quote:

---

Can we make arguments for circumsicion on young boys while at the same time maintaining arguments against FGM?

---

Yes. Male circumcision can be done for legitimate medical reasons (e.x. it seems to reduce the transmission of HIV). FGM has no such purpose.

Also, it doesn't have any effect on your sex life. Just trust me on that one. The entire purpose of FGM, on the other hand, is to make sex painful and pleasureless for women.

[ 13. July 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
 

---

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :
 
Circumcision should not be routine practice, should have some reason other than preference or "to look like dad", and is a serious medical procedure. It has be deinsured in most Canadian jurisdictions, and is recommended not to be routinely done by the various physician groups.

There is infirm evidence about disease such as HIV, and others. It is not good enough data to support the operation.

It seems to me that it is very justified to discourage circumcision for any purpose other than medical, or firm religious conviction (Judaism, Islam). Some who wants to have one on their child needs to justify this.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
No, they shouldn't. Why allow Jews and Muslims to submit their children to elective medical procedures deemed to dangerous for other children simply because their religion demands it? If you aren't prepared to say the procedure should be banned regardless of religion, then kindly mind your own damn business.

[ 13. July 2012, 19:15: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
For our friends from across the pond, it is important to note that routine circumcision of male neonates is still extremely common in America and used to be almost universal, certainly amongst Americans of European origin. It was only less likely amongst persons living in isolated and impoverished areas, unassimilated immigrant communities, or amongst African-American or Latino populations.
 

---

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
Hmmm @ BA - well it's been a major cultural/religious marker for these groups for millennia and to ban it would have the effect of alienating those religious populations even more. To answer the OP - perhaps it would be better to leave the decision to the child when he comes of age - an argument that can also be applied to Christian baptism; however, there can be absolutely NO comparison between male circumcision and FGM
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
There can be a comparison, namely, the lack of choice. If people want to mutilate their genitals, fine, but let them chose.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
FGM is a VERY different thing to male circumcision.

As has been stated there are no clear benefits to male circumcision.

Some people say it's more hygienic but I say poppycock to that. It's unhealthy to let any part of your body go unwashed. We don't remove the armpits or feet from children we just teach them how to use a bar of soap.

Speaking personally I have found that while sex is still as enjoyable as before, (I use condoms so maybe no real difference there?) foreplay isn't as enjoyable as it was before I had to get it done.

For those who don't remember or missed it: http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=70;t=014180
 

---

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
If you aren't prepared to say the procedure should be banned regardless of religion, then kindly mind your own damn business.

---

quote:

---

I don't put any stock in the "Let them make up their own minds" argument

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Zach82 said:

quote:

---

I don't put any stock in the "Let them make up their own minds" argument

---

Would you mind unpacking that a little?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...

---

Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.

If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
]Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.

---

quote:

---

If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?

---

quote:

---

Until he's an adult, he hasn't got any [religious freedom].

---

None? At sixteen (eighteen? twenty-one?) he magically gains the religious freedom?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
One may argue that male circumcision should not be done without consent, but to equate it with FGM is ridiculous.
Rather like comparing a tattoo with amputation.
 

---

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
circumcised guys DO look better tho
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
Zach82 said:

quote:

---

Until he's an adult, he hasn't got any [religious freedom].

---

None? At sixteen (eighteen? twenty-one?) he magically gains the religious freedom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...

---

Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.

---

quote:

---

The problem with that is, who is the 'me' in 'my religion'. It's the parents. Generally, we don't say now that a child is their parents' property, to do with as they please. What is different in this case? I resisted all pressures to have our children baptised until they could understand what it meant, and see no reason why circumcision should be different.

---

quote:

---

Not magically- legally

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.

---

Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
Seeing as circumcision doesn't really cause any detriment to boys ...

---

Maybe you're cool with it, but I've known more than one guy who wished his parents hadn't needlessly had part of his body cut off.

If circumcision is a matter of religious freedom, how about the religious freedom of the boy who may decide not to embrace his parents' faith as an adult?

---

So are you against infant baptism, too, then?

---

quote:

---

I mean, baptism doesn't cause an irreversible anatomical change. So there's that difference. I'm not aware of any minister accidentally causing hemorrhage or infection during a baptism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.

---

Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.

---

If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.

---

Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.

---

If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
[QUOTE]]What's to unpack? It's a parent's job to teach their children what's right. I think being a member of the Church is for the best, so I will, when I have little Zachs, have them become members of the Church through baptism.

---

Baptism is one thing. Cutting off part of a persons body is another thing.

---

If the argument against circumcision is "parents don't have the right to decide their child's religion" then no, it's not another thing. It's quite the same thing.

---

Ok let me put it another way. Arguing that if it's ok for parents to baptise children then it should be ok to circumcise them is a stupid comparison. In one you are splashing some water on their head. In another you are ripping a piece of their body off.

---

quote:

---

The "parental choice" trail is a dead end. Everything in an infant's life is decided by their parents w/o the child's consent

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Unreformed Yes I should never ignore the if.

I was posting while still thinking of Zach82's post rather than paying full attention to yours.

---

My mistake. Sorry.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
It isn't often that I agree 100% with cliffdweller.
 

---

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
AIUI, the circumcision of a Jewish boy when he is eight days old makes him part of the Jewish community. If he is not circumcised then, he never totally belongs. (The Bible makes an exception for boys born into families where hemophilia is present.)

Christianity does not require that a person be baptized at a certain time. This is an important difference.

Moo
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The question then simply becomes "is it abusive?"--

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives.

---

That's clearly not true.

There's no "must" about it. There is a very obvious default option which automatically applies if no one thinks to make such a decision.

I didn't make a decision not to cut off my foreskin today. I didn't make a decision not to cut off my son's foreskin when he was born. I can go for, what, whole weeks at a time without it ever ocurring to me to make a decision not to cut off anyone's foreskin at all.

I can't help but think it is reasonable for Jewish parents to have their sons circumcised, since it is such an important part of the cultural identity in which they will grow up. It seems to me that on balance more harm would be done forbidding the practice than allowing it. That doesn't make the routine circumcision of infants for no discernable reason at all any less odd or wrong.

---

quite so. However, there is still no comparison between the removal of foreskin of the penis and the removal of the clitoris/labia minor/major and stitching up of the vulva which all come under the heading of female (so-called) circumcision
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
quite so. However, there is still no comparison between the removal of foreskin of the penis and the removal of the clitoris/labia minor/major and stitching up of the vulva which all come under the heading of female (so-called) circumcision

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Should all of us circumcised American non-Jewish/non-Muslim males just assume that the fact we don't feel ourselves to have been abused by the involuntary loss of our foreskins is an artifact of an insightless identification with the aggressor and thus get us into analysis at the earliest opportunity ("Run, don't walk...)?

Seriously, apart from a few disturbed dudes and excessively hippy dippy tree huggers, I don't think any circumcised males in this country are bemoaning the loss of a bit of skin. I got my tonsils out as well -- that was more of a castration anxiety provoking event, let me tell you...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Should all of us circumcised American non-Jewish/non-Muslim males just assume that the fact we don't feel ourselves to have been abused by the involuntary loss of our foreskins is an artifact of an insightless identification with the aggressor and thus get us into analysis at the earliest opportunity ("Run, don't walk...)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Circumcision is simply one of a myriad of decisions parents must make for their children that will indeed impact the rest of their lives.

---

That's clearly not true.

There's no "must" about it. There is a very obvious default option which automatically applies if no one thinks to make such a decision.

I didn't make a decision not to cut off my foreskin today. I didn't make a decision not to cut off my son's foreskin when he was born. I can go for, what, whole weeks at a time without it ever ocurring to me to make a decision not to cut off anyone's foreskin at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Am I the only one who finds this conversation mildly weird in a culture where people are getting multiple holes in their anatomy for the sake of fashion right, left and (shudder) center? Many of them minors. And tattoos up the wazoo (well, maybe not there...)

In a lot of cultures, little girls get their ears pierced at a month old, by Mom, using a (hopefully) clean needle. No religious reason, just "pretty."

---

quote:

---

Unlike these things, circumcision is a major religious rite for many people, and has the added minor advantage of mostly eliminating any chance of balanitis or penile cancer. It also apparently benefits the kid's future wife with less chance of cervical cancer. Granted, these are minor advantages; but the procedure itself is minor in comparison to something like tonsillectomy or etc. Let alone FGM.

Can things go wrong? Obviously, which is why you choose your doctor/mohel very very carefully. But it's not rocket surgery. (sorry, had to use that line once in my life)

---

quote:

---

Now somebody flame me for commenting on a subject I do not possess the anatomy for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Can things go wrong? Obviously, which is why you choose your doctor/mohel very very carefully. But it's not rocket surgery. (sorry, had to use that line once in my life)

Now somebody flame me for commenting on a subject I do not possess the anatomy for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There can be a comparison, namely, the lack of choice. If people want to mutilate their genitals, fine, but let them chose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Can things go wrong? Obviously, which is why you choose your doctor/mohel very very carefully. But it's not rocket surgery. (sorry, had to use that line once in my life)

Now somebody flame me for commenting on a subject I do not possess the anatomy for.

---

No, I'll flame you for screwing up a stock phrase and turning it into a malapropism. It's rocket science, not rocket surgery.

---

Thank you for stating the obvious. It was a joke, dude.
 

---

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I think that, if we try really hard, we can come up with a joke about circumcision and "Lamb Chopped."
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Choose doctor carefully??? What planet did you come from?

The North American custom is to stick the infant's penis in a clamp. The clamp is to make the surgery as simple. That's why circumcision is the most common cosmetic surgery in North America.

That's what you get when you have a practice in search of a reason.
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I think that, if we try really hard, we can come up with a joke about circumcision and "Lamb Chopped."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
No, I'll flame you for screwing up a stock phrase and turning it into a malapropism. It's rocket science, not rocket surgery.

---

It's a joke SPK. A deliberate mis-malapropism. And not too baggily shabby in my onion, but your my age may vary.
 

---

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :
 
My grandson had to be circumcised at age 4 for medical reasons and it turned out to be a very traumatic experience for him and his family. My daughter vowed that should she have another baby boy she would have him circumcised in infancy rather than put another little boy through that again. My grandson is fine now and there were no complications from the procedure, but he would have had severe complications from not undergoing the operation (which was done under a general anaesthetic)
I agree with the comments about children having ears pierced which I consider to be an act of child abuse.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI, the circumcision of a Jewish boy when he is eight days old makes him part of the Jewish community. If he is not circumcised then, he never totally belongs. (The Bible makes an exception for boys born into families where hemophilia is present.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

However, in many parts of the US, if you have a hospital birth you WILL have to choose, one way or the other. You will be asked, and an answer will be expected. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angel Wrestler:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
There can be a comparison, namely, the lack of choice. If people want to mutilate their genitals, fine, but let them chose.

---

The same argument could be made about infant baptism, though baptism doesn't make a physical scar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:


Slightly interesting aside. Do transatlantic shipmates pick up Lucia's pun in "continue to be done willy-nilly?" In the same territory, I have to admit Mary LA's 'ubudodo' is a great euphemism. Would you object if I took it up?

---

 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I just wish there were some men on the Ship who were circumcised as a babies for religious reasons who could tell how they feel about it now. Would a Jewish male feel uncomfortably outside the tribe if his parents hadn't been allowed to have the traditional procedure?

I bet there are some Jewish blogs and message boards lit up on this issue right now.

---

The example of the man I know for whom the mutilation of his genitals is still a traumatic act is Jewish.

Otherwise, GS is spot on. It's obvious that baptism is reversible and doesn't involve chopping parts of the body off.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
In the days of the Roman Empire, Roman men exercised naked, so it was quite obvious if you were circumcised or not. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Jews who wanted to assimilate with Roman culture had an operation to reverse circumcision. That has always sounded bizarre to me, but might be relevant to this discussion. Is such a procedure possible?

On a personal note I am a non-Jewish Brit who was circumcised at birth. (I was born in an Arab country, and the argument was that it prevented sand getting stuck in the foreskin - Ouch!) Until this thread I've never ever thought of myself as "mutilated" in any way, and am considering getting offended if only I could summon up the energy. To be blunt, I really like my cock just as it is, and wouldn't want it any other way.

(And finally - George Spigot, what does your sig mean? I've Googled "CS Lewis' Head" and got nothing useful. )
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
@Robert Armin

It's in reference to the head in Lewis's That hidious strength. (Awful book).

Here's the essay the quotes from.
(Not mine).

Science fiction as the bible.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Thanks for that GS. Disagree with you about That Hideous Strength - but that would definitely be a tangent on this thread!
 

---

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
[qb]

Slightly interesting aside. Do transatlantic shipmates pick up Lucia's pun in "continue to be done willy-nilly?" In the same territory, I have to admit Mary LA's 'ubudodo' is a great euphemism. Would you object if I took it up?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
AIUI, the circumcision of a Jewish boy when he is eight days old makes him part of the Jewish community. If he is not circumcised then, he never totally belongs. (The Bible makes an exception for boys born into families where hemophilia is present.)

---

The Bible can't possibly make an exception for boys born into families where hemophilia is present, because hemophilia didn't exist before the 19th century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
In the days of the Roman Empire, Roman men exercised naked, so it was quite obvious if you were circumcised or not. I'm sure I've read somewhere that Jews who wanted to assimilate with Roman culture had an operation to reverse circumcision. That has always sounded bizarre to me, but might be relevant to this discussion. Is such a procedure possible? *snip*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
*snip*

---

---

Ouch.
 

---

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
*snip*

---

---

Ouch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

However, in many parts of the US, if you have a hospital birth you WILL have to choose, one way or the other. You will be asked, and an answer will be expected.

---

You see to a Brit like me that just seems bizarre, that an elective, cosmetic procedure should be offered as routine to newborns. I don't even know how you would go about getting this done to a newborn in the UK. Presumably you would have to pay for it privately as I'm sure the NHS would not pay for it. It certainly was never mentioned when my son was born. It sounds like it is just an embedded cultural practice in the US. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
circumcised guys DO look better tho

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I don't all that often finding myself agreeing with Giles Fraser, either in print or on R4, but there's a good short piece by him here .

I entirely agree with him that, although this case was about a Moslem, German law deciding against 'so central an aspect of Jewish identity is surely as incendiary as it gets.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So I'd be fascinated to know why in Jewish culture circumcisions have to be done on babies and can't wait until consent is an option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
I wonder if we might consider changing the language, and think of the word "circumcision" as a euphemism. This thread reads quite differently if you replace "cut of the end of a baby's penis vs FGM".

. . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So I'd be fascinated to know why in Jewish culture circumcisions have to be done on babies and can't wait until consent is an option.

---

My understanding (not my area of expertise) is that the procedure is much simpler medically on newborns, requiring only a single snip. Having no basis of comparison, I invite correction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
I wonder if we might consider changing the language, and think of the word "circumcision" as a euphemism. This thread reads quite differently if you replace "cut of the end of a baby's penis vs FGM".

. . .

---

Go hang out in locker rooms and peek. Try to not get arrested.

Come back and report once you know what you are talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
I wonder if we might consider changing the language, and think of the word "circumcision" as a euphemism. This thread reads quite differently if you replace "cut of the end of a baby's penis vs FGM".

Myself, the very idea of someone cutting off the end of such a sensitive part of the body is, well -- shudder -- landing gear retract into fuselage -- can't actually find words. I'm not saying anything here about the mutilation of female genitalia, just thinking we should consider calling something what it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
So I'd be fascinated to know why in Jewish culture circumcisions have to be done on babies and can't wait until consent is an option.

---

My understanding (not my area of expertise) is that the procedure is much simpler medically on newborns, requiring only a single snip. Having no basis of comparison, I invite correction.

---

Google Gomco clamp, the instrument of choice in North America. For adults they just use a bigger clamp, the rest is the same.

The difference is that adults have to be sedated more as their greater mass is a problem if there is a violent reaction.

Infants are easier to deal with. Google Circumcision Board or Restraint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
I wonder if we might consider changing the language, and think of the word "circumcision" as a euphemism. This thread reads quite differently if you replace "cut of the end of a baby's penis vs FGM".

. . .

---

Go hang out in locker rooms and peek. Try to not get arrested.

Come back and report once you know what you are talking about.

---

Hmmm. Not too many new born babies in locker rooms in the past 50 years of my observance of same.

I'll assume you're trying to be funny with your other comment and ignore it. Please don't personalize this further.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
circumcised guys DO look better tho

---

Strongly disagree.

---

horses, Leo, for courses
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
WARNING: Non-Erotic, but nekkid, pictures.

Circumcised penis

Uncircumcised penis

Baby before circumcision

Baby after circumcision

Circumcised banana
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Since in my work I deal with young parents, Medicaid, private insurance, newborns-through-age-21, specialist referrals, pediatricians, urologists, etc. --

And since one of my sons was circumcised by cutting off the end of his foreskin, while for the other it was done with a clear plastic ring-clamp thingy (left on him to kill off the end of the foreskin & cause it to fall off like the umbilical stump) --

I do have opinions.

I'd say any circumcision, whether a mohel does it on the eighth day or whether a physician does it in the 80th year, is only related to the ritual mutilation of tiny girls' genitals in that all procedures concerned involve genitals (as has been stated upthread).

I do the recording of diagnoses and submit the billing for the newborns -- many babies born around here in a given year have extra bits of fingers, toes, earlobe, which are snipped/ligated off, and several each year have differences in how their urethras progress to penis-end. Some of those abnormalities benefit from the little fellows remaining uncircumcised, in case the doctors can use a little bit of extra tissue to sort of -- repair things.

I guess it became popular here just as several other baby-related things became popular between WWII and the 60's. Seems like the same sorts of old literature supporting the preferable, "cleaner" state of being circumcised would also support bottle-feeding as superior to nursing baby.

Much as we claim to abhor royalty here in the US, we sure are royal-watchers -- since Queen Elizabeth had Prince Charles done, I bet that reinforced the stylishness of it all.

Louisiana Medicaid stopped paying for voluntary circumcisions 5 or 6 years ago.

And as for what looks better to the observer, a "cut" or "uncut" male... Honey, that depends upon what he plans to do to me with it.
 

---

Posted by 205 (# 206) on :
 
I wonder about the guy (almost certainly it was a male) who first considered doing a circumcision.

What made them think of it at all? <cringe>
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Everything you ever wished to know about it ...

[ 14. July 2012, 19:49: Message edited by: Think² ]
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
It was probably a substitute for the sacrifice of the child -- particularly of the first born boy. That would be appropriate for the earliest "hebrew" tribes, among whom child sacrifice was well-known -- boys were sometimes buried under gates to strengthen them, and so on.

But possibly not, as it was a custom observed among Egyptians from the earliest dynasties onward -- certainly from well before when it would have becomea hebrew custom. I confess to being ignorant as to whether the early Egyptians had once used human/child sacrifice. I suppose the sand-under-the-foreskin argument might have been a factor for them.

John
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 205:
I wonder about the guy (almost certainly it was a male) who first considered doing a circumcision.

What made them think of it at all? <cringe>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
As for the premise of this thread, get a fecking life. Baby boys suffer no after effects.

---

quote:

---

Bet it was observed decrease in infection

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I understand the religious logic - but I would suggest that the social construct overlays a pragmatic function. People getting sick after eating pork could well be construed as God not being happy it. Then that becomes codified.

---

quote:

---

Re your point about the ears, the thing that is different about this practice is that it arose across many cultures apparently independently

---

quote:

---

Re your point about the ears, the thing that is different about this practice is that it arose across many cultures apparently independently

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
Modern comparisons to tattoos and piercings (at least in the West) break down because their purpose is to express individualism (something that the ancient Jews, along with other people at the time, didn't even have the faintest concept of), not a group identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
Modern comparisons to tattoos and piercings (at least in the West) break down because their purpose is to express individualism (something that the ancient Jews, along with other people at the time, didn't even have the faintest concept of), not a group identity.

---

Nonsense. Getting a tattoo puts you in the class of cool people who have tattoos, just as dressing a certain way puts you in the class of Goths. It's definitely group identity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
circumcised guys DO look better tho

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:

While I certainly can't say from personal experience, I have heard that it does have an impact on sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
Which makes sense, as it used to be promoted as a way of stopping masturbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:

While I certainly can't say from personal experience, I have heard that it does have an impact on sex.

---

How could anyone possibly know that? There would be very, very few men who would be in a position to make a valid comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:

While I certainly can't say from personal experience, I have heard that it does have an impact on sex.

---

How could anyone possibly know that? There would be very, very few men who would be in a position to make a valid comparison.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:

quote:

---

Which makes sense, as it used to be promoted as a way of stopping masturbation.

---

I doubt that was ever much of a factor. Rather, it was just one of those health fads based, not entirely unreasonably, upon research that later turned out to be not as conclusive as originally thought. We've seen a similar thing happen w/ hormone replacement therapy for postmenopausal women. And all sorts of other things.

---

For the same reasons as above masturbation is not as pleasurable as before I was circumcised.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
The impression I'm getting from this thread is that male circumcision is the still the norm in the USA (and Canada?) but the exception in the UK (and Europe?). Which leads me to wonder why it became established across the Pond. Was it part of early settlers seeing themselves as the new Israel? Or is there a more mundane explanation?
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Medical circumcision began to be pushed in the USA at the end of the 19th Century. IIRC there was originally a single physician advocate publishing about the virtues of the practice, which were advocated as hygenic and possibly as anti-masturbatory (an erroneous notion, but one that would hence cause the practice to share some motive with FGM). Any puritanical advocacy there might have been faded after the early years of the 20th Century, but the ostensible hygeine-related justification remained.
 

---

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :
 
I don't know how it works in other Muslim countries or cultures, but in Turkey I can imagine circumcision to be a bit more traumatic as it's performed when the boy is 6-8 years old. They do treat the boy like a king before hand (complete with crown and scepter) and he is able to act as naughty as he wants; then they throw him a party after the act complete with exotic dancers. Welcome to manhood dude!

I still don't think there's any comparison between that and FGM though, even the most regretful cicumcised man can't abhor his mutilation as much as the most complacent victim of FGM.

(Oh, and while I understand that being a mohel is a thankless job, at least they get to collect lots of tips! )
 

---

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
Something that is evident in this thread is that infant circumcision is quite different to cases of medically necessitated circumcision later in life. There is no real evidence that the former normally has subsequent untoward effects on the circumcised male. The latter, however, is far more apt to be experienced as traumatic, painful, mutilating, and accompanied by unpleasure and dissatisfaction in its aftermath. Surely,a good part of this is to do with conditioned expectations and physical self-concept.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
circumcised guys DO look better tho

---

Strongly disagree.

---

horses, Leo, for courses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
Many different cultures have across-the-board (oops!) circumcision for males - admittedly at different ages and with more and less ceremony. Many cultures do not.
If it's around half and half (which I don't know but imagine) we can conclude it's nothing particularly dangerous or beneficial one way or the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Something that is evident in this thread is that infant circumcision is quite different to cases of medically necessitated circumcision later in life. There is no real evidence that the former normally has subsequent untoward effects on the circumcised male. The latter, however, is far more apt to be experienced as traumatic, painful, mutilating, and accompanied by unpleasure and dissatisfaction in its aftermath. Surely,a good part of this is to do with conditioned expectations and physical self-concept.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
[QUOTE]I seem to remember an article in the British Medical Journal (admittedly more than five years ago) examining the matter and finding some very significant and even traumatic consequences amongst victims of infant circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
The BMJ is searchable dude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anyuta:
OK, the following is, admittedly, anecdotal. but for what it's worth:

when my son was born for various reasons, he had to stay in the hospital nursery after I was officially discharged. Because I was nursing, and just because I didn't want to be separated from him for long, I ended up sitting in that nursery for several days, going home only to sleep for a few hours at night. while these days most babies do not routinely stay in the nursery as they used to (even when my DD was born it was normal for the nurses to take them there overnight), there were always more than a few babies in there, for various reasons (mine was in an incubator type thing, but most were not). THis room is also where routine circumcisions were performed.

I got to watch/listen to about a dozen of them in the days that I was there. I can tell you that anyone who thinks this is no big deal should have to sit through that. the device they use is truly scary looking (like a torture device). it's not surprising that the babies cried when put into that thing. but you could hear the SCREAM of pain when the actual act took place. it went from general "I'm scared and uncomfortable and want my mom" to "OOOOOOWWWWWWWW!!!!!" heart wrenching. If I wasn't already anti-circ, that experience would have convinced me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
What comes out to me in discussion of this issue is that it is hard to discuss neutraly when many people have an emotional investment in their views.

As parents we have an emotional investment in the decision whether or not we circumcise our sons. I think that parents generally act on what they feel are the best interests of their child so again if you have decided for circumcision to be told that you have deliberatly 'mutilated' your child is bound to provoke a reaction. Or conversely for those who chose not to, to be told that you have neglected to do something for your child which you should have done is also difficult.

If you are male you have an emotional investment in whether you are happy with your state, circumcised or not if it relates to a decision your parents made on your behalf. If you are happy with their decision then to have people describe you as 'mutilated' is not going to be nice as it implies your parents did some thing bad to you and that there is something 'wrong' with the way you are. I wonder if for some who are unhappy with their circumcision if it reflects any wider difficulty in their relationship with their parents? My impression is that the vast majority of men are happy with whatever they have got and don't spend time worrying about it.

Overall my feeling is that there is not enough evidence of harm to ban it and there is not enough evidence of benefit for it to be an unquestioned routine. So other factors including religious requirements and cultural rites of passage are probably going to continue to be the driving force for some. I think what is interesting is the remaining group who don't fit into these categories as there is much more likely to be shifting grounds of fashion, medical opinion and cultural practice and hence changes in practice from place to place and over time. Hence the differences we see between North America and Europe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

don't spend time worrying about it.
- were I Jewish - idea of engaging the services of a mohel who were not also a physician (as some are, certainly in America). Frankly, I feel annoyed both by the whingers and by the enthusiasts in respect to the procedure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
[QUOTE] Get a mohel who does 6 a week rather than a surgeon who might do 6 a decade.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Invictus_88:
[QUOTE]I seem to remember an article in the British Medical Journal (admittedly more than five years ago) examining the matter and finding some very significant and even traumatic consequences amongst victims of infant circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
The BMJ is searchable dude.

---

Note please that there is a huge difference between "not finding a benefit" and "very significant and even traumatic consequences".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller
Of course, it makes a huge difference whether or not anesthesia is used-- a surprisingly recent innovation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by art dunce:
As for the topic I had my son circumcised and they used a local anesthetic and he didn't make a peep and now he's fine. Most men I meet who are angry about it are either gay men or MRA's. But that's just in my little corner of the desert.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:

don't spend time worrying about it.
- were I Jewish - idea of engaging the services of a mohel who were not also a physician (as some are, certainly in America). Frankly, I feel annoyed both by the whingers and by the enthusiasts in respect to the procedure.

---

I would take the mohel every time. Get a mohel who does 6 a week rather than a surgeon who might do 6 a decade.

"annoyed" is an interesting choice of word. Would you care to expand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
To remove, surgically, part of someone's anatomy without medical reason for doing so, without informed consent (and there is no medical reason for not waiting until the child is old enough to consent) is assault.

...My father, a muslim atheist, was circumcised without anaesthetic at the age of 9. He *remembers it*.

---

[/QB][/QUOTE]

IF (obviously a huge if) you are going to circumcise at all, there is most definitely a medical reason for not waiting-- see my link re: the differing pain receptors of newborns v. older children. It is not surprising you dad remembers his experience!
 

---

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
I remember mine when I was about four years old. It was a bit of a difficult time, no doubt.

[ 16. July 2012, 19:57: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Data, UK rates suggest two per thousandish circumcised for medical reasons (in the NHS as opposed to privately) - given as "90% for phimosis, 8% recurrent balanitis, 2% other reasons."
 

---

Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
To be done with preliminaries, fgm is many orders of magnitude worse than male circumcision. Male circumcision is many orders of magnitude worse than baptism. Even as someone who buys into the "indelible mark" view of baptism quite thoroughly, claiming that it's equivalent to a bodily modification is a mark of an enfeebled mind.

Now that's done, I find it interesting (read: horrifying) that socio-cultural groups that praise the health benefits of circumcision via-a-vis std/cancer prevention will also loudly protest the vaccination of young girls against hpv.

Also, do any posters here have experience with "breaking the cycle" or circumcision, specifically wrt familial reactions? As a non-Jewish, circumcised male, I have no intention of having my future male children snipped. As such, there will be an inevitable (assuming I have a male child) conversation with my parents that goes something like

THEM: Why didn't you have grandson circumcised.

ME: I don't feel it's morally acceptable to permanently remove my son's body parts without either his consent or a pressing medical need.

THEM: ... *wheels turning*

While I don't particularly relish the thought of inferring to my parents that I find one of their choices morally reprehensible, I'm not about to mutilate a child to avoid doing it. Try as I might, I haven't come up with a way (short of lying) to avoid implying it...
 

---

Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 
Shit. Replace inferring with implying above, please.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

Now that's done, I find it interesting (read: horrifying) that socio-cultural groups that praise the health benefits of circumcision via-a-vis std/cancer prevention will also loudly protest the vaccination of young girls against hpv.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Data, UK rates suggest two per thousandish circumcised for medical reasons (in the NHS as opposed to privately) - given as "90% for phimosis, 8% recurrent balanitis, 2% other reasons."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

Now that's done, I find it interesting (read: horrifying) that socio-cultural groups that praise the health benefits of circumcision via-a-vis std/cancer prevention will also loudly protest the vaccination of young girls against hpv.

---

I don't think that correlation is as neat as you suppose. Circumcision has been, as noted upthread, near ubiquitous in the US. That is beginning to shift, but there's no real religious correlation to the shift-- no real religious group seems to have weighed in on either side. The anti-vac group in the US, otoh, is relatively small, but I suspect most anti-acs would also be anti-circumcision unless Jewish or Muslim. The anti-hpv vac group is more of a right wing political group, but seemingly unrelated to the circumcision question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Data, UK rates suggest two per thousandish circumcised for medical reasons (in the NHS as opposed to privately) - given as "90% for phimosis, 8% recurrent balanitis, 2% other reasons."

---

Yes, it was something like one of those. I showed up at the doc's with a sore tallywacker.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
I find it interesting (read: horrifying) that socio-cultural groups that praise the health benefits of circumcision via-a-vis std/cancer prevention will also loudly protest the vaccination of young girls against hpv.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I have ended up with considerably more knowledge about the state of the penii (?) of yourself and George Spigot, and their various travails, than I had ever imagined obtaining even seven days ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Anglophone North Americans are not a socio-cultural group, John?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Data, UK rates suggest two per thousandish circumcised for medical reasons (in the NHS as opposed to privately) - given as "90% for phimosis, 8% recurrent balanitis, 2% other reasons."

---

Yes, it was something like one of those. I showed up at the doc's with a sore tallywacker.

---

I have ended up with considerably more knowledge about the state of the penii (?) of yourself and George Spigot, and their various travails, than I had ever imagined obtaining even seven days ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I have ended up with considerably more knowledge about the state of the penii (?) of yourself and George Spigot, and their various travails, than I had ever imagined obtaining even seven days ago.

---

Penes.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Also, do any posters here have experience with "breaking the cycle" or circumcision, specifically wrt familial reactions? As a non-Jewish, circumcised male, I have no intention of having my future male children snipped. As such, there will be an inevitable (assuming I have a male child) conversation with my parents that goes something like

THEM: Why didn't you have grandson circumcised.

ME: I don't feel it's morally acceptable to permanently remove my son's body parts without either his consent or a pressing medical need.

THEM: ... *wheels turning*

While I don't particularly relish the thought of inferring to my parents that I find one of their choices morally reprehensible, I'm not about to mutilate a child to avoid doing it. Try as I might, I haven't come up with a way (short of lying) to avoid implying it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Data, UK rates suggest two per thousandish circumcised for medical reasons (in the NHS as opposed to privately) - given as "90% for phimosis, 8% recurrent balanitis, 2% other reasons."

---

Yes, it was something like one of those. I showed up at the doc's with a sore tallywacker.

---

I have ended up with considerably more knowledge about the state of the penii (?) of yourself and George Spigot, and their various travails, than I had ever imagined obtaining even seven days ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Data, UK rates suggest two per thousandish circumcised for medical reasons (in the NHS as opposed to privately) - given as "90% for phimosis, 8% recurrent balanitis, 2% other reasons."

---

Yes, it was something like one of those. I showed up at the doc's with a sore tallywacker.

---

I have ended up with considerably more knowledge about the state of the penii (?) of yourself and George Spigot, and their various travails, than I had ever imagined obtaining even seven days ago.

---

Ah, but the important question is - do you find your life enhanced by that knowledge?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Many people prefer the look of a circumcised penis (YMMV), and I've always been very happy with mine. (The look of it anyway. If only it was a bit smaller - so hard to find trousers baggy enough to accommodate it.....)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Many people prefer the look of a circumcised penis (YMMV), and I've always been very happy with mine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I took care to be sure my son had proper anesthesia, even getting all naggy and technical on their asses (whoops). Otherwise I'd not have had it done at all. We put a lot of thought into the decision, and the medical aspects were foremost.

---

What medical aspects? If there was a particular problem in your son's case, or if you have a family history of penile abnormality*, then fair enough.

But what medical case is there for routine circumcision? About a 1 in 500 chance of doing early what might be necessary later? A small and dubious reduction in the transmission of some STDs? What other surgical procedure is justified on such flimsy grounds?

You would stand next to no chance of persuading an uncircumcised adult like me that I should get snipped for those reasons. And they are just as good a set of reasons for preventative circumcision as they were when I was born. The fact that they do not move me, or, just about any other adult male, to rush off to the nearest clinic, and no one here would remotely expect them to, is a pretty good indication of their merit. Basically, if you are making a decision for a child, purportedly in the child's best interest, and it is one which practically no adult ever makes for himself, that's an enormous hint that you've gone wrong somewhere.


(*One of my friends at primary school did. He, and his two brothers, all had severe phimosis and were circumcised early on. He was about seven, I think**, but his brothers were younger, as the problem was diagnosed sooner in their cases as a consequence of his experience. I think the very youngest had his done as a preventative measure - and quite sensibly so, in the circumstances.)


(**I have a hideous memory of him showing me the result. In respectful disagreement with Boogie, I would contend that a freshly circumcised penis is especially unattractive.)
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I'd be interested in hearing (unless I've missed it elsewhere on the thrad but I don't thnk that I have) American Shippies' explanation for why the WASPs in the US seem to have historically gone in for circumcision so much.

[ETA - just had a horrid image of being circumcised by a wasp, which induced another frantic leg-crossing moment ]

[ 17. July 2012, 15:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Many people prefer the look of a circumcised penis (YMMV), and I've always been very happy with mine.

---

Why do men have this idea that any penis looks good?

They just don't! Big, small, circumcised, not circumcised. They are not attractive in the least.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd be interested in hearing (unless I've missed it elsewhere on the thrad but I don't thnk that I have) American Shippies' explanation for why the WASPs in the US seem to have historically gone in for circumcision so much.

[ETA - just had a horrid image of being circumcised by a wasp, which induced another frantic leg-crossing moment ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'd be interested in hearing (unless I've missed it elsewhere on the thrad but I don't thnk that I have) American Shippies' explanation for why the WASPs in the US seem to have historically gone in for circumcision so much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
circumcised guys DO look better tho

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
circumcised guys DO look better tho

---

I wonder how people would react if a man from Egypt or Somalia said that women look much better without labia and sewn up.

---

quote:

---

Can we make arguments for circumsicion on young boys while at the same time maintaining arguments against FGM?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The point I was making-- which I feel is a valid answer to the OP-- is that it is morally valid to prioritize. And again, I think you can't really explain that stance without taking a couple-three sentences to explain why the priority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The point I was making-- which I feel is a valid answer to the OP-- is that it is morally valid to prioritize. And again, I think you can't really explain that stance without taking a couple-three sentences to explain why the priority.

---

The problem is this is a debate board, and I don't think there's any debate here about FGM, or any need to explain it's priority as a cause over male circumcision. There's just no debate there. Perhaps a separate thread re: what to do about it might be possible, but here the discussion is really about something else, even if the OP set it up awkwardly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This is a *completely* hypothetical question but... For those who do not regard infant circumcision as ethically difficult, would your view be different if the new-born were not Jewish or Muslim by birth, but, hypothetically, had been adopted?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This is a *completely* hypothetical question but... For those who do not regard infant circumcision as ethically difficult, would your view be different if the new-born were not Jewish or Muslim by birth, but, hypothetically, had been adopted?

---

Since most of us are talking about non-Jewish/Muslim newborns (as is the common practice in US) obviously it wouldn't be any different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it's a small unimportant part of the body I can't see there is a problem. Particularly if we're talking about a child. Parents have to make all sorts of choices that may affect a child for life (education, for one); I really can't get worked up here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it's a small unimportant part of the body I can't see there is a problem. Particularly if we're talking about a child. Parents have to make all sorts of choices that may affect a child for life (education, for one); I really can't get worked up here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education.

---

But they can't undo the education they've already had, and they're going to be at a rather significant disadvantage if their parents delayed their education until they could make their own, informed choices about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
When a person grows up they can make their own choices about education.

---

But they can't undo the education they've already had, and they're going to be at a rather significant disadvantage if their parents delayed their education until they could make their own, informed choices about it.

---

I think this mostly goes to prove that the original analogy doesn't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
If it's a small unimportant part of the body I can't see there is a problem. Particularly if we're talking about a child. Parents have to make all sorts of choices that may affect a child for life (education, for one); I really can't get worked up here.

---

Same here. And I simply don't get it that some people think I should lose even the slightest moment of sleep because my parents had me circumcised as an infant, or that I should feel like I have somehow been violated, deprived, or robbed of something. Sorry, don't feel that way at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yes, I know some will say that circumcision of infants rises to the level of abuse. I do not consider myself to have been abused in the slightest. I am not in the least bit traumatized, nor have I found my quality of life wanting in any way. I find the notion that I have been abused silly, not to mention insulting to victims of actual abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not about what you feel. Really. Honest. But you don't get to decide for others how THEY should feel. And unnecessary and irreversable body part removal, whether or not YOU feel put out by yours, rises to the level of "feeling-you've-been-wronged-is-not-unjustified."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not about what you feel. Really. Honest. But you don't get to decide for others how THEY should feel. And unnecessary and irreversable body part removal, whether or not YOU feel put out by yours, rises to the level of "feeling-you've-been-wronged-is-not-unjustified."

---

Fair enough that it is not for me to decide how others should feel. But I will confess, maddening and insensitive though it may be (and culturally-conditioned as it likely is), I truly have a hard time understanding why anyone would feel they have been "wronged." I just don't get it.

It also seems to me that it works both ways -- if it is not for us to say how others should feel about this, then it is also not for us to say that other families and other cultures should bow to our ideas of what is acceptable and what is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Yes, I know some will say that circumcision of infants rises to the level of abuse. I do not consider myself to have been abused in the slightest. I am not in the least bit traumatized, nor have I found my quality of life wanting in any way. I find the notion that I have been abused silly, not to mention insulting to victims of actual abuse.

---

I think everyone arguing here recognises that most circumcised men do just fine. I don't doubt that American males shag with roughly the same enthusiasm as Europeans, despite the fact that most of them have had the op. That's not really the point, though. The point is that as a matter of principle a surgical intervention needs to be justified, and "no worse off, not traumatised" isn't a justification. If circumcision, in 99% of cases, makes no practical difference (and it seems not to) then that's a reason not to do it.

Most of us are arguing not that circumcision is some terrible abuse, but that it is unnecessary and has no significant benefits. Which, if you look at countries that don't routinely circumcise, is obviously true. We're not missing out on anything either. To justify routine circumcision, you would need to argue that we are tangibly worse by not doing it. No one has even tried very hard to do that. Therefore routine circumcision appears not to be justified, and as such is wrong, but that's no reason for you to feel insulted.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Mousethief, what I'm saying (and what I think Nick is saying) is that this is so much a non-issue it is hard to take it seriously. A tiny scrap of skin was removed and nothing else changed*. When there are so many real examples of injustice in the world, that are worth protesting about, why get worked up about this?

* Nothing changed apart from a very attractive part of my body was made even more attractive. Any anyone who disagrees with either part of that statement is simply wrong.

[ 20. July 2012, 12:03: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
[Where I live you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, and while I've seen a lot of body modification, outside of the pierced ears for girls, I've never seen it on a minor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Does not follow. Something can be wrong even if the wronged party doesn't feel wronged. Here's the problem: I said we don't demand that you feel wronged. You concluded that there is no such thing as right or wrong. That's a big leap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Does not follow. Something can be wrong even if the wronged party doesn't feel wronged. Here's the problem: I said we don't demand that you feel wronged. You concluded that there is no such thing as right or wrong. That's a big leap.

---

It was late when I posted, so I may not have been as clear as I would have liked. Certainly there are things such as right and wrong. My point is that I have never heard an argument that came close to convincing me that it is wrong for parents to make the decision to circumcise their newborn sons. Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.

And yes, Robert Armin, I suppose it is hard for me to take this seriously as a real issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
[QUOTE]I think everyone arguing here recognises that most circumcised men do just fine. I don't doubt that American males shag with roughly the same enthusiasm as Europeans, despite the fact that most of them have had the op. That's not really the point, though. The point is that as a matter of principle a surgical intervention needs to be justified, and "no worse off, not traumatised" isn't a justification. If circumcision, in 99% of cases, makes no practical difference (and it seems not to) then that's a reason not to do it.

Most of us are arguing not that circumcision is some terrible abuse, but that it is unnecessary and has no significant benefits. Which, if you look at countries that don't routinely circumcise, is obviously true. We're not missing out on anything either. To justify routine circumcision, you would need to argue that we are tangibly worse by not doing it. No one has even tried very hard to do that. Therefore routine circumcision appears not to be justified, and as such is wrong, but that's no reason for you to feel insulted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
To Nick Tamen and Robert Armin, I'd ask: Where then is the line? If male circumcision "isn't enough to get worked up about," what is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I think everyone arguing here recognises that most circumcised men do just fine. . . . .

---

I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. For the reasons you cite, routine non-religious circumcision will probably die out in the US within the next generation.

---

quote:

---

It's the heat behind it that makes Americans (most of whom either are circumcised or had their sons circumcised) uncomfortable-- the suggestion that the practice is abusive or that parents have "no right" to make this decision (again, despite the obvious truth that parents decide everything for infants, including things with far more impact than this).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
The earlobe is a small unimportant part of the body too so let's snip that off at birth. No problem right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
To Nick Tamen and Robert Armin, I'd ask: Where then is the line? If male circumcision "isn't enough to get worked up about," what is?

---

I don't mean this as a dodge, though it probably comes across as one, but frankly I'm not sure where I'd draw the line. I just know this isn't anywhere near the line in my view.

---

quote:

---

Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Apologies for the DP, but in light of IngoB's post immediately above mine, I should clarify that the statements I've made thus far relate to the ethics of circumcision itself -- not to the question/ethics of its legality.

For what its worth, from a practical standpoint, I think the practice should remain legal. However, I think a "PR campaign" of sorts on the ethics of the matter is long past due (especially in places where the practice is common outside of those religious communities that require it). Let's make the right choice in the matter clear, but not put the weight of the state behind enforcing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:

Perhaps we could leave that and respond to whether the German govt. is right to ban the practice outright or whether there should be exceptions (I doubt anyone would argue in cases of medical necessity) for religious reasons.

---

You mean as IngoB did approx three posts up?

And sorry if this seems thick, but do we really have to "leave" the discussion on ethics in order to discuss the German legal question?

And since I feel bad about discussing the thread's discussion topic without adding anything of value,I personally think IngoB's assessment was spot-on. How about yourself?
 

---

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :
 
I wrote my own take on the issue. If we are not allowed to write anything because it is similar to, or echoes, another person's post, then there is hardly any point in having a *discussion* board.
 

---

Posted by Fëanor (# 14514) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.


I would affirm the benefit of an ad campaign focusing on discouraging the practice on practical terms. But positing it as an ethical issue is going to needlessly insult & antagonize millions of parents in a way that will most likely interfere with your goals.

---

quote:

---

I think a better analogy to the ones given so far would be infant sleep position. For years it was believed the safest sleep position was to place baby on tummy to avoid choking if baby regurgitated some spit-up. Years later studies showed tummy-sleeping increased odds of SIDs and an ad campaign was begun to encourage back sleeping. (I had kids at both sides of this divide-- oldest slept on tummy, younger two on back).

Had that ad campaign vilified tummy sleeping as an "ethical" issue they would no doubt have antagonized millions of us parents who innocently put our babies to sleep on their tummies thinking it was best. Instead, the ad campaign simply focused on the practical matter of getting the word out that the latest research had caused the APA to reverse their advice, and now considered back sleeping safest. Most parents then sensibly changed their practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
[QUOTE]Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
[QUOTE]
Of course, the sleep position issue still falls a little short in that it doesn't carry that primal "my child must be like me" component that circumcision does. That's a very base instinct to have to do battle with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.

---

Yes, because tummy sleeping, it turned out, increased their risk of death. Circumcision did not.

---

quote:

---

Having experienced both with my kids (circumcision and change in sleep position), I see no difference. The "my child must be like me" component is overstated-- it had next to no impact on our decision, nor, I suspect on most anyone else w/o a religious component. Instead, it was very very similar to the decisions we made re: sleep position-- we went with the best medical advice available to us at the time. When that changed, we changed our practices, as I suspect will happen w/ circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
If your own position is admittedly unreasoned, I'm not sure what basis you have to claim that

quote:

---

Reasonable minds can differ on this one, so reasonable minds should not seek to impose their own view of what is right or wrong on others.

---

Thus far, I haven't heard a a reasonable argument in favor of circumcision. So if the arguments I have heard are coming from "reasonable minds," they're sure as shit not showing it.*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I haven't admitted my position is unreasoned -- I have admitted that I haven't fully considered where I would draw the line, but that I do know where I would not draw it. Nothing unreasoned about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

As for reasonable minds differing, I get the sense this may be one of those times where all contrary arguments might be dismissed out of hand as unreasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Again, from a policy-standpoint, I take your point and agree. Obviously from a practical standpoint, there's a difference between resting a child on his/her tummy and removing a portion of said child's body.

---

Yes, because tummy sleeping, it turned out, increased their risk of death. Circumcision did not.

---

Also because tummy sleeping is not a permanent bodily modification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
]Having experienced both with my kids (circumcision and change in sleep position), I see no difference. The "my child must be like me" component is overstated-- it had next to no impact on our decision, nor, I suspect on most anyone else w/o a religious component. Instead, it was very very similar to the decisions we made re: sleep position-- we went with the best medical advice available to us at the time. When that changed, we changed our practices, as I suspect will happen w/ circumcision.

---

I'm not going to speak for your personal experience. I will say that it's not as overstated as you would claim. You might have been an enlightened parent, going with the best of medical opinion at the time, but most are not. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:
Quite a pleasure to make your acquaintance Humpty. Will you be re-appropriating any words other than "reason" and "dodge" this thread?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

As for reasonable minds differing, I get the sense this may be one of those times where all contrary arguments might be dismissed out of hand as unreasonable.

---

No, just the ones that haven't had any thought put into them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe it's just me, but I find a permanent bodily modification, even an unnecessary one, preferable to risk of death. Yet no one raises tummy sleeping as an "ethical issue".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And you know this how? I doubt very much that other parents are much different than I am in that regard. We all just want what is in our child's best interests.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Maybe it's just me, but I find a permanent bodily modification, even an unnecessary one, preferable to risk of death. Yet no one raises tummy sleeping as an "ethical issue".

---

Firstly, it's not an either-or issue. Noone's saying circumcise your male children or they have to tummy sleep. Secondly, tummy sleeping is presented as an ethical issue, actually (don't let your children sleep on their tummy, it might result in their death). It's just more people agree on the ethics of preserving their child's life than they do on the ethics of leaving their child's body intact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fëanor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And you know this how? I doubt very much that other parents are much different than I am in that regard. We all just want what is in our child's best interests.

---

Because I talk to people who've have it done to their children. "I had it done, and it didn't hurt me" is often presented as a tie-breaker after the physical risks/rewards are considered. Even among those for whom it isn't a religious issue. Is there not a biological urge to prefer offspring similar to oneself? Surely there must be surveys done on this... [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I'm sorry if the distinction between not putting any thought into the issue and not fully considering where to draw the line you asked for escapes you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:
Perhaps we could leave that and respond to whether the German govt. is right to ban the practice outright or whether there should be exceptions (I doubt anyone would argue in cases of medical necessity) for religious reasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
The German Bundestag (German Lower House) has issued a resolution supported by most members that the government should introduce a law to explicitly allow circumcision for religious reasons. However, this resolution is not in itself legally binding, and so the issue remains in legal limbo for now.

---

quote:

---

The "Deutscher Richterbund" (Union of Judges) has stated that it is supporting the resolution, the "Bund Deutscher Kriminalbeamter" (Union of Criminal Investigators) has protested against it.

---

quote:

---

Polls see the German public about evenly divided on the issue. That is the situation best I am aware of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
It is just possible that the site is a tad on the weird side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
It is just possible that the site is a tad on the weird side.

---

Oh I don't know. I'm sure the Museum of Genital Integrity in San Diego exists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
Here you go.

---

quote:

---

Well there is a penis museum (NSFW) in Iceland.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.

---

That doesn't mean all the things that they might do for, or on behalf of, their child(ren) are equally ethical, or right. The question isn't, "do parents make all decisions for their young charges." That's obvious. But not the issue under debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:

---

Well there is a penis museum (NSFW) in Iceland.

---

Thanks for this, MT. It's on my "must visit" list for our next family hols.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I have a problem w/ the word "ethics" here. I'm repeating myself here, but positing it as an "ethical" issue implies parents have "no right" to make such a decision, when in fact, parents by necessity make ALL decisions for infants, including those with far more impact than this.

---

That doesn't mean all the things that they might do for, or on behalf of, their child(ren) are equally ethical, or right. The question isn't, "do parents make all decisions for their young charges." That's obvious. But not the issue under debate.

---

Actually it is. The claim has been made here-- repeatedly-- that circumcision is ethically wrong precisely because the parents are making the decision for the child. I would agree with your point that not all parental decisions are equal, but that is actually not the issue under debate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE]Of course parents make decisions for their children, and the younger the child the more the parents have to make decisions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE] But parents are limited, ethically, in the decisions that they make. Their children are not possessions. If a decision can be delayed until the child can make its own decision then it should be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE]Otherwise the decision must be 'in the child's best interests' (UK law & SA law - probably USA law?). On purely medical grounds that seems to stack against circumcision as there is no clear evidence that circumcision has medical benefits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
[QUOTE] On the psychological need to fit in, it could be argued for certain communities, but would need to be balanced against the right to bodily integrity (especially as this in SA is part of the Bill of Rights).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
If the legislation is passed, don't the judges and the criminal investigators have to do as they are told?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Are the public who are against this, against it on the sort of vaguely edifying reasons we have been discussing on this thread, or because they are prejudiced against the groups that practice it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
I think you're mixing up the problem with the solution to the problem.

IF it is unethical for parents to put a child through a medical procedure that has no benefits for the child (which is my belief), AND there is no clear benefit to infant male circumcision (which appears to be the case) THEN infant male circumcision is unethical.

If most parents are trying to the the best for their child (which is my belief), an educational rather than a critical and punitive approach is probably the most effective way to stop a practice that is unethical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
By using the term "no benefit" you are mixing up "no medical benefit" with "no cultural benefit".

If a child is born with webbing between toes or fingers, their parents generally have it removed immediately - it makes no medical difference, but there is a cultural benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
agh, I'm really making the same error there-- rather than "is it unethical to be wrong" I should rather say "is it unethical to be mistaken?" or "uninformed?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
agh, I'm really making the same error there-- rather than "is it unethical to be wrong" I should rather say "is it unethical to be mistaken?" or "uninformed?"

---

But if the procedure itself is ethically neutral then why provide education on the issue?

The only reason for any action (gentle education to legal action) is because at heart the decision they are making is morally wrong. With the best of intentions etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
Plus (and sorry for the triple post) I know as a parent I get things wrong all the time even with the best of information. I am grumpy & cross because I am tired, or I fail to keep to 'innocent until proven guilty' and tell both of them to shut up & go to their rooms etc etc

That's being a parent, you get stuff wrong. I find a 'I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that' gets a hug and foregiveness - thank the Lord.

So to say that something a parent does is wrong doesn't mean I think they should get life with hard labour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
My point is that I have never heard an argument that came close to convincing me that it is wrong for parents to make the decision to circumcise their newborn sons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is unethical to be wrong? If parents mistakenly believe circumcision is in their child's best interests are they acting unethically?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
As I have said a number of times, I believe most parents do what they believe is the best for their child, so I am far from approaching this as a bunch of adults wanting a mini-me.

But at some point there is a morality that concerns what we know. There is any amount of information available about the minimal medical benefit of routine circumcision.

I drive here in SA on my UK licence, and therefore didn't need any knowledge of SA driving regulations to drive here legally. But as I do drive here, it is my responsibility to know the relevant legislation - I can't get out of my speeding fines by claiming ignorance, even if I didn't know the regulations.

This was a crucial issue at the Nuremberg trials - although please note that I am not calling parents war criminals, Nazis etc etc, I am pointing out that it was accepted that there is a moral (and at Nuremberg a legal) dimension to what you could/should have known about.

There was no information available for parents in Aurora about the possibility of their children being shot at a movie screening, so yes, I agree their decisions were completely moral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It is unethical to be wrong? If parents mistakenly believe circumcision is in their child's best interests are they acting unethically?

---

Doing an unethical thing is not necessarily the same as being personally culpable.

In a culture where circumcision is so routine that a responsible parent might authorise it without even questioning whether there was a good reason, hard though it is for outsiders to imagine it, there would be very little culpability. Every culture will have its unchallenged assumptions, and some of them will be wrong. Similarly a parent who is told that the practice is ‘medically beneficial' by a doctor isn't necessarily culpable - we believe a lot of things about health issues on authority.

---

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is precisely what I have been saying for days. You are the first person to get it.



 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
By using the term "no benefit" you are mixing up "no medical benefit" with "no cultural benefit".

If a child is born with webbing between toes or fingers, their parents generally have it removed immediately - it makes no medical difference, but there is a cultural benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
[QUOTE] And I think I am entitled to hold the opinion that to do that with no medical benefit is unethical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haydee:
As I have said a number of times, I believe most parents do what they believe is the best for their child, so I am far from approaching this as a bunch of adults wanting a mini-me.

But at some point there is a morality that concerns what we know. There is any amount of information available about the minimal medical benefit of routine circumcision....

---

See, that was my point-- and why I brought up the Aurora tragedy, even though I recognize how fraught it is to bring up something so fresh and tragic.

My point was that at the point I and many parents had their children circumcised the facts you and others here are assuming were not known, at least not to most American parents. The debate was much more murky. And for many American parents, that is probably still the case. Which is why I'm saying it's an educational issue, not an ethical one.

Your point re: gaining knowledge is relevant, we have an obligation as parents to research all our options and make informed decisions on behalf of our kids. But even then we can never know everything. We will always have to make decisions based on limited data. And the data is not always clear. My husband and I did, in fact, research circumcision at the time our boys were born. And, again, the data that was available to us as American parents at that time (more than a decade ago) was much less clear than what is being asserted here. The situation is much clearer in hindsight-- I would make a different decision today. But at the time it was far less clear. And again, in an unclear situation, most of us will default to the known (our own experience) rather than the unknown.

If you know there are not health benefits, that changes the situation considerably. But again (I feel like I'm shouting into the wind here) most American parents n the past (and perhaps to some degree still) decided for circumcision because they believed (albeit falsely) it would benefit their children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Macrina:
So today I found myself browsing the BBC news website when I come across a story about how a region in Germany is seeking to ban male circumcision. The story is here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

---

quote:

---

The BBC's Stephen Evans in Berlin says opinion in Germany about the issue has been mixed, though one poll showed a majority in favour of the ban.

He says that many readers' comments on newspaper websites have indicated anger that this generation of Germans seems to be being constricted in its actions because of the Holocaust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again... repeating in the vain hope of getting this point across... the parents who are approving it believe, however erroneously, that it will provide a medical benefit. It is more analogous to the dilemma you had re: your daughter's eyelid surgery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again... repeating in the vain hope of getting this point across... the parents who are approving it believe, however erroneously, that it will provide a medical benefit. It is more analogous to the dilemma you had re: your daughter's eyelid surgery.

---

Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Galilit:
I (we) did. And so the boys would look like Grandad, their cousins, their Babies House companions, (and later on kindergarten and school mates) and all of Rabbits friends-and-relations. Not to mention consideration for the other people who looked after them all their young lives.
I would do it again too. For that wider social reason.

---

quote:

---

I would add that as a feminist I cannot imagine why men would do "something awful" to their sons' penises. I can, however, totally imagine why men would do "something awful" to their daughters.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?

---

No. But again, I don't believe very many people actually do it for that reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gee D:
I was circumcised as a new-born ... Until this thread, it's not something I had really thought much about, and certainly not with the strength of some of the anti-ciccumcision posts above.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:
<sigh> Germany has a long history of anti-Semitism, and this has recently been given new legs by annoyance with Israel (whether deserved or not). What more can I say? Somehow I'm not surprised that a novel initiative to ban circumcision by law should originate there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: my son had the surgery when he was 6. Praying for your daughter. It was painful, but well worth it.

---

Thank you. You are so kind. I'm a bit tortured by all the possible decisions sometimes, and how we can know that we're really doing what's best, and I think that maybe does make me more reactive on this issue.
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
[Do they? Is "so he'll look like dad" a medical reason?

---

No. But again, I don't believe very many people actually do it for that reason.

---

I don't either. The people I work with are in fact choosing circumcision despite the fact it means the child won't look like dad.

We're all trying to do the best we can, you know. If you think we're wrong, educate us. No need to flip out and lodge charges of self-serving mutilation.

---

Exactly.

 

---

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's simply never been an issue at any point in my life, excepting those rare times (such as this thread) when other people start calling me things like "maimed" and "mutilated". That can make me quite angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi: my son had the surgery when he was 6. Praying for your daughter. It was painful, but well worth it.

---

Thank you. You are so kind. I'm a bit tortured by all the possible decisions sometimes, and how we can know that we're really doing what's best, and I think that maybe does make me more reactive on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Btw I am sure that a circumcision would have deprived me of quite a lot of feeling and pleasure on the penis. Unlike a circumcised man I can try out the alternative and compare. I disagree when people claim it is a minor difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect the same may be true of pre vs. post circumcision sensitivity, though you'd have to get up a study to be sure. (Imagine trying to recruit people for that one!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
... a small physical impairment ... an intact body

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect the same may be true of pre vs. post circumcision sensitivity, though you'd have to get up a study to be sure. (Imagine trying to recruit people for that one!)

---

Proposed methodology:

Stage one: Take one uncircumcised man. Have him pull back his foreskin to expose fully the head of his penis, then put on ordinary underpants and trousers. Knock his hat off in a high wind and ask him to chase it. Observe.

Stage two: Look at some Jews/Muslims/Americans moving about. Do they walk or run like that?

Predicted result: No, they certainly don't. They walk quite normally, not like someone's hung a large cactus between their legs.

Anticipated conclusion: Infant circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Do you think people with lip piercings have less sensitive lips ? And would you be able to tell comparing someone with a lip piercing several years old and someone whose lip you'd just hole punched ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Infant circumcision results in some loss of sensitivity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think you could safely conclude that the bit of skin dropped in the bucket or laid theatrically at Moses' feet has lost sensitivity. But I'm not sure that the experiment of observing what happens with foreskin retraction is analogous.

---

quote:

---

For instance, foreskin retraction if left can result in urinary obstruction and (ironically enough) the medically indicated need for a circumcision. That doesn't happen on circumcision. Hence the two can't be regarded as equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Do you think people with lip piercings have less sensitive lips ? And would you be able to tell comparing someone with a lip piercing several years old and someone whose lip you'd just hole punched ?

---

How does this challenge what he said? This is just changing the subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Comparing something the instant after it happened with years after it happened is not helpful

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So you're saying that men circumcised at birth don't feel discomfort with their glans rubbing in their underwear because they had a circumcision, not because they've become desensitized, and if instead they drew back their foreskin every day and walked around, they would still be as uncomfortable as the intact man who draws back his foreskin after 20 years of having his glans protected by it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And since the only form of sensitivity people are concerned about losing (or so it seems to me!) is the sexual, the thought experiment doesn't work. You can't assume that comfort wearing underwear in a foreskin-less condition equates to less sexual pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Being habituated to one form of touch, does not necessarily mean being habituated to another form of touch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
Many people are also concerned about losing their sensitivity to sound over time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
In Africa many people walk barefoot most of the time and unsurprisingly they do not feel a feather gently tickling their soles (yes, we did try it out once, when I was in a youth camp).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
Many people are also concerned about losing their sensitivity to sound over time.

---

I would have thought that an unnecessary caveat for a discussion on circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
if the desensitization doesn't have much impact in terms of sexual pleasure or any other functional outcome, then it probably is more analogous to the loss of sensitivity on the soles of one's feet after not using shoes. Which few people would consider an indication of a harmed child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I'm saying that the experienced discomfort on foreskin retraction doesn't necessarily reproduce what would happen with a circumcision. ... Some of the studies ... wiki page.

---

quote:

---

Aydur E, Gungor S, Ceyhan ST, Taiimaz L, Baser I (2007) Effects of childhood circumcision age on adult male sexual functions. Int J Impot Res 19(4): 424-31.
The effects of childhood circumcision on male sexual function have been debated. However, there are no studies, to our knowledge, that assess the possible effects of childhood circumcision age on male sexual function. In an attempt to answer this question, we performed a prospective study to determine the possible relationship between circumcision age and male sexual function, using a validated questionnaire, the Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction. We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function; however some specific domains of sexual function (i.e. avoidance and communication) seemed to be affected by the age at circumcision procedure in this cohort of sexually active males. In addition, prevalence of sexual dysfunction was higher, with premature ejaculation being the most common dysfunction in the survey. We concluded that childhood circumcision age might affect some domains of male sexual function in adulthood, but not the overall function.

---

quote:

---

Cüceloğlu EA, Hoşrik ME, Ak M, Bozkurt A (2012) The effects of age at circumcision on premature ejaculation. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 23(2): 99-107.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the effect of age at circumcision on premature ejaculation (PE).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 40 healthy male controls and 40 male patients diagnosed as PE according to American Psychiatric Association criteria and the Golombok-Rust Inventory of Sexual Satisfaction (GRISS) premature ejaculation subscale. The 2 groups were compared according to age at circumcision and GRISS score.
RESULTS: The PE group and control group were sociodemographically similar, but differed in marital status. The groups differed in GRISS communication, degree of satisfaction, avoidance, sensuality, erectile dysfunction, and PE subscale scores. These differences only displayed a dysfunction in the degree of satisfaction and premature ejaculation subscales. The groups also differed in age at circumcision; accordingly, those that were circumcised at ≥7 years of age had higher GRISS scores and a higher risk of having PE than those that were circumcised at <7 years of age.
CONCLUSION: Age at circumcision had an effect on PE; circumcision at ≥7 years of age was associated with an increase in the risk of PE, as compared to circumcision at <7 years of age. We think that families should have their boys circumcised before the age of 7 years and highly recommend that the procedure be performed within in the first 3 years of life.
(I have adjusted mistaken '>' signs in the abstract to '<', in accordance with the main article.)

---

quote:

---

Morris BJ, Waskett JH, Banerjee J, Wamai RG, Tobian AA, Gray RH, Bailis SA, Bailey RC, Klausner JD, Willcourt RJ, Halperin DT, Wiswell TE, Mindel A (2012) A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise? BMC Pediatr 12: 20.
BACKGROUND: Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.
DISCUSSION: We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
SUMMARY: Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Malkoc E, Ates F, Tekeli H, Kurt B, Turker T, Basal S (2012) Free Nerve Ending Density on the Skin Extracted by Circumcision and It's Relation with Premature Ejaculation. J Androl. [Epub ahead of print]
Introduction: Many studies have shown that the skin tissue extracted by circumcision can cause differences in sexual functions especially in ejaculation time. Sensitivity changes in the penile skin and sexual satisfaction deriving from circumcision starting from premature ejaculation (PE) is discussed. Furthermore most of these studies rely on questionnaires. Extracted free nerve endings (FNE) on the foreskin have not been researched in any of the studies. Whereas; FNEs can detect temperature, mechanical stimuli (touch, pressure, stretch) or pain (nociception). Our aim is to determine FNEs in foreskin and the affects on sexual functions especially premature ejaculation. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was done on adults who voluntarily applied to be circumcised between September 2010 and October 2011. The ejaculation latency times (ELT) before circumcision has been assessed and Premature Ejaculation Diagnostic Tool (PEDT) form has been filled by the urologist according to the answers given by the volunteers. The proximal and distal of the foreskin has been determined during the circumcision and the surgical procedure has been practiced. The extracted foreskin has been sent to pathology department in order to determine the FNEs. Results: Twenty volunteers (the average age 21.25±0.44 years) were included in the study. The average ELT was 103.55±68.39 seconds and the average premature ejaculation score was 4.35±3.13. Proximal, middle and distal tip of the nerve densities were compared in proximal and distal (p = 0.003), proximal and middle (p = 0.011) which were different from each other, while the middle and distal were similar to each other (p = 0.119). There weren't any correlations between premature ejaculation diagnostic tool (PEDT) scores and total nerve endings number (r=0.018, p=0.942). Also there weren't any correlations between mean ELT and PEDT scores (r=0.054 and p=0.822). Conclusion: The tissue extracted by circumcision has intensive FNEs yet FNE intensity has no relation with premature ejaculation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
Sorrells et al. found a "significant" one (not "slight" as you say). Intuitively I would have assumed that Eliab's thought experiment gave a clear indication as to what results an academic research would yield. Maybe too optimistic. It would lead too far here, but one might want to look into who commissioned the respective studies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
Look at it the other way round. Not what people consider a bad loss for a child, but what mature people would choose if they had the choice? I suspect far fewer people would be circumcised than now (even if - thought experiment - you would do away with the foreskin in a magic painless trick rather than an operation).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The "significant" label refers to statistical significance. A difference can be highly statistically significant (i.e. very definitely there) but small in magnitude (i.e. definitely there but unimportant in size).
Or if a study is small, might be non-significant, but large in magnitude (which is uninformative).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it reasonable to conduct a thought experiment, be satisfied with the results, and therefore view actual data as suspect if they aren't in agreement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
I know the difference between statistical significance and magnitude. But does the grammar of the phrase quoted tell you which of the two it is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
Where do you read me dismissing as suspect the ones which "aren't in agreement".

---

quote:

---

Intuitively I would have assumed that Eliab's thought experiment gave a clear indication as to what results an academic research would yield. Maybe too optimistic. It would lead too far here, but one might want to look into who commissioned the respective studies.

---

...I took you to be saying that results that the fact that the results didn't agree with a thought experiment made you doubt them. Which seems to me very slight grounds for doubting them.

On the other hand, the fact that the Sorrel study was funded by this group is grounds for doubt. I think that the data were probably honestly gained, but it might explain the over-emphasis on what turn out to be slight differences if you read the full text of the paper.
 

---

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Years ago I read somewhere that circumcised men make better lovers. The argument was that circumcision makes the penis less sensitive, therefore the man takes longer to come, and so will give his partner greater sexual pleasure. Since I can't remember the source this counts as anecdotal, and can't compare with all the statistics quoted here, but I thought it was an interesting POV.
 

---

Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 
Indeed, Armin. I had an American gf who told me after a few weeks that she had assumed exactly this at the start of our relationship. I was flabbergasted - it is the kind of information you know you would not be given if the suspicion had been proven correct. So you wonder what other prejudices may come out of the woodwork

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
On the other hand, the fact that the Sorrel study was funded by this group is grounds for doubt. I think that the data were probably honestly gained, but it might explain the over-emphasis on what turn out to be slight differences if you read the full text of the paper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I also wonder how many circumcised adults would choose, under the same "magic painless trick" conditions, to have their foreskin put back? I sure wouldn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palimpsest
For those who oppose Jews getting circumcised;
I assume you think it's fine to ignore the dictates of Leviticus ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Furthermore, as Think and Lamb chopped say, I'm not sure that that necessarily translates to a loss of important sensation with regard to sexual pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Years ago I read somewhere that circumcised men make better lovers. The argument was that circumcision makes the penis less sensitive, therefore the man takes longer to come, and so will give his partner greater sexual pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
(*And, stepping the boundary to TMI here, I once took delivery of a 12 pack of Mates ‘Endurance' condoms as a substitution for an unavailable brand in an online shop. These were (so it was claimed) thicker, and impregnated with a mild analgesic. I certainly noticed the difference afterwards - it felt extremely odd, rather like my dick had had a tooth out - but in actual use I can't say it made any difference at all).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
My objection to routine infant circumcision is simply that it is a bad idea to do irreversible surgery on an unconsenting person for no good reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
My objection to routine infant circumcision is simply that it is a bad idea to do irreversible surgery on an unconsenting person for no good reason.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
First, because if my hat chasing experiment is right (and I'm pretty sure it is)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The professor was taking certain scientific measurements outdoors, and it was essential to keep the instruments dry until they were used. He discovered that condoms were just the right size.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moo:
The professor was taking certain scientific measurements outdoors, and it was essential to keep the instruments dry until they were used. He discovered that condoms were just the right size.

---

This sounds like the plot back-drop to a scientific version of "are you being served?"

"Now listen here old chap, I'm making some outdoor scientific measurements, and I need to keep my instrument dry, if you follow my drift.

<pause>

A pack of your finest prophylactics, if you please."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I gather that my retired bureaucrat's health plan covers 80% of the $200-$300 cost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would rather not tangent (one of my frailties) on such a thread, but I would note that one of my militia friends tells me that the wise hussar always carries a pack of condoms on forest exercises so that, if it rains, the barrel of her firearm can be kept dry. *end of tangent*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I would rather not tangent (one of my frailties) on such a thread, but I would note that one of my militia friends tells me that the wise hussar always carries a pack of condoms on forest exercises so that, if it rains, the barrel of her firearm can be kept dry. *end of tangent*

---

I assume the lubricated ones are contraindicated, as well as the glow-in-the-dark ones, but ribbing doesn't matter one way or the other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
In summary: infant circumcision as practiced by Jews is unproblematic for the health of the child, if not beneficial. Muslims should be encouraged to circumcise their children early in life, since negative outcomes increase with the age of circumcision. There currently is no evidence that early circumcision is detrimental to adult health or sex life, and the precise effects of removing the foreskin even in adults remain unclear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by egg:
Penile cancer is rare, but commoner in uncircumcised men.....there is evidence that suggests that cervical cancer is less common among Jewish women, the best explanation being that their husbands or partners are more likely to be circumcised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
One of the effects of the anti-circumcision movement in Ontario is that very soon, just as girls of a certain age are required to receive a vacination against the human papilloma virus, so soon will boys of a certain age. The motive is to protect those girls/women with whom they have sex at some point in their lives.

John

---

Ontario delisted circumcision in 1994. Even before then it was never universal. Nova Scotia's circumcision rate is almost non-existent, as is Newfoundland's.

There's no link in your argument, John, and no evidence of a link. Further, surgery is not a reliable or effective way to reduce infections, which are an immune problem. If circumcision's health benefits wrt HPV were subject to the same criteria as a vaccine, it would be dismissed as ineffective and harmful.

Second, I can't even find any websites on linking HPV and circumcision in Ontario, not even a campaign website of marginal scientific value.

Third, the Canadian Paediatric Society (the professional association) states infant circumcision is not a therapeutic procedure, it is not medically necessary and should not be routinely performed. (will get citations if requested).

It looks to me John like you just pulled a rabbit out of your hat.
 

---

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Nope.

Newspaper reports some months ago noted that health authorities will be moving to compulsory vacciantion of boys in parallel with the existing vaccination of girls for HPV.

The increase in concern about male infection and transmission of HPV runs in parallel with the decrease in circumcision...noting that the age range targetted is of boys who were, or were not, circumcised from 15-16 years ago and since.

John
 

---

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Further, surgery is not a reliable or effective way to reduce infections, which are an immune problem. If circumcision's health benefits wrt HPV were subject to the same criteria as a vaccine, it would be dismissed as ineffective and harmful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
Sounds a lot like some of the arguments made for circumcision at an early age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Holding:
Nope.

Newspaper reports some months ago noted that health authorities will be moving to compulsory vacciantion of boys in parallel with the existing vaccination of girls for HPV.

The increase in concern about male infection and transmission of HPV runs in parallel with the decrease in circumcision...noting that the age range targetted is of boys who were, or were not, circumcised from 15-16 years ago and since.

John

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:

---

Originally posted by chukovsky:
Sounds a lot like some of the arguments made for circumcision at an early age.

---

Except there's no religious angle. Jewish parents don't have their sons circumcised just so they'll look like the other boys.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by every other poster:
FGM is a VERY different thing to male circumcision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
It is inaccurate to refer to circumcision as chopping off "part of the penis".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The foreskin is very much part of the penis. it is not an 'extra' like a toenail.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think it is practical to remove something analogous to foreskin from around the clitoris, and I don't no of any such cultural practice that tries to achieve this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I just think that "part of the penis" sounds a lot worse than removing foreskin.

Like referring to having your toenail removed as chopping off "part of the foot". Well it's not part of the penis is it.

Sorry it sounds insane to you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
... I think there is no comparison with male circumcision because there is no practice within male circumcision of some groups chopping into the glans, removing a variable amount of penis, or slicing off the testes. ... That there are religious groups who support female circumcision is not relevant. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I just think that "part of the penis" sounds a lot worse than removing foreskin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
It is like describing losing a bit of your earlobe as missing a bit of your head though - somewhat misleading proportionately.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
As has already been pointed out the foreskin is part of the penis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It rather doesn't matter how bad it sounds. Sounding good is not a criteria for determining body parts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sylvander:
This is a simple repetition of the doctrinally correct. But the example given above is exactly contradicting what you say.
According to those who practice this form of female circumcision (Shafi'i Muslims), it exactly parallels male circumcision

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
An unqualified "removing part of the penis" to me gives the impression of substantially more extensive cutting than simply removing the foreskin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Well if we had the same conversation about someone cutting off "part of my foot" vs "my toenail" would you feel the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Is this thread still going on? Jeez!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
Well if we had the same conversation about someone cutting off "part of my foot" vs "my toenail" would you feel the same?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Inger:
One might perhaps point out that a nail will regrow. I don't think it's really analogous with cutting off the foreskin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
What percent of your average penis is the foreskin, say by weight, when flaccid?

What percent of your average foot is the skin from one toe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What part of the foot would you use in the illustration mousethief?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0