Circumcision

[JoeEllison]

Of course, some women undergo "circumcision" in order to increase sexual pleasure... what a shock, right?

 

[fls]

Why is it that I have a certain opinion that I suddenly belong in a "camp"? Seriously.

My grouping is on the basis of characteristics, rather than just the opinion. But I have wondered about this as well. Why does there seem to be so little variation on this issue?

Linda

 

[Darat]

This is my favorite straw-man. Traditionally, when males are circumcised, it's a rite of passage, or a step towards "Manhood" and all the rights that entails. In cultures where women are circumcised, it's to mark them as property, to prevent them from giving away their virginity before it can be sold, or to punish them for some infraction or another.

Not really a good summary in many cultures that practice circumcision of females the reasons given are the same as for male circumcision i.e. hygiene, marks them as a full adult and so on. Also in most cultures that practices female circumcision it is controlled and carried out by the female culture. See: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/ and http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/mgmfgm.html

Often, it is done in unsanitary conditions, and has high risk of infections and other complications.

That is the same for male circumcision in developing countries.

...snip... Again, if someone can produce a study that show circumcised males exhibit a loss of sexual pleasure comparable to the loss suffered by circumcised females, then I suppose the argument is more valid.

It seems a poplar misconception that female genital mutilation removes all pleasure from sex, this is just not the case for the vast majority of women who undergo the most prevalent type of genital mutilation. (See: http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-sex.html)

 

[Darat]

My grouping is on the basis of characteristics, rather than just the opinion. But I have wondered about this as well. Why does there seem to be so little variation on this issue?

Linda

Is it not quite a black and white issue in that you either agree that parents can permanently alter the body of a child for non-medical reasons or you don't?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The Journal of Nurse-Midwifery isn't a legitimate peer reviewed journal? No, I didn't realize that. I still don't realize that actually -- I guess I have more research ahead of me.

I have no idea, I know that the hosting site does not care about accurate information if it gets in the way of the truth that they already know.

And just because a jounal is respected doesn't mean that the article isn't poorly exicuted. Or do you believe in the effectiveness of petitionary prayer because a group from Columbia said it worked? Just becuase it was later retracted would not stop it from being cited. It was published in a respectible journal.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes. I have a bias in that direction (I've admitted to this in the past), as does medical ethics in general I think. Without that bias, the balance would be in favour of circumcision.

That is nonsense. Circumcision causes about as many complications as UTI's it prevents.

Yes. And that is one of the things that spurred my initial interest in this area - that this attitude is considered so inadequate by the anti-circ camp.

Linda

No, the attitude I consider 'inadequate' is that of highly trained and professional physicians performing surgery on healthy infant males, causing about as many problems as they are potentially preventing.

That is why I'm okay with it being tried in Africa for HIV prevention.

PLEASE STOP WITH THE ANTI-CIRC. CAMP crap. If you want to pigeonhole me, refer to me as being in the "anti-pointless-surgery-on-children-that-hurts-them" camp.

 

[fls]

So the Journal of Nurse-Midwifery isn't a peer reviewed respectable journal?

The issues discussed were outside of their area of expertise. The article was strongly biased. Neither is good for an accurate overview.

Linda

 

[ponderingturtle]

Of course, some women undergo "circumcision" in order to increase sexual pleasure... what a shock, right?

And some men cut their penis down the middle for the same reason. But I don't think that some of the odder elements of body modification are relevent to this discussion.

 

[kellyb]

This is my favorite straw-man. Traditionally, when males are circumcised, it's a rite of passage, or a step towards "Manhood" and all the rights that entails. In cultures where women are circumcised, it's to mark them as property, to prevent them from giving away their virginity before it can be sold, or to punish them for some infraction or another. Often, it is done in unsanitary conditions, and has high risk of infections and other complications.

.

That's not entirely true. FGC is a meaningful social custom in many cultures that perform it, and it's not generally about any of the things you mentioned.
Excision of the prepuce (the 'foreskin' of the clitoris) is the most common form of FGC. It's quite often a tradition that marks entrance into "Womanhood", as well.

There are cultures that practice more brutal forms of FGC, and some do practice it to ensure virginity until marriage, but those are the exceptions rather than the norm.

http://www.childinfo.org/areas/fgmc/docs/U83FGM_9_web - Final version printed.pdf

“Even though cultural practices may appear
senseless or destructive from the standpoint of
others, they have meaning and fulfil a function
for those who practise them. However, culture
is not static; it is in constant fl ux, adapting and
reforming. People will change their behaviour
when they understand the hazards and
indignity of harmful practices and when they
realize that it is possible to give up harmful
practices without giving up meaningful aspects
of their culture.”
— Female Genital Mutilation, A joint
WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA statement, 1997

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

 

[Lonewulf]

And some men cut their penis down the middle for the same reason. But I don't think that some of the odder elements of body modification are relevent to this discussion.

Why not?

If I wanted to cut someone's penis down their middle, without their consent, because of religious beliefs, should I be able to?

For that matter, what else can I justify for religious reasons? Give me a list of everything I can get away with if I hide behind religion.

 

[JoeEllison]

And some men cut their penis down the middle for the same reason. But I don't think that some of the odder elements of body modification are relevent to this discussion.

I think your inability to distinguish between a relatively safe medical procedure performed by a doctor in a hospital and "odd" body modification is rather telling. The whole things stinks of woo to me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I have no idea, I know that the hosting site does not care about accurate information if it gets in the way of the truth that they already know.

And just because a jounal is respected doesn't mean that the article isn't poorly exicuted. Or do you believe in the effectiveness of petitionary prayer because a group from Columbia said it worked? Just becuase it was later retracted would not stop it from being cited. It was published in a respectible journal.

Brilliant line of argument: any research that is peer-reviewed and published that comes out against circumcision (and so gets put on an anti-circ. site) is, by mere fact of being put on an anti-circ. site, invalid.

 

[ponderingturtle]

PLEASE STOP WITH THE ANTI-CIRC. CAMP crap. If you want to pigeonhole me, refer to me as being in the "anti-pointless-surgery-on-children-that-hurts-them" camp.

Then don't base your position on the propaganda from that camp. Use credible sources.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Brilliant line of argument: any research that is peer-reviewed and published that comes out against circumcision (and so gets put on an anti-circ. site) is, by mere fact of being put on an anti-circ. site, invalid.

Briliant strawman. I commend that as a perfect example of the how to construct a strawman.

As for being on an anti circ site, gee you don't seem to think that they are not doing exactly that, throwing out any study regardless of quality that does not show that circumcision is the evil that they know it is, while posting any thing published that supports their argument?

I have not seen any credible source that shows that there is a strong reason to think that either is arbitrarily better on average(circumcision is certainly much better for some people or else why would there be any medically justified circumcisions?)

 

[Z]

Thing is Z, I work out, so I can afford to indulge, now and then, and still remain fit. Some people, on the other hand, don't, mostly through lethargy and plain laziness. I've checked out your profile photo, and I think I understand your probable traits!

Yep - I admit to being lazy. Given my general state of health, my current sedentary life has had only one notable ill effect - an increase in snoring. Yes, I could certainly stand to lose a few pounds. But I don't indulge in gluttony - on any front - and in fact am healthier, pound for pound, than quite a few people who work out daily. In spite of my size, my blood pressure and coronary health are excellent, and my cholesterol counts are actually on the low side of normal. My physical strength is well more than is needed in my current lifestyle. My endurance is considerable - I see nothing wrong at all with walking 20 or 30 miles to get where I want to go, and have done so recently without losing breath. My skeletal system has one bone that has had numerous stress fractures and shin splints - but that began when I weighed a meager 167 lbs and first entered the military. Ironically, when I put on considerable weight - and it was a combination of fat and muscle, based on the fact I stayed on the overweight program for most of the 10 years I served - I also became stronger, healthier, and more able to endure stress and exercise. At 220 lbs, I was the sit-up champion of my unit.

Yes, I'm fat. And lazy. And happy to be both, considering my general health. IF some weight-related problem should rear its ugly head in the near future, I'd be easily able to drop the necessary weight. I already have a plan in place, just in case I'll need it.

But, to be honest, I enjoy being fat. I can't explain it - probably some sick fetish or other - but I'm happier now than I was 50 lbs ago.

'Elective' by whom? 'Harmless' in who's opinion? Starting to look a little 'selfish', now? So you can sleep soundly at night then because it's not 'illegal' nor 'socially unacceptable' in your 'society'. That conveniently avoids the moral and ethical questions, doesn't it! So if the law changes things you'll alter your behaviour accordingly, and without objection. That's a reflection of the shallowness of the humanitarian values you truly behold, I guess.

Indeed. I really have no concerns about morals, and the ethics of the situation are obviously in debate. As long as I perceive no negative effects in infant circumcision (and, likewise, no negative effects in not circumcising), I'll be quite pleased, no matter what the law says. As it stands, my own personal experience is that children with foreskins have a higher tendancy to have infections and foul-smelling members than those without - based on the children I've had a hand in raising (though, to be perfectly fair, since I started taking a hand in raising my stepsons, those infections and odors have dropped to almost nothing, which very well might mean that it's how the body is cared for, not what part is present, that determines these things). And as long as there seems to be a 50% reduction in the chance of contracting AIDS in circumcised men, I'll definitely push for infant circumcision.

Sadly, my stepsons' father is firmly in the anti-circ crowd. He's also in the anti-vaccination crowd, the anti-health care crowd, the anti-aspirin crowd, etc. He also wanted to home-school the kids and NEVER send them to any public school, public hospital, or other public function... not virtual school, mind you, but pure, old-fashioned home-school (except, instead of a Bible, he'd have preferred to teach them from Buckland's Guide).

For me, the deciding factors are, in order: 50% reduction in the chance of contracting HIV; physical appearance and general social acceptability; easier to clean and care for; habit; personal dislike of uncut penises. The factors against, for me, are, in order: some studies which indicate the foreskin offers protection against some diseases; growing global disdain for the procedure; the fact that many places still do not use modern methods for circumcision and pain relief, meaning a chance of complications.

The notion that 'it hurts the child' or that 'children have a right to total body integrity' is a complete non-factor in my mind.

In order for me to reverse my opinion on infant male circumcision, the following would have to be shown in multiple, quality, verified studies: 1) that circumcision has no effect on the chance of catching AIDS; 2) that properly executed removal of the foreskin in infants significantly impairs sexual function and enjoyment upon reaching adulthood; and 3) that the foreskin offers significant protection from other diseases.

That sums it up for me. The rest - appeals to emotion, calling me a 'child abuser', etc - is completely irrelevant.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think your inability to distinguish between a relatively safe medical procedure performed by a doctor in a hospital and "odd" body modification is rather telling. The whole things stinks of woo to me.

Um I was not the one who brought up odd body modification, or are there actualy doctors who perform clitorectomies in hospitals?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Then don't base your position on the propaganda from that camp. Use credible sources.

What I have posted have been published research. The reason it has appeared on the anti-circ. site is because it supports their position. The same information can be found on pubmed, the BMJ, etc. It's just more convenient when doing a google search to link to the first site that has the paper on it.

 

[kellyb]

are there actualy doctors who perform clitorectomies in hospitals?

I'm sure there are extremely rare medical conditions that pop up from time to time that require that.

ETA:
Yup. You can get cancer of the clitoris:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_is_vulvar_cancer_45.asp?sitearea=

Cancer of the vulva (also known as vulvar cancer) most often affects the inner edges of the labia majora or the labia minora. Less often, cancer occurs on the clitoris or in Bartholin glands (small mucus-producing glands on either side of the vaginal opening).

Surgery

Choosing the best surgical treatment for each woman involves balancing the importance of maintaining sexual functioning with the need to remove all the cancer. In the past, surgeons removing a vulvar cancer also took out a large amount of surrounding normal tissue and possibly local lymph nodes, regardless of the stage of the cancer, because they wanted to be sure that no undetected cancer cells remained. Such extensive surgery resulted in a good chance of cure, but it caused disfigurement and impaired the woman's ability to function sexually if the clitoris were removed. The removal of all the lymph nodes in the groin often led to disabling swelling of the leg on that side.

Excision: The cancer and a margin of normal-appearing skin (usually about ½ inch) around it are excised (cut out). This is sometimes called wide local excision. If extensive, it may be called a simple partial vulvectomy.

Vulvectomy: There are several operations in which part of the vulva or all of the vulva is removed:

A skinning vulvectomy means only the top layer of skin affected by the cancer is removed. Although this is an option for treating extensive VIN3, this operation is rarely done.

In a simple vulvectomy, the entire vulva is removed.

A radical vulvectomy can be complete or partial. When part of the vulva, including the deep tissue, is removed, the operation is called a partial vulvectomy. In a complete radical vulvectomy, the entire vulva and deep tissues, including the clitoris, are removed.

An operation to remove the lymph nodes near the vulva is called a groin dissection. It is important to remove these lymph nodes if they contain cancer.

 

[Lonewulf]

My grouping is on the basis of characteristics, rather than just the opinion. But I have wondered about this as well. Why does there seem to be so little variation on this issue?

Linda

Yeah, that is interesting. Just like it's interesting how few scientists actually disagree with the theory of gravity, and all have the same reasons for doing so...

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Um I was not the one who brought up odd body modification, or are there actualy doctors who perform clitorectomies in hospitals?

About 150 years ago, when Victorian physicians were struggling with the GREAT MASTURBATION PROBLEM and adopted the idea of circumcising males, the solution proposed for females was clitoridectomy. Alas, the procedure did not catch on in the West. Nowadays the only hospital clitoridectomies are in the middle east.

ETA: I should have said non-medically indicated clitoridectomies. As KellyB points out, there are valid medical reasons to cut off almost any body part.