German court bans circumcision of young boys

[rustypouch]

I for one won't.

Intentionally hurting your child for no good reason makes you a bad parent. It is child abuse, whether the law has caught on or not.

Indeed. I don't understand how people can justify mutilating their children for reasons which are at best *very* tenuous.

 

[jdp]

The insults here are completely unproductive, and I admit I've been playing a role in it. I've basically put forward that grown men who are up in arms about this must have some kind of underlying (mental health/family/relationship) issue.

I agree the insults don't help and I'd prefer to see a discussion without them. I've met plenty of people who are, to put it mildly, dissatisfied at the fact that they were circumcised. Most are well grounded individuals. I am sure there are others who are not so grounded but grown men up in arms isn't excessively rare.

v) There's a risk of complications - Get a better MD.

I agree the first 4 are not great arguments against, five should be obvious though. As someone mentioned, no matter how good the MD there is a risk of complications and in this case those complications could have lifetime consequences.

The better arguments are:

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.
b) That, at heart, not having one's foreskin removed is a fundamental human right.

The better counter-arguments are:

c) There is some cultural weight to it (culture cannot be discounted entirely, as we have to live somewhere)
d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

The decision making process for conscientious people involves weighing a) through d) (and others, although some private reasons may be brought under d).

A and B are better arguments. I can't see C as a valid counter argument, it's as someone here put, the lemming defense. And I don't believe D to be true, we put limits on nearly all other cultural, ritual, scarring; circumcision should be no different.

 

[Vortigern99]

I'm American, age 42, and circumcised. My mother has since expressed regret at having it done, but in fairness to her, in 1969 she didn't know any better, and believed the generally accepted medical "wisdom" that it was hygienic and/or necessary.

I don't mind it, because frankly I have no idea what I'm missing. I cannot envision sex feeling any better than it does, and I've never suffered any ill effects from having the procedure done as an infant.

That said, if I ever have a boy I will absolutely not circumcise him. I've researched the matter to my satisfaction and perceive that it is 1) medically unnecessary; 2) culturally superfluous; and 3) a violation of basic human rights to keep one's naturally born body intact and whole.

That's all.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Agreed.

Not only does this make it legally difficult, but also economically difficult to mutilate babies. It will cost significantly more for Cologne residents to do this than it does now, due to travel costs. Yay, another deterrent.

Cause that worked so well with drugs, alcohol, guns and what not?

As I said in the Norway thread, I'm completely against this barbaric ritual but laws of this nature are just plain stupid. Countries where the majority of the population do it will never pass it. Countries where the minority of the population do it will ignore it.

Instead of focusing on educating people on the dangers of the procedure and publicly continuously expose the stupid myths about it, what this would do is force people to do it in hiding where the risks for the child just go higher and higher.

And how is the child going to be raised? And what if some complication occurs? Even something that's completely unrelated a lot after that?
Will the parents really take their kid to the doctor that could turn them over to the police?

This abominable practice needs to stop, but passing a law against it shouldn't be the first step, it should be the last step.

 

[Ryokan]

So you think countries that have banned female circumcision have done a mistake?

 

[Vortigern99]

I know you were asking Fox, but "female circumcision" is not circumcision. Male circumcision is circumcision.

 

[Ryokan]

I know you were asking Fox, but "female circumcision" is not circumcision. Male circumcision is circumcision.

Doesn't matter what you call it, his argument should still cover it.

ETA: And female genital mutilation is also called circumcision. Just check the Wikipedia article on it.

 

[jdp]

Doesn't matter what you call it, his argument should still cover it.

ETA: And female genital mutilation is also called circumcision. Just check the Wikipedia article on it.

Female circumcision:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

If we swapped 'her' for 'him' and 'girl' for 'boy' this could be the blog of an American parent, not really seeing much difference here.

 

[Vortigern99]

Here's where another educational discussion at the JREF descends into a semantic argument.

Male circumcision removes the prepuce, which in the vast majority of cases does not reduce or impede sexual performance or, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, sexual feeling.

Female genital mutilation removes the clitoris and the external and inner labia. This removes the possibility of any sexual feeling for a woman and turns her entire genitalia into a gaping wound.

Call it what you want, but conflating the two as related is disingenuous and IMO reduces the horrific act of violence that is FGM. The two procedures are wholly, materially different.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Here's where another educational discussion at the JREF descends into a semantic argument.

Male circumcision removes the prepuce, which in the vast majority of cases does not reduce or impede sexual performance or, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, sexual feeling.

Female genital mutilation removes the clitoris and the external and inner labia. This removes the possibility of any sexual feeling for a woman and turns her entire genitalia into a gaping wound.

Call it what you want, but conflating the two as related is disingenuous and IMO reduces the horrific act of violence that is FGM. The two procedures are wholly, materially different.

Sometimes, not all the time. And sexual performance hasn't been the biggest concern I've seen around here, though I agree there is some dubious talk surrounding it.

I think saying it is somehow slights FGM is silly.

 

[Ryokan]

Here's where another educational discussion at the JREF descends into a semantic argument.

Oh really..

Male circumcision removes the prepuce, which in the vast majority of cases does not reduce or impede sexual performance or, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, sexual feeling.

Female genital mutilation removes the clitoris and the external and inner labia. This removes the possibility of any sexual feeling for a woman and turns her entire genitalia into a gaping wound.

Call it what you want, but conflating the two as related is disingenuous and IMO reduces the horrific act of violence that is FGM. The two procedures are wholly, materially different.

Did you even look at the links to the blogs that jdp provided? Those girls didn't have their clitoris removed. There are many variations of female circumcision.

But you seem to be saying that while all forms of female circumcision is genital mutilation, male circumcision isn't. How is that not a semantic argument?

And even so, like it or not, female genital mutilation where everything including the clitoris is cut off, is still called circumcision. There's no controversy over that. Check the Wikipedia article on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Sometimes, not all the time.

Sometimes but not all the time what? You do know the difference between circumcision and castration, yes...?

People against slicing healthy flesh off a baby's genitals are extremists?

Where on earth are you coming from?

A place of nuance. But go on, sing another chorus of 'Ev'ry Foreskin's Sacred'

 

[Vortigern99]

Sometimes, not all the time. And sexual performance hasn't been the biggest concern I've seen around here, though I agree there is some dubious talk surrounding it.

I think saying it is somehow slights FGM is silly.

To clarify: I think it undermines the seriousness (as in, the horrific violence) of FGM to call it "circumcision".

I'm not an expert in these matters by a long shot, so please take my opinions with a grain of salt. I'm basing my knowledge of FGM on the life story of Waris Dirie, whose biography I studied about 6 months ago.

 

[Ryokan]

To clarify: I think it undermines the seriousness (as in, the horrific violence) of FGM to call it "circumcision".

How can using words with their correct meaning undermine anything?

cir·cum·cise
   [sur-kuhm-sahyz]
verb (used with object), cir·cum·cised, cir·cum·cis·ing.
1.
to remove the prepuce of (a male), especially as a religious rite.
2.
to remove the clitoris, prepuce, or labia of (a female).
3.
to purify spiritually.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcise

 

[Vortigern99]

Did you even look at the links to the blogs that jdp provided? Those girls didn't have their clitoris removed. There are many variations of female circumcision.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. I did not follow the links for the reason that the subject makes me weep. I am familiar with the subject via the life story of Waris Dirie. There my education on the matter begins and ends.

But you seem to be saying that while all forms of female circumcision is genital mutilation, male circumcision isn't. How is that not a semantic argument?

No, I agree that male circumcision is also mutilation, and am strongly against it for the reasons I stated upthread. But mutilation is not a dichotomy; it exists on a continuum. Whereas penile circumcision is in most cases entirely harmless, female genital mutilation (of the kind with which I am familiar, IE clitoral and labial removal) is medically harmful and morally abohorrent.

And even so, like it or not, female genital mutilation where everything including the clitoris is cut off, is still called circumcision. There's no controversy over that. Check the Wikipedia article on the matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision

There is a controversy whether the wiki article mentions it or not. I have engaged in and read about this controversy. One might as well call castration "circumcision", too, for all the latter term shares with FGM.

 

[Ryokan]

There is a controversy whether the wiki article mentions it or not. I have engaged in and read about this controversy. One might as well call castration "circumcision", too, for all the latter term shares with FGM.

If there really is a controversy over the word usage, I suspect it exists only because proponents of male circumcision don't want the act tied in any way to female circumcision.

In my language neither act is called anything close to genital mutilation. They're both called 'omskjæring', which translates to circumcision.

 

[jdp]

Here's where another educational discussion at the JREF descends into a semantic argument.

Male circumcision removes the prepuce, which in the vast majority of cases does not reduce or impede sexual performance or, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, sexual feeling.

Female genital mutilation removes the clitoris and the external and inner labia. This removes the possibility of any sexual feeling for a woman and turns her entire genitalia into a gaping wound.

Call it what you want, but conflating the two as related is disingenuous and IMO reduces the horrific act of violence that is FGM. The two procedures are wholly, materially different.

Sometimes, not all the time. And sexual performance hasn't been the biggest concern I've seen around here, though I agree there is some dubious talk surrounding it.

I think saying it is somehow slights FGM is silly.

I agree with Tsukasa. You should realize that the term 'Female Circumcision, Female Genital Cutting, Female Genital Mutilation, or whatever you please' is really an umbrella term for a wide range of procedures. Some are less severe than Male Genital Cutting practices, while others are more severe. The problem is that when one thinks of FGC, the typical image is the one you describe not the one described in the blogs I posted. And even in the cases where the result of FGC is more damaging than MGC discussing the two, which are related, together no more reduces the horror of the more damaging FGC act than discussing simple assault and aggravated assault as related issue.

 

[Vortigern99]

How can using words with their correct meaning undermine anything?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcise

I oppose that term. The WHO prefers the term FGM, which they define as:

"all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.".​

Further:

The procedures known as FGM were referred to as female circumcision until the early 1980s, when the term "female genital mutilation" came into use.[8] The term was adopted at the third conference of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and in 1991 the WHO recommended its use to the United Nations.[2] It has since become the dominant term within the international community and in medical literature.[5] Alexia Lewnes argued in a 2005 report for UNICEF that the word "mutilation" differentiates the procedure from male circumcision and stresses its severity.​

 

[rjh01]

Just looked up the definition of the word mutilation.

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation

Can someone please explain how circumcision of young boys is mutilation?

Several people have used that word in this thread.

 

[ehcks]

Just looked up the definition of the word mutilation.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation

Can someone please explain how circumcision of young boys is mutilation?

Several people have used that word in this thread.

Definitions 2 and 3 fit perfectly. Definition 1 is only somewhat arguable because of "essential."