The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Koshy]

Well hello.

Anecdotal, but meaningful to me.

As in the last debate that I meandered into Loss Leader was shouting the wonderful benefits of having parts of children's genitals cut off.

As in the last debate, I'll give my position once more for consideration of the parent.

I was circumcised as an infant, I am deformed now. Sex is a outside of the realm of possibilities for me.
My parents and I endure a strained at best relationship.

Having had more time to think about the issue, and try to articulate thoughts that are very sensitive I'll give my current understanding of my feelings.

When I look at myself and see scars and abnormal growth I am filled with a sort of sadness that makes me feel completely hopeless.
I view the genitals as a creative part of the body, as are my hands, or lips, etc.
Occasionally I will look at my hands and trace the veins with my eyes, and again I am filled with sadness, at the thought that this creative part of me also could have been mutilated for no cause other than superstitious/cultural insanity.
I think of gender issues, and that my being born as a male was sufficient cause to conduct surgery.
I think of my parents failing to see the morality of the situation, and failing to protect me.

I can't believe as well that both scientific reasoning, in which I had placed great confidence, has failed me on a societal level, a society in which it is illegal to cut to any degree a woman's body, but in which I am not afforded the same protection.



My snippet, seeing as the topic is at the forefront of the forums page, with more insanity being spouted and the obvious moral right being ignored.

 

[Olowkow]

Koshy, that post was an act of bravery. I read most of your posts in the "other" thread, and admire you for your confrontation with LL. I note that he abandoned that thread much the same way as he has abandoned this one.

 

[rocketdodger]

We've already ruled this group out.

Yes. I am glad we agree on that.

Flawed, and here's why: How many free things can you think of that you simply haven't done yet, not because you have good or whimsical reason not to, but because you haven't got around to it yet, are indifferent to it or simply couldn't care less?

No, you don't get it -- when I say free, I mean free. As in, magically the foreskin would simply disappear. No pain, no driving to the clinic, no nothing.

Of course, they would still loose all that sensation... but according to the pro-circ crowd, the sensation is trivial, right?

Well, as I've explained, you haven't shown that there are, so the expectation doesn't follow. Moreover, going to the clinic to have part of your penis lopped off for no reason other reason than it's not "inconvenient" will not, I suspect, motivate many men to go ahead and do it. It certainly doesn't do it for me!

Irrelevant, as I just explained.

Unfortunately, your logic remains flawed, and hopefully you can see why, now.

No, I don't. If getting rid of the foreskin was literally as trivial as snapping one's fingers, I think the vast, vast, vast majority of natural men would still never do it.

 

[jdp]

The whole scenario seems silly to me. Kind of like asking if I could snap my fingers and make my earlobes disappear.

 

[rocketdodger]

The whole scenario seems silly to me. Kind of like asking if I could snap my fingers and make my earlobes disappear.

Would you, knowing that they would never come back if you didn't like the result?

 

[JoeEllison]

That doesn't matter, for the following reason.

1) If they had a non-whimsical reason for wanting a circumcision, they would most likely have gotten one already.
2) Because it is free, the only reason they would NOT get one is either a) they have a good reason not to or b) they have a whimsical reason not to.
3) If there is a significant portion of the population that falls under b), one would also expect a significant portion to agree to have a circumcision for whimsical reasons -- since after all it is free and doesn't inconvenience them at all.
4) Therefore, if there is a significant portion of natural men that agree to a free circumcision, then we can assume my argument is wrong. If not, then we can assume it is correct.

Your reasoning is wrong. Mostly in #3, where you say "it is free and doesn't inconvenience them at all" which is simply not true. I mean, unless you think a few weeks of excruciating pain, loss and work and wages, and a temporary inability to have sex counts as "no inconvenience"?

If you were offering a magical and completely hypothetical situation, like going back in time and catching me as a newborn, sure. Especially if you could get my tonsils out at the same time.

 

[Southwind17]

rocketdodger: You need to understand, appreciate and accept the fact that one cannot draw a conclusion about the views, predispositions, motivations or otherwise of a person regarding a particular potential action simply because that person has not performed that action. Surely you can see the illegitimacy of trying to reason otherwise. It's analogous to trying to prove a negative. It leaves an infinite number of possibilities.

 

[rocketdodger]

Your reasoning is wrong. Mostly in #3, where you say "it is free and doesn't inconvenience them at all" which is simply not true. I mean, unless you think a few weeks of excruciating pain, loss and work and wages, and a temporary inability to have sex counts as "no inconvenience"?

Your reasoning is wrong. Mostly since I explicitly stated that there would be no inconvenience in a later post.

If you were offering a magical and completely hypothetical situation, like going back in time and catching me as a newborn, sure. Especially if you could get my tonsils out at the same time.

So you are saying that if you could choose to have been circumcised as a newborn you would?

 

[rocketdodger]

rocketdodger: You need to understand, appreciate and accept the fact that one cannot draw a conclusion about the views, predispositions, motivations or otherwise of a person regarding a particular potential action simply because that person has not performed that action. Surely you can see the illegitimacy of trying to reason otherwise. It's analogous to trying to prove a negative. It leaves an infinite number of possibilities.

But I don't need to draw any conclusion about their views, predispositions, motivations, or otherwise.

If these men would not have a <magical-free-from-inconvenience> circumcision as an adult, for whatever reason, then it is NOT acceptable to simply write off doing it to an infant (who can't even make the choice) as a trivial matter. Do you understand where I am coming from here?

 

[Southwind17]

But I don't need to draw any conclusion about their views, predispositions, motivations, or otherwise.

If these men would not have a <magical-free-from-inconvenience> circumcision as an adult, for whatever reason, then it is NOT acceptable to simply write off doing it to an infant (who can't even make the choice) as a trivial matter. Do you understand where I am coming from here?

I'm not sure we'll ever agree on this rocket, but I'll give it one more try from my side.

You're claiming that if circumcision was an innocuous process then, putting aside medical/religious/cultural reasons, many men would choose to have it done just for the sake of it, right? So, because the vast majority of men choose not to have it done just for the sake of it that demonstrates that it's not an innocuous procedure, yes?

Please confirm that this is your view, just in case we're at slight cross-purposes here.

Now, assuming I've understood you properly:

I'm currently sitting at my desk. There's a stress ball on it. I'm choosing not to squeeze it right now. What do you conclude from that, as regards my views on the benefit or otherwise of stress balls?

There's a guy across the street just walked into a sandwich shop. He could have gone into the one next door instead, but didn't. What do you conclude from that, as regards his views on the sandwich shop next door?

I'm wearing a white shirt today. What does that tell you about my views regarding blue shirts?

And finally:

I'm not going to go get a circumcision today, even though the local clinic has an offer on, and it's just around the corner. What does that tell you about my views regarding circumcision?

I'm not sure an alternative explanation to those I've posted earlier can make my point any clearer than these examples do. If you cannot see my point, or continue to beg to differ, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm not sure we'll ever agree on this rocket, but I'll give it one more try from my side.

You're claiming that if circumcision was an innocuous process then, putting aside medical/religious/cultural reasons, many men would choose to have it done just for the sake of it, right? So, because the vast majority of men choose not to have it done just for the sake of it that demonstrates that it's not an innocuous procedure, yes?

Please confirm that this is your view, just in case we're at slight cross-purposes here.

Now, assuming I've understood you properly:

I'm currently sitting at my desk. There's a stress ball on it. I'm choosing not to squeeze it right now. What do you conclude from that, as regards my views on the benefit or otherwise of stress balls?

There's a guy across the street just walked into a sandwich shop. He could have gone into the one next door instead, but didn't. What do you conclude from that, as regards his views on the sandwich shop next door?

I'm wearing a white shirt today. What does that tell you about my views regarding blue shirts?

And finally:

I'm not going to go get a circumcision today, even though the local clinic has an offer on, and it's just around the corner. What does that tell you about my views regarding circumcision?

I'm not sure an alternative explanation to those I've posted earlier can make my point any clearer than these examples do. If you cannot see my point, or continue to beg to differ, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Your stance makes sense, but only so far as it refers to a single individual. But what if everyone went to a certain sandwich shop and pretty much nobody went to the one next door? What if nobody ever wore blue shirts? Surely that is a closer scenario to what rocketdodger is arguing.

 

[Southwind17]

Your stance makes sense, but only so far as it refers to a single individual. But what if everyone went to a certain sandwich shop and pretty much nobody went to the one next door? What if nobody ever wore blue shirts? Surely that is a closer scenario to what rocketdodger is arguing.

Well, that's an interesting point, but I'm just demonstrating that it is wrong to conclude that passive inaction on a typical person's part cannot be interpreted as active inaction. If such person is, indeed, typical, then their passive inaction speaks for the general populace. We've already acknowledged, I believe, that a proportion of the male adult population will choose to be circumcised for all manner of reasons, including whimsical, but an insignificantly small proportion.

Passive inaction on the part of adult males towards adult circumcision cannot legitimately be cited as justification for objecting to active action on the part of adult males/females towards child circumcision, even though I am against it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Passive inaction on the part of adult males towards adult circumcision cannot legitimately be cited as justification for objecting to active action on the part of adult males/females towards child circumcision, even though I am against it.

I would argue whether or not to circumcise is rarely a whimsical choice. My evidence would be how cultures which live very closely to each other have different ideas about, and practices of, circumcision.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, that's an interesting point, but I'm just demonstrating that it is wrong to conclude that passive inaction on a typical person's part cannot be interpreted as active inaction. If such person is, indeed, typical, then their passive inaction speaks for the general populace. We've already acknowledged, I believe, that a proportion of the male adult population will choose to be circumcised for all manner of reasons, including whimsical, but an insignificantly small proportion.

Passive inaction on the part of adult males towards adult circumcision cannot legitimately be cited as justification for objecting to active action on the part of adult males/females towards child circumcision, even though I am against it.

I agree, as yaffle says, in the case of individuals, but I claim that the probability that billions of men do not get circumcisions all because of passive inaction is extremely low. And as I said before, if there is a significant percentage of men who do not get circumcisions because of active inaction (and I think there is a high probability that there is) then it becomes a non-trivial matter to force the procedure on someone who cannot decide.

In other words, if natural men have good reasons for not being circumcised (and I assume at least some of them do) then we have to assume that at least some of the children who are circumcised would also have such reasons, had they not been circumcised, and hence forcing a circumcision on them becomes a very serious ethical question. Not that it is never ethical -- I think it is acceptable for some -- but at the very least it becomes non-trivial.

I mean, in general people in free societies frown upon forcing any permanent decision on a child unless it is well thought out -- except their cultural quirks that they have a vested emotional interest in (like circumcision). I just think people should realize how hypocritical that is.

 

[Marcus]

OK I see what you are saying.

Lets start the poll right now. Any of you who have a foreskin -- if you were offered a free circumcision, would you take it?

More to the point- For circumcised men, do you wish your parents had left your foreskin on? I suspect the no's would far outweigh the yes's, just anecdotal, no I can't prove it.

 

[JoeEllison]

So you are saying that if you could choose to have been circumcised as a newborn you would?

Sure, why not? Who cares? As far as I'm concerned it is like a canvas car cover... you don't drive with the cover on the car, do you?

Again, though... you've got to throw in a tonsil removal, as long as we're talking about surgeries that hurt worse when you're an adult than as a child. If I can go to bed, and wake up with a penis that has always been circumcised, and two missing tonsils, and none of the pain involved with the surgery...


... can you do magical hypothetical complication-free knee surgery too? That would be awesome!

 

[NewtonTrino]

When performing an irreversible medical procedure the burden of proof is on those wanting to perform the procedure. The default is to NOT do it. There is obviously a lack of studies on the possible sexual dysfunction (which I BELIEVE to exist but cannot prove with a study). Therefore we should halt all circumcisions until we have better data.

And Joe, you never answered. I'm willing to pay for it! It's no big deal right? So why not take one for the team and try it on for size? It's not like it's a permanent decision or anything, right?

 

[logical muse]

Lets start the poll right now. Any of you who have a foreskin -- if you were offered a free circumcision, would you take it?

Hell yeah! I keep tripping over the damn thing...



eta: I'm kidding, of course. Even it was free, and painless, and came with free biscuits and tea, there is no way I would have this procedure done. I wouldn't have it done for religious reasons (not religious). I wouldn't have it done for so-called aesthetic reasons (just as I wouldn't expect, let alone require, you to trim your labia or get a boob job or liposuction for me). I wouldn't have it done for hygiene reasons (I shower every day, is it really that difficult?).

 

[Rasmus]

More to the point- For circumcised men, do you wish your parents had left your foreskin on? I suspect the no's would far outweigh the yes's, just anecdotal, no I can't prove it.

But what would that show?

Just because you don't miss something that you never had long enough to appreciate doesn't mean a thing, does it? And neither does that you cannot appreciate the alternative.

To me, having my foreskin removed sounds about as sane as having an earlobe or pinky finger removed just for the heck of it.

 

[caffeinated]

Just popping in to share some anecdotal stuff (and potential TMI), regarding the female point of view on this issue-

I grew up with two much younger brothers, who were not circumsized, so until I was a late teenager, I thought that was "normal" (I changed a lot of diapers). The first time I saw one that had been cut (in the course of babysitting and changing more diapers, heh) I thought there was something wrong with it and actually called my mother in a bit of a panic, when everything was explained to me (I was sheltered).

In any case, since then I've really had no "preference" for one over the other, visually.

But I will say, mechanically, that I prefer the natural ones, and find everything much more comfortable that way. I won't offer numbers to make this observation more scientific, but to me it's a noticeable difference, which I would happily go into great detail about except I'm at work, and it's probably not appropriate.

Medical necessity aside (and I don't buy that it's necessary), I think the reaction people in our culture have to a natural male organ is just what people are used to. All the images we do see of them in popular culture or porn is the cut version, so people just don't know how to react to it. I really think if more women got past their initial "eew" response they'd be in for a very pleasant surprise.

I actually can get pretty upset about this topic, mostly because the reasons most people give for the procedure don't make sense to me. "so he looks like daddy" is not a real great reason, as far as I'm concerned, to go cutting bits and pieces of a baby's body off.