|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Circumcision vs FGM - the ethics?
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
For those who oppose Jews getting circumcised;
I assume you think it's fine to ignore the dictates of Leviticus ?
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
I'm saying that the experienced discomfort on foreskin retraction doesn't necessarily reproduce what would happen with a circumcision.
You talk as if a sensitive glans which would cause discomfort on contact is a near universal experience, I'm not sure that it is. Some of the studies (which I'm unfamiliar with) are referenced in what seems to be an unusually well written wiki page.
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.
I don't think the Eliab thought experiment or the more detailed studies that have actually been done are definitive here, any more than the data on HIV prevention are.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
Eliab described exactly what I had in mind when I said the difference and hence the question "Is circumcision physical harm inflicted on a child?" was not a trifle. But I would not have come up with Eliab's nice example. I don't wear hats.
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.
I doubt it is the only one people are concerned about. It just happens to be the form of sensitivity loss we are discussing in this context. Many people are also concerned about losing their sensitivity to sound over time. Whether this means less pleasure or just turning up the volume may depend on your neighbours, the degree of loss and whether you frequent classical concerts.
Nobody so far had claimed sensitivity loss on the glans equated to less sexual pleasure. But it reduces the range of tactile experiences you can have. A desensitized body part will need stronger impact before feeling sets in. 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). Unlike circumcision or your hearing the process is largely reversible if you start wearing shoes.
I and I suspect most people, given the choice, would prefer to have the ability to feel more sensations, sexually or otherwise. I would like to hear better and think it is nice to be able to feel the grass tickling me barefoot. No Africans I met miss it - but still true that I can feel something they can't (although in this case with obvious offsetting benefits on their side).
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
Being habituated to one form of touch, does not necessarily mean being habituated to another form of touch.
I don't know about that. AfaIk our nerve ends can distinguish relatively few things about tactile input (hard or elastic, stronger or weaker, temperature, moving or still). It is the combination of that information that tells us (through experience) whether we feel a feather, tongue, cotton or a zipper. If desensitised we'll need a slightly stronger impact with all of these.
But, Think2, I think you still misunderstand. You compare a momentary pain (lip piercing) with an ongoing input of tactile sensation that is initially unpleasant. Nobody said that the circumcision operation itself causes sensitivity loss. Like a piercing the operation as such will be briefly painful and that is it. But after a circumcision a protective layer has been removed and your body becomes used to a constant exposure to sensations that used to be painful. This is not the case in a lip piercing. Your comparison would only hold if you had your lip pierced every minute and got used to it.
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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 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).
First it doesn't seem clear cut to me that the glans is desensitised after circumcision looking at the data, although there is a possibility that it is. If it is, the effect seems quite slight. And 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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
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.
I tried giving other examples of sensitivity loss triggered by Lamb Chopped's remark.
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.
The process is reversible and a penis is more important than feet.
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).
Btw: I wonder how they measure sexual pleasure and state that circumcision has no impact on it?
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.
Thanks for this link (I had not seen your post before posting my previous one).
According to this it seems some studies have found a sensitivity loss like the one I had in mind:
"Sorrells et al. (2007) measured the fine-touch pressure thresholds of 91 circumcised and 68 uncircumcised, adult male volunteers, They reported '[the] glans of the uncircumcised men had significantly lower mean (sem) pressure thresholds than that of the circumcised men, at 0.161 (0.078) g (P = 0.040) when controlled for age, location of measurement, type of underwear worn, and ethnicity.' "
But others contradict these findings and found "no" difference, where 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.
Your Wiki article however mentions a point we so far did not touch here. Apart from the effects of a possible sensitivity loss on what remains, there is also the sensitivity of what is gone. The foreskin is itself highly sensitive and erogeneous. Should people be allowed to cut it off a baby in the name of God?
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The reason PubMed is called PubMed is because the public can use it. That's you. So why don't you?
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.
Notably, this is a study from Turkey, where Muslim circumcision is common relatively late in life (up to about 11 years of age). On the effects of age of circumcision we read from another Turkish study:
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.)
Thus it appears that circumcision at a young age is essentially unproblematic for later sexual function and satisfaction. It also appears to have significant positive effects, a review from Australia:
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.
Of note, given the speculations about "sensitivity" above: premature ejaculation is a potential problem for circumcisions performed in boyhood (rather than infancy). That's over-sensitivity due to circumcision, not under-sensitivity. It is correct that circumcision is used as a "desensitizing" treatment for premature ejaculation in adults, but the precise causality here is obviously not so straightforward. Here's one study that claims there is essential no effect due to the removed foreskin tissu in adults:
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.
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
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).
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.
It seems to me that a variety of researchers have looked into the area, and produced conflicting results. The overall impression I get is that the differences are relatively slight if they are there. No-one is claiming major or highly prevalent sexual dysfunction results from circumcision.
I think the relative value of penises vs feet is a fascinating tangent, but not really germane here. The point is whether there is a functional outcome from a given loss of sensitivity. And it seems unlikely that there is from shoeless walking, and possible (but unproven) that there might be some functional outcome from circumcision, but it is debatable.
My conclusion from the data is that it is unlikely there is a big problem, others might draw other conclusions, but we can't argue that the data are conclusive. But I think we can argue that the data do not show a major impact.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Thank you IngoB. The "A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?" reference seems to be a very thorough review of the medical benefits to me.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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).
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
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).
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 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.
That's a polemical. Where do you read me dismissing as suspect the ones which "aren't in agreement". I suggested looking at possible interests of those commissioning both of the sets of conflicting results. If it is a Jewish agency or the Humanist Association there might be reason to suspect the results were desired.
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
No, but the paper does. And in fact the statistical significance is rather borderline at that.
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Where do you read me dismissing as suspect the ones which "aren't in agreement".
When you said;
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
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.
Agreed. See, that is what I mean. Contrary to what you seem to think my mind is not closed on this. Apologies for not having the time to read the entire article in all depth.
On a more general level I do not advocate banning circumcision - I think religious freedom is a good enough reason for allowing it and I am rather worried because I think that this particular Cologne case reflects a trend of anti-religous tendencies in Germany (certainly similar in France. Europe?). But I try to understand the POV that circumcision is such grave harm it should not be covered by religious freedom and found that the case is not quite as absurd as it at first seemed. The considerations here are part of this exploration and have provided some interesting new information.
The still ongoing debate over here has produced a lot of confusion between traditional camps. If the decision only concerned Muslims, all those stressing our Judaeo-Christian heritage as common identity would probably be in favour of banning this "backward immigrant community's archaic practice not fitting in our context". But as it also concerns Jews who are very much seen as part of the cultural heritage, the traditional political camp mentality does not work. People are genuinely confused.
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I wasn't making a judgement about your mind being closed, I was just disagreeing with what I thought you were saying.
For some people the Jewish/Islamic practice and religion issues may be powerful motivators.
On a personal level I have no cultural or religious reason to want to circumcise my children, and I don't find the medical evidence regarding health benefits sufficiently persuasive to make me want to.
In terms of legislating to stop parents doing it, it seems to me that the issue is whether the practice is abusive or not, and it seems to me there isn't sufficient evidence to conclude it is abusive.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
Shurg. I sure would.
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 ?
I'd say it's the sensible thing to do to ignore the dictates of Leviticus
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
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.
I'm not sure it does either. I've said at least once that it seems to me that I don't think that most men suffer any significant detriment either by being circumcised or uncircumcised. 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 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.
I suspect that might be wishful thinking.
First, because if my hat chasing experiment is right (and I'm pretty sure it is) it would imply that the UC penis with foreskin deployed is roughly comparable in sensation with the C penis, and that only the UC penis with foreskin retracted is appreciably more sensitive. Which working configuration is selected in a particular case I suspect will be due to foreskin tightness and personal preference, rather than universal for all UC men, and those who leave the foreskin where it is are in no greater danger of hypersensitivity.
Second, because the difference in sensitivity between having an insulating layer, or not, could be simulated during sex by the use of a condom. I am well aware that male opinions differ on the subject, but in my personal experience, the difference a condom makes to sexual feeling is trivial*.
Third, because no one these days should be timing ‘sex' by starting the clock at penetration and counting until ejaculation. The distinction between foreplay and intercourse belongs in sex education classes, and should be left there. The correct ettiquette, if I understand things, is no longer for the man to keep banging away until the woman becomes sufficiently bored to fake orgasm. He is expected to have taken the arousal of his partner well in hand before, during and (if necessary) after the ‘insert and spurt' stage. Basically, if the limiting factor in female stimulation is male endurance, you are doing it wrong anyway.
(*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).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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).
{tangent alert}
A college professor once told this story to my husband. 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.
Once he went away for a weekend to make measurements. Before he left he bought a hundred condoms. During the course of the weekend, he discovered he only had eighty-two.
After he got back he went to the place where he had bought them and complained. The clerk counted out eighteen condoms and said, "I hope it didn't spoil your weekend."
{/tangent alert}
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
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.
Quite apart from the potentially good medical reasons for circumcision (see the review mentioned above), I think there is good reason for a child of Jews to grow up as Jew.
Yes, as it happens becoming a Jew means for boys being "marked" in a way. So what? Compared to for example African scarification, the Jewish way is harmless if not beneficial to the child and furthermore practically not identifiable for outsiders.
(I never really thought about that, but in practice the only ones who would have to know about a circumcision are: the child, the parents, the priest circumcising and later the married partner. It is a very secretive mark, in particular for non-Graeco-Roman cultures where public nudity is a no-no. Probably that is no accident, given Jewish history. Probably marking someone for God in a place that only the intimate partner would see also has embodied spiritual significance.)
I would likely defend the right of African tribes to practice scarification, so I'm not about to deny the Jews their less harmful practice. If a child so marked for religious or cultural identity decides to abandon this identity as an adult, they still can. It merely takes one generation to remove these bodily marks, for the children of this adult will then not be so marked. It will also take at least one generation to shake the mental marks of being brought up in a particular religious or cultural setting. I think there is a quite unreasonable queasiness here about anything done to the body. Also the body and its health must not become our idol.
I think parents have a right to decide that it would be best for their child to grow up in a specific religious and cultural setting. I think growing into such a setting can be a great good, for which other goods can be reasonably sacrificed. Parents make decisions for their children about which goods to pursue and which to sacrifice. When soccer mum or dad drag their offspring from training camp to tournament in the hope to create another Beckham, then we are also not generally talking about mental and physical torture. Yet I bet plenty of those kids suffer "more" in total than a Jewish boy from circumcision, and receive "less" in the end. Parenting involves making choices for your kids. I disagree with the idea that religion is special in that regard.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
As IngoB describes, plenty of parents see many good reasons for routine infant circumcision. On balance I disagree with them, but I can see their point of view and don't consider it tantamount to child abuse. They might even be doing right.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
First, because if my hat chasing experiment is right (and I'm pretty sure it is)
I think this is another assumption that didn't seem to be supported looking at the limited data that there was on the subject, as discussed up thread.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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."
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*
On the question of pre- and post-circumcision sensitivity, a forensic accountant of my acquaintance is partnered with a man who, for medical reasons similar to those experienced by Louis XVI, had to be done in his late teens. She reports that, with less localized sensitivity, he finds that the act is more agreeable; he apparently prefers the aesthetics but he may only be humouring his partner (who knows? who is going to ask?). They have had their infant son done.
Ontario's provincial health plan believes it to be elective surgery and will not cover it unless it addresses a particular medical situation. I gather that my retired bureaucrat's health plan covers 80% of the $200-$300 cost.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I gather that my retired bureaucrat's health plan covers 80% of the $200-$300 cost.
A snip at the price.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
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.
Some years ago, a colleague who had been sent to the Far East during the Second World War told me the same thing.
He was issued with a pack of three, and in his youthful naivety wondered what sort of a war he was being sent too!! It was quickly explained that they were for use over gun barrels in swamps.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Continuing tangent //
When I was a Girl Guide, in the 1980s, a condom was an essential part of our "first-aid kit in a tobacco tin." With the end snipped off, they can be used to give a bit of support to a sprained wrist or ankle, they can cover and keep a grazed limb clean, and they can be rolled over cotton wool to keep a dressing in place. We were told they can also hold a pint of water. I can confirm, from personal experience, that a condom rolled over a wrist does give support without restricting movement.
// End tangent.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
I agree with Ingob, and I'm sorry my last post went off too soon. I won't repeat the quotation from Ingob.
My apologies if all these points have been made before. I am conscious that some of them have. but being a latecomer to this thread I’m afraid I have not read every word of the 324 contributions to it. I am in favour of the circumcision of boys at the age of 8 days, but for medical, not for religious, reasons (though Moses or his successors had some good sense in their teaching, as for example in refraining from eating shellfish in a Mediterranean climate). My reasons are several:
1. I was circumcised, presumably at or about 8 days, and have been grateful to my parents since I was an adult.
2. About half the boys at my strictly Anglican boarding schools, who were born in the 1920s or 1930s, were circumcised. None of them ever discussed it, at any rate with me or in my hearing. It was commonplace and not a matter for remark, except I think I remember one reference to Roundheads and Cavaliers without any particular criticism of either. Certainly I never heard any of the Roundheads express any regret on the point.
3. My four sons were circumcised on the 8th day at home in our bedroom, no anaesthetic being necessary. The mohel (better than a non-Jewish doctor as he is likely to have more experience and training) was efficient, his “equipment” was small and effective (a flat piece of steel, perhaps 3" x 6", with a narrow slit for half its length, plus a surgically sharp knife), and he supplied some kind of orange powder to dress the cut, presumably to guard against infection - no other dressing was necessary. The boys may have made a small cry for a short time, though I don’t in fact remember their doing so. As they were, of course, wearing nappies there was no special care needed in dressing the place afterwards. I believe (though I have no medical training) that the nerves are not in all respects fully developed at 8 days, and that if the boys suffered any pain at all it was slight and did not last any length of time. Certainly they gave no sign of suffering pain after, perhaps, the first minute or two. No anaesthetic was necessary at that age. The boys are now aged 49-55 and we have not discussed circumcision; but three of them had their sons circumcised and one did not (I think his wife may have influenced the decision in that case).
5. I had a nephew who had to be circumcised for medical reasons at the age of 2. This was quite traumatic at the time for him, though I don’t think it has left any lasting adverse effects. I know of a young man who had an infection of the penis when he was some way from medical aid in tropical Africa, and was circumcised as a necessary part of the treatment when he got medical advice. Not surprisingly he wishes he had been circumcised in the normal way at 8 days.
6. The medical reasons are all in favour of circumcision. Phimosis (narrowing of the foreskin) affects 1% to 1.5% of boys by the time they are 17: it causes pain and sometimes bleeding, and circumcision is recommended. Paraphimosis (unnatural retraction of the foreskin causing inflammation and severe pain) is unpleasant, and circumcision may be required if the foreskin remains unduly tight. Acute balanoposthitis (swelling and discharge of pus) affects between 3% and 10% of uncircumcised boys: cicrcumcision is recommended for boys with recurrent occurrences. Penile cancer is rare, but commoner in uncircumcised men. Sexually transmitted disease (including syphilis) is more common in uncircumcised men. The balance of evidence, particularly from Sub-Saharan Africa, is that circumcision substantially reduces the risk of HIV - this seems common sense, since the glans of a circumcised man is more exposed to the elements and to one’s underpants etc and therefore develops a tougher skin which is less likely to crack and admit the HIV virus than a penis which is normally covered by the foreskin. 1 in 100 uncircumcised infants will develop a urinary tract infection, as opposed to 1 in 1000 circumcised infants. Apart from specific diseases, it seems to me obvious that there is more scope for dirt and infection to accumulate within the foreskin in an uncircumcised boy or man, a possibility that does not exist for the circumcised.
7. From the woman’s point of view, in addition to the protection against HIV, 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. .The Times medical correspondent, an experienced doctor, had a number of prostitutes among his clients. He carried out an informal survey a few years ago, and found that over 90% of them said they got more sexual pleasure from a circumcised partner than an uncircumcised.
8. The argument that the decision whether to be circumcised should be left to the child when he has attained the age of discretion is nonsense: he cannot at that age go back to the ideal time for circumcision, on the 8th day after he was born, and an operation at the age of 18 or older is of a totally different character.. The argument that circumcision is an assault on the child is equally applicable to vaccination or inoculation, whether routine or for travel to foreign parts. The decision is that of the parents, and they are entitled to take such action as they believe, on reasonable grounds, will be medically best for their child.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Haydee
Shipmate
# 14734
|
Posted
An interesting article from the Mail & Guardian in South Africa - it seems generally accepted that circumcision has benefits in preventing HIV transmission.
A couple of devices are in the process of final mass testing that perform a non-surgical circumcision (ideal in remote areas where sterile surgical conditions are difficult and skilled medical staff are scarce). Analgesic ointment can be used instead of a local anasthetic, so no need for needles. It can be fitted in a (OK, slightly long!) lunchtime and requires no time off work.
So infant circumcision seems unneccessary on the grounds 'you might need it later on and then it will be far more painful'.
M&G article is here
Posts: 433 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
Circumcision is unnecessary for those reasons. Washing behind the foreskin to remove smegma is all that is necessary.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think the evidence is good for the link with smegma, and cervical cancer is now thought to have much more to do with human papilloma virus, which circumcision protects men from and therefore protects the women they have sex with from acquiring it.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
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.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
Circumcision is about 30% effective. That is very much less effective than the HPV vaccine (90% plus) but it is better than ineffective.
A vaccine that provided 30% protection wouldn't be off to a great start, but if there wasn't anything else that was protective it would be a potential candidate for a license.
I agree with you that circumcision isn't recommendable simply on the basis of protection against HPV, but I don't think it's quite as open and shut a case as you make out. And for folks who already have a cultural bias towards it it's reasonable to add that to all the other medical benefits discussed upthread.
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
Those who are dismissing the parallel with piercing girls' ears at a few weeks of age are I think making the two procedures sound too dissimilar. I agree that circumcision is more drastic, but it is very common for a girl whose ears were pierced as a baby to never have the holes close up, even if she doesn't wear earrings. And it is (much more than tattoos, body piercings as an adult et al.) done to make girls appear similar to their peers.
My nieces live in a country where I'd estimate 90% of girls have theirs pierced under 1 year of age (certainly under 5 years) while in the UK it is very uncommon to pierce a girl's ears until she is old enough to ask for it. The rationalisation where they live (and in families who do it in the UK, which are often those of certain ethnicities) is that they won't remember it and they will want it done anyway as everyone gets it done. Sounds a lot like some of the arguments made for circumcision at an early age.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
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
Given the marginal effectiveness of circumcision as an HPV preventative, they'd recommend vaccinating everyone anyway. By way of the same thinking, Ontario used to only give one measles vaccine. The world standard had increased to two some years prior, but Ontario held out. Then they made the decision to move to a two-shot standard. Everyone in my high school had to be done. We all had the one-shot standard, you can't get into school in Ontario otherwise, but had to have a catch-up all the same.
Further, all provinces of Canada have delisted routine infant circumcision from their provincial plans, it wasn't done at the behest of activists in Ontario, it was done on the basis of medical evidence that OHIP would not cover a procedure without clear medical benefits and which was essentially cosmetic surgery. It was evidence-based decision made by the senior public servants of the Ontario Ministry of Health.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
SPK, while you are right that the efficacy of circumcision against HPV is limited and couldn't replace vaccination, it is a little dispiriting to read you saying that there is no evidence of medical benefits of circumcision given the extensive discussion and referencing up thread.
It might be true that many respected institutions have taken considered decisions that the medical benefits don't outweigh the risks and justify routine practice of circumcision, but to say there aren't clear medical benefits is a gross simplification.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chukovsky
Ship's toddler
# 116
|
Posted
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.
No, you're right, they don't - but a lot of US non-Jewish baby boys are circumcised so they look like the other boys (though some parents will debate the medical aspects, for others it is this simple). And in some ethnic communities ear piercing is a matter of cultural tradition, bordering on religion - it marks you out as a member of that community in some areas. It's massively more common in some ethnic communities than others in the UK, for example.
--------------------
This space left intentionally blank. Do not write on both sides of the paper at once.
Posts: 6842 | From: somewhere else | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
Ok, going back to the original thread title, i.e. back to its second topic so quickly dismissed. It risks to comp
quote:
Originally posted by every other poster:
FGM is a VERY different thing to male circumcision.
This has become a commonplace statement, often uttered in the way of a public confession, whereby putting it at the start of one's contribution signals correct-party affiliation. Things are, however, not as simple as they appear.
There are regional differences in female circumcision/FGM. The cruel practice of infibulation, cutting away of clitoris and/or inner and outer labia and sewing it all up, which we mostly have in mind is not the only form. This was first pointed out to me by a missionary some years ago. I met her when she had been a living with the Maassai in Tanzania for 20 years. According to her the practice of female circumcision there leaves only a relatively little trace and does not fundamentally differ from male circumcision. Both, she claimed, involved cutting away a small portion of a highly sensitive body part. This colleague was often wildly attacked for even suggesting that there are relevant differences within FGM (or female circumcision as she did indeed call it). She saw herself as standing up against outsiders' vilification of Maassai culture (She saw it as racist. "Jews get away with it because they are white - the Maassai are only negroes, so nobody bothers to look and distinguish between their customs and other African peoples'"). This is the anecdotal evidence that I had almost forgotten about but that came to me when the current debate here flared up.
Indeed in Germany this aspect is now brought up. According to Islam's Shafiite Law School circumcision of boys and girls is a religious prescript, not just a cultural tradition (The usual question: Who is allowed to define the difference? A European court or the religious group in question?). Female circumcision here means the cutting away of the clitoris' foreskin, even tinier than a boy's. The operation is apparently regularly (and illegally) performed by doctors in Germany. This link is in German but maybe some of you can read it. The clitoris foreskin is #1 in the drawing. In practice the procedure appears riskier than male circumcision but it is hard to define an absolute difference. The risk would be reduced if the procedure were legal and did not have to be performed clandestinely as now.
In Egypt the practice seems to be gaining ground again. Already when the al-Azhar University in Cairo under Sheikh Tantawi passed an anti-FGM fatwa (cf alsoalso here), it was widely rejected by shafiite Clerics who saw it as the makings of Suzanne Mubarak. Since Mubarak's fall the fatwa has lost even more importance.
The German article above (first link) points out that if German parliament - as it now plans - passes a law to legalise boys' circumcision, then Shafiite clerics in Germany will claim equal rights for their own religious tradition (and ironically possibly even argue with gender equality) to demand that girls' circumcision in their "mild" or "medicalised" form be covered by the same law.
Possibly the only way to avoid this legal dilemma would be to distinguish in more detail between Jewish and Muslim circumcision. For Muslims it would be legally possible to set a relatively high minimum age - for boys and girls. Only for Jews would infant circumcision be legalised.
In any case it would still be strange that in Germany it is illegal to even slap your child - but ok to have a part of its penis cut off.
Btw: For those arguing that men do not complain about having been circumcised, the same may be true for (some? many? most?) women.
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The Maasai often practice clitoridectomy which is substantially more mutilating than your description.
Although it clearly is true that there are variations in practice throughout Africa, and there are some groups who seem to be less mutilating than others. Somali practices seem to be among the worst, and Kikuyu among the least extensive. But there often seems to be variation within groups, because the practice is of course not regulated and the women doing it are not trained.
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. It is inaccurate to refer to circumcision as chopping off "part of the penis". 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.
That there are religious groups who support female circumcision is not relevant. There are religious groups who support all manner of wrong, and if the practice is considered abusive then it can be made illegal and this can be enforced. There is no "hands off" tag attached to religious practice when it amounts to child abuse.
[ 06. August 2012, 20:41: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is inaccurate to refer to circumcision as chopping off "part of the penis".
Well it's not part of the foot. What the fuck is it part of if not the penis? Good grief! This is insane.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
[ 07. August 2012, 07:14: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is like describing losing a bit of your earlobe as missing a bit of your head though - somewhat misleading proportionately.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
The foreskin is very much part of the penis. it is not an 'extra' like a toenail.
Well speaking for myself my toenail is very much part of my foot. I'd view it more as a "fitted as standard" sort of thing rather than an optional extra.
I'm not sure how when distinguishes between being an "extra" and being part of. It sounds like a value judgement to me.
I agree with Think, my objection is to the disproportionate impression created by "part of the penis" as a description for circumcision.
[ 07. August 2012, 11:56: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
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.
This is precisely the practice which the article I linked to, describes and for which it points out the legal implications. Of course it is possible to remove a tiny body part even around the clitoris. As it is done on older girls, it would be not much smaller than an infant boy's foreskin.
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
As has already been pointed out the foreskin is part of the penis.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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. ...
The reasons for male or female circumcision are also vastly different. Males are circumcised to mark their membership in a religious group, or for (arguable) health benefits. Women are circumcised to reduce or eliminate their sexual pleasure, to increase the pain of intercourse, particularly the first time, and to make women more chaste. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sylvander
Shipmate
# 12857
|
Posted
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:
a) a small bit of skin called "foreskin" is removed around the clitoris, it does not involve cutting away labia, clitoris and sewing it all up
b) it does not affect sexual pleasure
c) it is a religious requirement, not a can-or-cannot-do
So they will - should a law permitting male circumcision be passed - probably claim that what is legal for boys should also be legal for girls.
The fact that other people grossly mutilate girls is utterly irrelevant for judging what this group does. They will, rightly, claim to be judged on their own merits, not other people's.
So the question remains: Should one pass a law allowing circumcision of boys if this means running the risk that the same law will be invoked to circumcise girls in the described fashion?
--------------------
A martyr is someone living with a saint.
2509
Posts: 1589 | From: Berlin | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
