German court bans circumcision of young boys

[brazenlilraisin]

It's ironic that definition 3 is the most arguable, since many are of the opinion that a little excising is what makes them perfect.

 

[Orphia Nay]

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

Hardly nuance if you have to resort to extremes such as straw men.

 

[Dave Rogers]

With circumcision, had it been clearly abusive, forbidden by law, a cultural taboo, and shunned by our MDs, we would not have had it done. On the other hand, if it were clearly medically necessary, there would be little controversy. On the whole, for a number of factors, including some debated here and some not, we decided that it was the right decision to make for our little guys.

As I already asked, what were the arguments in favour that swayed you?

Some of the arguments I've seen against circumcision are decidedly unscientific, such as:

[...]
ii) The sex is better. - Really? Care to show how a randomized, controlled trial could even be conducted, much less whether one exists?

Posted here. Not conclusive evidence, but it's the only evidence that's been presented on this question, and it goes against circumcision.

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

As already commented, there is always a risk of complications with any surgical procedure, however competently carried out.

The better arguments are:

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.

That seems very understated. It's being more commonly seen as completely unnecessary, to the point that most medical establishments in developed countries don't recommend it at all.

The better counter-arguments are:

d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

That's probably the most hotly disputed one; see discussions on tattooing and ritual scarring (of which, of course, circumcision is a classic example, though normally not a visible one).

But, coming back to the central question: what were the arguments in favour of circumcision (rather than in favour of allowing circumcision) that led you to decide to have it done?

Dave

 

[Arcade22]

At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

Too bad for all these whiny Jews and other moronic parents that Germany doesn't recognize any right to circumcise their kids. In fact it recognizes the right to have an unharmed body, and since circumcision of a child is both non-consensual AND harmful it shouldn't be allowed. And since people shouldn't have any special rights because of their religion their cries of "muh culture!!" go unheeded.

 

[Rolfe]

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.

Try a better dictionary.

Ear piercing is a mutilation. You're investing a descriptive term with an emotional connotation that's out of place in a factual discussion.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

You think it's a fundamental right for parents to chop bits off their children's bodies, just on a whim?

I never heard anything so ridiculous. It's a fundamental right of every individual to grow up with their bodily integrity maintained, how about that?

Rolfe.

 

[zeggman]

Other sites I read also indicates that the success of 'dry' masturbation when you're circumcised depends on how much of the foreskin remains. If you've lost too much of it, you can't.

That's just nonsense. Sorry about the unavoidable TMI, but I have no foreskin at all, masturbate regularly, and only use lubrication for intercourse.

As for why the jokes and the movies, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Laws change, and hiding behind the fact that it has not changed yet is not some kind of moral out. Especially when your main argument is " But a lot of other people do it.".

 

[sadhatter]

What culture do you live in where you show your penis?

There is this weird stereotype that comes from movies that any uncircumcised boy gets mercilessly teased in any shower room. As someone who was teased for various reasons as a kid i can say this happened once, and it was the most quickly deflated round of teasing i had ever encountered , it ended up coming to a dead stop when i remarked "So why exactly is it your staring at my ****?"

 

[sadhatter]

Re: "Look like Daddy", boy and adult penises have always looked different, AFAIK.

My dad was cut, and me not so much. The conversation went much like you thought it would as a child "Dad lived in a time when you just got it done, we put some thought into the matter.".

 

[sadhatter]

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.

The problem is that it continues because of its ease and cultural prevalence, take away these two things, and you seriously damage this practice's ability to continue.

Obviously folks are not reading the real information, and most decisions seem to boil down to "It's what gets done around here." make it so legally it is "Not what is done around here." and it will, at the very least further curb the procedure.

 

[sadhatter]

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.

How exactly is it an unverified claim it reduces sexual feeling , this is basic medical knowledge. Places that are more prone to being rubbed, dry , etc lose never sensitivity. Think of a callous, the penis is not some magical type of thing that suddenly does not go through this process. It's like comparing the fingers of a woodworker and a pianist and trying to say the woodworker has no loss of feeling, it is just silly.

 

[Ryokan]

That's just nonsense. Sorry about the unavoidable TMI, but I have no foreskin at all, masturbate regularly, and only use lubrication for intercourse.

Considering the subject matter, a little bit of TMI is unavoidable, I guess..

I don't know how it is to have a circumcised penis, so I have to rely on researching it on the internet and, of course, hearing about the experiences of people here on the forum.

What I read is that 'dry' masturbation is simplest for those circumcised with at least some intact movable skin just below the penis head. If it's possible, or enjoyable, for those that have no such movable skin, I simply don't know and will have to take your word for it. You're just one data point, and others on the internet say that without the movable skin at the top of the shaft, lubrication is essential.

But it's all anecdotal. I doubt there's been any research done on various masturbation techniques, and how circumcision plays into that. Even with the foreskin, I bet there are different techniques.

As for why the jokes and the movies, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

 

[catsmate]

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. For this, I am sorry, and will henceforth try to refrain from either stating or implying this. Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

...

The interesting thing about the decision making process is that if something is a slam-dunk, there's really no decision to be made. We feel this way about immunization.

Why?

With circumcision, had it been clearly abusive, forbidden by law, a cultural taboo, and shunned by our MDs, we would not have had it done.

So just because it's not illegal or culturally proscribed you consider it OK? You do know that these same arguments have been made for a vast range of morally wrong activities before? Spousal rape, female genital mutilation, marital abuse, footbinding et cetera have all bee justified at one time.

On the other hand, if it were clearly medically necessary, there would be little controversy. On the whole, for a number of factors, including some debated here and some not, we decided that it was the right decision to make for our little guys.

Whay exactly were these factors?

Like pgwenthold, I've been flabbergasted. Not by an excuse, but by the way these threads have taken off! If one comes from a jurisdiction where it's never been pushed, I can see someone asking, "why start?" If, like us, you come from somewhere where it's been more common, you ask, "what's the bother?"

Because it's abusive, unnecessary surgery with risks. Just because it's your cultural norm doesn't make it objectively right.

Some of the arguments I've seen against circumcision are decidedly unscientific, such as:

ii) The sex is better. - Really? Care to show how a randomized, controlled trial could even be conducted, much less whether one exists?

This has been done.

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

So a small risk of death/infection/hemorrhage is OK with you?
What exactly would you consider an acceptable death rate for circumcision?

a) That it is becoming more commonly seen as less medically necessary.

Wrong. It's not medically necessary (except in rare cases). It has no benefits and some risks, immediate and long term.

b) That, at heart, not having one's foreskin removed is a fundamental human right.

Yes.

c) There is some cultural weight to it (culture cannot be discounted entirely, as we have to live somewhere)

Why? Why should "cultural weight" be allowed to justify mutilating an infant's genitals?

d) At heart it's a fundamental parental human right.

Would you extend this same "logic" to refusing medical care on medical grounds? Beating children because the parent's religion says this is right?

 

[sadhatter]

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.

Numbers 2 and 3.

2. Think of a wang as a statue. A statue of an intact wang would include a foreskin, removing the foreskin is akin to this example.

3. A perfect penis is one that has not had things removed, like a perfect comic book is one that has had no pages removed. Removing a part makes it imperfect.

 

[Polaris]

There is this weird stereotype that comes from movies that any uncircumcised boy gets mercilessly teased in any shower room. As someone who was teased for various reasons as a kid i can say this happened once, and it was the most quickly deflated round of teasing i had ever encountered , it ended up coming to a dead stop when i remarked "So why exactly is it your staring at my ****?"

I've never seen this in any movies. The only time I've seen it addressed is when a guy was about to have sex and the woman reacts with disgust or at least disdain that he is uncut when she sees his penis. Cue hijinks as he rushes to go get a circumcision.

I think fear of this kind drives a lot of the emotion around whether to have the procedure done.

 

[catsmate]

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

On that note here is an overview of the research on circumcision as a HIV preventative. Not surprisingly it's negative; the preventative effect is negligible, the experiments that show it at all are poorly designed and unrepresentative, when risk compensation is accounted for the effect is negative and condoms are not only more cost effect but more effective overall.

ETA: a previous post by Earp on the German decision.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I've never seen this in any movies. The only time I've seen it addressed is when a guy was about to have sex and the woman reacts with disgust or at least disdain that he is uncut when she sees his penis. Cue hijinks as he rushes to go get a circumcision.

One of us has obviously been watching the wrong kind of movies.

Dave

 

[zeggman]

What I read is that 'dry' masturbation is simplest for those circumcised with at least some intact movable skin just below the penis head. If it's possible, or enjoyable, for those that have no such movable skin, I simply don't know and will have to take your word for it. You're just one data point, and others on the internet say that without the movable skin at the top of the shaft, lubrication is essential.

I guess this is what I don't understand. In my experience, skin is moveable everywhere. I have moveable skin on my forearm, and on the back of my heel. The skin on the front of my ears is moveable. The skin on the bridge of my nose is moveable. It seems to be the nature of the organ that skin moves.

I suspect that those who oppose circumcision are looking harder than they need to for justification. I didn't have sons, so I didn't face the choice myself; if I had, I imagine thrift ("Why should I pay for a non-essential service?") rather than ideology would have tipped the balance against it.

 

[zeggman]

A perfect penis is one that has not had things removed, like a perfect comic book is one that has had no pages removed. Removing a part makes it imperfect.

Mm hmm, and removing a wart makes a nose imperfect.

It's just a bit of skin. I don't really care if Cindy Crawford decides to keep her mole as an adult, but if her parents had decided to remove it when she was a child I don't think I would have called it mutilation.

I don't think women in general admire penises as much as men think they should, but I've never had anything but compliments. When my undies hit the floor, no one's ever recoiled and said "My God, what happened to you?!?"