As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Circumcision: Your Thoughts?
Glyph
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/german-court-circumcision_n_1628405.html
So a co-worker and I got in a fairly civil discussion on this issue. We shared our opposing views regarding the actual practice of male circumcision being performed on young males where there is no immediate medical need for it, with me being opposed and he being in favor and we got into this whole back-and-forth for a while, with him citing things like hygiene and aesthetic appeal and myself citing things like how the foreskin isn't some extraneous flap of skin only good for collecting bacteria and stink but in fact an erogenous zone in its own right without which sexually sensitivity is significantly reduced, putting it somewhat on par (but not quite) with female circumcision. Eventually though, we cut to the core of the matter... which is whether or not parents have the right to force this operation on their children without their informed consent.
Eventually we did come to an agreement that they in fact do not, as the procedure is irreversible and the argument that "it's better to have it done while the child is too young to remember or care" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny and, if anything, is counter-intuitive as it completely rules out the possibility of males not wanting to be circumcised, which is usually the case with those who had a choice in the matter. The whole point is that as an adult, you're in a better position to make an informed choice. If you truly believe the benefits of being circumcised outweigh the costs, then, as with most surgical procedures, the pain involved shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Thoughts?
BERLIN -- A German court has ruled that circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to bodily harm even if parents consent to the procedure.
Cologne state court said the child's right to physical integrity trumps freedom of religion and parents' rights, German news agency dapd reported Tuesday.
The case involved a doctor accused of carrying out a circumcision on a 4-year-old that led to medical complications. The doctor was acquitted, however, and prosecutors said they won't appeal.
So a co-worker and I got in a fairly civil discussion on this issue. We shared our opposing views regarding the actual practice of male circumcision being performed on young males where there is no immediate medical need for it, with me being opposed and he being in favor and we got into this whole back-and-forth for a while, with him citing things like hygiene and aesthetic appeal and myself citing things like how the foreskin isn't some extraneous flap of skin only good for collecting bacteria and stink but in fact an erogenous zone in its own right without which sexually sensitivity is significantly reduced, putting it somewhat on par (but not quite) with female circumcision. Eventually though, we cut to the core of the matter... which is whether or not parents have the right to force this operation on their children without their informed consent.
Eventually we did come to an agreement that they in fact do not, as the procedure is irreversible and the argument that "it's better to have it done while the child is too young to remember or care" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny and, if anything, is counter-intuitive as it completely rules out the possibility of males not wanting to be circumcised, which is usually the case with those who had a choice in the matter. The whole point is that as an adult, you're in a better position to make an informed choice. If you truly believe the benefits of being circumcised outweigh the costs, then, as with most surgical procedures, the pain involved shouldn't be a deciding factor.
Thoughts?
Glyph on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Mutilating children for cosmetic reasons is barbaric and vile. The fact that the practice is "normal" doesn't justify it. Snip pieces of your own dick off as much as you like; leave minors alone.
If my kid is intersexed, I'd probably wait for them to be old enough to have some say in the decision. Circumcision on an infant for no medical reason, naw no thanks. Not for my kid, and I'd argue the point with folks to change their mind about it. Legislation... I am not particularly comfortable cause of the whole freedom of religion/anti-semitism thing and really legislators have bigger shit to be worrying about. None of which are totally compelling, but they outweigh the need for a ban.
Well, there's a lot of stuff to unpack here. I'll provide something of an overview, since I've been through this argument on other forums.
The hygiene argument holds no water; a foreskin is not difficult to keep clean, so it's really not an issue (certainly not one worth solving with surgery).
On the other side, the reduction of sexual sensitivity isn't a good argument either, IMO, as the science is inconclusive and subjective anecdotal evidence says people with or without foreskins can all have full sex lives. So that's a wash. (Comparing this to female circumcision is disingenuous; there are several different kinds of female circumcision, from removing the entire clitoris to shaving off a bit of skin. The former is analogous to a hypothetical procedure removing the entire head of the penis, while the latter is like male circumcision and just as acceptable [or unacceptable, if you take that view]. One of them is a brutal, barbaric procedure that robs girls of their sexual pleasure; the other is a harmless cultural practice.)
You didn't mention the medical complications argument, but I assume the German case broke the way it did partially because of that. As far as I know the risk of complications is as minimal as any other surgical procedure, so the question is more whether any risk at all is acceptable, which goes right back to "does the procedure have any actual value?" I think it does, both from a cultural (which includes aesthetic) standpoint and a religious one.
My personal experience has some relevance here. My father's side of the family is Jewish, while my mother's is Christian; I was both circumcised and baptized as an infant, to ensure that I could pursue either religion when I grew up. Even though I am not religious today, I am still grateful for my parents' choice. Both because I prefer circumcision aesthetically (but would never get the surgery done now, because of the pain and increased risks), and because it means something to me that, even when I was a baby, my parents took steps to make me a closer part of their family. There's a cultural continuity there that I find as symbolic and comforting as the fact that my middle name is also passed down from my father and his. And were I religious I would certainly appreciate it, as a ritual that would have brought me closer to God.
It's also true that if you hate being circumcised, they can sort-of reconstruct things when you're an adult; and if you hate not being circumcised, they can lop it off when you're an adult; but neither circumstance is perfect, and neither can happen until you reach the age when you can elect to have surgery anyway (18, if we're being ideal). So either way your parents are going to decide how you're going to deal with the first 18 years of your life, and in that respect, circumcision is just one of a million choices, from what you eat to what you read to what extracurriculars you take to where you live to how they raise you in general, that parents make all the time--and that they need to have the freedom to make. I would also support the right of parents to perform other, similar procedures on their children--I personally wouldn't pierce or tattoo (or whatever) my child, but if it made sense in the cultural context, I suspect most people wouldn't have a problem with it.
To summarize, I don't think there are any compelling arguments that a circumcision is harmful beyond any standard surgical procedure, but I do think there are aesthetic (less important) and cultural (more important) benefits to having it done, depending on the person. And I think that with that in mind, it's a choice we need to allow parents to make, because it's just one of many irrevocable choices that are going to shape their child's future.
I looked at the reddit thread on this article and was surprised (not really) by the number of people going "I'm glad my parents did it, I'd rather have it done when I'm a baby and can't remember!" ...obviously if it's a foregone conclusion that you're going to get cut, but that's exactly not the issue. They talk as if when they hit 18 they'd be like "sweet, I can finally buy cigarettes and get my dick snipped!" I'd imagine very few adults get it done. The point is whether it's an acceptable thing to do to a baby who can't decide for himself. If it was traditional to slice off an ear then you'd rather do it as a baby too, but that doesn't mean it's automatically okay. I'd rather err on the side of "no unnecessary irreversible surgery on other people who have no input."
2) Because of its effect on their identity, a large number of males will prefer, without any further argument, to do to their child as they wanted done to them. So more or less, if someone's dad was happily circumcised, there's a reasonable chance that if they aren't presented any other information, they're going to circumcise their kid.
3) Circumcision for religious reasons by the parents upon the child is totally unethical. Your religion simply does not get to have that amount of physical power over another person.
4) Circumcision for ethnic reasons by the parents upon the child is totally unethical. Ethnicity is your heritage, not forcing physical procedures upon someone simply by tradition.
5) Circumcision provides a good defence against recurrent UTIs which makes it a viable surgery for infants suffering from these.
6) Circumcision isn't necessary to help men keep their dick clean. Good hygiene does in fact deal with smegma and the like.
7) Cosmetically, yes, you will find men/women who prefer or hate circumcised dicks, depending on what's normal in their country. You will also find plenty who don't give a crap. Frankly, if someone has trouble with you because of your dick, that person probably ain't worth it. It's like a dude taking issue with roast beef. Don't be that guy/girl.
8) Regarding circumcision and AIDs, the WHO currently maintains that it is an effective procedure at reducing AIDs in sex between HIV positive females and HIV negative males. Condoms also provide effective countermeasures. So that's why you'll sometimes hear about Circumcise Africa, a set of projects to try and prevent the spread of HIV around Africa.
9) In general, even if a parent were to note that the procedure is beneficial for the child, we should also consider when it will be beneficial for them. A child generally isn't going to become sexually active until their teenage years; at earliest maybe 11, but most likely, 16 or older. Certainly, at these points, they are more capable of making an informed decision on the state of their dick than a newborn child is.
10) There's a fair number of things that can go wrong with circumcision, although most of these are of limited likelihood provided it is performed by a medical specialist in a medical environment. Back-alley circumcision and Hassidic Jewish circumcision, on the other hand, tend to be dodgy as all fuck. Don't do it to your child.
11) Conversely leaving a child uncircumcised tends to only have negative results if they come up with specific abnormalities, such as phimosis or partial phimosis. These are generally uncommon enough that they are treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than needing everyone be circumcised preventatively.
In no other situation do we think this is ok.
It doesn't.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=hss_pubs
Just saying, I wasn't just pulling things out of thin air.
Barring all that, there's no real benefit, and I'm leery of any cosmetic procedure performed on a child. I think getting an infant's ears pierced is both abuse and child endangerment.
And I'm saying
from personal experience
that this is a giant load of shit
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Just going to link the entire 30 page pdf for 1 (not even a page) section contained within?
I'll just quote the relevant info
And all that seems pretty suspect considering the bolded information comes from Rabbis in the thirteenth century and a survey. O'Hara and O'Hara seems legit, but I wonder if it was just another question and answer session like the others.
Screw science, I got anecdotes?
Just to be clear here, are you saying that you have had sex both before and after you were circumcised and experienced no change in sensation?
Believe me, the Jewish 'identity' has been quite happy to forfeit a number of Hassidic practices by and large. Indeed, only actually Hassidic Jews (or certain other Orthodox Jew denominations) - who most Jews acknowledge as batshit insane - practice the literal interpretation of all the social aspects of the 'Jewish identity'.
Children are allowed alcohol if accompanied by a parent in a large number of countries. The expectation is that a reasonable parent will prevent the child from abusing the alcohol.
So not even close.
How far are we willing to go in the other direction then?
Will we let parents cover their children's faces in religious tattoos? How about ritual scarification?
'You don't get to violate someone's bodily autonomy for non medical reasons' seems like a perfectly sensible line to me.
For the record, I'm opposed to unnecessarily cutting off any part of a child's body. While female circumcision is obviously a much, much worse procedure and injustice; I think the exact same arguments leveled against it can and should be leveled against male circumcision.
Context: I am circumsized, but if I have male children, will not be circumsizing them.
I was friends with a guy who was circumcised in his late 20s, and was sexually active both before and after. He said the sex itself didn't feel any different, nor did his orgasms feel any different. There are too few people who are circumcised after having sexual intercourse to have a good sample size for any kind of actual science on the matter.
As it is, it's based on "skin has nerves, therefore removing skin removes the nerves." I don't think it's barbaric, but I do think it's largely unnecessary and shouldn't be just on a whim.
Religion does not excuse child abuse, and ffs don't Godwin this before the second page.
In every discussion of circumcision this has pretty openly been the case for a lot of the arguments. Dudes want the kid to look like dad.
It strikes me as a peculiar custom. I wonder if people would be more or less alarmed if someone said, "Yeah, amongst my people it's normal for a man to get his sons tattooed at age 3."
Taking dudes' anxieties about dong normality out of the picture, would a different cosmetic surgery be viewed differently?
I don't see a lot of takers for the science on that one, yeah.
"Alright bro, you've had sex uncircumcised for quite a while. That seems like a pretty good control group, let's move to phase 2."
"Phase 2?"
"Yeah, we're going to cut off part of your dick, and then you tell us if sex is better or worse."
"How about no"
The most reasonable source of data concerning those claims would be studies done about guys who had a moderate amount of sex before and after and can legitimately compare the two situations.
It's the first covenant with god. It is a requirement to be a Jewish man. If you outlaw it, you are going to have to arrest mohels, parents, family members, etc. just for practicing their religion. To be clear, we are literally talking about the Germans rounding up groups of Jews and arresting them for practicing Judiasm. Is this really a route people think we should be pursuing?
So either it's insignificant enough as to not merit research, or perhaps a tendency to not report sexual dysfunction is obscuring the problem, but that would have to be a pretty statistically significant tendency.
I like the tonsilitus comparision above, but I also look @ piercing the ears of small children... I know of at least a handful of ladies who don't wear earrings, but have those piercings that haven't totally healed from when they were a child. I have no problem with it. I kind of wish I hadn't had my son circumsized, but I know I took a lot of crap at school about being un, and I didn't want him to have to deal with that, so I went that way with it.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
I have two boys. As [chat] can attest, I've overshared plenty with regards to this topic in recent months:
When we had our first son, we made the (possibly immature) decision to circumcise him based more or less on reason #2 above. Basically, I didn't want him to see me at some point, and question why he didn't look like his father.
When the time came to decide for our second son, we really had shifted our opinion on it, and decided despite the fact that he'd look different both from me and from his brother, we wouldn't do it. I think that was probably the right choice despite the fact that it added a lot more awkward parenting to our list of challenges while reminding him to brush his teeth and wash behind his ears and also clean his pecker, scolding him for a couple of UTIs he brought on himself, and even threatening to stand there while he did it if he wasn't willing to handle the hygiene without supervision. Still, right choice despite the annoyance.
Unfortunately he had a cosmetic (but serious - 90 degree angle near the end of his penis when erect) problem that appeared as he hit puberty, requiring reconstructive surgery. Speaking to the surgeon, he explained that he could preserve the foreskin but, as he said after knowing both I and my son were gamers, "it'll be like doing the procedure on hard mode". We left the decision up to our son, age 12, and he elected to get circumcised during the operation.
We're only a few weeks away from that and the stitches aren't even gone, so I'm not really sure how he's going to feel about it longterm, but we left the decision up to him and I think it was the correct way to handle things.
Really? You can't convert?
It's part of the covenant with God as space said... we're not talking about being Jewish in terms of ethnicity (or having a Jewish father would do the job too!) as much as following the Jewish religion. God makes the covenant with Abraham that (spoiled for long/Biblical if that's not your thing)
9 And God said to Abraham: “As for you, ryou shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. 10 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: sEvery male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be ta sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12 He who is eight days old among you ushall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person vshall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.”
If you're not circumcised, you are "cut off from his people, he has broken My (God's) covenant."
This isn't exactly a little deal to Jews.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
What about female circumcision? If that's part of a religion, do you think the state should not interfere? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster demands you cut of your baby's arm? At what point does the right of the child to self-determination outweigh the right of the parent to impose his/her religion on the child?
In my opinion, that line is crossed as soon as we start cutting bits of bodies. A tattoo on the other hand I'd probably let slide. There's no categorical allow/disallow religious indoctrination versus child self-determination answer here. The question is about where you draw the line.
I was circumcised as a baby for medical reasons, though it seems nowadays to be considered a last resort type deal, not the first avenue of treatment. And eh. It's just my dick. I don't feel like I was mutilated. :P
Does this apply to all religions and practices, or only the ones you personally approve of? Do I get to sacrifice my firstborn to the Great Juju at the Bottom of the Sea?