German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Bram Kaandorp]

There may also be those who think it is worse for not having been circumcised, but they can choose to be circumcised. Those who have been, without giving consent, can't be un-circumcised.

This bears repeating.

 

[zeggman]

So basically your argument boils down to "I'm OK, so why should I care about anyone else?"

No, my argument boils down to parents have a certain amount of autonomy when it comes to raising their children. They can choose to let them play Nintendo or Steinway, take them to museums or not, let them watch TV or go camping, etc. Choosing whether or not to circumcise their boys, or pierce the ears of their girls, falls within the range of choices which should be left to the parents, in my opinion.

 

[Rolfe]

So why boys, but not girls?

Rolfe.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

No, my argument boils down to parents have a certain amount of autonomy when it comes to raising their children. They can choose to let them play Nintendo or Steinway, take them to museums or not, let them watch TV or go camping, etc. Choosing whether or not to circumcise their boys,

or remove the clitoral hood

of their girls, falls within the range of choices which should be left to the parents, in my opinion.

Ftfy for equality's sake.

 

[jdp]

I was cut at 25 and can assure you and all who read this conflation of circumcision with FGM that you're trying to push...that your pushing a cartful of crap.

And there are women who opt for various types of non-therapuetic labiaplasty most of which would fall under the definition of FGM. So what's you're point?

 

[catsmate]

Still, I would be interested in reading the list of boys who were circumcised in a hospital or doctor's office and didn't survive the procedure. It can't be a very long list.

Start here and then try here.

 

[zeggman]

So why boys, but not girls?

Ftfy for equality's sake.

I don't have first-hand experience with removal of a clitoral hood, but if its lifelong effect on quality of life is comparable to the lifelong effect on quality of life which accompanied the removal of my foreskin, then yes, I'd say that falls within the allowable range of parental prerogative too.

 

[Ryokan]

A baby boy died during circumcision in Norway in May, which is we're having the debate up here.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This is a good article too:

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html

And some cases in britain:

The British Medical Association was urged at its annual meeting this past week to deliberate over the banning of unnecessary male circumcision (1) after another baby bled to death in Queens Park, London.

The tragic case of 28 day old Angelo Ofori-Mintah (2) is the latest in string of deaths and injuries that have prompted some doctors to call for the laws that protect girls from unnecessary genital cutting to be extended to protect boys.

The news of Angelo’s death came in the same week that The British Association for Community Child Health reported in its quarterly newsletter that a baby boy’s skull was fractured during a ritual circumcision performed on a kitchen table in Bristol. (3) Now Dr. Antony Lempert, GP and Director of the Secular Medical Forum, will be calling on the BMA to debate the banning of non-therapeutic circumcision in the UK at the start of its annual meeting. (4)

Other cases that have helped push the issue up the agenda include the case of a Salford midwife who will be tried for manslaughter later this year after a boy she circumcised bled to death (5), and a report in The Journal of Public Health that found that nearly 1 in 2 Muslim boys circumcised in an Islamic school in Oxford ended up with medical complications. (6)

http://www.drmomma.org/2012/06/british-medical-association-urged-to.html

 

[Ryokan]

I don't have first-hand experience with removal of a clitoral hood, but if its lifelong effect on quality of life is comparable to the lifelong effect on quality of life which accompanied the removal of my foreskin, then yes, I'd say that falls within the allowable range of parental prerogative too.

Some forms of female circumcision is actually less invasive than the male variety.

But, it's still illegal in both my country and yours. You seem to be almost up in arms just at the thought of banning male circumcision, so I must assume you now will start arguing for lifting that ban? Will you be as vocal about allowing the milder forms of, since you insisted on the term, female genital mutilation as you are about male circumcision? If not, why not?

 

[Ryokan]

This is a good article too:

http://www.drmomma.org/2010/05/death-from-circumcision.html

This is one reason that so many clamps are used on the amputation site when the prepuce organ is removed during circumcision surgery - to stop the 'bleeders.' It is also the reason these clamps are left in place at least 5 minutes after cutting is complete (as horrifically painful as this is for a newborn who cannot be put under general anesthesia at this stage in life). The penile clamping is an attempt to prevent this new little baby from hemorrhaging to death.

 

[zeggman]

Some forms of female circumcision is actually less invasive than the male variety.

But, it's still illegal in both my country and yours. You seem to be almost up in arms just at the thought of banning male circumcision, so I must assume you now will start arguing for lifting that ban? Will you be as vocal about allowing the milder forms of, since you insisted on the term, female genital mutilation as you are about male circumcision? If not, why not?

I think you must have confused me with someone else. As far as I know, the first time I've used the term "female genital mutilation" is in this post.

I responded to a question about removing a clitoral hood, which (again, I lack experience, and even education, so I may be wrong) seems like it's probably comparable to circumcision. "Clitoridectomy" seems like it's probably comparable to removing the penis altogether, and something which I would not consider to be within the allowable range of parental prerogative.

 

[Ryokan]

I think you must have confused me with someone else. As far as I know, the first time I've used the term "female genital mutilation" is in this post.

You're right, I had you confused with Vortigern99 there for a moment. I'm sorry.

I responded to a question about removing a clitoral hood, which (again, I lack experience, and even education, so I may be wrong) seems like it's probably comparable to circumcision. "Clitoridectomy" seems like it's probably comparable to removing the penis altogether, and something which I would not consider to be within the allowable range of parental prerogative.

But then the point stands. If it's comparable, you should be as vocal about legalizing it as you are against making male circumcision illegal.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Let's put one thing to rest: dry masturbation = friction =

p)

 

[zeggman]

Start here and then try here.

You know what? You've convinced me. I'll continue to refute what I consider to be false claims about diminished pleasure etc., but since I don't see an upside (aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, and I couldn't care less about religious tradition), and you've presented credible evidence for the downside, I won't oppose your calls for a ban on infant circumcision.

 

[zeggman]

Let's put one thing to rest: dry masturbation = friction =

p)

You're doing it wrong.

Maybe I should make a video...

 

[brazenlilraisin]

When I masturbated before my circumcision I never used lube. To this day mumblegrum years post circ I still do not.

Keep posting myths, I'll keep shooting them down.

 

[Ryokan]

When I masturbated before my circumcision I never used lube. To this day mumblegrum years post circ I still do not.

Keep posting myths, I'll keep shooting them down.

What works for you may not work for everyone. By the nature of circumcision, and especially at the young age most are circumcised, the results will differ.

A quick google search on dry masturbation shows that many people are having problems doing it that way.

 

[Ryokan]

You know what? You've convinced me. I'll continue to refute what I consider to be false claims about diminished pleasure etc., but since I don't see an upside (aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, and I couldn't care less about religious tradition), and you've presented credible evidence for the downside, I won't oppose your calls for a ban on infant circumcision.

Wow, that took an unexpected turn. Changing your stance like that is not easy, for any of us, and you have my respect.

I doubt many western countries will introduce a blanket ban on male infant circumcision, though. The debate in Norway after the death of a baby boy in May is already over, after accusations of anti-semitism and being against freedom of religion.

Education about the procedure will probably get the best results in countries like the US where it's cultural and not religious.

 

[pgwenthold]

What works for you may not work for everyone. By the nature of circumcision, and especially at the young age most are circumcised, the results will differ.

A quick google search on dry masturbation shows that many people are having problems doing it that way.

I just want to remind everyone that the reason circumcision became big in the US was as an attempt to deter masturbation.

I don't know about carefully controlled studies and all, but the belief that circumcision reduces the pleasure of masturbation, at least, is not only not new, but the whole basis for it in the US originally.