Ship of Fools: Is circumcision abuse?

Thread: Is circumcision abuse? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020072

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

For all sorts of reasons, I have been contemplating this for a while, because I think that taking an 8 day old baby and chopping it's foreskin off seems to be abusive. If you were to remove any other skin, it would be considered abuse. If you were to take a sharp knife to a baby in any other situation, it would be considered abuse.

Partly, this is inspired by reading Scars across Humanity, where (among other things) Elaine discusses FGM (also known as female circumcision). Now that is, without question, abuse, and I know there is no parallel in terms of the level of abuse, but it is still supported as a cultural matter.

So is (male) circumcision, done without consent, actually abuse? And why do we accept it if it is?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Because opposing (male) circumcision has a bad habit of being a disguise for anti-Semitism and/or Islamophobia and, in the grand scheme of things, it does little or no long term harm. In other words it ain't worth the fight. FGM has serious long term health and quality of life implications and therefore is worth the fight.

[ 05. February 2017, 13:05: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

sigh

I really wish you could have begun this without mentioning FGM, because they are not comparable. In context of FGM, circumcision isn't abuse, as it is closer to infant ear piercing than it is FGM. The overwhelmingly vast majority of men who get circumcised have healthy sex lives. Or the same potential as uncut.
This doesn't mean it is necessarily good or right.
And there is discussion material in that, but muddying the water with a ridiculous comparison will not facilitate this.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I believe circumcision, done non-consensually, is abuse, but as lilbuddha says, it's really not comparable to FGM. I'd put it closer to giving a baby a body piercing or tattoo. There are alleged health benefits for which (the last time I looked) the evidence base was pretty poor. On the other hand, there is the alleged loss of sensitivity during sexual activity. Either way, you're cutting skin off a kid, and I think you have to have a pretty good reason to even consider that. Is "God told us to" a good reason? - it wouldn't be for me.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I mentioned FGM to try to avoid the debate drifting that way, actually. And because the "it's cultural" argument is used in both cases.

I probably would put it in a similar category to ear piercing. Which is also frowned upon for infants, despite the cultural expectations - there is an argument that this is abuse when done on infants.

I can understand reluctance because of the anti-semitic perception of this. But I am always worried when abuse is justified to avoid offending people. That seems wrong.

When it isn't cultural, that has to be done at 8 days old, why is it still done to babies? If it has health benefits, aren't these as good if done at an age when the child can consent?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

It seems to me that circumcision is not invasive enough to overrule the religious liberty considerations.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I don't think any comparison to FGM nor ear piercing is correct. The FGM destroys sexual and other functions and the ear lobes aren't functional or sexual.

Circumcision is a form of body modification and mutilation. It isn't fixable once done. The person who has it done to them knows no different. The arguement that those circumcised have happy sex lives doesn't speak to the reasonableness of it. They have no idea of any comparitive function.

We wouldn't tattoo a baby, which isn't well compared either, but speaks to the permanent modification aspect. Though tattoos may be more erasable. There are no foreskin transplants.

It is at the level I think, without a good reason, it shouldn't be done. The reason may be medical or religious, but not taken lightly at all.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I can understand reluctance because of the anti-semitic perception of this. But I am always worried when abuse is justified to avoid offending people. That seems wrong.

It's not offence I'm concerned about, so much as giving aid and comfort to bigots. It's amazing how often concern about circumcision, just like concern about Halal or Kosher slaughter, is a thin veneer over some seriously vile stuff.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

An additional argument against circumcision is that, like any surgical procedure, it is not risk-free. Estimates vary, but it would seem there are more than 100 infant deaths from circumcision in the USA each year. It's likely that most of these are carried out by inexperienced people, but nevertheless, a death is a death. There are also non-fatal complications, often requiring hospital treatment, and these are not uncommon.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

I'm conflicted on circumcision. The religious freedom argument seems very strong (especially considering Jewish history in Europe), but its seriousness shouldn't be downplayed despite the speed of the operation.

The worst effects definitely arise when it's done under poor medical conditions. There are two excellent articles on this by Ally Fogg: one is about circumcision in UK, and the other is about rituals for boys in South Africa. I highly recommend both - Ally Fogg is one of the few mainstream journalists regularly covering men's issues.

Points covered in the South Africa article include:

In just the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces, at least 419 boys died 2008-2014, and more than 456,000 were hospitalised.
Deaths commonly occur through dehydration, blood loss, shock-induced heart failure or septicaemia.
There are ~2 total penile amputations for every death.
Countless numbers of participants are left with permanent scarring or deformity. Urologists describe seeing patients whose penises have become so infected and gangrenous they literally drop off.
We have no idea of the true scale of the problem. Many initiation schools are illegal, so the full toll is hidden. In other countries tragedies simply go uncounted.

This site documents a tiny proportion of the problem in Africa. Go to the 'Photos' tab - very NSFW but IMO worth seeing, especially for anyone who thinks it's not a big deal.

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

How can the intentional mutilation of another person's body, without that person's consent (apart from the obvious exception of emergency surgery) ever be anything other than abusive?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

The practice was ubiquitous, not for religious reasons, in North America until at least the 1970s, thought to prevent the "sexual self abuse" of masturbation. It was covered under medicare in most places in Canada. It is not presently. The health and cleanliness reasons have been debunked.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

I can understand reluctance because of the anti-semitic perception of this. But I am always worried when abuse is justified to avoid offending people. That seems wrong.

It's not offence I'm concerned about, so much as giving aid and comfort to bigots. It's amazing how often concern about circumcision, just like concern about Halal or Kosher slaughter, is a thin veneer over some seriously vile stuff.

I do get this. I would never want to offer any support to these people, which is why I wanted a sensible discussion on this.

I suppose if you wanted to introduce it today, for your own little cult, then most people would argue that you were being abusive and not let you. So why do we let it carry on?

The cultural thing is important, but then we used to do all sorts of things in our society that we no longer do (beat children at school for example). We realised that they were not appropriate, so we stopped.

As I suggested above, if boys at an age where they can consent to it were to be circumcised, that would make the cultural identity stronger, surely? Because it would be a choice? Of course, there is always a chance of abuse, but surely less.

I get the desire and need to mark someone as a member of the tribe at a point when infant mortality was 50%, but it is sexist, only caring about the boys, and in societies with substantially lower infant mortality, surely it is wrong?

And I am not pushing for an answer either way. I am just interested in the arguments, in the answers.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

When it isn't cultural, that has to be done at 8 days old, why is it still done to babies? If it has health benefits, aren't these as good if done at an age when the child can consent?

Babies heal faster. So there's an argument that if you're going to do it anyway, it's better to do it to a baby than a teen or young adult, because the baby will heal faster.

I don't buy the benefits. But also, I have no cultural history of it.

It has never, AFAIK, been routine practice to circumcise in the UK - growing up, we knew what circumcision was: it was something that Jews did to their baby boys. The idea that a gentile might choose it was not present.

So when we moved to the US, had a baby boy, and the doctor asked if we were having him circumcised, he got some funny looks. I probably said something like "no, and we're not going to chop any other bits off him either".

The argument I find odd is the apparently large number of US men who want their sons to be circumcised so that they look like Dad. I'm completely bemused as to why having father-and-son matching penes is a thing. I don't cut my son's hair to look like mine...

So if anyone can explain that to me, I'd be grateful.

Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :

I don't have any doubt about it. It is abuse to cut any bits off anyone that won't grow back for other than sound medical reasons. Obviously FGM is several orders of magnitude worse but it is still wrong.

FWIW I'm circumcised myself. It doesn't bother me 99% of the time and doesn't interfere with sex, but if a fairy godmother was passing and let me give her a wish list it would come about 6th I suppose at a rough guess. Having a say in what had happened all those years ago would have been nice.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The argument I find odd is the apparently large number of US men who want their sons to be circumcised so that they look like Dad.

Mine [born 1977] was done partly because it was recommended a the time and partly because my dad [1949] was also cut, and I was told it would be easier for him to give advice on cleanliness of the pubic region as it was what he was used to. And apparently it makes cleaning easier.

So not "looking like dad" really, but given I followed his, er, example, I've thought I'd share it.

I don't remember it, obviously, and do not see it as abuse to me personally. I know no different, so I can't say what it's like to have a complete foreskin, and seeing an uncut one the first time was a revelation. Unless there are health benefits, which seem to have been debunked above, though I'm sure I've read articles that spruiked them [even recall one on lessing AIDS!], I'm curious, religion excluded, why it would be continued.

[ 05. February 2017, 18:47: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I'm sure I've read articles that spruiked them [even recall one on lessing AIDS!], I'm curious, religion excluded, why it would be continued.

I recall articles that suggested circumcision reduced the transmission of AIDS (by about 50%, so nowhere close to condoms, but not zero). The one that had stuck in my head was by the appropriately-named Dr de Cock.

[ 05. February 2017, 18:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Dr de Cock.

The most disturbing Spiderman villain EVER.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Hiro's Leap:

I'd rather seen something from the medical profession than from the opinions page and any medical procedure not done my a trained person risks complications.

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
How can the intentional mutilation of another person's body, without that person's consent (apart from the obvious exception of emergency surgery) ever be anything other than abusive?

It is a cultural procedure that has few real problems when done properly. Abuse is too strong a word.

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

The argument I find odd is the apparently large number of US men who want their sons to be circumcised so that they look like Dad. I'm completely bemused as to why having father-and-son matching penes is a thing. I don't cut my son's hair to look like mine...

So if anyone can explain that to me, I'd be grateful.

tl;dr - Inertia.

OK, I can only guess and say the "look like" thing is bogus. ISTM, it is more just a thing that is done. It was begun as a health thing, most people won't question it as American males who've had it done have experienced no problems.

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :

John Maynard Keynes and his brothers were circumcised in the late Victorian period. It was supposed to stop perceived sexual deviancy.

And if you've read any buographies of JMK, you'll know exactly how that went.

I wander if it's how it caught in America - a late 19th moral issue that becomes a hing people just do.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

This is an old discussion - I recall a thread on this from about six or seven years ago.

I'm conflicted about this. I'm circumcised only because it was the general practice when I was born, but were I to have a son, I probably wouldn't unless my partner were Jewish.

I don't feel as though I've been abused or victimised, but a circumcised friend of mine is very angry about this. He explored a "restoration" procedure that involved stretching the remaining skin using an adhesive tape. Now, that seems like abuse. (Self-abuse, if you'll pardon the pun.)

As to the statistic that circumcision reduces the probability of contracting HIV by 50%, I rather doubt it. If it's the research that I remember, it's now dated, and was limited to east Africa and (I think), a limited data base.

As a tangent (and indicative of how mutable the thinking can be on these health issues), it was thought that the foreskin, by protecting the glans, kept the skin tenderer and therefore more susceptible to abrasion during sex, allowing entrance for the HIV. Wrong. It is now thought that the pathway is the mucosal cells of the foreskin. That said, just wear a damn condom.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
I wander if it's how it caught in America - a late 19th moral issue that becomes a hing people just do.

I think so - a morality and hygiene craze, kicked off by "anesthesia and antisepsis rapidly expanding surgical practice"

Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (of the breakfast cereal fame) was heavily involved. I hadn't realised until just now how sadistic he was:

quote:
He recommended circumcision of boys caught masturbating, writing: "A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

I imagine it would be "salutary". He also recommended a dab of acid on a girl's clitoris for the same purposes, but that wasn't as popular.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

I don't feel as though I've been abused or victimised, but a circumcised friend of mine is very angry about this.

As I understand it, this outrage is generally connected to the "Men's Rights" movement.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

I don't feel as though I've been abused or victimised, but a circumcised friend of mine is very angry about this.
As I understand it, this outrage is generally connected to the "Men's Rights" movement.

Guilty by association?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Bothering to look for research, there was a recent (2015) American report saying that the benefits of infant male circumcision outweighs the risk. There are several responses discussing the advice:
response 1
response 2
which suggested that that a number of factors weren't taken into account.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:

I don't feel as though I've been abused or victimised, but a circumcised friend of mine is very angry about this.
As I understand it, this outrage is generally connected to the "Men's Rights" movement.
Guilty by association?

Men are very attached to their attachment, if you will. If there were a real problem with circumcision, one would think it would have not arisen in America and be a larger issue than it is.
So, in general, what triggers the outrage?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Honestly, in the list of outrages, it's a heck of a long way down the list.

Some of the arguments here have me scratching my head, because they're pointing out bad things that are not at all unique to male circumcision and could equally be used as an argument against other things that people are completely fine with. Things we do because of their benefits.

Talking about the downsides without any discussion of upsides - be they medical or otherwise - is not a balanced decision. Unless you think there aren't any possible upsides.

Go back some decades and circumcision was regularly done with a medical justification. I would hesitate to agree that this has all been "debunked", as there remains evidence that circumcision makes a difference to sexually transmitted diseases.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Frankly, I suspect most of the fuss about circumcision comes from men with unsatisfactory sex lives that want to have something to blame for their troubles other than their own lack of skills/competence/emotional engagement.

There's a chance some of them are actually right, but it's a bit like the current obsession with avoiding gluten. I asked a friend with coeliac disease and she rolled her eyes at all the people who've decided that gluten is making them ill. In most cases it's a crap diet that is making them ill. Or, you know, they won't accept that the reason they feel "bloated" is because they ate a shitload of food.

[ 05. February 2017, 20:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I asked a friend with coeliac disease and she rolled her eyes at all the people who've decided that gluten is making them ill.

tangent/
The jury is still out on whether there exists a thing called gluten sensitivity. However, even should it be real, ISTM the number of real sufferers is likely much lower than the perceived.
That said, the explosion of gluten-free food is a boon to those with coeliac disease.
/tangent

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Agree with your tangent entirely.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

As the Patriots win.... (Baaaaah)

I forgot to mention an article that appeared in a long defunct Canadian men's magazine (analogous to Men's Health, I suppose) called Toro. In the article (by David Eddie? Apologies to him, if it wasn't him), the author was circumcised at the age of 18 for medical reasons after having been sexually active for two or three years, and so was in a position to do the before/after comparison. His verdict was that there was no meaningful difference in sexual functionality or pleasure.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I was circumcised as a new-born, as was virtually everyone else in those days. That had been the standard practice here for virtually as long as in the US. Indeed, it was not until an English boy joined our class in sixth form (about 12 yrs old) that we knew any different.

No silly reasons such as looking like your father (quite frankly, we never really checked each other as far as I can recall) but on the basis of cleanliness. I don't feel mutilated or abused by having had the snip. It's impossible to say if it made any difference to my sex life, but don't really see how it could have.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

WE had both boys circumcised (in Israel) by a mohel [ritual circumciser] but without the religious ceremony). The reason we chose the mohel and not "a doctor" was that we thought it was safer to get it done by someone who did 3 a week rather than 3 a year.
The decision was taken after very little discussion on the basis that they would then look like "everyone else".

My daughter (in another country) did not have her (technically Jewish) son circumcised at all on the same basis.

The one about "looking like Dad" sounds like it has some validity but really how often are they naked together after shared infant bath-times ?

Anthroplogically - if you have so many and varied cultures that DO it and with great ceremony and so many cultures that DON'T do it at all and make no big thing of it (as it were!)...what is the Right Thing?

Also wouldn't common sense suggest that men would not do something bad to their Esteemed Organ ANYWAY?

[ 06. February 2017, 07:44: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This is interesting to me for two reasons.

One is that my ancestry is Jewish on both sides; my parents came to Britain from Germany at the very end of 1938. I was not circumcised; I don't know if that was because my parents thought the idea barbaric, or because they were "secular Jews" (and actually brought me up CofE); or because they knew the danger of identifying marks. I do remember querying this as my school had a lot of boys from (practicing) Jewish families who were circumcised.

The other reason was our missionary service in Africa, in a culture where male circumcision was a rite of passage from boyhood to manhood. The Church opposed it, more from its animistic connotations than for humanitarian reasons; however this ran into the problem of Christian men not being regarded as adults by the wider society. So the recommendation was, "If you feel you have to have it done, get it done in hospital". Whether anyone followed that advice, I don't know.

Personally I feel that, if performed on children, circumcision is abuse.

[ 06. February 2017, 09:10: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

Personally I feel that, if performed on children, circumcision is abuse.

But why?
Here is how I see the situation:
In the abuse corner you have uncut men and a few cut saying "don't touch the precious" with some Men's Rights* (see? they abuse us too!) thrown in.
In the not abuse corner are millions of cut men who don't think there is an issue and/or don't know they are supposed to be outraged; all who happily go fucking anything that will let them.

Abuse, in this case, is in the mind of the beholder.

*I am not saying that men cannot be abused, some are. I am not denigrating them or diminishing their plight. Just that the Men's Rights movements are rubbish.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Since the infant is, clearly, unable to give an informed consent, circumcision must come into the category of all the other things parents do to infants -- vaccinations, piercing their ears (common in Asia), putting them into comical tee shirts and posting the photos onto Facebook. We may disagree with any or all of these, but the fact is that the parents have the say.

My husband is circumcised, as was standard for nearly all boys born in the 1950s. Our son is not. Before he was born we had to decide, and when my husband heard the description of how it is done he turned slightly green and declined. So far as I can tell the operation or lack of it has had no effect on either of them for good or ill.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Vaccination does not belong in your grouping. It is demonstrably for their benefit and the benefit of the society one chooses to live in.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It depends on how you define abuse. It is probably an assault, isn't it? This is one reason for signing consent forms in hospital, as the surgeon cannot then be accused of assault.

But some forms of assault are usually ignored, e.g. ear-piercing, presumably, because it's not grievous. If there were a group of people who amputated babies' thumbs, I would think that this would be considered grievous.

So circumcision is shading over to a less grievous assault, and then there are all the cultural contexts, religion and so on. As to possible ill-effects, I have no idea, although there are reports of some, including fatalities.

I certainly would not have a child of mine circumcised.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Vaccination does not belong in your grouping. It is demonstrably for their benefit and the benefit of the society one chooses to live in.

But it is not difficult to find people who disagree. They may be idiots, but they do disagree. In fact a case could be made that it is -more- damaging (to the baby and to society at large) to omit vaccinations than to circumsize. And yet, mostly, we don't legally compel people to have their babies jabbed.

[ 06. February 2017, 16:23: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Vaccination does not belong in your grouping. It is demonstrably for their benefit and the benefit of the society one chooses to live in.
But it is not difficult to find people who disagree. They may be idiots, but they do disagree. In fact a case could be made that it is -more- damaging (to the baby and to society at large) to omit vaccinations than to circumsize. And yet, mostly, we don't legally compel people to have their babies jabbed.

No matter the topic, you will find someone who disagrees. The mere presence of dissent does not legitimise it.
Back to the topic; I do not care if if men have their tally whacked or if the mighty tower retains its parapet. I do think it inaccurate to label circumcision as abuse.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I disagree. My view is that, without a valid medical reason, it is assault on a child who cannot consent or dissent.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I disagree. My view is that, without a valid medical reason, it is assault on a child who cannot consent or dissent.

I don't think many people would disagree that it's assault, although I'm confused as to why it's not battery.

Ditto lack of consent, obviously, but assault is permitted in some contexts with children, for example, ear-piercing, vaccination, surgery, obviously for different reasons.

Parental consent seems to be very important.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I disagree. My view is that, without a valid medical reason, it is assault on a child who cannot consent or dissent.

So what? You give no reason as to why this is an "assault".
You. You, will do many things to your child that are without their consent. Many will have a potential effect on your child much greater than a circumcision.
Not arguing the right or wrong of it, just the level of rhetoric applied.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I disagree. My view is that, without a valid medical reason, it is assault on a child who cannot consent or dissent.
I don't think many people would disagree that it's assault, although I'm confused as to why it's not battery.

Ditto lack of consent, obviously, but assault is permitted in some contexts with children, for example, ear-piercing, vaccination, surgery, obviously for different reasons.

Parental consent seems to be very important.

But I think medical necessity is also important. Under which vaccination and surgery (depending on surgery) could be justified, but not ear-piercing or dong whacking.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You give no reason as to why this is an "assault".

You're chopping off part of a person's body. How is that NOT assault? In any other circumstance, chopping off part of someone's body absent medical necessity and/or consent would be assault. What makes this so different?

[ 06. February 2017, 17:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is neither assault nor battery. You give short shrift to actual abuse by the misuse of the term.
Men.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

All right ... in British law it is probably "Assault causing Actual Bodily Harm". But I'm no lawyer. And, in my book, the fact that it is "common" or "cultural" is no defence - so was caning in schools, yet we don't do it today.

[ 06. February 2017, 18:00: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

mt,
Assault is an attempt to do harm. Battery is if I hit you with intent to harm. It is all about intent.
One may feel circumcision is wrong. One may feel it is harmful. But it isn't intended to be harmful. Therefore use of either assault or battery is inaccurate.
Abuse is a little trickier, as intent isn't part of the definition.
Results generally are, and the result of a properly done circumcision are transparent to the individual. Generally.

[ 06. February 2017, 18:02: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Me neither (a lawyer), but I think surgery is technically assault, which is one reason that you sign a consent form.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Also not a lawyer, but the consent is to ensure that you understand the risks and that they have proof of consent.
Surgery is not assault, cutting someone open without their consent is.* The form proves you are doing one and not the other and that the patient understood what could go wrong.

*ETA: And then not in all circumstances as any trip to the A&E will demonstrate.

[ 06. February 2017, 18:06: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

"It is technically an assault to operate on a patient without her consent ... In England, anyone over 16 years of age can give legally valid consent for surgical or medical treatment."

"Principles of Gynaecological Surgery", ed. S. Stanton, p. 4.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Are there any men onboard who actually feel aggrieved by their "status"?

[ 06. February 2017, 18:17: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is neither assault nor battery. You give short shrift to actual abuse by the misuse of the term.
Men.

"Men"? Seriously? You disappoint me.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is neither assault nor battery. You give short shrift to actual abuse by the misuse of the term.
Men.
"Men"? Seriously? You disappoint me.

'Men'? WTF is that about?

Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Are there any men onboard who actually feel aggrieved by their "status"?

Very slightly. There are other things that annoy me more.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Not so much aggrieved as curious, I suppose.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Does the nonexistence of such men on SOF nullify their existence elsewhere? Or nullify the opinions of those who are elsewhere?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was amazed when I realized it was done in England for health reasons, up until the 1950s, I think, although I think 'health' was interpreted rather liberally.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I believe that (in non-Jewish contexts) the idea was to deter masturbation. I could not speak to whether it is effective for that purpose or not. But I have read Portnoy's Complaint, and am inclined to think the entire thing is a boondoggle if that is your goal.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Are there any men onboard who actually feel aggrieved by their "status"?

I'm not sure how much difference it makes - for infant circumcision people don't know anything different. Also, we mostly go along with tradition. Many women are happy with their FGM, they encourage their daughters to undergo it, and they perform most of the operations. That doesn't make it acceptable.

Here's a diagram of how a circumcision works. (Possibly NSFW, but it's only a diagram not photos, so I've not hidden it under two clicks.) There need to be two or three substantial cuts - one around the circumference of the penis - then a load of stitches just below the glans. This is all done into some of the body's most sensitive skin. Anesthetic is rarely used for babies.

As an adult I'd find that extremely nasty. I have no reason to think that an infant, held down and frightened, doesn't find it equally so.

I'm unsure about my position on circumcision, primarily because of the huge significance it has for Jews and Muslims. There's also a good argument it should be legal or else it'll be done in backstreet clinics. I'm uncomfortable with the term 'abuse' since the parents have good intentions, but I can see why others would use it.

But male circumcision isn't a trivial operation. IMO it can legitimately be compared to some of the less severe forms of FGM, at least in terms of the pain of the procedure. Saying it's like an ear-piercing is badly off.

[ 06. February 2017, 19:57: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Suppose a state were to make circumcision illegal unless a doctor had certified that for that child it was medically essential. Suppose the legislation did not exempt Jews and Moslems from such a law. Does anyone really think it is possible to produce a persuasive argument that such state action would be anything other than anti-semitic, anti-Moslem, overtly anti-religious and probably all three?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is technically an assault to operate on a patient without her consent ... In England, anyone over 16 years of age can give legally valid consent for surgical or medical treatment."

"Principles of Gynaecological Surgery", ed. S. Stanton, p. 4.

See the part that says without consent? That is the bit that matters. If someone hits you without consent, it is a crime. If someone hits you in the ring, it is a sport. Context matters.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
But male circumcision isn't a trivial operation. IMO it can legitimately be compared to some of the less severe forms of FGM, at least in terms of the pain of the procedure. Saying it's like an ear-piercing is badly off.

Seriously, how the hell would you know this?

In any case I don't see that pain is even a legitimate criterion. Lots of medical things are painful. My dentist is painful. Turns out that her cleaning my teeth is MORE painful than giving me a filling.

[ 06. February 2017, 21:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is technically an assault to operate on a patient without her consent ... In England, anyone over 16 years of age can give legally valid consent for surgical or medical treatment."

"Principles of Gynaecological Surgery", ed. S. Stanton, p. 4.
See the part that says without consent? That is the bit that matters. If someone hits you without consent, it is a crime. If someone hits you in the ring, it is a sport. Context matters.

When's the last time an infant gave consent to be snipped?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does the nonexistence of such men on SOF nullify their existence elsewhere? Or nullify the opinions of those who are elsewhere?

The existence of millions of circumcised American men and Jewish men* who had no issue because it doesn't appear matter physically and no one told them they should be angry, matter.

Ok, a blanket condemnation of men is not right. But neither is the bullshit use of assault, battery or abuse.

*And men of old in England and Australia.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"It is technically an assault to operate on a patient without her consent ... In England, anyone over 16 years of age can give legally valid consent for surgical or medical treatment."

"Principles of Gynaecological Surgery", ed. S. Stanton, p. 4.
See the part that says without consent? That is the bit that matters. If someone hits you without consent, it is a crime. If someone hits you in the ring, it is a sport. Context matters.
When's the last time an infant gave consent to be snipped?

When's the last time an infant consented to a vaccination?

Parental consent is a well-established principle.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When's the last time an infant gave consent to be snipped?

You, mousethief, did much to your children without consent. Those things, if not done with care, have the potential to screw up those children far worse than a properly done circumcision.

[ 06. February 2017, 21:23: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

Vaccination is not mutilation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When's the last time an infant consented to a vaccination?

Parental consent is a well-established principle.

Vaccinations can claim medical necessity. Except possibly in cases of phimosis that excuse is not open to circumcision. That little snippet of a point keeps dropping out of the discussion somehow.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
When's the last time an infant gave consent to be snipped?
You, mousethief, did much to your children without consent. Those things, if not done with care, have the potential to screw up those children far worse than a properly done circumcision.

I did very nothing medically to my children that was potentially harmful without medical good reason. And certainly not surgery.

[ 06. February 2017, 21:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
When's the last time an infant consented to a vaccination?

Parental consent is a well-established principle.
Vaccinations can claim medical necessity. Except possibly in cases of phimosis that excuse is not open to circumcision. That little snippet of a point keeps dropping out of the discussion somehow.

It doesn't keep dropping out of the discussion. But what is happening is that as soon as one point is addressed, people jump to a quite separate issue and we just go around and around in circles.

You are the one who suggested that the consent of an infant mattered. If you can just admit that this is a straw man, and that we never demand the consent of infants, we can move on to discussing the limits of parental consent.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

But male circumcision isn't a trivial operation. IMO it can legitimately be compared to some of the less severe forms of FGM, at least in terms of the pain of the procedure.

FGM is done to control women. It is not nuetral in outcome.
Female genitalia is more than merely skin covering the clitoris and vaginal opening. There is only 1 subtype of FGM (type 1a) that even approaches circumcision and that is rarely done by itself.

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
there was a recent (2015) American report saying that the benefits of infant male circumcision outweighs the risk. There are several responses [...] which suggested that that a number of factors weren't taken into account.

American doctors seem to be more pro-circumcision than many other countries. For instance, 'Denmark’s 29,000 Doctors Declare Circumcision of Healthy Boys an “Ethically Unacceptable” Procedure'. (I've no idea who is right.)

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As I understand it, this outrage is generally connected to the "Men's Rights" movement.

To some extent, but there also seem to be quite a few feminists involved - much kudos to them. An anti-circumcision stance follows naturally from the concept of 'bodily autonomy' used by pro-choice campaigners, as well as tying in to the importance of consent generally.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is neither assault nor battery. You give short shrift to actual abuse by the misuse of the term.
Men.
"Men"? Seriously? You disappoint me.

I like and respect lilBuddha, but IMO he/she has a serious blind spot here. To compare male circumcision to FGM is taboo for many, even when you acknowledge how much worse some types of FGM are. Calling circumcision 'abuse' perhaps comes dangerously close to this.

Conversations about domestic violence have similar problems, and sexual assault is even worse. (According to multiple surveys, the number of guys who've been raped by women is staggering. Society has almost no awareness of this.)

The idea that men ought to 'man up' and not complain runs very deep, and is enforced by both men and women.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Vaccination is not mutilation.

You know, it would be really nice if you didn't declare me to be "mutilated".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The abuse of men is wrong and it should be addressed.
However, Men's Rights groups often use it as a smoke screen to avoid/refute the societal bias against women.
Circumcision=\= FGM. Full Stop.
Dose this mean there isn't any room for arguing against the practice? No.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
But male circumcision isn't a trivial operation. IMO it can legitimately be compared to some of the less severe forms of FGM, at least in terms of the pain of the procedure. Saying it's like an ear-piercing is badly off.
Seriously, how the hell would you know this?

In any case I don't see that pain is even a legitimate criterion. Lots of medical things are painful. My dentist is painful. Turns out that her cleaning my teeth is MORE painful than giving me a filling.

Circumcision was done in the past on infant boys without proper anesthesia, based on the idea that the newborn nervous system was not developed enough to register pain. It isn't done these days medically without anesthesia because that idea wasn't correct. But it is surgery. It isn't comparable to dental work nor female genital mutilation.

It isn't usually medically necessary. It is more often a religious requirement.

That circumcision might lessen chances of HIV and other diseases is not proven satisfactorily to my reading of the literature. And even if it was, to circumcise conjecturally because an infant might grow up to have unprotected sex and acquire a disease isn't compelling enough for medical associations around to support doing it to everyone. We don't see many adult or adolescent males opting to have this done. Although some medical associations have come out to support it more based on future disease-catching possibilities but they also attach their wish to have insurance or gov't health schemes cover it, which makes me suspicious that this is also self-serving.

[tangent]
I'm reminded of my grandmother-in-law's 1912 story of being lined up in a hallway with other children so a travelling physician could take all the children's tonsils out. Because they were bound to become infected at some point. That might be a better comparison. She ended up with a complication: her epiglottis was also removed, thus for the rest of her 93 years she had an exposed trachea (windpipe) when swallowing, and had be awfully careful not to choke. A rare complication apparently.

It is much more difficult today to get a tonsillectomy; you have to show actual infection on a frequent basis and have to have not responded to other treatments, and understand that even taking them out may not solve anything.

Which sounds quite a bit more similar to circumcision than having teeth cleaned or FGM in terms of presumed medical benefits and level of medical procedure. The healing is faster for tonsils.
[/tangent]

[ 06. February 2017, 22:30: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

No prophet, I generally agree with you.

The sober question, the one where people don't throw around emotive language, is a cost/benefit analysis that asks:

1. What benefit does it bring?
2. What harm does it cause?

The medical opinion on benefits does seem to have shifted considerably over the years. I personally think there is some reasonable evidence about disease transmission, but I'll readily acknowledge that some of the benefits that were perceived are no longer accepted.

The bit where I think a lot of rot flies about is the claimed harm. I don't think there's much evidence at all that circumcision impairs sexual function or pleasure, just some men who claim their sex lives would've been so much better if they hadnt been "mutilated". This is the big difference to female procedures, where I think there is far more evidence of ongoing problems.

Where that leaves me is acknowledging that circumcision might not be such a great idea but with no desire to go around banning it.

Posted by Meconopsis (# 18146) on :

I actually have a definite opinion on this, based on my experience: I am female & worked in a newborn nursery in a hospital where almost 100% of the baby boys were circumcised. It was a Jewish hospital in an African-American & poor neighborhood in a major U.S. city.
There were many things about the practice that seemed wrong to me, but primarily was the glib assertion that the babies felt no pain. It was very clear to me that they did feel pain & fear. It was really quite brutal to watch. The newborn babies were strapped on a "circumcision board" in a brightly lit room, their genitals swabbed with cold Betadine, and they were cut. Who knows what they felt, physically? But based on this, I decided if I ever had a boy, he would not be circumcised as a matter of course.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The bit where I think a lot of rot flies about is the claimed harm.

Indeed. The "rot" is when people claim infants can't feel pain.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The bit where I think a lot of rot flies about is the claimed harm.
Indeed. The "rot" is when people claim infants can't feel pain.

Something I never claimed, and I'm not sure anyone else on the thread has claimed it.

And again, the idea that pain is an argument against a procedure is nonsense. It's merely an argument for pain relief during a procedure.

It was perfectly clear I was talking about the claimed harm as a result of the procedure, not pain during the procedure. If you want to address that instead of, yet again, shifting to a different point, I'm all ears.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The bit where I think a lot of rot flies about is the claimed harm.
Indeed. The "rot" is when people claim infants can't feel pain.
Something I never claimed, and I'm not sure anyone else on the thread has claimed it.

And again, the idea that pain is an argument against a procedure is nonsense. It's merely an argument for pain relief during a procedure.

It was perfectly clear I was talking about the claimed harm as a result of the procedure, not pain during the procedure. If you want to address that instead of, yet again, shifting to a different point, I'm all ears.

Well, increased risk of death, infection, and destruction of penis compared to not doing it at all. Risk of great harm, for absolutely no gain.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Those are extreme and rare risks for properly done procedures. That is scare mongering language.
That it is unnecessary is the reason not to do it, don't need any crazy rhetoric.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Are there any men onboard who actually feel aggrieved by their "status"?
I'm not sure how much difference it makes -

I was just interested in the disjunct between almost completely abstract civil liberties/religious requirements/child abuse/mutilation tone of the thread and the passion and energy (for the issue) expressed in the posts themselves.

I thought "Why are there no posts by men incensed by what was done to them?" So I thought I'd ask.

I also wondered what sort of response my question would get - would the site crash or would I wake up to zero reaction.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Those are extreme and rare risks for properly done procedures. That is scare mongering language.
That it is unnecessary is the reason not to do it, don't need any crazy rhetoric.

I was asked to produce arguments against it. When one is doing a cost/benefit analysis, one puts potential gains against potential harm. Therefore one lists potential harms, even if lilBuddha thinks they're extremely rare. It is neither "scaremongering" nor "crazy" to do so. It's part of how you decide whether or not to do some undertaking. You weigh the risks and the benefits. There are no benefits to circumcision. These are the risks. I don't see what your problem is.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Meconopsis:
I actually have a definite opinion on this, based on my experience: I am female & worked in a newborn nursery in a hospital where almost 100% of the baby boys were circumcised. ... But based on this, I decided if I ever had a boy, he would not be circumcised as a matter of course.

I'm really glad you wrote.
I had heard this about the wholesale hospital circumcisions.

I think the environment you describe and all of the brit [circumcision ceremonies] at which I have been a guest must be incredibly stressful for a newborn. A hundred or more people milling around, being taken away from his mother and exposed to be either buckled into the chair or held legs akimbo by an elderly male relative he has no experience of...no wonder the baby boy cries or screams. Not to mention the shouts that go up once the job is done and his name announced.

As to the pain I can only say that our sons barely squeaked. We were at home. It was done on the kitchen table covered with a nice cloth and a wee vase of flowers in the corner. Also present were: us, the mohel [ritual circumciser] and our kibbutz Head Baby Nurse.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Response to mousethief:

My problem is the use of language like abuse and assault.

Also, assessing risk isn't simply listing the potential risks, but also the probability of their occurrence.

[ 07. February 2017, 05:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Response to mousethief:

My problem is the use of language like abuse and assault.

Also, assessing risk isn't simply listing the potential risks, but also the probability of their occurrence.

Yes but when there are risks, however rare, and no benefits, then there is absolutely no reason to do something and plenty good reason not to. I don't think I used abuse or assault in the posts you are responding to. I was responding to orfeo's call for a list of claimed harm resulting from the procedure. Any risk, however small, set against zero benefits, is too large. It is one thing to risk death to fight a cancer in your body, or replace a malfunctioning heart valve, or even a bum knee. But to risk death, serious infection, or maiming for absolutely no benefit whatsoever? Why would any person do that to their child?

(This does not refer to persons for whom it is a religious duty; that is of benefit to them, however people outside their religions may feel about it.)

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

When I was born my parents did not intend to circumcise me. However, I developed a severe urinary tract infection and the doctor advised my parents that I needed to be circumcised.

There are several benefits to circumcision. One is able to keep the head (glans) cleaner. It can prevent urinary tract infections. Circumcised men are less susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Though rare, circumcised are less likely to develop penile cancer. The female partners of circumcised men are less likely to get cervical cancer as well.

It also prevents Phimosis: This condition occurs when the foreskin cannot be retracted (pulled back) behind the head (glans) of the penis.

Still, the decision to circumcise or not should be left to the parents of the infant boy. With proper training, many of these problems can be avoided, I grant. However, just how sure can one be that the boy will continue to perform proper penile hygiene as he matures?

If parents should decide to circumcise, it is recommended it be done with an anesthetic as well.

Sometimes, as in my case, it is a necessary evil. Ultimately we decided to have all three of my boys circumcised because of the fear we had that they may have developed one or more of the complications I listed above.

[ 07. February 2017, 05:22: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Galilit, glad it was a wee vase of flowers.

Gramps49 is on the path (even if I'm not sure about all the health references he makes) - here and in the US , the argument for circumcision was cleanliness. I can remember catching tube trains in London in the early 60s. Much of the time I'd say that we were the only people in the carriage who had showered that morning. You'd wonder about penile cleanliness.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

My grandson had to be circumcised at the age of 6 due to medical problems and the whole event was traumatic for him and for his parents. His mother (who is a nurse)commented that she regrets not having him circumcised as a baby rather than have him undergo something so difficult at age 6.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Presumably, one reason for doing it to babies is the belief that it doesn't hurt them as much, and isn't emotionally traumatic. Well, men don't seem to remember it. That attitude to babies still freaks me out. I guess that some four year olds would shout the house down, and would feel angry and betrayed?

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I guess that some four year olds would shout the house down, and would feel angry and betrayed?

True, but cultural and family expectations would likely affect a child's response. If your older brother and cousins were circumcised, and everyone is making a fuss of you and there's cake afterwards, it'd probably make a difference.

In Islam, boys are circumcised at a wide range of ages, but apparently seven is typical.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I think the point being missed here is that it is not usually a decision about an individual by his parents. It is part of a larger *community practice* based on religious custom or health policy (as it was or is currently understood in any particular country).

Now, do you as a parent want your son to be laughed at, pointed out as an exception or even just commented upon from birth (or at most 3 years old once he gets into pre-school educational frameworks) till the end of his (hopefully long and healthy) life?

Do you as a parent want to have to explain or defend your decision aginst your extended family, friends and community as my daughter did when she visited "home" with her 18 month old (uncircumcised) son?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
I think the point being missed here is that it is not usually a decision about an individual by his parents. It is part of a larger *community practice* based on religious custom or health policy (as it was or is currently understood in any particular country).

Now, do you as a parent want your son to be laughed at, pointed out as an exception or even just commented upon from birth (or at most 3 years old once he gets into pre-school educational frameworks) till the end of his (hopefully long and healthy) life?

Do you as a parent want to have to explain or defend your decision aginst your extended family, friends and community as my daughter did when she visited "home" with her 18 month old (uncircumcised) son?

No, and the solution to that is for people not to be fucking arseholes and mind their own business. Not for me to cut the end of my sons' cocks off. Were I in that situation, anyone criticising me would get the rough end of my tongue, and anyone laughing at them would get a kick up the arse - possibly literally.

[ 07. February 2017, 11:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Good luck to you with "people", then...

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Good luck to you with "people", then...

Children and teenagers in particular.

And in answer to your earlier question, no, I've never felt the least bit aggrieved. Pretty much the opposite, frankly. Others' mileage may vary, of course.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Are there any men onboard who actually feel aggrieved by their "status"?

The very thought of it makes my landing gear retract into my fuselage.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I will repeat what I have said above: in the absence of a valid medical reason for doing so, it is unacceptable to take a knife to your child who has no say in the matter. End of.

(And I have given some "cultural" background in my earlier posts).

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, and the solution to that is for people not to be fucking arseholes and mind their own business. Not for me to cut the end of my sons' cocks off.

In the UK or the US, sure that's feasible, albeit sometimes awkward. But circumcision is part of group and religious identity, and in some cultures you're at a major disadvantage in life without it. You can get the shit kicked out of you for daring to complain, even after losing your penis.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, and the solution to that is for people not to be fucking arseholes and mind their own business. Not for me to cut the end of my sons' cocks off.
In the UK or the US, sure that's feasible, albeit sometimes awkward. But circumcision is part of group and religious identity, and in some cultures you're at a major disadvantage in life without it. You can get the shit kicked out of you for daring to complain, even after losing your penis.

That's what I like to see, group tyranny and blackmail. Add a soupçon of religious intimidation, what a glorious hymn to the Enlightenment!

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I guess that some four year olds would shout the house down, and would feel angry and betrayed?
True, but cultural and family expectations would likely affect a child's response. If your older brother and cousins were circumcised, and everyone is making a fuss of you and there's cake afterwards, it'd probably make a difference.

In Islam, boys are circumcised at a wide range of ages, but apparently seven is typical.

My late father, a Bangladeshi Muslim, was circumcised at the age of 10 or thereabouts without anaesthetic.

He remembered it hurting. Oh yes.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Good luck to you with "people", then...

Yeah, I generally find them pretty unfathomable. Fortunately I don't have family and friends who think it's their job to tell me how to live my life, and I'm happy to keep it that way. I don't need arseholes in my life.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Good luck to you with "people", then...
Children and teenagers in particular.

Yeah, they're pretty good at being arseholes. But the solution to bullying (because this is what you and Galilit are describing) is not to do what the bullies want. It's to defy the bastards. Wasted too many years of my life trying, and failing, to make myself acceptable to the self-appointed guardians of conformity and normality.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, and the solution to that is for people not to be fucking arseholes and mind their own business. Not for me to cut the end of my sons' cocks off.
In the UK or the US, sure that's feasible, albeit sometimes awkward. But circumcision is part of group and religious identity, and in some cultures you're at a major disadvantage in life without it. You can get the shit kicked out of you for daring to complain, even after losing your penis.
That's what I like to see, group tyranny and blackmail. Add a soupçon of religious intimidation, what a glorious hymn to the Enlightenment!

I'm sure that there are plenty of places where you'll get the same treatment for refusing to submit your daughter to FGM, and all manner of other obnoxious practices, but we don't sit back and say "Oh that's all right then, folk should do it to be accepted by your community."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

(This does not refer to persons for whom it is a religious duty; that is of benefit to them, however people outside their religions may feel about it.)

But why? We excuse this in objectively harmful procedures, so why in circumcision?

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Not for me to cut the end of my sons' cocks off.

Oh, for fuck's sake. It isn't the end of your cock. It is the vestigial remains of a penis sheath the purpose of which is to protect the penis when not in use.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Look, whether you consider it part of the cock or not is beside the bleedin' point*. The point is that performing an unnecessary surgical procedure to keep interfering twats happy is utterly bonkers.

*See what I did there?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Look, whether you consider it part of the cock or not is beside the bleedin' point*.

Well, no, it isn't. It is the very reason men, mostly uncut, raise their appendages** in anger.

quote:
The point is that performing an unnecessary surgical procedure to keep interfering twats happy is utterly bonkers.

Yes it is. But the underlying problem is sociological.

quote:

*See what I did there?

**right back at you

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
My late father, a Bangladeshi Muslim, was circumcised at the age of 10 or thereabouts without anaesthetic.

He remembered it hurting. Oh yes.

I have no idea how to respond to this. Mostly [Frown]

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

I've been wondering whether or not I should post here, because I've no idea whether me offering my perspective will have the slightest effect on anything - or whether it's even appropriate, me being, y'know, a girl and all. (And it verges on the TMI). But here goes:

My husband is circumcised. As near as I can tell, the reason for this is that his father is, and his father was before him, and so on. It certainly isn't a cultural/religious thing. They were Presbyterians down the line, I believe. Being cut is quite unusual in NZ, as far as I am aware. However, he proclaims himself personally unbothered by it, and says that no-one ever made any comment about it, growing up. So that's the background. As I was brought up very much GLE, there was no shagging around, and his is the only penis I have had anything to do with. Now, from my sample size of one, I would have to say that it feels fine, works fine, and looks fine (etc), and that we have had some really great times together. I realise it is not exactly au naturel, but I would hesitate to call it mutilated.

Part two: When I was pregnant for the first time, my husband confided to me one evening a desire to produce only daughters. I was a little taken aback, because frankly what I would have liked was a house full of sons with nary a daughter in sight. Anyway, we opted to wait until full-time to know the score, as it were, that time, and out popped a daughter. So he was happy. Now my tough old Dad was mega-soppy about his daughters so I thought it was that same kind of thing, but when we found out we were having a boy the second time, he went around all thoughtful for a couple of weeks and then abruptly announced to me, 'I don't think we should have him circumcised', to which I said, 'ok, righto'. But to be honest, at that point, if he had said the exact opposite I would also have said, 'ok, righto'. I had no strong feelings either way and he was the possessor of a penis, so it seemed that [in this particular very specific case], he was the right person to make the decision. However: When my son was actually born, if anyone had tried to take him away from me and chop a bit of him off, even just a little flap of skin, I would have resisted mightily, I can tell you. And not because it might have hurt. He's been vaccinated, after all. No, more because, to me, he was, and is, completely and utterly perfect just exactly the way he is. He does not require modification, and cannot be improved upon by alteration.

So I don't know where that leaves me, really. Compromised, somehow. With a foot in both camps. Realising that this is a complicated phenomenon. Certainly not wishing to be shrieking at anyone for either their status, or their choices, in one direction or another. Peace, all.

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :

Most recent statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) states that the benefits outweigh the risks, but stresses effective pain management and proper sterile practices must be in place.
I can't find it now, but the CDC's POV is that in areas with high levels of heterosexual HIV transmission, all males should be circumcised, regardless of age.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I will repeat what I have said above: in the absence of a valid medical reason for doing so, it is unacceptable to take a knife to your child who has no say in the matter. End of.

(And I have given some "cultural" background in my earlier posts).

Penile cleanliness seems to me to be a pretty valid medical reason. Not necessarily conclusive, but valid.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Most recent statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics (2012) states that the benefits outweigh the risks, but stresses effective pain management and proper sterile practices must be in place.
I can't find it now, but the CDC's POV is that in areas with high levels of heterosexual HIV transmission, all males should be circumcised, regardless of age.

The Canadian Pediatric Society disagrees.

I don't think an "appeal to an authority" of any kind is going to help.

And we really don't know if sex is more enjoyable with or without a foreskin, because the definitive study hasn't been done and probably can't be: double blind, men with and without foreskins have sex and rate the experience, those with foreskins get them cut off, those without have them attached, and they have sex again. And neither group knows if they have a foreskin or not while the study is under way.

People can do what they want to their kids, to a point, including this one I suppose, but I am glad that our publicly funded health insurance won't pay for it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I don't think a double blind study is necessary.
There does not seem to be any problem with sexual pleasure linked to either being "whole" or cut.
There is a large enough sample size for both to have all the info needed.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

(This does not refer to persons for whom it is a religious duty; that is of benefit to them, however people outside their religions may feel about it.)
But why? We excuse this in objectively harmful procedures, so why in circumcision?

Should have read we do not excuse this in objectively harmful procedures, so why in circumcision?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

That's not an experimental model. It is merely a collection of information that doesn't answer the question of whether sexual pleasure is enhanced by a foreskin or not. It merely says that sex is fun either way.

Analogy: Supper features a wonder meal with fine flavours enjoyed by all. There's a garnish on top when served which makes it look nice, but we take the garnish off and put it to the side.

Analogy 2: Supper features the same wonderful meal, and the garnish is very tasty and adds another level of enjoyment to the meal. The meal is fine without, but has another special flavour experience with it.

We don't know which one fits. Maybe it doesn't matter, maybe it does.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I will repeat what I have said above: in the absence of a valid medical reason for doing so, it is unacceptable to take a knife to your child who has no say in the matter. End of.

(And I have given some "cultural" background in my earlier posts).
Penile cleanliness seems to me to be a pretty valid medical reason. Not necessarily conclusive, but valid.

And is super easy to achieve, even with a foreskin, using soap and water.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Indeed it is easy, as is a daily shower - but as I said before, not everyone on a London Tube seems to have heard of that even these days, let alone the early 60s.

I don't know the arguments in support of the health factors other posters have referred to.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Good luck to you with "people", then...
Children and teenagers in particular.
Yeah, they're pretty good at being arseholes. But the solution to bullying (because this is what you and Galilit are describing) is not to do what the bullies want. It's to defy the bastards.

Fair enough. And probably a better plan than "a kick up the arse." [Biased]

Though I'd say a little more than bullying is being described. Self-image/self-perception is too, as well as typical adolescent concern about not being different. But there are other ways to deal with those things, too, of course.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I've been wondering whether or not I should post here, because I've no idea whether me offering my perspective will have the slightest effect on anything - or whether it's even appropriate, me being, y'know, a girl and all. (And it verges on the TMI). But here goes:

m However: When my son was actually born, if anyone had tried to take him away from me and chop a bit of him off, even just a little flap of skin, I would have resisted mightily, I can tell you. And not because it might have hurt. He's been vaccinated, after all. No, more because, to me, he was, and is, completely and utterly perfect just exactly the way he is. He does not require modification, and cannot be improved upon by alteration.

[ 08. February 2017, 03:21: Message edited by: Galilit ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

As I said in a PM to Meconopsis, the suffering of women (mothers) has been completely ignored on this thread. I have been to tons of ceremonies (in Jewish Israel) and have seen women in floods of tears. You're bleeding, your hormones have yet to rebalance, your entire circle of family, friends and community is milling around ...and all you want to do is sit quietly and enjoy your perfect miracle ... and then men come and take him away to be cut. Completely understandable!

There is a tiny number of refusals (they make the news every few years.
Personally I know only one woman who said "NO!" She was no feminist and had no ideological axe to grind - she just said "No". She was pulled into line by the Jewish concept of "Shlom Bayit" [Peace in the Household]. Which is invoked to put an immediate stop to any individual act that "threatens the stabilty" of a family (extended family). Crudely put it means: if your husband, parents or in laws don't like it you have to stop it. So she did.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
No, more because, to me, he was, and is, completely and utterly perfect just exactly the way he is. He does not require modification, and cannot be improved upon by alteration.

My nephew had a malformed foreskin that it was determined better removed. He is wonderful as he is.
Had his foreskin remained intact, he would have been wonderful that way as well.
It isn't that I do not understand what you are saying, I do. But I bring this up because it touches on the way we perceive children and the way this affects them. They are not perfect, they cannot be. But we should love them regardless.
Not at all implying that this would not be the case with you and your son.
But it touches on this subject in how circumcision is perceived.

Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Indeed it is easy, as is a daily shower - but as I said before, not everyone on a London Tube seems to have heard of that even these days, let alone the early 60s.

I don't know the arguments in support of the health factors other posters have referred to.

Without going into details,even here is Oz the unclean uncut can be quite a put off. Happened to me once (cut) hooked up with an uncut and the odour was revolting!! Enough said!!

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

As to Galilit's comment... A gentile friend of mine married a Jewish woman. She insisted that the children be raised Jewish. He was fine with that. I recall that at the Bris she was almost inconsolable, yet had been the moving spirit behind it. This is not a criticism, just an observation of how highly conflicted an individual can be on the question.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

There is an advantage to circumcision that at least you never have to know the pain of a scratch on the end of the foreskin. A very special kind of pain.

I actually get both sides of the argument here. Part of my reasoning for starting this (again, it was probably me last time) is that I am writing a book that (not by deliberate intention) has a character who is going to be forced into a circumcision to "save the world" (when it comes out you can all read it). His problems with this forced circumcision have challenged me, because he quite definitely sees it as abuse (and in this case, it is)*.

But the only real difference is that he is old enough to question.

I do understand the parental consent issue. One of my children had his legs plastered from 3 days old. As well as a whole lot of other things we did on his behalf that were not pleasant. But the aim and purpose was good - it means he can now walk.

So yes, as parents we make decisions for our children on health grounds. Never a question on that. But (mostly) circumcision is not a health issue. It is a cultural issue.

* It is a whole lot funnier than this sounds. In fact, it has had my writers group in fits.

Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on :

quote:
... Part of my reasoning for starting this (again, it was probably me last time) is that I am writing a book that (not by deliberate intention) has a character who is going to be forced into a circumcision to "save the world" (when it comes out you can all read it).

I look forward to reading this book with some interest.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pangolin Guerre:
As to Galilit's comment... an observation of how highly conflicted an individual can be on the question.

My daughter went so far as to convert to Judaism, then had a baby with a non-Jewish man, in a country where (these days) boys are not circumcised, came "home" to visit and had huge arguments with her woman-friends when they saw her son was uncircumcised and was quite upset by that.

I explained to her when it is a 99.999% *community practice" it will never be just "her business" and what did she expect? That said to make her son different from all the other boys is not an option either (in my opinion). I acted accordingly with our sons (by having them circumcised) and she did with hers (by not)

With all due respect to the theoretical arguments above (abuse, etc), you are still putting your little boy in a very difficult situation if you are living somewhere where there is a huge majority one way or the other.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Do you know, I'm not entirely sure anyone else would know whether my boys have been snipped or not. Do people really spend time looking at each others' knobs?

Perhaps I'm really a Vulcan or something, but I don't understand this human pre-occupation with making sure other people are and do the same as you.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The fact that people have 'huge arguments' about circumcision is baffling. It's like the old joke about bald men arguing over a comb, except I suppose a few of them have wisps of hair, traitors!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

My 12 year old eldest son has long hair. That's very unusual in the community; it's a given that boys have their hair cut short.

If someone gave him hassle over it, though, my response wouldn't be "well what do you expect?" - it'd be "it's nothing to do with them. Be yourself. Ignore the conformist herd."

If family friends started pressurising me to have it cut short, I'd seriously reconsider whether they were actually friends at all. Friends don't try to run friends' lives. Not the sort of friends I value, anyway.

But, as I say, perhaps I'm not human after all. It would explain a lot if I turned out to come from Alpha Centauri.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you know, I'm not entirely sure anyone else would know whether my boys have been snipped or not.

As to boys: daycare and pre-school environments, schools with gyms and swimming pools.

As to men ... you may indeed be right. I did ask my Minister once (in connection with something in one of the Epistles about the early Christians, I hasten to add) and he reckoned men did not look at one another in common or garden urination situations (and he was gay!)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, conformism is undoubtedly a factor in human society. But I hope that I helped my son to think it through, and not just give way to the crowd. If all the local Goths are wearing eyeliner, it doesn't mean that you have to. Sure, they may give you gyp, but this is one of the tests in life, my son, to be yourself, when all around are being clones.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you know, I'm not entirely sure anyone else would know whether my boys have been snipped or not.
As to boys: daycare and pre-school environments,

If staff in these environments are giving trouble over this it's a failure of their professionalism.

quote:
schools with gyms and swimming pools.

Then it becomes a bullying issue and should be stamped on appropriately. If the teachers tacitly support it having the same prejudices themselves, then it's a failure of professionalism again.

quote:
As to men ... you may indeed be right. I did ask my Minister once (in connection with something in one of the Epistles about the early Christians, I hasten to add) and he reckoned men did not look at one another in common or garden urination situations (and he was gay!)

Or any other situations, for that matter.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you know, I'm not entirely sure anyone else would know whether my boys have been snipped or not. Do people really spend time looking at each others' knobs?

So here is an exhaustive list of knobs that I can remember seeing, in (roughly) reverse order of most recent viewing.

1. Mine, of course.
2. My sons', plus those of other small boys whose nappies I have changed.
3. Aged 9 or 10, changing after swimming at school: boy A bet boy B that he wouldn't lick boy C's dick, so boy C sat down and held it out. (In case you're wondering, nobody thought that this was about sex. It was a thing in the category of disgusting things small boys dare each other to do.)
4. My brother's, in the bath, when we were sufficiently small to share a bath.

All those people had foreskins.

There's a much larger set of people where I have noticed that they had one: every now and then you catch a glimpse of a penis whilst standing at a urinal, or you see one in a changing room at the gym or swimming pool, in communal showers at school and so on. I could promise that each of those people had a penis: if one of them had had a vulva, or a cheese-and-pickle sandwich, or something, then I would have noticed something unusual, but I wasn't looking closely enough to determine whether the penis had a foreskin.

I would hesitate to offer myself as an example of normalcy, but I think in this case I'm not that unusual.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

But, as I say, perhaps I'm not human after all. It would explain a lot if I turned out to come from Alpha Centauri.

Dude. I am unequivocally, objectively odd. But I am also an observer of the normals and people check each other out. Women most certainly do and I am informed men do as well, though they are reluctant to share this. And children notice everything.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

But if men are reluctant to admit to it, they're hardly going to out themselves by saying "Ewww! Fred has/n't got a foreskin! Look everyone!"

Posted by Hiro's Leap (# 12470) on :

At my school boys definitely checked each other out a bit. It wasn't blatant, probably due to homophobia, but they joked if someone was particularly hung (or not).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you know, I'm not entirely sure anyone else would know whether my boys have been snipped or not. Do people really spend time looking at each others' knobs?

I had to shower in PE (Physical Education) 5 days a week, 180 days a year, for 5 years. It was hard NOT to see. Everybody knew the disposition of everybody else's wangdanger. I was the only unsnipped one in that entire time.

quote:
Perhaps I'm really a Vulcan or something, but I don't understand this human pre-occupation with making sure other people are and do the same as you.

This of course is the cause of shunning, much bullying, social outcasting, and not a few wars. Understand it or not, it's very much there.

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do you know, I'm not entirely sure anyone else would know whether my boys have been snipped or not.
As to boys: daycare and pre-school environments,
If staff in these environments are giving trouble over this it's a failure of their professionalism.

You've changed the conversation here from "how would they know?" to "if staff ... are giving trouble." Galalit wasn't answering the second question because you hadn't asked it yet.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Fair enough, but my fundamental point is really the "it's none of anyone else's business and the way to resolve it isn't to comply, but to defy and challenge."

I have this deepseated loathing of enforced conformity.

I'm surprised at all the wanger comparisons. It's just not my experience.

[ 08. February 2017, 15:19: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fair enough, but my fundamental point is really the "it's none of anyone else's business and the way to resolve it isn't to comply, but to defy and challenge."

I have this deepseated loathing of enforced conformity.

Well yes, but no. I was not forced to go and get lopped in order to conform. So the conformity is a weird at-one-remove sort of conformity -- the parents "conforming" so their sons will "conform." Conformity-by-proxy.

quote:
I'm surprised at all the wanger comparisons. It's just not my experience.

Perhaps a pond thing?

[ 08. February 2017, 15:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Maybe a pond thing, but penile comparisons are not common here among adults. Even when I was young, it wasn't at all common. Well, maybe with good friends, as part of growing up, but that is not a good sample.

I can't remember noticing whether anyone had or lacked a foreskin. I think almost all had one, but the sample size is very small.

I don't think social issues would have made a big difference. At the same time, having something "different" was a problem. Didn't I know that.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

I grew up in a community that had a relatively high proportion of children who were immigrants or children of immigrants (Italians, Poles, Ukrainians, Finns, etc.), so a fair number of us, a large minority, were uncircumcised, so it wasn't seen as unusual. This probably is the root of my casual ambivalence. (I'm circumcised, but probably wouldn't have my son circumcised... I would hope that he would emulate me in more important ways.)

Tangentially on the whole checking-out question, of course we did. Natural curiosity. In my local 'culture', it was expected to take a shower after gym class. One of my best friends grew up in a much more anglo community, in which the post-gym shower was viewed with (homophobic) suspicion. Not only little opportunity to contrast and compare, but it must have made for some pretty ripe classrooms.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0