Circumcision

[Lonewulf]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[JoeEllison]

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


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

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




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

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


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

 

[Lonewulf]

Who cares?

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

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

Do I really have to explain this again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is why I am opposed.

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

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

 

[JoeEllison]

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



Do I really have to explain this again?

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

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

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

So you're mad at your parents?

 

[kellyb]

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

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

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

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

 

[fls]

How is this not clear???

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

Do you think it was a misprint or something?

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

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

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Lonewulf]

So you're mad at your parents?

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

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

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

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

 

[Darat]

...snip..

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

Linda

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

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

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

 

[rocketdodger]

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

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

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

 

[kellyb]

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

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

Linda

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

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

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

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


What do you mean by this?

it is the details that determine what is objectionable.

What details are you referring to?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What details are you referring to?

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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

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

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

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

Even Gemaine Greer has said as much:

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

And:

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

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

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

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

Infants can consent?

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

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are you getting this definition?

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

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

What details are you referring to?

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

Linda

 

[JoeEllison]

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

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

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

 

[fls]

Infants can consent?

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

Linda

 

[Lonewulf]

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

Much like the posts of yours in this thread that I've seen...?

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

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

Do you want an honest answer to that question? Or, would you rather have a less predictable answer?

 

[kellyb]

Where are you getting this definition?

http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/stats_popup9.html

Clitoridectomy is the removal of the prepuce with or without excision of all or part of the clitoris. Excision is the removal of the prepuce and clitoris along with all or part of the labia minora

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

Looking at it again, it looks like they're just splitting it into types 1 and 2.

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

Linda

Most of that hasn't actually been quantified either way that I'm aware of. Yes, we know there is sexual and reproductive harm with the more extreme forms of FGC, but what about the milder kinds? What data is really out there on that?
Or is the harm assumed and riding off the research on the more extreme forms?
Same thing with the potential medical benefits.
And you're assuming that there's coersion no matter what, so I guess that comes down to opinion.
The #1 most common reason given by women is that it's just "what they do". It's tradition and culture.
Then religion.
Then virginity, morality, health, and aesthetics.

From the UNICEF PDF:

Other reasons: A widespread belief among
women who support FGM/C is that the practice
preserves a girl’s virginity, protects her from
becoming promiscuous and prevents her from
engaging in immoral behaviour. In Mauritania 52
per cent of women and in Kenya and Mali 30 per
cent of women believe FGM/C should be continued
because it ensures a girl’s virginity.
Another reason women use to justify their support
for FGM/C is the belief that a girl cannot be
married unless she is circumcised. The belief that
FGM/C is necessary to ensure better marriage
prospects for a daughter is most widespread
among women in Côte d’Ivoire (36 per cent),
Niger (29 per cent) and Eritrea (25 per cent)

Those percentages sound like a lot, but they're actually a minority, compared to the "It's just what you do" reason:

.

Custom and tradition/good tradition: When
asked what they believed to be the main reason
justifying the continuation of FGM/C, the majority
of women cite ‘custom and tradition’ or that it
is a ‘good tradition’ as a reason for their support.
In Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea and Sudan, for example,
around 70 per cent of women find custom and
tradition to be the most compelling reason justifying
the continuation of the practice.