German court bans circumcision of young boys

jdp said:
Not that I am currently aware of but then again, neither do all forms of FGM involve or require a clitoridectomy

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8420401&postcount=128

Yet we insist on calling all forms of female genital cutting female genital mutilation, and ban them regardless of the degree.
Click to expand...

The point is that FGM cover a much larger class of practices and that insisting on calling male circumcision "male genital mutilation" conflates it with practices that are not comparable.
 
ddt said:
No, that's corrective surgery. Not having five fingers is a clear disability in this computer era.
Click to expand...
Suppose the kid prefers voice technology to touch typing on his computer and aspires to be an Olympic swimmer with a biological edge? Shouldn't he be able to decide when he's 18 rather than being forced to undergo unnecessary surgery as an infant?
 
mijopaalmc said:
The point is that FGM cover a much larger class of practices and that insisting on calling male circumcision "male genital mutilation" conflates it with practices that are not comparable.
Click to expand...

So we agree that FGM is an unbrella term. Can we further agree that there are some forms of what's currently called FGM whose effects are less than or equal to the expected damage from MGM?

And if that is the case, does grouping all forms of FGM (even a pin prick falls under the current medical and legal definitions) conflates practices that are not compatible?
 
mijopaalmc said:
My, how you do project!
Click to expand...

I'm not projecting, just trying to think how I would feel if my parents had done it to me. I apologize if it came across as patronizing. It wasn't my intention.

Just because your culture considers something aesthetically pleasing that my does not in itself dpes not mean that the practice is mutilation. You are substituting a subjective, aesthetic judgement for a objective, biological evaluation.
Click to expand...

It's not aesthetics, just biology. All males are born with foreskin. If you remove it, you're mutilating that male. If you do it without consent, you're a criminal.

No-one claimed that mutilation renders a body part functionless. The claim is that mutilation reduces the function of a body part, an argument you have yet to support with any evidence pertaining to circumcision.
Click to expand...

It has been provided, please read the thread.

Different doesn't mean mutilated or disfigured. The former simply doesn't carry the connotation on being in complete that the latter does. You efforts to conflate them imply a less-than-objective approach to the issue.
Click to expand...

If the difference is achieved by cutting a significant part of healthy, functional tissue, altering significantly the appearance of the body part, then different means mutilated and disfigured.

And I'm way beyond caring about your accusations of lack of objectivity.

Removing the nose is not purely aesthetic and does reduce the ability for the body to function.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant for the point. From your evasion I assume the point hit home.

You have no presented evidence that removal of the prepuce actual reduces the functioning of the penis.
Click to expand...

It has been provided, please read the thread.
 
If the cornification, drying and thickening I have seen on the head of the penis in photographs doesn't interfere with function to some extent, I'd be very much surprised. If I saw a lesion like that on the penis of an animal being examined as a potential stud male, I'd be extremely concerned.

Rolfe.
 
zeggman said:
Suppose the kid prefers voice technology to touch typing on his computer and aspires to be an Olympic swimmer with a biological edge? Shouldn't he be able to decide when he's 18 rather than being forced to undergo unnecessary surgery as an infant?
Click to expand...

Paralympics you mean then? If it gives him an edge, the IOC will not admit him. :rolleyes:

ETA: Anyway, there's a clear difference between removing a perfectly normal and healthy body part (circumcision) and correcting an obvious abnormality.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what the controversies in here are all about since the point still is:
Let the individual concerned freely decide about his perfectly healthy body part/-s.

By the way, whether circumcision is mutilation or not, I might suggest that it's also up to the circumcised individual to call it that way - or not.

And concerning the religious side of the argument: I'm pretty sure a true believer will certainly tend to get circumcised as an adult or teenager anyway. Seriously ... nothing to see here.
 
Rolfe said:
If the cornification, drying and thickening I have seen on the head of the penis in photographs doesn't interfere with function to some extent, I'd be very much surprised. If I saw a lesion like that on the penis of an animal being examined as a potential stud male, I'd be extremely concerned.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you, I don't know, ask men about how their penises function rather than assume that circumcision always results in the equivalent to the formation of calluses on the glans penis.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Perhaps you, I don't know, ask men about how their penises function rather than assume that circumcision always results in the equivalent to the formation of calluses on the glans penis.
Click to expand...

Rolfe didn't say that - she was referring to the photos that she had seen not that all circumcised men were inflicted to the same degree.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Perhaps you, I don't know, ask men about how their penises function rather than assume that circumcision always results in the equivalent to the formation of calluses on the glans penis.
Click to expand...

Circumcision always results in a reduction in the sensitivity of the male sexual organs.
 
mutile said:
Circumcision always results in a reduction in the sensitivity of the male sexual organs.
Click to expand...
Do you suppose that's what accounts for those stories of guys who make love for eight hours straight?
 
mutile said:
Circumcision always results in a reduction in the sensitivity of the male sexual organs.
Click to expand...


I think it must do. I admit I haven't seen a photograph of every circumcised penis there is, but the ones I saw all had thickening, cornification and cracking of the head of the penis. It seems to me this is inevitable. The function of the prepuce is to protect the mucous membrane and keep it moist and glistening. Amputate the prepuce and you inevitably have the equivalent of cracked lips. No mucous membrane is meant to be exposed, unprotected - not mouth, or eyes, or genital. If it is, it will react.

As I said, if I saw a penis like that on an animal I was examining as a potential stud male, I'd be very concerned. Obviously the loss of function is not in fact hugely significant, and the body adapts. That doesn't mean there's no lesion though.

Rolfe.
 
mutile said:
Circumcision always results in a reduction in the sensitivity of the male sexual organs.
Click to expand...
Apparently not.
To evaluate the effects of circumcision on sensitivity, the researchers used specialized instruments to test 36 circumcised and 43 uncircumcised men with or without a history of erectile dysfunction. They tested each man for level of sensitivity in the penis through vibration, pressure, and warm and cold temperatures. In uncircumcised males, the foreskin was retracted for testing.

Initially, decreased sensation was demonstrated in uncircumcised men for feeling temperature and vibration. But when they took age, hypertension, and diabetes into account, they saw no difference in the sensitivity measure between circumcised and uncircumcised men. In addition, "Our study shows that there were no differences in terms of penile sensitivity, either in men that have normal function and in those who have erectile dysfunction," says Bleustein.
Click to expand...
Double-blind studies would be difficult, and other studies have reached different conclusions. One study, apparently published in BJU (I'm assuming that's British Journal of Urology, not BJs Unlimited) said
The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
Click to expand...
So, I don't know, maybe if you're using your penis to read braille, you'll find your reading speed slowed by circumcision. As a PTMI (pity me, "Post-trauma mutilated infant") I have no before and after stories. Another study from J Urol described at the same site says
Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function, decreased penile sensitivity, no change in sexual activity, and improved satisfaction. Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, decreased sensitivity and improved satisfaction? Perhaps JAMA (same site) can explain it:
Specifically, circumcised men were significantly more likely to masturbate and to participate in heterosexual oral sex than uncircumcised men.
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
Apart from of course the foreskin that has been removed in a circumcised penis, the foreskin of a non-circumcised man is infinitely more sensitive than that of an circumcised man....
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. It almost sounds like you are attempting a mocking restatement of a research result you consider invalid, but it doesn't quite parse that way.

The foreskin that has been removed from a circumcised penis, lacking a connection to a functioning brain, would presumably be devoid of sensitivity altogether.

The foreskin which remains on a circumcised penis is infinitely less sensitive than the foreskin which remains on an uncircumcised penis? If that's the claim, it seems unlikely. Even my fingernails aren't infinitely less sensitive.

I get that you guys think you have to exaggerate the costs of circumcision. My penis is as sensitive as I need it to be, so I'm inclined to regard your claims of increased sensitivity as the anatomical equivalent of high-end stereophile braggadocio. Maybe you can hear a 22 khz frequency that my equipment doesn't produce, but I seriously doubt that you enjoy your music any more than I enjoy mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom