PDA

View Full Version : Circumcision (without consent)



kzig
August 6 2012, 05:13:09 PM
Under what circumstances, if any, should circumcision be lawful without the consent of the individual concerned?

This has been the subject of an interesting court case in Germany recently, and seems to have become a political issue as a result:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18909640

In relation to the above, should any distinction be made between male and female circumcision? If so, why?

I am not particularly well informed on this issue and would prefer to see what everyone else has to say before I post any of my own thoughts.

Joshua Foiritain
August 6 2012, 05:21:51 PM
Being circumcised is awesome. (Assuming its done in a hospital by a doctor that doesnt fuck shit up of course) I was circumcised at 16 or 17 if i recall correctly and would recommend it to everyone.

I have no idea what female circumcision means in civilized countries, i've only heard of it being used in places like Africa where if i recall correctly didnt really serve much of a purpose and generally just ended up disfiguring women.

kzig
August 6 2012, 05:26:02 PM
Please elaborate - why would you recommend it?

Rudolf Miller
August 6 2012, 05:40:42 PM
Not everyone would say that's a good thing.

The 'looks better' argument is a matter of personal and partner preference. 'Easier to clean' is a matter of not being a total slob.

As an American circumsized from birth, I'm left with feelings of regret not knowing how my junk was going to be like if left untouched. It's a regret no man should have to think about, so there's no reason it shouldn't be left for adulthood to decide on.

kzig
August 6 2012, 05:44:32 PM
In your view, do the advantages you've listed justify circumcision (at the request of one's parents) within a week of birth?

Irrelephant
August 6 2012, 05:44:45 PM
Please elaborate - why would you recommend it?

Because theres only upsides? It looks better, is easier to clean and desensitizes your unit.

I remember stumbling a site where the desensitizing got problematic later on for some guys. To the point where they try all kind of weird shit to get some sort of foreskin back.

NoirAvlaa
August 6 2012, 05:49:42 PM
Please elaborate - why would you recommend it?

Because theres only upsides? It looks better, is easier to clean and desensitizes your unit.

Edit: Actually there is one downside, during the operation there was a hot intern that watched the procedure. It was kinda cold in there, i did not impress :(

Fuck, I had the same experience. Maybe they do it on purpose... :s

NoirAvlaa
August 6 2012, 05:52:49 PM
Not everyone would say that's a good thing.

The 'looks better' argument is a matter of personal and partner preference. 'Easier to clean' is a matter of not being a total slob.

As an American circumsized from birth, I'm left with feelings of regret not knowing how my junk was going to be like if left untouched. It's a regret no man should have to think about, so there's no reason it shouldn't be left for adulthood to decide on.

Except having it done as an adult hurts like hell for 2 months afterwards, then leaves a clear "circumcised area" that's notice-able. But now sex is much better (for me at least). There's also higher chance of losing all sensation, becoming perma-flacid and having it look actually deformed (instead of the aforementioned which isn't actually bad, just notice-able) when having it done as an adult, as I was informed multiple times by various doctors/nurses before I got mine done.

Joshua Foiritain
August 6 2012, 06:13:05 PM
Not everyone would say that's a good thing.

The 'looks better' argument is a matter of personal and partner preference. 'Easier to clean' is a matter of not being a total slob.

As an American circumsized from birth, I'm left with feelings of regret not knowing how my junk was going to be like if left untouched. It's a regret no man should have to think about, so there's no reason it shouldn't be left for adulthood to decide on.
Well i've never met anyone who preferred the ant-eater over the space-rocket look but sure, its matter of preference. Its easier to clean because instead of pull foreskin back, rinse cleaning becomes do nothing because regular showers take care of it right away.

Doing it at birth would have saved pain, hassle and embarrassment.


In your view, do the advantages you've listed justify circumcision (at the request of one's parents) within a week of birth?
If its possible to do this without (an increased chance at) complications then i really don't see the need to outlaw it. On the other hand circumcision at birth is an important part of the religious indoctrination process and for that reason id be more then happy to see it outlawed.

I guess it balances out to "i don't really care". I'm happy to be circumcised, which at the end of the day is largely irrelevant because if i had not been circumcised i would not have known the difference and would have been perfectly happy as well.




Please elaborate - why would you recommend it?

Because theres only upsides? It looks better, is easier to clean and desensitizes your unit.

I remember stumbling a site where the desensitizing got problematic later on for some guys. To the point where they try all kind of weird shit to get some sort of foreskin back.
How would getting the foreskin back fix that problem? Apart from that im hard pressed to see how desensitizing can be a problem, unless it desensitizes to a point where it doesn't feel anything but that sounds physically impossible.

Regardless i doubt this is a common problem as it was not mentioned when i got circumcised. (which would be required by law as we have socialist healthcare :))

indi
August 6 2012, 06:16:17 PM
Not everyone would say that's a good thing.

The 'looks better' argument is a matter of personal and partner preference. 'Easier to clean' is a matter of not being a total slob.

As an American circumsized from birth, I'm left with feelings of regret not knowing how my junk was going to be like if left untouched. It's a regret no man should have to think about, so there's no reason it shouldn't be left for adulthood to decide on.
Well i've never met anyone who preferred the ant-eater over the space-rocket look but sure, its matter of preference. Its easier to clean because instead of pull foreskin back, rinse cleaning becomes do nothing because regular showers take care of it right away.

Not going to touch this debate, but I prefer the "ant eater" over your "space rocket". Not to the point where I would not have sex with someone who was circumsized, but I do prefer it. Doubt I"m the only one.

Edit: touching it sideways anyway. Female circumcision serves no purpose (cleanliness, whatever) and will not solve existing medical problems (foreskin too tight - there is no such equivalent afaik). No matter what shape it takes (ranges from just ceremonially cutting into the labia to removing clitoris, etc), it's essentially mutilation. Apparently the idea is that if you stop enjoying sex, you will be less tempted to be a horrid adulteress.

Smuggo
August 6 2012, 06:19:31 PM
IMO parents should not be allowed to circumcise their children unless for some pressing medical reason. They should let them decide as adults and if they buy into their parents' preferred doctrine of witchcraft then presumably they will do so.

Female circumcision as far as I understand just causes a lot of pain for the woman and is primarily used a form of subjugation so is utterly immoral.

Cue1*
August 6 2012, 06:33:31 PM
Not going to touch this debate, but I prefer the "ant eater" over your "space rocket". Not to the point where I would not have sex with someone who was circumsized, but I do prefer it. Doubt I"m the only one.

Edit: touching it sideways anyway. Female circumcision serves no purpose (cleanliness, whatever) and will not solve existing medical problems (foreskin too tight - there is no such equivalent afaik). No matter what shape it takes (ranges from just ceremonially cutting into the labia to removing clitoris, etc), it's essentially mutilation. Apparently the idea is that if you stop enjoying sex, you will be less tempted to be a horrid adulteress.

Why exactly do you prefer the ant eater?

As far as female circumcision, there's a western version that is done purely for aesthetics, but otherwise, yes it's just disfigurement and disgusting.

Fuggin
August 6 2012, 06:34:38 PM
I was circumsized as a baby and glad I was. I had my son circumsized when he was born. I will let him decide on his own son.

My dad, however, isn't circumsized and laments the fact that he wasn't circumsized at birth. Now at 73, he has to be circumcized for medical reasons. He's not thrilled about it.

Roam
August 6 2012, 06:43:34 PM
We had a great big debate about this in the day, and as I recall it became rather trollish and flamey near the end.

Suffice to say, while I respect everyone's own opinion on the matter, and am happy to know that Joshua is content with his mutilated cock, this doesn't count for everyone and the arguments being brought forth in the great circumcision debate infuriate me for being utter bullshit.

I've read up a lot on this subject as a result of a big debate with a Jewish friend of mine (and the FHC thread back in the days), and let's stop a couple of misconception in their tracks before the thread really gets going:

1) Circumcised does not equal cleaner. A lot of people don't know that there has been a long marketing campaign in the US (which affected other countries as well) to advocate circumcision because it was seen as more devout and less likely to induce lust feelings in young men. One of their fabricated marketing slogans was the concept of uncut penises being filthy, have cheese build up (which is one of those arguments that just piss me off, since it's technically true, but only if the individual in question hasn't showered in literally a month. Not really applicable in western society) and other such hilarious things regarding hygiene. It's utter bullshit.

2) The "it's more attractive" angle. Again, subject of the marketing campaign which proved to be quite successful, because many american women have never seen an uncut penis and grow up thinking it's bad and unclean. Here in the netherlands (which strangely enough is where Joshua says to live), the opposite is true. It's a simple matter of what the norm is in your country. Here, being circumcised is the minority, so a normal penis is considered more attractive generally. (not accounting for subjective taste, of course)

3) The "it's less sensitive". Wait, this is actually true but why the fuck are you listing that as a pro? O_o I kinda like me some sex, and it's been measured that you lose a majority of your sensitivity and therefore pleasure. Why would you want to enjoy sex less again?

4) Not a point mentioned above, but one I've heard often. Namely that it is "harmless". I initially thought this too until I watched a video where a physician explains a circumcision. At first I thought that "aww, the baby doesn't even seem to feel a thing, he's just asleep". Then the doctor explained "That's the baby going into anaphylactic shock due to its brain being overloaded by pain and shutting down. It's too young to cry out, so the brain just shuts down non-vital functions as it assumes it is being attacked."

In any event, watch the penn and teller bullshit episode on circumcision.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLGcqPE7xu0

elmicker
August 6 2012, 06:48:31 PM
I'm going to tattoo CUNT to my firstborn's forehead because a sky pony told me to and also because it's cleaner and more attractive and there's nearly no medical risks.

zergl
August 6 2012, 06:51:16 PM
fake edit: Beaten by Roamy's wall'o'text


It looks better
YMMV (thanks indi) and it's quite likely a culturally acquired taste and adhering to the norm (Judaism, Islam and the snip-happy USA). I've never heard any such preferences around here from either gender.


is easier to clean
Siding with Rudolf, this is a ridiculous argument. It might hold some water in some third world shitholes (like the USA? SCNR :p), but in an industrialized nation the personal hygiene aspect is an absolute non-issue unless you're a total slob in which case the foreskin should be the least of your problems.


and desensitizes your unit.
I fail to see how this is a positive aspect of circumcision. Assuming you can hold off ejaculating long enough to satisfy the missus without circumcision, I'd assume that it would be preferable to have more sensation as opposed to less.

I don't know if you were sexually active (not counting masturbation) before you got cut, but I've read numerous reports of circumcised adults around the web stating that in a before/after comparison sex was described as worse afterwards.

indi
August 6 2012, 06:52:37 PM
Why exactly do you prefer the ant eater?


I just do - it's like explaining why I like dark chocolate and dislike white chocolate. Matter of taste. Roam is right, it's the norm here and what I consider 'normal'. Like I said earlier, I don't find it important enough to let it stop me from having sex with someone who is circumcised. In that way it is not like white chocolate, which I would possibly eat if I were starving but would hate even then.

vOv Roam made a good post.

FourFiftyFour
August 6 2012, 06:58:43 PM
1. Bullshit or not, having no foreskin makes for easy cleaning.

2. It is considered more attractive in the United States which is where I live.

3. Sex still feels pretty awesome to me.

4. So? I dont remember it so I don't care about it. It is as if it never happened.


Whats not to like?

smuggo
August 6 2012, 07:01:33 PM
I've seen this thread before... Spoilered because of :srs:
http://i.imgur.com/dC28T.gif

Americans and your circumcision for the sake of it... all because of Mr Kellog. It's more aesthetically pleasing simply because that's what you're used to. Having an invasive procedure which carries with it some pretty nasty risks (even when done at an early age) simply to tidy things up simply smacks as wrong. Regardless, I can't think of many situations where I have to spend a great deal of time looking at my unerect penis. Nor can I think of many where a partner would be or should be.

The whole religious side to it is an anachronism, a hang up from the days when people dwelled in hot, sandy shitheaps (see also; eating pork, burying your dead before sun down).

Cleanliness? If you're not a slob then it's not too much of a drama to pull it back in the shower and have a little scrub. Even when I've gone days without a real wash it's no great shakes to give it a wipe with a bit of cloth or a wet wipe, plus there's few scents more manly than a three day accumulation of knob cheese behind your helmet.

Without a foreskin masturbation would be that little bit harder (read: a lot). Having to supply additional fluids to ease the process rather than just yanking one's slightly sweaty foreskin over one's bellend.

As for sensitivity... I struggle to see how denying yourself pleasurable sensations is an advantage unless you are a permanent badged up member of the Johny-Come-Early club.

Uncut=Superior

It's a procedure that, in this day and age, should only be carried out for medical reasons and should, otherwise, be held in the same regard in civilised nations as female circumcision.

Sacul
August 6 2012, 07:02:21 PM
As a Jew who is considered pure by Orthodox standards (both parents families are jews) i still thank my parents for NOT circumziging me and letting the decision up to me aswell as not indoctrinating me with religious bullshit.
If Joshua likes it fine, he was old enough, making the decision for a baby is just evil and retarded in my opinion (lol at the people who say no to female circumziging and its ok to do it to a male) and the Penn and Teller ep Roam posted says why.

Rudolf Miller
August 6 2012, 07:02:55 PM
It's always going to be about regret. I regret not knowing how it would be like to be uncircumcised, and others will regret needing to get circumcision surgery when it will suck much more as an adult. Here's the difference. They can make a conscious decision to get circumcised, and I couldn't.

My male kids will be uncut.

GiDiYi
August 6 2012, 07:28:31 PM
To sum this thread up:

Cut dicks are white chocolate. Uncut ones are black chocolate.

... This is RACIST. But then again: Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

On topic:

I don't think the OP wanted to start a discussion, if circumcision per se is good or bad, but if circumcision without consent of the person concerned should be allowed.

I am going to assume that we have a consent regarding female circumcision as being an evil act of torture, without any reason behind it whatsoever and therefore should be considered not an option when- and wherever.

Male circumcision on the other hand usually doesn't come along with livelong and painful consequences if done properly. Well, it does have livelong consequences, but it's not a major concern for most.

I really like the verdict of the german court, because it is very consistent in its application of german penal law as it is. Broken down to the base line: If a qualified person (i.e. a doctor) performs surgery in any kind or form, that isn't done in consent with the patient, commits a criminal assault.

There are exceptions to this baseline:

- If the patient is incapable of articulating his will, the doctor has the obligation to determine the supposed will of the patient. This obligation shrinks (in some cases to zero), if there is some kind of emergency at hand, where there is no time to determine the patients potential will.

- This of course doesn't apply to most cases of circumcision done at a very young age. It's usually done due to religious beliefs of the parents (where I live, I know that it's almost a standard procedure in other countries). The parents replaced the needed permission of the patient by giving their permission.

The verdict ruled out that permission as invalid, because the parents have no right to "harm" their child or give permission to "harm" their child, if there is no medical need to do so. It's just consistent.

Of course the judges were well aware of what they were going to kick off, but they probably just thought "let's watch the trainwreck unfold". I am kidding. They were well aware of the problem and gave the politicians a serious task to solve the problem and stop the current situation, where medical staff was working in a gray area for so many years.

Everything else without a proper bill that says "circumcision of male people without consent is legal, as long as the legal guardian gave his permission in written form and the person concerned isn't above the age of 6 months" or something would always leave that mumbojumbo gray area wide open. This ain't helpful.

tl;dr: Good verdict. It's up to the politicians now.

zergl
August 6 2012, 07:49:41 PM
tl;dr: Good verdict. It's up to the politicians now.

Which will end up in a law legalizing circumcision (Angie already has her mouth full with the, circumcised lol, cocks of jewish and muslim interest groups so I frankly can't see it ending any other way) which will instantly be appealed to the BVerfG (our constitutional court) which will then decide the juicy bit:

Weighing the right of the child to bodily integrity versus religious freedom of the parents.

Because if it wasn't for the religious aspect (exacerbated by playing the Holocaust card by some Jewish groups), nobody would have given a fuck about it in the first place.

cheeba
August 6 2012, 07:57:04 PM
My family is catholic but I was born in nyc and delivered by a jewish doctor and so my weener didnt stand a chance.

I have no issues with being snipped, but I did spend some serious time wondering in my teens if I was missing out on something and even just wondering what I 'would' have looked like.

To be honest, apart from the religious reasons, I think kids should be able to decide for themselves once they grow up. I do know adults who have decided to have the snip for aesthetic and practical reasons and had no regrets afterwards.

kzig
August 6 2012, 08:34:12 PM
To sum this thread up:

Cut dicks are white chocolate. Uncut ones are black chocolate.

... This is RACIST. But then again: Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

On topic:

I don't think the OP wanted to start a discussion, if circumcision per se is good or bad, but if circumcision without consent of the person concerned should be allowed.

That's quite right. However, it's worth covering circumcision in its own right in order to establish whether there is any overwhelming benefit or harm arising from it. Vaccinations inflict pain and are also applied shortly after birth without consent being given, but in that case the benefits for the individual and for society at large (via reduced transmission) are judged to outweigh the need for consent.


I really like the verdict of the german court, because it is very consistent in its application of german penal law as it is. Broken down to the base line: If a qualified person (i.e. a doctor) performs surgery in any kind or form, that isn't done in consent with the patient, commits a criminal assault.

There are exceptions to this baseline:

- If the patient is incapable of articulating his will, the doctor has the obligation to determine the supposed will of the patient. This obligation shrinks (in some cases to zero), if there is some kind of emergency at hand, where there is no time to determine the patients potential will.

- This of course doesn't apply to most cases of circumcision done at a very young age. It's usually done due to religious beliefs of the parents (where I live, I know that it's almost a standard procedure in other countries). The parents replaced the needed permission of the patient by giving their permission.

The verdict ruled out that permission as invalid, because the parents have no right to "harm" their child or give permission to "harm" their child, if there is no medical need to do so. It's just consistent.

Of course the judges were well aware of what they were going to kick off, but they probably just thought "let's watch the trainwreck unfold". I am kidding.


Many a true word is said in jest. That's more or less what I was thinking when I started this thread :p



They were well aware of the problem and gave the politicians a serious task to solve the problem and stop the current situation, where medical staff was working in a gray area for so many years.

Everything else without a proper bill that says "circumcision of male people without consent is legal, as long as the legal guardian gave his permission in written form and the person concerned isn't above the age of 6 months" or something would always leave that mumbojumbo gray area wide open. This ain't helpful.

tl;dr: Good verdict. It's up to the politicians now.

That leads on quite nicely to the next question: is it morally right for the politicians to declare this practice legal?

Cue1*
August 6 2012, 09:00:16 PM
1) Circumcised does not equal cleaner. A lot of people don't know that there has been a long marketing campaign in the US (which affected other countries as well) to advocate circumcision because it was seen as more devout and less likely to induce lust feelings in young men. One of their fabricated marketing slogans was the concept of uncut penises being filthy, have cheese build up (which is one of those arguments that just piss me off, since it's technically true, but only if the individual in question hasn't showered in literally a month. Not really applicable in western society) and other such hilarious things regarding hygiene. It's utter bullshit.

Military personnel deployed in active combat? I've got a picture of a set of MARPAT that's standing on it's own, no human attached, and it's not because the military creases are that good.

I'm not suggesting it's a gotta have, but there are situations in the world where people don't get to shower every day. We address the "western world" but forget that there are homeless who don't shower, military deployed who can't, hell even people who hike the AT who are otherwise normal citizens don't usually shower but maybe every other week if they're extremely lucky.

I really don't give very many shits on the subject, my rocket ship makes sex feel great, I lack anything to compare it to, but sex is still amazing. I don't see any reason why it's a subject of debate though, some people like it, some people don't. I see no reason why it should be outlawed, more of just a choice.

GiDiYi
August 6 2012, 09:10:41 PM
That leads on quite nicely to the next question: is it morally right for the politicians to declare this practice legal?

This is indeed the next step to the answer of the question at hand and I think that zergl summed up the decicsive factors to come up with a solution quite nicely:


Weighing the right of the child to bodily integrity versus religious freedom of the parents.


I'd sum up my mindset as a liberal atheist (i.e. dirty european communist for some Amurrikans).

Therefore I think that every decision with a permanent consequence should be left to the person concerned if feasible. In the case of a circumcision we have a permanent, albeit small, consequence. It is feasible to wait until the person concerned can decide on his own. Arguments against this are not really convincing in my opinion.

So far I've seen the following:

1. By doing it at a very young age, the person is spared a lot of pain.

2. It is a question of better hygiene. Sooner is better than later.

3. Uhm, I can't think of any other arguments at the moment.

My answers are:

1. Nonsense. The pain is there for the baby as well. I can't really remember the pain I had when I broke my collarbone at the age of 16, too. So what?

2. Nonsense as well. Unless you plan to live with your kid alone in the jungle until he's grown up, any shower in a somewhat civilized area solves any potential problems as well.

What goes in favor of an early circumcision? I can't really think of anything else in an objective manner.

Well, there might be the hope of religious parents to predetermine the fate of their son by doing it properly from the get go. I'd like to have some insight by people with some knowledge of Jewish or Muslim religion. Is it an actual obligation to be circumcised? I don't have no clue about this. Sacul?

kzig
August 6 2012, 09:47:18 PM
My understanding is that in the more orthodox branches of some faiths and cultures it's required within one week of birth in order for the individual to be considered part of the community, hence the strong desire of parents to circumcise their children (well before they can possibly consent). In Roots by Alex Haley there's also an account of circumcision playing a part in ancient Gambian rituals marking coming of age - apparently without the explicit consent of those involved (though, equally, with no mention of anyone trying to avoid it).

And so you have some people complaining that this denies free practice of religion, and other people complaining that Germany's past is being used as an excuse to deny a sincere concern for the rights of the individual, held by a democratic majority. Is there a way out of this conundrum?

zergl
August 6 2012, 09:57:54 PM
My understanding is that in the more orthodox branches of some faiths

Speaking of more orthodox branches of some faiths (and going a bit off on a tangent), even where clinical circumcision done by medical professionals is available, some ultra-orthodox Jews insist in doing it ye olde way with the mohel sucking the blood from the wound with his mouth. Remember: It's all fun and games until an infant dies of Herpes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html).

Ralara
August 6 2012, 10:00:43 PM
I'm of two minds when it comes to this subject.

From a purely logical point of view, there's nothing that suggests it's needed. Having a foreskin doesn't inhibit you in any way. Being circumsised does carry risks. If you take that as read, it's a "bad thing". I define "bad thing" as something in which the cons out-weigh the pros.

Is it "easier" - well, yes. But is maintaining "health" with a foreskin difficult? No.

I've considered getting circumsised myself but decided against it.

My partner is circumsised. He's from Indonesia but is catholic - it wasn't done for religious reasons but purely because "everyone else does" (Indo has the largest muslim population on the planet). A bit like America and Australia really - it's done because "it's done".

There's no need for it, but there's very little harm in it being done in a controlled environment (i.e. hospital).

Whatever. I think it's cruel to do it to a baby, I think it's unnecessary. It's NOT the same as "female circumcision" which is the removal of the clitoris, but it DOES take away feeling and sensation - at least according to two of my friends who have been circumsised from late teen years.

Personal choice - my stance is that it should be left to the individual to decide.

Ralara
August 6 2012, 10:06:08 PM
My understanding is that in the more orthodox branches of some faiths

Speaking of more orthodox branches of some faiths (and going a bit off on a tangent), even where clinical circumcision done by medical professionals is available, some ultra-orthodox Jews insist in doing it ye olde way with the mohel sucking the blood from the wound with his mouth. Remember: It's all fun and games until an infant dies of Herpes (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/nyregion/infants-death-renews-debate-over-a-circumcision-ritual.html).

That's not the first time I've heard that happening and frankly I can't understand why they do it - I'm not going to go all out and say they have a sexual desire that is the driving force behind the custom of sucking the penis of a baby but really, that sentence... I ... just typing it...

I'd like to believe there's more to it, culturally, but...

Yeah.

Stuff like that sh.. IS illegal, surely? I mean, it's an adult making contact to ...

huh?

zergl
August 6 2012, 10:37:56 PM
It's NOT the same as "female circumcision" which is the removal of the clitoris

Female Circumcision/Female Genital Mutilation is actually an umbrella term, ranging from "just" removing the clitoral hood (which is, frankly, roughly equivalent to male circumcision) or a ritual incision/nicking (without removal of tissue) over removal of the clitoris (worse than male circumcision) to the savage butchery that is removing pretty much everything and then sewing it up with only a tiny matchstick sized hole left to piss and menstruate out of (which is what I've associated with the term before reading up on it and hands down worse than male circumcision in pretty much every conceivable way) depending on the local ethnic background.

Have a WHO report about it. (http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf)


But yeah, this should not be a gender issue and I think both male or female circumcision (regardless of type) on infants unable to give (or even against a child's or adult's) consent is equally wrong and should be illegal just the same.

If you want to have it done to yourself as a consenting adult, cool beans, but stay the fuck away from kid's genitals unless there is an actual medical indication that would necessitate it tbqfh.



huh?
Yeah, pretty much.

ctrlchris
August 6 2012, 10:41:20 PM
Should only be done for medical reasons.

Im cut, I dont really care, but :shrug:

Spaztick
August 7 2012, 10:15:54 AM
Should only be done for medical reasons.

I'm cut, I kinda care, I resent my parents because of it.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 11:49:24 AM
1. Bullshit or not, having no foreskin makes for easy cleaning.

Not like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.



2. It is considered more attractive in the United States which is where I live.

By everyone? That sure is some sweeping generalisation right there.



3. Sex still feels pretty awesome to me.

Indeed, but less awesome. Getting paid 1/year would still be getting paid, doesn't mean it's good.


4. So? I dont remember it so I don't care about it. It is as if it never happened.
Whats not to like?

Except you no longer have a foreskin.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 11:54:56 AM
I see no reason why it should be outlawed, more of just a choice.

That's the point though, at the moment it's not a choice, it's "you're stuck with what your parents decided". Which is wrong. It should only either be patient choice, or medical problem that allows circumcision.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 12:00:34 PM
Here is a link with pictures of penises, click at your own risk:

http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm

I'm basically a CI-3 or CI-4 depending on temperature, so I have no "ant-eater" as the pro-cut people are suggesting. And I get to wank without lube. I guess maybe I'd feel differently if I was the full on ant-eater at the bottom of the page, but tbh 3, 4, 5, 6 all look p fine to me.

ctrlchris
August 7 2012, 12:07:48 PM
Here is a link with pictures of penises, click at your own risk:

http://www.newforeskin.biz/CI/CIchart.htm

I'm basically a CI-3 or CI-4 depending on temperature, so I have no "ant-eater" as the pro-cut people are suggesting. And I get to wank without lube. I guess maybe I'd feel differently if I was the full on ant-eater at the bottom of the page, but tbh 3, 4, 5, 6 all look p fine to me.

CI-10 scares me

also
CI-3 checking in

Sponk
August 7 2012, 12:58:29 PM
btw there's a few grades of female circumcision, some of which are horrifying.

However, there's a legit procedure where the clitoral hood is cut (top to bottom) or removed to provide access to the clit. It's sometimes recommended when your hood is too tight, or you have poor sexual response due to an especially thick hood. It's probably the least terrible of the options, and is vaguely analogous to male circumcision.

FourFiftyFour
August 7 2012, 02:04:32 PM
1. Bullshit or not, having no foreskin makes for easy cleaning.

Not like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.



2. It is considered more attractive in the United States which is where I live.

By everyone? That sure is some sweeping generalisation right there.



3. Sex still feels pretty awesome to me.

Indeed, but less awesome. Getting paid 1/year would still be getting paid, doesn't mean it's good.


4. So? I dont remember it so I don't care about it. It is as if it never happened.
Whats not to like?

Except you no longer have a foreskin.

1. You're probably right but it's WHOLE seconds of my life I'm saving! Zomg

2. By the people that count anyway. Current gf left her last bf when she found out he was uncut. Couldn't deal with it lol.

3. You can't miss what you never had. Besides, most of the pleasure I get from sex derives from my girl's reactions to me not direct stimuli. You might say its all in the head.

4. So? I'm okay with that and like I said above, you can't miss what you never had.

ctrlchris
August 7 2012, 02:09:43 PM
1. Bullshit or not, having no foreskin makes for easy cleaning.

Not like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.



2. It is considered more attractive in the United States which is where I live.

By everyone? That sure is some sweeping generalisation right there.



3. Sex still feels pretty awesome to me.

Indeed, but less awesome. Getting paid 1/year would still be getting paid, doesn't mean it's good.


4. So? I dont remember it so I don't care about it. It is as if it never happened.
Whats not to like?

Except you no longer have a foreskin.

1. You're probably right but it's WHOLE seconds of my life I'm saving! Zomg

2. By the people that count anyway. Current gf left her last bf when she found out he was uncut. Couldn't deal with it lol.

3. You can't miss what you never had. Besides, most of the pleasure I get from sex derives from my girl's reactions to me not direct stimuli. You might say its all in the head.

4. So? I'm okay with that and like I said above, you can't miss what you never had.

Well all that shows is shes a cunt.

FourFiftyFour
August 7 2012, 02:15:35 PM
It's true. She has such great tits though.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 02:18:05 PM
unless he was ci-10 she's a baddie

Aramendel
August 7 2012, 02:32:41 PM
You can't miss what you never had.

I do not think that is a valid argument.

You could say the same about the extremest forms of vaginal mutilation*. "She will never have pleasure in sex, but since she has never experienced it she won't miss it."
*Mind, I am not saying that the effect of male circumcision is anywhere close to that.

Technically this statement is even true, but it misses the point. Which is that life for the person would be better without X happening to him/her. That he/she doesn't "miss" that better life is irrelevant here.

FourFiftyFour
August 7 2012, 03:40:12 PM
I guess what I'm saying is that there is nothing I can do about me being circumcised and there is nothing you can do so why should I be upset about it? I don't hold it against my parents and I believe in my case it has helped my sex life.

Obviously there is room for discussion on the legitimacy of the procedure moving forward but to argue that my quality of life is significantly lower than a non circumcised man is absurd without some serious research.

Edit: confirmed full on anteater dick.

Hel OWeen
August 7 2012, 04:07:25 PM
Being circumcised is awesome. (Assuming its done in a hospital by a doctor that doesnt fuck shit up of course) I was circumcised at 16 or 17 if i recall correctly and would recommend it to everyone.


Same here (although I was 13 or 14). For me it actually happened in two steps: 1) right from birth the doctors noticed that I might have a problem as an adult with my foreskin, because it was too tight. They widened it right away, which according to my mother looked like a blood-bath. It was clear that the issue needs to be reviewed when adolescence starts and circumcision might be necessary. It was and I haven't regret it.



I have no idea what female circumcision means in civilized countries, i've only heard of it being used in places like Africa where if i recall correctly didnt really serve much of a purpose and generally just ended up disfiguring women.

From all I've seen/read about that matter, female circumcision serves no purpose at all.

That said, I applaud the German court for its decision. I admit that I'm a fanatic anti-theist ("atheist" is a too lax description of my anger and despise of any form of cultist rites). I'm always on the verge of running amok when yet again another stupidity that's normally forbidden by law is exempt from that law as soon as someone calls it a "religious tradition". We had something similar in Germany in the late 1990ies/early 2000s when animal protection became constitutional ... except for kosher butchering (Muslims practice something similar, ofc, it's not called "kosher").

Frug
August 7 2012, 05:04:27 PM
Canadian of eastern European family background here. Circumcised as a result of an overzealous jewish hospital that did the procedure without telling my parents. My parents had no idea, though until recently I thought they had made the decision. Somehow my mother still denies knowledge and claims I'm not circumcised even though I clearly am.

Result: I'm happy about it, and it provides an amusing story. I find it overzealous to ban what I view as a cosmetic procedure with potential benefits.


My family is catholic but I was born in nyc and delivered by a jewish doctor and so my weener didnt stand a chance.
Hail, brother.


making the decision for a baby is just evil

Hyperbolic bullshit calling it "evil" makes you sound immature.


I'm of two minds when it comes to this subject.

From a purely logical point of view, there's nothing that suggests it's needed. Having a foreskin doesn't inhibit you in any way. Being circumsised does carry risks. If you take that as read, it's a "bad thing". I define "bad thing" as something in which the cons out-weigh the pros.

Is it "easier" - well, yes. But is maintaining "health" with a foreskin difficult? No.

I've considered getting circumsised myself but decided against it.

My partner is circumsised. He's from Indonesia but is catholic - it wasn't done for religious reasons but purely because "everyone else does" (Indo has the largest muslim population on the planet). A bit like America and Australia really - it's done because "it's done".

There's no need for it, but there's very little harm in it being done in a controlled environment (i.e. hospital).

Whatever. I think it's cruel to do it to a baby, I think it's unnecessary. It's NOT the same as "female circumcision" which is the removal of the clitoris, but it DOES take away feeling and sensation - at least according to two of my friends who have been circumsised from late teen years.

Personal choice - my stance is that it should be left to the individual to decide.
This is a reasonable opinion. My only contention is with it being "cruel" to the baby. I don't feel I've had anything cruel done to me. I certainly like being circumcised and I'm glad I had it done at some point I don't remember than having to go in and have it done now. I think it looks nicer, and so does the gf, and her opinion matters most tbqh.

There is clearly some contradiction between calling it cruelty to me and having me be glad it happened. And this is without religion being considered at all. If I was jewish, then i'd have an even stronger case that calling it cruel is absurd. In that case, cruel would be forcing me to wait until I could comprehend what's going on because egads no thank you!

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 05:12:11 PM
So beacuse you're pleased and perfectly happy it was done without your consent, everyone else should be?

If you were jewish it would be MORE cruel, because it's not being done for health benefits, it's being done because of retarded sand-dwellers a long time ago who decided that "God made you perfect in his image, except that bit. Lop that bit off".

Frug
August 7 2012, 05:18:46 PM
You can't miss what you never had.

I do not think that is a valid argument.

You could say the same about the extremest forms of vaginal mutilation*. "She will never have pleasure in sex, but since she has never experienced it she won't miss it."
*Mind, I am not saying that the effect of male circumcision is anywhere close to that.

Technically this statement is even true, but it misses the point. Which is that life for the person would be better without X happening to him/her. That he/she doesn't "miss" that better life is irrelevant here.
It's quite relevant, and it's also the reason your example statement is terrible. It's an analogy that doesn't map for reasons that should be obvious. A woman who can't have sexual pleasure will still want it and will probably regret what's happened. It will bother her. This doesn't bother me. My desire is quite relevant and if you think it isn't you're delusional.

"Miss" is a semantically incorrect word to use here. "Desire" is the correct one. You certainly can desire what you never had. Sex is wonderful currently and I don't desire changing it up.

Frug
August 7 2012, 05:20:47 PM
So beacuse you're pleased and perfectly happy it was done without your consent, everyone else should be?
No, but because I'm pleased and happy it was done to me, there is a problem with your argument that it's cruel. The problem, in short, is that I think that's bullshit.


you were jewish it would be MORE cruel, because it's not being done for health benefits, it's being done because of retarded sand-dwellers a long time ago who decided that "God made you perfect in his image, except that bit. Lop that bit off".
I thought this was a serious forum. My mistake. I didn't think troll posting was encouraged here.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 05:23:02 PM
And what about the many people who wish they hadn't been cut? Is their viewpoint bullshit just beacuse you're pleased it was done to you and don't think it's cruel?


I'm not trolling. Making life decisions for someone else based on your own fairytale beliefs (which they might not even share) is deplorable.

Aramendel
August 7 2012, 05:30:54 PM
but to argue that my quality of life is significantly lower than a non circumcised man is absurd

Firstly, noone is telling you that your quality of life is significantly lower. We are not talking about you, we are talking about "the average man" here. Nor was the word significant or any synonyms of it mentioned.

To reiterate the arguments here about the effect of (male) circumcision:
- possibility of medical complications
- reduction of the sensitivity of the penis
+ very minor health benefit
0 regionally varying preferences of women

Now, you could argue that the sensitivity reduction is minor and is essentially countered by the health benefit. This is really a matter of opinion (since I doubt there are studies about that) and cannot be argued. And that the female preferences outweigh the possible medical complications. Which is also okay.

However, this would put circumcision in the same ballpark as cosmetic surgery (like a boob size increase) and it should be handled like that. Aka as something which you very much have no right to force on your children.


A woman who can't have sexual pleasure will still want it and will probably regret what's happened.

By that logic a woman who only had a partial mutilation of her genital parts - and therefore will still have some sexual pleasure, meaning she can sate her desire - shouldn't be bothered by it.


No, but because I'm pleased and happy it was done to me, there is a problem with your argument that it's cruel.

Seriously Frug - anecdotal evidence?
You do know most vaginal mutilation is done by women who suffered from it too? Most would bring exactly the same argument. They are also *happy* about it. But that does not stop it being a cruel and barbaric practice.

And again, disclaimer: I am not saying that male circumcision has the same level of consequence.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 07:28:32 PM
Nice of Frug to negrep me for disagreeing with him instead of providing valid counterpoints.

FourFiftyFour
August 7 2012, 07:29:18 PM
fairytale beliefs

Are you referring to creation myths or theism in general?

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 07:32:25 PM
We probably shouldn't turn this into a lolreligion thread, but I was mostly referring to what I commented on - the notion that you were created perfect but you still need a part of your knob lopped off. It's just utter madness.

FourFiftyFour
August 7 2012, 07:33:32 PM
Thats a notion that I can get behind. I don't quite understand how that tradition came into being but it does seem a bit screwy.

KathDougans
August 7 2012, 07:42:40 PM
sand can cause irritation and inflammation of the penis.

during the North African campaign in world war two, the problem was severe enough to require emergency circumcisions in a number of soldiers.

Cue1*
August 7 2012, 07:49:07 PM
I see no reason why it should be outlawed, more of just a choice.

That's the point though, at the moment it's not a choice, it's "you're stuck with what your parents decided". Which is wrong. It should only either be patient choice, or medical problem that allows circumcision.

That's a social decision not a legal one though. Legally, parents have full control over their children, at least in the US. Changing that would change a lot more than circumcision.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 07:52:03 PM
I see no reason why it should be outlawed, more of just a choice.

That's the point though, at the moment it's not a choice, it's "you're stuck with what your parents decided". Which is wrong. It should only either be patient choice, or medical problem that allows circumcision.

That's a social decision not a legal one though. Legally, parents have full control over their children, at least in the US. Changing that would change a lot more than circumcision.

Why? You couldn't walk into a hospital and say "Hey, lop my kid's ear off please" and they would. You only need to legislate circumcision, nothing else.

Frug
August 7 2012, 07:52:37 PM
I'm not trolling. Making life decisions for someone else based on your own fairytale beliefs (which they might not even share) is deplorable.

Deplorable is shitting up what's supposed to be a serious discussion because you can't refrain from interjecting childish comments to trumpet your opinion about religion. It outs you as having a shitty argument though, so that's not all bad.



but to argue that my quality of life is significantly lower than a non circumcised man is absurd

Firstly, noone is telling you that your quality of life is significantly lower. We are not talking about you, we are talking about "the average man" here.
I can repeat the same thing and say I believe it holds true for the average man. Find evidence otherwise? Show me where the average circumcised man regrets the horrors that have been done to him please. Do so and I promise I'll listen.


To reiterate the arguments here about the effect of (male) circumcision:
- possibility of medical complications
- reduction of the sensitivity of the penis
+ very minor health benefit
0 regionally varying preferences of women Not convinced on the last one, the second one, and the sum of this argument is pretty watered down to go about enforcing laws like this. It seems very strange to me to be concerned about this enough to enforce laws like this. It definitely doesn't seem to add up to the type of hyperbolic rhetoric going on in this thread, or your comparison to female circumcision.


Now, you could argue that the sensitivity reduction is minor and is essentially countered by the health benefit. This is really a matter of opinion (since I doubt there are studies about that) and cannot be argued. And that the female preferences outweigh the possible medical complications. Which is also okay.
That would be my position.


However, this would put circumcision in the same ballpark as cosmetic surgery (like a boob size increase) and it should be handled like that. Aka as something which you very much have no right to force on your children.
This is probably the best argument i've read here so far, and the best analogy because it's actually comparable... unlike female circumcision which is a really bad analogy for obvious reasons. My response is that there are both religious reasons that don't exist with a boob job, and that there are no perceived health benefits for it either (i suppose 'no risk of breast cancer' could be provided as a weak argument). There are still differences between the two that separate them. The aesthetic argument, while far more extreme when it comes to big boobs imo, is not that terrible. So now I ask you if you think all cosmetic surgeries, regardless of whether they are relatively risk free, should be outlawed to be performed on children? Ear piercing included? I see the logic, I just also find it a bit extreme.



A woman who can't have sexual pleasure will still want it and will probably regret what's happened.

By that logic a woman who only had a partial mutilation of her genital parts - and therefore will still have some sexual pleasure, meaning she can sate her desire - shouldn't be bothered by it.
First of all, you should really let go of this comparison for the sake of the strength of your argument. Trying to insist that they're even sufficiently similar to make these points is going to get shot down repeatedly.

Second of all, no. At no point did I imply what you're claiming here. If women's circumcision resulted in virtually no difference in their experience of sexual pleasure, such that there was serious doubt if there actually is any perceptible difference between having had it done and not having had it done, THEN you'd have a point. But that's not the case, is it? One is really fucking awful, the other isn't. You sound like you're trying to tell me that the situation among circumcised men is about the same as what happens to these women. Seriously.



And again, disclaimer: I am not saying that male circumcision has the same level of consequence. They're so significantly different that this tiny disclaimer should probably be very big and actually factored into your points, which imo are totally nullified by how bad this comparison is. It started with the claim that somehow the position that men like myself are ok with it implies that women should be okay with a far worse thing being done to them, and it's never gotten any better. You might as well go all the way and compare circumcision to having my penis cut right off, cause that's about where female circumcision sits with me.

elmicker
August 7 2012, 08:01:59 PM
They're so significantly different that this tiny disclaimer should probably be very big and actually factored into your points, which imo are totally nullified by how bad this comparison is.

stop being so fucking retarded. the magnitude of the mutilation has no bearing on this discussion, nor does the resultant quality of life.

indisputable facts.

male circumcision is:
1) Permanent
2) Painful
3) Medically unnecessary in all but a handful of children

Therefore, any doctor doing it should be struck off. Any parent allowing an unqualified cultist to suck the spirits out of their child's penis should be imprisoned.

That is the only logical conclusion.

Why people are prattling on about nonsense like "oh well i don't mind it" is perplexing me. I wouldn't particularly mind a tattoo of CUNT on my foreheard, but if my parents had forced such a tattoo upon me at birth based on either some spurious cosmetic choice subject to changing fashions or the voice of an imaginary floating teapot in the sky, they'd be fucking imprisoned. Yet, for some reason so many people who are otherwise rational (you do not fall into otherwise rational, frug, you're irrational all of the time) jump to defend the practice of routine genital mutilation seemingly because it was done to them and they don't want to come to the conclusion that what their parents had done to them was in fact one of the most reprehensible things you can do to another human in a liberal society.

Frug
August 7 2012, 08:04:53 PM
They're so significantly different that this tiny disclaimer should probably be very big and actually factored into your points, which imo are totally nullified by how bad this comparison is.

stop being so fucking retarded. the magnitude of the mutilation has no bearing on this discussion, nor does the resultant quality of life.
Thank you Elmicker, for responding with exactly what I added to the end of my post. If you think the magnitude of it has no bearing, stop beating around the bush and compare it to cutting the penis right off. Admit that your position relies on this comparison to stop making it look as though it's more subtle than that.


Therefore, any doctor doing it should be struck off. Any parent allowing an unqualified cultist to suck the spirits out of their child's penis should be imprisoned.

That is the only logical conclusion.:lol:

If the magnitude of it doesn't matter, it should be equally illegal to pierce a girl's ears before she can decide for herself. Those doctors, too, should be "struck off".

elmicker
August 7 2012, 08:06:05 PM
itt: why this subforum was a fucking retarded idea

(by that i mean frug)

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 08:28:50 PM
Frug you still seem to be missing the point that there's no good reason that it SHOULD be the parents decision. If it's not to correct a medical problem, and therefore is for the purpose of cosmetics/"because we want to" then it should be entirely up to the person, not their relatives.

Aramendel
August 7 2012, 08:48:47 PM
Not convinced on the last one, the second one...

I do not really see what the issue about these points are, they seem rather logical to me.

- reduction of the sensitivity of the penis
For me, when not in "siege mode", the rim of the corona of my penis is covered by my foreskin. It is by far the most sensitive area of it, to the extend that it would distract me if it wouldn't be covered because there would be regularly some friction between it and my underpants.
*Of course* will an area loose some sensitivity if it is touched more often. Denying that is like saying you won't get rougher hands if you do a lot of hard physical work with them.

- regionally varying preferences of women
In the EU it is rather rare to be circumcised unless a) you are Jewish/Muslim or b) you had a medical condition. In other words, circumcised equals here unfamiliar/weird. Nor is here any image about being circumcised = clean or moral or whatever. So basically, a circumcised penis looks for most women here strange. Which is a total turn-on I have heard. So, yes, of course the "sexiness" of it varies regionally.


My response is that there are both religious reasons that don't exist with a boob job

By fridge groups. You cannot use that as justification for the mainstream.


and that there are no perceived health benefits for it either

Like what? Please do not say "cleanliness" because that as has been already mentioned is utter pull. It is hard to wipe your ass than to keep an uncircumcised penis clean.

And noone here says you shouldn't be able to circumcise if there is a real medical reason for this, like a too narrow opening in the foreskin.


So now I ask you if you think all cosmetic surgeries, regardless of whether they are relatively risk free, should be outlawed to be performed on children? Ear piercing included?

Ear piercings grow closed if you do not use them. Does foreskin grow back?

What other "cosmetic surgeries" would you list? Would you compare a foreskin to hare lips or vestigial tails?


Trying to insist that they're even sufficiently similar to make these points is going to get shot down repeatedly.

Except I don't. Which is why I keep adding these disclaimers. It should be rather obvious that they do not have the same effect - or, better, that their effect has not the same strength - but I know how FHC loves quoting out of context.

My point is that it does not matter how strong an effect is, if you find an argument like "You can't miss what you never had." valid with a small effect it is also valid for a large effect. Or is some magical cutoff somewhere where it stops being valid? At a 5% reduction? 10%? 25%? Why?

Frug
August 7 2012, 09:03:28 PM
Frug you still seem to be missing the point that there's no good reason that it SHOULD be the parents decision.
I thought the reason we ought to be giving parents the benefit of the doubt on all decisions of this sort, unless it's absolutely necessary to intervene, was obvious enough not to need to be stated explicitly.

Do you think we ought to outlaw having girls' ears pierced before they can consent to it? There is no good reason to do it at all. Otherwise, if it's ok, we need to talk about when it's right to intervene and when we should stay the fuck out of people's lives.

At what point we step in and tell parents that we know better than they do is a matter of opinion that is and should always be flexible and open to debate. Unless and until it reaches a certain point that it will sufficiently impact the person's life, I think we ought to keep out. Making blanket rules to apply to all people and all things is always going to accidentally catch the wrong people for doing things they are doing for a justified reason. Parents who want to do something that isn't definitely so bad that we've got to stop it to make sure their kid isn't fucked up should be allowed to do it on the off chance that maybe they know something you don't. I'm not enticed by the idea of getting in the way of that.

Your attitude toward people's religion is a good allusion to your position on this. Instead of realizing that a jewish guy is probably happy and proud to do weird jewish things (like be circumcised) that you don't like, you back your position on banning them by judging the rationality of his religion. What should be relevant is his happiness, not your derision of why he is happy. When you start using that position to step on people's toes because you know better than them, it's going to cause harm.

Cue1*
August 7 2012, 09:05:08 PM
Why? You couldn't walk into a hospital and say "Hey, lop my kid's ear off please" and they would. You only need to legislate circumcision, nothing else.

You can, however, walk into a hospital and say "Hey my kid has gang green and we don't care to treat it, lop his arm off instead." or "Hey my kid has this weird looking mark on him, can you take it off?" And they will do both. Circumcision is most akin to braces than anything else. Parents force kids to have braces all the time, why is circumcision any different?

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 09:22:56 PM
I may as well reply to the both of you at the same time:

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different. If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this? If it made me super happy as a parent to tattoo "I'm the best" on my kid's forehead I wouldn't be allowed would I?


If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?

zergl
August 7 2012, 09:30:19 PM
I may as well reply to the both of you at the same time:

Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?

Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different. If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?

Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this? If it made me super happy as a parent to tattoo "I'm the best" on my kid's forehead I wouldn't be allowed would I?


If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?

The earring and braces analogies are really utterly ridiculous. On the religious side, I'd like to point out Sacul's post again:


As a Jew who is considered pure by Orthodox standards (both parents families are jews) i still thank my parents for NOT circumziging me and letting the decision up to me aswell as not indoctrinating me with religious bullshit.
If Joshua likes it fine, he was old enough, making the decision for a baby is just evil and retarded in my opinion (lol at the people who say no to female circumziging and its ok to do it to a male) and the Penn and Teller ep Roam posted says why.


Freedom of religion can also mean the freedom of the child to choose his own religion (or lack thereof) when reaching maturity.

Frug
August 7 2012, 09:36:33 PM
Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?
Actually you're wrong on both counts. If you pierce a girl's ears early enough, that's how they stay. Surprise! My girlfriend is like that. She hates earrings but forever has horrible little holes in her ears.
The braces aren't the point. The change in a person's teeth are the point. That stays as well. Braces are like the scalpel used in circumcision - they're a tool. The effect is permanent and, in most cases, cosmetic. Try again.



Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different.
Circumcision and stoning children are not overly different ITT. My god, man. My god. What have we done.

Think of the children.


If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?
Indeed. And what if you refer back to my original example: What if he follows the religious beliefs of his parents and is forced to endure something later in his life, under more difficult circumstances, because you're forcing your opinions on them?

I think both cases are undesirable. However one is left in the hands of his parents and the other in the hands of a legal system.


Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this? It's not. Please refer to my previous point here, or the post where I said this the first time.


If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?
You tell me why I think these two things are different. I can come up with some reasons but I'm wondering if you can.

Frug
August 7 2012, 10:00:09 PM
Sorry Ara, I didn't notice your post. I think you have the best argument so far, any way.



I do not really see what the issue about these points are, they seem rather logical to me.Not illogical, just not sure I believe they're true.



- reduction of the sensitivity of the penis
For me, when not in "siege mode", the rim of the corona of my penis is covered by my foreskin. It is by far the most sensitive area of it, to the extend that it would distract me if it wouldn't be covered because there would be regularly some friction between it and my underpants.
*Of course* will an area loose some sensitivity if it is touched more often. Denying that is like saying you won't get rougher hands if you do a lot of hard physical work with them.
That sensitive rim is still relatively covered. I get the impression you think this procedure is more severe than it is. I would show you and let you touch it, but... no I wouldn't do that. You'll have to trust me when i say it's fine. Perhaps it's worse for other men but I doubt it. Perhaps I'm willfully ignorant and perhaps I will spend some time examining pictures, but at least for me, your claim isn't holding. Only the front is exposed, it looks nice imo, the gf agrees, and when erect at least they're the same. I'd also present the concern that more sensitivity would reduce my stamina? Some days I use a condom to last longer. Anyway I still don't envy you or desire to be different, or believe that's the case for other men in my position. I think you're just guessing.


- regionally varying preferences of women
In the EU it is rather rare to be circumcised unless a) you are Jewish/Muslim or b) you had a medical condition. In other words, circumcised equals here unfamiliar/weird. Nor is here any image about being circumcised = clean or moral or whatever. So basically, a circumcised penis looks for most women here strange. Which is a total turn-on I have heard. So, yes, of course the "sexiness" of it varies regionally.
Yeah but I live here. Also my gf may just be being nice to me but I think it's a purely aesthetic thing.



My response is that there are both religious reasons that don't exist with a boob job
By fridge groups. You cannot use that as justification for the mainstream.
You were being so reasonable up until you suggested outlawing people's religious practices because you've declared them a fringe group. At least I think you meant fringe and not fridge. Anyway that's retarded, you're losing points from what would be a reasonable position every time you say something this dumb. Not touching it. Clearly we don't see eye to eye on people's religious freedoms here or how to respect people's weird beliefs.



and that there are no perceived health benefits for it either

Like what? Please do not say "cleanliness" because that as has been already mentioned is utter pull. It is hard to wipe your ass than to keep an uncircumcised penis clean.
Google it. Come back after you have done so. It's all there. Not going to copy pasta for you.



Ear piercings grow closed if you do not use them. Does foreskin grow back?Cute attempt to skirt the issue without answering. No piercings do not always grow back. Please try again.

zergl
August 7 2012, 10:16:38 PM
Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?
Actually you're wrong on both counts. If you pierce a girl's ears early enough, that's how they stay. Surprise! My girlfriend is like that. She hates earrings but forever has horrible little holes in her ears.
The braces aren't the point. The change in a person's teeth are the point. That stays as well. Braces are like the scalpel used in circumcision - they're a tool. The effect is permanent and, in most cases, cosmetic. Try again.
The thing with braces is that they are corrective and they are not necessarily purely cosmetic and I can see literally no upside to having crooked teeth while I'm very much attached to my foreskin.
And even if it was done for purely cosmetic reasons, kids are assholes and may or may not bully/mock the hell out of you which is arguably worse for a kid than having the decision being made for them. (This argument goes for any type of corrective/reconstructive procedure.)
Which admittedly can also apply to circumcisions (shower room at school or sports clubs in a high circumcision environment) which is conveniently is solved by a blanket ban on doing it on kids because then nobody has them. \o/

And piercing ears at such an early age should be illegal.



Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different.
Circumcision and stoning children are not overly different ITT. My god, man. My god. What have we done.

Think of the children.

The point is not comparing it with circumcision, it's that religious laws can change/adapt to modern society.



If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?
Indeed. And what if you refer back to my original example: What if he follows the religious beliefs of his parents and is forced to endure something later in his life, under more difficult circumstances, because you're forcing your opinions on them?

I think both cases are undesirable. However one is left in the hands of his parents and the other in the hands of a legal system.

I would argue that it's a bloody good test of faith. Instead of the pussy approach of having it done to you before you can consciously remember (which only applies to Jews anyway with their 8 days rule; Muslims can do it a lot later and actually may remember getting their junk paraded and snipped in front of a huge audience which some party poopers may consider to be traumatic) you now can prove your faith by taking it like a man.

Dark Flare
August 7 2012, 10:53:53 PM
Analogies to braces and ear piercing? Really? You realise braces aren't permanently attached to your face, and if you so wish you can grow an ear piercing out?
Actually you're wrong on both counts. If you pierce a girl's ears early enough, that's how they stay. Surprise! My girlfriend is like that. She hates earrings but forever has horrible little holes in her ears.
The braces aren't the point. The change in a person's teeth are the point. That stays as well. Braces are like the scalpel used in circumcision - they're a tool. The effect is permanent and, in most cases, cosmetic. Try again.

Except the effect of braces is entirely beneficial. The effect of circumcision is not. Also you don't tend to have braces before you can talk, and express an opinion, what with milk teeth being non-permanent.

I would like to take a moment to point out here that you're saying:
A non-circumcised penis is analogous to crooked, wonky teeth.
A circumcised penis is analogous to straight, nice teeth.
Really? You're either trolling, don't understand what foreskin is, or are too set in the mentality that "however my body is is obviously correct!" to think logically.

Re: Earrings, my view is there should be a minimum age for those too as it happens, probably somewhere between 12 and 16. But that's not for this thread.





Frug, there's plenty of things in religion we have banned or no longer follow (hello stoning your own children), this is not overly different.
Circumcision and stoning children are not overly different ITT. My god, man. My god. What have we done.

Think of the children.


I assume you're being deliberately obtuse. I was making a point that religions have to change their behavior to what's socially acceptable.




If the parent does it for religious reasons and the child grows up as an atheist, how do you think he'll feel about that? A constant reminder on his own body that he is a very different person to his parents, and yet they tried to force their beliefs and customs on him?
Indeed. And what if you refer back to my original example: What if he follows the religious beliefs of his parents and is forced to endure something later in his life, under more difficult circumstances, because you're forcing your opinions on them?

I think both cases are undesirable. However one is left in the hands of his parents and the other in the hands of a legal system.

A legal system is somewhat more rational and fair than the whim of your average person.




Why is the happiness of the parents even a point in this? It's not. Please refer to my previous point here, or the post where I said this the first time.


If circumcision happened as the parents decision at 18 years old, there'd be a public outcry. Imagine waking up on your 18th birthday and you mum saying "Oh whilst you were drunk last night I chopped a bit of your penis off". That would be entirely not okay, right?
So why is it okay if you do it 18 years earlier?
You tell me why I think these two things are different. I can come up with some reasons but I'm wondering if you can.

Presumably because at 18 a person is capable of making that decision themself. Which, frankly, is when any non-medically-important work like that should be done.


I think it would be beneficial to steer this thread away from religion at this point. It has been demonstrated many, many times on FHC/SHC/Every forum ever/Real life that religion topics are a conversational dead-end because neither side will accept the other side's opinion.

For the continued discussion I would suggest we say there are two special cases:
1. Religion
2. Medical necessity (I don't think anyone was arguing against this anyway)

So the type of circumcision we're debating is where the parent gets it done just because they want to/prefer it/it was done to them/whatever other non-medical non-religious reason.

Aramendel
August 7 2012, 11:21:42 PM
That sensitive rim is still relatively covered. I get the impression you think this procedure is more severe than it is. I would show you and let you touch it, but... no I wouldn't do that. You'll have to trust me when i say it's fine. Perhaps it's worse for other men but I doubt it. Perhaps I'm willfully ignorant and perhaps I will spend some time examining pictures, but at least for me, your claim isn't holding. Only the front is exposed, it looks nice imo, the gf agrees, and when erect at least they're the same. I'd also present the concern that more sensitivity would reduce my stamina? Some days I use a condom to last longer. Anyway I still don't envy you or desire to be different, or believe that's the case for other men in my position. I think you're just guessing.

*sigh* "Relatively covered" is not "covered". Could you clarify that a bit more? Dark Flare posted a chart on page 2. All photos of circumcised penises I found looked like CI-1 or CI-2 and there it is very much not "relatively covered".
You are accusing me of skirting the issue when you keep doing exactly that. Answer me two simple questions:

a) Does an area of your skin which experiences regular friction become less sensitive to said friction? Yes/no?
b) Is a circumcised penis more exposed to friction? Yes/no?

That is not guessing, that is a pretty clear logical chain. Or could you explain by which magic a penis is exempt to this sensitivity loss which applies to every other body part? That you "feel fine" is utterly useless. Do you know the before/after? No? The only persons who can classify this are those who had a circumcision after they became sexually active and behold, a loss of sensitivity is mentioned.

You might argue that it is not significant, but claiming there is none is just putting your head in the sand.

Actually, since you told me to look for sources myself I found also other nice things. Like this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977):

...There were no significant differences in sexual drive, erection, ejaculation, and ejaculation latency time between circumcised and uncircumcised men. Masturbatory pleasure decreased after circumcision in 48% of the respondents, while 8% reported increased pleasure. Masturbatory difficulty increased after circumcision in 63% of the respondents but was easier in 37%. About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision...

And this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947):

...Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men...

So, yeah, I think we can assume some degree of sensitivity loss as given. Next!


Yeah but I live here.

Do I really need to explain to you why that is no counter to "regionally varying preferences of women"? You know the meaning of "regionally "?


You were being so reasonable up until you suggested outlawing people's religious practices because you've declared them a fringe group.

Please quote me where I suggest that. The person who is "losing points" is you because either you are not reading my posts carefully or are trying to put words in my mouth to strengthen your side. Either way it is a poor argumentation style.


Google it. Come back after you have done so. It's all there. Not going to copy pasta for you.

Like this (http://mdm.sagepub.com/content/24/6/584.abstract) one?

Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.

Or this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9393302) one?

...The circumcised penis requires more care than the intact penis during the first 3 years of life. Parents should be instructed to retract and clean any skin covering the glans in circumcised boys, to prevent adhesions forming and debris from accumulating. Penile inflammation (balanitis) may be more common in circumcised boys; preputial stenosis (phimosis) affects circumcised and intact boys with equal frequency. The revision of circumcision for purely cosmetic reasons should be discouraged on both medical and ethical grounds.

Or maybe this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18838417) one?

...While evaluating the impact of circumcision technique, we found that UTI occurred in six of the 24 infants circumcised by a physician (25%), and in 42 of the 87 infants (48%) circumcised by a religious authority...

Combined with this (http://www.babycenter.com/0_urinary-tract-infection_10910.bc):

About 8 percent of girls and 2 percent of boys will have at least one urinary tract infection (UTI) during childhood.

Note: It is generally assumed that circumcision PROTECTS from UTI. :p
(Also even if it were true - totally worth to circumcise to protect you from a 1 in 50 chance* to get a certain disease which can be cured by antibiotics.
* Assuming it would totally protect you from it, which it doesn't and that doing it has no chance in creating complications, which it also doesn't.)


Cute attempt to skirt the issue without answering. No piercings do not always grow back. Please try again.

So now we go from "ear piercings" to just "piercings"? Backpedal more please?

Also, which piercings do not grow back? Ear piercings grow back. Lip piercings grow back. Nose piercings grow back. Even genital piercings grow back.
That (http://itp.nyu.edu/~amb943/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/africa_piercings.jpg) might not grow back. Heard it is very popular for parents to get for their 5 year old nowadays.

And if that isn't clear enough for you - piercings do not apply here because they are not permanent. So let me ask you again - which other permanent "cosmetic surgeries" are you talking about? Because I for sure cannot think of any besides fixing things like hare lips or vestigal tails. But if you want to argue those are the same as a foreskin you can already assume my response being a :psyduck:

elmicker
August 7 2012, 11:24:03 PM
i really dont see why the religion and aesthetic arguments should be separated. they're fundamentally equivalent.

ctrlchris
August 8 2012, 01:06:39 AM
Can we make it a rule to not bring up the point "my gf likes it loooool" because that's not a justification for it.

long poast to come later~

So I went to make my long post and I realized I dont have a long post to make.

Medical reasons while babby.
When your grown up and actually know what your dick is for then you can choose to cut bits off it you want.

Religion should not play a part but we all know it will forever so there is no point arguing about that.

indi
August 8 2012, 05:15:04 AM
My face.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and point out that most braces are not, in fact, for cosmetic reasons. For instance: your teeth will wear with age. If they aren't straight (in relation to each other, mostly), that wear and tear will go at an angle.

Other than that, what chris said.

Diicc Tater
August 8 2012, 06:44:10 AM
it takes a thread about cocks.... :roll:

The issues with male circumcision is far less acute than with those of female genital mutilation. However both are quite unnecessary.

For males, there's not enough data to support any affect when it comes to penile sensation, sexual satisfaction or infections.
The reasons for circumcision, male or female, seems to be religious, aesthetic and/or traditional. On the male side, It's Jewish law and a Muslim, American, African (northern parts) and Asian (southeast parts, likely Muslim traditional) tradition.
As to what your preferences are, well, it's more about how you relate to free will, informed decisions and peer pressure than anything else.

For females the adverse effects are huge. The 'least' severe seems to be the removal of the clitoral hood and partial removal of the clitoris. Holy hell.
It is for no other reason than to reduce sexuality. If it didn't sound so awfully ultra feminist I'd say it's for no other reason than to oppress women in a traditional male dominated society. Fuck it, that seems to be the reason anyway. It's retarded on all levels.

kzig
August 8 2012, 08:44:38 AM
Posting on behalf of Cogs, who found this and PM'd it to me:


Can't be arsed to apply to the Serious Business group, so i'll PM you this instead.

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/replace-circumcision-with-symbolic-ritual-says-norwegian-children-s-watchdog-1.456443

700 Norwegian Jews vs The Ombudsman for Children in Norway with a ban already proposed by one of the Parliamentary parties.

It seems that this is becoming a more widespread political issue than I had initially realised.

Hel OWeen
August 8 2012, 09:29:05 AM
1. Bullshit or not, having no foreskin makes for easy cleaning.

Not like it's hard to wash with foreskin is it.


It is, as I'm the living example for it. You're only thinking of healthy/normal conditions. As I (tried to) explain above, there's that thing called phimosis. At best it makes cleaning (not even talking about sex here) hard. But it can eventualy be really painful. Poke a needle in your foreskin. That's basically it feels every fucking (sic!) time you get a boner.

That's why it's done when you're a kid. Given the time when and where this rite was developed, it does make sense to just do it to any boy. Unlike today, where doctors are able to predict medical problems later on, at that time it wasn't possible. So "better be safe than sorry" was the idea behind it, I guess. Don't know (and don't want to imagine) if and how they would've treated adults back then ...

tl;dr Right decision for the time, completely obsolete today. You're free to decide on your own, but don't harm others, especially kids. Don't mistake "being responsible" for your kids as "owing them".

Dark Flare
August 8 2012, 09:38:03 AM
I'm not sure I accept that as a reasoning. We don't go around removing appendixes, despite them being more useless than foreskin, at a young age "just in case".

I do however agree that it's an obsolete, outdated process.

elmicker
August 8 2012, 11:58:22 AM
I'm not sure I accept that as a reasoning. We don't go around removing appendixes, despite them being more useless than foreskin, at a young age "just in case".

do bear in mind during this line of argument that in the US it is perfectly normal for wisdom teeth to be pulled out "just in case" and it really wasn't all that long ago a similar strategy was taken with appendices and tonsils.

Zeekar
August 8 2012, 12:14:56 PM
Who is actually considering US health advice tho. On that part they can barely be classified as civilized.

TheManFromDelmonte
August 8 2012, 12:27:08 PM
do bear in mind during this line of argument that in the US it is perfectly normal for wisdom teeth to be pulled out "just in case" and it really wasn't all that long ago a similar strategy was taken with appendices and tonsils.

"Just in case" the doctor doesn't make over $150K that year?

Serious question though, who actually pays for this and who profits? I don't know the US medical scene well enough myself to work it out. You'd think the insurance companies would just say no?

Dark Flare
August 8 2012, 01:23:58 PM
The public pays and the insurer and the doctor profit.

Irrelephant
August 8 2012, 03:09:02 PM
I'm not sure I accept that as a reasoning. We don't go around removing appendixes, despite them being more useless than foreskin, at a young age "just in case".

do bear in mind during this line of argument that in the US it is perfectly normal for wisdom teeth to be pulled out "just in case" and it really wasn't all that long ago a similar strategy was taken with appendices and tonsils.

EU dentists are just as profit oriented from my experience. Pretty much everyone i was to in the last 10 years tried to convince me to pull my wisdom teeth when i never had any issue whatsoever with those.

On topic, someone asked earlier about foreskin restoration: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration


In some men, foreskin restoration may alleviate certain problems they attribute to their circumcisions. Such problems, as reported to an anti-circumcision group by men circumcised in infancy or childhood, include prominent scarring (33%), insufficient penile skin for comfortable erection (27%), erectile curvature from uneven skin loss (16%), and pain and bleeding upon erection/manipulation (17%). The poll also asked about awareness of or involvement in foreskin restoration, and included an open comment section. Many respondents and their wives "reported that restoration resolved the unnatural dryness of the circumcised penis, which caused abrasion, pain or bleeding during intercourse, and that restoration offered unique pleasures, which enhanced sexual intimacy."

No idea how many people are having problems, but even it is a fairly low amount it makes a strong point that doing circumcision without consent shouldn't be allowed.

Frug
August 8 2012, 03:33:46 PM
No idea how many people are having problems, but even it is a fairly low amount it makes a strong point that doing circumcision without consent shouldn't be allowed.
It's not difficult to check the wiki article, though their figures are apparently all over the place. It would be better if we could get them per-country. * (edit: actually figure is from canada)

Complication rates ranging from 0.06% to 55% have been cited;[58] more specific estimates have included 2–10%[2] and 0.2–0.6%.[7][22] The authors of a systematic review found a median complication rate of 1.5% among neonates, with a range of 0 to 16%. In older boys, rates varied from 2-14%, with a median of 6%. The median risk of serious complications was 0% in both cases.

It's prior to the section explaining it reduces the risk of cancer, but only if done neonatally.

A 2011 meta-analysis concluded that childhood or adolescent circumcision substantially reduces the risk of invasive penile cancer.

Oh look, health issues are more complicated than looking at a single dimension and drawing conclusions.

* edit edit: though the conclusions of the canadian pediatric society is slightly against it http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision weighing both benefits and costs... mostly because it's basically neutral so why bother interfering, let parents decide
The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

elmicker
August 8 2012, 03:41:38 PM
the "benefits"

elmicker
August 8 2012, 05:12:07 PM
the "negrep"

Aramendel
August 8 2012, 06:31:56 PM
It's prior to the section explaining it reduces the risk of cancer, but only if done neonatally.

A 2011 meta-analysis concluded that childhood or adolescent circumcision substantially reduces the risk of invasive penile cancer.

Oh look, health issues are more complicated than looking at a single dimension and drawing conclusions.

Indeed.

To illustrate this lets instead look at actual numbers instead. All stats are for the US of A.

Penile cancer deaths 2012: 310 (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/penile). About 0,1% of all male cancer deaths btw.
Little trivia: Men are more likely to die from male breast cancer (410 cases 2012). We have no use for those now that I think of it. Maybe we should cut these nipples off too for health reasons? It's not like we would miss them. Maybe a priest could light some incense and bite them off, I heard if it's religious it is okay.

Circumcision related deaths 2010: 117 (http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=658a615b964e41598c33ecf7e7c21bc0&pi=5) (in the first 28 days).

"Substantially reduces the risk of invasive penile cancer" and "median risk of serious complications is 0%" looks better for your argument, but the actual numbers look a bit different, do they?

The average reduction of penile cancer from several studies was 0.66, meaning about 200 penile cancer people could have been saved per year (out of ~150 Million males), assuming they survived the circumcision. From which about 100 infants die in the first month.
So basically getting a circumcision is half as likely to kill you as it is to save you. Makes it totally worth it.


the conclusions of the canadian pediatric society is slightly against it http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision weighing both benefits and costs... mostly because it's basically neutral so why bother interfering, let parents decide

Did you really just say that because the effect of cutting off part of their childs body is viewed only as "slightly negative" (Although I would not phrase "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." as "slightly against it") it is okay for them to do it?





/edit:
Oh, and since Frug has chosen to follow the time-honored tradition of people who cannot find arguments against something they disagree with to negrep posts instead -

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4381984/thatshowyoudiscussthings.png

- let me answer this here instead doing the childish thing and making a negrep war.

Earlobe piercings pretty much always grow back. Your girlfriend being one of the exceptions does not change that.

Assuming they were really earlobe piercings and not through the ears cartilage. Those, indeed, do not grow back. But those are also pretty much the only part where you do piercings through cartilage tissue. Quite a lot of parents do not allow their children such piercings precisely because of this. And no, I would see no issues at all to outlaw making such modifications till the child says he/she wants them from a certain minimum age on (something like 13-15).

I mean, seriously, which parents make their child getting earrings?

Good job ignoring all my other points and sources btw.

Reed Tiburon
August 8 2012, 08:23:45 PM
Circumcision right after birth is fucked up, the foreskin has yet to unfuse itself from the glans.

HIV risks are overblown, stats thrown off by third world nations etc. Cleaning = holy shit I have to wash it in the shower, so hard.

I don't especially care about its legal status, but I can't see an argument for it. Other than "I want my son to have the same sort of penis as me". Which is weird

Meths
August 8 2012, 10:53:08 PM
Circumcision right after birth is fucked up, the foreskin has yet to unfuse itself from the glans.

HIV risks are overblown, stats thrown off by third world nations etc. Cleaning = holy shit I have to wash it in the shower, so hard.

I don't especially care about its legal status, but I can't see an argument for it. Other than "I want my son to have the same sort of penis as me". Which is weird

Soooo much this ^^

ctrlchris
August 9 2012, 01:21:18 AM
I pierced my dick.

brb taking it out, will tell you if it closes.

Spaztick
August 9 2012, 03:25:11 AM
Really when it comes down to it, there is no argument for circumcision in the first world except aesthetics, and that's just because we've gotten used to it. Mothers that think they don't want their children to be embarrassed or "not looking like all the other boys" their age infuriate me because they just perpetuate the problem, the fathers that want to continue on "tradition" or something to that effect do the same thing. Aesthetics aside, you only have medical reasons for circumcision left, and the problems are so rare that it's not worth cutting off the end of every baby boy's dick to treat potential phimosis (which, by the way is usually caused by jerking it wrong and not some latent medical condition), when you run the usual risks of unnecessary or cosmetic surgery.

Reed Tiburon
August 9 2012, 03:47:28 AM
Really when it comes down to it, there is no argument for circumcision in the first world except aesthetics, and that's just because we've gotten used to it. Mothers that think they don't want their children to be embarrassed or "not looking like all the other boys" their age infuriate me because they just perpetuate the problem, the fathers that want to continue on "tradition" or something to that effect do the same thing.

Who are all these boys looking at other boys' dicks? That's what I want to know.

Spaztick
August 9 2012, 06:25:26 AM
Really when it comes down to it, there is no argument for circumcision in the first world except aesthetics, and that's just because we've gotten used to it. Mothers that think they don't want their children to be embarrassed or "not looking like all the other boys" their age infuriate me because they just perpetuate the problem, the fathers that want to continue on "tradition" or something to that effect do the same thing.

Who are all these boys looking at other boys' dicks? That's what I want to know.

That's what I was thinking. I don't think I've seen anyone's dick past 4 years old.

KathDougans
August 9 2012, 04:31:30 PM
In the past, showers for school (and other) sports facilities were not individual cubicles, instead it was several shower heads in a large space, that a dozen or so persons would fit under at once.

No idea what school facilities are like nowadays, but some sports clubs now have individual shower cubicles, which means the likelihood of seeing another patron's organs is next to nil.

Alex Caine
August 9 2012, 08:51:47 PM
Big multi shower stalls at my gym. You get pretty used to seeing dongs to be honest if you work out many places.

Uncut and proud here, I freaking love my foreskin.

Frug
August 9 2012, 09:57:29 PM
Really when it comes down to it, there is no argument for circumcision in the first world except aesthetics, and that's just because we've gotten used to it.
It's not exactly an argument "for circumcision" so much as it is an argument against making it illegal. The argument is for parental choice in the matter, versus state intervention. The case is essentially being made that all surgeries to children should be outlawed unless the state deems them necessary. It's why I brought up ear piercings. They're quite trivial but also quite permanent and socially acceptable (I'm ignoring the tangental argument Aramendel
is trying to make about how he thinks it's not - that's not the point, nor is that the truth). While I wouldn't pierce my daughter's ears because I don't think it's healthy for her to grow up needing to be "girly" and wear earrings, I also get weirded out by the idea of making it illegal.

I view it as a custom some people hold, and I question the wisdom of stamping out customs by force of law because of the opinion that they hold no value.

I honest to god had it done to me without anyone's consent. I think it's kind of funny. And here there are people in all seriousness comparing it to female circumcision, mutilation, and all kinds of hyperbole. That doesn't sound at all like a rational way to make decisions to overrule parents. So that weirds me out.


Aesthetics aside, you only have medical reasons for circumcision left, and the problems are so rare that it's not worth cutting off the end of every baby boy's dick to treat potential phimosis (which, by the way is usually caused by jerking it wrong and not some latent medical condition), when you run the usual risks of unnecessary or cosmetic surgery.
As I cited above, the conclusion of the canadian pediatric socieity is that the risks and benefits balance out. So you're left with just aesthetics. If a proper meta analysis of studies concludes such a neutral position, doesn't it seem strange that people are interjecting so vocally with their opinions? Aren't there more important things parents do raising kids to get worked up about?

elmicker
August 9 2012, 10:02:46 PM
why are you talking about a parent's right over their child? a parent has no rights over their child. they hold the child's rights in trust until the child is competent to make their own decisions. medical needs aside, permanent body modifications do not fall into the realm of things a parent should be doing for their child. since presenting abstract arguments to you in the hope you'd construct a response seems to be a waste of everyone's time, i'm going to try to devolve this to simple, one line questions.

Why is it ok to remove a portion of the child's penis for no obvious reason, but it isn't ok to tattoo a giant picture of the parent's face on their back?

elmicker
August 9 2012, 10:03:37 PM
and for fuck's sake stop saying piercings are permanent, so fucking dumb. if you're going to try and use this allegedly serious forum, don't debase your argument with such patent nonsense

Aramendel
August 10 2012, 08:13:40 AM
It's not exactly an argument "for circumcision" so much as it is an argument against making it illegal. The argument is for parental choice in the matter, versus state intervention.

By that logic it would be perfectly in my right to force a breast reduction surgery on my busty 14 year old daughter. It would even have health benefits, likely more so than male circumcision.


They're quite trivial but also quite permanent and socially acceptable (I'm ignoring the tangental argument Aramendel
is trying to make about how he thinks it's not - that's not the point, nor is that the truth).

Still haven't seen you posting anything proving this beside your anecdotal girlfriend example. Also, from Wikipedia:

After healing, earlobe piercings will shrink to smaller gauges in the prolonged absence of earrings, and in most cases will completely disappear.



And here there are people in all seriousness comparing it to female circumcision, mutilation, and all kinds of hyperbole.

With female circumcision you are cutting away part of the females genitals. With male circumcision you are cutting away part of the males genitals.

Does their effect has the same strength? No. Does it have the same type? Yes. I posted several links to studies which show that there is a negative effect on the sexuality from male circumcision. You counter with "But I (who has no way compare the two states) feel fine." Yeah, killer argument right there.

As a sidenote, you want to tell me that male circumcision and earrings are the same? Really? You might want to look at your own doorstep before you accuse other people of hyperbole.


So you're left with just aesthetics. If a proper meta analysis of studies concludes such a neutral position, doesn't it seem strange that people are interjecting so vocally with their opinions? Aren't there more important things parents do raising kids to get worked up about?

Since when is "We do not recommend doing it" a neutral position??

So basically you are saying cosmetic surgery is perfectly okay for parents to afflict on their children. So I can make my 12 year old son into a Michael Jackson caricature?
Yes, I totally see that definitely should be allowed.

-------

Btw, personally I think Germanys decision to ban all circumcision a bit over the top. I think the prime reason they did it is to give people who want to do female circumcision no potential fingerhold in court.

"But it is okay to cut a male foreskin, so it should also be allowed to cut just this tiny bit away from the female".

Considering this and that there isn't any rational reason to do male circumcision I think that "sacrifice" being well worth the effect.

indi
August 10 2012, 08:30:09 AM
Tl;dr Everything that is unnecessary and has (serious) lasting effects should only be done when the adult individual wants them done.

In the Netherlands removing (palatine) tonsils was a hugely popular operation to inflict on little kids. I only escaped that fate (although my nasopharyngeal tonsils did not) because of severe asthma & regular pneumonia. This practice is dying out as doctors have come to realise that 'just because we can' is not a good justification. Same with wisdom teeth. They are now only removed if necessary, and that includes wisdom teeth who are very likely to rot quickly, as they increase the likelihood of cavities in other teeth/molars. So you see, there's hope!

Dark Flare
August 10 2012, 10:15:51 AM
Tl;dr Everything that is unnecessary and has (serious) lasting effects should only be done when the adult individual wants them done.

Pretty much this. I'm not sure how anyone can seriously argue the opposite. I guess it's just evidence of quite how deeply environmental factors affect your viewpoint.

elmicker
August 10 2012, 08:19:18 PM
why reply and engage in discussion, when you can just negrep and hide?

http://i.imgur.com/0JVjS.png

Frug
August 10 2012, 08:43:36 PM
Man you been shitting up this thread worse than Armandel for a while now. I did stop talking to you last page but you won't shut up.
At least he's giving me several sentences about an article he didn't read. You're just one lining insults.

elmicker
August 10 2012, 08:54:34 PM
I asked you a direct question, Frug. I'm one lining insults, because you're fucking terrible at debating and refuse to answer anyone else's argument in anything approaching a constructive manner, but i'm not "just" one lining insults.

Remember, kids, there's nothing wrong with calling someone retarded if they're actually being retarded.

Aramendel
August 10 2012, 09:47:25 PM
So you're left with just aesthetics. If a proper meta analysis of studies concludes such a neutral position, doesn't it seem strange that people are interjecting so vocally with their opinions? Aren't there more important things parents do raising kids to get worked up about?

Since when is "We do not recommend doing it" a neutral position??

Frugs "answer":

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/4381984/whatthefrug.png

Maybe you should do what you recommend first.

Your link: http://www.cps.ca/en/documents/position/circumcision

From there: Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.


Seriously, Frug, I would recommend for you to take a deep breath and step back from this discussion. You seem to be so emotionally laden regarding it that you are unable to discuss this rationally. You are not doing yourself any favors.

smuggo
August 10 2012, 10:07:09 PM
It seems to me that the most vehemently pro cut types in this thread had the decision made for them before they were aware and are trying to justify having a part of them removed.

Not because of religion.
Not because of a medical condition.

Just because.

Cl-9 checking in.

My flaccid cock is tiny, I have a foreskin that looks like an elephant's trunk. Do you know what? It's never been an issue apart from when I piss through that gap in between the rim and the bowl when I sit down for a shit. I've never had a girl comment on it.

The first girl that looks at my uncut cock and tells me to get circumcised...
I'm going to tell that girl to get her flaps tidied up to look like something other than a badly stuffed kebab.
Because I'm not an emasculated manbaby.

I'm happy with the way it is. I'm happy with a bit of cheese after a week in the desert, it's manly.

And I'm especially happy with coming first in the race of sex.

Spaztick
August 11 2012, 03:55:17 AM
We should have labiaplasty as a more common procedure on all newborn girls so we don't have to look at gross flaps of meat hanging down there.

Dark Flare
August 11 2012, 02:03:09 PM
Man you been shitting up this thread worse than Armandel for a while now. I did stop talking to you last page but you won't shut up.
At least he's giving me several sentences about an article he didn't read. You're just one lining insults.

Aramendel is shitting the thread up? What with all his examples, articles, facts, statistics and well thought out opinions?

Or do you think that disagreeing with you is the same as shitting a thread up?

Rep should really be disabled in this subforum to stop people like Frug butthurt negrepping whenever they're proven wrong. (inb4 negrep from Frug).

Frug
August 12 2012, 03:34:25 PM
Man you been shitting up this thread worse than Armandel for a while now. I did stop talking to you last page but you won't shut up.
At least he's giving me several sentences about an article he didn't read. You're just one lining insults.

Aramendel is shitting the thread up?
Rep should really be disabled in this subforum to stop people like Frug butthurt negrepping whenever they're proven wrong. (inb4 negrep from Frug).

Nope. And he's still doing it. I've quoted it twice and he still refuses to read it. It's this kind of blunt headed stupidity that gets the negrepping, not butthurt. I skimmed the article, cited it, read more, and then edited my own post three times to properly represent what it's saying. If you can't be assed even to read my post, let alone the article, but you're going to insist in some desperate bid to be right that it's saying something, I'm going to stop bothering with your dumb ass and I'm going to neg rep you and move on.

Armendel. Let me spell this out for you clearly. Not recommending something is not the same as recommending against something. If I say I don't recommend shaving everyone's hair off, it is not the same as recommending that nobody shaves their hair off. I've quoted this extremely simple and relevant sentence for you twice. Here is the third time.

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.
I even restated this for you in one of my previous posts. Do you see the "so evenly balanced" part? That means the cost/benefits analysis is neutral. Doesn't it? Show me that this is not what that means and I will remove my horrible horrible baww he's negrepping rep for you.

They even explain this logic earlier in the article. They do not recommend doing things across the board unless the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. This means they don't recommend things that do nothing. The fact that the article also repeatedly says it's fine to do it if the parents feel like it for cultural/religious reasons and it gives no indication whatsoever that they have a problem with this. They take the same position I've been taking in this thread. Inform parents about current medical knowledge, talk to them about the decision in a rational manner, and let them decide.


Seriously, Frug, I would recommend for you to take a deep breath and step back from this discussion. You seem to be so emotionally laden regarding it that you are unable to discuss this rationally. You are not doing yourself any favors.Nah dude. my negreps for you were both for the same reason and it's got nothing to do with being upset about losing an argument, which I don't think I have. It's because this is an annoying waste of time when you fixate on irrelevant things.

zergl
August 12 2012, 06:03:04 PM
With regards to medical reasons, have this commentary by one of the senior physicians (specialized in paediatric surgery) of the paediatric department of the Klinikum Grosshadern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinikum_Gro%C3%9Fhadern), Munich's university hospital.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-circumcision-without-medical-justification-is-wrong-a-846395.html


Undue Suffering Circumcision for Non-Medical Reasons Is Wrong

A Commentary By Dr. Maximilian Stehr

As the debate over the medical ethics of circumcision rages in Germany, some have argued that the practice provides health benefits. But many in the medical community disagree. Circumcision is not in the best interest of boys who undergo the procedure.

In July 2011 a mother took her 2-year-old son to a pediatric clinic in Munich. Up to that point he had been the picture of health. There was absolutely nothing wrong with him. His parents simply wanted him to be circumcised at a medical facility on religious grounds.

But something went wrong when the boy was anesthetized, and the surgical team suddenly couldn't ventilate him anymore. The oxygen levels in his blood dropped, and his heart stopped beating. A dramatic scene unfolded in the minutes that followed, as the doctors tried to reanimate him, eventually calling in the emergency pediatric specialist. By the time the specialist arrived, the boy's body had been starved of oxygen for at least 10 minutes. The team finally managed to resuscitate the boy, and he was taken to our hospital by ambulance. But the child never regained consciousness. The lack of oxygen had caused too much damage to his brain.

I'm not telling this story to be sensationalist. I'm telling it because it moved me deeply. A healthy child that had probably happily crawled out of his bed that very morning had been anesthetized unnecessarily a few hours later, and by midday he lay in our intensive care unit, severely disabled for the rest of his life.

This shocking tale makes one thing absolutely clear: We doctors must never unnecessarily endanger the patients entrusted to our care. After all, had this boy not been circumcised, there would have been no emergency during his anesthetization. Every surgical intervention and every anesthesia is associated with a certain amount of risk. In this case the risk is not very great, but should nevertheless be taken only when justified. Under no circumstance should the dangers be overlooked because we think "It's only a minor operation." It's not.

'First, Do No Harm'

Munich's university hospital, the Klinikum Grosshadern, stopped circumcising boys without medical indication back in 2001. Many renowned pediatric hospitals had taken similar steps even before the Cologne Regional Court recently declared religious circumcision of children illegal. (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/circumcision-debate-has-german-government-scrambling-for-a-law-a-846144.html) The medical community has been debating the issue for almost a decade. It's only thanks to the judges in Cologne that the matter has been brought to the attention of the public.

One of the fundamental principles of medical ethics is that no one should be harmed. The oath formulated by Hippocrates (approx. 460-370 BC) and sworn by all doctors includes the following statement: "I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone." Another key idea lies at the heart of all ethical behavior by medical personnel: "Primum nihil nocere," or "First, do no harm," a phrase coined by Scribonius Largus, a doctor at the court of the emperor Tiberius Claudius. The treatment of patients must be with their welfare in mind, and must therefore have priority over other interests, such as science, financial gain or profit.

Medically unnecessary circumcision causes damage because it results in an irreversible loss of healthy bodily tissue. Some people may consider it insignificant because the foreskin serves no discernible purpose. But the foreskin does indeed have a number of functions, although very few of the people engaging in the debate are aware of them.

No Medical Benefit

After birth, the foreskin protects the head of the penis (the glans) and prevents the external urethral orifice from abrasion and drying out. Following circumcision, the surface of the glans regularly thickens and calluses. This can lead to a constriction of the opening of the urethra, the most common complication associated with circumcision in infancy, occurring in up to 30 percent of cases. It's not unusual for several operations to be required before affected children can empty their bladder properly.

The foreskin also plays a role in arousal. In contrast to the glans, which has deep sensitivity, the foreskin has what are known as tactile corpuscles which can only be found in similar density in the tips of the fingers, the lips and the eyelids. It's therefore hardly surprising that the foreskin is considered a male erogenous zone. A significant majority of men who are circumcised in adulthood, and are therefore in a position to make comparisons, say they are less sensitive in this area after surgery. But that's not the only reason why circumcision affects sexuality: Couples in which the man is circumcised uniformly report a loss of male secretions during sex and therefore greater friction and resulting pain. It can therefore be assumed that circumcision can indeed have a negative impact on sexuality and the sex life of both circumcised men and their partners. These findings are not new. Major studies and surveys have been conducted and published as far back as the 1990s.

But the direct consequences of an operation must also be considered. Post-surgical complications occur in between 0.19 and 2 percent of circumcisions, but rise to 11 percent for patients circumcised in infancy. These complications primarily involve secondary bleeding or infection. In rare cases the urethra or the glans may be damaged or even need to be amputated. I see such complications time and again at our clinic, even though they occur in less than one percent of medical procedures. They mean painful surgery for the child.

Often enough, circumcision is deemed to be of medical benefit, for instance in preventing infectious diseases or cancer. But it's worth taking a closer look at the figures and the findings of related studies: Circumcised infants may have only a tenth as many urinary tract infections in their first year, but these infections generally occur so rarely that 100 circumcisions would be needed to prevent a single urinary tract infection. This doesn't make sense in otherwise healthy babies. There is no medical benefit to routine circumcision.

Wait For Consent

Nor does it reduce the likelihood of passing on or contracting sexually transmitted diseases. As early as 1855, a study suggested a possible link between circumcision and the transmission of venereal diseases. Since then, more than 30 studies have been published on the matter. However, the findings of these studies are extremely inhomogeneous. In effect, circumcision doesn't have any effect on the incidence of most sexually transmissible diseases (gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and AIDS).

In 2007, the World Health Organization recommended circumcision as a prophylactic measure against HIV infection. This recommendation was based on studies from Kenya and Uganda that suggested that the risk of infection with HIV was 50 percent lower in circumcised heterosexual men than in non-circumcised ones. But demands for routine or blanket circumcision don't take into account the fact that the WHO considers circumcision only for adult males who can decide for themselves and are at a high risk of infection.

From an epidemiological perspective, the practice makes no sense for Germany. Furthermore, circumcision for this purpose could also be carried out at an age at which the person in question can make their own decisions. The same concern also applies to the supposed preventative nature of circumcision with regard to penis carcinoma or even cervical cancer: If circumcision had an unambiguously positive influence -- and not all scientists agree it does -- this operation would only make sense at an age when the man is sexually active, in other words at an age when the young man can consent himself.

A Chance For Dialogue

Medically, there is no evidence of advantages for boys. Therefore non-medically indicated circumcision is not in the child's best interests either. This is the key argument against the inadmissible comparison of circumcision with a recognized vaccine. The effectiveness and therefore the utility of the vaccine for the child have been scientifically proven.

Doctors have to weigh potential risks and benefits. There are no medical benefits to circumcision on religious grounds. For this reason it's all the more significant that it's a serious surgical procedure fraught with risks and complications. Whether it's carried out under local or general anesthetic, circumcision causes boys undue suffering. This procedure must therefore be rejected from both a medical and an ethical perspective.

As a devout Catholic, I have great respect for the concerns of religious communities. As a scientist, I feel discredited by Chancellor Angela Merkel's comments about how the circumcision ruling makes Germany "a laughing stock." The Cologne Regional Court presented us with an opportunity to work together with the various religious communities to consider the rights of physical inviolability and religious freedom. Some Muslims have already shown a willingness to accept that boys be circumcised only when they are old enough to give their consent. But in Berlin the debate is at risk of being stifled politically, robbing us of the chance for dialogue.

Aramendel
August 12 2012, 08:10:12 PM
Do you see the "so evenly balanced" part? That means the cost/benefits analysis is neutral. Doesn't it?

It does.

But the thing you are missing is this: the cost/benefits analysis for a permanent surgery which removes part of the body is neutral. Its is a general rule in medicine that you do not do surgery "just because". Which is also the reason that they - despite saying cost/benefit is neutral - do not recommend it.

Their cost/benefits analysis is neutral.

Their position regarding it is very much not neutral. Because, as said, "just because" is not enough a justification to start cutting. If they were neutral they would say exactly that.

Zergls quote also states this position very well:

We doctors must never unnecessarily endanger the patients entrusted to our care. ... Every surgical intervention and every anesthesia is associated with a certain amount of risk. In this case the risk is not very great, but should nevertheless be taken only when justified. Under no circumstance should the dangers be overlooked because we think "It's only a minor operation." It's not.


Nah dude. my negreps for you were both for the same reason and it's got nothing to do with being upset about losing an argument, which I don't think I have. It's because this is an annoying waste of time when you fixate on irrelevant things.

I am totally right, I just cannot be bothered to prove it. :facepalm:

Yeah, right.

You mean, like those studies which show that circumcision has a negative effect on the sexuality? (Also mentioned in zergls quote, maybe you should negrep him too for "fixating on irrelevant things")
Or the irrelevance of penile cancer? Which you brought up - yeah, you totally focus on the important things here.
Or you not being able to grasp what "regionally" means?

Spaztick
August 13 2012, 10:41:07 AM
Let's not forget it's a big money-maker for the hospitals charging you a few hundred bucks to whack your child's dick off. Even if the benefits and risks are neutral and balance each other out, you're still $400 out of pocket for an unnecessary surgery. If anyone wants to say "hurr durr Canada/Europe healthcare is free" you are forgetting that 1) that's wrong because now you're just burdening all taxpayers with the cost instead of the individual (even more of an incentive to ban circumcision on infants for cosmetic reasons) and 2) circumcision in the first world is almost exclusively done in the United States.

Hel OWeen
August 13 2012, 01:00:19 PM
Not sure why this thread heated up so much. If I'm not mistaken, we all seem to agree on

- No mandatory circumcision
- No unnecessary (=without medical reason) circumcision for kids
- Adults are free to "massacre" themselves as they see fit

Rudolf Miller
August 13 2012, 01:16:29 PM
Not sure why this thread heated up so much. If I'm not mistaken, we all seem to agree on

- No mandatory circumcision
- No unnecessary (=without medical reason) circumcision for kids
- Adults are free to "massacre" themselves as they see fit

That's what I'm noticing too.....

Aramendel
August 13 2012, 01:53:45 PM
Frug is still debating point 2, which is more or less the reason it is at its current state.


...it's basically neutral so why bother interfering, let parents decide...

Frug
August 13 2012, 03:19:07 PM
Their cost/benefits analysis is neutral.

Their position regarding it is very much not neutral. Because, as said, "just because" is not enough a justification to start cutting. If they were neutral they would say exactly that.
Indeed. I will reiterate a fourth time. Not recommending something is not the same as recommending against it. They would not recommend that all children shave their heads (or get ear piercings), and that would also be a very neutral position. And, again, the reason I negrepped you is that you've spent two pages now arguing about your interpretation of how neutral their position of "there's no reason for it so don't do it unless you want to". I've never once said it had medical benefits outweighing the costs.
Their wording is very clear, if they thought the risks were worth the kind of hyperbolic emphasis you're putting on them, they would have recommended against it. But they didn't. They opted out of recommending it for everyone. I have never once said that should be the case either. You are the one insisting that they are taking some kind of hard stance against it. I have been very clear in stating that their position is quite neutral and attempting to get you to notice the part where they say the medical risks are balanced by the benefits.


Or the irrelevance of penile cancer? Which you brought up - yeah, you totally focus on the important things here.
I mentioned it in one sentence as an example of the medical benefits of the procedure weighed in the meta analysis we've been talking about. I haven't wasted two pages arguing about it and repeating it.

For you to compare me mentioning once an example factor in a study we're discussing with you continually emphasizing and repeating minor issues in examples I've brought up is ridiculous.


Or you not being able to grasp what "regionally" means?
Chock up another reason I gave you a negrep and cba to bash my head against a wall. What is the purpose of your repeating this one again? Why don't you instead say what it is about that word that you think I'm not reflecting correctly in my statement? Instead of yelling like a child "you don't understand what regionally means" make a logical point explaining why what I said was wrong. Go back, find what I said, and explain why my position is invalid because of the word "regionally". If you have already done so, you didn't do it in a way that made it clear to me you were doing anything but yelling and stamping your feet, so talk to me as if I'm also a child and explain.

Frug
August 13 2012, 03:33:28 PM
Let's not forget it's a big money-maker for the hospitals charging you a few hundred bucks to whack your child's dick off. Even if the benefits and risks are neutral and balance each other out, you're still $400 out of pocket for an unnecessary surgery. If anyone wants to say "hurr durr Canada/Europe healthcare is free" you are forgetting that 1) that's wrong because now you're just burdening all taxpayers with the cost instead of the individual (even more of an incentive to ban circumcision on infants for cosmetic reasons) and 2) circumcision in the first world is almost exclusively done in the United States.

But nobody here has said or even suggested that it should be mandatory for everyone, so I don't see what your point is. If a parent wants to blow 400 bucks on a meaningless operation because that's what their culture/family has done for the past thousand years, let them.

I would agree that it shouldn't be covered by public health care though. That should only cover necessary things. That you think it should be banned to solve the problem as opposed to simply not covering it shows your slant.


Not sure why this thread heated up so much. If I'm not mistaken, we all seem to agree on

- No mandatory circumcision
- No unnecessary (=without medical reason) circumcision for kids
- Adults are free to "massacre" themselves as they see fit

Indeed, i'm arguing point 2. I seem to be the only person arguing it though, which surprises me. I already said it a few times in different ways on the last 2 pages though, if you sift through all the yelling and name calling.

I'm not particularly fervently for this issue, despite yelling a lot here. If doctors here said no, as a medical professional opinion, that would be fine. They have said it's ok though, and people's ridiculous comparisons to other forms of mutilation and general :psyduck: arguments being used to support outlawing what I see as a plain old custom is messed up. I think religion is stupid but I also think shitting all over people's cultures by calling them sand niggers so fuck them and their shit is worse. The best way to deal with things like this is education.

From a practical standpoint, I wonder if outlawing it would make matters worse because the committed religious folks would do it anyway, only with less proper medical supervision. But that's a tangential issue about enforcing laws.

Hel OWeen
August 13 2012, 05:23:38 PM
From a practical standpoint, I wonder if outlawing it would make matters worse because the committed religious folks would do it anyway, only with less proper medical supervision. But that's a tangential issue about enforcing laws.

This exact point is already discussed in Germany after the court ruling. The problem would be that there isn't much Germany could do to enforce the law, as those parents would just "hop over the border" and have it done there. Completely legal.

Aramendel
August 13 2012, 07:01:20 PM
Not recommending something is not the same as recommending against it.

Except they do exactly that in their abstract. Also something I repeated several times now:

Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

Recommendation: do not do it. That is rather clearly recommending against it.

Not recommending something is not necessarily recommending against it*, no, but it can mean it too. It is not "not the same", it is "not necessarily the same". In their abstract they clarify on which side of their ambiguous statement in the full text refers to, though. Which isn't your interpretation of it.

*And nevermind that in common speech it means in 90% of the cases the same thing, especially if there are only two options. What should they do instead of circumcising it? Cutting it off? Even if we ignore that they clarify it in their abstract, you are arguing semantics here.


And, again, the reason I negrepped you is that you've spent two pages now arguing about your interpretation of how neutral their position of "there's no reason for it so don't do it unless you want to". I've never once said it had medical benefits outweighing the costs.

And I've never said that you said it.

You said, however, in pretty much every post the last few pages (and I think three (or four?) times in this one), that their position is neutral when it very much isn't. See above.


Their wording is very clear, if they thought the risks were worth the kind of hyperbolic emphasis you're putting on them, they would have recommended against it. But they didn't.

Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.

Yes, that is totally not recommending against it.


They opted out of recommending it for everyone.

Also a possible conclusion of their sentence in the full text. However then their statement in the abstract would say "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should be performed on certain newborns." and not that other thing.


You are the one insisting that they are taking some kind of hard stance against it. I have been very clear in stating that their position is quite neutral and attempting to get you to notice the part where they say the medical risks are balanced by the benefits.

And I have been very clear in stating that that "an analysis shows a surgery is balanced cost-benefit" does NOT equal to "the doctors position is neutral". The point is that in order for a doctor to be neutral regarding a surgery the cost-benefit has to be at least somewhat *positive*. In order to recommend it it has to be noticeably positive.

The basic principle is "If there is no reason to change it it's best to keep it as it is." Or, in programmer lingo, "Never change a running system." (unless there is some good reason for it).


I mentioned it in one sentence as an example of the medical benefits of the procedure weighed in the meta analysis we've been talking about. I haven't wasted two pages arguing about it and repeating it. For you to compare me mentioning once an example factor in a study we're discussing with you continually emphasizing and repeating minor issues in examples I've brought up is ridiculous.

Sorry if I made ignoring them for you harder.

Hint: their are only minor if the bring up more important points countering them. Oh, BTW, regarding this: Regarding Circumcision and HIV (http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193). But that just as a sidenote. In either case, that argument has pretty much concluded since you yourself now admit that circumcision is medically basically "neutral", with advantages and disadvantages balancing each other. Unless I misunderstood you?



What is the purpose of your repeating this one again? Why don't you instead say what it is about that word that you think I'm not reflecting correctly in my statement?

Because you ignore it. Adult behavior for arguments one does not understand is to ask the other person to explain them, not going *lalala - I cannot hear you.*. And lets not even go near trying to "discuss" with neg reps, that is a childish tantrum par excellence.
Also, before you started to ignore it I actually *asked* you if I need to explain it to you. Hint: *silence* is not *yes*.

Anyway, since you asked:



- regionally varying preferences of women
*Examples and reasoning why it isn't the "popular choice" in Europe as clarification of the above statement since it was one of those you were not so sure about*
Yeah but I live here. Also my gf may just be being nice to me but I think it's a purely aesthetic thing.

So, what exactly did you want to tell me with that statement? I say "preference of it vary depending where you live" and you answer "well, where I live females seem to like it". What did you want to tell me with it because I for sure cannot see a connection to what I said in it.

Frug
August 13 2012, 08:08:30 PM
*And nevermind that in common speech it means in 90% of the cases the same thing, especially if there are only two options. What should they do instead of circumcising it? Cutting it off? Even if we ignore that they clarify it in their abstract, you are arguing semantics here.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that a medical report like this is subjected to your assessment of common speech. I think that if they wanted to say that, they would have said that. There is quite a lot of text in that document talking about how parents should make this decision and nothing about recommending against it except the way you interpret the abstract at the start - something still quite contradicted by their very explicit conclusion in the cost/benefit analysis.

The elementary logic illustrating the difference between not recommending something, and recommending against something, seems so primitive to me I suppose I'm surprised it's elusive. I guess it's just really complicated and I don't see it as such. Suddenly how exactly they would express a neutral position is confusing. Since the opposite of not recommending it is recommending it for everyone, there's no way to express a soft position... Maybe if they tried saying the cost/benefits were balanced it would mean... no, no that didn't work.

You're really intent on twisting that outcome as being strongly against. I absolutely refuse to go on trying to convince you that this medical report is carefully worded to mean exactly what it says. You want to interpret it as being strongly against, fuck I don't care anymore.





So, what exactly did you want to tell me with that statement? I say "preference of it vary depending where you live" and you answer "well, where I live females seem to like it". What did you want to tell me with it because I for sure cannot see a connection to what I said in it.
If you can't see that, I can't help you there either. I will point out, however, that my statement doesn't indicate a lack of understanding of any words that you've childishly repeated that I don't know the meaning of several times now. Other than yelling a lot I don't know what that got anyone.

indi
August 13 2012, 08:27:16 PM
I just kinda sorta skim read that article. I read that they don't recommend it and that further research in many areas is actually needed (surprise, this being scientific and all).



.. and that a good general principle is to withhold the routine application of procedures to large groups unless the benefits clearly far outweigh the risks and costs. Our review of the literature leads us to conclude that, for routine neonatal circumcision, the benefits have not been shown to clearly outweigh the risks and costs.

You're not going to get anything more outspoken than that in a "position statement" like this, but it seems obvious enough to me.

Case closed? (probably not)

KathDougans
August 13 2012, 09:01:32 PM
The vaginal lining absorbs some feel-good chemicals from semen into the human woman's bloodstream. (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/09/22/an-ode-to-the-many-evolved-virtues-of-human-semen/)

I think I have read something that says the foreskin may have a similar property, working in the opposite direction.

Frug
August 13 2012, 09:26:30 PM
I just kinda sorta skim read that article. I read that they don't recommend it and that further research in many areas is actually needed (surprise, this being scientific and all).



.. and that a good general principle is to withhold the routine application of procedures to large groups unless the benefits clearly far outweigh the risks and costs. Our review of the literature leads us to conclude that, for routine neonatal circumcision, the benefits have not been shown to clearly outweigh the risks and costs.

You're not going to get anything more outspoken than that in a "position statement" like this, but it seems obvious enough to me.

Case closed? (probably not)
Hey it seems obvious to me exactly what they're saying in the statement too. I wouldn't expect them to recommend something for no reason. To state it a different way, saying that the benefits don't outweigh the costs is not the same as saying the costs outweigh the benefits. !(a > b) =/=> b > a
Indeed the explicit statement they're balanced supports this (b = a). Their default when b = a is to not recommend. How is this a strong position against something?

indi
August 14 2012, 05:14:08 AM
I just kinda sorta skim read that article. I read that they don't recommend it and that further research in many areas is actually needed (surprise, this being scientific and all).



.. and that a good general principle is to withhold the routine application of procedures to large groups unless the benefits clearly far outweigh the risks and costs. Our review of the literature leads us to conclude that, for routine neonatal circumcision, the benefits have not been shown to clearly outweigh the risks and costs.

You're not going to get anything more outspoken than that in a "position statement" like this, but it seems obvious enough to me.

Case closed? (probably not)
Hey it seems obvious to me exactly what they're saying in the statement too. I wouldn't expect them to recommend something for no reason. To state it a different way, saying that the benefits don't outweigh the costs is not the same as saying the costs outweigh the benefits. !(a > b) =/=> b > a
Indeed the explicit statement they're balanced supports this (b = a). Their default when b = a is to not recommend. How is this a strong position against something?

I think I could spend weeks arguing the case and not get anywhere, same goes for you I'm sure. I'm going to go and agree to disagree ;)

Lallante
August 14 2012, 09:25:01 AM
I just kinda sorta skim read that article. I read that they don't recommend it and that further research in many areas is actually needed (surprise, this being scientific and all).



.. and that a good general principle is to withhold the routine application of procedures to large groups unless the benefits clearly far outweigh the risks and costs. Our review of the literature leads us to conclude that, for routine neonatal circumcision, the benefits have not been shown to clearly outweigh the risks and costs.

You're not going to get anything more outspoken than that in a "position statement" like this, but it seems obvious enough to me.

Case closed? (probably not)
Hey it seems obvious to me exactly what they're saying in the statement too. I wouldn't expect them to recommend something for no reason. To state it a different way, saying that the benefits don't outweigh the costs is not the same as saying the costs outweigh the benefits. !(a > b) =/=> b > a
Indeed the explicit statement they're balanced supports this (b = a). Their default when b = a is to not recommend. How is this a strong position against something?

For fucks sake Frug they effectively say:

"a good general principle is to withhold the routine application of...circumcision"

Thats not a neutral statement. They are saying "don't circumcise people routinely".

Aramendel
August 14 2012, 01:34:33 PM
something still quite contradicted by their very explicit conclusion in the cost/benefit analysis.

Copy-paste:

Not recommending something is not necessarily recommending against it, no, but it can mean it too. It is not "not the same", it is "not necessarily the same".


Their conclusion of their cost-benefit analysis is, as said, ambiguous. It can both mean my interpretation and yours.
If it would contradicted my "interpretation" then saying "I wouldn't recommend jumping off the cliff" could never mean "I would recommend not to jump off the cliff".

And, again, their statement in the abstract is NOT ambiguous.

But, hey feel free to keep going "I am right" while ignoring other peoples arguments, using negreps as "points", refusing to explain yourself and calling other peoples behavior childish.


Their default when b = a is to recommend not to do. How is this a strong position against something?

It is not a strong position against something. But guess what it also isn't: a neutral one. Also, fixed. Feel free to rage.

Lallante
August 14 2012, 04:48:13 PM
From a practical standpoint, I wonder if outlawing it would make matters worse because the committed religious folks would do it anyway, only with less proper medical supervision. But that's a tangential issue about enforcing laws.

This exact point is already discussed in Germany after the court ruling. The problem would be that there isn't much Germany could do to enforce the law, as those parents would just "hop over the border" and have it done there. Completely legal.

I'm not sure it would be legal. The doctor wouldnt be breaking the law but the parents might be.

Hel OWeen
August 15 2012, 02:14:37 PM
I'm not sure it would be legal. The doctor wouldnt be breaking the law but the parents might be.

The parents most likely aren't German citizens, so no deal-breaker for them. The by far greatest muslim community in Germany are Turkish people, most of them still being Turkish citizens.

If they're German citizens, you're right, I guess. Obligatory IANAL, though ....

Shaikar
August 21 2012, 06:24:12 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19072761

Seemed relevant to this thread but I'm mostly posting because of:

... Dr Marvin Wang, co-director of the Newborn Nurseries at Massachusetts General Hospital, who has conducted hundreds of circumcisions
...

TheManFromDelmonte
August 21 2012, 07:10:02 PM
To add to that BBC one:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/u-s-supports-circumcision-abroad-should-do-same-at-home.html



More recently, three randomized controlled trials in Africa demonstrated that circumcision reduces a man’s chances of becoming infected with HIV, herpes and human papillomavirus (HPV), which causes penile cancer in men. In one study, female partners of circumcised men had a lower risk of HPV, which causes cervical cancer in women, and two other sexually transmitted diseases.

Activists opposed to circumcision argue that it constitutes mutilation. They had a point when the procedure served only ritualistic purposes. The evidence is overwhelming now, however, that the surgery has medical benefits, making it not so different from removal of a worrisome mole.

Opponents also claim circumcision reduces sexual function and satisfaction. Until the trials in Africa, in which mature boys and men were circumcised, no one had tested that proposition scientifically. In the Kenyan trial, 64 percent of the circumcised men reported their penis was “much more sensitive” and 54 percent said they had a “much” easier time achieving orgasm. In the Ugandan trial, 57 percent of female partners of circumcised men reported no change in sexual satisfaction and 40 percent reported an improvement.


In a shocking move they actually link to the trials.
http://www.malecircumcision.org/research/clinical_research.html

This group is quite clearly for the procedure (in fact, the current crop of papers are almost entirely related to the word "scaling" as in "scaling up provision for circumcision in africa". The question of what to do is settled for them.) But it's interesting evidence.

I'm not sure I agree with pushing surgical solutions, which are only partially effective and only protect the man, when condoms protect completely against everything. But, it's optional and there are a lot of lives to protect here. Someone less squeamish or more skeptically minded can go through the papers if they wish.

elmicker
August 21 2012, 07:47:53 PM
The evidence is overwhelming now, however, that the surgery has medical benefits, making it not so different from removal of a worrisome mole.

so fucking retarded.

Aramendel
August 21 2012, 09:13:04 PM
The links I posted on page 5 here also quite clearly contradicts their "Opponents also claim circumcision reduces sexual function and satisfaction. Until the trials in Africa, in which mature boys and men were circumcised, no one had tested that proposition scientifically." Statement. After looking a bit there are actually more of such studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Summary_of_research _findings) than I thought. The general gist seems to be "no difference", with some better and some worse mixed in.

For the HIV prevention, I haven't really found anything contradicting their findings. There are some inconsistencies, i.e. the circumcised men were told not to have sex in the first 6 weeks after circumcision and were encouraged to use condoms whereas the abstinence period and the use of condoms wasn't suggested to the test group, but none of those could make a strong counter-argument.
It seems to me however a bit like advocating "pull out before orgasm" as birth control technique. Sure, it could prevent some pregnancies, but condoms are still far better for this, so what's the point?

elmicker
August 21 2012, 09:55:23 PM
also we all live in first world countries that aren't ravaged by aids, so cutting off a bit of your child's knob to slightly lessen his risk of catching aids is a bit fucking stupid.

KathDougans
August 21 2012, 10:22:33 PM
Some of those things are studies involving men circumcised as adults, and say that sexual functions are either not affected, or improved.

But that's different from circumcising an individual as a child, surely ?

That is:
A penis that is uncircumcised and develops as such for ~20 years, then is circumcised, will have a different set of characteristics than an otherwise identical penis that is circumcised in infancy, and develops in that state for ~20yrs, wouldn't it ?

zergl
August 22 2012, 04:53:50 AM
Fun: http://www.br.de/franken/inhalt/aktuelles-aus-franken/beschneidung-jungen-diskussion-hof-100.html

A doctor is pressing charges against a circumcising Rabbi in Hof.

erichkknaar
August 22 2012, 05:58:18 AM
I guess this is a hot topic at the moment.

Johns Hopkins study finds that a decline in circumcision will end up costing billions in extra heath care costs to treat the uncircumcised later in life.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Circumcision-can-cut-health-care-costs-3805183.php

Dark Flare
August 22 2012, 09:05:06 AM
Some of those things are studies involving men circumcised as adults, and say that sexual functions are either not affected, or improved.

But that's different from circumcising an individual as a child, surely ?

That is:
A penis that is uncircumcised and develops as such for ~20 years, then is circumcised, will have a different set of characteristics than an otherwise identical penis that is circumcised in infancy, and develops in that state for ~20yrs, wouldn't it ?

Yup, it's supposedly the constant rubbing of the glans on stuff that reduces sensitivity over time. Basically those scientists failed on that study.

RazoR
August 22 2012, 09:11:14 AM
Foreskin is the best <3

KathDougans
August 23 2012, 06:08:10 PM
I had a thought relating to this.

To me, it looks like that the majority of problems that circumcision is said to solve are easily solved by good hygiene, education, and not sticking it in nasty whores.

However, by claiming circumcision has such great benefits, there might be a few political things that may be being achieved.

If people say it reduces STDs, then there is an argument about how sexual health clinics do not require additional funding. Sexual health clinics often have family planning education as another service they provide. There may be a political thing there with pro-life groups.
Education about STDs and other such things, there are those political/religious groups that are opposed to sex education, claiming it "causes promiscuity" or whatever. Promoting circumcision over education may be something those groups would approve of.
Medical industry pressure groups. Unnecessary operations generate income for them.

Spaztick
August 23 2012, 10:14:25 PM
I guess this is a hot topic at the moment.

Johns Hopkins study finds that a decline in circumcision will end up costing billions in extra heath care costs to treat the uncircumcised later in life.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Circumcision-can-cut-health-care-costs-3805183.php

Billions? Total horseshit, no way that can be accurate even for speculation. I smell statistics manipulation:


In this scenario, nearly 80 percent of the additional projected costs were due to medical care associated with HIV infection in men, the team wrote.

HIV isn't prevalent in the western world, so they seem to have just admitted that all these costs are bogus and would involve only HIV-infected men (what do you know HIV medication and research is expensive). They also listed that circumcision has decreased in the past 30 years, and perhaps I'm extrapolating a bit, but there have been no noticeable increases in pediatric health care costs[1] and HIV cases in the United States have been in decline[2]. Also despite circumcision rates going down STD rates continue to climb slightly or remain the same[3], so circumcision seems to have little or no correlation between STDs and no prevention of HIV. Perhaps it works in African countries with so many cases of HIV, but condoms work better no matter what your dick looks like.

Even if circumcisions were elimiated:


That works out to $313 in added costs for every circumcision that doesn't happen

means that the cost overall will be less than what the procedure would cost to begin with, and little boys get to keep intact dicks. This entire study reeks of a blatant pediatric money-grabbing agenda.

[1] bugger all if I can't find an actual source for this
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/trends/slides/2010AIDStrends.pdf (big PDFs)
[3] http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/surv2010.pdf (big PDFs)