The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[Shuggy]

Are you calling "to look like his father" and "because women prefer circumcised", "cultural"?

Yes.

Well the first of those is peculiar because it's never used anywhere else, and never used when the father is intact (in fact a few days ago two advisors in an Illinois paper strongly supported a woman who wanted to cut her son in the face of his intact father's objections, and even did some amateur psycholanalysis of the father's reasons for wanting to leave his genitals alone!). So that "cultural reason" is not what it seems. Women prefer men who are circumcised where men are circumcised, and not where they are not, so it is a reason that feeds on itself.

If we are trying to figure out what sort of influence is feasible, a different situation (trying to reduce an established practice vs.establishing a new practice), under vastly different circumstances (the relative position of physicians as an authority figure, the enthusiasm for applying a new theory of disease/health (the germ theory), different professional ethics and educational standards, different renumerative practices, etc.), when the reasons the procedure has become established is no longer under the purview of physicians, cannot reasonably be assumed to apply.

So we are in agreement there. That is a point I was trying to make. When infant circumcision was unheard of, the only people to in a position to bring it to anybody's attention were the medical profession. Our case that they did, is admittedly circumstantial - lack of any evidence that anyone other than the medical profession knew anything about it. When infant circumcision is nearly universal, the demand to keep it is parental (especially circumcised fathers), and we have a varity of evidence that it was the efforts of the medical profession that (virtually) abolished it.

I'm sorry, but part of my concern is that people are less likely to be persuaded by information they can easily perceive as biased. Unless it is your intention to preach to the choir, I'm not sure how that is supposed to help.

There are various kinds of bias: there is misstatements of facts, misinterpretation of facts, faulty logic etc. (You will find plenty of that at a site like circinfo . net) The Intactivist Pages claim to present the case against involuntary genital cutting. They present the case that others make for involuntary genital cutting in order to disprove it. What they refuse to do is present the case for and against involuntary genital cutting as if they were equivalent. Let's say they are preaching to the people hanging around the door wondering if they should come into the church.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. You initiated a discussion with me. Would you prefer that I didn't answer your questions?

Excuse me, you started it by making up my thoughts as you imagined them and putting them in quotation marks. No, I would prefer that you did answer them.

I guess this is becoming off-topic for this thread. It may be better to deal with this via PM (private messaging)?

No. You wrote

It does not help your case that you refer to circumstitions.com. The information provided at that site has been chosen to present a biased, rather than objective perspective.

and

This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it.

But it really shouldn't be a surprise that it fails, right?

here, so I think you owe it to us to justify that here.

 

[fls]

Well the first of those is peculiar because it's never used anywhere else, and never used when the father is intact (in fact a few days ago two advisors in an Illinois paper strongly supported a woman who wanted to cut her son in the face of his intact father's objections, and even did some amateur psycholanalysis of the father's reasons for wanting to leave his genitals alone!). So that "cultural reason" is not what it seems. Women prefer men who are circumcised where men are circumcised, and not where they are not, so it is a reason that feeds on itself.

I think the cultural issue here is the idea of conformity, rather than the specifics of what people are conforming to (as you point out, the details can and do change).

So we are in agreement there. That is a point I was trying to make. When infant circumcision was unheard of, the only people to in a position to bring it to anybody's attention were the medical profession. Our case that they did, is admittedly circumstantial - lack of any evidence that anyone other than the medical profession knew anything about it. When infant circumcision is nearly universal, the demand to keep it is parental (especially circumcised fathers), and we have a varity of evidence that it was the efforts of the medical profession that (virtually) abolished it.

My complaint is that you did not provide information within your article that seemed to support the claims you were making. That you have continued to do this hardly shows that you understand or agree with my complaint.

There are various kinds of bias: there is misstatements of facts, misinterpretation of facts, faulty logic etc. (You will find plenty of that at a site like circinfo . net) The Intactivist Pages claim to present the case against involuntary genital cutting. They present the case that others make for involuntary genital cutting in order to disprove it. What they refuse to do is present the case for and against involuntary genital cutting as if they were equivalent. Let's say they are preaching to the people hanging around the door wondering if they should come into the church.

I have no problem with choosing to make a case for or against a particular idea. I have a problem when one chooses to do so using the various methods you listed above, instead of showing that even considering all the information and attempting to provide a balanced interpretation the idea remains more reasonable than the alternative. I have noticed, though, that it seems difficult to achieve the italicized portion if some attention is not given towards addressing biases..

Excuse me, you started it by making up my thoughts as you imagined them and putting them in quotation marks. No, I would prefer that you did answer them.

So how is that a mountain out of a molehill? If the topic was trivial, wouldn't you be inclined to ignore a flippant remark?

No. You wrote
and
here, so I think you owe it to us to justify that here.

I will start a new thread for you, then.

Linda

 

[fls]

I will start a new thread for you, then.

Here.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well the first of those is peculiar because it's never used anywhere else, and never used when the father is intact (in fact a few days ago two advisors in an Illinois paper strongly supported a woman who wanted to cut her son in the face of his intact father's objections, and even did some amateur psycholanalysis of the father's reasons for wanting to leave his genitals alone!). So that "cultural reason" is not what it seems. Women prefer men who are circumcised where men are circumcised, and not where they are not, so it is a reason that feeds on itself.

I guess I don't understand the objection here. The fact that "women prefer men who are circumcized where men are circumcised" is EXACTLY what I think of when I hear about "cultural reasons."

 

[fls]

I guess I don't understand the objection here. The fact that "women prefer men who are circumcized where men are circumcised" is EXACTLY what I think of when I hear about "cultural reasons."

Regardless of whether or not someone wants to quibble about what label to place on it, it's pretty clear we're all talking about the same thing, isn't it?

Linda

 

[Morrigan]

Have you seen every woman out there? Oversized labia and clitoris are most certainly much more common than you seem to think, although in China's case I admit its extreme. But the point in that is that we do reject people based on physical preference.

No, the point is that it's perfectly reasonable to reject a relationship with a person who has severe physical deformations, but it's not reasonable to reject a relationship for a trivial aspect of physical appearance. Refusing to to be with a woman with a disproportionally large clitoris is not unreasonable nor shallow. Refusing to be with a woman because she has smaller-than-average breasts is certainly shallow.

The thread was started by a parent. I am a parent sharing my example. Obviously you are not a parent or you would understand this. Excuse me if I wonder why hyper sensitive uncircumcized men are derailing a conversation from a doctor and a parent who has chosen both to circumcize and not to. My examples are expressing my concerns and realities. As a parent. Bringing a child into it was unfortunately necessary to make my point. I did expect a certain level of restraint and maturity from the adults on this thread with regard to this. I see I expected too much.

Ah yes, because going on a soapbox as if you were the only parent out there, and making snide passive-aggressive little jabs, is a sign of great maturity.

Frankly the men on this thread are coming across extremely high strung and defensive and insecure about their uncut penis which probably is going to do more to convince the OP about what way is sure to cause screwed up mental issues in their child.

Wackos.....

This is highly ironic, since YOU are the one who is defensive and insecure about your son's uncut penis, and grossly exaggerates hypothetical "mental damage" he could get. Projection anyone?

 

[truethat]

Really? You know the posts are there for everyone to read. This "You Americans are idiots" crap is pretty telling. Its a preference. And frankly you don't even know how I personally feel about this because I'm not talking about my personal preference. Its a nuance that seems to elude a few on this thread who can't put their egos aside to try to understand.

Now we're into "passive aggressive jabs" and "projection." Uh huh.

 

[Morrigan]

This "You Americans are idiots" crap is pretty telling.

What?

 

[jdp]

If it's true that American women find foreskin to be disgusting, to the point that they will refuse to continue a relationship with a male who is uncircumcised, all I can say is "chalk that up as another reason to be glad I'm not an American". The Land of the Shallow and the Home of the Ignorant.

I've never had reason to regret the presence of my foreskin, and much occasion to be glad of it.

Causing unnecessary pain to a new born child is immoral. Period. There is no justification for it.

I think that is an overstatement. While this might have been true 15 or 20 years ago, and might persist to a degree today, it isn't really the case. The problem here is that until say the last 10 years many Americans knew very little about circumcision it was so common that at best they thought all men all over the world were circumcised (it was necessary) or at worst they thought men were born that way.

In either case a lot has changed, mostly due to better information from places like this, and that has, in part, lead to declines. Keep in mind that it was only about 30 years ago that the rate of circumcision in Australia dipped below 50% and perhaps 10 years before that in New Zealand. Why has the US been so far behind on this one? I wish I knew the answer but we are creeping closer to that 50% due in part to discussions like this and parents like truethat, upchurch, and perhaps maybe pgwenthold.

As far as I can tell it is actually of little consequence to women and I am confident by the time their boys are in a position to care it won't even enter their minds.

 

[Lonewulf]

Really? You know the posts are there for everyone to read. This "You Americans are idiots" crap is pretty telling. Its a preference. And frankly you don't even know how I personally feel about this because I'm not talking about my personal preference. Its a nuance that seems to elude a few on this thread who can't put their egos aside to try to understand.

Now we're into "passive aggressive jabs" and "projection." Uh huh.

Hell, I'm an American, and even I wouldn't want to live in the U.S. if I felt that the great majority of women would just turn me away because my parents didn't chop off the skin of my penis. Not that they really didn't, but that doesn't change anything.

Sorry, but I have less shallow women of intellect to pursue, not shallow people who reject entire relationships because the guy's got some skin on his penis.

Sorry if you don't like that, but I honestly don't care.

 

[Shuggy]

a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. -- Thomas Paine

Very relevant to the topic in hand.

 

[Shuggy]

I think the cultural issue here is the idea of conformity, rather than the specifics of what people are conforming to (as you point out, the details can and do change).

Except that "conformity" only ever seems to mean "conformity with circumcision", never "conformity with intactness". I agree that conformity is a major reason.

My complaint is that you did not provide information within your article that seemed to support the claims you were making. That you have continued to do this hardly shows that you understand

I have not "continued" to do this. I have pointed out that the presentation is a summary of an article you have not read.

or agree with my complaint.

I never agreed with your complaint. Earlier you seemed to be saying that the mechanism for the rise of circumcision was necessarily and automatically the same as the mechanism for its fall:

There is no information showing that these attitudes and behaviours changed during the entire period under consideration.

Now we seem to agree that because widespread circumcision itself changes the environment, they may have different mechanisms.

I have no problem with choosing to make a case for or against a particular idea. I have a problem when one chooses to do so using the various methods you listed above

That's a very unjust and unsupported accusation, and I don't know why you make it.

instead of showing that even considering all the information and attempting to provide a balanced interpretation the idea remains more reasonable than the alternative. I have noticed, though, that it seems difficult to achieve the italicized portion if some attention is not given towards addressing biases.

There are basically two scenarios for the rise, and two for the fall, parent-driven and physician-driven (lumping doctors, nurses etc - I doubt that it will ever be possible to untangle them with the limited amount of data we have about 20 century NZ. Dr Smith thought Plunket nurses had a strong role - he thought they actually did them, but there is no evidence for this). There is evidence of matrons etc. pressuring mothers.

There is no evidence whatever for a parent-driven rise, and some circumstantial evidence for a physician-driven one. There is certainly no evidence for physicians putting up any resistance to a parent-driven rise, at a time when doctors were gods. There is a varity of direct evidence for a physician-driven fall, with parents dragging their heels. I don't know why you think we're biassed against physicians. (If we were, wouldn't we propose that parents drove the fall and physicians resisted them?) If we had any evidence at all for a parent-driven rise or fall, we would present it.

So how is that a mountain out of a molehill? If the topic was trivial,

The topic is not trivial. Your accusation is major, based on minor evidence.

wouldn't you be inclined to ignore a flippant remark?

It was a very rude remark.

 

[fls]

Very relevant to the topic in hand.

I don't know if I'm recalling this correctly, but I think Lonewulf's sig was the result of a prior circumcision thread.

Or maybe it was just that its relevance was noted.

Linda

 

[fls]

I have not "continued" to do this. I have pointed out that the presentation is a summary of an article you have not read.

I appreciate that there is additional information in the article, but shouldn't the summary of an argument contain the relevant information rather than somewhat unrelated information?

I never agreed with your complaint.

This:

So we are in agreement there.

threw me off, then.

Earlier you seemed to be saying that the mechanism for the rise of circumcision was necessarily and automatically the same as the mechanism for its fall.

No, I said something quite different.

Now we seem to agree that because widespread circumcision itself changes the environment, they may have different mechanisms.

Yes, I have said that several times now.

That's a very unjust and unsupported accusation, and I don't know why you make it.

I have stated within this thread and within the new thread I started why I consider this a just accusation and have supported it with specifics. I welcome any discussion on those specifics.

There are basically two scenarios for the rise, and two for the fall, parent-driven and physician-driven (lumping doctors, nurses etc - I doubt that it will ever be possible to untangle them with the limited amount of data we have about 20 century NZ. Dr Smith thought Plunket nurses had a strong role - he thought they actually did them, but there is no evidence for this). There is evidence of matrons etc. pressuring mothers.

There is no evidence whatever for a parent-driven rise, and some circumstantial evidence for a physician-driven one. There is certainly no evidence for physicians putting up any resistance to a parent-driven rise, at a time when doctors were gods. There is a varity of direct evidence for a physician-driven fall, with parents dragging their heels. I don't know why you think we're biassed against physicians. (If we were, wouldn't we propose that parents drove the fall and physicians resisted them?) If we had any evidence at all for a parent-driven rise or fall, we would present it.

I don't think you're biased against physicians. As you point out, other proposals can explain the information you presented, depending upon which particular bias you wish to support. This has been my point.

The topic is not trivial. Your accusation is major, based on minor evidence.

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure what you think my accusation was.

It was a very rude remark.

I'm sorry. I was unprepared for the need to take your sensitivity into account. I would have used a different means of expression had I known.

Linda

 

[ZirconBlue]

Really? You know the posts are there for everyone to read. This "You Americans are idiots" crap is pretty telling. Its a preference. And frankly you don't even know how I personally feel about this because I'm not talking about my personal preference. Its a nuance that seems to elude a few on this thread who can't put their egos aside to try to understand.

Now we're into "passive aggressive jabs" and "projection." Uh huh.

A couple of things you might consider.

• I'm an American.
• I was circumsized.
• I would prefer that I had not been circumsized.
• It's not a "preference", it's part of my body.
• In my experience, by the time I've gotten to the point of a sexual partner having a good look at my penis, whether I'm circumsized or not has become a moot point.

 

[truethat]

Hell, I'm an American, and even I wouldn't want to live in the U.S. if I felt that the great majority of women would just turn me away because my parents didn't chop off the skin of my penis. Not that they really didn't, but that doesn't change anything.

Sorry, but I have less shallow women of intellect to pursue, not shallow people who reject entire relationships because the guy's got some skin on his penis.

Sorry if you don't like that, but I honestly don't care.

Why do you feel the need to explain yourself to me if you "Honestly don't care"

I swear the neurosis in this thread is ridiculous.

 

[truethat]

A couple of things you might consider.

• I'm an American.
• I was circumsized.
• I would prefer that I had not been circumsized.
• It's not a "preference", it's part of my body.
• In my experience, by the time I've gotten to the point of a sexual partner having a good look at my penis, whether I'm circumsized or not has become a moot point.

Again, congratulations on your feelings about your body. Why you feel the need to express them to me is beyond me.

 

[truethat]

I think that is an overstatement. While this might have been true 15 or 20 years ago, and might persist to a degree today, it isn't really the case. The problem here is that until say the last 10 years many Americans knew very little about circumcision it was so common that at best they thought all men all over the world were circumcised (it was necessary) or at worst they thought men were born that way.

In either case a lot has changed, mostly due to better information from places like this, and that has, in part, lead to declines. Keep in mind that it was only about 30 years ago that the rate of circumcision in Australia dipped below 50% and perhaps 10 years before that in New Zealand. Why has the US been so far behind on this one? I wish I knew the answer but we are creeping closer to that 50% due in part to discussions like this and parents like truethat, upchurch, and perhaps maybe pgwenthold.

As far as I can tell it is actually of little consequence to women and I am confident by the time their boys are in a position to care it won't even enter their minds.

Thank you for understanding and addressing my actual statements. I am feeling more and more that it will be a non issue which makes me quite happy for my son.

 

[Lonewulf]

Why do you feel the need to explain yourself to me if you "Honestly don't care"

Because this is a public forum. Not to mention I feel the point was worth pressing. But tell me how much I hate America because I wouldn't want to live in a hypothetical America that's full of women who won't get into a relationship just because their potential partners have a bit more skin on their penis, please.

I swear the neurosis in this thread is ridiculous.

Hm.

Well, I'm rubber, and you're glue. There, now we can debate at equal maturity.

Seriously, do you go out of your way to accuse others of having mental disorders that happen to disagree with you? Or do you just reserve it for circumcision threads? I guess I could see how "I honestly don't care what you think" could be taken as a bit stronger than maybe I had meant it (and in hindsight, might have been able to do with it altogether), but your direct response is to accuse me of having some form of neurosis? Oookay.

 

[Lonewulf]

A couple of things you might consider.

• I'm an American.
• I was circumsized.
• I would prefer that I had not been circumsized.
• It's not a "preference", it's part of my body.
• In my experience, by the time I've gotten to the point of a sexual partner having a good look at my penis, whether I'm circumsized or not has become a moot point.

Ditto. Except that my own circumcision was a result of an infection, so it was a necessary surgical operation. But for non-medical reasons (such as "it doesn't look pretty unless you take off the skin" or "I have to force my religion on my son for him to get into the right kind of colleges"), I'm afraid that I'm not able to find reason to really support it. Especially since I know directly how painful it is.