German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Alt+F4]

Those who feel harmed, have a right to stand up and be heard. They should be encouraged, supported, and listened to. Is this what you would tell someone trying to stop FGM in their country?

What could be a better source of encouragement and support than looking at a person's genitals, expressing how beautiful they are RIGHT NOW then "going to town"! Woot there it is! (Please, no smoking afterwards).

Of course some people will continue feel victimized for something done to them that they don't remember, something they can't change, and for something that was not done to them for malicious reasons.

What do you really want? Are you going to continue to keep feeling harmed and sorry for yourself...blah, blah, blah or would you rather be getting laid, loved, pleasured, because AGAIN no one cares what your knob looks like. If a person is in close enough proximity to see your knob I'd be pretty sure they are NOT there to have a cry-fest over your circumcision. If what your knob looks like still "haunts" you, still makes you feel like less of a man, abused, ....blah, blah, blah; who's gonna want to be around your knob or you...a big baby whiner.

 

[ddt]

Since the evidence is ambivalent (ambiguous?) I don't agree that leaving the decision in the hands of parents and doctors makes the U.S. "backward". I understand that different people can reach different conclusions.

You think the rare instances of really bad outcomes justifies raising the bar on when circumcision is justified; I think the small benefits which accrue to a large population of people who suffer no harm at all (and the fact that it's not being required of anyone) justifies leaving it low.

According to the CDC, circumcision rates in the United States increased from 48.3% to 61.1% between 1988 and 2000, and decreasee from 62.5% to 56.9% between 1999 and 2008. So, even in the United States, rates had fallen to less than half before the possibility that it helped prevent transmission of HIV and HPV was known, only rose by 20% in light of that information, and are declining again now.

In terms of actual circumcisions performed, I don't think these rates show we're all that backward at all. They show that people are making informed decisions in light of the medical information they have available, which is (in my opinion) just how it should be.

There's a couple of things wrong with that last statement.

First of all, while it seems plausible this is a reaction to the HIV rise, has that actually been verified? Correlation does not imply causation.

Second, the studies about helping against HIV transmission are junk science; we've gone over that before in this (or the Norwegian) thread. And even the small advantage those studies did show, disappear in typical American hygienic circumstances and with condom use. Now I understand that if you live in Kansas, your parents haven't told you what a condom is, school sex-ed hasn't told you and the pharmacy doesn't carry them, but that's another problem. For prevention of HIV transmission, circumcising but not using a condom is like double-bolting the bathroom window while leaving the front door wide open. So I wouldn't quite call this making an informed decision.

 

[Alt+F4]

Now I understand that if you live in Kansas, your parents haven't told you what a condom is, school sex-ed hasn't told you and the pharmacy doesn't carry them, but that's another problem.

Not true smarty-pants. I know what a condom is. Richard Condom wrote "The Manchurian Candidate" and that movie rocked and while watching it I had my first unplanned triplet pregnancy with my step-dad because EVERYONE knows you can't get pregnant if you're doing it standing up. Sheeh......

 

[zeggman]

Second, the studies about helping against HIV transmission are junk science; we've gone over that before in this (or the Norwegian) thread.

Let's say it is junk science -- that they were comparing apples (men with intact foreskins visiting a different prostitute every night) to oranges (men who'd just gotten circumcised, and weren't even masturbating, much less having sex).

We still have the "less likely to transmit HPV" (and the probably corresponding "less likely to have partners with cervical cancer"), and "less likely to get a UTI."

Someone upthread pointed out that we don't know what protective effects and other benefits having a foreskin may confer, and I don't deny that there may be a ton of them which we have yet to discover.

I still say that the harm, though sometimes severe, is rare, and the benefits, though not universal or absolute, appear to be real. I prefer to leave the decision in the hands of doctors and parents who can consider the latest medical information, rather than let decisions be made (or even strongly influenced) by a bunch of politicians who typically don't even read, much less understand all the medical and social implications of, what they're voting on.

 

[Arcade22]

Not sure if it has been posted yet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18833145

Angela Merkel backs circumcision right after German ruling

The German government says Jewish and Muslim communities should be able to continue the practice of circumcision, after a regional court ruled it amounted to bodily harm.

Again: The German constitution values the rights of people (this includes babies) to be unharmed higher than "religious and cultural freedoms". So they could either make a law that is unconstitutional (and will be struck down by the constitutional court) or they could rewrite the constitution so religious and cultural freedoms go before the right to be unharmed. Wouldn't that also make FGM legal as well? I mean how can these fascist nazis trample on the human rights of these parents?!

 

[zeggman]

The German constitution values the rights of people (this includes babies) to be unharmed higher than "religious and cultural freedoms".

I (and the members of my staff) deny that I have been harmed.

I have certainly been altered. I was altered when four of my teeth were pulled to make room for orthodontics too.

I don't deny that when things go wrong, children are harmed. It is impossible to predict ahead of time when things will go wrong, just as it is impossible to predict ahead of time which children (3 or 4 per month in the United States) will die from being left in a hot car. Where people are harmed by negligence, remedies are available, but we don't make it unconstitutional to transport children in cars because sometimes the results are tragic.

 

[jdp]

Of course some people will continue feel victimized for something done to them that they don't remember, something they can't change, and for something that was not done to them for malicious reasons.

All of these statements could cover a number of things that we currently don't permits, FGM for instance. That doesn't mean that it should be allowed. Your third point though is an important one, it's why the blame for circumcision really falls at the feet of the doctors who perform it and in doing so are being at least unethical and irresponsible.

What do you really want? Are you going to continue to keep feeling harmed and sorry for yourself...blah, blah, blah or would you rather be getting laid, loved, pleasured, because AGAIN no one cares what your knob looks like. If a person is in close enough proximity to see your knob I'd be pretty sure they are NOT there to have a cry-fest over your circumcision. If what your knob looks like still "haunts" you, still makes you feel like less of a man, abused, ....blah, blah, blah; who's gonna want to be around your knob or you...a big baby whiner.

Well, I can see you're not going to be part of any kind of important social change. "Why cooking my dinner, cleaning my house, polishing my knob, and raising my kids isn't good enough for my wife I'll never know. She keeps on wanting to have a career. bitch bitch bitch whine, whine whine."

Maybe you're right, people should just accept their circumstances quietly and know their place.

Everyone on earth has been wronged in one way or another but yeah, someone is a whining pussy if they are so obsessed with the way their knob looks. As long as the bean stalk works isn't it all good? The past is the past, just get laid, fall in love, get married and don't circumcise your sons.

No it's not good enough, men deserve to be protected as women are. To your last sentence I would add, "and not accept what happened to them but use the experience to agitate for real change; speak up. That way people such as yourself can never say, "I've never known anyone to complain about it."

 

[jhunter1163]

This thread is treading rather close to the smut line in some recent posts. Remember where you are, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[jdp]

Since the evidence is ambivalent (ambiguous?) I don't agree that leaving the decision in the hands of parents and doctors makes the U.S. "backward". I understand that different people can reach different conclusions.

I disagree but moving on.

You think the rare instances of really bad outcomes justifies raising the bar on when circumcision is justified; I think the small benefits which accrue to a large population of people who suffer no harm at all (and the fact that it's not being required of anyone) justifies leaving it low.

I would amend your last sentence from 'leaving it low' to 'leaving it at none' because that's about where the bar is, on the floor. So in answer to your question I'd say 'Yes' I think the bar needs to be raised to the same level as any other surgical procedure being performed via proxy consent, therapeutic need. The fact of the matter is that there is no good documentation regarding out comes because some complications, such as meatal stenosis, may not occur for several years.

But what would you tell someone who suffered one of the truly bad outcomes, what justification can be given to soften that experience? It's not like you can say, "Son, we had to do it. You had <insert some actual therapeutic need here> and we discussed the options with the doctor and he felt this operation was the best path." Nope, can't have that conversation, at least there would have been a reason. Instead it has to go like this, "Son, there was no need for you to suffer. We succumbed to peer pressure and felt the tiny potential benefits were worth the risk to your penis."

We still have the "less likely to transmit HPV" (and the probably corresponding "less likely to have partners with cervical cancer"), and "less likely to get a UTI."

Not really. The matter with HIV has more to do with the nature of the epidemic in most of the world as compared to Africa. The potential impact outside some very narrow sets of circumstances is negligible. That aside, even if the HPV link is true, it's of little practical meaning considering that we now have a vaccine. And as I noted previously the incidence of UTIs is already very low and they're easily treated; it would make as much sense as if someone came along and promoted a reduces risk of measles or small pox.

 

[Alt+F4]

Well, I can see you're not going to be part of any kind of important social change.

I teach high school social studies, that is what I do. I'd like to think it is of important social change, but hey, I try my best.

Maybe you're right, people should just accept their circumstances quietly and know their place.

Nope, just accept what can't be changed, enjoy life and stop the bitch-fest. I get that men are obsessed with their penis' but really, unless you had a botched circumcision by a drunken mohel or an incompetent doctor that cut your entire knob off, it's all good.

If you think that male circumcision is a bad thing for babies (this thread isn't about African female circumcision) then advocate against it; however all you guys, please stop with the, "I'm a child abuse victim! The worst thing that ever, ever happened to me in my entire life is something I don't remember, wasn't done maliciously and the people I have sex with now have no problem with how my junk looks....yet I continue to declare myself a victim".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I teach high school social studies, that is what I do. I'd like to think it is of important social change, but hey, I try my best.



Nope, just accept what can't be changed, enjoy life and stop the bitch-fest. I get that men are obsessed with their penis' but really, unless you had a botched circumcision by a drunken mohel or an incompetent doctor that cut your entire knob off, it's all good.

If you think that male circumcision is a bad thing for babies (this thread isn't about African female circumcision) then advocate against it; however all you guys, please stop with the, "I'm a child abuse victim! The worst thing that ever, ever happened to me in my entire life is something I don't remember, wasn't done maliciously and the people I have sex with now have no problem with how my junk looks, yet I continue to be a victim".

Who are "all you guys"?

No one wins in Oppression Olympics, and I see only you playing.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Of course some people will continue feel victimized for something done to them that they don't remember, something they can't change, and for something that was not done to them for malicious reasons.

That's rather the problem...

What do you really want? Are you going to continue to keep feeling harmed and sorry for yourself...blah, blah, blah or would you rather be getting laid, loved, pleasured, because AGAIN no one cares what your knob looks like.

You seem to be assuming that everyone in this thread (who opposes your viewpoint) is a bitter virgin who will die alone.

If a person is in close enough proximity to see your knob I'd be pretty sure they are NOT there to have a cry-fest over your circumcision. If what your knob looks like still "haunts" you, still makes you feel like less of a man, abused, ....blah, blah, blah; who's gonna want to be around your knob or you...a big baby whiner.

I'm just not going to bother.

 

[Arcade22]

I (and the members of my staff) deny that I have been harmed.

I'm sure you're in denial but that is unimportant since it does not change the fact that you were harmed. And don't try some semantic nonsense about circumcision not being harmful.

I was altered when four of my teeth were pulled to make room for orthodontics too.

That's harm too. Harming children by giving them flu shots, pulling their teeth and such is perfectly okay for health reasons. Hell, even circumcising them for medicinal reasons (and thus causing harm!) is perfectly okay too!

Where people are harmed by negligence, remedies are available, but we don't make it unconstitutional to transport children in cars because sometimes the results are tragic.

You forgot the tiny fact that circumcision is always harmful but driving someone in a car is usually not.

 

[katy_did]

That aside, even if the HPV link is true, it's of little practical meaning considering that we now have a vaccine.

The vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV, though - a brief google suggests about 30% of cervical cancers wouldn't be prevented by the vaccine. So I wouldn't say it's of no practical meaning at all.

 

[jdp]

I teach high school social studies, that is what I do. I'd like to think it is of important social change, but hey, I try my best.

Nope, just accept what can't be changed, enjoy life and stop the bitch-fest.

Then you should know that in the beginning, most social movements and changes seemed insurmountable to those who advocated for them. I guess it's a good thing they just didn't sit there and accept what appears to be an unalterable situation.

I get that men are obsessed with their penis' but really, unless you had a botched circumcision by a drunken mohel or an incompetent doctor that cut your entire knob off, it's all good.

That is only for the individual to decide for themselves.

If you think that male circumcision is a bad thing for babies (this thread isn't about African female circumcision) then advocate against it; however all you guys, please stop with the, "I'm a child abuse victim! The worst thing that ever, ever happened to me in my entire life is something I don't remember, wasn't done maliciously and the people I have sex with now have no problem with how my junk looks....yet I continue to declare myself a victim".

MGM and FGM are two sides of the same coin.

 

[Wuglife]

There is no need to get a haircut or trim your beard either, but (outside of Sharialand) no one is proposing legislation mandating or banning it. No one is proposing legislation to prevent parents from removing moles, or restoring harelips.

I agree, there's no medical reason to do it, and (outside of those for whom it is a religious ritual) it's purely an exercise in aesthetics.

It is still just a bit of skin. If someone was arguing that we needed a law to prevent parents from removing moles, restoring harelips, or piercing ears, I'd be interested in that discussion too.

By the logic of "it is still just a bit of skin" making infant circumcision permissible, the revision and partial excision of a female infant's labia would also be permissible.

Are you willing to accept that?

 

[jdp]

The vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV, though - a brief google suggests about 30% of cervical cancers wouldn't be prevented by the vaccine. So I wouldn't say it's of no practical meaning at all.

This is true that Gardasil was designed for the most common types, there has been demonstrated cross protection for HPV strains (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, and 59) with an efficiency of between 33% and about 60% as early as 2007. And the last time I looked into it (been some time now) Merck had a new version that specifically targeted those strains in clinical trials.

ETA: http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/ICAAC/6730

 

[TheGoldcountry]

If you think that male circumcision is a bad thing for babies (this thread isn't about African female circumcision) then advocate against it; however all you guys, please stop with the, "I'm a child abuse victim! The worst thing that ever, ever happened to me in my entire life is something I don't remember, wasn't done maliciously and the people I have sex with now have no problem with how my junk looks....yet I continue to declare myself a victim".

I'd like you to point out those posts where people declared themselves to be victims, because I sincerely don't remember. I just think it's an archaic practice that is only proceeding because of misguided social pressure.

 

[Checkmite]

please stop with the, "I'm a child abuse victim! The worst thing that ever, ever happened to me in my entire life is something I don't remember, wasn't done maliciously and the people I have sex with now have no problem with how my junk looks....yet I continue to declare myself a victim".

Does this apply only to circumcision, or equally to all forms of child abuse that were "not done maliciously" and don't affect how sexual partners see one?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Does this apply only to circumcision, or equally to all forms of child abuse that were "not done maliciously" and don't affect how sexual partners see one?

Don't forget "too young to remember it".