The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

volatile said:
<snip to the gist>
Or, to re-pose the question in a different way - on what grounds can circumcision on infants possibly be rationally justified?
Click to expand...
.
Religious. Based on mystic fantasy.
Cultural. Based on conformity.
.
Other than these, there's no reason at all!
 
E.J.Armstrong said:
It would be, particularly if applied to a defenceless infant. In an adult it is still mutilation.

'Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation'
Click to expand...

Clitoral piercing does not "degrade" the function of the female genitals, and if it does degrade their appearance it does so only subjectively. There is no problem with adults getting genital piercings or, indeed, circumcision should they so wish.

What adults choose to do to their genitalia has no bearing on what cultures arbitrarily enforce on infants.
 
volatile said:
Or, to re-pose the question in a different way - on what grounds can circumcision on infants possibly be rationally justified?
Click to expand...

The only justification is religion which has invaded the culture, iron age beliefs from a time when people did not bathe often enough. Not rational in the 21st century in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Vic Vega said:
Why did you get circumcised as an older child? That is certainly unusual.
Click to expand...

No idea, actually. I suspect I had a tight foreskin, maybe?

I'd rather not go into it here, but my circumcision operation is my earliest memory, and is particularly vivid and disturbing because I did not go fully under with the first anaesthetic dose and had to be restrained to make me drink the second dose, all the while terrified that I was going to be castrated.
 
JoeEllison said:
Not really... it is the mostly useless extra skin of the penis.
Click to expand...

Errrm. No, it isn't, though that's what the pro-circumcision people would have you believe. You can Google-scholar papers on the structural anatomy of the foreskin (prepuce) yourself, but how about this quote:

"The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis." (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.85023.x)


Might I also point out this anatomy lesson - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1034.x - and this study - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1079.x -which shows that women report higher rates of sexual satisfaction with uncut partners (displelling that "women prefer the cut" myth!),

The foreskin is not a useless piece of flesh. It is highly enervated, and plays a key role in mechanically stimulating the glans. You're wrong.
 
volatile said:
Errrm. No, it isn't, though that's what the pro-circumcision people would have you believe.
Click to expand...
No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.
 
JoeEllison said:
No. I have a foreskin. It is just sort of there. It isn't the magic source of supreme sexual bliss that the anti-circumcision woosters imagine it to be.
Click to expand...

Imagine you didn't have one.

Your foreskin moving over the glans is an important part of sexual stimulation.
 
Loss Leader said:
I didn't say there was no difference in sensitivity or sensation. I said there was no difference in sexual disfunction or sexual pleasure. And there is none. No proper study has ever found one. So, your argument about biology might have some weight if we were dealing with starfish, ocelots or some animal that we can't just [rulex]ing ask.

Instead, when we do ask men, they report No Difference in disfunction or pleasure.
Click to expand...

At best, wouldn't this be anecdotal, rather than evidence? How would a circumcised person know if there is a difference or not? How could this be tested?


M.
 
Fiona said:
@ thesyntaxera. Nobody is disputing there can be problems from infection but honestly I do not think personal experience in a hospital is likely to give you a very realistic perception of how much of a problem that is. The evidence presented here does not support the idea that this is a common consequence of not being circumcised and I think if it were then circumcision would be common in this country. It is not.
Click to expand...

I never said it should. I was speaking about why I am in favor of circumcision, not why other people should be.

You say children and young men cannot be expected to keep clean. I just do not accept that I am afraid.
Click to expand...

What I was actually trying to say is that, realistically, how many children and young adults do you know that practice impeccable hygiene? Are you willing to rely on them "keeping it clean" as a parent, or are you going to circumvent any potential problems by nipping it in the bud, or rather, the foreskin?

It is a preventative health measure, just like vaccination...at least in my opinion.

Similarly there are medical conditions which require circumcision, such as you describe with the 4 year old: again those are not very common and such operations are done in this country when they are required.

I think there is little evidence for real health benefits and this has been agreed by many n both sides of this argument. I agree there is little evidence for harm either. The decision is much more to do with culture and identity I think, and those matters are very important. Bu in the absence of such considerations I suppose that I draw the line at procedures designed to prevent unlikely problems, if those procedures make you bleed. Bleeding is generally a sign that your body is not all that happy, IMO. A preventative procedure which causes bleeding needs to give a real and significant benefit in order to be justified. There is none here so far as I can see.
Click to expand...

Well, if done properly there is very little bleeding, or pain. I agree, it is a cultural consideration...but I also think we are in a poor place to judge the need for this procedure. It's all well and good to sit here in our modern western abodes with running water and soap and talk about how it is a frivolous procedure.
 
Moochie said:
At best, wouldn't this be anecdotal, rather than evidence? How would a circumcised person know if there is a difference or not? How could this be tested?
Click to expand...
That goes both ways, doesn't it? How can people claim that there is some loss of the magical sexual pleasure that comes with a foreskin if they had it chopped off when they were two days old?

Plus, you'll have to explain why there are circumcised premature ejaculators, if there's so much loss of sensitivity.
 
JoeEllison said:
No, it isn't. Really, how arrogant are you? Are you THAT full of yourself?
Click to expand...

Not at all. I'm just applying some critical thinking to the issue, reading the medical science and applying some common sense.

The foreskin is very enervated, makes up up to 50% of the skin of the penis, and is mechanically active during sexual activity. It most manifestly not 'useless skin' as you said upthread. That's all I'm saying.

My position that circumcision isn't the right thing to do is consistent with both biology and generally-held ethical principles which state that we shouldn't arbitrarily mutilate infants. I have yet to see a rationally presented case to the contrary.
 
volatile said:
Not at all. I'm just applying some critical thinking to the issue, reading the medical science and applying some common sense.
Click to expand...
That's nice, and I'm sure it makes you feel very special. Some real common sense would lead you to possibly not tell someone who has a foreskin that he's wrong about his own experience with it. I mean, as long as we're applying common sense and all.
 
volatile said:
No idea, actually. I suspect I had a tight foreskin, maybe?

I'd rather not go into it here, but my circumcision operation is my earliest memory, and is particularly vivid and disturbing because I did not go fully under with the first anaesthetic dose and had to be restrained to make me drink the second dose, all the while terrified that I was going to be castrated.
Click to expand...

A young (10) nephew of mine underwent surgery (circumcision) to correct a malformation.


M.
 
I am persuaded by the evidence Volatile and others have presented I think. I was not wholly neutral before but I did think that the procedure was largely neutral, and that cultural and religious considerations were therefore legitimate reasons for making the decision to circumcise. I no longer think so, I am afraid.

The best we have seen here on the pro side is an assertion that it is not harmful; and a belief that this is a preventive measure ( most strongly stated by thesyntaxera when he said it is like vaccination). The health problems it is said to combat are rare and I do not think it is at all like vaccination because vaccination prevents common and serious diseases: circumcision does not.

I am not convinced by the argument about sexual pleasure: this does not seem to me to answerable, but even if it was it seems clear that both circumcised and uncircumcised men are happy with their share - it is a bit like intelligence in that way :D

It has been stated that the procedure does not cause much pain or trauma in the infant. This is disputed but I do not see hard evidence either way. I have asked if it is the case that infants do not experience pain as adults do and if there is reason to believe that they do not find wounds sore. I have not had an answer to that. I am led to suspect that this is in the same category as "how many fishermen would there be if fish could scream" and until there is some definite proof that infants are truly different in this respect it seems logical to me to presume they are not.

On that basis it seems to me that circumcision is not in the interest of the child and so I think it should not be done except in case of medical necessity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom