German court bans circumcision of young boys

[mijopaalmc]

Now that's just nonsense.

The penis might not be fully functional, but I have yet to read anyone in this thread write that circumcision makes someone "less of a man".

Hmmm...and you don't see how implying that a man's penis isn't fully functional connotes that he is less of a man. Are you not familiar with culture representations of erectile dysfunction and premature ejeculation?

 

[zeggman]

Mutilation is the term used when discussing the surgical modification of non-diseased tissue for management or cosmetic reasons in veterinary medicine.

I don't know why veterinary medicine would be relevant when discussing human beings.

I happen to have my Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary handy, because I hauled it out this morning to answer a previous post. It defines "mutilation" as:

Maiming; the act of removing or destroying a conspicuous or essential part or organ.

Since my foreskin was not ordinarily conspicuous, and was certainly not essential, I think we can dispense with "circumcision is mutilation" when discussing human beings, while granting that other definitions may apply if you're circumcising your horse.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Hmmm...and you don't see how implying that a man's penis isn't fully functional connotes that he is less of a man. Are you not familiar with culture representations of erectile dysfunction and premature ejeculation?

I am familiar with them. I also think people should get over it, and be the better of the two by assuming no insult was meant.

 

[jdp]

After careful consideration of your feeling, I believe you're mistaken.

As I've said before, my denial that circumcision is mutilation indicates a reluctance to accept a term which implies my manhood was accidentally caught in a wood chipper. The term implies disfigurement, and if I felt I had been disfigured, I'd be looking to have it reversed.

I don't, and I'm not.

And that's fine for you, but there are men who feel that they've been disfigured by circumcision, even when they only received the expected amount of damage. Some of them are actively looking to reverse it. Are they incorrect in calling it disfigurement?

 

[Megalodon]

I've since consulted my anatomy books, and none of them refer to a mole as a tumor. A mole is distinguished from a tumor in both its common terminology (mole/tumor) and its medical terminology (nevus/neoplasm). I did find one doctor on a website who called moles tumors, but a large part of his practice seems to be the surgical removal of moles, so I suspect he has the same motive to employ over-the-top emotional terms as you do.

You are right regarding congenital moles, they seem not to be considered a neoplasm. The same doesn't happen with acquired ones. However, your insistence that warts are also normal skin leads me to think that your attempt to label my correct use of language as over-the-top and emotional is just a case of projection and grasping at straws.

Removing a wart is medically necessary, and so is removing a suspicious mole. In some cases (facial moles, for instance), anxiety and depression might lead a psychiatrist to consider the removal of a non-threatening mole a medical necessity. But notice that it can only be done when the child is able to reason. This would be, in my opinion, a minor and justified mutilation.

Removing a foreskin at any point, and under any circumstance, is a mutilation. It might even be necessary or consensual, but it's still a mutilation.

Removing the foreskin of a baby should be (and fortunately it's beginning to be) a crime.

 

[zeggman]

And that's fine for you, but there are men who feel that they've been disfigured by circumcision, even when they only received the expected amount of damage. Some of them are actively looking to reverse it. Are they incorrect in calling it disfigurement?

It is their choice how they describe themselves.

If a woman is not satisfied with her breast size or shape and seeks to alter it via surgery, or someone is unhappy with the shape of his nose and hopes to reshape it, I would be reluctant to agree that they've been "disfigured by nature" but I'd still say it's their call.

Knowing no such individuals personally, I'd say men who feel they've been disfigured by circumcision were probably either disfigured or have issues with their parents which go beyond circumcision, but I could be wrong.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

You are right regarding congenital moles, they seem not to be considered a neoplasm. The same doesn't happen with acquired ones. However, your insistence that warts are also normal skin leads me to think that your attempt to label my correct use of language as over-the-top and emotional is just a case of projection and grasping at straws.

Removing a wart is medically necessary, and so is removing a suspicious mole. In some cases (facial moles, for instance), anxiety and depression might lead a psychiatrist to consider the removal of a non-threatening mole a medical necessity. But notice that it can only be done when the child is able to reason. This would be, in my opinion, a minor and justified mutilation.

Removing a foreskin at any point, and under any circumstance, is a mutilation. It might even be necessary or consensual, but it's still a mutilation.

Removing the foreskin of a baby should be (and fortunately it's beginning to be) a crime.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[Megalodon]

I would call it "unnecessary surgery."

You seem to want to avoid the connotation that "mutilation" implies "disfigurement", even though it is clear that this is your main motive for choosing the word.

Not to mentioned the implication that circumcised men are are somehow "not quite men" because their penises aren't fully "functional".

Hmmm...and you don't see how implying that a man's penis isn't fully functional connotes that he is less of a man. Are you not familiar with culture representations of erectile dysfunction and premature ejeculation?

Again, this is the problem. The idea that one's penis might be less than perfect is too much for many men to handle. I might actually be in the same boat if I had been circumcised.

But here's the thing, your penis is disfigured. Doesn't mean it's non-functional, or less capable. I'm sure we would have noticed the population crash in the US if that was the case.

But it is not fully functional. You are missing an important mechanical part, so it couldn't be. Again, I'm not trying to imply any degrees of "manhoodness" here. It's just reality. You are different because of something done to you that was beyond your control.

But as I said earlier in the thread, if nobody had a nose in your society, you would comfortably fit in after your parents had your nose cut. You would feel normal, accepted and happy. But you would still be disfigured.

 

[Rasmus]

Removing a foreskin at any point, and under any circumstance, is a mutilation. It might even be necessary or consensual, but it's still a mutilation.

... and guess what you would be going to jail for, if you circumcised an adult man without his consent, too. Or a child that you're not legally responsible for.

 

[zeggman]

You are right regarding congenital moles, they seem not to be considered a neoplasm. The same doesn't happen with acquired ones.

So you can provide a reference from a science/medical/anatomy book in which an acquired mole is characterized as a tumor? Proceed.

Removing a foreskin at any point, and under any circumstance, is a mutilation. It might even be necessary or consensual, but it's still a mutilation.

Because it's conspicuous? Not in my culture; we wear sheaths.

Because it's essential? Maybe if you make your living in a Puppetry of the Penis tribute group, but not for most of us.

Removing the foreskin of a baby should be (and fortunately it's beginning to be) a crime.

I'd still prefer to address it with education and social pressure rather than the criminal code.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

A mole wouldn't usually be called a tumour because it doesn't usually form a lump - it would be described as neoplasm. A tumour is just a type of neoplasm which forms a lump. They are however the same thing apart from the shape.

 

[zeggman]

But here's the thing, your penis is disfigured. Doesn't mean it's non-functional, or less capable. I'm sure we would have noticed the population crash in the US if that was the case.

But it is not fully functional. You are missing an important mechanical part, so it couldn't be.

It is fully functional for all the functions I require.

It is fully functional for all the functions my wife requires.

If you are capable of important mechanical functions which I just can't manage, well, I can't run a three minute mile either, though some men can.

I don't miss it for a moment, and wouldn't reclaim it if it was offered.

 

[zeggman]

A mole wouldn't usually be called a tumour because it doesn't usually form a lump - it would be described as neoplasm. A tumour is just a type of neoplasm which forms a lump. They are however the same thing apart from the shape.

My collection of medical literature is not exhaustive, but as I said none of the books I have seem to refer to a mole as a tumor or as a neoplasm. The books I have seem to treat "tumor" and "neoplasm" as synonyms.

I would be interested in quotes from the references you have which say these are the same thing.

 

[Rolfe]

Again, this is the problem. The idea that one's penis might be less than perfect is too much for many men to handle.

Well, it's good that so many men who've been subjected to this unnecessary body modification without their consent aren't unhappy about it. It's when this causes them to embark on a crusade to ensure that the same thing is done to as many more babies as possible that it becomes a problem.

I fear that's the motivation behind many of these militant pro-circumcision activists. The people who succeeded in normalising the procedure, the people who put pressure on new parents to have it done, because it was "medically necessary", or because "everybody does it", or because "he'll be teased at school if he's not like the others."

Realisation is setting in though.

Rolfe.

 

[Megalodon]

So you can provide a reference from a science/medical/anatomy book in which an acquired mole is characterized as a tumor? Proceed.

Not right now. Later I will try to get you some links.

Because it's conspicuous? Not in my culture; we wear sheaths.

Because it's essential? Maybe if you make your living in a Puppetry of the Penis tribute group, but not for most of us.

Because it is there. Because a normal, fully functional penis has a foreskin, the same way as a normal, fully functional face has a nose...

I'd still prefer to address it with education and social pressure rather than the criminal code.

I prefer that doctors are told that they can't do surgeries for religious reasons, period.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Acquired moles are a form of benign neoplasm

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

In modern medicine, the term tumor means a neoplasm that has formed a lump. In the past, the term tumor was used differently. Some neoplasms do not cause a lump.

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

I'm too lazy to check their sources, but if you find anything contradicting them, I'm happy to be corrected.

 

[zeggman]

... and guess what you would be going to jail for, if you circumcised an adult man without his consent, too. Or a child that you're not legally responsible for.

Skinnapping?

 

[Megalodon]

It is fully functional for all the functions I require.

It is fully functional for all the functions my wife requires.

If you are capable of important mechanical functions which I just can't manage, well, I can't run a three minute mile either, though some men can.

I don't miss it for a moment, and wouldn't reclaim it if it was offered.

And again, I'm happy that you're happy, and even happier that you changed your mind regarding circumcision in babies.

If only one person realizes that the practice has no rational reason for being used so frequently, the thread was not in vain.

 

[Megalodon]

Skinnapping?

Now that was just wrong... I was a happier fellow before knowing about that link...

 

[Megalodon]

Well, it's good that so many men who've been subjected to this unnecessary body modification without their consent aren't unhappy about it. It's when this causes them to embark on a crusade to ensure that the same thing is done to as many more babies as possible that it becomes a problem.

I completely agree with you.