circ crowd. He's also in the anti-vaccination crowd, the anti-health care crowd, the anti-aspirin crowd, etc. He also wanted to home-school the kids and NEVER send them to any public school, public hospital, or other public function... not virtual school, mind you, but pure, old-fashioned home-school (except, instead of a Bible, he'd have preferred to teach them from Buckland's Guide).

For me, the deciding factors are, in order: 50% reduction in the chance of contracting HIV; physical appearance and general social acceptability; easier to clean and care for; habit; personal dislike of uncut penises. The factors against, for me, are, in order: some studies which indicate the foreskin offers protection against some diseases; growing global disdain for the procedure; the fact that many places still do not use modern methods for circumcision and pain relief, meaning a chance of complications.

The notion that 'it hurts the child' or that 'children have a right to total body integrity' is a complete non-factor in my mind.

In order for me to reverse my opinion on infant male circumcision, the following would have to be shown in multiple, quality, verified studies: 1) that circumcision has no effect on the chance of catching AIDS; 2) that properly executed removal of the foreskin in infants significantly impairs sexual function and enjoyment upon reaching adulthood; and 3) that the foreskin offers significant protection from other diseases.

That sums it up for me. The rest - appeals to emotion, calling me a 'child abuser', etc - is completely irrelevant.

[ponderingturtle]

I think your inability to distinguish between a relatively safe medical procedure performed by a doctor in a hospital and "odd" body modification is rather telling. The whole things stinks of woo to me.

Um I was not the one who brought up odd body modification, or are there actualy doctors who perform clitorectomies in hospitals?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Then don't base your position on the propaganda from that camp. Use credible sources.

What I have posted have been published research. The reason it has appeared on the anti-circ. site is because it supports their position. The same information can be found on pubmed, the BMJ, etc. It's just more convenient when doing a google search to link to the first site that has the paper on it.

[kellyb]

are there actualy doctors who perform clitorectomies in hospitals?

I'm sure there are extremely rare medical conditions that pop up from time to time that require that.

ETA:
Yup. You can get cancer of the clitoris:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_vulvar_cancer_45.asp?sitearea=


Cancer of the vulva (also known as vulvar cancer) most often affects the inner edges of the labia majora or the labia minora. Less often, cancer occurs on the clitoris or in Bartholin glands (small mucus-producing glands on either side of the vaginal opening).


Surgery

Choosing the best surgical treatment for each woman involves balancing the importance of maintaining sexual functioning with the need to remove all the cancer. In the past, surgeons removing a vulvar cancer also took out a large amount of surrounding normal tissue and possibly local lymph nodes, regardless of the stage of the cancer, because they wanted to be sure that no undetected cancer cells remained. Such extensive surgery resulted in a good chance of cure, but it caused disfigurement and impaired the woman's ability to function sexually if the clitoris were removed. The removal of all the lymph nodes in the groin often led to disabling swelling of the leg on that side.


Excision: The cancer and a margin of normal-appearing skin (usually about ½ inch) around it are excised (cut out). This is sometimes called wide local excision. If extensive, it may be called a simple partial vulvectomy.

Vulvectomy: There are several operations in which part of the vulva or all of the vulva is removed:

A skinning vulvectomy means only the top layer of skin affected by the cancer is removed. Although this is an option for treating extensive VIN3, this operation is rarely done.

In a simple vulvectomy, the entire vulva is removed.

A radical vulvectomy can be complete or partial. When part of the vulva, including the deep tissue, is removed, the operation is called a partial vulvectomy. In a complete radical vulvectomy, the entire vulva and deep tissues, including the clitoris, are removed.

An operation to remove the lymph nodes near the vulva is called a groin dissection. It is important to remove these lymph nodes if they contain cancer.

[Lonewulf]

My grouping is on the basis of characteristics, rather than just the opinion. But I have wondered about this as well. Why does there seem to be so little variation on this issue?

Linda

Yeah, that is interesting. Just like it's interesting how few scientists actually disagree with the theory of gravity, and all have the same reasons for doing so... :rolleyes:

[Ivor the Engineer]

Um I was not the one who brought up odd body modification, or are there actualy doctors who perform clitorectomies in hospitals?

About 150 years ago, when Victorian physicians were struggling with the GREAT MASTURBATION PROBLEM and adopted the idea of circumcising males, the solution proposed for females was clitoridectomy. Alas, the procedure did not catch on in the West. Nowadays the only hospital clitoridectomies are in the middle east.

ETA: I should have said non-medically indicated clitoridectomies. As KellyB points out, there are valid medical reasons to cut off almost any body part.

[fls]

Is it not quite a black and white issue in that you either agree that parents can permanently alter the body of a child for non-medical reasons or you don't?

In all honesty, I don't see that as black and white. It is clear that throughout history and at present, humans embrace body modification, usually in relation to identification with a group. And that some of these modifications are begun in childhood. You bring up the idea of physical integrity as though it is universally valued, and get general agreement here because of the nature of the cultural backgrounds of those who come to the JREF. But I am not convinced this idea can generally be considered important when the vast majority of humans violate it. Not enough to interfere with what I consider private decisions, anyway.

Of course, at the other end of the scale are practices that are obviously harmful and 'consent' to such practices is coercive and we should interfere. FGM would be one of them.

Perhaps it's not possible to discuss how one rationally draws a line in a field of grey.

Linda

[kellyb]

Of course, at the other end of the scale are practices that are obviously harmful and 'consent' to such practices is coercive and we should interfere. FGM would be one of them.


Linda

All forms, or just the ones that are "worse" than male circumcision?

[fls]

Yeah, that is interesting. Just like it's interesting how few scientists actually disagree with the theory of gravity, and all have the same reasons for doing so... :rolleyes:

I realize that you bring that up because you wish to give the impression that the strong emotional reaction is based on a rational assessment. I would like to believe that, too, as I find it difficult to whip myself into a frenzy otherwise. I'm just not getting there, though.

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to discover is whether this merely represents a personality flaw on my part.

Linda

[fls]

All forms, or just the ones that are "worse" than male circumcision?

Since the vast majority are worse than male circumcision, it doesn't make much difference to belabour the point. Keep in mind that Type I FGM can and usually does also include excision of part of the clitoris.

If FGM of the type equivalent to a routine male circumcision was done under situations that were not coercive, I don't think we would interfere.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

In all honesty, I don't see that as black and white. It is clear that throughout history and at present, humans embrace body modification, usually in relation to identification with a group. And that some of these modifications are begun in childhood. You bring up the idea of physical integrity as though it is universally valued, and get general agreement here because of the nature of the cultural backgrounds of those who come to the JREF. But I am not convinced this idea can generally be considered important when the vast majority of humans violate it. Not enough to interfere with what I consider private decisions, anyway.

Of course, at the other end of the scale are practices that are obviously harmful and 'consent' to such practices is coercive and we should interfere. FGM would be one of them.

Perhaps it's not possible to discuss how one rationally draws a line in a field of grey.

Linda

I know you're not going to answer me, but if FGM was carried out in a clean hospital by a trained surgeon and with proper pain relief, then what "harm" is there?

Women who have had the procedure can still have orgasms, get pregnant and give birth. The only danger from FGM is the sometimes extreme nature of it and how it is often performed.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Since the vast majority are worse than male circumcision, it doesn't make much difference to belabour the point. Keep in mind that Type I FGM can and usually does also include excision of part of the clitoris.

If FGM of the type equivalent to a routine male circumcision was done under situations that were not coercive, I don't think we would interfere.

Linda

And if male circumcisions were performed under situations that were not coercive, I don't think I would interfere.

[kellyb]

Since the vast majority are worse than male circumcision, it doesn't make much difference to belabour the point. Keep in mind that Type I FGM can and usually does also include excision of part of the clitoris.



Does this seem incorrect to you for some reason? (link in a post above..it's from the 2005 UNICEF survey on FGC statistics):

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

That seems fairly specific to me compared to the older WHO stats that lump the prepuce and clitoris in together.

[Lonewulf]

I realize that you bring that up because you wish to give the impression that the strong emotional reaction is based on a rational assessment. I would like to believe that, too, as I find it difficult to whip myself into a frenzy otherwise. I'm just not getting there, though.

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to discover is whether this merely represents a personality flaw on my part.

Linda
Actually, no. My point was that everyone who tends to agree on a subject does not harm their point. Everyone can agree that the moon is not made of cheese, but this doesn't put them into a "moon-is-not-cheese" bigoted fact-denying biased "camp". There's a reason they all agree.

Just like when it comes to circumcision.


As for my strong feelings; I know what a circumcision is like. I've been through it while old enough to be able to remember it, remember. I find it interesting as I describe how painful and uncomfortable it is, people really don't seem to care. I've actually been through the process. It's not fun. It's not something that I would want forced on me ever again.

But what do I get in a thread like this? Derision. In fact, it was pointed out (rather blatantly and rudely) that babies can't consent, ever, as if this made it even more okay to go ahead and snip off a piece of their penis. That's what I find so disturbing about all of this.

It seems as if people are advocating doing things to people that can't consent more than they would to people who could consent and say "no".

If the Koran condoned child abuse, and I made sure to only slap around my baby when it was too young to remember the pain... does it suddenly become okay then? It's religion, and the baby can't consent, it's okay, right?

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure there are extremely rare medical conditions that pop up from time to time that require that.


And the referced people getting it to enhance their sexual function are they getting it at a hospital?

[kellyb]

If FGM of the type equivalent to a routine male circumcision was done under situations that were not coercive, I don't think we would interfere.

Linda

So you're in favor of the "medicalization" of FGC? Where women take their daughters in to doctors to have the procedure performed in sterile clinics?

[ponderingturtle]

About 150 years ago, when Victorian physicians were struggling with the GREAT MASTURBATION PROBLEM and adopted the idea of circumcising males, the solution proposed for females was clitoridectomy. Alas, the procedure did not catch on in the West. Nowadays the only hospital clitoridectomies are in the middle east.

ETA: I should have said non-medically indicated clitoridectomies. As KellyB points out, there are valid medical reasons to cut off almost any body part.

Yes and these same doctors knew that to regular massage of the vagina was needed to prevent hysteria. So female masterbation is of course wrong because they advocated it for the wrong reasons?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If the Koran condoned child abuse, and I made sure to only slap around my baby when it was too young to remember the pain... does it suddenly become okay then? It's religion, and the baby can't consent, it's okay, right?

By Linda's logic: since most people violate the 'don't slap other people' principle, then yeah, it's fine. I'm not going to interfere, just so long as they have enough 'spare capacity' to take the beatings.

[ponderingturtle]

I know you're not going to answer me, but if FGM was carried out in a clean hospital by a trained surgeon and with proper pain relief, then what "harm" is there?

Women who have had the procedure can still have orgasms, get pregnant and give birth. The only danger from FGM is the sometimes extreme nature of it and how it is often performed.

Does it have any medical benefits on the level of increased resistance to some STD's and UTI's?

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, no. My point was that everyone who tends to agree on a subject does not harm their point. Everyone can agree that the moon is not made of cheese, but this doesn't put them into a "moon-is-not-cheese" bigoted fact-denying biased "camp". There's a reason they all agree.

Just like when it comes to circumcision.

That is also true of homeopathy, alien abduction and so on.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes and these same doctors knew that to regular massage of the vagina was needed to prevent hysteria. So female masterbation is of course wrong because they advocated it for the wrong reasons?

I think you've misunderstood.

Circumcision of both males AND females was introduced by Western physicians as a cure for the "disorder" of masturbation. The female version did not catch on in the West, whilst the male version had an ever growing list of aliments that it treated.

[3point14]

For me the question is pretty simple.

I have had in my hands an eight year-old male baby, perfect in every way, probably about as vulnerable as a human being gets, entirely at the mercy of those caring for it.

Now, I need an almost impossibly good reason to inflict pain and suffering on any human being whatsoever.

To inflict pain on a child a little over a week old would require an absolutely fantastic reason, and that reason would need to be examined closely by me and those I trust who are smarter than I in order to establish that the reasons were valid.

I will not inflict pain on an eight day old (or any age for that matter) child in response to entirely irrational (IMO) cultural norms.

I will not inflict pain on a child to garner some very minor health benefit. The benefit being less chance of contracting something that is curable, or something not astonishingly relevant if a condom is used.


In short, circumcision hurts, I do not inflict pain on those I love without good reason.

I have seen no good reason.

[Lonewulf]

That is also true of homeopathy, alien abduction and so on.
Or religion? Your "pro-circumcision" camp certainly has all the hallmarks of fundie faith.

[kellyb]

And the referced people getting it to enhance their sexual function are they getting it at a hospital?

It looks like a fairly minor procedure that can be performed in an outpatient clinic, but the physicians who do it also work at hospitals?


http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures.php
http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures/hoodectomy.php
Safe and Simple
The procedure is very simple. It is done on an outpatient basis and takes only a few minutes. Like other procedures, it is nearly bloodless and is painless. There are no sutures to remove. The patient is able to return to normal activities within several days and may expect a complete return to sexual relations within 4-6 weeks.


http://www.drroyalbenson.com/

Dr. Benson provides medical services at all three regional hospitals: College Station Medical Center, St. Joseph Regional Health Center and The Physician's Centre. We accept a majority of insurance plans. Please call our office at (979) 776-1660 with any questions.

[ponderingturtle]

So you're in favor of the "medicalization" of FGC? Where women take their daughters in to doctors to have the procedure performed in sterile clinics?

I should note that there being a kind of of FGC equivalent to male circumcision in terms of effect on sexual function and so on has not been well established. So this would be something that would need more documentation of the nature of its effects.

But if it seems to be about as much of a wash medically as male circumcision then I would not have problems with it. But I am not convinced that they are equivalent.

[fls]

Does this seem incorrect to you for some reason? (link in a post above..it's from the 2005 UNICEF survey on FGC statistics):

That seems fairly specific to me compared to the older WHO stats that lump the prepuce and clitoris in together.

Does this seem specific to you? (from Table 5 from your link):

Percentage of women who have had Clitoridectomy/Excision:

Benin (2001) 84.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 90.8
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 31.3/67.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 4.1
Eritrea (1995) 61.5/4.4
Guinea (1999) 44.0/46.2
Mali (2001) 81.4
Mali (1995–96) 52.1/46.9
Mauritania (2000–01) 75.3
Niger (1998) 66.5/4.8
Nigeria (2003) 43.5
Nigeria (1999) 82.2/6.8
Sudan (north) (2000) 21.5/1.7
Sudan (north) (1990) 14.8/2.7
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 56.6/35.3

Percentage of women who have have pinching or nicking:

Benin (2001) 7.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 1.2
Eritrea (2001–02) 46.0
Guinea (1999) 1.7
Mali (2001) 2.0
Mauritania (2000–01) 5.4
Nigeria (2003) 2.0

Percentage of women who have had infibulation:

Benin (2001) 3.5
Burkina Faso (2003) 2.0
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 0.7
Côte d’Ivoire (1998) 2.3
Egypt (1995) 0.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 38.6
Eritrea (1995) 34.0
Ethiopia (2000) 3.0
Guinea (1999) 7.4
Mali (2001) 1.9
Mali (1995–96) 0.5
Niger (1998) 0.0
Nigeria (2003) 3.9
Nigeria (1999) 3.7
Sudan (north) (2000) 74.1
Sudan (north) (1990) 82.3
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 5.2

As you can see, the majority of procedures done are worse than routine male circumcision.

(I apologize in advance if I screwed up any of my editing.)

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Does it have any medical benefits on the level of increased resistance to some STD's and UTI's?

In a wonderful stroke of irony, a research group found that even after adjusting for confounding variables, female circumcision had a strong PROTECTIVE effect against women contracting HIV.

Because the world has decided that FGM is wrong, the researchers concluded this was a "conundrum", rather than calling for large scale randomized trials:rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

I think you've misunderstood.

Circumcision of both males AND females was introduced by Western physicians as a cure for the "disorder" of masturbation. The female version did not catch on in the West, whilst the male version had an ever growing list of aliments that it treated.

Um, this does not seem to be correct at all. As masturbation by doctors was a very popular medical procedure at the time. You needed to massage the vagina until there was a hysterical spasm. This was not publicly thought of as being a sexual process.

There was also a strong selling of medical vibrators(including early steam powered models) it was not until porno films showed demonstrated to the prudes that these where sexual in nature that they got discontinued for a few years.

[kellyb]

Does it have any medical benefits on the level of increased resistance to some STD's and UTI's?
Logically, it would have to interrupt the spread of some STDs. (some forms of FGC, at least, like removal of the labia.) The herpes virus is adapted to intact genitalia, so if you start cutting things off, you'll interrupt it's normal mode of transmission.
But I don't think it's ever been studied outside of that one study that found that some form of FGC prevents HIV transmission.
It would have to be studied before the detalils would be known, though.

Also, labial adhesions are fairly common in girls and cause UTIs, so removing the labia should, in theory, reduce UTIs in female children, as well.

[ponderingturtle]

Or religion? Your "pro-circumcision" camp certainly has all the hallmarks of fundie faith.

So the AMA is a fundie faith now.

Cool the Pro Vaccine crowd is also a fundie faith too, they demand that everyone get these painful shots for small children as well.

[ponderingturtle]

It looks like a fairly minor procedure that can be performed in an outpatient clinic, but the physicians who do it also work at hospitals?


http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures.php
http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures/hoodectomy.php



http://www.drroyalbenson.com/

I will try to remember to look into these later and see if they correspond to standard FGC practices. I think that they are likely NSFW.

[kellyb]

Um, this does not seem to be correct at all. As masturbation by doctors was a very popular medical procedure at the time. You needed to massage the vagina until there was a hysterical spasm. This was not publicly thought of as being a sexual process.

There was also a strong selling of medical vibrators(including early steam powered models) it was not until porno films showed demonstrated to the prudes that these where sexual in nature that they got discontinued for a few years.

All that happened before the advent of EBM, so there were doctors out there back then doing all kinds of strange things. But many did recommend circumcision to cure epilepsy and mental disorders. Many doctors thought masturbation caused all kinds of bad things, and prescribed circumcision as a cure.
I'll find good links on all that if you want.

[kellyb]

So the AMA is a fundie faith now.



Does the AMA recommend routine infant circumcision?

[Lonewulf]

So the AMA is a fundie faith now.

I repeat Kelly's question.

Cool the Pro Vaccine crowd is also a fundie faith too, they demand that everyone get these painful shots for small children as well.
Do they strip away a piece of the arm, never to be replaced for the rest of that child's life?

Well, at the least, YOU make responses just like a fundie.

[ponderingturtle]

In a wonderful stroke of irony, a research group found that even after adjusting for confounding variables, female circumcision had a strong PROTECTIVE effect against women contracting HIV.

Because the world has decided that FGM is wrong, the researchers concluded this was a "conundrum", rather than calling for large scale randomized trials:rolleyes:

Interesting, then it would seem that some forms of female circumcision might well be justifiable.

The problem is that there are many different effects that are lumped together in these groups.

I would find a protective benefit for the removal of the clitoris strange with regards to HIV as it is not very near where the seminal discharge would be and seems an unlikely entry route for that reason.

[Loss Leader]

...because of a non-rational belief, in other words.


Sorry, non-rational is not just another word for arbitrary. You are wrong on that count.

In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. I am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not please God - an entity which may or may not exist.


Now that is abuse.


Incivility removed. I love my children and every action I take is done because I believe it is in their best interests.

If you honestly believe that I am committing child abuse, I will be happy to supply you with my name and address as well as the number for the local Child Protective Services and you may dial the phone and report me. The only condition is that if your report is determined to be unfounded, you will pay all of my out-of-pocket and legal expenses.


Incivility removed.

[ponderingturtle]

All that happened before the advent of EBM, so there were doctors out there back then doing all kinds of strange things. But many did recommend circumcision to cure epilepsy and mental disorders. Many doctors thought masturbation caused all kinds of bad things, and prescribed circumcision as a cure.
I'll find good links on all that if you want.

If you can find good ones for it with regard to females that would be of interest.

[Lonewulf]

Sorry, non-rational is not just another word for arbitrary. You are wrong on that count.

In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. i am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not plead God - an entity which may or may not exist.

So a religious leader tells you to do something, and you do it, for no religious reason? Then why trust the religious leader?

As to that, you can go [rule10] yourself. I love my children and every action I take is done because I believe it is in their best interests - even when I believe it is not in my best interests.
So do the parents that give their children homeopathic medication instead of real medication, or forgo real medication altogether because God will "make them better".

If you honestly believe that I am committing child abuse, I will be happy to suply you with my name as well as the number for the local Child Protective Services and you may dial the phone and report me. The only condition is that if your report is determined to be unfounded, you will pay all of my out-of-pocket and legal expenses.

Otherwise, STFU.
Ah, yes. The old, "If the law agrees with me, it MUST be right" excuse.

I'm sure slavery was just fine when the law was okay with it. No reason to think that slavery was wrong, the law said it's right.

[ponderingturtle]

Does the AMA recommend routine infant circumcision?

It is not against it, wich is funnily enough the exact stance that those being accused of being fundies here have. Its refusal to recognised the TRUTH that there is no benefit and many problems with male circumcision marks it clearly in the pro circ fundie crowd.

[fls]

Actually, no. My point was that everyone who tends to agree on a subject does not harm their point. Everyone can agree that the moon is not made of cheese, but this doesn't put them into a "moon-is-not-cheese" bigoted fact-denying biased "camp". There's a reason they all agree.

Just like when it comes to circumcision.

I agree. That's kinda my point. Agreement on the issue is not what I'm talking about.

As for my strong feelings; I know what a circumcision is like. I've been through it while old enough to be able to remember it, remember. I find it interesting as I describe how painful and uncomfortable it is, people really don't seem to care. I've actually been through the process. It's not fun. It's not something that I would want forced on me ever again.

Yeah, I had my tonsils out when I was eight. I care any time someone goes through pain (children in particular).

But what do I get in a thread like this? Derision. In fact, it was pointed out (rather blatantly and rudely) that babies can't consent, ever, as if this made it even more okay to go ahead and snip off a piece of their penis. That's what I find so disturbing about all of this.

I'm sorry, I missed that. I wouldn't consider derision a reasonable response.

Parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies, and in the absence of their consent, it's not okay to snip off anything.

It seems as if people are advocating doing things to people that can't consent more than they would to people who could consent and say "no".

I didn't notice anyone advocating that. I may not have paid enough attention.

If the Koran condoned child abuse, and I made sure to only slap around my baby when it was too young to remember the pain... does it suddenly become okay then? It's religion, and the baby can't consent, it's okay, right?

I don't see how any of those reasons would make it acceptable. But I also don't see the relevance.

Linda

[fls]

So you're in favor of the "medicalization" of FGC? Where women take their daughters in to doctors to have the procedure performed in sterile clinics?

No. That does serve to fill those requirements.

Linda

[3point14]

Pretty bad form to quote oneself, but I'm going to do it anyway.

In short, circumcision hurts, I do not inflict pain on those I love without good reason.

I have seen no good reason.



In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. i am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not plead God - an entity which may or may not exist.


I'm sorry, but 'because someone told me to, but I can't explain why.' is not a good enough reason.

[ponderingturtle]

I repeat Kelly's question.


Do they strip away a piece of the arm, never to be replaced for the rest of that child's life?

Well, at the least, YOU make responses just like a fundie.

You talk about pain, well it does involve pain now you are changing your arguements again, now you are advocating the perfection of the unaltered human form.

[fls]

Or religion? Your "pro-circumcision" camp certainly has all the hallmarks of fundie faith.

Ponderingturtle is pro-circumcision?

Linda

[kellyb]

Does this seem specific to you? (from Table 5 from your link):

Percentage of women who have had Clitoridectomy/Excision:

Benin (2001) 84.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 90.8
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 31.3/67.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 4.1
Eritrea (1995) 61.5/4.4
Guinea (1999) 44.0/46.2
Mali (2001) 81.4
Mali (1995–96) 52.1/46.9
Mauritania (2000–01) 75.3
Niger (1998) 66.5/4.8
Nigeria (2003) 43.5
Nigeria (1999) 82.2/6.8
Sudan (north) (2000) 21.5/1.7
Sudan (north) (1990) 14.8/2.7
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 56.6/35.3

Percentage of women who have have pinching or nicking:

Benin (2001) 7.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 1.2
Eritrea (2001–02) 46.0
Guinea (1999) 1.7
Mali (2001) 2.0
Mauritania (2000–01) 5.4
Nigeria (2003) 2.0

Percentage of women who have had infibulation:

Benin (2001) 3.5
Burkina Faso (2003) 2.0
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 0.7
Côte d’Ivoire (1998) 2.3
Egypt (1995) 0.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 38.6
Eritrea (1995) 34.0
Ethiopia (2000) 3.0
Guinea (1999) 7.4
Mali (2001) 1.9
Mali (1995–96) 0.5
Niger (1998) 0.0
Nigeria (2003) 3.9
Nigeria (1999) 3.7
Sudan (north) (2000) 74.1
Sudan (north) (1990) 82.3
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 5.2

As you can see, the majority of procedures done are worse than routine male circumcision.

(I apologize in advance if I screwed up any of my editing.)

Linda

Clitoridectomy can mean excision of all or part of the prepuce or clitoris.
It's excision of the prepuce that is most common, and excision of the clitoris is relatively rare in comparison.

Are you saying removal of the female prepuce is worse than removal of the male?

[Lonewulf]

I agree. That's kinda my point. Agreement on the issue is not what I'm talking about.

Yeah, I had my tonsils out when I was eight. I care any time someone goes through pain (children in particular).

And I agree. But some people here are just fine with that for "religious reasons".

I'm sorry, I missed that. I wouldn't consider derision a reasonable response.

Well, I'm just in the "anti-circ" camp, so who cares?

Parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies, and in the absence of their consent, it's not okay to snip off anything.
That's just the problem, though. The parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies... for what? Not giving them medication that they desperately need? Inflicting gratuitous pain that they'll never remember? Injecting them with experimental drugs for the hell of it?

Parents do not get a "Get-Out-Of-Child-Abuse" card just because their children can't consent and need the parents to consent for them.

I didn't notice anyone advocating that. I may not have paid enough attention.
An individual here made a pretty big point of how their baby was not able to consent. He said that he tried his "hardest" to get the baby to consent, but the baby wouldn't. So, hey, that must have made it okay, right?

I don't see how any of those reasons would make it acceptable. But I also don't see the relevance.

So circumcision isn't a religious ritual? Perhaps you should talk to Loss Leader about that one.

He inflicted a permanent body modification on his child because of religious principles.

You talk about pain, well it does involve pain now you are changing your arguements again, now you are advocating the perfection of the unaltered human form.

Can you tell me how the hell I'm changing my argument? Are you REALLY that dishonest?

I've never once said that it was okay to permanently alter someone's body without their consent. It is not changing my argument when I bring up how that's a BAD thing.

[ponderingturtle]

Ponderingturtle is pro-circumcision?

Linda

Apparently anyone who does not recognize is truth about how horrible circumcision is, is a pro circumcision fundie. So now the AMA is a fundie organization, as it does not tell everyone that they shouldn't have their children circumcised.

[kellyb]

No. That does serve to fill those requirements.

Linda

What about when the mothers think it's "cleaner" and "healthier" and that guys like it?

[Ivor the Engineer]

What about when the mothers think it's "cleaner" and "healthier" and that guys like it?

Careful Kelly. You're this close to Linda ignoring you;)

[kellyb]

If you can find good ones for it with regard to females that would be of interest.

This talks about both male and female circumcision:


http://direct.bl.uk/bld/PlaceOrder.do?UIN=129356005&ETOC=RN&from=searchengine
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2005/is_3_36/ai_99699493

The masturbation taboo and the rise of routine male circumcision: A review of the historiography - Review Essay
Journal of Social History, Spring, 2003 by Robert Darby

In a recent historical survey, Dunsmuir and Gordon cite prevention or cure of impotence, phimosis, sterility, priapism, masturbation, venereal disease, epilepsy, bed-wetting, night terrors, "precocious sexual unrest" and homosexuality as among the contradictory benefits urged by Victorian and Edwardian physicians in Britain and the USA, without offering any firm suggestions of their own as to the relative weight of these factors

it has been widely accepted by medical historians since the 1950s that discouraging masturbation was a major reason why doctors, educationists and childcare experts sought to introduce widespread circumcision of both boys and girls in the nineteenth century, a campaign which was successful in the former case, unsuccessful in the latter--an outcome which still colours popular concepts about what constitutes genital mutilation.

[Lonewulf]

Apparently anyone who does not recognize is truth about how horrible circumcision is, is a pro circumcision fundie. So now the AMA is a fundie organization, as it does not tell everyone that they shouldn't have their children circumcised.

Aw, don't like being told that you're a fundie, or that you're part of a "camp"?

If you don't like it, don't sling it.

[Loss Leader]

I'm sorry, but 'because someone told me to, but I can't explain why.' is not a good enough reason.


At what point did I say that I can't explain why?

Here, for the first time in this thread but maybe the tenth time overall, is the reason I am circumcising my children.

1. I am a Jew.
2. It is my duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
3. My son is a Jew.
4. It is my son's duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
5. Jews circumcise their children.
6. Not circumcising children would have an unknown effect on the Jewish people.
7. Circumcision is otherwise of generally neutral long-term harm or benefit.
8. The world is better off with Jews in it.

That's my explanation. I don't think you can find a flaw in the logic without attacking the truth of one of the premises.

[3point14]

At what point did I say that I can't explain why?

Here, for the first time in this thread but maybe the tenth time overall, is the reason I am circumcising my children.

1. I am a Jew.
2. It is my duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
3. My son is a Jew.
4. It is my son's duty as a Jew to support the Jewish people.
5. Jews circumcise their children.
6. Not circumcising children would have an unknown effect on the Jewish people.
7. Circumcision is otherwise of generally neutral long-term harm or benefit.
8. The world is better off with Jews in it.

That's my explanation. I don't think you can find a flaw in the logic without attacking the truth of one of the premises.



It's point 6 I have trouble with. You're inflicting pain on your own child in order to avoid an 'unknown effect on the Jewish people' Can you be no more specific than this about point 6?

I admire the courage of your convictions, but I don't think the Jewish faith would collapse if suddenly all young Jewish men were not circumcised. (Those I know that are part of the Jewish faith don't even let atheism get in the way of the continuation of their faith.) If it would, then we're in to the realms of the metaphysical, and that's not a good place to stand for a debate around here.

[Lonewulf]

o/` Tradition! o/`

[Ivor the Engineer]

Interesting, then it would seem that some forms of female circumcision might well be justifiable.

The problem is that there are many different effects that are lumped together in these groups.

I would find a protective benefit for the removal of the clitoris strange with regards to HIV as it is not very near where the seminal discharge would be and seems an unlikely entry route for that reason.

Yes, just as some male circumcisions are justifiable. That is all I want; that male circumcisions are performed for reasonable benefits, not for 1 in a 100 chances of avoiding treatment with antibiotics for a UTI, which is the only benefit worth considering in the West.

[Loss Leader]

I admire the courage of your convictions, but I don't think the Jewish faith would collapse if suddenly all young Jewish men were not circumcised.


I am pleased to see that you are attacking the truth of my premise rather than the logic of my conclusion.

As to that, I consider #6 to be objectively and inarguably true beyond question or doubt.

Since you have no evidence of the effect that doing away with circumcision would have on my people, your thoughts about what might or might not happen are of zero interest to me.

[fls]

Clitoridectomy can mean excision of all or part of the prepuce or clitoris.
It's excision of the prepuce that is most common, and excision of the clitoris is relatively rare in comparison.

Are you saying removal of the female prepuce is worse than removal of the male?

I am saying that I consider it a stretch to interpret what is written as being confined to the prepuce.

Clitoridectomy is a specific medical term. I realize that you make a big deal out of that one sentence which is worded in such a way that it does not specifically include or exclude the clitoris. But other references to the commonly practiced procedures specifically include the clitoris.

I have been specific about what I find objectionable. I'd be happy to discover that there is less to object to than it looks like there is. I'm just reluctant to choose an interpretation based on my wishful thinking.

Linda

[kellyb]

It is not against it, wich is funnily enough the exact stance that those being accused of being fundies here have. Its refusal to recognised the TRUTH that there is no benefit and many problems with male circumcision marks it clearly in the pro circ fundie crowd.

I think you're thinking of the AAP and not the AMA?
If so, they say they don't recommend it for medical reasons, but leave open a loophole for personal and cultural reasons.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, just as some male circumcisions are justifiable. That is all I want; that male circumcisions are performed for reasonable benefits, not for 1 in a 100 chances of avoiding treatment with antibiotics for a UTI, which is the only benefit worth considering in the West.

And as long as people understand that roughly cost benefit analysis of circumcision seems to be pretty much a wash,(unless I can see some real better information) I am also pleased.

It is not something that has such a strong right or wrong answer to get a many medical organizations to come out one way or the other.

So you think that AIDS is not a problem in the west now?

[ponderingturtle]

I think you're thinking of the AAP and not the AMA?
If so, they say they don't recommend it for medical reasons, but leave open a loophole for personal and cultural reasons.

But they also do not recomend against it for medical reasons.

[3point14]

I am pleased to see that you are attacking the truth of my premise rather than the logic of my conclusion.

As to that, I consider #6 to be objectively and inarguably true beyond question or doubt.

Since you have no evidence of the effect that doing away with circumcision would have on my people, your thoughts about what might or might not happen are of zero interest to me.

What you seem to be saying (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that it is simply a question of faith?

I can respect that without understanding it.

The trouble I have then is how far does the 'trump card' of 'faith' allow one to go in the treatment of one's offspring?

Can you suggest a decent method of answering this question?

[Lonewulf]

I am pleased to see that you are attacking the truth of my premise rather than the logic of my conclusion.

As to that, I consider #6 to be objectively and inarguably true beyond question or doubt.

Since you have no evidence of the effect that doing away with circumcision would have on my people, your thoughts about what might or might not happen are of zero interest to me.
Wow. Just... wow.

Do you have any evidence that circumcision would hurt your people? Otherwise, not only do I say that your thoughts are of zero interest to me, but I still consider it child abuse.

[Lonewulf]

But they also do not recomend against it for medical reasons.

Neither do I. I recommend against it for ethical and moral reasons, not medical.

[kellyb]

I am saying that I consider it a stretch to interpret what is written as being confined to the prepuce.

Clitoridectomy is a specific medical term. I realize that you make a big deal out of that one sentence which is worded in such a way that it does not specifically include or exclude the clitoris. But other references to the commonly practiced procedures specifically include the clitoris.

I have been specific about what I find objectionable. I'd be happy to discover that there is less to object to than it looks like there is. I'm just reluctant to choose an interpretation based on my wishful thinking.

Linda

So when they say this:

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

What they really mean is "Excision of the clitoris most common. Excision of only the prepuce alone is not as frequent"?
:confused:

[Darat]

I am saying that I consider it a stretch to interpret what is written as being confined to the prepuce.

Clitoridectomy is a specific medical term. I realize that you make a big deal out of that one sentence which is worded in such a way that it does not specifically include or exclude the clitoris. But other references to the commonly practiced procedures specifically include the clitoris.

I have been specific about what I find objectionable. I'd be happy to discover that there is less to object to than it looks like there is. I'm just reluctant to choose an interpretation based on my wishful thinking.

Linda

If we go with the idea that it removes all of the clitoris given the fact that the procedure doesn't have any significant affect on sexual activity and so on why does it matter if all or some it is removed? It's just after all a piece of tissue that has a high density of nerve endings (like the male foreskin).

[kellyb]

But they also do not recomend against it for medical reasons.

The strong implication is that the "cultural" reasons can trump a medical lack of justification.
If it was simply medically advisable, they'd say that.

ETA:
Here:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision.

"Medically, there's no solid justification for this. But if you belong to some religion or ethnic group that requires it, then fine."

[3point14]

Quoting myself again, but I have to go, and I needed to get this out before I did


Can you suggest a decent method of answering this question?


You see, the thing is, that if you can't find a decent answer to this question, then you have absolutely no grounds for objection when confronted with those faiths that insist on ritual scarring, trial by ordeal, mutilation of neck, feet and genitalia and any other unpleasant things that various faiths insist their young people go through, because they simply call it 'faith' and you have no answer.

(ETA - if the word 'faith' is replaced with the word 'culture', then precisely the same arguments apply.

[ponderingturtle]

Neither do I. I recommend against it for ethical and moral reasons, not medical.

And you quote those who claim medical reasons as well.

[Lonewulf]

And you quote those who claim medical reasons as well.
Explain, please.

[ponderingturtle]

The strong implication is that the "cultural" reasons can trump a medical lack of justification.
If it was simply medically advisable, they'd say that.

ETA:
Here:

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686



"Medically, there's no solid justification for this. But if you belong to some religion or ethnic group that requires it, then fine."


As I have said medicaly it is pretty much a wash, and so they go with the principle that inaction is preferable to action. Remember it is legal to watch someone die painfully by starving them to death than giving them an intentional overdose of morphine. That is also a dirrect effect of the view on inaction being preferable to action.

[fls]

And I agree. But some people here are just fine with that for "religious reasons".

I'm also fine with that for religious reasons. To elaborate, I do what I can not to cause pain, but sometimes it's not avoidable (e.g. to avoid the pain leads to greater harm). I consider Loss Leader's reasons for having his son circumcised to be reasonable. The pain should be avoided with the use of some form of anaesthesia, though.

That's just the problem, though. The parents are charged with consenting on behalf of their babies... for what? Not giving them medication that they desperately need? Inflicting gratuitous pain that they'll never remember? Injecting them with experimental drugs for the hell of it?

But you are choosing examples that are egregious. The point isn't that sometimes parents don't act in their child's best interest. We all recognize that sad fact. The point is whether or not this includes circumcision.

Parents do not get a "Get-Out-Of-Child-Abuse" card just because their children can't consent and need the parents to consent for them.

Exactly. So what does it tell you that circumcision is not a criminal activity, or an activity that requires the interference of Child and Family Services?

An individual here made a pretty big point of how their baby was not able to consent. He said that he tried his "hardest" to get the baby to consent, but the baby wouldn't. So, hey, that must have made it okay, right?

For him to consent in his place? Yes?

So circumcision isn't a religious ritual? Perhaps you should talk to Loss Leader about that one.

He inflicted a permanent body modification on his child because of religious principles.

People are allowed to think that religious principles have value, even if you don't agree. But the reason the other activities you mentioned weren't acceptable was because they were excessive, not because of the form of the justification.

Linda

[fls]

What about when the mothers think it's "cleaner" and "healthier" and that guys like it?

Under what circumstances do you envision this tradition starting?

Linda

[fls]

Aw, don't like being told that you're a fundie, or that you're part of a "camp"?

You're either with us or against us?

Linda

[Lonewulf]

I'm also fine with that for religious reasons. To elaborate, I do what I can not to cause pain, but sometimes it's not avoidable (e.g. to avoid the pain leads to greater harm). I consider Loss Leader's reasons for having his son circumcised to be reasonable. The pain should be avoided with the use of some form of anaesthesia, though.

And I have yet to be convinced that circumcision leads to a significant amount of "lesser harm" in the long harm.

But you are choosing examples that are egregious. The point isn't that sometimes parents don't act in their child's best interest. We all recognize that sad fact. The point is whether or not this includes circumcision.
Fair enough. My point was that "consenting for the child" isn't always justified. Let's move on...

Exactly. So what does it tell you that circumcision is not a criminal activity, or an activity that requires the interference of Child and Family Services?

That it's not a criminal activity, and it's not an activity that requires the interference of Child and Family Services.

Seriously, did you think that this would create a compelling argument? Citing, "Well, it's not questionable NOW" doesn't make it automatically correct. See my signature if you really want to pursue this line of logic.

For him to consent in his place? Yes?
I still don't think you get it. Oh well.

People are allowed to think that religious principles have value, even if you don't agree.
Doesn't mean I find it any less silly or disgusting when it's used to rationalize causing unnecessary pain to children. :rolleyes:

But the reason the other activities you mentioned weren't acceptable was because they were excessive, not because of the form of the justification.
And disfiguring your child's penis isn't excessive because...?

[Lonewulf]

You're either with us or against us?

*Sigh* I guess I have to spell this out for you people, who obviously are so oblivious...

I didn't like being told that I was part of a "camp", which people like Linda and PonderingTurtle were just fine to point fingers at.

I did it in response, and seemed to get some offended remarks.

So apparently, you can do it to me, but I offend you when I do it to you.

Congrats, hypocrites.

[kellyb]

Under what circumstances do you envision this tradition starting?

Linda

They already give those reasons.
Do you need me to find a link on that?

[kellyb]

As I have said medicaly it is pretty much a wash, and so they go with the principle that inaction is preferable to action.

Do you personally disagree with that in this case?
If it's medically a wash, why do you think infants should be put in pain?

Somewhere deep down inside, doesn't the idea that maybe we shouldn't take knives to infant sex organs without good reason make sense?

[fls]

And I have yet to be convinced that circumcision leads to a significant amount of "lesser harm" in the long harm.

I know. It's hard to figure some of these things out.

Seriously, did you think that this would create a compelling argument? Citing, "Well, it's not questionable NOW" doesn't make it automatically correct. See my signature if you really want to pursue this line of logic.

The argument is that what we think is wrong or right is always changing, and that we have a reasonable process in place to deal with not having an absolute answer at any given time and place. It is likely that several of our currently acceptable practices will be looked upon as criminal in the future. Examples like slavery or not allowing women to vote serve to illustrate my point.

Doesn't mean I find it any less silly or disgusting when it's used to rationalize causing unnecessary pain to children. :rolleyes:

But your characterization of "unnecessary" is due to the fact that you don't value religious principles. Finding value in religious principles also means that the pain would not be considered unnecessary (with qualification). Except that it is in this case because it can be avoided.

And disfiguring your child's penis isn't excessive because...?

Because you are assuming the characteristic under discussion.

Linda

[fls]

*Sigh* I guess I have to spell this out for you people, who obviously are so oblivious...

I didn't like being told that I was part of a "camp", which people like Linda and PonderingTurtle were just fine to point fingers at.

I did it in response, and seemed to get some offended remarks.

So apparently, you can do it to me, but I offend you when I do it to you.

Congrats, hypocrites.

I don't think anyone was offended. I was just pointing out that you put us into a camp, not based on our opinions, but based on not having the same reaction as you.

Linda

[Lonewulf]

But your characterization of "unnecessary" is due to the fact that you don't value religious principles.
Pretty much, yeah. That, and I don't think that religion gives you a license to hurt people -- any people, including children.

If you want to hurt yourself, alter yourself, or mess yourself up in the name of your religion, then please. Go ahead and do that. If you want to take drugs because it's part of your faith? Fine, whatever. Just clean up the mess when you're done.

But an infant born to a Jew does not believe in the Jewish faith. He doesn't believe in much at all; he's not mature or grown up enough to. He can't consent to the religion or the religious ideals, he can't consent to the activity, and he can't consent to the pain. He also cannot consent to the procedure that modifies his body permanently, for the rest of his life.

That is why I am opposed.

Finding value in religious principles also means that the pain would not be considered unnecessary (with qualification).
What qualifications are there? I heard Loss Leader hand wave something about it being bad to the Jewish race or somesuch, but I don't see anything quantifiable about that.

Because you are assuming the characteristic under discussion.

Please elaborate.

[fls]

They already give those reasons.
Do you need me to find a link on that?

Are you talking about countries where the practice continues but there has been a shift in where the daughters are taken to have it done? Since there (historically and presently) is a power-imbalance between the genders in these countries, I'm not sure women are really free to give consent or be free from coercion.

Linda

[fls]

What they really mean is "Excision of the clitoris most common. Excision of only the prepuce alone is not as frequent"?
:confused:

What I'm saying is that it is not clear what they meant, given that their use of the term doesn't quite make sense there, whereas it does elsewhere. So I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the information that is not confusing.

Linda

[fls]

If we go with the idea that it removes all of the clitoris given the fact that the procedure doesn't have any significant affect on sexual activity and so on why does it matter if all or some it is removed? It's just after all a piece of tissue that has a high density of nerve endings (like the male foreskin).

I don't think either should be removed.

Linda

[kellyb]

What I'm saying is that it is not clear what they meant, given that their use of the term doesn't quite make sense there, whereas it does elsewhere. So I'd be inclined to pay more attention to the information that is not confusing.

Linda

How is this not clear???

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

What am I missing?
That just seems extremely clear to me.

Do you think it was a misprint or something?

[Ivor the Engineer]

...People are allowed to think that religious homeopathic principles have value, even if you don't agree. But the reason the other activities you mentioned weren't acceptable was because they were excessive, not because of the form of the justification.

Now obviously Linda, being the consistent person that you are, you are not going to insult homeopaths for their "values", are you?

Don't worry, when you do (again) I'm not going to accuse you of being intolerant and consider you scum not worthy of talking to.

[fls]

What qualifications are there? I heard Loss Leader hand wave something about it being bad to the Jewish race or somesuch, but I don't see anything quantifiable about that.

I would qualify my acceptance of how much pain could be considered necessary.

Please elaborate.

We are expected to have a negative reaction to abuse, multillation and disfigurement. These descriptions are applied to circumcision in order to indicate that we should be expected to have a negative reaction. The lack of a negative reaction isn't because we don't find abuse or mutillation or disfigurement bad, but because we don't associate those words with circumcision. To wonder why we don't find disfiguring a child's penis excessive is to ask us to assume it's disfiguring.

Linda

[Lonewulf]

I would qualify my acceptance of how much pain could be considered necessary.
Then please write up a scale, in "Owchites", that demonstrates how much pain is allowable to inflict unnecessarily on an infant child. ;)

We are expected to have a negative reaction to abuse, multillation and disfigurement. These descriptions are applied to circumcision in order to indicate that we should be expected to have a negative reaction. The lack of a negative reaction isn't because we don't find abuse or mutillation or disfigurement bad, but because we don't associate those words with circumcision. To wonder why we don't find disfiguring a child's penis excessive is to ask us to assume it's disfiguring.
And then, my reply would be, how is it not disfiguring?

You're taking something of the child -- a piece of their penis -- and then you lop it off with a surgical tool (while simultaneously ignoring their screams and struggles). Then you toss the little piece of human flesh into a basket, which permanently alters the appearance (and effect) of the penis, from the time you do it until the time the baby dies.*

Now, I ask you: What other part of the human body may we lop off or alter in a permanent way that would not be considered disfiguring? Our earlobes? Our nose? Our fingernails? Toenails? Fingers? Fingertips? Toes? A piece of our skin?

I cannot think of a single part of the human body that can be permanently removed that would not be considered disfigurement, no matter how small.


*Yes, there's ways to "regrow" skin by having the lower skin grow over the head of the penis again, but from what I understand, this is not truly cloning the foreskin, just acting in it's place.

[JoeEllison]

Then please write up a scale, in "Owchites", that demonstrates how much pain is allowable to inflict unnecessarily on an infant child. ;)


And then, my reply would be, how is it not disfiguring?

You're taking something of the child -- a piece of their penis -- and then you lop it off with a surgical tool (while simultaneously ignoring their screams and struggles). Then you toss the little piece of human flesh into a basket, which permanently alters the appearance (and effect) of the penis, from the time you do it until the time the baby dies.*




*Yes, there's ways to "regrow" skin by having the lower skin grow over the head of the penis again, but from what I understand, this is not truly cloning the foreskin, just acting in it's place.I've said it to the other one...


Who cares? And, what is the source of your obsession with a tiny flap of meaningless skin?

[Lonewulf]

Who cares?
Obviously, almost everyone posting to this thread. If you don't care, go away.

And, what is the source of your obsession with a tiny flap of meaningless skin?

Do I really have to explain this again?

I've had it done to me when I was old enough to remember! I've gone through the process! It's *********** painful!

But inflicting meaningless pain for meaningless flesh seems to be just fine as long as it's a baby that can't resist. Go figure that one of the primary defenses of this act is based on religion...

Plus, it's also been demonstrated that the foreskin is not 100% useless. But people seem to oddly ignore the research done into that.

Oh, also, another reason why I'm against it, which oddly went ignored by people like you:

Pretty much, yeah. That, and I don't think that religion gives you a license to hurt people -- any people, including children.

If you want to hurt yourself, alter yourself, or mess yourself up in the name of your religion, then please. Go ahead and do that. If you want to take drugs because it's part of your faith? Fine, whatever. Just clean up the mess when you're done.

But an infant born to a Jew does not believe in the Jewish faith. He doesn't believe in much at all; he's not mature or grown up enough to. He can't consent to the religion or the religious ideals, he can't consent to the activity, and he can't consent to the pain. He also cannot consent to the procedure that modifies his body permanently, for the rest of his life.

That is why I am opposed.

I stand behind that statement still. Give me a single reason why I shouldn't be.

(Also, "obsessed"? I'm not obsessed, just opinionated. If I was obsessed, I'd be devoting time and effort and resources to ending this evil scourge and all that crap. It seems that just having a strong opinion makes you "obsessed" to people like Joe)

[JoeEllison]

Obviously, almost everyone posting to this thread. If you don't care, go away.



Do I really have to explain this again?

I've had it done to me when I was old enough to remember! I've gone through the process! It's *********** painful!

But inflicting meaningless pain for meaningless flesh seems to be just fine as long as it's a baby that can't resist. Go figure that one of the primary defenses of this act is based on religion...

Plus, it's also been demonstrated that the foreskin is not 100% useless. But people seem to oddly ignore the research done into that.So you're mad at your parents?

[kellyb]

And, what is the source of your obsession with a tiny flap of meaningless skin?

Joe...
You do know, don't you, that if you had a foreskin you wouldn't think it was "a tiny flap of meaningless skin"?

It's basically only circumcised guys (and the women who love them, sometimes) that think that about foreskins.

It's really a rather large sexual organ, with lots of nerve endings, and a source of great pleasure for it's owner.

[fls]

How is this not clear???

What am I missing?
That just seems extremely clear to me.

Do you think it was a misprint or something?

I think because you keep looking at those two sentences in isolation. It's confusing because the sentences do not describe two different types of FGM - removal of the prepuce and excision of the clitoris would be called Type I only - so the inclusion of type II in parentheses does not make sense. And the interpretation is contradicted by the information in Table 5 and in other published sources which make the disinction clearer. Excision of the prepuce is prepucectomy. The equivalent procedure to male circumcision is called clitoridotomy. It may be that they are using the term clitoridectomy differently from its conventional technical meaning, but I'm not sure why we would assume that this is the case, when the bulk of the information given would support it being used conventionally. I suspect it was accidently misworded.

And it may be that you are right, but it doesn't change anything, as it is the details that determine what is objectionable.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've said it to the other one...


Who cares? And, what is the source of your obsession with a tiny flap of meaningless skin?

Keep on saying it Joe. One day it might be true;)

FYI, 80% of the male population of the world have an "obsession with a tiny flap of meaningless skin" called the foreskin, which also happens to be the most sensitive part of a man's penis.

But of course Joe, given the extensive research you put in before you make your posts, you will have already looked at the detailed anatomy of the penis, the research into pain response during circumcision, etc., haven't you?

[Lonewulf]

So you're mad at your parents?

Well, I hate my father, but for unrelated reasons.

No, I'm not angry at my parents for my circumcision. I had an infection, and I needed an operation. Again, I explained this earlier.

However, I know first-hand that it hurts like hell. It's not like getting a flu shot; that's momentary. It took me days to recover, and it was a really *********** painful process. Also, I'd add, I was technically old enough to at least be able to say "no" or "yes". I believe I said "yes" and acquiesced to the procedure, although I didn't like it. And yes, I was anesthetized. However, during recovery, the pain doesn't go away.

I would not have it inflicted on any individual arbitrarily or without a good reason without their consent. If it's an adult that can make his own decisions and be responsible that says he wants it? Fine, let him have it. When it's necessary to prevent more harm done to the human, then fine. Go ahead. However, to stave off something that has a very tiny likelihood of happening, no, I don't agree. Doing it for some religious belief that the child cannot consent to, I also do not agree with.

[Darat]

...snip..

And it may be that you are right, but it doesn't change anything, as it is the details that determine what is objectionable.

Linda

But as I said (and apparently research backs it up - I say apparently as I don't have access to the actual research just reports of it) it makes no difference to the sex lives of the women who have either done so isn't a difference that makes no difference not really a difference?

If they can still have an active sex life, still have orgasms and the like what does it matter?

I ask this as this is something that seems to be put forward by people that see nothing wrong with non-consensual non-medically required male circumcision i.e. sex life is not "significantly" affected.

[rocketdodger]

Plus, it's also been demonstrated that the foreskin is not 100% useless. But people seem to oddly ignore the research done into that.


I got into it with Mycroft about 9 months ago regarding this very issue. I don't want to get into the type of arguments that apparently have already been brought up, but I will say this much -- in the 9 months since then, I have regrown almost 60% of my foreskin, and I can honestly say that sexual activities are much better with even that much, despite the fact that the regrown version has virtually none of the nerve tissue the original did. I can only imagine how much better the real thing would be.

This demolishes any research, any statistics, any secondhand claims -- I have gone through the experience myself. I don't want to chime in on the medical benefits vs. sexual benefits argument, and try to decide which is more important, but anyone on this thread can rest assured that what is removed is definitely NOT useless. In fact, far from it.

[kellyb]

I think because you keep looking at those two sentences in isolation. It's confusing because the sentences do not describe two different types of FGM - removal of the prepuce and excision of the clitoris would be called Type I only - so the inclusion of type II in parentheses does not make sense. And the interpretation is contradicted by the information in Table 5 and in other published sources which make the disinction clearer. Excision of the prepuce is prepucectomy. The equivalent procedure to male circumcision is called clitoridotomy. It may be that they are using the term clitoridectomy differently from its conventional technical meaning, but I'm not sure why we would assume that this is the case, when the bulk of the information given would support it being used conventionally. I suspect it was accidently misworded.

And it may be that you are right, but it doesn't change anything, as it is the details that determine what is objectionable.

Linda

I'm looking at Table 5 again, and I'm still not seeing it.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf

Except in Burkina Faso (like the quote mentioned) and Guinea (by 2%).

Clitoridotomy seems to be more of a slang term used by genital modification people in the west, (I'm not finding it being used by health organizations or human rights organizations) but the definition of "Clitoridectomy" includes both removal of the prepuce and excision of the clitoris. But the UNICEF quote really does specifically state what's more common, and in table 5, they even split "Type 1" into two groups...one of which is "excision".
So I think it means what it says.


What do you mean by this?

it is the details that determine what is objectionable.

What details are you referring to?

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What details are you referring to?

Those would be the special details, that only Linda knows about, that make her totally inconsistent position tenable;)

[Ivor the Engineer]

But as I said (and apparently research backs it up - I say apparently as I don't have access to the actual research just reports of it) it makes no difference to the sex lives of the women who have either done so isn't a difference that makes no difference not really a difference?

If they can still have an active sex life, still have orgasms and the like what does it matter?

I ask this as this is something that seems to be put forward by people that see nothing wrong with non-consensual non-medically required male circumcision i.e. sex life is not "significantly" affected.

And more importantly, rather than the West just deciding that its values are right, shouldn't we be helping the cultures that practice FGM make it safer still?

Even Gemaine Greer has said as much:

"one man's beautification is another man's mutilation"

And:

Germaine Greer (excerpt from p. 102 of "The Whole Woman" New York: A.A. Knopf, 1999)

"Looked at in its full context the criminalization of FGM can be seen to be what African nationalists since Jomo Kenyatta have been calling it, an attack on cultural identity. Any suggestion that male genital mutilation should be outlawed would be understood to be a frontal attack on the cultural identity of Jews and Muslims. Notwithstanding, the opinion that male circumcision might be bad for babies, bad for sex and bad for men is steadily gaining ground. In Denmark only 2 percent of non-Jewish and non-Muslim men are circumcised on strictly non-medical grounds; in Britain the proportion rises to between 6 percent and 7 percent, but in the U.S. between 60 percent and 70 percent of male babies will have their foreskins surgically removed. No UN agency has uttered a protocol condemning the widespread practice of male genital mutilation, which will not be challenged until doctors start to be sued in large numbers by men they mutilated as infants. Silence on the question of male circumcision is evidence of the political power both of the communities where a circumcised penis is considered an essential identifying mark and of the practitioners who continue to do it for no good reason. Silence about male mutilation in our own countries combines nicely with noisiness on female mutilation in other countries to reinforce our notions of cultural superiority."

[fls]

But as I said (and apparently research backs it up - I say apparently as I don't have access to the actual research just reports of it) it makes no difference to the sex lives of the women who have either done so isn't a difference that makes no difference not really a difference?

If they can still have an active sex life, still have orgasms and the like what does it matter?

I ask this as this is something that seems to be put forward by people that see nothing wrong with non-consensual non-medically required male circumcision i.e. sex life is not "significantly" affected.

Is there some reason it has to be non-consensual? Or are you not talking hypothetically?

Linda

[Lonewulf]

Is there some reason it has to be non-consensual? Or are you not talking hypothetically?

Infants can consent?

Let's put it this way: If all infants weren't circumcised in any way, I don't think any of us would be objecting. If it was always done by consenting mature adults, I think all of us would break off the discussion, get a nice cup of tea, and argue at length about something else.

[fls]

I'm looking at Table 5 again, and I'm still not seeing it.

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/FGM-C_final_10_October.pdf

Except in Burkina Faso (like the quote mentioned) and Guinea (by 2%).

Clitoridotomy seems to be more of a slang term used by genital modification people in the west, (I'm not finding it being used by health organizations or human rights organizations)

It's a longstanding term. It may have only re-entered general use recently.

but the definition of "Clitoridectomy" includes both removal of the prepuce and excision of the clitoris.

Where are you getting this definition?

But the UNICEF quote really does specifically state what's more common, and in table 5, they even split "Type 1" into two groups...one of which is "excision".
So I think it means what it says.

What makes you think that they are splitting type I? It makes more sense that they are sorta splitting type II, since that is the category that includes both clitoridectomy plus excision of the labia and other tissue.

What details are you referring to?

What tissue is removed, how does it impact sexual and reproduction function, can it be done safely, what are the medical benefits and harms, can consent and refusal be freely given, are the conditions coercive?

Linda

[JoeEllison]

I got into it with Mycroft about 9 months ago regarding this very issue. I don't want to get into the type of arguments that apparently have already been brought up, but I will say this much -- in the 9 months since then, I have regrown almost 60% of my foreskin, and I can honestly say that sexual activities are much better with even that much, despite the fact that the regrown version has virtually none of the nerve tissue the original did. I can only imagine how much better the real thing would be.

This demolishes any research, any statistics, any secondhand claims -- I have gone through the experience myself. I don't want to chime in on the medical benefits vs. sexual benefits argument, and try to decide which is more important, but anyone on this thread can rest assured that what is removed is definitely NOT useless. In fact, far from it.

I'd say your experience is completely meaningless to the larger discussion.

[fls]

Infants can consent?

I was asking if there was a reason to do the procedure in infancy instead of waiting until she was old enough to decide herself (or at least contribute).

Linda

[Lonewulf]

I'd say your experience is completely meaningless to the larger discussion.
Much like the posts of yours in this thread that I've seen...?

Do you have studies that show that the majority of people without foreskin have just as much pleasure as the majority of people with?

I was asking if there was a reason to do the procedure in infancy instead of waiting until she was old enough to decide herself (or at least contribute).
Do you want an honest answer to that question? Or, would you rather have a less predictable answer?

[kellyb]

Where are you getting this definition?
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/stats_popup9.html

Clitoridectomy is the removal of the prepuce with or without excision of all or part of the clitoris. Excision is the removal of the prepuce and clitoris along with all or part of the labia minora

What makes you think that they are splitting type I? It makes more sense that they are sorta splitting type II, since that is the category that includes both clitoridectomy plus excision of the labia and other tissue.

Looking at it again, it looks like they're just splitting it into types 1 and 2.

What tissue is removed, how does it impact sexual and reproduction function, can it be done safely, what are the medical benefits and harms, can consent and refusal be freely given, are the conditions coercive?

Linda

Most of that hasn't actually been quantified either way that I'm aware of. Yes, we know there is sexual and reproductive harm with the more extreme forms of FGC, but what about the milder kinds? What data is really out there on that?
Or is the harm assumed and riding off the research on the more extreme forms?
Same thing with the potential medical benefits.
And you're assuming that there's coersion no matter what, so I guess that comes down to opinion.
The #1 most common reason given by women is that it's just "what they do". It's tradition and culture.
Then religion.
Then virginity, morality, health, and aesthetics.

From the UNICEF PDF:

Other reasons: A widespread belief among
women who support FGM/C is that the practice
preserves a girl’s virginity, protects her from
becoming promiscuous and prevents her from
engaging in immoral behaviour. In Mauritania 52
per cent of women and in Kenya and Mali 30 per
cent of women believe FGM/C should be continued
because it ensures a girl’s virginity.
Another reason women use to justify their support
for FGM/C is the belief that a girl cannot be
married unless she is circumcised. The belief that
FGM/C is necessary to ensure better marriage
prospects for a daughter is most widespread
among women in Côte d’Ivoire (36 per cent),
Niger (29 per cent) and Eritrea (25 per cent)

Those percentages sound like a lot, but they're actually a minority, compared to the "It's just what you do" reason:

.Custom and tradition/good tradition: When
asked what they believed to be the main reason
justifying the continuation of FGM/C, the majority
of women cite ‘custom and tradition’ or that it
is a ‘good tradition’ as a reason for their support.
In Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea and Sudan, for example,
around 70 per cent of women find custom and
tradition to be the most compelling reason justifying
the continuation of the practice.

[fls]

Do you want an honest answer to that question? Or, would you rather have a less predictable answer?

My prediction is that the situation will eventually be given the characteristics of male circumcision, and then will be taken as proof that the objections to male circumcision are reasonable, since objections to female circumcision are reasonable. It won't bother you or anyone else in your camp (;)) that the situation no longer has any connection to the reality of FGM.

Whichever answer you want to give (maybe it'll be both if my prediction is wrong) is fine by me.

Linda

[Kaylee]

The issues discussed were outside of their area of expertise. The article was strongly biased. Neither is good for an accurate overview.

Linda
OK, thanks for your response.

Still, after reading this thread and some of the links, I’ve come to the conclusion that I wouldn’t agree to a circumcision for my hypothetical son without doing a lot more research. I’d probably start off by looking up the research quoted in the footnotes for the articles linked to in post #98 and researching the reputation of the ones who performed the studies. If it turned out that they had a reputation for not fudging their numbers and for doing work that could be repeated by others – I’d accept their findings and NOT let my son be circumcised.

This is despite being culturally Jewish and I could expect my hypothetical son to get a lot of flak in the locker rooms while growing up for being intact.

However it’s not a decision that I’m facing so I won’t be spending a good half week in a research library in the near future.

I’ll no doubt be spending the time in the JREF forums instead :rolleyes::o:) …

[Kaylee]

Of course, some women undergo "circumcision" in order to increase sexual pleasure... what a shock, right?

Are you serious? Link? Don't bother if its in the Onion. :D

[Lonewulf]

Are you serious? Link? Don't bother if its in the Onion. :D
There was a guy that actually linked a BBSpot article to me before, in a discussion on vegetarianism. He used it to "prove" his argument that vegetables feel the same as animals when injured, so hence it's equivalent to eating meat.

It was... amusing.

[Kaylee]

heh :D

[Henners]

Sorry, non-rational is not just another word for arbitrary. You are wrong on that count.
Since I never claimed that, you are incoherent on that count.
In any case, I am not circumcising my children because God told me to. I am circumcising them because we are Jewish and the religious leaders I trust advise circumcision. I have no opinion on whether such behavior does or does not please God - an entity which may or may not exist.
Personally, I cannot understand how anyone can take a knife to a baby and cut it. Whether that is done on the advice of a real old man or an imaginary one is hardly the point.
As to that, you can go [rule10] yourself. I love my children and every action I take is done because I believe it is in their best interests.
Unless you are masking subconscious guilt, here, there's no need to be either personal or nasty. I have not been. I believe that you love your children and you believe that cutting them with a knife is in their best interests, no matter that babies die in your country from that procedure.

I, on the other hand, am Kublai Khan and I demand the respect due to me.
If you honestly believe that I am committing child abuse, I will be happy to supply you with my name and address as well as the number for the local Child Protective Services and you may dial the phone and report me. The only condition is that if your report is determined to be unfounded, you will pay all of my out-of-pocket and legal expenses.
You know that would be a waste of time. People get away with all kinds of hurt to their babies.
Otherwise, STFU.

Is that thing in the capital letters rude?

How brave of you.

[JoeEllison]

Are you serious? Link? Don't bother if its in the Onion. :D

http://www.clitoralunhooding.com/
http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures/hoodectomy.php
http://trishwilson.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/female_genital_.html

[Southwind17]

I know it's tempting to pull out the dead baby argument, but the point is that there are more dead babies from not having circumcision (from UTI's) than there are from having circumcision. Fortunately, there are very few of both.

Has the apparent link between un-circumcision and fatal UTIs been proven?

[Henners]

Has the apparent link between un-circumcision and fatal UTIs been proven?


Is this something that slipped through the evolutionary process?

Or...

Hypothesis: so many men have been genitally mutilated, and for so long a time, that UTIs now preferentially target foreskins.

Frankly, it sounds like a crock.

[arthwollipot]

This thread has stopped being interesting.