Is the circumcision of a boy sexual abuse? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Lebell · 01-11-2006, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hrandani

I have nothing but disdain for people who claim to research the topic and still go ahead and remove part of their baby's natural anatomy. And it's purely a fucked up, cultural thing that has no bearing on reality.

Somehow I think we'll be able to sleep tonight

Sweetpea · 01-11-2006, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xepherys

That's funny, because again... I have no sensitivity issues. My penis, from top to bottom is QUITE sensitive to light touch. In fact, if it was much more sensitive, sex probably WOULD hurt. I love how these studies are just done to target the masses and promote an agenda. *sigh* Chaulk up another victim to studies and statistics. *hug Sweetpea*

Well, i'm glad that you have no issue with your sensitivity

and of course, all statistics have their own adgenda... i understand that completely... (after all, i took a whole semester on statistics in college, they can be bent many ways)

You should be happy you have no issues..
But some men do actually have issues with sex and sensitivity, due to being cut... That is all i was pointing out.

sweetpea

Sweetpea · 01-11-2006, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well I can't speak for all men, but this is not an issue for me, hell sometimes I wish Mr. Happy was a bit less sensative in sex if you know what I mean

hehe,
Well, i'm glad it's not an issue for you

But as i pointed out... it IS for some men, due to having had this procedure performed...

And if i were to have it done on my son... yeah, it might turn out he has no problem because of it... but what if he turned out to be one of the boys that lost most of his sexual satisfaction because of it? I wouldn't take that chance, just to follow a cultural norm, that's all i'm saying

sweetpea

Sweetpea · 01-11-2006, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

I take offense to being called a mutilator to my kid. And as for the 'he didn't give permission' to have it done', he didn't give permission for a lot of the decisions I've had to make over the years-all made based on my own knowledge and judgement..... We made what were the right ones at the time and neither has suffered for it so why are you so adamant to try and make ME suffer for the choices?

Although i do feel this procedure is a form of mulilation.... I'm personally certainly not saying that parents who still choose to get the procedure performed aren't good parents or anything...
because after all, in parenting, there is no right or wrong really... it's what each family feels is correct for their child, based on their own upbringing and personal perspective on the world.

And although i don't agree with the procedure and i wouldn't have it done if i had a son, that would be what *I* thought was best for my son...

Personally, I don't think It's my place to say what you or any other mom or dad should or should not do with their child, because it is after all *your* child and you are the one responsible for making the choices you feel are best at the given time.

sweetpea

SERPENT7 · 01-11-2006, 09:17 PM

I went ahead and had my son cut. Mostly because I am, but also because mens body image is VERY closely tied to the peen. If it looks abnormal, or deviates from thier peers in any way, things can get rough. Especially in Junior HS. (All children turn into sadistic monsters right about then!) So essentially, i would rather trade off alittle sensitivity for a smoother adolescence.

hulk · 01-12-2006, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetpea

hehe,
Well, i'm glad it's not an issue for you

But as i pointed out... it IS for some men, due to having had this procedure performed...
sweetpea

If I'm not mistaken, it's an issue for some uncircumcised me, too. Anyone have any figures?

Amnesia620 · 01-12-2006, 01:48 AM

I think the topic to this thread is rather absurd.

SecretMethod70 · 01-12-2006, 05:13 AM

I am cross-posting this here as well as in the ear piercing thread in case some people don't read both and since my post stradles between being relevant to each. However, it is not an exact duplicate of the post in the ear piercing thread. I have made some additions to this post that relate more specifically to this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by little_tippler

I think that, the "abuse" word aside, that kids shouldn't have their ears pierced or be circumcised or any other physical aspect changed that is not necessary, by decision of the parents, especially if when the child is older they can probably say for themselves they want x or y "done". [...] I don't see any advantage for a kid to have circumcision or ears pierced or any of that [...] Your child is not a toy to "dress up".

All this said, I don't look down on people who have their kids' ears pierced, it's relatively harmless. I would not do so to my kids unless they requested it - it's not my body to put holes in! As for circumcision, I'm not in favour of it because it's an unnecessary and very sensitive medical procedure, but I can't condemn people who have it done to their little boys if they are in a society that in most cases chooses to do it.

I pretty much agree with this. One sentence in there is something which I think bears repeating: "Your child is not a toy to 'dress up.'" Now, clothing is one thing, but altering your child's body because you think it would look better is simply unnacceptable to me.

Is it "abuse?" No, not really. Is it bad parenting? Sorry, but yes. A previous poster brought up an interesting point: at what point does body modification of your child, without the child's input or consent, become too much? Parents can pierce ears because it's aesthetically pleasing to them...can they also stretch the earlobes? What about piercing clitoral hoods or labia on baby girls, as someone brought up in the circumcision thread? Or how about a frenum piercing on baby boys (if you don't know what this is, click here)? Surely, if cutting off a part of the penis which has a specific purpose and contains the most sensitive and numerous nerves in the penis simply because it looks better and makes the parent's job of teaching their son how to clean himself a little easier is acceptable, a little frenum piercing should be as well. This is setting aside, of course, those who suffer from preputial stenosis and have a medical need for circumcision. Even then, infantile circumcision is, at the very least, not the best idea.

little_tippler is right though: we, as Americans (because god knows there aren't any other societies which love circumcision for non-religious reasons as much as we do*), live in a society in which circumcision is normal. It is far less normal even in American society than it used to be, but it is still normal. Likewise, piercing a baby's ears may not be statistically normal, but it is not looked down upon. Individual parents who make these decisions are not abusive - intent is an important factor. It is not the parents as individuals who should be condemned with regards to these practices, it is the societal practice as a whole.

I'll say this: at least earlobes, whatever purpose they may serve if any, do not lose their purpose or function by being pierced. The penis DOES lose a function by being circumcized. We can argue about whether it is a necessary function all day, but the point is it is a function, and that fact alone sets circumcision far apart from "normal" ear piercing.

*Note: I don't know for a fact that there is not a single other society which circumcizes at the same rate of America for non-religious reasons, but I do know that if there are others, it is a relative few.

Charlatan · 01-12-2006, 05:55 AM

Secret... good post.

I think this part bears repeating: "It is not the parents as individuals who should be condemned with regards to these practices, it is the societal practice as a whole."

splck · 01-12-2006, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Is the circumcision of a boy sexual abuse?

I don't think it's sexual abuse, but I do think it's wrong. Let the boy make the decision himself when he is old enough to make the decision. Getting it done on an infant because you want him to look like yourself is the most ridiculous thing I have even heard.

meembo · 01-12-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splck

Getting it done on an infant because you want him to look like yourself is the most ridiculous thing I have even heard.

I agree. I chose not to do it to my sons. My brothers all chose it for their boys -- and each of them said the primary reason was that they wanted their son to look like their dad. Ouch! I wanted to smack each of them in the head (I might have, too). I don't wish my beer belly on anybody, for example, and I won't cut someone to look like me either. I can't speak for those who believe it's a religious requirement, but I'm glad more people aren't simply taking the lemming route.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meembo

I agree. I chose not to do it to my sons. My brothers all chose it for their boys -- and each of them said the primary reason was that they wanted their son to look like their dad. Ouch! I wanted to smack each of them in the head (I might have, too). I don't wish my beer belly on anybody, for example, and I won't cut someone to look like me either. I can't speak for those who believe it's a religious requirement, but I'm glad more people aren't simply taking the lemming route.

I took the lemming route with my son, and I dare you to come smack me in the head

The amusing thing about the anti-circumcision people is the weird, almost religious fervor they attack the practice with. I have to wonder if its due to the unease of making an 'unpopular' choice and wondering if they did the right thing for their child.

One way or the other, its obviously not THAT big a deal, nothing I’ve read pro or con has shown any major difference between cut/uncut in terms of sex, and while there is a disease decrease for cut, its not very significant.

meembo · 01-12-2006, 01:11 PM

(Smacks ustwo upside the head)

I think people should make changes to their own bodies, not anyone else's. I have no problem with tattoos, piercings, etc. I see circumcision as benefitting a parent's vanity, and not benefiting the best interests of a child.

Charlatan · 01-12-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ustwo

The amusing thing about the anti-circumcision people is the weird, almost religious fervor they attack the practice with. I have to wonder if its due to the unease of making an 'unpopular' choice and wondering if they did the right thing for their child.

The amusing thing about those who advocate for circumcision is the pig headedness with which they support the practice. I have to wonder if it's due to the discomfort they feel about the whole process, that continuing the practice will help them cope with their choice to cut their kids.

Cynthetiq · 01-12-2006, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The amusing thing about those who advocate for circumcision is the pig headedness with which they support the practice. I have to wonder if it's due to the discomfort they feel about the whole process, that continuing the practice will help them cope with their choice to cut their kids.

no different than getting people to think differently than another set of people on just about any subject.

Johnny Pyro · 01-12-2006, 02:20 PM

Just for the record, I'm circumsized and I'm very happy with it.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The amusing thing about those who advocate for circumcision is the pig headedness with which they support the practice. I have to wonder if it's due to the discomfort they feel about the whole process, that continuing the practice will help them cope with their choice to cut their kids.

Cute but it doesn't fit the facts. I see a lot of 'I'm circumcised and happy with it' posts, but what I don't see is 'I want to smack you upside the head for not circumcising your child' posts.

Its those against which seem to have the big old chip on their shoulder.

xepherys · 01-12-2006, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The amusing thing about those who advocate for circumcision is the pig headedness with which they support the practice. I have to wonder if it's due to the discomfort they feel about the whole process, that continuing the practice will help them cope with their choice to cut their kids.

Must like what Ustwo said... the fact of the matter is that nobody here who has been pro-circ has condemned those who are against it. Several of those who are anti-cric HAVE condemned those who are for it. I think that's the argument about maybe the anti-circ folk are worried about having made a bad decision. I continue to argue only to point out foolish arguments against my thoughts. I have no fervent desire to change someone else's mind. Those anti-circ folks do, however. It's kinda scary, actually. Like pro-lifers killing abortion doctors to prove a point. People who get too fanatical about change are generally not well accepted by society, and don't tend to help make the change the so deeply sought.

Charlatan · 01-12-2006, 02:54 PM

"Like pro-lifers killing abortion doctors to prove a point."

I know you didn't just make that comparision.

The way I'm reading it, yes there are a lot of "I'm circumcised that's OK" type posts. There are also a lot of people who are attacking those who would point out that circumcision isn't neccessary.

I don't agree that we should "smack people upside the head", "kill them", etc. but I can understand the frustration that many feel in the face of those who defend the position by shugging their shoulder "what me worry" or doing it for aestethic reasons.

I don't anyone can truly say that cicumcision is a neccessary proceedure (excusing those with rare medical conditions or religious reasons). Noone here has given a solid reason for continuing the practice.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The way I'm reading it, yes there are a lot of "I'm circumcised that's OK" type posts. There are also a lot of people who are attacking those who would point out that circumcision isn't neccessary.

Could you point out those attacks? I really don't see a lot of people doing this here.

Edit:Upon re-reading the whole thread (very quickly) I didn't see anyone doing this. Just who is this 'a lot'?

SecretMethod70 · 01-12-2006, 04:23 PM

It makes perfect sense that those against circumcision would be far more adament about it than those for it. Those for it view it as an inconsequential and common social practice - obviously they're not going to have any strong feelings about it other than "it's silly to be against something so simple" or whatever. Those against it, however, view it as genital mutilation. You expect someone to NOT be adamently against what they believe to be mutilation? That's just silly.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

It makes perfect sense that those against circumcision would be far more adament about it than those for it. Those for it view it as an inconsequential and common social practice - obviously they're not going to have any strong feelings about it other than "it's silly to be against something so simple" or whatever. Those against it, however, view it as genital mutilation. You expect someone to NOT be adamently against what they believe to be mutilation? That's just silly.

Sounds like some people need a new cause to get worked up about then.

SecretMethod70 · 01-12-2006, 04:55 PM

Yeah, the unnecessary mutilation of a baby boy's genitals is such a silly cause to get worked up about

(You may not agree that's what it is, but that's what many opposed to it believe it is, in which case I'd consider a person of questionable character if he or she DIDN'T get worked up about it.)

Locobot · 01-12-2006, 05:11 PM

Jesus is clear on the issue, "If [Circumcision] were useful, children's fathers would produce them already circumcised from their mothers." -gospel of Thomas.

Ustwo · 01-12-2006, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Yeah, the unnecessary mutilation of a baby boy's genitals is such a silly cause to get worked up about

(You may not agree that's what it is, but that's what many opposed to it believe it is, in which case I'd consider a person of questionable character if he or she DIDN'T get worked up about it.)

In this case, yes it is, the word mutilate is quite telling as well. I'm quite glad my parents had me circumcised, and I'm glad it was done as an infant. I have no shame in having my son circumcised and think the anti-circumcision zealots here are quite amusing in their fervor over something which at worst, makes the penis slightly less sensative in sex and at best slightly lowers your chance for a few rare diseases.

We arn't talking foot binding or female cicumcision here.

spindles · 01-12-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In this case, yes it is, the word mutilate is quite telling as well. I'm quite glad my parents had me circumcised, and I'm glad it was done as an infant. I have no shame in having my son circumcised and think the anti-circumcision zealots here are quite amusing in their fervor over something which at worst, makes the penis slightly less sensative in sex and at best slightly lowers your chance for a few rare diseases.

We arn't talking foot binding or female cicumcision here.

It is nice to be labelled a zealot

I don't think anyone in this thread is planning to prosecute parents who do this, but the point still stands - why would you want to do this? There really aren't any compelling reasons why people have this done.

You say you are glad it was done to you, and glad you did it to your son? Why??

spindles · 01-12-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Pyro

Just for the record, I'm circumsized and I'm very happy with it.

no you're not! /montypython

serlindsipity · 01-12-2006, 07:06 PM

i dont think it can be compared to female circumcision, when boys are cut, they can still be sexually stimulated. without the clit, many women feel nothing.

I know the religious link to male circumscisions, but is there any for women? beyond control, i know of no other reason. enlighten me if you could.

SecretMethod70 · 01-12-2006, 11:01 PM

Well, first off, not all female circumcision involves cutting off the clit as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. As for a religious basis, while it is not explicitly required, as far as I know, in any sacred texts, many of those who practice female genital mutilation believe there is a basis for it within their religion.

To address the accusation that those strongly opposed to male circumcision are so adament about it because they may feel that they have made the wrong choice for their children and are seeking reassurance from others, it's important to note that I have no children, nor do I have any concrete plans to have any, and there are others who have posted strong opinions against circumcision in this thread that, as far as I'm aware, also do not have children.

Someone please honestly answer the following - it's been brought up before, but never actually addressed in this thread: What if I wanted to have my child's earlobes removed at birth because I thought ears without earlobes were more aesthetically pleasing? Would you fully support my right to this and not consider it an unnecessary and cruel practice? Earlobes have even less function than the foreskin does. To paraphrase UsTwo, I think pro-earlobe zealots would be quite amusing in their fervor over something which, at worst, makes it impossible to wear the typical earring. So, would you not only support my right to have my child's earlobes removed, but endorse the action as acceptable parenting as well? In fact, why not also remove my baby boy's nipples as well? They serve no purpose either. How many doctors do you think would perform such procedures? How many do you think wouldn't report me to child services for even SUGGESTING such procedures?

SecretMethod70 · 01-13-2006, 01:21 AM

(Note: This is a somewhat long post. If you do not intend to read the whole thing, I ask that you please at least scroll down to the final section, which I will mark with two horizontal rules, and read that. It is still relatively long, but it contains relevant information regarding the history of routine, non-religious circumcision.)

This is an interesting fact with regard to the religious perspective which I am posting not so much because I think it furthers the argument one way or another, but because I find it interesting,

Quote:

Originally Posted by National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males

At one time the Catholic church observed January 1st (8 days after Christmas) as the "Feast of the Circumcision", commemorating this event as the first of his blood sacrifice and martyrdom.

Although Christian churches today rarely focus on this, at one time early Christian writers gave much attention to the circumcision of Christ - not as any perfecting or purification of the body, but as an act of further debasement to which he submitted after assuming human form.

"Already diminished by assuming our flesh, Christ further lessens himself by receiving the circumcision. God's Son had abased himself one degree beneath the angels in taking on human nature, and this day, by accepting the remedy for our corruption, he descends a thousand times lower still." (St. Bernard, 12th Century)

"Since the debt incurred by the sin of Adam cannot be met by Adam's insolvent progeny - and since Christ's blood pays the ransom - his Circumcision becomes, as it were, a first installment, a down payment on behalf of mankind. It is because Christ was circumcised that the Christian no longer needs of circumcision. In the words of St. Ambrose: 'Since the price has been paid for all after Christ ... suffered, there is no longer need for the blood of each individual to be shed by circumcision.'"

Also interesting to me - primarily because America is one of the most religious Western countries and male circumcision is also, as far as I know, more common in America than any other Western country (and about 25% of Americans identify themselves as Catholic, which this excerpt most directly applies to)...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Father John J. Dietzen, M.A., S.T.L.

The Morality of Circumcision
from "The Question Box," October, 2004, by Father John J. Dietzen, M.A., S.T.L.

Q. What is the morality of circumcision? The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that amputations and mutilations performed on innocent people without strictly therapeutic reasons are against the moral law. Pope Pius XII taught that circumcision is morally permissible if it prevents a disease that cannot be countered any other way. In spite of these and other church statements against circumcision through the centuries, I'm told there is no strict Catholic rule against the practice today. Why not? No medical association in the world today any longer says circumcision is therapeutic. (Ohio)

A. I'm not sure why not, but the fact is male circumcision generally just doesn't appear very much on the "radar screen" of Catholic moral teaching. Many major moral theology texts don't mention it. A notable except is "Medical Ethics," by Father Edwin Healy SJ (Loyal University Press), who holds that since routine circumcisions are not medically defensible they are morally objectionable.

A few observations may help explain. The practice of circumcision arose thousands of years ago and is prevalent in many cultures around the world. Nearly always it has religious or social significance, signifying full membership in the group and establishing one's social position in the society.

The first divine command to the Jews, for example, was that every male child be circumcised, symbolizing the covenant between God and Abraham (Gn 17).

After the famous confrontation between Paul and other leaders of the early church (Acts 15 and Galatians 2), Christians pretty much rejected the necessity of
circumcision for becoming a believer in Christ.

The idea didn't entirely die, however. The theory that circumcision still held some spiritual benefits even for Christians, prompted at least some of the condemnations you speak of. The Council of Vienna (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.

The following century, the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christian not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

Today, while nontherapeutic male circumcision remains common in some places, as a general practice it is forbidden in Catholic teaching for more basic reasons of respect for bodily integrity.The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly
intended amputations, mutilations and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against moral law" (N. 2297).

Elective circumcision clearly violates that standard. It is an amputation and mutilation, and, to my knowledge, and as you note, no significant medical group in the world defends it as having any therapeutic value. In 1999 the Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association stated that neonatal circumcision is nontherapeutic because no disease is present and no therapeutic treatment is required.

Modern Catholic Church documents do not deal explicitly with the morality of elective circumcision. The above basic principles, however, clearly render it immoral. It violates the bodily integrity of infant male children and unnecessarily deprives them of a part of their body that can protect the glans of the penis during infancy
and serve at least a sexual function for adults.

My understanding from physicians is that circumcision rarely if ever arises as an ethical consideration. Usually it is requested by the parents for more social reasons such as, it's always been done in our family. In that case, the procedure might be carried out in some places rather routinely, even if it is not what the child needs
and no curative or remedial reason renders it ethical.

<hr>
<hr>

So, I find it interesting that America - what seems to be a "Christian" country - is so interested in circumcision, considering it was repeatedly condemned by Christians in the past. I believe the history of the rise of circumcision in the late 1800's provides many clues:

(Note: this is a relatively long excerpt from an even longer article. I recommend that the entire article be read (look to the little word "quote" for the link, just above the box), but I feel that this section on the history of routine, non-religious circumcision in Western civilization is particularly important and am, therefore, quoting it here)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Journal of Medical Ethics

The emergence of clinical circumcision owes much to the work of the eminent American orthopaedic surgeon Dr John Lewis A Sayre. Sayre’s first case involved the treatment of a 5-year-old for partial paralysis. In 1870, and following a number of further successful operations, he informed his colleagues that circumcision was the answer to a range of ailments: "Many of the cases of irritable children, with restless sleep, and bad digestion, which are often attributed to worms, is [sic] solely due to the irritation of the nervous system caused by an adherent or constricted prepuce" (p. 210).[6] This marked the beginning of the rise and rise of phimosis, an ill-defined and fluid pathology,[8]

This promotion of circumcision in the USA and the UK emerged at the same time as a rekindled interest in cliterodectomies and other experiments in sexual surgery. Significantly, both male and female circumcision were justified in terms of managing sexuality; yet, while cliterodectomies soon declined, with other forms of female genital mutilation eventually becoming a focus for domestic and international outrage, male circumcision became routinised in medical practice. In large part this was attributable to the belief that male circumcision cured masturbation, an accepted cause of degeneracy and insanity. Circumcision allowed the Victorians to manage cultural anxieties that had prompted an extensive campaign against masturbation.[7][8] Although this was a transatlantic phenomenon it should be noted that anxieties ran higher in the USA. As Hodges notes:

"American doctors saw sexuality as more of a threat to public health and social stability than did their European contemporaries. The American medical profession’s intense focus on sexuality was due in part to economic pressures, the lack of a rigidly defined class system, the rise of the middle class, the rise of immigration, and other sources of social tension" (p. 41).[7]

It was forcefully argued that circumcision diminished the incidence of masturbation by removing or preventing adhesions that would otherwise lead to the penis being handled, and hence to self-abuse.[8] Arguably, curing masturbation was understood as the most important health benefit of circumcision.[8]

Another key factor was the stigma created through the linkage of those with an uncircumcised penis with disease, pollution, and contagion. In professional and lay publications of the time the foreskin is typically characterised as "a harbour for filth" (p. 769)[9]:

"Indeed, anyone who has taken the trouble to compare the dry, pink-parchment-like, cleanly appearance of the glans of the circumcised with the sodden, swollen, uncleanly structure which is frequently presented to view when the prepuce of the uncircumcised is retracted cannot fail to have been struck by the contrast. In the latter case the space between the prepuce and the glans forms the very beau ideal of a place for the implantation and multiplication of bacteria of all kinds, the pent-up secretions furnishing them with an efficient nutrient medium in which to grow, the heat and moisture favoring their development, and the excoriations which are so liable to exist forming a ready means whereby their products may gain access to the general circulation" (p. 1870).[10]

This association helps to explain the shift evident from the 1880s onwards towards cleanliness as a justification for circumcision. In 1914 Abraham Wolbarst argued for universal circumcision as a "sanitary measure" (p. 92),[11] concluding that "the vast preponderance of modern scientific opinion on the subject is strongly in favor of circumcision as a sanitary measure and as a prophylactic against infection with venereal disease" (p. 95).[11] This shift occurred within a social move that saw cleanliness identified with good morals, and stigmatised the uncircumcised as not only unclean but—by association—of questionable morals.[12] In these terms Szasz locates circumcision within his model of the "Therapeutic State", a political system where "social controls are legitimised by the ideology of health". In this model, circumcision is emblematic of the "same puritanical zeal for health-as-virtue that has fuelled other typically American crowd madnesses, such as Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and the Mental Health Movement" (pp. 140–1).[12] Intimately tied to these discourses of cleanliness and morality, during this period circumcision became embedded as a signifier of class and racial differences.[13] By 1910 it was the most common operation in the USA,[8] and a routine one in the UK.

billege · 01-13-2006, 01:42 AM

Hi all, glad I could pop back in.

There are a few things here that need addressing.

I’m not bothering with quotes as this isn’t about “billege v XXX” or something like that.

First I’d like to address what this is about, and what it’s not.

For me, on the “anti” side, it’s not about trying to convince a parent that had their boy cut that they’re bad people. Parents who chose to cut are not ogres, that much should be clear.

They're parents who thought they were doing the right thing. I disagree with their course of action.

However much I disagree, the last thing I would expect is a “pro” parent to suddenly agree with me, or anyone else who advocates against circumcision. For a parent to change sides, so to speak, they’d have to accept that they (if male) are mutilated, also that they chose to needlessly cut up their child’s genitalia.

There's a lot of guilt to deal with if you change to saying, "Damn, I had my kid’s penis cut up for no good reason."

Whereas, on the anti-cut side, I've had a lot of time to think about my dick. I’ve come from thinking all penises look like mine, to knowing that most in the world do not, to finding out mine was cut off with a knife, and left like it is now.

I’ve thought it over, and I accept he's not "as delivered," that it's okay, and that my parents meant no harm. Come to think of it, I don’t think it ever occurred to me to feel angry at my parents about it. This choice, like every other they’ve made for me, was rooted in what they thought was best for me. If anything, they’re victims of the same societal mindset I’m advocating against.

However, I've never pointed to my own child, and said "cut that there flesh of his genitals." Whereas, some of you parents have. The feelings involved in agreeing that was an incorrect action are surely intense. I’m sure that, because you’re human, no matter what decision you make there’s going to be some doubt.

Any guy like me, pointing out a litany of reasons I feel the choice was wrong, should not be expecting a warm welcome. There’s going to be some strong feelings, and they’re going to come out. It happens.

Additionally, it’s hard to get anyone (this certainly includes me) to look back at a major decision, and wonder if it was really right. To boot: this is a bit different than say, buying the wrong model TV or coffeemaker. You cut up some genitals, there’s no going back.

To repeat: my goal here, if I can be said to have one, is not to convince a parent who chose circumcision they’re bad people, but to convince someone who’s not a parent yet to think about this critically. To think, really think, “should I cut off part of my son’s penis?”

Other thoughts:

The quality of this discussion had fallen in the last page or so, and that’s typical of most discussions. By the 4th page or so, you’re usually down to the hotheads going off topic, or getting desperate. We’re not there yet…but:

We’ve got some obviously poor quality commenting going on. If you’re down to that, consider your next post more carefully.

Let’s talk about some quasi-reasoning going on here, and move to discard it in the future.

A few have attempted to dismiss the issue as they believe it’s not very important.
----Someone else is trying hard to convince you it is. The fact that someone you respect, as I’d hope we all do each other, thinks it’s a big deal should cause you to pause and wonder if they have reason to. Really examine your own thoughts, not just point out why they’re wrong. That’s such a cheap debate, and so typical. It’s not discussion, it’s “you’re wrong, no, you are, no you are.”

Tricks such as calling another person’s thoughts “amusing” are just that, tricks.

Every guy that chimes in “I like my cut dick just fine” is missing the point entirely. I like my cut dick too. No one’s saying you shouldn’t like your dick. Buy him McDonalds, and have a Coke and a smile.

There’s no passion from the “pro” crowd “against” the “anti” crowd’s choice because there’s nothing solid to base the practice on.

No one can tell me, and be solidly sure, that if I don’t snip my boy’s dick, something bad will happen. In fact, the vast majority of the world’s male population is surviving quite nicely with the hood left on. So did the cavemen, I believe the American Indians, and 2 billion Chinese are doing okay.

There’s simply no reasons for the “pro” crowd to try to convince the “anti’s” to go get some scissors. However, the “anti” position clearly believes that circumcision is a harmful practice that disfigures a child’s genitals.

Clearly, that’s more important to some people than “Coke vs. Diet.” To point out that one crowd seems more passionate than the other, and go from there to accusing them of arrogance born from fanaticism, is not a very valid statement.

Additionally, to discredit a position because they’re “worked up about it” is similarly invalid. Many posts on the TFP center around a rally against American/world apathy. The last thing I find acceptable is the attempt discredit enthusiasm because it is enthusiasm. That somehow, because it matters to someone, and they’re taking time to express that, it’s not valid. I can’t understand that kind of inverse “not think.”

It is to either parties credit that they are continuing to discuss this, in an intelligent application of energies.

One or two have actually commented that the effort put into these posts is evidence that the poster cares too much about the subject. I’d like to do something most people don’t, and look at that statement thoughtfully, even though it’s been aimed at me.

How much effort am I really putting into this? Do I feel strongly enough that circumcision is wrong that I’m writing my congressman? Nope. Am I protesting in the streets? Nope. Have I attacked any doctors for performing it? Nope. Maybe I’ve set up an “anti” web site? Nope. Am I even reaching a statistically significant audience with my posts? Nope.

I am stating as clearly as I can, with as much diligence as I can, to a small audience of people that choose to come here for discussion.

I’ve been around the TFP for a long time now, and I don’t think you can say I put this much effort into many threads. This subject I have strong feelings about, and a willingness to put effort into discussing it.

Whoever condemns me for that does not belong on the TFP. Period.

I don’t expect you who’ve chosen it to reverse, not at all. But, obviously, we’re not going to agree. My wife and I will choose not to do it to our son. I have posted what I hope are clear and interesting thoughts, and I hope that someone reads them and considers them before making this choice for their son. Until then, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

*note*
Agreeing to disagree was thoughtfully suggested by <b>healer</b>, who I viciously and wantonly stole it from.

analog · 01-13-2006, 04:10 AM

Since the stimulation of the penis is still more than anyone could need (and many can't handle anyway), the penis is still capable of issuing semen to impregnate, and expelling urine, I don't see where the real "negative" is. It loses no functionality. The only thing it changes is the type of sexual stimulation you feel, and MAYBE the intensity- but until we have a study done of uncut, adult, sexually active men, who then get cut, have sex again, and compare, anything else is personal opinion, and not based on any kind of science. Polling is worthless, and "assuming" the nerves do this and that and whatever based on theory is just that- theory.

Also... a very standard, frequently-practiced, and easily-rendered medical procedure is hardly something I would call "mutilation". I believe that the term "mutilated", in this case, is a matter of personal opinion, not fact. So if it's just opinion, mind your own business. Keep your hands off my kid's penis.

Why do so many people feel compelled to dictate how others should run their lives? This whole topic is like Roe vs. Foreskin, for cryin' out loud.

Tachion · 01-13-2006, 12:48 PM

Circumcision Deaths

From:

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Some babies die of complications of circumcision.1 There has been a need to assemble in one convenient location information concerning death from complications of circumcision. This page is designed to fill that need.
...
Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary6 non-therapeutic7 operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.8 Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one is seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision.

...

There is a risk and it is not possible to determine how bad it is but it is there.

Would you risk the life of a child given any probabilty, if the procedure is not about saving his life.

Charlatan · 01-13-2006, 12:54 PM

Of course they will... it looks good and women seem to prefer it.

Tachion · 01-13-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Of course they will... it looks good and women seem to prefer it.

Thats good news!! I am a 'survivor' myself!

highthief · 01-13-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Cute but it doesn't fit the facts. I see a lot of 'I'm circumcised and happy with it' posts, but what I don't see is 'I want to smack you upside the head for not circumcising your child' posts.

Its those against which seem to have the big old chip on their shoulder.

For once, I agree with you.

Jack Ruby · 01-13-2006, 02:09 PM

No, it's merely pointless mutilation.

- proud foreskin owner

tenchi069 · 01-13-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billege

It is abusive. It's SICK.

That is one opinion and not a very civil way of debating. I am circumcised, glad I am, and if I would have been able to give consent at the time it happened ( with the ability to think and reason as I do now ) then I would have given the consent to do so. My sons will be circumcised and probably so will theirs.

As far as medical, there is nothing wrong with me, never had any problems, and though it is true I don't know first hand the other side of the fence, I can honestly say I have no complaints about what I've got and who I am so I don't care to know the other side of the fence.

tenchi

Sweetpea · 01-13-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Of course they will... it looks good and women seem to prefer it.

Not all women do and mostly because it's what they are used to.

on a side note: I'm really surprised this thread is so long!

Who knew so many people had such strong opinions on it. That to me is facinating in and of itself.

sweetpea

Elphaba · 01-13-2006, 04:44 PM

Thank you, SecretMethod. I was trying to understand how a religious ritual became a common practice in the US and your information answered my question.

PS: I really like detailed information sources.

01-12-2006, 01:48 AM	#127 (permalink)
Amnesia620 Forget me not... Location: See that dot on the map? I don't live there.	I think the topic to this thread is rather absurd. __________________ For example, I find that a lot of college girls are barbie doll carbon copies with few differences...Sadly, they're dumb, ditzy, immature, snotty, fake, or they are the gravitational center to orbiting drama. - Amnesia620

01-12-2006, 05:55 AM	#129 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Secret... good post. I think this part bears repeating: "It is not the parents as individuals who should be condemned with regards to these practices, it is the societal practice as a whole." __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-12-2006, 01:11 PM	#133 (permalink)
meembo Junkie Location: Connecticut	(Smacks ustwo upside the head) I think people should make changes to their own bodies, not anyone else's. I have no problem with tattoos, piercings, etc. I see circumcision as benefitting a parent's vanity, and not benefiting the best interests of a child. __________________ less I say, smarter I am

01-12-2006, 02:20 PM	#136 (permalink)
Johnny Pyro Hey Now! Location: Massachusetts (Redneck, white boy town. I hate it here.)	Just for the record, I'm circumsized and I'm very happy with it. __________________ "From delusion lead me to truth, from darkness lead me to light, from death lead me to eternal life. - Sheriff John Wydell

01-12-2006, 02:54 PM	#139 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	"Like pro-lifers killing abortion doctors to prove a point." I know you didn't just make that comparision. The way I'm reading it, yes there are a lot of "I'm circumcised that's OK" type posts. There are also a lot of people who are attacking those who would point out that circumcision isn't neccessary. I don't agree that we should "smack people upside the head", "kill them", etc. but I can understand the frustration that many feel in the face of those who defend the position by shugging their shoulder "what me worry" or doing it for aestethic reasons. I don't anyone can truly say that cicumcision is a neccessary proceedure (excusing those with rare medical conditions or religious reasons). Noone here has given a solid reason for continuing the practice. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-11-2006, 09:17 PM	#125 (permalink)
SERPENT7 Crazy Location: Gold country!	I went ahead and had my son cut. Mostly because I am, but also because mens body image is VERY closely tied to the peen. If it looks abnormal, or deviates from thier peers in any way, things can get rough. Especially in Junior HS. (All children turn into sadistic monsters right about then!) So essentially, i would rather trade off alittle sensitivity for a smoother adolescence.

01-12-2006, 04:23 PM	#141 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	It makes perfect sense that those against circumcision would be far more adament about it than those for it. Those for it view it as an inconsequential and common social practice - obviously they're not going to have any strong feelings about it other than "it's silly to be against something so simple" or whatever. Those against it, however, view it as genital mutilation. You expect someone to NOT be adamently against what they believe to be mutilation? That's just silly. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-12-2006, 04:55 PM	#143 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Yeah, the unnecessary mutilation of a baby boy's genitals is such a silly cause to get worked up about (You may not agree that's what it is, but that's what many opposed to it believe it is, in which case I'd consider a person of questionable character if he or she DIDN'T get worked up about it.) __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-12-2006, 05:11 PM	#144 (permalink)
Locobot is awesome!	Jesus is clear on the issue, "If [Circumcision] were useful, children's fathers would produce them already circumcised from their mothers." -gospel of Thomas.

01-12-2006, 07:06 PM	#148 (permalink)
serlindsipity Psycho Location: Boulder Baby!	i dont think it can be compared to female circumcision, when boys are cut, they can still be sexually stimulated. without the clit, many women feel nothing. I know the religious link to male circumscisions, but is there any for women? beyond control, i know of no other reason. enlighten me if you could. __________________ My third eye is my camera's lens.

01-12-2006, 11:01 PM	#149 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Well, first off, not all female circumcision involves cutting off the clit as has been mentioned earlier in this thread. As for a religious basis, while it is not explicitly required, as far as I know, in any sacred texts, many of those who practice female genital mutilation believe there is a basis for it within their religion. To address the accusation that those strongly opposed to male circumcision are so adament about it because they may feel that they have made the wrong choice for their children and are seeking reassurance from others, it's important to note that I have no children, nor do I have any concrete plans to have any, and there are others who have posted strong opinions against circumcision in this thread that, as far as I'm aware, also do not have children. Someone please honestly answer the following - it's been brought up before, but never actually addressed in this thread: What if I wanted to have my child's earlobes removed at birth because I thought ears without earlobes were more aesthetically pleasing? Would you fully support my right to this and not consider it an unnecessary and cruel practice? Earlobes have even less function than the foreskin does. To paraphrase UsTwo, I think pro-earlobe zealots would be quite amusing in their fervor over something which, at worst, makes it impossible to wear the typical earring. So, would you not only support my right to have my child's earlobes removed, but endorse the action as acceptable parenting as well? In fact, why not also remove my baby boy's nipples as well? They serve no purpose either. How many doctors do you think would perform such procedures? How many do you think wouldn't report me to child services for even SUGGESTING such procedures? __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

01-13-2006, 01:42 AM	#151 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	Hi all, glad I could pop back in. There are a few things here that need addressing. I’m not bothering with quotes as this isn’t about “billege v XXX” or something like that. First I’d like to address what this is about, and what it’s not. For me, on the “anti” side, it’s not about trying to convince a parent that had their boy cut that they’re bad people. Parents who chose to cut are not ogres, that much should be clear. They're parents who thought they were doing the right thing. I disagree with their course of action. However much I disagree, the last thing I would expect is a “pro” parent to suddenly agree with me, or anyone else who advocates against circumcision. For a parent to change sides, so to speak, they’d have to accept that they (if male) are mutilated, also that they chose to needlessly cut up their child’s genitalia. There's a lot of guilt to deal with if you change to saying, "Damn, I had my kid’s penis cut up for no good reason." Whereas, on the anti-cut side, I've had a lot of time to think about my dick. I’ve come from thinking all penises look like mine, to knowing that most in the world do not, to finding out mine was cut off with a knife, and left like it is now. I’ve thought it over, and I accept he's not "as delivered," that it's okay, and that my parents meant no harm. Come to think of it, I don’t think it ever occurred to me to feel angry at my parents about it. This choice, like every other they’ve made for me, was rooted in what they thought was best for me. If anything, they’re victims of the same societal mindset I’m advocating against. However, I've never pointed to my own child, and said "cut that there flesh of his genitals." Whereas, some of you parents have. The feelings involved in agreeing that was an incorrect action are surely intense. I’m sure that, because you’re human, no matter what decision you make there’s going to be some doubt. Any guy like me, pointing out a litany of reasons I feel the choice was wrong, should not be expecting a warm welcome. There’s going to be some strong feelings, and they’re going to come out. It happens. Additionally, it’s hard to get anyone (this certainly includes me) to look back at a major decision, and wonder if it was really right. To boot: this is a bit different than say, buying the wrong model TV or coffeemaker. You cut up some genitals, there’s no going back. To repeat: my goal here, if I can be said to have one, is not to convince a parent who chose circumcision they’re bad people, but to convince someone who’s not a parent yet to think about this critically. To think, really think, “should I cut off part of my son’s penis?” Other thoughts: The quality of this discussion had fallen in the last page or so, and that’s typical of most discussions. By the 4th page or so, you’re usually down to the hotheads going off topic, or getting desperate. We’re not there yet…but: We’ve got some obviously poor quality commenting going on. If you’re down to that, consider your next post more carefully. Let’s talk about some quasi-reasoning going on here, and move to discard it in the future. A few have attempted to dismiss the issue as they believe it’s not very important. ----Someone else is trying hard to convince you it is. The fact that someone you respect, as I’d hope we all do each other, thinks it’s a big deal should cause you to pause and wonder if they have reason to. Really examine your own thoughts, not just point out why they’re wrong. That’s such a cheap debate, and so typical. It’s not discussion, it’s “you’re wrong, no, you are, no you are.” Tricks such as calling another person’s thoughts “amusing” are just that, tricks. Every guy that chimes in “I like my cut dick just fine” is missing the point entirely. I like my cut dick too. No one’s saying you shouldn’t like your dick. Buy him McDonalds, and have a Coke and a smile. There’s no passion from the “pro” crowd “against” the “anti” crowd’s choice because there’s nothing solid to base the practice on. No one can tell me, and be solidly sure, that if I don’t snip my boy’s dick, something bad will happen. In fact, the vast majority of the world’s male population is surviving quite nicely with the hood left on. So did the cavemen, I believe the American Indians, and 2 billion Chinese are doing okay. There’s simply no reasons for the “pro” crowd to try to convince the “anti’s” to go get some scissors. However, the “anti” position clearly believes that circumcision is a harmful practice that disfigures a child’s genitals. Clearly, that’s more important to some people than “Coke vs. Diet.” To point out that one crowd seems more passionate than the other, and go from there to accusing them of arrogance born from fanaticism, is not a very valid statement. Additionally, to discredit a position because they’re “worked up about it” is similarly invalid. Many posts on the TFP center around a rally against American/world apathy. The last thing I find acceptable is the attempt discredit enthusiasm because it is enthusiasm. That somehow, because it matters to someone, and they’re taking time to express that, it’s not valid. I can’t understand that kind of inverse “not think.” It is to either parties credit that they are continuing to discuss this, in an intelligent application of energies. One or two have actually commented that the effort put into these posts is evidence that the poster cares too much about the subject. I’d like to do something most people don’t, and look at that statement thoughtfully, even though it’s been aimed at me. How much effort am I really putting into this? Do I feel strongly enough that circumcision is wrong that I’m writing my congressman? Nope. Am I protesting in the streets? Nope. Have I attacked any doctors for performing it? Nope. Maybe I’ve set up an “anti” web site? Nope. Am I even reaching a statistically significant audience with my posts? Nope. I am stating as clearly as I can, with as much diligence as I can, to a small audience of people that choose to come here for discussion. I’ve been around the TFP for a long time now, and I don’t think you can say I put this much effort into many threads. This subject I have strong feelings about, and a willingness to put effort into discussing it. Whoever condemns me for that does not belong on the TFP. Period. I don’t expect you who’ve chosen it to reverse, not at all. But, obviously, we’re not going to agree. My wife and I will choose not to do it to our son. I have posted what I hope are clear and interesting thoughts, and I hope that someone reads them and considers them before making this choice for their son. Until then, we’ll have to agree to disagree. note Agreeing to disagree was thoughtfully suggested by <b>healer</b>, who I viciously and wantonly stole it from. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend." Last edited by billege; 01-13-2006 at 02:08 AM.. Reason: grammer

01-13-2006, 04:10 AM	#152 (permalink)
analog Banned	Since the stimulation of the penis is still more than anyone could need (and many can't handle anyway), the penis is still capable of issuing semen to impregnate, and expelling urine, I don't see where the real "negative" is. It loses no functionality. The only thing it changes is the type of sexual stimulation you feel, and MAYBE the intensity- but until we have a study done of uncut, adult, sexually active men, who then get cut, have sex again, and compare, anything else is personal opinion, and not based on any kind of science. Polling is worthless, and "assuming" the nerves do this and that and whatever based on theory is just that- theory. Also... a very standard, frequently-practiced, and easily-rendered medical procedure is hardly something I would call "mutilation". I believe that the term "mutilated", in this case, is a matter of personal opinion, not fact. So if it's just opinion, mind your own business. Keep your hands off my kid's penis. Why do so many people feel compelled to dictate how others should run their lives? This whole topic is like Roe vs. Foreskin, for cryin' out loud.

01-13-2006, 12:48 PM	#153 (permalink)
Tachion Crazy	Circumcision Deaths Circumcision Deaths From: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/ Some babies die of complications of circumcision.1 There has been a need to assemble in one convenient location information concerning death from complications of circumcision. This page is designed to fill that need. ... Doctors are highly motivated to conceal the true cause of circumcision death. Neonatal circumcision has no medical indication and is now considered to be an unnecessary6 non-therapeutic7 operation. It is unethical to carry out such operations on minors who cannot consent for themselves.8 Consequently, most doctors who have a baby die after a circumcision would prefer to attribute the results of his unethical operation to secondary causes, such as infection or bleeding, while ignoring the primary cause, which is the circumcision that resulted in the infection or bleeding. It is, therefore, very hard to identify the total number of deaths that occur from circumcision. One senses that one is seeing only the "tip of the iceberg," with the vast majority of deaths from circumcision being concealed. The deaths undoubtedly cause an increase in infant mortality. Male infant mortality is higher than female infant mortality. It is not known how much of this increased mortality is due to the practice of male circumcision. ... There is a risk and it is not possible to determine how bad it is but it is there. Would you risk the life of a child given any probabilty, if the procedure is not about saving his life. Last edited by Tachion; 01-13-2006 at 12:51 PM..

01-13-2006, 12:54 PM	#154 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Of course they will... it looks good and women seem to prefer it. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

01-13-2006, 02:09 PM	#157 (permalink)
Jack Ruby Psycho Location: Belgium	No, it's merely pointless mutilation. - proud foreskin owner __________________ You don't know what you don't know.

01-13-2006, 04:44 PM	#160 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Thank you, SecretMethod. I was trying to understand how a religious ritual became a common practice in the US and your information answered my question. PS: I really like detailed information sources.