The Sensitive Issue of Circumcision

[JJM]

{snip} [If] a situation pops up ... {snip}

When "a situation pops up" it is difficult to wax philosophical

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

What makes me think that maybe I should have done it is that I as a woman and most women I know prefer circumcized penis's and I worry that it might interfere with my son's sex life.

<snip>

What do you prefer about a circumcised penis?

Should parents of girls be worried about what her future sexual partners might think of her labia minora?

 

[JJM]

{snip} Should parents of girls be worried about what her future sexual partners might think of her labia minora?

In some cultures (notably, those practicing female genital mutilation- FGM) that is a consideration. Keep in mind that FGM is more extensive, and physically devastating, and not really comparable to male circumcision. What people find attractive is not, as far as I know, rational.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

In some cultures (notably, those practicing female genital mutilation- FGM) that is a consideration. Keep in mind that FGM is more extensive, and physically devastating, and not really comparable to male circumcision. What people find attractive is not, as far as I know, rational.

"Some cultures" would include our own (sadly):

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2008/08/the_quest_for_the_perfect_vagi.html

...

When Channel 4 approached me to make this documentary, entitled The Perfect Vagina, to investigate why vaginal plastic surgery is the fastest-growing cosmetic procedure in this country, my reaction was sceptical. So the next time I was at my GP's (about something entirely unrelated - my toddler's rash, probably), I enquired whether she ever had female patients coming to her expressing concerns about how they looked "downstairs". Bear in mind I live in rural Wales, not in some metropolis that might house exotic dancers and porn stars.

My GP, the lovely Dr Christmas, amazed me with her response. She told me she has 14, 15 and 16-year-old girls in her surgery, wracked with embarrassment and fear, worried that their genitalia is somehow disfigured or malformed. When she finally persuades them to undress and to let her have a look, they're virtually always absolutely fine. And this is a phenomenon that's only really taken hold in the last five years.

...

This last comment sums it up nicely:

The last word has to go to my father, the wise oracle on all things (and a Welsh dairy farmer). "The thing is, Lis," he said, "if you've got a house you want to do up for a prospective buyer, you don't start by decorating the cellar."

 

[Shuggy]

Summary:

"We collected a bit of information in order to show that the doctors were responsible. The information we collected showed that it wasn't the doctors, but we wanted it to be the doctors, so we went ahead and said they were responsible anyway."

Linda

Interesting to have words so blatently put into one's own mouth. I thought Skeptics didn't believe in mind-reading. I am one of the authors of the paper, and we certainly didn't "want it to be" anybody. Why should we? (What you see is the Internet version of our presentation at Sydney in 2000. The paper is McGrath, Ken, and Hugh Young, "A Review of Circumcision in New Zealand". Understanding Circumcision, edited by Denniston et al. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001, 129-146) As we say, the rise and fall of circumcision in New Zealand is pitifully undocumented, and it was all we could do to find the datapoints we did.

There is no information showing that these attitudes and behaviours changed during the entire period under consideration.

It should be obvious that the dynamics of the introduction of a custom are quite different from those of its decline once it is established. Bearing in mind that sexual topics were simply not discussed in public in New Zealand until the 1960s, it is hard to see how circumcision could become customary from nothing without doctors promoting it. The paper goes into that in more detail, including the disproportionate number of doctors who were themselves circumcised in the early part of the century. We have several items of evidence that the decline was led by the profession - notably, Prof Bohham's edict that routine neonatal circumcisions would not be done by the staff of the new National Women's Hospital, but also the scornful references by the Medical Officer of Health to "ritual" and "chronic remunerative surgery" - and resisted by parents.

 

[six7s]

I am one of the authors of the paper

Teh interwebs rock!

Kia Ora and Welcome to the forum Shuggy!

How did you find this thread?

 

[Shuggy]

In some cultures (notably, those practicing female genital mutilation- FGM) that is a consideration. Keep in mind that FGM is more extensive, and physically devastating, and not really comparable to male circumcision.

This has become a mantra, but in fact they both vary in severity, with plenty of overlap. The operation this Indonesian woman is putting her baby girl through ( freek dot kapoosh dot net/?p=551 ) is entirely comparable.

 

[Shuggy]

Teh interwebs rock!

Kia Ora and Welcome to the forum Shuggy!

How did you find this thread?

Kia ora koe hoki! Thank you. I was referred by a fellow Intactivist, but I've been a Sceptic (sic) since the 1980s. (I'd had an argument with a noisy believer in the "Shroud" of Turin and realised that I didn't really know much about it. I got a beautifully photographed book [by Ian Wilson?] that nearly convinced me it was actually JC's shroud - therefore there was a historical JC - though I drew the line at his "radiation scorch" theories and the resurrection. Then I read a skeptical article - probably by Joe Nickell - and realised I'd been had. So I subscribed to SI - still do - joined the NZ Skeptics when Dennis Dutton founded them, and have stayed aboard ever since.)

 

[Shuggy]

But it's not physician-driven, just like requests for oral contraceptives aren't physician-driven.

That's a really poor analogy. The benefits of oral contraceptives to those requesting them are perfectly obvious. Circumcising babies is of no benefit to parents at all. The point about circumcision being presented as a Big Decision that parents must make is a good one. Deciding to do it is final. Deciding not to do it can always be changed. Parents who decide not to do it are frequently treated as if they haven't decided yet. Here are stories from parents who were browbeaten (as my mother was) to do it, not necessarily by doctors, but nurses and others: circumstitions dot com slash coerce dot html (hope these non-clickable links are acceptable from a newbie; they're obviously not spam.)

 

[fls]

Interesting to have words so blatently put into one's own mouth. I thought Skeptics didn't believe in mind-reading. I am one of the authors of the paper, and we certainly didn't "want it to be" anybody. Why should we?

I don't know. Some people certainly have decided opinions on this topic, and that you went to the trouble of attempting to research the idea suggests you at least had an interest (which often also suggests an opinion).

There were other, more valid, alternate explanations for the data you presented. That you chose instead to draw conclusions that weren't really supported by the evidence, suggests a pre-existing bias.

(What you see is the Internet version of our presentation at Sydney in 2000. The paper is McGrath, Ken, and Hugh Young, "A Review of Circumcision in New Zealand". Understanding Circumcision, edited by Denniston et al. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 2001, 129-146) As we say, the rise and fall of circumcision in New Zealand is pitifully undocumented, and it was all we could do to find the datapoints we did.

Uh, yeah. That was pretty obvious.

It should be obvious that the dynamics of the introduction of a custom are quite different from those of its decline once it is established. Bearing in mind that sexual topics were simply not discussed in public in New Zealand until the 1960s, it is hard to see how circumcision could become customary from nothing without doctors promoting it. The paper goes into that in more detail, including the disproportionate number of doctors who were themselves circumcised in the early part of the century. We have several items of evidence that the decline was led by the profession - notably, Prof Bohham's edict that routine neonatal circumcisions would not be done by the staff of the new National Women's Hospital, but also the scornful references by the Medical Officer of Health to "ritual" and "chronic remunerative surgery" - and resisted by parents.

Then wouldn't it have been useful to attempt to document doctors promoting circumcision, in particular, promoting it prior to its common use? It's not like there weren't other influential institutions that could have influenced its use, with doctors merely riding the wave.

And when declines in the rate of circumcision are preceded by years to decades of physician disapproval without apparent effect (we have examples from other countries as well), how do you determine that 'this time' it worked? I can appreciate that this is a dynamic process, but why ignore the more direct association with changes in whether it is done at public expense?

Linda

 

[fls]

That's a really poor analogy. The benefits of oral contraceptives to those requesting them are perfectly obvious. Circumcising babies is of no benefit to parents at all.

You've missed the point of the analogy. The analogy is with respect to what drives the use (physician promotion vs. patient request), not as to the benefits of the procedure (I'm not sure why you even thought that).

The point about circumcision being presented as a Big Decision that parents must make is a good one. Deciding to do it is final. Deciding not to do it can always be changed. Parents who decide not to do it are frequently treated as if they haven't decided yet. Here are stories from parents who were browbeaten (as my mother was) to do it, not necessarily by doctors, but nurses and others: circumstitions dot com slash coerce dot html (hope these non-clickable links are acceptable from a newbie; they're obviously not spam.)

It does not help your case that you refer to circumstitions.com. The information provided at that site has been chosen to present a biased, rather than objective perspective. I'm a physician who thinks that boys should not be routinely circumcised, and that physicians have a duty to discourage the practice (for which I have been lambasted by other health care providers ), but that doesn't mean I think it is reasonable to present biased and sometimes frankly inaccurate information for the sake of supporting my cause.

Linda

 

[Polaris]

I don't mean to jump on this, but I couldn't possibly follow every post in this thread. Did someone already post regional or demographic circumcision rates in the US?

It's much higher in Brooklyn, NY and Dearborn, MI

 

[Loss Leader]

It's much higher in Brooklyn, NY and Dearborn, MI

Yeah, my neighborhood has a fairly high rate of circumcision. And accountants.

 

[osmosis]

Is it so impossible to conceive of the possibility that you are wrong? Is it really so unimaginable to even consider that you may be mistaken? Is the only way someone could ever disagree with you really for him not to have thought about the issue.

No; no; no again.

I have thought about it. It does not bother me that somehing irreversible was done to me before I was old enough to comprehend what was being done. After long and careful consideration, it feels fine that others decided what my prick looks like. Your imagination has led you astray; it does not feel pretty bad.

Yes, but I happen to know that you are Jewish and have been since before you were born. Not only was it done to you, you've participated in doing it to others. When pressed on the subject in the previous circ thread, you attempted to use some highly questionable lines of argument and ultimately blew a big ugly hissy-fit.

Maybe you've thought about it, but you've also demontrated that your thoughts are, to say the least, biased in a certain ethnocentric way that the vast majority of us do not relate to. And certainly it does nothing to improve the quality of your arguments, most of which on this subject have been wrong. But that's what inevitably happens when a circumcision-practicing Jewish apologist such as yourself feels the need to inject his religious beliefs into a serious debate on circumcision.

A person coming from such a position has little hope of functioning as anything but a troll in a thread such as this.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here you go Linda, a historical account of the rise of circumcision in several different countries:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1

Circumcision in the United States of America

In the United States circumcision emerged at the same time as in Britain and for much the same reasons: hostility to masturbation, delusions about congenital phimosis, fear of diseases like syphilis and cancer. But it got its biggest boosts from the two world wars and from the medicalisation of childbirth. The importance of both the obstetricians/gynecologists and the the military in the promotion of circumcision in the USA cannot be overestimated.

 

[JJM]

{snip} Should parents of girls be worried about what her future sexual partners might think of her labia minora?

In some cultures (notably, those practicing female genital mutilation- FGM) that is a consideration. Keep in mind that FGM is more extensive, and physically devastating, and not really comparable to male circumcision. What people find attractive is not, as far as I know, rational.

Bold added.

This has become a mantra, but in fact they both vary in severity, with plenty of overlap. The operation this Indonesian woman is putting her baby girl through ( freek dot kapoosh dot net/?p=551 ) is entirely comparable.

http://freek.kapoosh.net/?p=551 I'll have to take your word that the doctor dissected out a bit of flesh comparable to the male foreskin, it is not plain from the text you cite. You are correct that the practice varies; but many African societies go to much more severe lengths.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Another thing to consider is that Circumcision isn't always a choice. Some people become, in effect, naturally circumcised after puberty, just means their penis develops longer than their foreskin. I know a couple of people like this. They say its brilliant as they can last longer in bed than most men. But I argue it makes it less enjoyable. Its a matter of preference.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm still trying to get over the idea of circumcising an infant without any pressing medical reason for it, just to alleviate the dilemma of doing it or not.

That's astounding.

 

[Gene L]

This has probably been said already, but it's about the only way a clumsy doctor can get ahead.

 

[truethat]

What do you prefer about a circumcised penis?

Should parents of girls be worried about what her future sexual partners might think of her labia minora?

I would think so. I think people are making too big a deal of this. The conflict arises when the cultural norm is one way and people don't conform. And yes we all know that conformity is not good. We've all seen The Dead Poets Society. Of course its very easy to talk about the fact that women should not care or to raise all this shocked and stunned arguments yadda yadda.

But to actual parents this isn't a philosophical discussion on an online message board. In real life things are different.

I mean why not argue then that a parent shouldn't care if their child is over eating because any decent woman would love a man no matter how fat he is. This kind of thinking is what I perceive as extraordinarily narrow minded and selfish. The idea that a parents view is the one that matters is no different than arguing that the supposed child's view that no one yet knows but presumably is going to be opposite of what the parent wants should be honored.

The point has been raised about how devasting it would be to a man to realize that someone else decided how his penis should look. All well and good in theory.

But in reality the social norm is generally circumcized in the US. A penis, when depicted in media for example is generally depicted as circumsized. This is what a "penis" looks like. So NOT to circumsize is choosing what the penis is going to look like as well.

What I wonder is if I was a man and my parents had made the decision not to circumsize based on the idea that I wouldn't want it, well if I was a guy I'd want a circumsized penis because I think it looks nicer. If my parents had not gotten it done I'd be annoyed because its much easier to do it as a newborn than as an adult. I'd be pissed that they allowed their flakey new age sentiments to get in the way of common sense.

There's a million ways to look at this argument. None of them are more righteous than the others.