"Forced Genital Cutting," and Jewish circumcision

[dawny0826]

I'm not sure why you would assume that Canadian doctors would have less experience with circumcision. Yes, we have fewer circumcisions overall, but many of our doctors refuse to do infant circumcision, too. From what I hear, the doctors who will do it can get pretty busy.

I may be wrong, but I'd guess that a fairly high proportion of Canadian circumcisions are done by circumcision "specialists" (or at least doctors who spend a significant amount of their time doing circumcisions), while American circumcisions are typically done by "generalist" pediatricians who perform circumcision as just a small part of a broader practice.

... at least for circumcision done by doctors. I would assume that the average mohel is about as busy on either side of the border.

Okay. I'm nodding and pretending as if everything that you've posted there makes sense.

I'm trying to figure out how a circumcision "specialist" in Canada would keep a job or why anyone would bother with a circumcision specialty (ha ha!) given what you've shared about Canada's attitude on circumcision... Anyway...moving forward...

 

[Aquitaine]

I think the thought process is that attacking religious exercise without a rational basis makes one anti-semetic. I don't agree of course. But, I do find it interesting how many think they have valid reasoning for telling another parent whether they can make a risk neutral decision.

The most humorous part to me is that I don't favor circumcision. But, I cannot support the unreasonable infringement on a parents rights or religious rights. While I think people who feel strongly about the issue should make websites and reach out to talk with parents, they have no business trying to legislate their unfounded feelings on morality.

Where do you draw the line though, with that reasoning? Do you only feel that way with things which you consider "neutral risk", or do you also believe it is an attempt to legislate unfounded feelings on morality when we ban things like tattoos on children, foot-bindings, and FGM etc?

To my knowledge, Child Marriage is illegal in all states of the US, even though in some parts of the world it is a cultural and somewhat religious tradition, and I'm fairly confident that those who engage in Child Marriage use the exact same reasoning as to why people (usually meaning us Westerners) should not "stick our noses" into their business and invade the rights of parents to sell off their 10 year old daughter to a 50 year old man, for example. Because apparently in some societies it is economically wise and moral to sell off a young child bride to a much older man, as it somehow means she'll be given a more secure future and stable marriage - ergo it is seen as "neutral risk" or even "positive" from their cultural standards and perspectives.

Hell there are even posters here on RF who have argued that very position, because of their cultural background!

 

[mycorrhiza]

I think the thought process is that attacking religious exercise without a rational basis makes one anti-semetic. I don't agree of course. But, I do find it interesting how many think they have valid reasoning for telling another parent whether they can make a risk neutral decision.

The most humorous part to me is that I don't favor circumcision. But, I cannot support the unreasonable infringement on a parents rights or religious rights. While I think people who feel strongly about the issue should make websites and reach out to talk with parents, they have no business trying to legislate their unfounded feelings on morality.

I'd say that the right of the individual is enough reason. Some people who were circumcised against their will don't want to be, and that's reason enough for me. We don't allow earlobe stretching, scarification, tattoos, etc on children, so why should we allow circumcision?

If circumcision was non-permanent and caused absolutely no pain or stress, then I could see the point in calling those who oppose it anti-semitic (even though it's common among people who aren't Jewish as well).

 

[mycorrhiza]

To those saying that circumcision doesn't inhibit sexual function at all, what about masturbation? In non-circumcised individuals, the foreskin is a quite important part of that act.

At the very least, the person(s) who made the decision to circumcise a person who couldn't consent at the time should have to pay to give them a life-time supply of lube should they request it .

 

[Curious George]

I'd say that the right of the individual is enough reason. Some people who were circumcised against their will don't want to be, and that's reason enough for me. We don't allow earlobe stretching, scarification, tattoos, etc on children, so why should we allow circumcision?

Except it is not. The right of the individual does take precedent when their is harm without benefit. In the case of circumcision, there is benefit. Is it worth the harm? IMO, no. But no enough that a reasonable person would not disagree with me, and what is more- I understand that POV. Thus, I support that individual in making life choices for their family.

I notice that you hedge the choice in permanence. And I understand that you are talking about physical permanence. But, experiences are also permanent and can permanent emotional, cognitive, social, and even physical effects. I absolutely think that my parents should have taught me Chinese. Because I missed a pivotal window in brain development, I will never be able to hear or speak Chinese perfectly. "This is permanent damage they have caused me. I am permanently disfigured and can never experience life as fully because of their intentional and mindless abusive choice."

That is the argument that I keep hearing from some anti-circumcision crowd on these threads. There is another group who take a more even keeled approach wherein they focus on the unnecessary nature of the procedure. This side has very good points that should convince many not to circumcise their sons. Unfortunately these are not legal arguments strong enough to overcome either parental rights or religious exercise. Is it anti-Semitic? No- at least, I don't think so. But suggesting legislation? If I suggested it should be illegal to baptize your baby with submersion, or that it should be illegal to wear necklaces (including crosses) people might accuse me of being anti-christian. I could talk about how submersion in baptisms causes the baby to cry and they obviously suffer a shock to their system. Or I could talk about the dangers of wearing necklaces and how people don't really need them. Would those arguments be anti-christian? No. But, I don't think it would be completely shocking if someone said I was anti-christian for trying to pass legislation that prevented them from following religious practices- unless I had a very good reason.

You mentioned earlobe stretching. If I knew that getting my plugs for my kid would prevent ear infections and make ear cleaning easier, I would be on it like white on rice. Do ear infections need to be prevented in a way different than tubes, medication, and natural immune defense? no. But, different strokes for different folks. I would assume that many people get their child circumcised because it makes cleaning easier, and their child will likely suffer less UTI's as a result. Another group probably largely does it for aesthetics, and another for tradition. I would hope they look at the risks and decide if the risk is one to take. Those that do- are well within their rights. Parents must assess risk and make decisions.

When a friend of mine was pregnant she brought up circumcision. She told me that her dad was a Doc in the military. She told me that her father told her if she had a boy she should get him circumcised- because of the number of guys that he had to circumcise in the field because they had developed horrible infections. He convinced her because he told her that the healing time is better for babies, the pain is less and it is better to get it done where you are guaranteed the safer environment. She had a girl. But there are plenty of guys out their I am sure that were wishing their parents had circumcised them early on when they had to face the knife later. My point with this story is that the arguments just go back and forth- And at the end of the day it is roughly a wash. Unless something new comes to light or we alter our societies thinking- we simply do not have the right to step on parental rights or religious exercises.

 

[dawny0826]

To those saying that circumcision doesn't inhibit sexual function at all, what about masturbation? In non-circumcised individuals, the foreskin is a quite important part of that act.

At the very least, the person(s) who made the decision to circumcise a person who couldn't consent at the time should have to pay to give them a life-time supply of lube should they request it .

No one has said that circumcision doesn't inhibit sexual function. What been stated repeatedly is that studies do not conslusively show that circumcised men have any more sensitivity issues or penile dysfunction than uncircumcised men.

Uncircumcised men also suffer from penile sensitivity and sexual dysfunction issues and isn't uncommon.

You uncut folk have issues too!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay. I'm nodding and pretending as if everything that you've posted there makes sense.

Short version: sometimes, a small number divided by a small number is bigger than a large number divided by a large number.

I'm trying to figure out how a circumcision "specialist" in Canada would keep a job or why anyone would bother with a circumcision specialty (ha ha!) given what you've shared about Canada's attitude on circumcision... Anyway...moving forward...

As strange as it may seem to you, Canadians don't all share one brain. We even have people who are as zealous about circumcision as you are... it's just that there are fewer of them.

It's like horseshoes: very few people have horses these days, but there are also a lot fewer ferriers then back in the day too, so the ones that are left can get very busy.

 

[DallasApple]

I understand what you are saying Jeff..Not everyone gets a tattoo dare I say most dont?Yet there are skilled tattoo artist who keep very busy.

I think like Mystic has been saying.Since its an elective surgery for cosmetic reasons or for religious reasons it should be allowed but should be paid for out of pocket the same as a tummy tuck or a wedding is.

 

[Aquitaine]

No one has said that circumcision doesn't inhibit sexual function. What been stated repeatedly is that studies do not conslusively show that circumcised men have any more sensitivity issues or penile dysfunction than uncircumcised men.

Uncircumcised men also suffer from penile sensitivity and sexual dysfunction issues and isn't uncommon.

You uncut folk have issues too!

For the record (and I know this should be taken with a grain of salt) but living with a normal foreskin, and being "protected" by it - the thought of not having any foreskin absolutely makes me cringe.

I mean, surely it must hurt not having that natural layer of protection?! :cover:

:sorry1:

 

[Falvlun]

To those saying that circumcision doesn't inhibit sexual function at all, what about masturbation? In non-circumcised individuals, the foreskin is a quite important part of that act.

At the very least, the person(s) who made the decision to circumcise a person who couldn't consent at the time should have to pay to give them a life-time supply of lube should they request it .

Are you suggesting that circumcised men can't masturbate without lube? :biglaugh:

 

[Curious George]

Are you suggesting that circumcised men can't masturbate without lube? :biglaugh:

I think the suggestion is that circumcised men cannot masturbate as easily sans lube.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't care if adults get circumcised because of their religion, aesthetic preference, or whatever other reason, but I don't see why it should be allowed on small children. The same goes for tattoos, earlobe stretching, scarification, non-reconstructive plastic surgery, etc.

As I've said before, as long as it doesn't cause a lifetime of pain, loss of function, or have significant risk of serious injury, then I find the morality of such modifications to be pretty neutral.

It would probably be best if a culture discarded them, but at the same time, I won't really condemn a culture that does employ them.

FGM, foot binding, and neck stretching are things that do inhibit or destroy function, and often cause lifelong pain and problems. Hence they should be condemned and removed regardless of cultural considerations.

 

[Curious George]

Where do you draw the line though, with that reasoning? Do you only feel that way with things which you consider "neutral risk", or do you also believe it is an attempt to legislate unfounded feelings on morality when we ban things like tattoos on children, foot-bindings, and FGM etc?

FGM and footbindings without question cause harm. I have not seen the claims of the beneficial aspects of these except for social claims. i.e. a girl with bound feet will increase her chance at a better marriage. And a girl who gets very limited sexual pleasure and is sewn up, will more likely remain virginal before marriage which increases social value in some cultures. Given the harms, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who could argue that the harms do not substantially outweigh the benefits.

Tattoos for children are a little less apparent. While we see very little social value in tattoos, the harm is relatively small. If a culture had a greater social benefit to a point where the harm was negated or outweighed by such a benefit, I think that the choice should stay with the parents. In our culture, there is clear benefit, nor is there any medical benefit.

We can distinguish all of these by noting the medical benefits that male circumcision does provide.

To my knowledge, Child Marriage is illegal in all states of the US, even though in some parts of the world it is a cultural and somewhat religious tradition, and I'm fairly confident that those who engage in Child Marriage use the exact same reasoning as to why people (usually meaning us Westerners) should not "stick our noses" into their business and invade the rights of parents to sell off their 10 year old daughter to a 50 year old man, for example. Because apparently in some societies it is economically wise and moral to sell off a young child bride to a much older man, as it somehow means she'll be given a more secure future and stable marriage - ergo it is seen as "neutral risk" or even "positive" from their cultural standards and perspectives.

Hell there are even posters here on RF who have argued that very position, because of their cultural background!

This is an example where we as a society have because of the high possibility of harm and abuse have stepped in. If for instance you found a culture where the girls were married at 10 to 50 year olds but such a relationship was never sexual, and the marriage provided immense security then your only argument would be the deprivation of sexual actualization. Now if we also introduced the possibility of divorce or for her to own her sexual identity outside of her non-sexual marriage, I think that we would be harder pressed to view such a relationship abjectly.

 

[dawny0826]

Short version: sometimes, a small number divided by a small number is bigger than a large number divided by a large number.



As strange as it may seem to you, Canadians don't all share one brain. We even have people who are as zealous about circumcision as you are... it's just that there are fewer of them.

It's like horseshoes: very few people have horses these days, but there are also a lot fewer ferriers then back in the day too, so the ones that are left can get very busy.

I hear you...

I just got this odd (and inaccurate)vision of circumicision specialists in my head...you know...people who school and skill specifically for the purpose of doing nothing but circumcising and it just made me giggle...

 

[dawny0826]

For the record (and I know this should be taken with a grain of salt) but living with a normal foreskin, and being "protected" by it - the thought of not having any foreskin absolutely makes me cringe.

I mean, surely it must hurt not having that natural layer of protection?! :cover:

:sorry1:

Well, dude, you know that I support parental right to choose.

But, I can understand why the thought of having your "pee pee" altered makes you a bit squirmy.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Are you suggesting that circumcised men can't masturbate without lube? :biglaugh:

No, just that it's more difficult. You can't really grab the glans in the same way that you grab the foreskin, that would be very uncomfortable and provide way too much friction.
From what I've gathered (well, I googled it) the most common way for circumcised men is to use lube.

Circumcision has been used historically to prevent masturbation.

 

[mycorrhiza]

As I've said before, as long as it doesn't cause a lifetime of pain, loss of function, or have significant risk of serious injury, then I find the morality of such modifications to be pretty neutral.

So, should it be OK to give a small kid 1" earlobe stretches and full-sleeve tattoos without their consent?
(basically turning them into tiny metalcore fans )

 

[Curious George]

So, should it be OK to give a small kid 1" earlobe stretches and full-sleeve tattoos without their consent?
(basically turning them into tiny metalcore fans )

I think I touched on both these ideas, in earlier posts.

Are we going around in circles? Tattoos and ear stretching can be distinguished because they do not produce a medical benefit. But I imagine if small plugs were linked to a large decrease in ear infections you might find more kids with plugs.

 

[Me Myself]

I meant mutilating.

Sure, its mutilating, just as using shoes is deforming.

Its a nice catchy word, but nothing more than that.

 

[Me Myself]

No, just that it's more difficult. You can't really grab the glans in the same way that you grab the foreskin, that would be very uncomfortable and provide way too much friction.
From what I've gathered (well, I googled it) the most common way for circumcised men is to use lube.

Circumcision has been used historically to prevent masturbation.

I dont think I have ever used lube nor felt the need to. The desire, sure, but never the NEED.

I cant really imagine why would someone have problems masturbating themselves jaut for being circumsized, neither I have had the problem, nor my sexual partner has had the problem when humoring me.

Whatever you googled, its just wrong o.0