Male Genital Mutilation

[Pedersen]

Also called "circumcision".

So, someone mentioned this in another thread, and it got me thinking about it. Across much of the world, female genital mutilation of any sort is decried, denounced, and even illegal. However, male genital mutilation is seen as something that is normal and accepted.

So, the arguments I expect to see, and will answer now:

It should be allowed to continue for religious reasons. By that argument, women should be kept subservient to their husbands at all times. Allowing them to hold jobs, positions of authority, etc, all goes against various religions. Furthermore, there are some religions which demand female genital mutilation, and many (if not most) societies decry these practices. When something about a given religious behavior is abhorrent, society demands a halt to it.

It should be allowed for medical reasons. I will simply point to this FAQ (http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm). It discusses the medical fallacies as well as they can be discussed.

It should be allowed for hygienic reasons. Again, read this FAQ (http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm). Same issues are addressed there.

Those are all the arguments in favor that I can think. Personally, I'm against this practice. I do believe it should be illegal, and that people who force it on children (people who are physically incapable of saying yes or no) should face severe penalties.

But, maybe one of you can change my mind, and make me believe that this is actually a good thing.

[Saydrah]

Why make something illegal that's very harmless? The whole loss of sensation thing is a myth, as evidenced by plenty of circumcised men who report the same sexual satisfaction as uncircumcised men. I think prohibiting a personal choice by parents is silly. Female genital mutilation is designed to prevent a woman or girl from having sex before marriage, or specifically TO reduce pleasure from sex. Circumcision is simply a matter of personal and parental preference.

Personally if I had a son I wouldn't do it but would pay for him to have it done as a teen or adult if he wanted to. But I prefer circumcised men on an aesthetic basis. JMHO.

[Pedersen]

Why make something illegal that's very harmless? The whole loss of sensation thing is a myth

Now, let's debunk the debunking. To quote from the FAQ that I linked to:
What is the function of the male foreskin?

The male foreskin performs a number of functions. First, it directly enhances sexual pleasure via specialized erogenous nerve endings such as the frenulum, the ridged band, and stretch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. The foreskin also serves to protect the moist, mucous membrane of the glans (the "head" of the penis) and the inner foreskin from outside elements, similar to the way the female foreskin protects the clitoris. When the foreskin is removed, the penis is transformed from an internal organ into an external one, initiating a desensitizing process known as keratinization. Keratin is a tough, skin-like substance similar to a callus that forms on top of the nerve endings of the glans, resulting in significant loss of sexual sensitivity. The foreskin also provides a gliding mechanism during sexual intercourse that reduces friction and locks in moisture, acting as a natural lubricant. The foreskin provides a number of other important functions as well.


First, notice that circumcision causes the irrevocable removal of nerve endings. As any biology textbook will tell you, the only way for any individual to experience any sensation of touch is to have nerves stimulated. As a result, it is physically impossible for a circumcised male to have as much sensation as a circumcised male.

as evidenced by plenty of circumcised men who report the same sexual satisfaction as uncircumcised men

So, you have studies which show that males who were uncircumcised, were sexually active while uncircumcised, got circumcised, and then compared the results of being sexually active after the circumcision?

Or do the studies you're mentioning (but not citing at this point) compare how satisfied men are with their sexual sensations (which is what it sounds like)? If it's this one, then those studies cannot convey an accurate picture. They can only convey the picture of whether or not circumcised men can enjoy sex. And that is not up for debate, since they obviously can.

Also, ago plays a factor. An uncircumcised penis will have little (or no) keratin built up on it over the lifetime of the male. A circumcised penis gets more keratin every day. It has to, to protect itself from the constant friction with undergarments. The keratin, more or less, turns into callouses. By the time a male is in his 50's, significantly less sensation will be transmitted. Enjoyment will go down, especially as compared to an uncircumcised male in his 50's. All in all, circumcision decreases sexual pleasure, and does so even more the older the male gets.

I think prohibiting a personal choice by parents is silly.

If it were entirely a personal choice, I'd agree. However, this is a permanent change that the child is unable to undo. Would you be okay with it if the child were to have a finger removed? Maybe a toe? How about just removing a toe nail? If none of those are acceptable, then why is it acceptable to remove some other body part? Because it's a parental choice? I think that that allowing that sort of argument to stand is silly.

Female genital mutilation is designed to prevent a woman or girl from having sex before marriage, or specifically TO reduce pleasure from sex. Circumcision is simply a matter of personal and parental preference.

Circumcision was encouraged in the 1800's as a way to discourage masturbation (http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html). Seems to me like it's directly meant to reduce pleasure from sex. Now, we have a whole new set of reasons, each of which is also thoroughly debunked. And yet, we still have circumcision happening today.

Personally if I had a son I wouldn't do it but would pay for him to have it done as a teen or adult if he wanted to.

Good. I approve of allowing someone to make their own choices about their bodies. But to have such a choice forced upon an infant is abhorrent to me.

But I prefer circumcised men on an aesthetic basis. JMHO.

Well, consider this, the next time you're enjoying a circumcised penis: The guy very likely had no choice in the matter. It was done when he was an infant, a mere few days old. He was strapped into a specially made bed, his penis inserted into a device which then made two separate cuts: One to separate the glans from the foreskin (which requires basically ripping the two apart), and the second cut was to remove the foreskin itself. While this was happening, he was screaming in pain, unable to do anything, and unable to understand what was being done to him.

And, like most guys, he probably doesn't think about it today. And, like many, he probably never will. But some percentage, once they think about it, will wonder: Why did my parents allow this to be done to me? Why did society encourage this? What does it actually feel like for other guys, the lucky ones who did not have this done to him?

This is not harmless. It is harmful, and done for no valid reason. And there is should be no legal parental preference for causing such harm.

[anriana]

I think any sort of unnecessary, permanent physical change should be illegal for parents to do to their children, including circumcision.


That said, please name a religion that actually mandates FGM.

[Pedersen]

That said, please name a religion that actually mandates FGM.

Citing Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Sunni_View):
One of the four Sunni schools of religious law, the Shafi'i school, rules that trimming of the clitoral hood is mandatory.

That's the first I found. Furthermore, it seems (from reading that page) that, until very recently (2006), many followers of Islam believed that FGM was a requirement.

Other instances on that page are not described as religious based, but include:
Some Bambara and Dogon believe that babies die if they touch the clitoris during birth.
In some areas of Africa, there exists the belief that a newborn child has elements of both sexes. In the male body the foreskin of the penis is considered to be the female element. In the female body the clitoris is considered to be the male element. Hence when the adolescent is reaching puberty, these elements are removed to make the indication of sex clearer.

Is that sufficient, or do I need to find more?

[crazylegs]

It should be allowed for medical reasons. I will simply point to this FAQ (http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm). It discusses the medical fallacies as well as they can be discussed.

I'm sorry, the link doesn't debunk any fallacies as far as I can see, it only lists the reasons why *not* (an important difference).

Right, here goes.

I am a circumsised male, this happend to me many years ago and quite frankly I can't remember it. I do know that it was done under a general anasthetic. I was circumsied for a perfecly valid medical reason, without it I could have suffered many painful and embarrassing events which would essentially been cured by a Dr grabbing hold of the very end of my penis and squeezing as hard as they can to reduce the size of the head so that the foreskin would no longer form a tight, constricting band.

I'll take the circumsicion thanks.

[Pedersen]

My fault, crazylegs, in that I failed to make my position actually clear.

I am not against voluntary circumcision. If you choose it, then more power to you. If there is a medical reason (which does happen, but is a very small fraction of the total number of cases), I accept it, and quietly.

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.

[crazylegs]

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.

In those instances you will find no argument from this poster.

[smileyeagle1021]

As much as I'd like to agree with Pederson... I know it will never happen... you just know that if it became illegal for parents to perform circumcision due to religous reasons there'd be a huge outcry about how it is a protected right under freedom of religion... and considering what a large percentage of people who are born into a religion stay in that religion, you won't find many people saying "damn my parents for forcing me to perform that religious practice" because they'll think back and say they would have chosen it anyway... and I see nothing wrong with a parent raising their child to be the same religion as them (as long as when they are of age the parent says if you want to leave feel free).

That said, for asthetic reasons (though I will agree with the poster that said circumsized does look better) I'd say that is something that should only be done to someone who is old enough to consent to the procedure.

[Rapscallion]

Um, was that phimosis, Crazylegs?

Rapscallion

[crazylegs]

Um, was that phimosis, Crazylegs?

Rapscallion

Dunno. All I know is what was in the post to be honest.

[Greenday]

As a circumsized male, I can assure you that I still have PLENTY of feeling left without any foreskin. Besides, the majority of the nerves in the penis aren't in the skin, they are at the tip of the penis.

[BlaqueKatt]

But, maybe one of you can change my mind, and make me believe that this is actually a good thing.



this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/health/14hiv.html) may help


"Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries."

"Uncircumcised men are thought to be more susceptible to HIV infection because the underside of the foreskin is rich in Langerhans cells, sentinel cells of the immune system, which attach easily to the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS. The foreskin also often suffers small tears during intercourse."

"a study of the medical records of 300 Ugandan couples last year estimated that circumcised men infected with H.I.V. were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it to their female partners."

"Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus."


is that enough reasons for you?
50% reduction in contraction of HIV, 30% reduction in transmission of HIV, and less chance you'll give your partner the virus that causes cervical cancer. All three are related to certain cells that are ONLY found in the foreskin.

[Pedersen]

As a circumsized male, I can assure you that I still have PLENTY of feeling left without any foreskin. Besides, the majority of the nerves in the penis aren't in the skin, they are at the tip of the penis.

You are correct. You are also ignoring the other portions of what was said. The keratinous cells that form after circumcision (and only after circumcision) will, over time, reduce the stimulation that reaches the nerves in the tip of the penis. This is unavoidable. It might not seem like it now, but it will happen over time.

A response to your article, BlaqueKatt, can be found here (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/142562/the_truth_about_circumcision_hivhpv.html). That article discusses the failures of that study. I'll discuss the statistical side of things below.

"Circumcision appears to reduce a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries."

Per this article (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/331/7527/1224.pdf), there were 40,300,000 people in the world who were HIV+ in 2005. Roughly 6,000,000,000 people were alive at that time. This translates to 1 in 148 people is HIV+. For purposes of making calculations easier, we will count the male:female ratio as 1 to 1 (it's more like 49:51, but let's make the number a little easier to deal with, okay?). That means that, if I have sex with 74 random women, one of them will be able to give me HIV. Being circumcised, I can go for 148 women before I will actually contract it.

"a study of the medical records of 300 Ugandan couples last year estimated that circumcised men infected with H.I.V. were about 30 percent less likely to transmit it to their female partners."

Okay, so now we restrict it a bit. We're now talking about couples. Without knowing how they defined "couple", it would be reasonable to assume that we are talking about at least year long relationships. It's also quite reasonable to assume intercourse at least twice per month for such couples.

This article (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102239234.html) shows a transmission rate, male to female, of 12.0/100 person years. That translates to 0.12/person year. Assuming I'm understanding the "person year" concept correctly, we have a couple, which is two people, which translates to 0.24 couple. Reduce by 30%, and we get 0.16/couple.

I'll be honest, I don't really know what that translates to. But reading it, the benefit sounds pretty damned low to me. It's a real benefit, but it requires you to already be in a high risk situation before the benefit becomes real (i.e.: You must already be HIV+).

"Earlier studies on Western men have shown that circumcision significantly reduces the rate at which men infect women with the virus that causes cervical cancer. A study published in 2002 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that uncircumcised men were about three times as likely as circumcised ones with a similar number of sexual partners to carry the human papillomavirus."

Per this article (http://www.justmommies.com/articles/hpv-facts.shtml), which cites the CDC as its source:
According to the CDC, approximately 20 million people worldwide are currently infected with HPV.

Let's be generous, and assume that all 20,000,000 HPV carriers are male. This means that (using the NYT numbers) that 15,000,000 uncircumcised males are carriers, and 5,000,000 circumcised males are carriers. Going back to our worldwide population, a woman would have to have sex with 200 uncircumcised males, or 600 circumcised males, to find one carrier of HPV.

And, let's not forget Gardasil, a vaccine for many strains of HPV, which further reduces the risk. And, before anybody goes off on the tangent of questioning its benefits, I'll point this out: It has been shown to be helpful. Going by the statistics I've heard, and comparing to the statistics I've listed above, I'd even venture to say that Gardasil is more helpful than circumcision at preventing HPV turning into a cancer. Furthermore, it gives the woman the ability to control her own body, something which is being actively denied to the males.

is that enough reasons for you?

No, it's not. And I've explained why at each point you gave. The risks, statistically speaking, are insignificant. Only when you place yourself into one of the high risk categories does circumcision provide medical benefit. Before then, the risk is so small as to be negligible.

And that brings me back to the part that really is what bothers me the most: Infants are the ones which have the greatest number of circumcisions performed on them. They are incapable of consenting to what is about to be done to them. In addition, they are also incapable of being in those high risk groups. Every one of them requires a sexually active individual.

There are some males who get circumsized later in life, but they are a small minority. In addition, they are making the choice to have this done to themselves, for whatever reason (well, except for the times where the parent forces it on a child who has not yet left the home). I do not disagree with allowing this to occur in males who are making an informed choice.I do disagree, though, with allowing someone else to make that choice for them.

[Sylvia727]

Well, you've convinced me. I had always just assumed that when I had a son, I'd allow the hospital to circumsize him, because that's just what's done. I had never really thought about what was happening, and why. A friend of mine confided in me that he was uncircumsized, because his mother had heard about the risks of circumcisions gone wrong, in which the doctors make a wrong cut and remove more than just the foreskin. At the time, I thought his mother vaguely paranoid, but better safe than sorry. This same friend had no intention of ever getting circumsized, either, though he just wanted to avoid the pain. He was teased in elementary and middle school for being different, I know, but he didn't let it bother him.

In Puerto Rico the hospitals automatically circumsize the boys and pierce the girls' ears at birth. The way to tell a baby boy from a girl is to check for earrings. I've also intended to pierce my daughters' ears when they were babies, because all the women in my family have had pierced ears since birth and it's never bothered me. Now I wonder about that too...

[Greenday]

I've also intended to pierce my daughters' ears when they were babies, because all the women in my family have had pierced ears since birth and it's never bothered me. Now I wonder about that too...

Sounds like another good thread to me.

[Pedersen]

is that enough reasons for you?
50% reduction in contraction of HIV, 30% reduction in transmission of HIV, and less chance you'll give your partner the virus that causes cervical cancer. All three are related to certain cells that are ONLY found in the foreskin.

Ah, just found something else for you to ponder, BlaqueKatt. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

Seems that female circumcision helps to reduce transmission of HIV (http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138). If this is a good enough reason to circumcise males, I expect you're going to now recommend the circumcision of females, too, right?

Well, you've convinced me.

I'm glad of that. Be careful, though: I have read reports of delivering doctors ignoring the wishes of the parents and performing the circumcision right after the birth. Make certain your doctor is in agreement with you.

A friend of mine confided in me that he was uncircumsized, because his mother had heard about the risks of circumcisions gone wrong, in which the doctors make a wrong cut and remove more than just the foreskin. At the time, I thought his mother vaguely paranoid, but better safe than sorry. This same friend had no intention of ever getting circumsized, either, though he just wanted to avoid the pain. He was teased in elementary and middle school for being different, I know, but he didn't let it bother him.

And that is, in my opinion, the right thing. He is making the choice about what to do with his body.

And I had completely forgotten to mention the possibility of complications. Excessive cutting, excessive bleeding, infection, all of these are possibilities. Admittedly, they are not likely possibilities, but they are possibilities. And the disturbing part, in my mind, is that parents voluntarily expose their child to these risks by actively doing something. How often is it that parents are able to reduce the risk for their child simply by not doing anything? And yet, here we are, debating whether or not parents should be allowed to remove a normally functioning body part from a healthy child.

In Puerto Rico the hospitals automatically circumsize the boys and pierce the girls' ears at birth. The way to tell a baby boy from a girl is to check for earrings. I've also intended to pierce my daughters' ears when they were babies, because all the women in my family have had pierced ears since birth and it's never bothered me. Now I wonder about that too...

I never knew that about Puerto Rico. And I'm definitely not fond of the "pierce the ears of the infant". Let the child actually ask for it. Ear piercing is one of the lesser body modifications that can be done (and, by my understanding, is completely reversible with just some time for things to heal), and I still disagree with forcing it. Making changes to someone else's body is just wrong.

And that's all I have to say about that. Well, in this thread, anyway.

[Slytovhand]

Ear piercing is one of the lesser body modifications that can be done (and, by my understanding, is completely reversible with just some time for things to heal), and I still disagree with forcing it. Making changes to someone else's body is just wrong.

Well - depends on your beliefs... in chinese medicine, there are a stack of acupuncture points in the ears.. put a hole through one, and you change the energy flows...

As for your OP, I'm all with you on this one... (is that a first?? :p... well, no but...) I'm thinking now, from this, to start up a new, and far more controversial, thread.

[Flyndaran]

I really wish aniti-circumcision people would stop comparing it to female genital mutilation.
Removal of the clitoris is comparable to removal of the first half of the penis. Circumcision is comparable to removal of the clitoral hood. Such a big difference that comparing the procedures makes those people look silly. It makes me and most other potential listeners tune out.

I don't care that much what others think about my hypothetical child rearing practices. If I were to have a boy, then I would demand that he be circumcised.

[smileyeagle1021]

thank you flyndaran for pointing that out... that is something I was not aware of.

[Pedersen]

I really wish aniti-circumcision people would stop comparing it to female genital mutilation.

And I wish that people would actually learn the definition of female genital mutilation.

Here, let me give you a place to read about it: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting)

Removal of the clitoris is comparable to removal of the first half of the penis. Circumcision is comparable to removal of the clitoral hood. Such a big difference that comparing the procedures makes those people look silly. It makes me and most other potential listeners tune out.

Female Genital Mutilation, Type Ia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Type_I):
removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only

Per Wikipedia article:
Federal law prohibiting FGC was enacted in 1996. 17 states enacted similar laws between 1994 and 2006.

Per MGM Bill's FAQ (http://www.mgmbill.org/faq.htm)
In the United States today, all forms of child female circumcision are prohibited under Title 18 of the U.S. Code.

Per Title 18, USC (http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm):

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is--

(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or

(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.


All types of female genital mutilation on underage females are illegal. Why isn't the same true for males?

I don't care that much what others think about my hypothetical child rearing practices. If I were to have a boy, then I would demand that he be circumcised.

Then I pity your son, and wish that you never have one, so that he will be protected from you and your selfish ways.

[the_std]

I don't care that much what others think about my hypothetical child rearing practices. If I were to have a boy, then I would demand that he be circumcised.

Just wondering... If you don't care what others think about your preferences, why post them in a debate forum? Your post would have been complete without this last piece of information.

[smileyeagle1021]

Pederson, do you have anything other than wikipedia to site on the definition of female genital mutilation. I believe you when you posted that, but if my professors won't accept information cited from wikipedia, then I'll be skeptical too.

Also, 3 pages in I can't believe no one has asked it.

But is female circumcision that bad? With the limited knowledge I have on the topic I think it is wrong, but with us asking about male circumcision and a large number of people (as is apparent by the large number of males who are circumsized), maybe it could be asked if maybe that isn't the way to go and should be done on females as well. Just playing devils advocate.

[Pedersen]

Pederson, do you have anything other than wikipedia to site on the definition of female genital mutilation. I believe you when you posted that, but if my professors won't accept information cited from wikipedia, then I'll be skeptical too.


Fair enough. Will you accept the information from the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm)?

BTW, I followed the external links from Wikipedia to get there.

But is female circumcision that bad?

Is the unnecessary removal of a perfectly functioning piece of the body without some other strong medical reason a bad idea, along with the attendant pain, any potential psychological trauma (especially if done after infancy)?

Is that the question you really want to ask?

[Lachrymose]

I recommend watching the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on circumcision.

It's available to watch for about 2 dollars on Amazon Unbox. Or you can find it somewhere else yourself. ;)

[Slytovhand]

tonsils???

[smileyeagle1021]

Fair enough. Will you accept the information from the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm)?



yes, that will work.

oh and yes, that is the question I want to ask (like I said, I don't agree with it). It may even help your argument when people have to justify both female circumcision as well as male.

tonsils???

oh the other side of the fence, slytovhand brings up a good point, we still remove tonsils to reduce the chance of an infection that is very minor... and we don't hear anyone complaining about it.

[Pedersen]

tonsils???

oh the other side of the fence, slytovhand brings up a good point, we still remove tonsils to reduce the chance of an infection that is very minor... and we don't hear anyone complaining about it.

Actually, tonsillectomy is performed with specific medical reasons. Here (http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/tonsillitis/TON_removal.html) is the list of criteria that is applied to determine if a person should have a tonsillectomy.

Per that list, tonsillectomy is only done after a person has shown that a significant benefit would be gained to the quality of life for that person.

So, no, tonsils are not a valid counterpoint to saying that circumcision (of any sort) should be allowed at will.

[Lace Neil Singer]

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.

Just wanted clarification.

[BlaqueKatt]

Let's be generous, and assume that all 20,000,000 HPV carriers are male. This means that (using the NYT numbers) that 15,000,000 uncircumcised males are carriers, and 5,000,000 circumcised males are carriers. Going back to our worldwide population, a woman would have to have sex with 200 uncircumcised males, or 600 circumcised males, to find one carrier of HPV.

the CDC only has US data-not worldwide directly from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/STD/Trends2000/hpv.htm)

At any one time, an estimated 20 million people in the United States have genital HPV infections that can be transmitted to others. Every year, about 5.5 million people acquire a genital HPV infection.

from this (http://www.ashastd.org/hpv/hpv_learn_myths.cfm) article:
According to an article published in 1997 in the American Journal of Medicine, about 74 percent of Americans--nearly three out of four--have been infected with genital HPV at some point in their lives.

that kinda blows your 1 in 200 out of the water.

Among those ages 15-49, only one in four Americans has not had a genital HPV infection.

thus far there is no diagnostic test that can accurately determine whether a man is carrying an HPV infection.


And, let's not forget Gardasil, a vaccine for many strains of HPV, which further reduces the risk.


Guardasil is only for those under 27 years of age-age of highest diagnosis for cervical cancer-48

common myths about cervical cancer (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/60731.php)

About 9,700 women in the United States will be diagnosed with cervical cancer this year. It may seem like a small number, until you consider that another 1.2 million women will develop a pre-cancerous condition called dysplasia. And if left untreated, dysplasia will become cervical cancer.


Dysplasia is usually caused by HPV

[Pedersen]

I recommend watching the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode on circumcision.

Perhaps you could at least summarize what they said?

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.

That depends on the type of FGM that is done. The most extreme types do, but there is at least one type that is a direct corollary to male circumcision.

the CDC only has US data-not worldwide directly from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/STD/Trends2000/hpv.htm)

I stand corrected. So, change the numbers a bit. It is now 1 in 10 men, assuming that all HPV carriers are male. If it's only 1/2, then it's about 1 in 20. Of course, there is something else I find interesting:

thus far there is no diagnostic test that can accurately determine whether a man is carrying an HPV infection.

So, you would advocate mutilating every male to provide an uncertain amount of benefit to reduce transmission of a virus that cannot even be detected in the men?

I do hope, then, that you would advocate female circumcision, as this has a benefit in reduction of HIV transmission (by 50%). Or did you refuse to answer that question deliberately?

Guardasil is only for those under 27 years of age-age of highest diagnosis for cervical cancer-48

Dang. Too bad. I guess that, unlike most vaccines, once you turn 27, it stops working for you.

Wait, you didn't mean that? Then how is it relevant? Gardasil has proven benefits right now. It can be used right now to protect people, and usage of the vaccine can allow us to not mutilate people for the benefit of others.

Now, I would hope that you would agree that a man should be as able to decide what happens to his body as a woman should. You do believe that people should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies, don't you?

[Lachrymose]

Perhaps you could at least summarize what they said?





Well, it's honestly kind of hard for me to summarize for some reason.

I did find a streaming video of it on Liveleak:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=416_1218124584

I'm assuming it's legal. If not, feel free to remove the link.

I do warn you that it's full of language, and it shows an actual circumcision as well as adult males who want to "restore" their foreskin.

In a way, they're trying to be unbiased about circumcision but they lean very strongly towards being anticircumcision.

[Rapscallion]

Dunno. All I know is what was in the post to be honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

Warning - contains a knob picture.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Tsk tsk tsk... Mr Pedersen, shame on you...
Now, I would hope that you would agree that a man should be as able to decide what happens to his body as a woman should. You do believe that people should be able to decide what happens with their own bodies, don't you?

Appealing to emotion..... (unless it was sarcasm?? I know you get sarcastic, but this didn't seem like it).

Tonsils... no, wasn't doing a direct comparison, just bringing up the silliness of it. Yes, now they tend to leave tonsils in, wasn't always the case (I'm one of the few ppl around who has all their bits - no cut-out, me!! All teeth too!)

More to the point...all those stats and figures and stuff leads me to 1 conclusion - and it's not the one you lot have been arguing. It's about safe sex! Doesn't matter if you've been cut or not, you choose to practice unsafe sex you put yourself (and others) at risk.

So... do you therefore cut off every new-born boy's foreskin on the presumption that in later life a) medicine hasn't worked out a way to stop all those infections and viruses, and/or b) the presumption that said male will use barrier protection when they have sex 15+ years later??

[Rapscallion]

Seems to me that it's getting harder to move for all the breast cancer charities out there. Damned common, that thing, apparently - shouldn't we cut off all breast tissue from female babies shortly after birth when the child is still fast to heal? Similar sort of logic involved for some of the arguments.

I'm against the above, though - would ruin the view.

Rapscallion

[AdminAssistant]

Raps,

Prophylactic masectomies/hysterectomies are becoming more and more common. They have a genetic test you can take, to see if you have the gene that causes breast cancer (having the gene doesn't mean you'll get it, not having the gene doesn't mean you're safe from it). Women who have the gene will sometimes just go ahead and lop them off and have reconstruction done.

I don't care how high my risk is, I'm not doing anything to mine until I have to.

[Pedersen]

Appealing to emotion..... (unless it was sarcasm?? I know you get sarcastic, but this didn't seem like it).

Actually, it was, and it was serious. This debate, to me, is not just about statistics. It's about real people who find themselves unable to control what happens with their bodies. They find out that someone made a decision to change their body, and they had no choice in the matter.

Something that hasn't been said until now: I, too, am circumcised. Now, every so often, I find myself thinking about it, and very sad over it. I don't blame my parents, not much. When I was born, this is what was done. It was the normal thing to have happen.

But I still find myself wondering the various "what if" questions: When I'm older, I'm more likely to experience impotency. How do I manage to tell my wife that yes, I still love her and find her attractive, and actually have her believe me? Right now: I know there is some amount of sensation lost. I am unable to imagine this sensation. It's like someone having their eyes cut out at birth. You can't tell them what sight is like. You can't tell them what they are missing. And they're unable to experience it for themselves.

And on and on and on. And I find it depressing in the extreme that there are people who believe that I should have to live with that, while females are protected from that sort of worry by force of law, all based on some statistics that only show that high risk behavior places their partner at risk.

And now, it actually is making me angry. I want someone to tell me why it is that girls receive this protection, girls have the ability to choose what happens to their bodies (at least in this instance, I'm not interested in arguing about abortion, and will thoroughly beandip anyone who tries to bring it into this thread). but guys are denied this same protection and choice.

And all I'm seeing so far is a bad statistical justification. So, yes, I want an answer to that question.

Tonsils... no, wasn't doing a direct comparison, just bringing up the silliness of it. Yes, now they tend to leave tonsils in, wasn't always the case (I'm one of the few ppl around who has all their bits - no cut-out, me!! All teeth too!)

Actually, I'm one of those who had their tonsils removed. In addition, adenoid was removed, and tubes put in ears. And I am thoroughly grateful that it was done. Why? Because I'm one of the people who needed it done. The number of ear and throat infections that I got before having this done was extreme (many per year, frequently erupting in the middle of the night and sending me to the ER). So, I knew very much what was being done, and why, and was grateful when it was done.

More to the point...all those stats and figures and stuff leads me to 1 conclusion - and it's not the one you lot have been arguing. It's about safe sex! Doesn't matter if you've been cut or not, you choose to practice unsafe sex you put yourself (and others) at risk.

A much more succinct way of at least one of the points I was trying to make. Thanks :)

Prophylactic masectomies/hysterectomies are becoming more and more common. They have a genetic test you can take, to see if you have the gene that causes breast cancer (having the gene doesn't mean you'll get it, not having the gene doesn't mean you're safe from it). Women who have the gene will sometimes just go ahead and lop them off and have reconstruction done.

I don't care how high my risk is, I'm not doing anything to mine until I have to.

And therein lies my single biggest issue with it. Women get to choose. Men get to have the choice made for us. WHY?

[Rapscallion]

That was pretty much my point. They're done when a risk is proven, not as a (paid) matter of course.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I understand and agree mostly with all those against unneccessary surgeries for non-consenting babies. But I just don't consider circumcision a big enough deal to get worked up over.
Personal freedom for parents is far more important, in my opinion, than any possible tiny risks for a baby.
We allow so much more destructive actions because of parental freeedom, that I just can't understand why anyone would get so worked up over this one.

[anriana]

But is female circumcision that bad? With the limited knowledge I have on the topic I think it is wrong, but with us asking about male circumcision and a large number of people (as is apparent by the large number of males who are circumsized), maybe it could be asked if maybe that isn't the way to go and should be done on females as well. Just playing devils advocate.

FGM

1)Can take away the ability to orgasm
2)Is usually done in an unsterile environment and with unsterile tools such as rocks
3)Can cause fistulas between the rectum and vagina or bladder and vagina, meaning the woman leaks urine or feces out of her vagina all the time
4)Can greatly raise the chance of dying in childbirth

In female circumcision, don't they also sew up the female parts after, or is that just scaremongering? They don't do that in the case of male circumcision.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#World_Health_Organization_c ategorization

It depends. There are several different types of FGM. If just the clitoris is removed, then the genitalia usually aren't sewn together, but if the labia are removed, then they may be.

[Slytovhand]

Personal freedom for parents is far more important, in my opinion, than any possible tiny risks for a baby.

Ah Flyn... that's exactly why I started my thread on Rights of kids vs Rights of parents.... please, I'd like your thoughts there...:D

[Rapscallion]

Thinking about it, the HIV argument is bollocks. HIV started to spread properly back in the eighties, if memory serves. Circumcision was done for generations before that was really known about, so it's a retrofitted argument, not a reason it was started in the first place.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

so it's a retrofitted argument, not a reason it was started in the first place.

Rapscallion

what's wrong with a retrofitted argument? It might not be the original reason, but it could still be reason to continue. (though I'll agree it's bollocks because it can be more effectively prevented by using a condom).

[Rapscallion]

It's like religious fundamentalists using new finds in science to back their fairy tale claims. "Whoa! HIV virus smaller than the gaps between molecules of latex? Means that my particular religious text was right about contraception being undivine."

Besides, as P&T showed, there is more than one study done on that claim, and the other refutes the allegation.

Rapscallion

[Pedersen]

I have to toss in some scenarios for people to consider.

Consider this one: A male, 25 years old (and if that's not old enough, put his chronological age past the age of majority for your country), lies in a coma. No prospect of ever coming out of it. Before entering into the coma, he had (for whatever reason) signed a medical power of attorney. His parents are the ones in charge of his body because of it. He's been in the coma for some years now, too. Suddenly his parents find religion, and their newfound religion demands that all males be circumcised. They ask their doctor to arrange it. Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Same male, but not in a coma. All other circumstances the same. The doctor asks the male if he consents to this, and the reply is "No, I do not consent." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Same male, but not in a coma. All other circumstances the same. The doctor asks the male if he consents to this, and the reply is "My parents have the final say." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Same male, but now pre-age of majority, but only barely. Let's say he's 17 (in the USA). Same request. Doctor asks male if he consents to this, and the reply is "No, I do not conset." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Now, noticeably younger. Let's say the male is 12. Same request. Doctor asks male if he consents to this, and the reply is "No, I do not consent." Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Still younger: 5. All circumstances the same. Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

Still younger: newborn, less than 30 days old. Is it ethical for the doctor to perform the circumcision?

I want answers before I post what I expect the answers to be. Thoughts anyone?

[smileyeagle1021]

1st one, yes it is ethical, the man of his free will gave up his will to his parents
2nd, definitely not, he's old enough to make his own decision
3nd, also ethical, he is old enough to make his own decision, even if that decision is to let his parents make it for him
4th, grey area, legally his word means nothing, but a 17 year old definitely is old enough to make decisions regarding their body
5th, grey area, once again, legally his word means nothing, but a 12 year old I'd say is at a stage where I wouldn't trust him either way he answered.
6th, not ethical... he's old enough that if it wasn't important at birth it not so important it can't wait.
7th, grey area, I'd say it is right for a parent to assume that a child will follow in the same religion... so religious reasons I'd agree with... asthetic, no way in hell at that age.

[BlaqueKatt]

So, you would advocate mutilating every male to provide an uncertain amount of benefit to reduce transmission of a virus that cannot even be detected in the men?

Because there is no test for it and it can lie dormant for years-I cold get cervical cancer from my husband-or if I were to be raped

I do hope, then, that you would advocate female circumcision, as this has a benefit in reduction of HIV transmission (by 50%). Or did you refuse to answer that question deliberately?

Hmm let's see comparing decrease of sensitivity during sex to something that completely removes all sensation, can cause death during childbirth-leaking of fecal matter and urine out the vagina(not to mention the fact that FGM is usually NOT done at birth-standard age is around age 12-an infant won't remember,and they actually use lidocaine or a dorsal nerve block on the males-females don't get that luxury.

Yeah that's logical- In addition FGM is done to prevent a woman from enjoying sexual activity thus subjigating her to her husband, and preventing her from cheating on her spouse and remaining a virgin on her wedding day-male circumcision was a covenant with God-weather or not you believe in that religion that is it's origin-not to enslave-they tell the 12-13 year old girls-God made a mistake and put an evil piece of flesh between your legs, we have to remove it to keep you from evil.

From the World Health Orginazation (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/)
FGM is often considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly, and a way to prepare her for adulthood and marriage.
FGM is often motivated by beliefs about what is considered proper sexual behaviour, linking procedures to premarital virginity and marital fidelity. FGM is believed by some to reduce a woman's libido and help her resist "illicit" sexual acts. When a vaginal opening is covered or narrowed , for example, a woman is physically hindered from premarital sex. Afterwards, a painful procedure is needed to reopen the closure to enable sexual intercourse.
FGM is associated with cultural ideals of femininity and modesty, which include the notion that girls are “clean” and "beautiful" after removal of body parts that are considered "male" or "unclean".

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types:

* Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, rarely, the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris) as well.
* Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
* Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, and sometimes outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.

immediate complications can include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage (bleeding), tetanus or sepsis (bacterial infection), urine retention, open sores in the genital region and injury to nearby genital tissue.

Long-term consequences can include:

* recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
* cysts;
* infertility;
* the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) is surgically changed to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth, and sometimes stitched close again afterwards;
* an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths.

Though no religious scripts prescribe the practice(FGM), practitioners often believe the practice has religious support. Male circumcision is a covenant with God.


Yeah that's logical-FGM is the equivalent of totally removing the penis-not just the foreskin-notice all classifications include REMOVAL of the clitoris-not just removal of the clitoral hood which would be the direct equivalent of circumcision

where's the proof to back that claim up(50% reduction in HIV for women who have undergone FGM)-I gave mine



Dang. Too bad. I guess that, unlike most vaccines, once you turn 27, it stops working for you.


Maybe try reading the information from the MANUFACTURER (http://www.gardasil.com/what-is-gardasil/information-on-gardasil/index.html#four) that states NOT TO BE GIVEN TO ANYONE OVER THE AGE OF 27.

"why is GARDASIL only for girls and young women ages 9 to 26?

GARDASIL is only for girls and young women ages 9 to 26 because the clinical trials for GARDASIL included females within this age group. GARDASIL was initially studied in this age group because the majority of women who have HPV are exposed to it in their teens and 20s."


and I notice you conveniently didn't address the fact that the stats are 1 in 4 have had HPV

and actually there is a procedure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration) to restore the male foreskin-you cannot restore the clitoris that is remove during FGM

[Pedersen]

I was going to give a long, drawn out reply, BlaqueKatt. I'm not.

From your perspective, it's acceptable to mutilate men, but not women. Your responses defend it on the grounds that more bad things can happen to women when they are mutilated than can happen to men. Furthermore, women can benefit from male mutilation, and that adds legitimacy to the practice.

Simply put, your entire thesis is wrong. Mutilation of others for personal benefit is wrong, even when that mutilation can save a life. Especially when that mutilation is not required, due to alternatives like condoms (both male and female).

And you have shown that you believe it to be acceptable that it should be forced on people who are actually incapable of consenting to having it done. I pity any men in your life.

[blas87]

Forgive my ignorance, as I feel I may not know as much as I should about this.

Is circumcision basically giving the penis a head? I have never seen a penis without a head on it in my life.

Every guy I've ever dated or slept with has said he was circumsized as an infant.

I really don't see the issue? I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

[anriana]

Forgive my ignorance, as I feel I may not know as much as I should about this.

Is circumcision basically giving the penis a head? I have never seen a penis without a head on it in my life.

Every guy I've ever dated or slept with has said he was circumsized as an infant.

I really don't see the issue? I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

You think we should mutilate people because they're "funny looking" unmutilated?

[Norton]

I really don't see the issue? I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?


I think it depends on your culture. At my old job, we had a lot of Hispanic immigrant employees, and the subject of circumcision came up one day. The American girls agreed that they prefer the look of a circumsized penis, while the Hispanic girls basically said "Ewww!" to it. One of the immigrant guys joined in the convo and mentioned he was uncircumsized, and that you could only tell the difference when "it's sleeping". I've seen pics of flaccid, uncircumsized penises, and I happen to think they look like something you'd purchase from the deli for a party platter, and are kinda silly looking.

Of course, the fact that I find them less aesthetically pleasing shouldn't trump the man's desire to be cut or uncut as he wishes. People mutilate themselves in many different ways because they find the end result attractive, but it should be a choice, and not something forced on them. But that's in a perfect world, where everyone is allowed to wait until adulthood to make such personal decisions. Many parents try to mold their children into what they think is ideal, whether it be for religious or social reasons, or just the sake of tradition, without thinking that the child may choose a different path at some point in their life.

[smileyeagle1021]

You think we should mutilate people because they're "funny looking" unmutilated?

"mutilation" is in the eye of the beholder... as if "funny looking"... it's really all about cultural norms... not saying the norms are necessarily right, just pointing it out.

In the US circumcision is seen as the norm so it isn't considered mutilation by the mainstream and uncircumcised, due to it being different, is considered funny looking by the mainstream for the same reason.

[blas87]

Wow...I never meant it in that context, but alright then, whatever you like.

I was just thinking if what my (little) knowledge on the subject is true, I do prefer to look at a circumsized penis.

[Rapscallion]

I'm looking at this from a different point of view. Why should anyone - barring religious or medical reasons - remove an organ that is healthy and not causing any problems? That just seems inane to me, as does the religious reasoning.

Rapscallion

[Norton]

I always thought the foreskin was removed to prevent infections later in life. I might be misinformed, though.

Even if that's true though, I liken it to the fact that the Kosher diet does not allow for pork. Back when Kosher rules were first implemented, trichinosis in pork was a common problem. Now, the pork we buy is safe to eat, yet the tradition of avoiding it still stands in some religions. The problems that were once avoided by circumsizing infants can now be taken care of safely without resorting to removing the foreskin, but circumcision is continued for the sake of tradition.

[Pedersen]

Is circumcision basically giving the penis a head? I have never seen a penis without a head on it in my life.

Actually, no, it's taking something off of the penis. When born, the male has a piece of skin known as the foreskin. The foreskin covers the entirety of the head of the shaft. Circumcision removes that foreskin.

Sometimes, other complications occur. Excessive bleeding, infection, and even accidental removal of the entire head of the penis. In some of the more extreme cases, so much was accidentally removed that the decision was made to make the male into a female, appearance wise.

I really don't see the issue?

The issue, to me, is twofold: First comes the issue of choice. This is performed, typically, on infants. These are people who are unable to either give or deny consent to a procedure to remove a perfectly functioning part of the body. The choice is removed before it can ever be made.

Second is equality: As I've linked to elsewhere in this thread, females are given full protection from all forms of genital mutilation, from removal of the clitoral hood (which is the direct equivalent of male circumcision) all the way up through type 4 FGM. Males are told they are not worthy of the same protection.

I don't mean to be rude, but isn't an uncircumsized penis funny looking?

Not rude, it's a valid question. I have to point out, though, that to a sexually experienced male coming from a region that practices type 4 FGM (clitoris removed, both sets of labia removed), your vagina would be funny looking.

[smileyeagle1021]

Not rude, it's a valid question. I have to point out, though, that to a sexually experienced male coming from a region that practices type 4 FGM (clitoris removed, both sets of labia removed), your vagina would be funny looking.

um *cough* I could make a witty comment about that... but I won't :p

so, on a more serious note... that kind of brings the topic back to social norms. If someone truly doesn't know any better are they really being affected? Personally I think yes, but it is a question that at least needs to be considered.

[BlaqueKatt]

Especially when that mutilation is not required, due to alternatives like condoms (both male and female).


these are not readily available in countries like Africa where the spread of HIV is the highest-and for myself well I have a level 5 latex allergy-using a condom would actually kill me(I carry an Epi-pen)-the "sheepskin" ones only prevent pregnancy and the non-latex polyurethane have a higher breakage rate and the box actually states that they are unsure if they prevent the spread of HIV or other STIs, as they're still testing the effectiveness. I am not the only person in the US with a latex allergy-so we either have to totally abstain from sexual activity or decide if it's worth the risk. And due to the fact that HPV and HIV can both lie dormant for years-"getting tested" before having sex doesn't prove much.

And I'm over the age of 27 so no Guardasil shot for me-I get to sweat it out every year waiting for test results, and praying I don't have cancer.

I pity any men in your life.

Nice Personal attack

For the record-not that it's any of your business but my son was circumcised against my wishes when HIS FATHER took him in for his 2 day check up-"because he wanted him to look the same as he did".

You asked for a reason for it to be done-I gave you a reason-I NEVER said I supported it, show me where I did-you said I did, I can just see the other side, and can see how anything that may prevent the spread of HIV in a country where condoms are rarer than unicorns, may be a good thing.

You compared it to FGM which is not even close to the same thing-for the reasons I listed previously.

Are you aware that if a woman has a c-section the doctor routinely removes her appendix?

Are you upset about that? It's healthy tissue being removed for "no good reason" Or is that ok because it's internal and being done on a woman-and it's done without informed consent-you probably have never read the consent form for a c-section-and with the signature of two doctors the patient doesn't have to give consent at all for any emergency procedure.

[smileyeagle1021]

Are you aware that if a woman has a c-section the doctor routinely removes her appendix?

Are you upset about that? It's healthy tissue being removed for "no good reason" Or is that ok because it's internal and being done on a woman-and it's done without informed consent-you probably have never read the consent form for a c-section-and with the signature of two doctors the patient doesn't have to give consent at all for any emergency procedure.

in fairness though with that comparison... the apendix serves no purpose... it's an evolutionary left over... not having it (to my knowledge) does not affect a person's life. While I'm skeptical on the severity of the effect of not having a foreskin, but it is something that does definitely affect someone's life.

[Rapscallion]

I saw something a while ago that spoke about research into the appendix. There's a thought that it plays a significant role in our early development, but then is useless.

Not really going to affect the average person undergoing a C-section, I have to admit.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

I pity any men in your life.


Nice Personal attack

Please leave other members' personal lives out of the debate, unless that member has made it an issue. Comments like this hit too close to home and turn a lively discussion into a flame war.

Second, there is a report button here. Anyone who feels they've been personally attacked should use it.

Now carry on.

[kiwi]

I dont believe the human body should be altered in anyway until the person is old enough to consent to it themselves.

I dont believe in male or female genital alteration or reassignment, neither does any of my family.

The thought of it makes me feel ill.

My mother had to argue with every doctor, nurse, family member in sight not to have my brother circumsized when he was born 1978. The only one who agreed with her was my maternal grandfather. They tried every reason in the book including that he would feel out of place because all males were circumsized.

I dont think its right that doing anything to a child who can not consent to it. I dont even believe in infant baptism because again, you take away the rights of that child.

No child under my protection will ever be submitted to it, I think its legalised torture.

[Flyndaran]

...
No child under my protection will ever be submitted to it, I think its legalised torture.

That seems a bit of an extremist view and odd definition of torture. Most circumcisions today are under anesthetic, so torture without pain doesn't fit my definition.

[Slytovhand]

Ooh.. I'm back, and there's been movement on the Western Front...

Firstly - BlaqueKatt. I read your arguments similar to Ped, that you were 'consenting' to circumcision, based on the FGM and HPV arguments (that women have to suffer it in some societies, and that it can prevent diseases, respectively. Your arguments didn't seem to be condemning circumcision... though I think that's more just a way to read it, in amongst all the other posts...

Blas.. I didn't see anything particularly wrong with your first post :) Only thing I'd really say is that, as others have said, 'personal preference' isn't a good enough reason for it to be forced onto an unwilling or unknowing subject.

Kiwi - I think like you do (although the religion thing could be interesting if I ever have kids... so that's not really an issue).

And, lastly, Ped - ethics is an individual thing, so asking if something is or not doesn't really have much weight or meaning... it's got as much force as asking someone's opinion on a topic. And my opinion on that is all the situations you described are 'unethical' (even the one with 'they have the final say' crap... sorry - you don't get to give away your life to someone else!)

Oh - last other thought... Flyn - Chinese Water Torture... no physical pain involved.....

[suchislife2]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what someone shows me in regards to "statistics" or something from Wikipedia or a random "medical" site. I've always been pro choice. I think everyone should be given the opportunity to do what they wish with their bodies.

Hell people go to great lengths to modify their bodies because they just want to look different/like something, with no medical benefit at all...look at this site and you'll see what I mean : linky (http://www.bodymod.org/home.aspx)

If you have to be over a certain age to get your tongue split, metal horns implanted into your head or your clit pierced then I think, personally, unless it's for a valid medical reason circumcision of ANY kind should be done once the person is old enough to make a informed decision.

I know cutting your tongue in two is a tad different to cutting off a foreskin but both are things that cannot really be reversed.

just my two cents...
Also, another thing to ponder. If it's ok to circumcise a boy, then does this mean that when a parent has a hermaphrodite (has both male and female organse) does this mean that it is ok for them to decide on the gender when the child is a baby? Or should they wait till the child is old enough to know what sex they FEEL they are?

[Flyndaran]

...

just my two cents...
Also, another thing to ponder. If it's ok to circumcise a boy, then does this mean that when a parent has a hermaphrodite (has both male and female organse) does this mean that it is ok for them to decide on the gender when the child is a baby? Or should they wait till the child is old enough to know what sex they FEEL they are?

First thing, there really aren't any true human hermaphrodites. They are intersexed as in having indeterminate sex organs.
In the vast majority of cases it is FAR easier to complete their transformation into females than as very poorly endowed males with no testicles.

There really is a big difference between the removal of useless skin and permanent organ reassignment.
I wish people would stop exagerating circumcisions. Make your point or don't. But please stop hyperbolizing. It ruins your honesty and makes people like me less likely to take you seriously.

Your point is one of loathing "unnecessary" surgeries, NO MATTER HOW MINOR, on unconsenting infants. Don't compare it to far more invasive, dangerous, and life altering surgeries to make your point. It doesn't work.

[Flyndaran]

...
Oh - last other thought... Flyn - Chinese Water Torture... no physical pain involved.....

Poor comparison. The semi-apocraphal water torture is torturous because of the tight restraints not because of some minor dripping.
This is an especially poor comparison because infants love tight restraints. Swaddling clothes are so tight as to make them look like human headed burritos and they love it.

Next you seem to imply horrible emotional torture for infants because of a painless procedure. If this is so, then should all medical check ups and procedures be avoided because they would likely feel this same level of distress?
I seriously doubt you feel this way. So the only thing I can take from your post is that you are feeling desparate and spouting arguments against circumcision off the top of your head.

I see the legitimate con side. I just don't see it as important because I'm circumcised and have absolutely no problems and like it.

But the legitimate side that I see is one of lack of consent from the infant. I am starting to come around to that side. But that leaves the issue of at what age should I allow my hypothetical son to consent to such a surgery?
He wants to be like other boys and daddy, and doesn't like his "useless" extra skin at age 3? 6? 9? 12? What age is appropriate?

[Pedersen]

He wants to be like other boys and daddy, and doesn't like his "useless" extra skin at age 3? 6? 9? 12? What age is appropriate?

Actually, that question is much simpler to answer. Equal protection under the law for both males and females would mean that males would not be able to consent to such surgeries until the same age that females can consent.

In other words (http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm), 18 years old.

Like I said, much easier to answer.

[anriana]

I dont believe in male or female genital alteration or reassignment, neither does any of my family.


Are you referring to something other than transexual surgery here?

[suchislife2]

Flyndaran:

I think the comparison I made to major body modification is relevant I'm sorry. You must be over a certain age to make an informed decision on what you want to do to you're body, so I think it fair that whether the skin is "useless" or not, the child should be old enough to make the decision on their own. I also think that the child needs to be old enough mentally to understand all the implications (if there are any) that might be involved in such a decision.

A baby, a child at the age of 3, 5, 6 even a teenager at the age of 15,16 and 17 isn't at the mental age yet to completely understand what doing something like circumcision can/could do. Specially in regards to the sensitivity of the organ after the procedure is complete. Either way, I think the person that has the modification done should be the one to make the final decision, and as a baby can't do that, it shouldn't be done. Simple.

As for Hermaphrodites while it may be easier to transform the child to a woman, it doesn't mean it's right. There have been incident where the parents made the decision to do that and the "girl" decided "she" really was a "he". It also caused her lots of problems later down the track because of the confusion. Either way the parent is still making the decision for the child at an age that the child can't fully comprehend what is happening. It's still the same.

People always assume that the term "Hermaphrodite" just means someone with both female and male organs. This isn't the case. It can mean that, or that the genitalia has not completely formed "correctly" in a medical sense. The virginal cavity hasn't formed at all, or completely, or the male genitals are underdeveloped. In those cases yes, it's easier to go with the sex that the child is genetically. That I would agree with, but unless the child is definitely one or the other, how is it fair to decide their sex? It's the same. How is it fair to remove the foreskin of a baby boy when he isn't able to give consent? Regardless of the "use" of it. It's still something permanent.

[Slytovhand]

Poor comparison. The semi-apocraphal water torture is torturous because of the tight restraints not because of some minor dripping.
This is an especially poor comparison because infants love tight restraints. Swaddling clothes are so tight as to make them look like human headed burritos and they love it.

Next you seem to imply horrible emotional torture for infants because of a painless procedure. If this is so, then should all medical check ups and procedures be avoided because they would likely feel this same level of distress?
I seriously doubt you feel this way. So the only thing I can take from your post is that you are feeling desparate and spouting arguments against circumcision off the top of your head.

I see the legitimate con side. I just don't see it as important because I'm circumcised and have absolutely no problems and like it.

But the legitimate side that I see is one of lack of consent from the infant. I am starting to come around to that side. But that leaves the issue of at what age should I allow my hypothetical son to consent to such a surgery?
He wants to be like other boys and daddy, and doesn't like his "useless" extra skin at age 3? 6? 9? 12? What age is appropriate?

Actually Flyn, I hadn't even gone there with what you are assuming... I was just commenting on your "torture without pain doesn't fit my definition" comment. No other comparisons made..

I do find it interesting the particular phrase you used here - at what age should I allow my hypothetical son to consent to such a surgery?

with a few bits of emphasis... how do you mean 'allow' your son to consent? Isn't that completely irrelevant? Either, your son has total consensual rights, or you do... not you allowing him those rights. After all, he is a (hypothetical) human being.

[smileyeagle1021]

with a few bits of emphasis... how do you mean 'allow' your son to consent? Isn't that completely irrelevant? Either, your son has total consensual rights, or you do... not you allowing him those rights. After all, he is a (hypothetical) human being.

actually Slyt, I have to agree with the wording... in most contries the parent is responsible for decision making until the child reaches majority age... so really, as far as legality is concerned any choice a child makes is because his/her parent is allowing it... not saying it's right or wrong, that's just how it is.

[Saydrah]

Idea: What about instead of a ban, a law making it legal for any doctor to refuse to perform a circumcision, and any hospital board of directors to vote to stop performing circumcision in their hospitals?

It would send a clear message to parents if, when they sought a circumcision, they found that their chosen hospital refused to perform them for valid medical reasons. It would also make seeking the procedure inconvenient. Yet, it would neither endanger boys more, because there would still be some hospitals willing to perform circumcision, nor restrict freedom; in fact, it would increase the freedom of individual doctors and hospitals.

[Pedersen]

Idea: What about instead of a ban, a law making it legal for any doctor to refuse to perform a circumcision, and any hospital board of directors to vote to stop performing circumcision in their hospitals?

<sarcasm>
That's a great idea Saydrah. Using that same logic, we can allow pharmacists the option to refuse to dispense birth control medication. And we all know what a great idea that is.
</sarcasm>

Seriously, there is nothing that makes circumcision a requirement right now. There exists no law that requires doctors to perform it, nor any law that prevents a hospital from placing a ban on it.

In short, your proposed law does precisely nothing. In fact, it would weaken the argument in favor of banning it outright without strong medical reason until the male reaches the age of majority. The argument would then become "We should make this illegal to do to defenseless children." "Well, doctors and hospitals can already refuse, so why bother?"

I'd rather have no law than that one.

[anriana]

Idea: What about instead of a ban, a law making it legal for any doctor to refuse to perform a circumcision, and any hospital board of directors to vote to stop performing circumcision in their hospitals?

It would send a clear message to parents if, when they sought a circumcision, they found that their chosen hospital refused to perform them for valid medical reasons. It would also make seeking the procedure inconvenient. Yet, it would neither endanger boys more, because there would still be some hospitals willing to perform circumcision, nor restrict freedom; in fact, it would increase the freedom of individual doctors and hospitals.

Um, are doctors/hospitals currently legally forced to perform the operation?

[Saydrah]

No; however, doctors are terrified of lawsuits. Trust me. I have a brain surgeon in the family, and he spends almost 20% of his salary on malpractice insurance. And you KNOW that a doctor refusing to perform circumcision would be risking a lawsuit for "religious bias" or something like that.

And Pedersen, birth control is a medication prescribed by a doctor, to be dispensed by a pharmacy. I know that's sarcasm, but in case anyone actually thinks that argument is legitimate, I thought I'd address it. Giving a DOCTOR the freedom to make a medical choice is different from giving a pharmacist the ability to second-guess a woman's doctor despite not having the same credentials, and specifically FOR reasons of religion-- rather than refuse to perform a procedure done for reasons of religion, because the doctor feels it's unsafe.

I don't think banning circumcision is smart. There is insufficient evidence that it does any substantial harm other than MAYBE reducing sensation insignificantly enough that most circumcised men have no complaints whatsoever. There is also some evidence it does good, in that HIV transmission risks are reduced-- and no matter how rarely it's transmitted in vaginal intercourse, when it's YOUR son with HIV, I bet it hurts just as much to find out you've only got a few more years with him. Plus, parents who see it as a religious obligation would just have the procedure done anyway, by a non-doctor, in a less safe way with a higher risk of contamination or a botched surgery, and with no painkillers.

Besides, Pedersen, how do you suggest this be enforced? Government inspections? "Knock knock, take off your son's pants, we need to check to be sure he has a foreskin?"

[Pedersen]

No; however, doctors are terrified of lawsuits. Trust me. I have a brain surgeon in the family, and he spends almost 20% of his salary on malpractice insurance. And you KNOW that a doctor refusing to perform circumcision would be risking a lawsuit for "religious bias" or something like that.

The doctors are in a bind here, and can't escape it. They can be sued either way. For instance, there are doctors who refuse to allow an infant male to leave without a circumcision. I've even read of one who was so adamant about it that, when the child was born, performed the circumcision before handing the child over to the parents right there in the delivery room.

Also, this is one time that the lawsuit would be frivolous. A refusal by a doctor to perform a procedure that the doctor does not feel is necessary is very thoroughly enshrined in the law and in ethics already. There is no requirement for them to do so.

And Pedersen, birth control is a medication prescribed by a doctor, to be dispensed by a pharmacy.

Okay, I see round N beginning, so let me point something out: Go speak to your pharmacist. Ask him (or her) about problems with prescriptions. The number of times that doctors prescribe something that will be a problem for the patient is simply staggering. That's a largely unknown part of the pharmacist's job: Knowing what the people who come to him are already taking, and knowing about the interactions between the drugs.

In theory, that aspect of their job should be unnecessary. In reality, the pharmacists wind up calling up doctors to get prescriptions changed much more often than we we would ever like to know. Why? Because the pharmacist has knowledge of the patient that the doctor doesn't (but should), since the patient can be visiting a number of doctors for whatever ails them, but usually only visits one pharmacist.

I don't think banning circumcision is smart.

I don't believe it should be outright banned. There are times it may be actually necessary for medical reasons. There are times that an adult male may want to have it done for whatever reason.

However, I do believe it should require the consent of the recipient. No infant is capable of either consenting or refusing. Hence, I believe it should be banned on infants.

There is insufficient evidence that it does any substantial harm other than MAYBE reducing sensation insignificantly enough that most circumcised men have no complaints whatsoever.

Okay, again with the "insignificantly enough" bit. I've seen it elsewhere in this thread. So, I'll ask for the study which shows this. Cite it. To be a quality study, it should be done on adult males who were uncircumcised and were sexually active, then became circumcised and were sexually active afterwards, with them reporting on the amount of difference.

What I have heard has been "Well, males who were circumcised as infants still enjoy intercourse, so there's no significant reduction in sensation" and, quite frankly, that's bullshit. Unless you've got an infant who remembers having a foreskin, and was sexually active, and can still accurately remember the sensations into adulthood, how can they compare?

Sensation is lost. This is unavoidable. The foreskin contains nerves that are cut. The nerves are gone, and cannot be regrown even with the "foreskin restoration" procedure that was mentioned elsewhere. Since nerves are the source of all sensation, sensation is lost.

Furthermore, the foreskin provides a protection over the head and shaft of the penis. Without that protection, the body works to provide a different method of protection by forming layers of keratinous cells. These cells are especially meant to dull the sensation of the constant friction with the cloth that is constantly rubbing against the genitals. Again, loss of sensation.

There is also some evidence it does good

And those studies are finding themselves discredited. Check here (http://www.icgi.org/aids/) and here (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html). On the flip side, we have the Stallings study (http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138), which shows that female circumcision results in reduced risk of HIV transmission.

Sauce for the goose?

Besides, Pedersen, how do you suggest this be enforced? Government inspections? "Knock knock, take off your son's pants, we need to check to be sure he has a foreskin?"

Perhaps in the same way that USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 7, Section 116 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC116) is enforced? Since that's the same section of the US Code that forbids any form of FGM by any person on any woman under the age of 18?

That's all I'm asking for: Equality. If you're going to accept the studies which show the MGM is beneficial (even as those same studies are being discredited) as a valid reason for inflicting it, then I would hope you accept the studies which show that FGM can also be beneficial (even if those studies turn out to be discredited), and cite them as a valid reason for inflicting it on infant females.

And if you won't, then I hope you'll demand that both sexes be protected to the best of our ability to protect them.

[Flyndaran]

....
Okay, again with the "insignificantly enough" bit. I've seen it elsewhere in this thread. So, I'll ask for the study which shows this. Cite it. To be a quality study, it should be done on adult males who were uncircumcised and were sexually active, then became circumcised and were sexually active afterwards, with them reporting on the amount of difference.
...
Furthermore, the foreskin provides a protection over the head and shaft of the penis. Without that protection, the body works to provide a different method of protection by forming layers of keratinous cells. These cells are especially meant to dull the sensation of the constant friction with the cloth that is constantly rubbing against the genitals. Again, loss of sensation.

Sauce for the goose?

....

I was circumcised as an infant and I certainly don't have keratinised cells all over my penis. Ewww.

Second, your proposed study is not scientifically valid. The only legitimate one would be to find the percentage of men circumcised at birth and those not that are satisfied with their sexual sensations. Since, we are dealing with at birth circumcisions, then only those circumcised at birth should be studied.

I won't dignify your lame comparison of female genital mutilation to male circumcisions with a response.

[Pedersen]

I was circumcised as an infant and I certainly don't have keratinised cells all over my penis. Ewww.

Well, Flyndaran, you are one of two things:
1. The only circumcised adult male in the world without keratinization.
2. Wrong.

Before you say you are #1, I advise you to learn a bit about what keratinization actually is. I'll help. Here's a page that discusses what it is, and shows pictures to help you understand it. Keratinization (http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm#keratinization)

Warning, you will see pictures of both circumsized and uncircumsized penises there.

Second, your proposed study is not scientifically valid.

Then one of us is misunderstanding how to apply the proper methodology for studies. On the one hand, you have one of us saying that, in order to do a proper study on this, we need to find people who are fully aware of their current status, make a change to that status, and then measure the difference.

On the other, we have a person saying that we need to perform procedures on people who are unable to consent to the procedures, wait 20 years or so, and then ask them how their sexual experiences compare to people who did not have the procedure performed upon them. Now, unless you propose to do this to telepaths. I'm unaware of a means of accurately comparing the level of sensation in one person versus the level of sensation in another person, and then performing a quantitative analysis.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and suggest that, maybe, just maybe, your study would have a flaw or two in it. But, once you do manage to find/confirm telepathy, and perform circumcisions on telepaths, then I will agree that your version of the study will be closer to legitimate.

Of course, even then, you are unable to do a true one-to-one comparison, since everybody has minor differences. As a result, what one male might experience as an intense sensation, another might experience as something mild.

Even telepathy can't compensate for differences of perception, and since what we talking about is purely perception, well, I would still have to suggest that the flaws in your version of the study abound. My version of the study asks the question after a single change is made of the same people before and after the change.

So, which of us has the invalid study again?

I won't dignify your lame comparison of female genital mutilation to male circumcisions with a response.

I provide links which debunk earlier studies about the supposed health benefits of circumcision. I furthermore provide link to a study which shows that female circumcision can provide the same benefits that people are saying will be provided by male circumcision. And this is your response?

That I have made a (to quote you):
lame comparison of female genital mutilation to male circumcisions
???

Astounding Flyn. Absolutely astounding. Since I didn't actually compare the two (and instead provided evidence to state that maybe we should reconsider our positions, since we have evidence that debunks the male circumcision studies, and other evidence that shows that female circumcision can be a good thing), I guess you just decided to go for the knee jerk straw man response.

Just ... astounding.

[Slytovhand]

Actually, Ped, it'd be empathy, not telepathy :D

Hey - how about making it a 'ban' (ie - illegal) to perform such a procedure unless there is sufficient medical reason to justify it? After all, that's pretty much how most laws in western societies operate...

Smiley - it still says that the child doesn't have the right... only an expression of choice, which legally can be completely ignored by the parents (something which, to an extent, pisses me off no end). So the significant word there is 'right'.

[LewisLegion]

I tell you what. If I ever had a son and the doctor performed a circumcision on him at any time without my explicit permission I'd sue his ass until his face was blue.

What's this? You circumcised my son in the delivery room before even handing him to me? Without my permission? Hope you got a really good lawyer!

A doctor refusing to do a proceedure that is not medically necessary is one thing...if the parent is hell-bent on getting their kid circumcised and the doc won't do it...they just go to another doc. A doctor performing a proceedure that is not medically necessary without permission on an underaged child that can't necessarily be reversed is a whole nother ball of wax...and he would so pay for it.

[Slytovhand]

So... doctors can't be male??? :wink:

[Saydrah]

Second, your proposed study is not scientifically valid. The only legitimate one would be to find the percentage of men circumcised at birth and those not that are satisfied with their sexual sensations. Since, we are dealing with at birth circumcisions, then only those circumcised at birth should be studied.




This is true. Pedersen's proposed study would not be valid, because a procedure done during adulthood would likely have a very different result from one done at birth, before the nervous system is done growing. Also, the brain is your most important sexual organ-- circumcision done after the brain has already adapted to sex with a foreskin would be harmful in a way circumcision in infancy could not be.

[Pedersen]

Hey - how about making it a 'ban' (ie - illegal) to perform such a procedure unless there is sufficient medical reason to justify it? After all, that's pretty much how most laws in western societies operate...

Slyt, I've called for this any number of times. Check below. For some reason, gender equality seems to be viewed as repugnant. Yes, gender equality. Females are protected from unnecessary cutting, but males are not.

Good. I approve of allowing someone to make their own choices about their bodies. But to have such a choice forced upon an infant is abhorrent to me.

I am not against voluntary circumcision. If you choose it, then more power to you. If there is a medical reason (which does happen, but is a very small fraction of the total number of cases), I accept it, and quietly.

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.

There are some males who get circumsized later in life, but they are a small minority. In addition, they are making the choice to have this done to themselves, for whatever reason (well, except for the times where the parent forces it on a child who has not yet left the home). I do not disagree with allowing this to occur in males who are making an informed choice.I do disagree, though, with allowing someone else to make that choice for them.

Per Title 18, USC (http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm):


All types of female genital mutilation on underage females are illegal. Why isn't the same true for males?

And now, it actually is making me angry. I want someone to tell me why it is that girls receive this protection, girls have the ability to choose what happens to their bodies (at least in this instance, I'm not interested in arguing about abortion, and will thoroughly beandip anyone who tries to bring it into this thread). but guys are denied this same protection and choice.

Actually, that question is much simpler to answer. Equal protection under the law for both males and females would mean that males would not be able to consent to such surgeries until the same age that females can consent.

In other words (http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm), 18 years old.

Like I said, much easier to answer.

I don't believe it should be outright banned. There are times it may be actually necessary for medical reasons. There are times that an adult male may want to have it done for whatever reason.

However, I do believe it should require the consent of the recipient. No infant is capable of either consenting or refusing. Hence, I believe it should be banned on infants.

Lots of agreement with that sentiment. But, for some reason, this is viewed as absolutely abhorrent. Maybe someone will explain it to me in a way that sense to my obviously addled brain someday.

This is true. Pedersen's proposed study would not be valid, because a procedure done during adulthood would likely have a very different result from one done at birth, before the nervous system is done growing. Also, the brain is your most important sexual organ-- circumcision done after the brain has already adapted to sex with a foreskin would be harmful in a way circumcision in infancy could not be.

Wait, wait, let me make sure I understand this: It is possible to perform a scientific study to compare a subjective event (the amount and quality of a given sensation) against different people who will experience the events in their own bodies, and have no method of directly comparing the level of sensation to other people in the same study?

Versus having people experience one specific change and then rating the differences between before and after the change? And that method is invalid?

And are you actually seriously saying that that brain can compensate for missing and destroyed nerves so much that people will be unable to tell a difference between them, especially when those nerves were removed before they could understand what they were experiencing?

I'm astounded at these sorts of statements. I know that, somehow, I must be misunderstanding them. Please help me to understand them properly.

[Saydrah]

Presuming your last sentence is not facetious:

Consider the experience of a person who is paralyzed with a fairly high level of spinal cord injury. No feeling from the nipples down, say.

The majority of people with this degree of nerve death are still able to achieve orgasm (both female and male) eventually, with the help of an understanding partner or possibly just a few really good toys and a sex therapist to instruct them in their use. If you want a source on this, I have several-- the disability website that employs me has some great articles on the subject, and a few bloggers who've discussed their personal experiences with it.

So, there's one example of the nervous system adapting to perform the body's most critical function-- reproduction-- after a serious injury.

Next, consider the several existing cases of very young children (with developing nervous systems) who have survived the removal of an entire hemisphere of the brain with very minimal impairment. I recall reading about one girl who was able to walk, talk, see, and was indistinguishable on the surface from her peers, despite having only one hemisphere. Or, various cases of extremely young children who have been nerve damaged from dog bites, botched surgeries, etc., and have recovered all or nearly all sensation.

Or, for another example of nervous adaptation: One common sexual problem that doctors and sex therapists see is inability to reach orgasm with a partner, in a male, because of excessive "deathgrip" masturbation as an adolescent and as an adult. The brain and relevant nerves become accustomed to a specific sensation and don't respond to more gentle stimuli. This is treated mostly through a stern "absolutely no masturbation" regimen forcing the male to adapt eventually to the stimuli that come from intercourse-- this often takes months. (Source: Various Dan Savage columns, mostly)

So yes, the nervous system is an amazing, adaptable, and also stubborn thing. I think that really for an absolutely complete picture of the situation, a wide study of men circumcised or not at birth should be conducted, asking them to rate their sexual satisfaction over a period of several months, possibly by logging into a website after sex and rating a variety of factors-- overall satisfaction, satisfaction with partner's performance, satisfaction with own performance, etc.

Then the same study could also be done with uncircumcised men and men preparing to undergo circumcision as adults, then following these men for a few years while their nerves adapt to the changes.

If the two studies obtained the same conclusion-- sexual satisfaction is greater one way or the other-- the case would be pretty much closed. If the conclusions differed, it would be clear that there is a difference between the nerves' adaptation to this procedure as adults versus in infancy. Or, possibly, as you say, that men circumcised as infants would "not know what they're missing." That would warrant further research.

[Pedersen]

Man, you guys are good at helping me forget the original question!

Okay, let's assume for a minute that absolutely every ounce of sensation can be recovered, through a restoration process (which is by all accounts, painful). Let's also assume that such a process is unnecessary, since no sensation is lost over the entire lifetime of the male. No, I don't believe it, but I'll go ahead and stipulate it for the sake of this debate.

Now, I've already shown that the studies which show the supposed medical benefits were flawed (ref: here (http://www.icgi.org/aids/) and here (http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html)).

There are cases where circumcision is required for medical reasons. There is no reason to prevent this, and I do not seek any action against this.

What is left are infectious disease benefits, religious reasons, and aesthetic reasons.

We don't allow infectious disease benefits (http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138) to be a reason to permit any genital cutting of females at any time before they reach the age of majority here in the US (http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm).

We don't believe that religious reasons are sufficient reasons to allow any cutting on females, since it's illegal in this country, and we frown on the places which do it as part of their religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting#Sunni_View).

So, that leaves aesthetics. And people in this thread seem to believe this to be an acceptable reason. Is aesthetics a sufficient reason to allow people to cut off functioning body parts of other people without their consent? And, if so, this begs the question: Are we willing to allow parents to perform other (and less destructive) body modification on their children? If this is acceptable, how about parents getting their children tattoo'ed? It is extremely similar to all the other arguments presented (won't impact sensations, can look more pleasing, etc).

And if we don't agree to allowing parents to do body modification, why is aesthetics a sufficient reason to allow this practice to continue?

[kiwi]

Are you referring to something other than transexual surgery here?

Im referring to children who are born with both sexual organs when doctors and parents decide which sex they are to become. Ive seen more than one documentary on children who were raised as girls who had to go through years of emotional torment because the wrong gender was assigned.

[Saydrah]

Pedersen, your conclusion is fallacious. I believe this is the fallacy called "begging the question," in which you presume that both parties agree to a premise that supports your side.

Here, the premise is "FGM = circumcision, therefore if A is not a good argument in favor of FGM, then A is also disqualified as an argument in favor of circumcision."

I do not agree with this premise, and here is why: I don't believe in excessively restricting freedom by banning a very common and fairly harmless practice, in countries where it is common and relatively safe. Now, I don't really have a dog in this fight so to speak as I don't want kids and if I did, I've already stated what my choice about circumcision would be. However, I believe that circumcision is so common in the US that it would do more harm than good to prohibit it on an infant, from encouraging back-alley circumcisions to setting a dangerous precedent of government interference in private medical decisions for children. I'm envisioning pediatricians discovering a circumcision during a routine physical and having a child taken from his parents for it, for example.

Instead of advocating for a legal prohibition of a common and safe procedure, why not advocate for expanded education of physicians and new parents about risks involved, lack of benefits (which I still don't agree that there are none), and possible pain or sexual dissatisfaction as a result of circumcision? If it became as rare in the US as female genital mutilation, it might then be the time to advocate for a ban.

Possibly another solution would be to allow adults who feel a circumcision caused them harm to sue their parents in civil court.

Also, in countries where FGM is routine, I would favor a ban on the more common varieties that involve such extreme mutilation that it interferes with the urinary system and with childbirth; however, I'd take the same approach to reducing the fairly harmless removal of the clitoral hood. It's a question for me of how much suffering would be created versus prevented here, and I think more suffering (both for parents and infants) would be created than alleviated by a ban of circumcision in the USA.

[Pedersen]

Pedersen, your conclusion is fallacious. I believe this is the fallacy called "begging the question," in which you presume that both parties agree to a premise that supports your side.

Here, the premise is "FGM = circumcision, therefore if A is not a good argument in favor of FGM, then A is also disqualified as an argument in favor of circumcision."

Actually, I'm not arguing whether or not you agree with the premise. I'll stick with definitions from organizations like the World Health Organization (http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm), which defines FGM pretty rigorously, including this little bit:

Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).

I'll then refer to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepuce), which explains the term prepuce (along with many many many other sites (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Aprepuce)) thusly:


The prepuce (IPA: /ˈpriːpju:s/) is a retractable piece of skin which covers part of the genitals of primates and other mammals.

* On a male, this covers the head of the penis (glans penis). See foreskin
* On a female, it surrounds and protects the head of the clitoris (glans clitoridis). See clitoral hood


In other words, whether you consider it identical or not, the WHO winds up defining circumcision as being precisely identical with the mildest form of FGM.

I don't believe in excessively restricting freedom by banning a very common and fairly harmless practice, in countries where it is common and relatively safe.

What if it's something else that's relatively common, safe, and relatively harmless? For instance, what if we start tattooing all infants with something really pretty on their back? Still meets all the criteria, since tattoos are relatively common, very safe (when done by reputable artists), and really harmless. I assume this would be acceptable to you?

Instead of advocating for a legal prohibition of a common and safe procedure, why not advocate for expanded education of physicians and new parents about risks involved, lack of benefits (which I still don't agree that there are none), and possible pain or sexual dissatisfaction as a result of circumcision? If it became as rare in the US as female genital mutilation, it might then be the time to advocate for a ban.

My ultimate desire in this is a legal ban on doing this to people who cannot consent. For now, I have to settle for making people think about it, and hope to make a small difference that way. With some luck, I can help prevent someone from growing up and asking "Why was this done?"

I do ask, personally. It happened to me. And every so often, I find myself asking this exact question. Why was this done to me? Why did people suggest it to my parents, and why did they go along with it? And why do people still allow (and even prefer) that it be done? If I were born today, it would likely still happen to me.

And this is seriously depressing. To say that it is a relatively harmless procedure is to denigrate the very real feelings of those who experience depression over it. It doesn't do any harm, and it's helped you out, so get over it.

I'm not over it. And since I cannot be made whole, I doubt I ever will be.

[Slytovhand]

possibly by logging into a website after sex Just like CS forum members have been doing.... apparently :p

And Pedersen - you've only suggesed a non-medical ban 7 times... you've got to keep going til you hit the magic number :D

Why not just say (as Pedersen has been banging his head on a brick wall about) that the child does actually have some rights that are completely inalienable... such as the right to decide what happens with their body in regards to surgery - ie nothing non-medical. Especially since, I'm damn sure that if you asked why parents had their kid circumcised, they couldn't give you a really valid reason for doing it that didn't reek of sheepishness (not referring to religion - but only cos that's a different thread).

So my take on this argument has nothing to do with relativity of severity (FGM), but on the rights of a child/person.

And, lastly, ummmm - the body and the person are not the same thing :D

[Saydrah]

Question for the men in this thread who feel that the right of an infant to an intact foreskin trumps parents' rights to make a decision they feel may be medically beneficial, as well as doctors' rights to recommend a procedure they feel is medically beneficial:

Would you feel the same way if, say, we were all born with a funny-looking flap of skin on our earlobes? If some parents had it removed at birth, either for religious or aesthetic reasons? Let's say removing it reduces the risk of serious ear infections leading to hearing loss very slightly. Let's also say, to be fair to your side, that its removal in adults causes some very minor loss of hearing, but that babies whose earflaps were removed at birth grow up to report no perceived problems with their hearing. The procedure to remove it is almost painless. In some parts of the world leaving it intact is the norm; in America, it's normal to remove it.

Let me ask you for a moment to forget that we're on opposite sides here and just consider my question. Would you feel so strongly about prohibiting snipping away the extra earlobe flap, or any similar flap of skin anywhere on the body besides the penis?

How strongly some men feel about this just reeks to me of the same leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness that makes some men refuse to neuter their dogs despite clear evidence of health benefits, behavior improvements, and the obvious benefit of sterilization. As soon as something threatens the male reproductive organs, some men become deaf to anything but their own desire to protect their penises.

Slytovhand, I think the inalienable rights of infants are the right to life if delivered alive, the right to a safe home where they are fed and sheltered, and the right not to be beaten or otherwise abused. I don't think they have a right to make their own medical decisions. If they did, there would be a lot of doctors wondering how to act on the decision, "Goo." The rest of the rights of an adult human being vest over time as a child grows to be capable of understanding these rights-- like the right to own property or to speak its mind freely or to vote.

If you both can honestly say you would in fact also support a ban on the removal of imaginary earflaps, I think you're silly, but congrats, you're not hypocrites. But once we start saying that one cultural choice (intact foreskin) is better than another in this realm, we set a dangerous precedent of government interference in personal parental choices. What about Hispanic culture, where piercing baby girls' ears is normal? Or children born with vestigal sixth fingers, like Gemma Argent? Would she then be forced to undergo surgery as an adult and cope with increased pain and danger, instead of having had her parents step in and decide to have these little finger-stubs removed when she was an infant? Or people (like me) born with narrowed nasal passages-- would parents no longer be able to decide whether or not to send their child for surgery to expand narrow nasal passages? My parents decided against it, and I just happen to have a shitty singing voice and more frequent congestion than most people, but some kids with the same problem grow up to have frequent sinus infections. What about braces, for cosmetic reasons only, to which a child objects? Can a parent make THAT decision for their child?

I don't want kids, but if I did have them, I'd sure as heck want the government to stay out of all the decisions in the last paragraph.

[Rapscallion]

If we were all born with an extra flap of skin on our earlobes, it wouldn't be funny looking, since it was normal.

doctors' rights to recommend a procedure they feel is medically beneficial

'they feel' isn't the same as proven.

How strongly some men feel about this just reeks to me of the same leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness

Pretty much how women feel about female circumcision, yes? I'm fairly sure I would if I were a woman.

Pierced ears - a procedure that requires quite a bit of upkeep to prevent infections, if what I know of it is right, but the important thing is that it's reversible as long as the lobe isn't stretched too far.

Let me ask you for a moment to forget that we're on opposite sides here and just consider my question. Would you feel so strongly about prohibiting snipping away the extra earlobe flap, or any similar flap of skin anywhere on the body besides the penis?

I would. If there's no medically proven reason to do so, why would you?

I find the aesthetic question to be ridiculous. "Oh, I wouldn't want Timmy to look different to the other boys." If they weren't circumcised as well, then he wouldn't. Sure, if someone's born with an extra finger or two, that will stand out without even taking clothing off, but that is very rare in a birth, whereas foreskins occur in pretty much every male birth going.

Teeth braces - as a citizen of a country often derided by the colonials for our allegedly poor teething arrangements, I find this obsession to be a mark that the US is doing rather well for itself, thank you very much. Why else would there be a desperate desire to ensure that teeth appear to such an exacting standard whilst so many other social ills are apparently extant.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

I find the aesthetic question to be ridiculous. "Oh, I wouldn't want Timmy to look different to the other boys." If they weren't circumcised as well, then he wouldn't. Sure, if someone's born with an extra finger or two, that will stand out without even taking clothing off, but that is very rare in a birth, whereas foreskins occur in pretty much every male birth going.
Rapscallion

but but but... what would happen to poor Timmy if he were to get pantsed on the school playground :p

yeah, a lot of the arguments are pretty weak, especially when you consider just how easy it is to get used to a new appearance... I mean it takes what, a day or two at most to get used to someone's new haircut, so why is it all the sudden when talking about the aesthetics of the penis people freak out that "little Timmy looks different" :confused:

Though I must confess, it wasn't until I was 14 that I saw an uncircumcised penis... you want to know my reaction? Honestly my first reaction was "oh, that's different... but then again everyone's is different... " and I'm sure that if someone who had seen nothing but uncircumsized were to see a circumcized penis would have a similar reaction.

[DrT]

I find the aesthetic question to be ridiculous. "Oh, I wouldn't want Timmy to look different to the other boys." If they weren't circumcised as well, then he wouldn't. Sure, if someone's born with an extra finger or two, that will stand out without even taking clothing off, but that is very rare in a birth, whereas foreskins occur in pretty much every male birth going.


I'm jumping in on that point, if you allow me:
you say the aesthetic question is ridicoulous for foreskin, but not for the extra finger ?

On what grounds ?
aesthetics depend on the 'norm', a very changing/fleeting concept. So what makes you certain that the prepuce will be acceptable versus the extra finger ?
And more importantly: what gives you ground to forbid the first and not the other ?

Personnaly I didn't circumcise my children, simply didn't see the point. The medical evidence is laughable, in its best light, and I don't give a rat's ass what people think.
But it was my decision. I wouldn't appreciate being forced in any direction by people who pretend to know better than me, particularly if that knowledge is based on a principle as fleeting as 'the norm'.


I do believe that as long as medical reasons against a procedures are absent; these decisions are to be left to the parents.

[Pedersen]

parents' rights to make a decision they feel may be medically beneficial, as well as doctors' rights to recommend a procedure they feel is medically beneficial:

As Raps pointed out: "they feel" does not equal "proven".

Would you feel the same way if, say, we were all born with a funny-looking flap of skin on our earlobes? If some parents had it removed at birth, either for religious or aesthetic reasons? Let's say removing it reduces the risk of serious ear infections leading to hearing loss very slightly. Let's also say, to be fair to your side, that its removal in adults causes some very minor loss of hearing, but that babies whose earflaps were removed at birth grow up to report no perceived problems with their hearing. The procedure to remove it is almost painless. In some parts of the world leaving it intact is the norm; in America, it's normal to remove it.

Let me ask you for a moment to forget that we're on opposite sides here and just consider my question. Would you feel so strongly about prohibiting snipping away the extra earlobe flap, or any similar flap of skin anywhere on the body besides the penis?

If you're going for truly equivalent, you're forgetting to include a couple of "let's say"s. Here, let me add them for you:

Let's say that there is actual controversy over whether or not the removal of this flap of skin actually does reduce the risk of serious ear infections. Let's say that, in certain parts of the world, it is illegal to perform the removal on one gender, and not the other. Let's say that some of the adults who have it done as infants grow up and learn about what was done, and are upset about it having been done, especially when they learn that the studies showing the benefit are considered to be, at best, controversial. Let's say that there is a process by which this flap of skin can be restored, but it's a rather painful process taking a long time to complete.

I think that's a bit more equivalent. Of course, when you add in those little extra details, I think that my answer becomes more obvious. I am decidedly against it.

I'll admit, though, that when you paint the picture without them, it's more difficult for me to say yes or no to. It took me a minute to realize that those were left out. I would hope that wasn't a deliberate oversight on your part.

How strongly some men feel about this just reeks to me of the same leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness that makes some men refuse to neuter their dogs despite clear evidence of health benefits, behavior improvements, and the obvious benefit of sterilization. As soon as something threatens the male reproductive organs, some men become deaf to anything but their own desire to protect their penises.

To me, the part that reeks is this: I've linked to this study (http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138) numerous times throughout this thread. It has gone quite ignored.

However, it basically says that there is evidence that female circumcision slows the transmission of the HIV virus. There has yet to be one single person saying anything similar to "Well, if we're going to do it for males under the umbrella of medical benefits, then maybe we should consider it for females for the same reason." I have asked, but not one person (that I can remember right now) has responded to the question.

Maybe the women are trying to ignore it and/or prevent the question taking root in some sort of leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness? Nah, must be because we men are afraid of getting our penis cut off.

I would have thought that, by now, it would be clear that I know there is nothing I can do for me. I'm cut, and the restoration process can mostly make me whole (not entirely, the cut nerves cannot be restored). It's not about me, simply because it's too late. It's about simply giving other males the choice.

I don't think they have a right to make their own medical decisions.

Neither do I, Saydrah. In fact, I believe I've said numerous times that infants cannot consent or refuse to any medical procedure. Hell, I've said that more often than I've called for a ban on infants, so I'm not going to go back through this entire thread and quote every time I've done it.

Instead, I'm saying to let the individual make the choice when they can make the choice. There is no harm in waiting.

The other part of what I'm saying: Go for gender equality. I have to admit, to me, one of the surprising parts of this thread is that, in this highly unscientific survey, nearly all of the women have said "cut the men!" and nearly all of the men have said "don't do it!" Some of the women have couched it in "Well, I wouldn't do it to my son, but go ahead and let it happen to any others." I have to wonder if that result scales to the general population. I'll try to research that online later.

I don't want kids, but if I did have them, I'd sure as heck want the government to stay out of all the decisions in the last paragraph.

Congratulations, Saydrah. You've changed the question from "Why was someone allowed to cut me?" to "Gah! Keep the government out of my private life!"

If it's okay, I'd like to change the question back now? I hope you don't mind. Oh, I suppose you'll be upset if I don't answer your questions first: I'm against unnecessary body modifications being done to a minor. I'd allow an exception ear piercings to a person who had grown out of infancy, but not yet reached the age of majority. The nature of a piercing allows for complete reversal very easily, and is pretty well demanded well before the age of majority by many teenagers, at least here in the US. I'd also allow exceptions where the quality of life is being severely adversely affected. Of course, that pretty well hits the "medical necessity" range, so I guess it's not really an exception.

Now, if it's okay, I really would like to switch back to the real topic, instead of "OMG! Keep the gov't out of my pants!"

[Boozy]

...the child does actually have some rights that are completely inalienable... such as the right to decide what happens with their body in regards to surgery...

I see that several people have already addressed this, but you do know that children are not mentally-equipped to make their own health care decisions, right?

How many three year-olds would go to the dentist or get their infected tonsils removed if the choice were completely up to them?

[Flyndaran]

Medicine is NOT an exact science. You probably couldn't get 100 doctors to agree on most procedures given the same information.
The degree of good or bad of circumcism isn't the real issue.

The real issue is whether an almost non-issue trumps parental control of medical choice for their children.
The state normally only intervenes to force medical actions when it is beyond any doubt that to not do so would cause serious injury or death to children and heck sometimes for adults.

I don't even consider it a religious argument. The reasons for a middle of the road good/bad medical decision don't matter.

Should parents be allowed to pierce their child's ears, circumcise, or any other middle of the road choice based mostly on their own preference.

The state should only intervene when it is beyond a doubt, which is rare, that to allow a procedure would cause irreperable harm to said children.

I consider what many parents do to and "for" their children to be disgusting, like forcing them to attend religious organisations and schools. They should only consent when adults. But I value personal adult parental freedom too important to damage through over-legislation even assuming my atheist outlook were the majority.

(I wish I would live that long.)

[Rapscallion]

I'm jumping in on that point, if you allow me:
you say the aesthetic question is ridicoulous for foreskin, but not for the extra finger ?

On what grounds ?
aesthetics depend on the 'norm', a very changing/fleeting concept. So what makes you certain that the prepuce will be acceptable versus the extra finger ?
And more importantly: what gives you ground to forbid the first and not the other ?


I'll make up a statistic here, since I can't be bothered googling for a result.

Almost 100% of males are born with a foreskin. I only say 'almost' because I suspect there's a medical condition out there where one or two male children are born every year without one.

Okay, I hit a search engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyl Polydactyl births are about one in every five hundred. I don't personally see anything wrong with an extra finger or toe here or there, but there is a huge peer-pressure industry involved in making people uncomfortable with the way they are. Far more common, but it will make someone stand out.

Thinking about it, I don't really have a problem with extra digits (I could learn guitar twice on the same hand!), so I wouldn't necessarily advocate the removal of such. However, I could understand parents wanting it removed from their children far more than I would accept them circumcising everything that couldn't move fast enough.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

...
Thinking about it, I don't really have a problem with extra digits (I could learn guitar twice on the same hand!), so I wouldn't necessarily advocate the removal of such. However, I could understand parents wanting it removed from their children far more than I would accept them circumcising everything that couldn't move fast enough.

Rapscallion

The major problem with your analogy is that in almost every single case of extra digits, they are useless un-articulated fleshy outgrowths.
I've only seen one case of fully usable sixth fingers.

A more appropriate, if salacious, analogy would be those few males born with fully bifurcated penises... in effect having two usually side by side rather than one above the other penises. These are far more likely to be fully functional than any other extra appendages that I know of.
Should doctors remove one of them so as to look almost normal when nude?

I heard of one japanese male that had one removed because his wife refused to have sex with him otherwise.

[Pedersen]

Wait, this was a very nicely executed (and subtly done) change. I must congratulate the defenders of MGM. It took me several posts to catch it.

We have two distinct scenarios:

A birth defect occurs which results in biological abnormality (such as extra fingers), and we can consider removal of the extra finger to bring the child into normality.
No birth defect occurs, and we will actively pursue a surgery to bring the child into a cultural normality without questioning whether this cultural normality is a good thing.


Well played, I must admit. Instead of attacking the original problem, a very effective straw man has been set up, distracting from the real issue.

So, I'll return back to the real issue: Why do we provide the force of law (http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm) to prevent any non-medical cutting of female genitals before the age of majority, but do not provide equal protection to the other gender?

That, to me, is the core question. And now that I've seen it, I'll be more likely to call a straw man just that.

Well done, though.

[Saydrah]

Can't stay long, just taking a brief break from writing a long and annoying article, but I'd like to make one point:

Pedersen, if you look back through my posts, you will find that I have said that in countries where it is the norm and in cases where only the prepuce is removed, I would agree that the best option to lower rates of female circumcision would be education, not a legal prohibition. This is the exact same way I feel about circumcision in the US.

Also, you needn't condescend and accuse me of changing the subject. This IS an issue of personal freedom and getting the government out of my (hypothetical son's?) pants. Every little intrusion of the government into parents' choices reduces freedom just a little bit more. And, by the way, I asked my male friends since this topic came up here and was on my mind, and I found that I have at least one male friend who regrets that his parents did not have him circumcised at birth. He is afraid of pain and lengthy recovery if he had it done now, but wishes it would have been performed when he was an infant.

Okay, last point, then I go back to my Black Friday (UGH) article: If you are so angry and confused about your parents' decision regarding your own circumcision, why not ask them about it? I'm not saying this as a debate opponent; rather as someone who generally gets along with you and sees you as a decent person, although we disagree on this topic. Are they no longer living, or are you estranged in some way? It seems like maybe some of this resentment you're carrying around would be alleviated if you could at least tell them, "Mom, Dad, I have to say, I've been feeling sad and angry because you chose circumcision for me when I was too young to have a say in the matter. Why did you do that?"

[BookstoreEscapee]

I really wish aniti-circumcision people would stop comparing it to female genital mutilation.
Removal of the clitoris is comparable to removal of the first half of the penis. Circumcision is comparable to removal of the clitoral hood. Such a big difference that comparing the procedures makes those people look silly. It makes me and most other potential listeners tune out.

Add to that the fact that often female "circumcision" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting) goes further than just the clitoris, and is also often done with no anesthesia and in less than sanitary conditions. There is a huge difference between an infant boy, who does not know what's happening, being circumcised in a hospital under anesthesia (as is the most common scenario in Western culture), and a young girl being traumatized by having her most sensitive areas cut apart while being held down by her family members who are supposed to protect her.

"female circumcision or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), refers to "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. The term is almost exclusively used to describe traditional, cultural, and religious procedures where parents must give consent, because of the minor age of the subject...FGC is practiced throughout the world, with the practice concentrated most heavily in Africa. Its practice is extremely controversial. Opposition is motivated by concerns regarding the consent (or lack thereof, in most cases) of the patient, and subsequently the safety and long-term consequences of the procedures."

While issues of consent may be similar, there is a big difference in the practice.

[Slytovhand]

Ah.. the 'norm'... just like slavery was once the 'norm'. Just like public floggings was like the 'norm'... and... yeah, well, you get the idea.

Nope, 'norm' isn't a good enough reason to do anything. And I agree with you Flyn, keep the parents' religion out of a child's life until they're at a stage to understand it (which would actually be rather hypocritical of me, except I don't have kids :p)

And yes, Saydrah, as you can probably guess from my other thread, I'm against any medically unnecessary surgeries on anyone who can't make such a decision for themselves (even if we don't like it... of course, you still have to find a doctor who will go along with some things that may be requested - after all, there are people out there who do a stack of non-norm body modifications...). After all, I've expressed disapproval for unnecessary tonsil removals.

(and yes, it means I need to change my statement to 'non-necessary medical surgery').

Now need to go to 'age of consent' thread.

Saydrah, I'd ask precisely why your friend 'regrets' not having a circumcision. Besides, his arguments are just as invalid as the argument for it.. don't infants go through 'pain and a lengthy recovery' as well??? (or is that only for a longer sized man?? :p)

[Boozy]

And yes, Saydrah, as you can probably guess from my other thread, I'm against any medically unnecessary surgeries on anyone who can't make such a decision for themselves

I guess I am too - except who are we to decide what is and is not "necessary"? Is that not a decision better left to the parents instead of the state?

...don't infants go through 'pain and a lengthy recovery' as well??? (or is that only for a longer sized man?? :p)

Unlike infants, adult males get erections in their sleep, creating the need for suturing of the circumcision wound. Suturing is more painful than the circumcision, but it's necessary to prevent the wound from continually breaking open, scarring, or becoming infected.

Infants also heal at light-speed compared to adults.

[Rapscallion]

I guess I am too - except who are we to decide what is and is not "necessary"?

We're adults who can research, debate, and make an informed choice. I think that qualifies us pretty good for making a general statement of what is acceptable.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

I...
Unlike infants, adult males get erections in their sleep,....

I have to disagree with you there. Infants and even fetuses get erections without stimuli. It wouldn't be very engineeringly unsound to leave a structure unfinished for a decade or more.

[Flyndaran]

We're adults who can research, debate, and make an informed choice. I think that qualifies us pretty good for making a general statement of what is acceptable.

Rapscallion

That seems dangerously close to saying that democracy is sensible with your use of the word "us".

[Slytovhand]

Is that not a decision better left to the parents instead of the state?


yeah, well, that's why I started the other thread. And unfortunately for me, I can't adequately answer it... because for some the answer is a whole-hearthed "NO!!!", and yet, that takes away from the rights of the more enlightened of us in society to make intelligent, informed and sane decisions. The 'laws' the state enacts are basically done so to bring us down to the safest minimal denomination... precisely because people are unlikely to think things through and use the brains they've been given (or let their ego's over-rule them).

My bad - I'm an idealist....

[Pedersen]

Damn. I typed up a long reply last night, and somehow managed to avoid hitting "Submit". Now that is frustrating.

So, now to try to re-capture what I wrote, and add in a bit of new to reply to the new posts.

Pedersen, if you look back through my posts, you will find that I have said that in countries where it is the norm and in cases where only the prepuce is removed, I would agree that the best option to lower rates of female circumcision would be education, not a legal prohibition. This is the exact same way I feel about circumcision in the US.

This is true. Your position has been remarkably consistent, and I do have to applaud you for that. I'm not sure I'm as consistent (I try, but am not sure I succeed).

Also, you needn't condescend and accuse me of changing the subject. This IS an issue of personal freedom and getting the government out of my (hypothetical son's?) pants. Every little intrusion of the government into parents' choices reduces freedom just a little bit more.

There are parallels between this and other debates when it comes to government instrusions versus freedoms. It is very hard not to bring those debates into this one, but they are there, and make nice little comparisons for my brain.

However, since you wish to make it an issue of personal freedoms (while refusing to allow the child the personal freedom to decide on his own), let's explore other aspects of the personal freedom of the parents. Should they be allowed to tatto their child? It is, in many ways, similar to circumcision: A "cosmetic" procedure, supposedly negligible medical risk when performed by qualified professionals, mostly reversible later in life (though not without some pain and scarring), etc. Should parents be allowed the personal freedom to get tattoos on their children? Let's both assume the tattoos will be kept in private areas (such as the buttocks, maybe) and that the tattoos will be inoffensive. If this is acceptable, what body modifications can the parent do that are not acceptable? Where is your limit? For instance, I doubt that you would accept the parent having an arm removed. I know there are limits. I'm curious to know where you place them.

And, by the way, I asked my male friends since this topic came up here and was on my mind, and I found that I have at least one male friend who regrets that his parents did not have him circumcised at birth. He is afraid of pain and lengthy recovery if he had it done now, but wishes it would have been performed when he was an infant.

Damn. I have to completely stop and re-evaluate my ideas. Wait, so do the people out there who are against it. And the people who are upset about it being done to them. We're obviously totally in the wrong. After all, we've found someone who disagrees! Let me go back under my rock.

No, wait, that's stupid. One person disagrees with me. That does not change one very important fact: Your friend has a choice. If getting circumsized really matter to him, he could do it.

In that regard, I am jealous. He gets to decide. I didn't. And neither do millions of other male infants every year. I hope your friend realizes how lucky he is.

Okay, last point, then I go back to my Black Friday (UGH) article: If you are so angry and confused about your parents' decision regarding your own circumcision, why not ask them about it?

As I had said way back here (http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=14391&postcount=37), I'm not really angry with my parents over this. When I was born, this is what was done. Even if they had resisted, they would have been given all the usual stories about it (most of which are a lie of some form or other): He'll be grateful later, he'll be normal, it won't hurt him now, there's strong medical benefits, etc. There would have been no way for them to know any differently, and so they would have signed off and said okay.

Going to them now and saying this would do nothing positive, either for them or for me. It could only give them a guilt trip. Why do that to them? I get along very well, why put an elephant in the room every time we get together? No, there's no point in saying anything to them.

Now, the medical personnel who performed the procedure? Them I'd like to talk to.

Add to that the fact that often female "circumcision" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting) goes further than just the clitoris, and is also often done with no anesthesia and in less than sanitary conditions. There is a huge difference between an infant boy, who does not know what's happening, being circumcised in a hospital under anesthesia (as is the most common scenario in Western culture), and a young girl being traumatized by having her most sensitive areas cut apart while being held down by her family members who are supposed to protect her.

Ah, the favorite bit: Let's ignore the problem here because it's so much worse elsewhere. Well, if we're going to discuss it, let's talk about what's done elsewhere, shall we? Now, I found a bunch of sites on circumcision in the middle east and Africa last night. They talked about how it's done to children, not infants, more often than not. 6 to 8 years old is the youngest, with 10 to 12 years old being common. Here's the one I remember: http://www.circlist.com/

There is a side benefit to my post not getting made, though. I remembered something else that I wanted to share with you. If you wish to compare the extreme versions of FGM, let's do so. Here, I'll help: Subincision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision). That page has links to a few others. It does not discuss (that I could find) whether or not it was done involuntarily to the boys, but it does mention that it's done as a coming of age ritual. I've never heard of being able to opt out of those rituals, though, so I'm fairly certain that you don't get a choice.

Since I know of at least one person in this thread who won't bother to read that link, I'll include some detail from it: Subincision involves cutting an opening on the underside of the penis starting at the head, and exposing the urethra. This can go as far down the shaft as the practitioner desires. Another variation involves splitting only the head. And yet another variation involves complete bisection of the shaft only, and yet another variation involves bisection of the shaft and head.

Many of those still are considered (and practiced as) coming of age rituals.

Now, we come back to my original point: In the US (and several other westernized nations), females are given the full protection of the law to prevent any genital cutting until they reach the age of majority. Males are not. The studies which show widespread medical benefit of such procedures have been discredited already in this thread. So now I am left with the original question I asked: Why are males not afforded the same protections as females?

For reasons I am not entirely clear on, the very idea of equal protection for both genders under the law seems to be viewed as anathema by several people posting to this thread. Maybe they've explained it, and I've failed to understand it, but that is a fairly simple question to me.

I guess I am too - except who are we to decide what is and is not "necessary"? Is that not a decision better left to the parents instead of the state?

Necessary is fairly easy to define, I would think. If not doing the procedure would either reduce the life expectancy of the recipient, or severely impact the quality of life of the recipient, then it can be viewed as necessary.

Almost any form of genital cutting would easily fit that bill, with one exception: Where the child is born with the sex organs of both genders (which happens 1%-2% of the time, if memory serves). For that child, not removing one set of sexual organs would have a severe impact on quality of life, since gender still does play a significant role in society, and such a child would be unable to tell which geneder it is.

Infants also heal at light-speed compared to adults.

So, since infants heal so much faster, and can handle such things so much better, would you now argue for routine removal of the appendix in infants? After all, in a noticeable portion of the population, appendicitis is a serious problem, and removal has no ill effects. So, we should remove it before the child goes home for the first time, right?

[Boozy]

I have to disagree with you there. Infants and even fetuses get erections without stimuli. It wouldn't be very engineeringly unsound to leave a structure unfinished for a decade or more.

You're entirely right; I should have been more specific.

Adult male erections are more powerful (harder) and last longer in duration. The more minor and fleeting erections of an infant do not generally cause problems for a non-sutured circumcision wound, whereas those of an adult generally would.


So, since infants heal so much faster, and can handle such things so much better, would you now argue for routine removal of the appendix in infants?

Actually, I'm not arguing anything. I was simply sharing what information I had about the differences between adult and infant circumcision.

I have no strong opinion on this subject, because I can't bring myself to care that much. That's nothing against those that do care; I just don't see myself getting really into this issue.

We're adults who can research, debate, and make an informed choice. I think that qualifies us pretty good for making a general statement of what is acceptable.


I agree, and I think that's what makes medical procedures a parental or individual choice, in consultation with a doctor. Only someone close to the situation is going to truly be able to understand all the variables.

I was simply expressing my discomfort with making blanket laws to cover all circumstances when each and every person and situation is different.

But that's just my general stance. Like I said, I'm not coming down either way on this specific issue. I haven't thought much about it.

[Flyndaran]

You're entirely right; I should have been more specific.

Adult male erections are more powerful (harder) and last longer in duration. The more minor and fleeting erections of an infant do not generally cause problems for a non-sutured circumcision wound, whereas those of an adult generally would..

There are anti-erection drugs.

Maybe T.M.I., but even though my medication almost entirely removed my sex drive, I still get nightly and even sometimes during the day non-sexual erections

...
I was simply expressing my discomfort with making blanket laws to cover all circumstances when each and every person and situation is different.
...

Law writers are politicians, not lawyers, doctors, grammarians, or anything else reliably. I remember one nonsensicle unneeded law about female genital mutilcation that because of the wording would have made any form of voluntary piercing illegal. When asked about this squashing of female rights, he simply replied, "They do that?"

That's one of the reasons I greatly prefer few laws and a generally small government. Socially more liberal than a european and fiscally conservative unlike modern american republicans.

[rdp78]

Well, I don't think anyone have mention the Jewish tradition of circirmcising 8-day-old baby boys and well, I think that its really young but again it has been going on for thousands of years. I didn't really know that Muslims practice this (how odd that Muslims and Jews have a lot in common but yet they can't get along well) but I did know that female gential mutation is practices by many Muslims as well as Christians in Africa. I remember seeing a picture in a socialogy book of a preteen girl have this done to her and the pain on her face. Now ladies if you ever had a pap smear (or any other similiar procedure) you know that someone messing with your vaj-jay is painful but yet it is only for a few minutes. Now from what I understand female gential mutation is removing some tissue and skin but it can also sewing up the vagina with some space for peeing. It can also be burning it or even ripping it. This is a pain I bet is felt for years to come for these girls and women.

Now I with male circirmcising I mean as long as the person who is doing it is very well trained and certified I don't think it would be a problem. From what I understand it's just the foreskin and nothing else is remove so it can't be that painful. Of course, in that same book there is a story about identical twin boys who got circimcise with a electrical knife and one didn't go so well. The parents decided to make that boy a girl and the twins faternal. Later in life the girl found out she really is a he and converted back to a guy. 20/20 did a story on them and Law & Order: SVU used it as a plot line.

[Pedersen]

Well, I don't think anyone have mention the Jewish tradition of circirmcising 8-day-old baby boys and well, I think that its really young but again it has been going on for thousands of years.

Yep, they have. More times than I care to count. One point, though: The fact that a practice has been going on for thousands of years is not considered sufficient reason to allow that practice to continue. For instance, Westerners frown on any female genital cutting so much that we have enacted laws (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC116) to prevent all of it, at least here in the USA. We also frown on slavery, and that, too, is a custom still practiced in some places around the world.

Tradition is not a valid reason to allow a morally repugnant practice to continue.

but I did know that female gential mutation is practices by many Muslims as well as Christians in Africa. I remember seeing a picture in a socialogy book of a preteen girl have this done to her and the pain on her face.

Many of us have seen similar pictures. Extremely few of us have seen pictures of the boys who undergo subincision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision), and who have to do so as a rite of passage into their tribe. In fact, they will not be considered adults until they have done so.

Now from what I understand female gential mutation is removing some tissue and skin but it can also sewing up the vagina with some space for peeing. It can also be burning it or even ripping it. This is a pain I bet is felt for years to come for these girls and women.

There are various types of it. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting) lists the types, along with links to the World Health Organization official definitions of the types. Type Ia is identical to circumcision. And if the WHO is willing to call it mutilation when it's done to females, I think it's only fair to give it the same name when done to males.

Now I with male circirmcising I mean as long as the person who is doing it is very well trained and certified I don't think it would be a problem. From what I understand it's just the foreskin and nothing else is remove so it can't be that painful.

And yet, it is unnecessary, opens up risks for infection, and excessive bleeding with the negative side effects that that causes. And it removes the choice from the person it is being done to.

Why should we allow such behavior, when the benefits are so rare?

[Slytovhand]

Question Mr P.

If the US decided to ban (make illegal) all forms of Genital Mutilation (thus, any form of circumcision), but there were a tribe of Native Americans who use it as part of a right of adulthood, where would you stand with that?

I ask, because as has been mentioned, there are still aboriginal cultures in the world that practice it. And I'm not 100% where you stand on that - no to Jewish, but to others?

[Boozy]

If the US decided to ban (make illegal) all forms of Genital Mutilation (thus, any form of circumcision), but there were a tribe of Native Americans who use it as part of a right of adulthood, where would you stand with that?

I would guess that Pedersen would be against all forms of MGM on non-consenting males in all cultures, based on what he's said thus far.

If a Native American tribe wanted to perform something as a rite of passage into adulthood, they would have to wait until the boy is old enough to legally consent to medical procedures. That age would probably vary from state to state.

[Pedersen]

Boozy has it correct. To sum it up, if it's something that is unacceptable unless medically necessary, why put an exception in that says "Oh, unless you happen to a specific ethnicity, then it's okay" ?

[Flyndaran]

Boozy has it correct. To sum it up, if it's something that is unacceptable unless medically necessary, why put an exception in that says "Oh, unless you happen to a specific ethnicity, then it's okay" ?

I think you mean rigid religion. Ethnicity means nothing when talking about people's actions except with regards to racism of course.

[Slytovhand]

Therein would lie some sort of paradox/irony.

Said child wouldn't be considered an adult until the ceremony was performed, and thus wouldn't be able to consent as an adult to make the decision.

(of course, this is in an instance where tribal law overrides national laws).

[Saydrah]

Pedersen, I just saw your question for me.

To answer that question, yes, under certain conditions, I would say parents could have infants tattooed with small, unobtrusive designs that are expected in their culture, so long as pain relief is used and the tattoo site receives proper care. However, I would only support this if the same situation exists: A practice is so mainstream that its absence is quite unusual in a particular culture, the procedure is safe, and parents see it as an obligation, meaning they might seek tattooing that would be less safe and more likely to result in infection if the safe tattooing in hospitals under a doctor's supervision was banned.

There are still certain cultures where tattoos are a form of decoration expected of all or certain adults, and to refuse a culturally normal tattoo would be seen as a rejection of one's own family's traditions. I don't think it's my business to say that because I have no tattoos, my viewpoint on the matter is better than theirs. That sort of snooty, superior attitude reeks of xenophobia and cultural bigotry.

[boringscreenname]

I haven't read this entire thread but wanted to add my 2 cents. My son is not circumsized, for all the many reasons already covered in this thread. My BF is also not circumsized and strongly opposes circumcision. Here's a list of websites containing additional information, if anyone's interested.

Procedure
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/methods.html
http://www.usask.ca/medicine/family/...#slide0001.htm

Typical Canadian Circumcision
http://www.intact.ca/video.html

General info
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/preg...rcumcision.htm
http://www.mothering.....by/circumci...cumcision.html
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/FAQ/
http://www.infocirc.org/vice.htm
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/information.htm

MGMvsFGM
http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Develop.html
http://www.infocirc.org/pressrel.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html

Rates
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2001/ (American)
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ (American)
http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/rate1m.html (Canadian)
http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/s...hi-2005-e.html (Canadian)

Medical Communities
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
http://www.nocircnc.org/medicalstatements.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
http://www.intact.ca/saskmemo.html
http://www.nurses.cirp.org
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/

Circumcision Not Cost Effective
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb180294.htm

UTIs
http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

Risks and Complications
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/circumcision.html (clamping methods)
http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm (plastibell)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/3/216 (plastibell)


Breastfeeding
http://www.nocirc.org/statements/breastfeeding.php
http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/

Cancer
http://www.cirp.org/library/statemen...s/1996-02_ACS/
http://www.cancer.or.....enile_cance...5.asp?sitearea

Personal Experiences
http://www.stopcirc.com/
http://www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/chose_to_circ.html
http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/a...laire/circ.php
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/mothers.html

"Look Like Daddy"
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/Like-Son.htm

IntactvsCirced penis care
http://www.nocirc.org/publish/4pam.pdf
http://www.nocirc.org/publish/5pam.pdf
http://www.tornwing.com/peacefulbegi...ysgenitals.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/

Hygiene&problems
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/

Won't it Have to be Done Later?
http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...uncircson.html

News articles
http://www.cirp.org/news/
http://www.infocirc.org/news.htm
http://www.infocirc.org/articles.htm

Pain
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm
http://www.infocirc.org/babypain.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/100/4/626

%Of Pain Control Actually Used
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/101/3/423
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or.../full/101/6/e5

Pain Relief that SHOULD Be Used
http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/WOW/op043.html

Sexual side effects
http://www.boystoo.com/medical/conversion.htm
http://www.reserach/cirp.org/
http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Ethics
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/
http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcis...rcumcision.htm
http://www.sentienttimes.com/03/dec_...umcisionT.html

After-Market Foreskin
http://www.nbc10.com/health/1808693/detail.html

Christian Perspective
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html

Cute articles
http://www.geocities.com/raisingintactsons/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Itsaboy.html

Adult circumcision(why not leave it up to him?)
http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/
http://www.nocircoftx.org/info/vs.html

Foreskin restoration
http://www.norm.org


Other great sites for research
http://www.cirp.org
http://www.circumcision.org
http://www.infocirc.org
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com
http://www.nocirc.org
http://www.noharm.org
http://www.intact.ca
http://www.mothering.com
http://www.fathermag.com
http://www.circumstitions.com
http://www.boystoo.com
http://www.courtchallenge.com
http://www.sicsociety.org
http://www.stopcirc.com
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org
http://www.norm-uk.org

[Flyndaran]

I still say that while the evidence for male circumcision's benefits are still out, so are its drawbacks.

Parents should be allowed to make even mildly harmful medical decisions for thier children. Freedom means accepting individual opinions, and their right to make what are to us mistakes.

Only when a procedure, or its lack, can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be harmful, then, and only then, should we step in.

[Fashion Lad!]

Here is your TMI from me...

I'm circumcised. I don't remember when it happened, so I know I was very young.

I don't think I have any decreased pleasure from sex. I still think it feels pretty damn good. Plus, I don't have to worry about pulling the foreskin back to clean or put a condom on.

Basically, it's low maintenance. :cool:

Now, I will stop talking about my junk... :p

[Gerrinson]

I'm late to this party, I know. But to continue the TMI theme...

I don't think I have any decreased pleasure from sex. I still think it feels pretty damn good. Plus, I don't have to worry about pulling the foreskin back to clean or put a condom on.

I am an uncircumcised man. I've had a few different reactions over the years, but no woman wholly disgusted by it. And, I have to say, while there is a very minor bit of effort needed to clean properly, it's barely more effort than a circumcised man puts into washing himself.

So far as putting on a condom...if you're aroused, pulling the foreskin back is a non issue.

Pleasure wise, my best friend is circumcised, and I know that I have one area that is far more sensitive on me than on him. It could just be that we're different people, I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's because he's circumcised and I'm not.

And while women may find circumcised men more 'aesthetically' pleasing, my g/f said she's never going back to circumcised men because it seems that my foreskin creates a 'ridge' that hits just the right spot and makes things feel 'much, much, much better' to quote her. And not too brag too much. ;)

All in all, I'm glad I am the way I am. My dad was circumcised in middle age, but due solely to medical reasons.

And, I have to agree, amputation/mutilation of any digit (or fraction thereof) should only be done if medically necessary or at the request (with informed consent) of the individual to whom said digit is attached.

Pedersen, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the majority of the human herd has major blinders on for this issue. And I do believe there is quite a double standard when it comes to 'gender equality' issues. But that's a whole different Fratching thread. :rolleyes:

As for the women, I really find it funny (weird, not ha ha) that most seem 'pro choice' of someone to decide what happens to their body, but then say that circumcision is not a big deal.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And therein lies my single biggest issue with it. Women get to choose. Men get to have the choice made for us. WHY?

Guess who has historically ruled almost every society on this earth since the beginning of time? (including modern-day ones)

M-e-n.

And he who holds the power always has made the rules.

Including those pertaining to genitals and the use thereof, for both female and male.

So whoever thought up circumcision and went "heeey, this is a great idea!", dollars to donuts it was a *man*. (And we all know how nutty some of those Victorians could be...) Thus, circumcision is considered acceptable in this society because the men controlling the population instigated that concept. And those who question the status quo are almost always slapped down (either figuratively or literally) because no power likes being questioned; hence, the (patriarchal-based) mindset that "this is always just how it's been done." Whether or not that mindset is right or wrong in regards specifically to circumcision, unless clearly proven one way or the other, I leave up to the individual to decide for him or herself.

Saydrah was right in stating that banning anything is a surefire route to failure in preventing the very thing that one wishes to reduce/eliminate. All banning does is drive a practice underground and make it vastly more unsafe as hacks and amateurs (no pun intended on the former) opt for the cheapie DIY route. Besides, banning worked *real* well with that Prohibition thing, didn't it?

I've read through this thread and I've seen cases both for and against circumcision. I have no strong feelings about it either way, probably because I don't have a dick and have no intentions of ever spawning another being with a dick (hell, I'm just not reproducing, *period*), but also because I haven't seen enough evidence to sway me to one side or the other (it's always best to take Wikipedia, or Crackipedia, as I call it, with a good dose of salt).

I will say though that if you want a circumcision/want your kid to have one, I don't have a problem with it. Likewise, if you *don't* want a circumcision/don't want your kid to have one, I have no problem with that either.

*goes off to fall asleep wondering if that made any sense*

[Slytovhand]

Besides, banning worked *real* well with that Prohibition thing, didn't it?


But... alcohol was popular and people want it for the enjoyment value..... I'm not so sure I'd say the same about a circumcision :p

[smileyeagle1021]

the (patriarchal-based) mindset that "this is always just how it's been done."

matriarchs can have the exact same mindset... pigheadedness doesn't discriminate on gender... you'll notice on the "circumcision is bullshit" video that was posted earlier the one couple they showed had the woman saying how this is how it's always been done, our son needs it too, while the dad was saying, no this can't happen.

But... alcohol was popular and people want it for the enjoyment value..... I'm not so sure I'd say the same about a circumcision :p

and some people find circumsized penises to be pleasing... and looking at numbers they sure are popular, and as Amethyst said, there is the mindset about "this is always how it's been done"... sorry I must agree with him and say it would be just as effective as Prohibition was.

[Pedersen]

and some people find circumsized penises to be pleasing... and looking at numbers they sure are popular, and as Amethyst said, there is the mindset about "this is always how it's been done"... sorry I must agree with him and say it would be just as effective as Prohibition was.

Yep, just like it's been a complete and abject failure at preventing damage being done to women. It's disgusting, really, how often you hear genital mutilation being done to women in this country, against their will. We really have to put an end to the scourge of female genital mutilation in this country first, before we can or even should consider trying to protect all the innocent boys who can or will have this done to them.

What could I have possibly been thinking?

[AFPheonix]

Regardless of how something started, does that mean that it cannot be ended or at least amended to something that all people can agree on? I think people can eventually change their minds so that males can choose to have the procedure done as a body mod when they reach the age of consent. That's something that's going to have to take some education of the populace and some advocation by some people to bring awareness to the subject.
I'm sure having some concrete data on whether babies experience the pain of it when it is done will change the minds of many new parents who are doing it just because that's what's always been done.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Regardless of how something started, does that mean that it cannot be ended or at least amended to something that all people can agree on? I think people can eventually change their minds so that males can choose to have the procedure done as a body mod when they reach the age of consent. That's something that's going to have to take some education of the populace and some advocation by some people to bring awareness to the subject.
I'm sure having some concrete data on whether babies experience the pain of it when it is done will change the minds of many new parents who are doing it just because that's what's always been done.

I'm sure it will eventually change, as all things inevitably do.

FGM raises outrage (and rightfully so) because it's done in a horrific manner and for less than noble purposes. Religion is cited as an excuse, but it's really just a cover for how much the society hates women and views them as objects to be controlled and used by the men. Also, FGM does considerably more physical damage to the woman's body, especially in the most extreme cases. At least with the circumcision the guy (extreme cases notwithstanding) has full function of his genitals, can still feel pleasurable sexual sensations, and the penis generally doesn't cause him pain when he needs to pass excretions.

Circumcision hasn't garnered an outcry because it's done under (mostly) sanitary conditions and can be said to be genuinely religious-based (though of course some people may feel differently); I believe there may be mentions of it in some religious texts? (Whereas as far as I know there aren't any mandates in Biblical or other texts to do FGM) Hence part of the mindset that says "this is just how it's always been done." People tend to raise their generations in much the same manner as they grew up in, so things related to religious practices often continue, whether there's any clear need for them to do so or not. In short, old habits die hard.

However, as we've seen especially in recent years, religion changes too, so there's no reason to think that the attitudes regarding circumcision won't change as well.

[smileyeagle1021]

before we can or even should consider trying to protect all the innocent boys who can or will have this done to them.

What could I have possibly been thinking?

you'll notice I never said that trying to prevent it would be wrong... just that an all out prohibition would never work. If you truly want to stop the practice you need to present your case one person at a time. There's at least one person on this board who has at least reconsidered whether or not circumcision should be practiced. Will it happen overnight? No it won't. However, a legal prohibition will just cause resentment and bitterness and will not slow the practice at all, only drive it underground where mistakes will happen a LOT more often. Like it or not, the current system, however flawed it may be, is a relatively safe system and shouldn't and can't be dismantled overnight.

[AFPheonix]

I'm sure it will eventually change, as all things inevitably do.

FGM raises outrage (and rightfully so) because it's done in a horrific manner and for less than noble purposes. Religion is cited as an excuse, but it's really just a cover for how much the society hates women and views them as objects to be controlled and used by the men. Also, FGM does considerably more physical damage to the woman's body, especially in the most extreme cases. At least with the circumcision the guy (extreme cases notwithstanding) has full function of his genitals, can still feel pleasurable sexual sensations, and the penis generally doesn't cause him pain when he needs to pass excretions.

Circumcision hasn't garnered an outcry because it's done under (mostly) sanitary conditions and can be said to be genuinely religious-based (though of course some people may feel differently); I believe there may be mentions of it in some religious texts? (Whereas as far as I know there aren't any mandates in Biblical or other texts to do FGM) Hence part of the mindset that says "this is just how it's always been done." People tend to raise their generations in much the same manner as they grew up in, so things related to religious practices often continue, whether there's any clear need for them to do so or not. In short, old habits die hard.

However, as we've seen especially in recent years, religion changes too, so there's no reason to think that the attitudes regarding circumcision won't change as well.

Male circumcision is most definitely called for in Genesis. It's how the ancient Hebrew set themselves apart from the other Canaanites according to the Bible.
FGM is not mandated by the Koran, but it was picked up as Islam conquered through nothern Africa since it was an ancient tribal tradition in some areas. It moved back up into other conquered territories with time.
I will agree that while modern male circumcision is not as horrific as some forms of FGM, it still is a body mod that should be the choice of the person that is receiving it, not their parents or their doctors. It unnecessarily removes a body part that has a function.
Now, if that body part has issues, (and there are occasionally complications like tightening and tearing) that call for removal, then fine. But I don't agree with doing it just because an old book that we disregard half the ancient laws in anyways calls for it or because that's what's always been done. There's a lot of things that have been done medically that have been shown to be of unsound practice at a later date.

[Slytovhand]

While I agree that some people may choose to go 'underground' for their circumcisions for a religious belief, and thus putting people's lives at risk, it should also be admitted that the actual number of operations will dramatically drop, and the whole attitude to it will change almost immediately on a massive scale.

I find it highly unlikely that those who would normally have it done on their sons "because it's just the way it's always been done", would still go to the trouble of getting it done in an illegal operation (let's just assume the pun is intended :p).

Not suggesting that's a good idea (but then, not saying it's not either, Ped :p).... just saying a likely outcome - the reduction of a social standard.

[Amethyst Hunter]

While I agree that some people may choose to go 'underground' for their circumcisions for a religious belief, and thus putting people's lives at risk, it should also be admitted that the actual number of operations will dramatically drop, and the whole attitude to it will change almost immediately on a massive scale.

I find it highly unlikely that those who would normally have it done on their sons "because it's just the way it's always been done", would still go to the trouble of getting it done in an illegal operation

Nope. This was the same rationale behind the abortion bans (yes, I'm going there). When Roe v. Wade legalized it, the number of back-alley cheapie operations AND injuries/deaths from those operations DROPPED dramatically, and have stayed down ever since.

NEVER underestimate someone's willingness to go beyond limits if they feel desperate enough to do so. Banning. Does. Not. Work.

(To illustrate this, take a look at some of the anti-cigarette bans around the country. Smokers are still puffing away, they just can't do it where it's as visible, and I doubt too many of them are motivated by a ban to quit.)

[Greenday]

I don't think comparing them to the smoking bans are quite the same. The smoking bans are there to protect non-smokers, not to stop people from smoking all together. Not quite the same as the ban suggested for male genital mutilation.

[Pedersen]

Guess who has historically ruled almost every society on this earth since the beginning of time? (including modern-day ones)

M-e-n.

And he who holds the power always has made the rules.

Reading enough of your posts, AH, I'm starting to believe that you hate men on general principle, and as a result, for this debate, your opinion might well be somewhat skewed towards the idea "Well, so many men want to take away my right to control my body that by supporting the idea of forced circumcision I can take away some of their own control."

I might be wrong. But that is the attitude that I'm starting to see from you.

So whoever thought up circumcision and went "heeey, this is a great idea!", dollars to donuts it was a *man*. (And we all know how nutty some of those Victorians could be...) Thus, circumcision is considered acceptable in this society because the men controlling the population instigated that concept. And those who question the status quo are almost always slapped down (either figuratively or literally) because no power likes being questioned; hence, the (patriarchal-based) mindset that "this is always just how it's been done." Whether or not that mindset is right or wrong in regards specifically to circumcision, unless clearly proven one way or the other, I leave up to the individual to decide for him or herself.

I have provided concrete proof of harm in a very simple form: I have been harmed by it, emotionally. I am not the only one (far from it) to feel this way.

Others have been harmed by it, including those who were subjected to the safe and sanitary conditions. Cases have been documented where a male child's circumcision was too aggressive, and he was therefore turned into a female. Other cases have been documented where excessive bleeding and infections have occurred.

So far, I've been told that it's acceptable risk. Oh, and that the emotional trauma of people like myself is apparently so insignificant that it does not matter.

Saydrah was right in stating that banning anything is a surefire route to failure in preventing the very thing that one wishes to reduce/eliminate. All banning does is drive a practice underground and make it vastly more unsafe as hacks and amateurs (no pun intended on the former) opt for the cheapie DIY route. Besides, banning worked *real* well with that Prohibition thing, didn't it?

Laws: Things that state what you are and are not legally allowed to do. They are made knowing that people will violate them, and that the violators will have to be punished. Some other things that have been outright banned by law: theft, murder, speeding, jaywalking, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.

Now, since those laws are broken so often, we should just go ahead and toss them out too, right? I mean, after all, they work about as well as Prohibition did, so they're just as useless and should be stricken from the books, right?

Oh, wait, they're different. They're ones that most people agree on. Well, except for the speeding. Most drivers have a tendency to go at least a little above the speed limit. Still, bad law, no more being on the books for you!

I've read through this thread and I've seen cases both for and against circumcision. I have no strong feelings about it either way, probably because I don't have a dick and have no intentions of ever spawning another being with a dick (hell, I'm just not reproducing, *period*), but also because I haven't seen enough evidence to sway me to one side or the other (it's always best to take Wikipedia, or Crackipedia, as I call it, with a good dose of salt).

Then you haven't followed the links from the wikipedia pages that I gave. You really should. Wikipedia makes a good starting point for learning. Since most people wouldn't follow through on it, I also provided other links that discussed various forms of MGM. In fact, I rarely used Wikipedia for MGM, and mostly used it for FGM. Now, since Wikipedia gets so much wrong, that must mean that FGM isn't really that horrific, so we should totally allow FGM at will, right?

As for the arguments for, I'd really like to hear a good argument for it being done to someone who cannot consent that does not involve medical need. "Aesthetics" doesn't cut it. "It's the way it's always been done" doesn't cut it. "Men came up with it, and therefore they can put up with it" doesn't do it either. And, finally "Well, it's safe enough most of the time, so why not" doesn't do it either.

I'm sure having some concrete data on whether babies experience the pain of it when it is done will change the minds of many new parents who are doing it just because that's what's always been done.

Little known factoid: For several decades, it was commonly believed by the medical community that infants did not experience pain. This went so far as to allow open heart surgeries on infants without benefit of anesthesia of any sort. Yes, I'm serious. More info at these links:


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-08-babies-pain_x.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0CE1DC173CF931A35752C0A964958260
http://www.uams.edu/info/Updates/October01/anand.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4875196.stm


To some degree, the medical community still holds this belief.

FGM raises outrage (and rightfully so) because it's done in a horrific manner and for less than noble purposes. Religion is cited as an excuse, but it's really just a cover for how much the society hates women and views them as objects to be controlled and used by the men. Also, FGM does considerably more physical damage to the woman's body, especially in the most extreme cases. At least with the circumcision the guy (extreme cases notwithstanding) has full function of his genitals, can still feel pleasurable sexual sensations, and the penis generally doesn't cause him pain when he needs to pass excretions.

I thought you said you read this whole thread? You missed some critical bits if you did. I'll summarize them here for you:

Circumcision was advocated, starting in the 1800's, as a way to reduce the sex drive of young buys.

FGM, Type 1A, is a direct analog to circumcision. The clitoral hood is removed, and that's it. The more extreme forms of FGM? Yes, they're bad. So are the more extreme forms of MGM, which include subincision, superincision, and genital bisection. Subincision and superincision involve cutting the penis up by the head, creating an opening to the depth of the urethra. One does it on the underside, the other does it on the top. Genital bisection is exactly what it sounds like: Cutting the penis in half.

Again, FGM is prohibited by law, all forms of it, unless medically necessary. I'm just asking for equal treatment.

Circumcision hasn't garnered an outcry because it's done under (mostly) sanitary conditions and can be said to be genuinely religious-based (though of course some people may feel differently); I believe there may be mentions of it in some religious texts? (Whereas as far as I know there aren't any mandates in Biblical or other texts to do FGM) Hence part of the mindset that says "this is just how it's always been done." People tend to raise their generations in much the same manner as they grew up in, so things related to religious practices often continue, whether there's any clear need for them to do so or not. In short, old habits die hard.

I take issue with that on two levels, actually. First is the implicit assumption that a valid religion requires a text. Several tribal cultures had religious traditions long before they were capable of writing, and some of those traditions called for various levels of FGM. The fact that it wasn't written down does not invalidate their religion, nor its significance within their tribe.

Second is the idea that religion should be allowed to trump the personal freedoms of the person having these choices inflicted upon them. If you agree with that sentiment, then you should just as well agree with the idea that highly christian parents should be able to choose who their daughter will marry (as this is something that is done in the Bible quite often). You would also have to agree that the wife should be completely subservient to her husband (again, called for biblically).

If you don't agree with those two biblical edicts, then how can you agree with the edict that says to cut someone within days of their birth simply because they happen to have been born male?

[Flyndaran]

Whatever AH's motives may be, you can't argue with her statement. Men have ruled and most likely will forever rule over women. It's sexist, but true.

It's a basic fact that men are, on average, more aggressive, and willing to follow orders unquestioningly.
I must admit that the most aggressive person I ever met was a woman, so pay close attention to the "on average" part.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Reading enough of your posts, AH, I'm starting to believe that you hate men on general principle, and as a result, for this debate, your opinion might well be somewhat skewed towards the idea "Well, so many men want to take away my right to control my body that by supporting the idea of forced circumcision I can take away some of their own control."

I might be wrong. But that is the attitude that I'm starting to see from you.

I'm not even gonna bother refuting this crap. You're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say. :rolleyes:

So far, I've been told that it's acceptable risk. Oh, and that the emotional trauma of people like myself is apparently so insignificant that it does not matter.

Point out to me where exactly *I* said anything like that.

And this is where I say 'adieu' (or however it's spelled) to this thread.

[Pedersen]

I'm not even gonna bother refuting this crap. You're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what I say. :rolleyes:

Yep, that's me, the single most inflexible person on the planet. Haven't had anybody give me anything to think about even, much less change my mind. Would be completely impossible to make me think anything else.

Point out to me where exactly *I* said anything like that.

I'll be more than happy to, provided you do something similar for me: Point out to me where exactly *I* said that you said anything like that. I said (to quote myself): "So far, I've been told that it's acceptable risk. Oh, and that the emotional trauma of people like myself is apparently so insignificant that it does not matter." When I said that, I was speaking over the course of this entire thread.

14 pages right now. And lots of places in this thread where those things have been either explicitly stated or very strongly implied.

I didn't say that *you* specifically said it. I said that it had been said.

And this is where I say 'adieu' (or however it's spelled) to this thread.

That, of course, is your choice.

[fireheart17]

OK....here's my viewpoints on this (not gonna quote anyone else lest I get flamed via PM)

Circumcision for Men: IMHO, it really should be left up to the male in question whether to get it or not. But only AFTER all the information has been explained to them by an unbiased source i.e. a doctor. I have heard that it makes it easier to wash the penis...anyone here care to follow on that?
Circumcision for women: Given that the only place I've really heard this going on is in some African communities and it's often due to religious or cultural beliefs, I'm mostly against it. The type that involves ONLY removing the clitoral hood...I'll say that as a maybe. Any other forms...noo way. Mostly because at that point, the girls may be aware that it's not the only way for them and/or may not consent to the procedure.

Basically, they should be made aware before it happens.

[Seshat]

I am not against voluntary circumcision. If you choose it, then more power to you. If there is a medical reason (which does happen, but is a very small fraction of the total number of cases), I accept it, and quietly.

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.


This sums up my feelings on the matter as well. And ditto for female circumcision, or any other form of body modification.

Informed adults who are competent to make their own choices: go for it.
(And they should be paying for it themselves, too.)

People who are incompetent to make their own choices, or whose psyches are (or are likely to be) insufficiently developed to fully comprehend the issues: only for medical reasons, and with an informed competent guardian/carer agreeing on their behalf.
(Paid for by whatever means the society uses to pay for medical stuff.)

Insufficiently informed people: provide them with the information.

[Gerrinson]

I have heard that it makes it easier to wash the penis...anyone here care to follow on that?

I think I posted about this earlier in the thread, but it's been a while and I'm too lazy too look.

That being said, I'm an uncircumsized man. It's not at all difficult to clean myself. Circumcision might save me 2 - 3 seconds a day. Maybe 5 seconds, tops. Not really worth the effort of cutting off bits, in my opinion.

[Seshat]

And my mother discussed it with me as part of the whole 'where do babies come from'/child-rearing prep thing.

Apparently it makes no significant different in raising a baby boy either. Cleanliness is easy.

[Flyndaran]

I've changed my opinion since this thread started.
I don't see circumcision as mutilation or major in any way... BUT if it ain't broke don't fix it seems like unasailable logic.

Mostly OT: This is why I've decided not to castrate my most recent cat. He has no desire for and is still afraid of all cats including those in heat. The only thing he has shown sexual interest in is my left arm. Yeah; ewwwww is right.
But until and unless he shows even the slightest interest in gettin' it on with females I won't allow anyone to cut anything off of him.

[AFPheonix]

Are there unfixed female cats at your residence? If so, I would neuter him, as he will get over his fear and you will have kittens.
Further, he will start marking if you keep him intact. His urine will also have a much stronger odor than if he was neutered.
Also, he will be at much higher risk for testicular or prostate cancers if you leave him intact.
It's cheap, it's not too hard on the cat, do it for his well being and peace of mind.

[Flyndaran]

Are there unfixed female cats at your residence? If so, I would neuter him, as he will get over his fear and you will have kittens.
Further, he will start marking if you keep him intact. His urine will also have a much stronger odor than if he was neutered.
Also, he will be at much higher risk for testicular or prostate cancers if you leave him intact.
It's cheap, it's not too hard on the cat, do it for his well being and peace of mind.

It's freakin' castration! How anyone is able to call it a minor surgery is beyond me. My Cerbee nearly died during that routine operation.
I've had intact males and not one ever marked the area. All the markers have been females post hyster-ufo-ectomies in what I call the "Urine wars of '98.
I try to refrain from rude comments but DUH! removal of the testicles decreases the risk of testicular cancer.
Smackers is not just afraid of cats he actively dislikes females in heat and has decided that my arm is his girlfriend. He might be gay. I know that it's not to uncommon in dogs, but I've never heard of a gay cat.

[AFPheonix]

Why yes, it IS freakin' castration. That's the point. It's also part of being a good pet owner if you don't intend to breed.
Our only colt from this year will be getting his pockets picked as soon as his 2nd testicle hurries up and descends. Every colt gets gelded. All dogs and cats get spayed and neutered.
Pretty much the only animals that get to stay intact around here are the mares and the chickens.

[Flyndaran]

Normally I would have vets castrate my cats... BUT I don't take surgery lightly. If Smackers starts showing any interest in females in heat, then I will reevaluate my position and likely take him to the vet de-baller.
I just still feel reticent, because of how close to dying a previous cat came when he went under the knife.

[Slytovhand]

Pretty much the only animals that get to stay intact around here are the mares and the chickens.

Humans are animals too...:D

[smileyeagle1021]

but I've never heard of a gay cat.

i'm pretty sure my cat is gay...

and I have to agree with the people saying that spaying/neutering is the responsible thing to do... just because a cat has never done something before doesn't mean they won't in the future... cat's are like humans... very unpredictable.

[Flyndaran]

I know I should... But ever since I had rectal surgery without any post-op pain meds I became incapable of taking my cat to the vet for snippage. I know it's a mostly illogical mental block.
I just need one more reason to have him castrated.

[Pedersen]

Wow, an interesting turn for this thread.

Of course, I have to wonder if, maybe, a different thread about spaying/neutering of non-humans might be more appropriate? After all, even though the thread isn't titled "Human Male Genital Mutilation", it is pretty strongly implied that this thread is about humans. In fact, a good 14 pages of thread about humans seems to agree with me.