The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Rasmus]

I think the only way to prove it is to have Joe get circumcised. If he's willing to do that I'll concede that it's no big deal. Assuming he's intact which is my understanding from reading the thread. I'm sure we can drum up enough cash to pay for it, I'll throw my $100 in right now.

I understand this to mean that the 100$ would go towards the cost of the procedure ant not be compensation? In that case, I'll add another $100.

 

[I Ratant]

I expect Joe has insurance.
Would there be a deductible involved in the deduction?

 

[Lonewulf]

One (just one) properly conducted study showing that infant circucision leads to sexual disfunction or a loss of pleasure as an adult.

So, you're actually saying here that if you were provided with a "properly conducted study" showing this... what, exactly, would happen?

Somehow I don't think that this would convince you of anything. After all, you need to look good for God, which was Reason #1 listed below -- obviously the first one that came to your mind. Surely he's more important than sexual function... after all, isn't it also a sin in His eyes when you have sex outside of wedlock? If you're going to permanently alter your child's body for your religious beliefs (or the religious beliefs descended from your ethnicity), you might as well go ahead and follow the other beliefs of the faith. Sex should be about procreation, not recreation, right?

So as far as I see it, you would (or should), by some of your very own arguments, consider the question to be irrelevant.

Obeying the revealed word of God;

Not a very convincing reason. I don't accept the "revealed word of God" to justify any other kind of abuse towards a child. Not to mention that the God-claim is so patently ridiculous, considering that the source comes from men who considered stoning and killing people for, say, working on the sabbath as utterly moral.

Family membership in a close-knit ethnic group;

I'll never understand the idea behind ripping away some skin to be part of an ethnic group, but okay.

Traditions and ceremonies that increase family and community bonding;

I have a perfectly fine time getting along with family and community without ripping skin off my penis. I find it sad that it's so impossible to do this in your society.

Honoring the sacrifices of one's ancestors (as recently as one's parents) who were persecuted for their beliefs;

I can think of many other ways to honor the sacrifices of one's ancestors instead of forcing my child to undergo a permanent surgical procedure.

Traditions and ceremonies that increase one's bonding with one's own history;

Didn't you already say this?

Carying out obligations so as to minimize family friction and receive economic and non-economic benefits from such family members;

It's kinda sad, the idea that you can only receive economic benefits from your family members as long as you force your child to undergo a permanent surgical procedure. Those wacky Jews.

and lots more that I can't think of right now.

I'm sure the "lots more" you can't think of would entirely be just as convincing to me as the rest you listed.

It cannot. Whether you like it or not, parents make irreversible decisions for their children every single day.

I cannot think of anything quite as irreversible, personally. You decide their education? Okay, up to a point, yes. But after 18, they can go off on their own and earn their own education; ignorance is not quite permanent. I can't think of many other things that are quite as permanent. Even piercing the ears can heal up. I suppose you could always give your children permanent tattoos or something, but this isn't quite something that I see as very popular.

Plus, I do believe there are some ways of removing tattoos.

The status of parent, in fact, creates a moral obligation on a person to substitute his judgment for his child. That's the exact oposite of what you said.

And yet, society steps in and tells parents constantly when they're not acting in the best interest of the child. Child custody is there for a reason, you know.

So this is the exact opposite of what you're saying; a parent does not have free reign on all decisions when it comes to children. Unfortunately for you, it's not 100% a subjective matter that's only up to the parent's decisions. Or else, they should be free to do whatever they wanted to their child, including abuse, neglect, or cutting off their ears because it makes them holy and "cuter". It is up to society to decide what is wrong and what is right, and what should be encouraged or discouraged.

In this particular case, it is a matter of degree.

Answered, I believe, in sufficient detail above.

While there was detail, the answer is found to be wanting.

 

[skeptifem]

Circumcising my sons helped them be identified with the Jewish people from the very earliest days of their lives. At just the age of eight days, they were ensconsed in Jewish custom and surrounded by Jewish family and friends. Thus, they will be able to say, "From the earliest days of my life, I have been a member of the Jewish community."

This will eventually help them get into medical school.

i laughed really hard just now.... picturing a bunch of guys comparing their genitals when they are trying to make connections for medical school.

ive heard the 'i dont want my kid to question why they dont look like their dad' thing and had the same thought. I have no idea why anyone would ever compare penises with their dad or in any professional or academic situation.

 

[TheDaver]

Commentary:
For the last 11 pages or so, the pro-circ crowd has been going on about how “circumcision isn’t all that bad” and completely refusing to provide evidence of any benefit.

 

[I Ratant]

i laughed really hard just now.... picturing a bunch of guys comparing their genitals when they are trying to make connections for medical school.
....

.
This is one of the more risible views of genital mutilations.
I can't recall any interest ever in any of my classmate's private parts in school.
I've got even less in those today.
"You ain't in the club, unless you're cut."
Gollllllllllleee...

 

[madmonk76]

I just can't wrap my head around anyone wanting to have unnecessary, elective surgery performed on their newborn.

 

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

Obeying the revealed word of God;

.
This is the least defensible position.
It is mystifying to me why any educated person can see anything but a collection of fables, bad winner written history, and really odd cultural requirements sprinkled in with obvious internal contradictions as anything a supernatural object could author, but all kinds of humans certainly did!

 

[Olowkow]

Originally Posted by Olowkow
I'm not so sure. Hope this has not already been posted:
http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Everything you want to know about the subject:
http://www.cirp.org
I have no idea if the writers had any agenda or not, but I have read the same elsewhere(...)

Aheh. It seems like nobody considers the people on the low ends of the anatomical bell curve, in these discussions.

For girls who, for example, do not self lubricate particularly well, or who suffer from uncommon, moderately crappy and basically untreatable conditions like having a chronically sensitive vestibule, tugging the foreskin up a bit helps A WHOLE LOT in getting in, in both ease and comfort, and it also pretty much negates the sort of chafing that can leave such a girl sadly declining further adventures the next day.

Such girls are not anything like the majority but I assure you they exist. And male circumcision makes a significant difference to them.

ETA: Olowkow's post described a bunch of this stuff:

Thanks for reposting this.
I was wondering when someone would get around to looking at it. I have posted early on in this thread that I had an opinion, read that as OPINION, that circumcision could well be responsible for the failure of quite a few relationships. Yes, I have some in mind. No I won't discuss them. One poster called this absurd. Well, perhaps it is to him. I did not want to elaborate at the time, because I didn't figure the thread would ever get this graphic, but it has...and then some. I think the above well written post which I have quoted explains this much betten than I ever could.
The fact of the matter is that the comfort of the female is ultimately important on the long term as well as initially on the first experience.

And I am wondering, seriously, how religion happens to spin the need for circumcision as some sort of command from god...why didn't god get it right in the first place? Created in his image? Hmm? Is he cut? Who did him?

Pretty crummy retrofix if you ask me, like "HUMAN SP2".
As far as proselytizing anti-circ wooists, IIRC, give me a break. What can Skeptigirl possibly have in mind? That is preposterous, to me at least. Sounds like proselytizing...for some reason.

Oh yes, let's not forget Bondo! That fun practice of lopping of the female bits.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0D8143DF932A05752C0A961958260

If anyone can be said to embody the pro-cutting movement in Sierra Leone, it is Haja Sasso, leader of the National Council of Muslim Women. Pugnacious and passionate, Mrs. Sasso has served notice that there will be war in her country if anyone should attempt to bar women from cutting each other's genitals.

Ya sure don't want to be "an anti bondo wooist" in Sierra Leone. How does this differ from "god wants it"?




ETA: Added quote from my post with URL and various other rants.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

1:43 on the first try. I think I can improve that quite a bit.

Skeptigirl, I really don't know what skin you have in this game but you are coming across as extremely biased in favor of circumcision. Getting away from the evidence for and against do you have some personal experience which causes you to be pro-circ?

That is because I'm being attacked as promoting it for simply defending those who for their reasons chose to to have their child circumcised.

My position is very clear to anyone who reads what I've posted. Depending on your priorities and your values, the decision will be different and both positions can be supported.

The fact defending those parents who chose or choose to circumcise for the reasons that matter to them is being viewed here as pro-circumcision is a testament to the fanatical faction of people here who resent that everyone isn't on their side.

 

[NewtonTrino]

I understand this to mean that the 100$ would go towards the cost of the procedure ant not be compensation? In that case, I'll add another $100.

Yes, $100 towards the procedure. I have no idea of the cost or if insurance or whatever would cover it, but who cares, I'm sure we can scare up the cash.

How about it Joe? Willing to go under the knife for science? It's not a big deal right?

Humans SP2... ha funny stuff. Ok you were compiled now apply the patches after release.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... -- if it is 'no big deal' then why don't more adult men have it done?

The medical benefit is to infant boys. In those cases why would an adult have it done?

As for the medical benefit for adults in high HIV prevalence areas, it is being done.

 

[JoeEllison]

That is because I'm being attacked as promoting it for simply defending those who for their reasons chose to to have their child circumcised.

My position is very clear to anyone who reads what I've posted. Depending on your priorities and your values, the decision will be different and both positions can be supported.

The fact defending those parents who chose or choose to circumcise for the reasons that matter to them is being viewed here as pro-circumcision is a testament to the fanatical faction of people here who resent that everyone isn't on their side.

Yes, exactly. When someone sees the "flip a coin" centrist viewpoint as being "pro-circumcision", it lets me know that they aren't reading and understanding what people are posting. They are just projecting their own extremism on everyone who disagrees with them.

 

[JoeEllison]

The medical benefit is to infant boys. In those cases why would an adult have it done?

It is another case of extremists refusing to inform themselves and avoiding any rational thinking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... A simple daily dip in the bath tub seems to keep the UTI demons at bay!

Not all uncircumcised boys get UTIs and not all efforts to keep the area clean are sufficient.

 

[Olowkow]

Just so this does not get missed (posted previously as an edit that has been swallowed):

Oh yes, let's not forget Bondo! That fun practice of lopping of the female bits.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A961958260
Quote:
If anyone can be said to embody the pro-cutting movement in Sierra Leone, it is Haja Sasso, leader of the National Council of Muslim Women. Pugnacious and passionate, Mrs. Sasso has served notice that there will be war in her country if anyone should attempt to bar women from cutting each other's genitals.

Ya sure don't want to be "an anti bondo wooist" in Sierra Leone. How does this differ from "god wants it"?

 

[Olowkow]

Yes, $100 towards the procedure. I have no idea of the cost or if insurance or whatever would cover it, but who cares, I'm sure we can scare up the cash.

How about it Joe? Willing to go under the knife for science? It's not a big deal right?

Humans SP2... ha funny stuff. Ok you were compiled now apply the patches after release.

Put your money away. I bet LossLeader will do it free.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't think of any other than the usual "I orgasm too quick/ my penis smells so girls don't give me oral sex" nonsense that pro-circumcision types are so quick to conjure.

That is the point -- the vast majority of adult men have no motivation to do so, and in fact have a very strong motivation NOT to. In particular, they know that their foreskin is not just a useless flap of skin.

Skeptigirl, it seemed to me, is asserting that it isn't a big deal one way or the other, which is categorically untrue. I don't care what any "study" shows -- the fact that you don't see natural men getting circumcisions except in extreme cases tells me it is a big deal.

Acceptability of Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV/AIDS in ...

The level of acceptability across the nine countries appears greater than might be expected, considering that all thirteen communities where the studies were performed were all traditionally non-circumcising. The lowest level of acceptability by uncircumcised men (29%) was reported from eastern Uganda in a study conducted in 1997, before MC became well recognized as possibly being associated with STIs and HIV (Bailey et al., 1999). More than half of men in the regions studied appear to be receptive, if not eager, to become circumcised.

Cost, fear of pain, and concern for safety were the three most consistent barriers to acceptability of MC....

The studies we reviewed revealed that it is virtually universal that Africans equate circumcision with improved hygiene. Also widespread is the belief that circumcision leads to reduced incidence of STIs achieved through improved hygiene, reduction in the number and severity of scratches, tears and abrasions to which the foreskin is susceptible and through earlier detection of ulcers, leading to earlier treatment. Although not as frequent, a significant proportion of participants in the studies also saw circumcision leading to reduced risk of HIV acquisition through the same route. If MC is proven in the remaining two clinical trials to reduce incidence of HIV and some STIs (e.g., HPV, HSV-2, chancroid and gonorrhea), this information will be consistent with the already existing beliefs of most sub-Saharan Africans.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To put it more clearly if someone tried to circumcise me against my will I would use whatever force I needed to, up to and including lethal force, to stop them. Just because kids that do get the chop suffer from cognitive dissonance doesn't mean that the act is justified.

And Joe, I think you are just as biased as Skeptigirl. We'll all just have to agree to disagree on this one. Frankly I do think there are bigger problems in the world (like the fact that drugs are illegal).

Joe is also neutral, if I recall.

This tells us you see two positions, against circumcision or other.

 

[I Ratant]

Not all uncircumcised boys get UTIs and not all efforts to keep the area clean are sufficient.

.
Those with poor hygiene are supposed to be -improved- with a major operation and scar where they already have shown a lack of interest in maintaining cleanliness in the first place?
Nothing like turning a "simple operation" into gangrene and amputation!