NationStates Jolt Archive

Now you're starting to lose it. A circumcision is not more dangerous and painful than penile cancer. Particularly since if the circumcision is performed when the child is an infant, he will have absolutely no memory of it.


I was under the impression that the increased risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised males was due to hygiene again rather than the foreskin itself. Hence why those who have suffered from phimosis are more likely to develop cancer.

So who should be empowered to make these medical choices, if not the parents?

Of course the parents. If they use that power to abuse their children, and I can't come up with a better verb to describe cosmetic surgery, that it should be stripped from.

I thought we were talking about UTI. As for penile cancer, you might read up on a concept called expected value. Circumcision probably is more dangerous and painful, if you take into account the odds of contracting penile cancer and how much circumcision even affects those odds.
I was present when my brother was circumcised, and he cried more loudly about being set down on the table than he did about the procedure. Didn't seem to bother him particularly. He's never had any ill effects as a result. So, for at least one baby, circumcision wasn't a big deal.

If that procedure lowered his chances of getting sick, then I'd say it was more than worth it. My parents also thought so, and I believe they know a helluva lot more about my brother's well-being than you do. I don't think there is anybody more qualified than my parents to make choices about my brother's medical care. You appear to believe there is. So who is that? You?

Of course the parents. If they use that power to abuse their children, and I can't come up with a better verb to describe cosmetic surgery, that it should be stripped from.
That means it's NOT up to the parents, because you are placing some other form of judgment higher than that of the parents.

So who gets to decide which procedures are okay and which are not? You clearly and obviously do NOT believe parents get to do so, so who do you appoint?

I was under the impression that the increased risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised males was due to hygiene again rather than the foreskin itself. Hence why those who have suffered from phimosis are more likely to develop cancer.
Honestly, from what I've read, the jury is still out on a lot of this. Five years ago there was a growing consensus that circumcision was a wise medical choice. Then the consensus started to drop away in light of newer research.

It's kind of like how the medical stance on eating eggs shifted constantly during my childhood. I remember a point at which the egg was held up as the 'perfect food', and all good parents were supposed to make sure their kids had lots of eggs. But then eggs were suddenly badevilnotgood, and good parents were supposed to make sure their children stayed away from eggs at all costs. And it swung back and forth several times.

That means it's NOT up to the parents, because you are placing some other form of judgment higher than that of the parents.

Of course I don't give parents ultimate authority to do what they bloody well like to their kids, who in their right minds would? We have these fantastic systems of courts and judges to keep abusive parents among others in check.

Of course I don't give parents ultimate authority to do what they bloody well like to their, who in their right minds would? We have these fantastic systems of courts and judges to keep abusive parents among others in check.
So you believe that the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents?

In the USA we're allowed to neuter our pets. In fact, we're strongly encouraged to do so. If we're allowed to remove a dog's testicles completely, I think it's a bit weird to say that it would then be wrong to circumcise him.

At any rate, with a few notable exceptions men are not dogs, nor are dogs men. The rules which govern medical care for humans are not the same as the rules for veterinary care of animals.

You're allowed to dock animals in the US as well - the thing is, there's a good reason to neuter dogs and cats - and that's that they'll screw anything and don't tend to pay child care.

If there's good reason then fine, for no reason?

Of course I don't give parents ultimate authority to do what they bloody well like to their, who in their right minds would? We have these fantastic systems of courts and judges to keep abusive parents among others in check.
So you believe that the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents?

You're allowed to dock animals in the US as well - the thing is, there's a good reason to neuter dogs and cats - and that's that they'll screw anything and don't tend to pay child care.

If there's good reason then fine, for no reason?
We've already established, many times over, that a number of people feel there is good reason for circumcision.

You may personally disagree with them. That's your business. So far, I've not seen anybody arguing that circumcision should be mandatory.

We've already established, many times over, that a number of people feel there is good reason for circumcision.

You may personally disagree with them. That's your business. So far, I've not seen anybody arguing that circumcision should be mandatory.

It's not mandatory for dogs either - it's done for a variety of reasons and, in fact, it's allowed for medical reasons as well.

What I feel is that we're treating humans differently to dogs, for whom it's been banned in many countries as a wrong practice.

Why?

Why do we differentiate - in this case we're holding dogs to a higher standard than humans.

I'm really not for or against, and a parent is utterly entitled to do what they feel is best for the child, as long as that's not an uneducated or downright wrong decision but many people don't really do it for a reason, they do it due for culture, religion or plain old 'it's always been this way in my family'.

I don't think that banning it is necessary, I just think that, in general, it's unnecessary and simply something that's done because it's done - if it were a dog however, where feelings are not involved - we ban it or at least argue for it to be banned.

You're glad your kidney was taken out for cosmetic reasons? Damn, I'd be kind of pissed of that.

Hey you're funny!:rolleyes:

Is the concept too difficult for you to grasp if I don't boil it down to one word? OK then, the word is 'yes'.

They are more qualified how?

If you were going to choose any outside party why not the childs GP instead

So you believe that the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents?

Is the concept too difficult for you to grasp if I don't boil it down to one word? OK then, the word is 'yes'.

It's not mandatory for dogs either - it's done for a variety of reasons and, in fact, it's allowed for medical reasons as well.

What I feel is that we're treating humans differently to dogs, for whom it's been banned in many countries as a wrong practice.

Why?

Why do we differentiate - in this case we're holding dogs to a higher standard than humans.

I should certainly hope we differentiate between human medical care and animal medical care.

I don't know why the standards for dogs are what they are. I also don't think we should base our laws about human medical care on what the Kennel Club has decreed for pooches.


I'm really not for or against, and a parent is utterly entitled to do what they feel is best for the child, as long as that's not an uneducated or downright wrong decision but many people don't really do it for a reason, they do it due for culture, religion or plain old 'it's always been this way in my family'.

Listen to what you're saying. You're admitting that they DO have a reason, it's just not a reason you personally agree with.


I don't think that banning it is necessary, I just think that, in general, it's unnecessary and simply something that's done because it's done - if it were a dog however, where feelings are not involved - we ban it or at least argue for it to be banned.
"We" don't do any such thing. I argue that a dog's owner should get to choose whether or not their dog is spayed or circumcised or whathaveyou. We allow owners of birds and pigs and cows to KILL their animals, so how the hell could we turn around and say, "Ahh, but clipping your dog's tail is going too far!"

Is the concept too difficult for you to grasp if I don't boil it down to one word? OK then, the word is 'yes'.
So every time a child runs a temp or needs a check up, the courts become involved. Every time a kid wants to get a piercing, the courts become involved. Jimmy needs three stitches because he fell off his bike? Gotta get the courts involved.

Which forces me to wonder...what's the point in having parents, if they're not going to be allowed to parent?

Then I thank all the Gods and more that you are not my dad. As that is exactly what happened to me. The doctors told my parents that they should say goodbye to me, as the chance of kidney failure was imminent and unstoppable. Only when my dad started to question him, ask for another opinion and actively began to seek a different route for me, that he found only one kidney was damaged beyond repair, and that if they acted quickly enough by removing the bad one they may save the other one along with my life.

You though would have advocated my death rather than my parents right to say what is best for me?
No, he would advocate having the courts become involved. That way it would take much longer for you to receive care, and your parents could juggle legal bills in addition to your medical bills. Because a judge who's read your case file will be far better able to make decisions for you than your parents.

Also I wouldn't allow a parent to take their child's kidney out because THEY (not the doctor's, mind you) think there MIGHT, some time in the FUTURE, be something wrong with that kidney. Even though I'm sure having only one kidney would reduce the chances of contracting some kidney-related illnesses.

Then I thank all the Gods and more that you are not my dad. As that is exactly what happened to me. The doctors told my parents that they should say goodbye to me, as the chance of kidney failure was imminent and unstoppable. Only when my dad started to question him, ask for another opinion and actively began to seek a different route for me, that he found only one kidney was damaged beyond repair, and that if they acted quickly enough by removing the bad one they may save the other one along with my life.

You though would have advocated my death rather than my parents right to say what is best for me?

It's not just Kennel clubs - any country in the EU has banned it as well as many other countries.

I'm happy for standards to be different between animals and humans except here we're taking practically an exact match in terms of the debate and applying higher standards to animals.

There's arguments for docking - tail injury among certain breeds, a possible prevalence of cancer of the tail, yet it's banned by many governments as, and this is the wrong word, inhumane and unnecessary.

This has nothing to do with neutering, it's about clipping a part of the body for highly debatable reasons.

It may be a case of governments giving into an emotional subject and that there's no reason not to dock tails and ears but we do see this as unnecessary and there's obviously an argument to be applied.

Why not with humans?

I'm not holding your opinion to court here, as much as you're not really able to hold my opinions to court.
I don't know a thing about the docking laws in the EU. I don't live in the EU, and I also don't own a dog. From what you've said, it sounds like I disagree with the laws you're talking about. You're right, they're stupid laws, just like it would be stupid to pass laws prohibiting circumcision.

It's not just Kennel clubs - any country in the EU has banned it as well as many other countries.

I'm happy for standards to be different between animals and humans except here we're taking practically an exact match in terms of the debate and applying higher standards to animals.

There's arguments for docking - tail injury among certain breeds, a possible prevalence of cancer of the tail, yet it's banned by many governments as, and this is the wrong word, inhumane and unnecessary.

This has nothing to do with neutering, it's about clipping a part of the body for highly debatable reasons.

It may be a case of governments giving into an emotional subject and that there's no reason not to dock tails and ears but we do see this as unnecessary and there's obviously an argument to be applied.

Why not with humans?

I'm not holding your opinion to court here, as much as you're not really able to hold my opinions to court.

So every time a child runs a temp or needs a check up, the courts become involved. Every time a kid wants to get a piercing, the courts become involved. Jimmy needs three stitches because he fell off his bike? Gotta get the courts involved.

That's basically what happens now, but just to avoid the workload we, by default, give to parents the right to make those decisions. It doesn't mean that they're not accountable to anyone for their decisions. If they make decisions that are downright harmful to their children, court might decide they lose custody of their children. Which has happened, and will happen, and there's nothing wrong about it happening.

I'm so glad I have you to put words into my mouth Now please stop doing it.
You put the words in your own mouth.

I asked, "So you believe that the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents?"

You replied, "Is the concept too difficult for you to grasp if I don't boil it down to one word? OK then, the word is 'yes'."

You flat-out said that YES, the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than the parents.

Perhaps you are rethinking that stance?

Remember when you reply I am a circumsised man, and I can happily report that I am healthey, suffer no lose of sensitivity

I'm not really arguing against your point but how can you tell if you've lost sensitivity or not?

No, he would advocate having the courts become involved. That way it would take much longer for you to receive care, and your parents could juggle legal bills in addition to your medical bills. Because a judge who's read your case file will be far better able to make decisions for you than your parents.

I'm so glad I have you to put words into my mouth Now please stop doing it.

Annnnd once again where is the actual harm form circumsicion?

Remember when you reply I am a circumsised man, and I can happily report that I am healthey, suffer no lose of sensitivity, and have great life and very active sex life
You've been the victim of a "deforming surgery," Peep. You didn't know that, did you?

That's basically what happens now, but just to avoid the workload we, by default, give to parents the right to make those decisions. It doesn't mean that they're not accountable to anyone for their decisions. If they make decisions that are downright harmful to their children, court might decide they lose custody of their children. Which has happened, and will happen, and there's nothing wrong about it happening.

Annnnd once again where is the actual harm form circumsicion?

Remember when you reply I am a circumsised man, and I can happily report that I am healthey, suffer no lose of sensitivity, and have great life and very active sex life

As that is exactly what happened to me.

By your description, no, it's really not. Similar situation would have been that you had two perfectly healthy kidneys, your father would have read about some obscure medical condition which is possibly slightly less likely to hit you if you only have one kidney, and decided to remove your kidney subjecting you to the much greater risks involved with invasive surgery.

By your description, no, it's really not. Similar situation would have been that you had two perfectly healthy kidneys, your father would have read about some obscure medical condition which is possibly slightly less likely to hit you if you only have one kidney, and decided to remove your kidney subjecting you to the much greater risks involved with invasive surgery.

Nope you are in fact completely wrong, the important bit is that the doctor told my parents that I was going to die, and that nothing could be done about it. He was wrong; my parents excerisied their right to make these sorts of descions for and about me; they were right.

Remember you said that my parents should not have this right, if what you advocate was the way it is, then I would simply not be here.

You've been the victim of a "deforming surgery," Peep. You didn't know that, did you?

Would you call losing one ear a deformity? I would. Would you call it a deformity if having one ear was a dominant idea of beauty in your community? I know I still would. I think lopping off parts of people deforms them. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not. If you want to twist that into me running around shouting "you're all deformed! You're all less than human and should be put into camps!" to circumcised people's faces, as I'm sure you do, you're welcome to do so.

Circumcision is really not in the same league as kidney transplants, nor stitches, nor any actual medical procedure done as a reaction to an injury, illness or condition.

Nor is it really in the same league as preventative surgery due to a high, or higher risk of future illness or harm. Where that is the case, then a doctor often needs to assess that risk and advise the parent to make a choice.

Circumcision is a personal decision that is then justified retroactively using inordinately small risks, for which circumcision is a debatable response.

I'm not one for banning it - but I really don't see a strong reason for it.

I can see a child, for whatever hypothetical reason, claiming emotional damage due to a decision not made by him - if I were a judge, not bound by any existing legislation and that emotional damage was sufficient, I might be inclined to rule against the parents decision.

Would you call losing one ear a deformity? I would. Would you call it a deformity if having one ear was a dominant idea of beauty in your community? I know I still would. I think lopping off parts of people deforms them. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not. If you want to twist that into me running around shouting "you're all deformed! You're all less than human and should be put into camps!" to circumcised people's faces, as I'm sure you do, you're welcome to do so.
Personally, I'm inclined to leave it up to the individual. Unless you can establish that the person in question is suffering from an illness like body dysmorphic disorder, I think they're the only person whose opinion really matters.

You may think a man's body is deformed when he's been circumcised, but we've heard from several men who don't feel that way about their bodies. There are men who think a woman is "deformed" if she doesn't have big boobies. There are people who feel that big noses are "deformed." I don't think anybody should be deciding how to shape (or not shape) their body based on whether or not strangers will approve.

Nope you are in fact completely wrong, the important bit is that the doctor told my parents that I was going to die, and that nothing could be done about it. He was wrong; my parents excerisied their right to make these sorts of descions for and about me; they were right.

Remember you said that my parents should not have this right, if what you advocate was the way it is, then I would simply not be here.

Peepleonia - it is different - you had a condition for which a decision needed to be made.

Having a foreskin is not a condition.

Still, I think more damage would be done if parents were allowed to do anything and everything with their offspring without any kind of checks or responsibility to anyone.

I don't see anybody arguing for that. I also don't see why it's a choice between "Courts, not parents, make all medical decisions for children" and "parents were allowed to do anything and everything with their offspring without any kind of checks or responsibility to anyone."

Nope you are in fact completely wrong, the important bit is that the doctor told my parents that I was going to die, and that nothing could be done about it. He was wrong; my parents excerisied their right to make these sorts of descions for and about me; they were right.

Then your doctor was incompetent or for, one reason or another, not willing to do everything in his power to save your life. Which is sad and wrong, and doctors like that should be weeded out. Still, I think more damage would be done if parents were allowed to do anything and everything with their offspring without any kind of checks or responsibility to anyone.

EDIT: Still completely irrelevant to the circumcision debate, of course.

Would you call losing one ear a deformity? I would. Would you call it a deformity if having one ear was a dominant idea of beauty in your community? I know I still would. I think lopping off parts of people deforms them. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not. If you want to twist that into me running around shouting "you're all deformed! You're all less than human and should be put into camps!" to circumcised people's faces, as I'm sure you do, you're welcome to do so.

Would I say that having no foreskin is deforming? Not at all on the contrary I personaly think it make the penis look better. Isn't that a part of deforming, to destroy the beauty of the body? So do I feel then ugly with my foreskin gone? No not at all.


No I don't see myself as deformed, please tell me once again how this is not the case, coz y'know I really enjoy that!

How about we just stick to the artificial body enhancement, which the thread is really about. OK?
Getting a boob job or a cosmetic nose job don't qualify as "artificial body enhancement"?

It's weird, how you're so upset about parents daring to make "cosmetic" changes to their child's body, yet you also are so comfortable insisting that circumcision is "deforming." It sounds like you are quite concerned with the cosmetic appearance after circumcision, and you don't think a parent has the right to make their child's body less physically appealing based on your standards.

There are men who think a woman is "deformed" if she doesn't have big boobies. There are people who feel that big noses are "deformed." I don't think anybody should be deciding how to shape (or not shape) their body based on whether or not strangers will approve.

How about we just stick to the artificial body enhancement, which the thread is really about. OK?

...and can parents make that decision for a child without the child's knowledge or consent unless there's a medical reason?
Please read back a few pages. We've been over this turf before.

It certainly doesn't seem that way. If an uncut man sees his own body as deformed, he can get himself circumcised. A circumcised man who thinks himself deformed on the other hand can never get his penis completely restored.
A man who is unhappy with his penis can never go back in time and get the penis he would have had if his parents had made a different decision regarding circumcision.

Getting a boob job or a cosmetic nose job don't qualify as "artificial body enhancement"?

...and can parents make that decision for a child without the child's knowledge or consent unless there's a medical reason?

Personally, I'm inclined to leave it up to the individual.

It certainly doesn't seem that way. If an uncut man sees his own body as deformed, he can get himself circumcised. A circumcised man who thinks himself deformed on the other hand can never get his penis completely restored.

Peepleonia - it is different - you had a condition for which a decision needed to be made.

Having a foreskin is not a condition.

Yeah true, but what I am arguing against here, is this posters blanket statement that parents should not have the right to make medical desicions for and on behalf of there children, with out their children's consent.

What I have given is an example of how my life and the life's of my family would be radically different if this posters wishes why literally true.

Yeah true, but what I am arguing against here, is this posters blanket statement that parents should not have the right to make medical desicions for and on behalf of there children, with out their children's consent.

What I have given is an example of how my life and the life's of my family would be radically different if this posters wishes why literally true.
That's the point I'm getting at.

We've got one person arguing that parents should not get to make medical decisions for their children. I think that's a lousy idea.

I also think that most people believe parents SHOULD get to make medical decisions for their children, it's just that people have differing opinions on how much freedom parents should have and what restrictions (if any) there should be.

That's why I'm annoyed with the bullshit extremist strawmen being set forth. No, nobody is arguing that parents should be able to to "anything and everything" with their children. No, nobody is arguing that parents should be able to put breast implants in their newborn. What we have is some people who believe that parents should not be permitted to make choices regarding their son's foreskin, and other people who believe that they should.

"But I was having an overwhelming sense of déjà vu, and the other debator's arguments, seemed awfully familiar."

I don't see how it's relevant that circumcision is cosmetic surgery. If a procedure has medical benefits reasonably outweighing the risks it is medically valid, regardless of what reasons it's actually performed for.

And there lies the crux of the matter. Not everyone is convinced that circumcision has such medical benefits. Most major medical organizations aren't convinced. The American Academy of Pediatrics actually specifically states that the risk/benefit analysis simply isn't clear enough to recommend routine infant circumcision.

A man who is unhappy with his penis can never go back in time and get the penis he would have had if his parents had made a different decision regarding circumcision.

Are you saying that a penis circumcised at a later stage of life is different, maybe less aesthetically pleasing than if it had been cut as an infant? Because that, honestly, to me is a completely new type argument.

Please read back a few pages. We've been over this turf before.

If there was an 'embarrassed' icon I would be using it here.

Seems there's a better argument for everyone to be circumcised.

I'll actually research in future (as if....) - I'd thought the medical debate was simply that, a debate, but it seems it's not really a debate anymore.

I'm off to the doctor :mad:

EDIT: Or not, I've skimmed as usual, seems most pediatricians think it's of more benefit than not though

*cancels doctor visit* :)

Are you saying that a penis circumcised at a later stage of life is different, maybe less aesthetically pleasing than if it had been cut as an infant? Because that, honestly, to me is a completely new type argument.
If you circumcise an adult penis, the result will not be identical to what you get if the penis is circumcised in infancy and then matures to adulthood. So yes, they are different. Personally I don't think either one is more or less pleasing, they're just different.

That's why I'm annoyed with the bullshit extremist strawmen being set forth. No, nobody is arguing that parents should be able to to "anything and everything" with their children. No, nobody is arguing that parents should be able to put breast implants in their newborn. What we have is some people who believe that parents should not be permitted to make choices regarding their son's foreskin, and other people who believe that they should.

But I wasn't the one who took the debate to the extremes. I said parents shouldn't have the power to cosmetically enhance their children, which you somehow twisted into "parents shouldn't have any power to make any medical decisions concerning their children". You're accusing me of attacking strawmen when you're doing quite a job of setting them up yourself.

If you look back, you'll specifically find me saying that parents should have the power to make those decisions BY DEFAULT, and they should only be stripped of those privileges if they abuse them. And it should be court's decision whether abuse has happened.

I never said every single decision should be run through the legal system, no matter how much you try misquote and twist my words.

EDIT: And to me, this whole debate is whether to include routine circumcision among the offenses, which courts should deem as abusive.

But I wasn't the one who took the debate to the extremes. I said parents shouldn't have the power to cosmetically enhance their children, which you somehow twisted into "parents shouldn't have any power to make any medical decisions concerning their children". You're accusing me of attacking strawmen when you're doing quite a job of setting them up yourself.

As I have shown, using direct quotes, you specifically said "yes" when I asked, "So you believe that the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents?"

Indeed, you were a bit insulting about my efforts to clarify this point. I tried to use specific language so that I could get a straight answer rather than misrepresenting your views, and you responded by asking, "Is the concept too difficult for you to grasp if I don't boil it down to one word?"

So you gave me the one-word answer: yes. You do think that courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents.


If you look back, you'll specifically find me saying that parents should have the power to make those decisions BY DEFAULT, and they should only be stripped of those privileges if they abuse them. And it should be court's decision whether abuse has happened.

Yes, I know. That's what I said. You believe the courts should have the final word, and courts should judge what is "abuse" and what is not. Hence, it is not up to parents to make these decisions.


I never said every single decision should be run through the legal system, no matter how much you try misquote and twist my words.
I directly quoted your COMPLETE post when I quoted you earlier. Please explain how quoting exactly what you wrote is "misquoting."

If there was an 'embarrassed' icon I would be using it here.

Seems there's a better argument for everyone to be circumcised.

I'll actually research in future (as if....) - I'd thought the medical debate was simply that, a debate, but it seems it's not really a debate anymore.

I'm off to the doctor :mad:

EDIT: Or not, I've skimmed as usual, seems most pediatricians think it's of more benefit than not though

*cancels doctor visit* :)
Hehe. I don't personally think it will make a big difference one way or the other. That's why I think it's one of those decisions that is best left to the individual or to their legal guardians.

As I have shown, using direct quotes, you specifically said "yes" when I asked, "So you believe that the courts should be the ones making medical decisions for children, rather than parents?"

Yes I did. I tried to be more verbose about because it wasn't as clear cut as that, but you kept insisting I oversimplify the matter. So I did, Because I grew tired of repeating myself.

If a court says abuse has happened and parents say that it hasn't, I put the ultimate authority on the matter in the hands of court. Parents don't deserve it just because "it's their kid". That's my view on the matter.

Indeed, you were a bit insulting about my efforts to clarify this point. I tried to use specific language so that I could get a straight answer rather than misrepresenting your views, and you responded by asking, "Is the concept too difficult for you to grasp if I don't boil it down to one word?"

As I said, you kept pushing and I ran out patience. I'm sorry if I appeared insulting.

I directly quoted your COMPLETE post when I quoted you earlier. Please explain how quoting exactly what you wrote is "misquoting."

"No, he would advocate having the courts become involved. That way it would take much longer for you to receive care, and your parents could juggle legal bills in addition to your medical bills. Because a judge who's read your case file will be far better able to make decisions for you than your parents."

Like I said earlier, I never said every decision should be run through the legal system. You said that, and insinuated I did it. I found THAT offensive.

"No, he would advocate having the courts become involved. That way it would take much longer for you to receive care, and your parents could juggle legal bills in addition to your medical bills. Because a judge who's read your case file will be far better able to make decisions for you than your parents."

Like I said earlier, I never said every decision should be run through the legal system. You said that, and insinuated I did it. I found THAT offensive.
(Bold mine)

Except you DID say that, and I quoted it directly. If you misspoke then we can just drop it, but please stop acting like I'm twisting your words when I'm directly quoting exactly what you said.

(Bold mine)

Except you DID say that, and I quoted it directly. If you misspoke then we can just drop it, but please stop acting like I'm twisting your words when I'm directly quoting exactly what you said.

That's basically what happens now, but just to avoid the workload we, by default, give to parents the right to make those decisions. It doesn't mean that they're not accountable to anyone for their decisions. If they make decisions that are downright harmful to their children, court might decide they lose custody of their children. Which has happened, and will happen, and there's nothing wrong about it happening.

I think there's a slight difference in what he's saying here

Except you DID say that, and I quoted it directly. If you misspoke then we can just drop it, but please stop acting like I'm twisting your words when I'm directly quoting exactly what you said.

Fine. I misspoke. It was all my fault. You showed nothing but the finest of etiquette while you spoke on my behalf. I'm dreadfully sorry about the entire incident.

And there lies the crux of the matter. Not everyone is convinced that circumcision has such medical benefits. Most major medical organizations aren't convinced. The American Academy of Pediatrics actually specifically states that the risk/benefit analysis simply isn't clear enough to recommend routine infant circumcision.

Certainly, but I don't recall any major medical organizations being convinced of the risks outweighing the benefits either.

I don't think anyone is advocating routine infant circumcision. Although the risk/benefit analysis is unclear, the benefits on their own are visible, just whether they're worth it is up for debate. As are the risks which come with all surgical procedures. The fuzziness of the debate is half the point, since as a result of this most medical organizations appear to be advocating presenting information to parents and allowing them to decide for themselves.

Which is what those in favour of circumcision also appear to be advocating.

Certainly, but I don't recall any major medical organizations being convinced of the risks outweighing the benefits either.

I don't think anyone is advocating routine infant circumcision. Although the risk/benefit analysis is unclear, the benefits on their own are visible, just whether they're worth it is up for debate. As are the risks which come with all surgical procedures. The fuzziness of the debate is half the point, since as a result of this most medical organizations appear to be advocating presenting information to parents and allowing them to decide for themselves.

Which is what those in favour of circumcision also appear to be advocating.

Exactly.

I absolutely positively do NOT support mandatory circumcision for anybody, child or adult.

I only support mandatory medical procedures if there is a clear and present threat to public health, and the procedure in question is certain to address that threat.

(Off the top of my head, this would be like how people who have TB are not simply allowed to go their merry way without being treated, because that poses a serious threat to the public.)

Certainly, but I don't recall any major medical organizations being convinced of the risks outweighing the benefits either.

I don't think anyone is advocating routine infant circumcision. Although the risk/benefit analysis is unclear, the benefits on their own are visible, just whether they're worth it is up for debate. As are the risks which come with all surgical procedures. The fuzziness of the debate is half the point, since as a result of this most medical organizations appear to be advocating presenting information to parents and allowing them to decide for themselves.

Which is what those in favour of circumcision also appear to be advocating.

I'm not sure the benefits are that visible. I think the fact that the debate has recently changed direction on it, means that we should be looking for a real trend before leaping to judgement. It looks like medical science has maybe been wrong about the appendix for decades... I don't think we should rush to judgement.

What real benefit is there to circumcision, that couldn't be equalled by being less indiscriminate in partners? What is there to outweigh mutilation of babies?

So if the parents suspect their son might want an old, faded unicorn tattoo on his abdomen, they should do it while he's still in a crib? Because certainly a tattoo wouldn't look faded as fast if he got it as an adult. If it turns out he didn't want a unicorn tattoo at all, then tough luck, he probably wouldn't have been happy with his body no matter what his parents had decided tattoowise.
If tattooing has the same negligible medical risk for an infant that circumcision does, then I would agree it is up to the parents to make that choice. I honestly don't know what the medical risks of tattooing an infant would be, however, so I don't know if it's reasonable to equate them with circumcision. If you have sources regarding this I would be happy to read them...I'm actually kind of curious to know!

In my home state, a minor can receive a tattoo with parental consent. I don't have a problem with this being legal, though I personally don't think it's a very good idea.

If you circumcise an adult penis, the result will not be identical to what you get if the penis is circumcised in infancy and then matures to adulthood. So yes, they are different. Personally I don't think either one is more or less pleasing, they're just different.

So if the parents suspect their son might want an old, faded unicorn tattoo on his abdomen, they should do it while he's still in a crib? Because certainly a tattoo wouldn't look faded as fast if he got it as an adult. If it turns out he didn't want a unicorn tattoo at all, then tough luck, he probably wouldn't have been happy with his body no matter what his parents had decided tattoowise.

If tattooing has the same negligible medical risk for an infant that circumcision does, then I would agree it is up to the parents to make that choice.

Then I suppose our world views are so different that continuing this debate is likely to prove fruitless and not likely to sway either one of us. I think people should be free to make as many decisions regarding their life as possible, and I equate forced circumcision into the same category as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage and the murdering of apostates. Of course I don't mean to imply that people who don't oppose circumcision would support those things, I'm merely trying to illustrate my view on the issue.

Then I suppose our world views are so different that continuing this debate is likely to prove fruitless and not likely to sway either one of us. I think people should be free to make as many decisions regarding their life as possible, and I equate forced circumcision into the same category as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage and the murdering of apostates. Of course I don't mean to imply that people who don't oppose circumcision would support those things, I'm merely trying to illustrate my view on the issue.
I guess you're right. I can't think of many productive things to say to a person who compares removal of the foreskin to murder.

I guess you're right. I can't think of many productive things to say to a person who compares removal of the foreskin to murder.

You make it sound as though he equates the two. He's only equating the factor of being unable to choose. (edit) specifically because they figure that to be the relevant factor.

You make it sound as though he equates the two. He's only equating the factor of being unable to choose.
"I equate forced circumcision into the same category as female genital mutilation, arranged marriage and the murdering of apostates."

There are so many things which bother me about that sentence that I'm not sure where to start. So I agree with V's assessment: probably best to just drop this line of discussion.

I guess you're right. I can't think of many productive things to say to a person who compares removal of the foreskin to murder.

If you perceived that to be the jist of what I said, then I can only say that during the course of this debate I did get a distinct impression of you as a person, and you have yet to say a thing that would have swayed me from that assumption.

You make it sound as though he equates the two. He's only equating the factor of being unable to choose. (edit) specifically because they figure that to be the relevant factor.

But he is talking about the right of consent vs parental control and ascribing no limits nor degrees on either of them. He has indeed indicated that there is no difference between a parent getting rid of the child's foreskin, and the parent getting the child tattooed.

This is simply ludicrous, there are of course many differences in these two actions. Again I speak as a circumcised man, I have seen many of us 'roundheads' in this thread proclaim that it really is a non issue, and only one say that it is, and only one more say that he wishes he still had his foreskin.

If anecdotal evidence is any indication, then it indicates that for the vast majority male circumcision is not an issue to get het up over.

If you perceived that to be the jist of what I said, then I can only say that during the course of this debate I did get a distinct impression of you as a person, and you have yet to say a thing that would have swayed me from that assumption.

you know, I have a hard time imagining bottle gives a flying fuck about what you think of her.

Seriously, what the fuck is up with people new to this board wandering around with the mistaken presumption that we should care what they think of us? Are you under some misapprehention that your opinion of my, or her, personality is something we care about? Do you believe that we lie awake at night wondering what your "distinct impression" of us as persons is?

Oh no, some annonymous poster with bad debating skills and poorly thought out opinions doesn't like me!

you know, I have a hard time imagining bottle gives a flying fuck about what you think of her.

I'm certain she doesn't.

I'm certain she doesn't.

so you felt the need to type it...why? Like the sound of your fingers hitting the keyboard?

Like the sound of your fingers hitting the keyboard?

It is quite soothing.......

Although it is somewhat fun to be agreeing with Bottle, it is not a habit that I am used to. So Vimeria you stick with it chap, and hopefully one day I'll be agreeing you you!:D

But he is talking about the right of consent vs parental control and ascribing no limits nor degrees on either of them. He has indeed indicated that there is no difference between a parent getting rid of the child's foreskin, and the parent getting the child tattooed.

This is simply ludicrous, there are of course many differences in these two actions. Again I speak as a circumcised man, I have seen many of us 'roundheads' in this thread proclaim that it really is a non issue, and only one say that it is, and only one more say that he wishes he still had his foreskin.

If anecdotal evidence is any indication, then it indicates that for the vast majority male circumcision is not an issue to get het up over.

To be perfectly fair, if it were common for parents to get their children tattoos at a young age, most people who grew up with tattoos probably would consider it a non-issue. If one does not feel that there are medical benefits to circumcisions, it is perfectly reasonable to compare it to something like a tattoo. It is a permanent change to the body which can only be changed back with an expensive procedure that generally does not completely work. Of course, if one believes that there are clear medical benefits from the procedure, one will probably find that comparison to be ridiculous.

Bwhahahahha! Ohhh really?

What wrong with leaving the choice to the boy when he's old enough? He can talk to his doc, get all the info. There's no harm in waiting, the kid isn't going to be putting his penis to use for awhile. I just don't see the harm in waiting.

To be perfectly fair, if it were common for parents to get their children tattoos at a young age, most people who grew up with tattoos probably would consider it a non-issue.

Indeed, there are cultures in which it is normal for children to receive tattoos. It's what is normal for them, so to them it is a non-issue. And, one should note, in all such cultures that I know of, the practicing of tattooing is far more painful than the form we know in the modernized Western world.

There's no harm in waiting, the kid isn't going to be putting his penis to use for awhile.
Now I'm just confused. My brother isn't 18 yet, but he's used his penis at least several times a day for the entire time I've known him. More often, if he drinks lots of soda.

Now I'm just confused. My brother isn't 18 yet, but he's used his penis at least several times a day for the entire time I've known him. More often, if he drinks lots of soda.

Good excuse for touching it that ;)
Seriously though, the point that a baby is not supposed to put his peepee into HIV infected people remains quite valid in my eyes.

Good excuse for touching it that ;)
Seriously though, the point that a baby is not supposed to put his peepee into HIV infected people remains quite valid in my eyes.
Where I live, the majority of my peers lost their virginity before they reached legal adulthood. Waiting until your child is a legal adult to make decisions regarding his sexuality is, frankly, naive and dangerous.

Where I live, the majority of my peers lost their virginity before they reached legal adulthood. Waiting until your child is a legal adult to make decisions regarding his sexuality is, frankly, naive and dangerous.

When I read this I was struck with a sense of wrongness, it took a re-read and a few seconds of thought to work out what it was.

In essence you are saying it's fine to prepare your child to brake the law, in fact not doing so is naive and somehow dangerous.

And your reply was to a post that basicly said, yeah get the kid done when he is young, whilst he is not having sex.

When I read this I was struck with a sense of wrongness, it took a re-read and a few seconds of thought to work out what it was.

In essence you are saying it's fine to prepare your child to brake the law, in fact not doing so is naive and somehow dangerous.

Actually, that doesn't even come close to approaching what I said.

I said that most kids lose their virginity before they're legal adults. Where I live, it's not illegal to have sex if you're a minor. A couple of 16 year olds getting nekkid in the back seat are not committing a crime. So addressing the fact that your minor child may be sexually active does not, in fact, constitute preparing them to break the law.

Furthermore, I said that THE MAJORITY OF YOUNG PEOPLE DO THIS. Whether or not you think it is a good idea, it would be stupid with a capital DUH to simply put your fingers in your ears and assume that it won't happen if you don't think about it. Statistically speaking, your child is probably going to have sex before they are legally allowed to make their own medical decisions. Whether or not you LIKE that is not my point. My point was that it's silly to put off sex-related decisions until the kid is able to legally make their own choices, because odds are they're going to have been sexually active before that happens.

Circumcision is mutilation. That's the bottom line.

Circumcision is mutilation. That's the bottom line.

Cos Stone Cold said so?

Circumcision is mutilation.
Fur is murder.

Homosexuality is unnatural.

Dissent is treason.

I like this game!

Actually, that doesn't even come close to approaching what I said.

I said that most kids lose their virginity before they're legal adults. Where I live, it's not illegal to have sex if you're a minor. A couple of 16 year olds getting nekkid in the back seat are not committing a crime. So addressing the fact that your minor child may be sexually active does not, in fact, constitute preparing them to break the law.

Furthermore, I said that THE MAJORITY OF YOUNG PEOPLE DO THIS. Whether or not you think it is a good idea, it would be stupid with a capital DUH to simply put your fingers in your ears and assume that it won't happen if you don't think about it. Statistically speaking, your child is probably going to have sex before they are legally allowed to make their own medical decisions. Whether or not you LIKE that is not my point. My point was that it's silly to put off sex-related decisions until the kid is able to legally make their own choices, because odds are they're going to have been sexually active before that happens.

All true, but posted on in reply to a post that simply said, babies do not have sex!

Circumcision is mutilation. That's the bottom line.

So is piercing, tattooing, permanent make up(eyelash dyeing for example) cutting the hair, dyeing the hair, any cosmetic surgery. Whats your point?

All true, but posted on in reply to a post that simply said, babies do not have sex!
Okay.

Fur is murder.

Homosexuality is unnatural.

Dissent is treason.

I like this game!

Meat is murder!(heh the first time I saw this slogan painted on a wall was back in 86-ish, and the friend I was with at the time misunderstood it. He thought it was saying meatloaf(the singer) is murder(slang for good, at the time) He gave a big cheer(him being a 'loaf fan) and I had to explain it to him)

So is piercing, tattooing, permanent make up(eyelash dyeing for example) cutting the hair, dyeing the hair, any cosmetic surgery. Whats your point?

All of which are conscious choices. If you're circumcised as an infant, it IS mutiliation.

All of which are conscious choices. If you're circumcised as an infant, it IS mutiliation.
If you've read the thread, you've seen that there are adult men who do not feel mutilated by the circumcision they received in infancy. Is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by your opinion?

All of which are conscious choices. If you're circumcised as an infant, it IS mutiliation.

If the act of removing a bit of your body is mutilation, then surly the age at which it is done has no bearing on whether it is or is not mutilation. So again whats your point?

Furthermore, I said that THE MAJORITY OF YOUNG PEOPLE DO THIS. Whether or not you think it is a good idea, it would be stupid with a capital DUH to simply put your fingers in your ears and assume that it won't happen if you don't think about it. Statistically speaking, your child is probably going to have sex before they are legally allowed to make their own medical decisions. Whether or not you LIKE that is not my point. My point was that it's silly to put off sex-related decisions until the kid is able to legally make their own choices, because odds are they're going to have been sexually active before that happens.

Interestingly enough, a minor can legally make sex-related medical decisions before they become a legal adult. A young girl can get an exam, get on the pill, receive prenatal care (just about anything but have an abortion, really) without her parents being informed. I don't see why a young man couldn't get a circumcision in the same way, if it were left up to him and he was doing it as protection from STDs.

Interestingly enough, a minor can legally make sex-related medical decisions before they become a legal adult. A young girl can get an exam, get on the pill, receive prenatal care (just about anything but have an abortion, really) without her parents being informed. I don't see why a young man couldn't get a circumcision in the same way, if it were left up to him and he was doing it as protection from STDs.
I can see some arguments against it (though I actually agree with you). Here's me putting on the Devil's Advocate hat:

1) Circumcision is a surgical procedure which removes a part of the body. Taking the pill does not. Getting a pelvic does not. Etc. Indeed, as you pointed out, the surgical reproductive health care that girls may receive is not available to them without parental consent (in most places).

2) Circumcision is perceived by many as a purely cosmetic procedure. To the best of my knowledge, minor girls are not allowed to have cosmetic surgery without consent of their legal guardian.

3) Why should a young man be permitted to get a circumcision "as protection from STDs," but not for purely cosmetic reasons? If he's old enough to make an informed and rational choice about disease prevention, it seems odd to insist that he's not old enough to make choices about how he wants his body to look/feel.

If you mutilate someone, and they grow up mutilated and so, know no other way... does that mean they are not mutilated? No - it just means they know no other way.

It isn't about opinion... if you've been mutilated, it doesn't matter what you think, it still happened.
I have the opposite view, strangely enough.

To mutilate something is to render it imperfect or crippled. Far as I'm concerned, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. If a man thinks his penis is great just the way it is, then he's not mutilated. If it works just fine for him, then he's not crippled. His opinion is the only one that matters.

If you've read the thread, you've seen that there are adult men who do not feel mutilated by the circumcision they received in infancy. Is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by your opinion?

If you mutilate someone, and they grow up mutilated and so, know no other way... does that mean they are not mutilated? No - it just means they know no other way.

It isn't about opinion... if you've been mutilated, it doesn't matter what you think, it still happened.

I have the opposite view, strangely enough.

To mutilate something is to render it imperfect or crippled. Far as I'm concerned, perfection is in the eye of the beholder. If a man thinks his penis is great just the way it is, then he's not mutilated. If it works just fine for him, then he's not crippled. His opinion is the only one that matters.

So - if you cut an infant's arms off, and that child adapts and learns to do everything 'by foot'... and ends up thinking he/she is just peachy how they are... they weren't mutilated? It's a matter of opinion?

I don't buy it. When you start cutting pieces off of people, you mutilate them... no matter whether 'everyone is like that' or they 'get used to it'.

So - if you cut an infant's arms off, and that child adapts and learns to do everything 'by foot'... and ends up thinking he/she is just peachy how they are... they weren't mutilated? It's a matter of opinion?

Perhaps it's because I have friends who are "disabled" or "mutilated" in one way or another, but I know that I'd get my ass kicked if I told them they were crippled and imperfect. :D

At any rate, we aren't talking about crippling anybody anyhow. Removing the foreskin does not in any way prevent the penis from performing any of its many functions. Indeed, I can't think of anything that a man with a foreskin can do which a man without a foreskin cannot. Aside from playing with his own foreskin, that is.

When I talked about mutilation, I was referring to changes of this nature, though I suppose if I think about it I would probably also extend it to more general topics as well.

I don't buy it. When you start cutting pieces off of people, you mutilate them... no matter whether 'everyone is like that' or they 'get used to it'.
Now that's just too general to be remotely true. There are plenty of cases when cutting a piece off of somebody would not be mutilation. Indeed, there are cases where people consider it necessary to remove a piece of somebody's body in order to render them NORMAL and non-deformed!

Perhaps it's because I have friends who are "disabled" or "mutilated" in one way or another, but I know that I'd get my ass kicked if I told them they were crippled and imperfect. :D

At any rate, we aren't talking about crippling anybody anyhow. Removing the foreskin does not in any way prevent the penis from performing any of its many functions. Indeed, I can't think of anything that a man with a foreskin can do which a man without a foreskin cannot. Aside from playing with his own foreskin, that is.

When I talked about mutilation, I was referring to changes of this nature, though I suppose if I think about it I would probably also extend it to more general topics as well.


I'm not attacking people who are 'disabled' or 'mutilated'... but there is a difference between a 'medical condition' and 'lopping bits off, 'cause you think it looks nice'.

How many of your friends that are disabled or mutilated chose to be that way? How many had that choice made by their parents?

I've had friends that would fit into both categories, I suspect... but if a guy wants to mutilate himself (from bisected tongues to bisected dicks, I'll never understand it) that's his choice. If a person is born disabled. that's not a choice. For a parent to just opt to start cutting shit off perfectly functional organs? Different matter entirely.

Hence, why my son is uncircumcised... as are both of my daughters.


Now that's just too general to be remotely true. There are plenty of cases when cutting a piece off of somebody would not be mutilation. Indeed, there are cases where people consider it necessary to remove a piece of somebody's body in order to render them NORMAL and non-deformed!

Abberent material, maybe... extra fingers, growths, etc... but what about normal, functional tissue? How is circumcision any different to... for example... 'cropping ears' on your baby, like people have historically done to Doberman puppies?

How is circumcision any different to... for example... 'cropping ears' on your baby, like people have historically done to Doberman puppies?

Heh ya just haven't been bothered to read the thread huh!

Lemme say it once more for you then.

First of though if you really don't know the differance between cutting of that bit of flappy skin, and cropping the ears then I shudder to imagine how you grew up.

I speak as a circumsied man, I 'got done' for medical reasons when I was 18 months old.

I am happy with my lack of foreskin, it makes no difference to my life. In fact the only difference between me and the majority of my male siblings, is that I don't have a foreskin.

I have of course talked to men both with and without, and the main consensus seems to be *shrug*

So the argument that it is damaging is void.

It is a parents job to make tough decisions for and on behalf of their children, yes even without the child's consent.

So the argument about the right of the child is also void.

Now please bring something new to the table.

I'm not attacking people who are 'disabled' or 'mutilated'... but there is a difference between a 'medical condition' and 'lopping bits off, 'cause you think it looks nice'.

If we're talking about changes made for aesthetic reasons alone, then the deciding factor on whether it's mutilation would seem to be whether the party in question is happy about the result.


How many of your friends that are disabled or mutilated chose to be that way? How many had that choice made by their parents?

One.


I've had friends that would fit into both categories, I suspect... but if a guy wants to mutilate himself (from bisected tongues to bisected dicks, I'll never understand it) that's his choice. If a person is born disabled. that's not a choice. For a parent to just opt to start cutting shit off perfectly functional organs? Different matter entirely.

Yes, it's different. But, as I've pointed out before, I find it odd to suggest that a parent could make life-or-death choices about something like "we may need to amputate the arm to save your son's life," yet we don't trust them to choose whether or not his foreskin gets removed.


Hence, why my son is uncircumcised... as are both of my daughters.

And I believe that you should be the one to make that decision (along with your children's other parent(s) if any), NOT some judge or doctor or government body.


Abberent material, maybe... extra fingers, growths, etc... but what about normal, functional tissue?

Normal is relative, and not all functioning tissue should always be preserved.

Please remember: I'm not arguing that anybody SHOULD get their child circumcised, I'm simply saying that I think that decision is best made by the people who are entrusted with raising the child and making his medical decisions.


How is circumcision any different to... for example... 'cropping ears' on your baby, like people have historically done to Doberman puppies?
As I've already said, I believe a parent should have the right to choose whether or not their child gets holes poked in his/her ears, which is kind of along those lines. The fact that I, personally, think it's a lousy idea doesn't mean that I think parents should be barred from making that choice.

Parents modify their children's bodies constantly. You modify your child's body with the food you feed them. With the shoes they wear. With whether or not you put sunscreen on them when they're out to play. Many of the modifications that parents impose on their children's bodies are less visible than circumcision yet are far more serious and far more likely to impact the child's life down the road. Parents do plenty more serious things in an effort to make their children more aesthetically pleasing.

Honestly, I think circumcision is a pretty minor change compared to many of the other ways that parents routinely modify their children's bodies. It's just the circumcision is very conspicuous.

I don't plan to have children, myself, so I've never really thought about whether I'd have my own son circumcised. At this point I'd probably leave the choice up to my partner. He has a penis, I don't. I'm willing to defer to his judgment on the subject, because he has personal experience that I lack.

If you've read the thread, you've seen that there are adult men who do not feel mutilated by the circumcision they received in infancy. Is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by your opinion?
And if you read through the whole thread, (or anything else about this issue) then you would have known that there are many adult women who do not feel mutilated by their circumcisions. So, is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by the opinions of those of us who are against GM?

Try again.

I can see some arguments against it (though I actually agree with you). Here's me putting on the Devil's Advocate hat:

1) Circumcision is a surgical procedure which removes a part of the body. Taking the pill does not. Getting a pelvic does not. Etc. Indeed, as you pointed out, the surgical reproductive health care that girls may receive is not available to them without parental consent (in most places).

Well, prenatal care and giving birth (which may or may not require surgery) generally is available without parental consent. It is only abortion (surgical or not) that often is not. I think this points much more to the attitude of many towards abortion itself than to the surgical or dangerous nature of the procedure.

2) Circumcision is perceived by many as a purely cosmetic procedure. To the best of my knowledge, minor girls are not allowed to have cosmetic surgery without consent of their legal guardian.

No, they can't. I was presuming that it would be seen as a possible preventative measure for preventing STD transmission.

3) Why should a young man be permitted to get a circumcision "as protection from STDs," but not for purely cosmetic reasons? If he's old enough to make an informed and rational choice about disease prevention, it seems odd to insist that he's not old enough to make choices about how he wants his body to look/feel.

Indeed, but that's how our law works. Cosmetic procedures can be done at any time and do not deal with issues of life, disease, and death, so there is no reason not to make them wait until adulthood. Medical and reproductive procedures, on the other hand, can be more immediate.

Is it arbitrary? A bit. But so is the age of legal adulthood or any of the other age-related responsibilities and rights.

Now I'm just confused. My brother isn't 18 yet, but he's used his penis at least several times a day for the entire time I've known him. More often, if he drinks lots of soda.

:pYeah, I proabbly should have clarified. For sex with another partner. I also don't think 18 is the right age to wait. Many kids are sexually active long before 18. They just need to be old enough to have an opinon of their own. Be able to sit down with a good doctor that's not pro or anti circumcision, get all the risks and benefits explained to them and then make a decision.

:pYeah, I proabbly should have clarified. For sex with another partner. I also don't think 18 is the right age to wait. Many kids are sexually active long before 18. They just need to be old enough to have an opinon of their own. Be able to sit down with a good doctor that's not pro or anti circumcision, get all the risks and benefits explained to them and then make a decision.

Or at least be old enough to ask for the procedure. My ears were pierced when I was 6. Yes, my mother had to sign for it because I was underage, but the decision to actually do it was mine. In fact, I'd been begging for it for over a year. A circumcision is a bit more complicated, and should be carried out by a doctor, but the comparison has been made here.

Why shouldn't circumcision be carried out when a boy is old enough to ask that it be done and discuss that wish with the doctor himself? At that young an age anyways, I would still expect parental consent to be a part of the process, but it need not be initiated by the parents.

And if you read through the whole thread, (or anything else about this issue) then you would have known that there are many adult women who do not feel mutilated by their circumcisions. So, is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by the opinions of those of us who are against GM?

Try again.
Sigh. Read the thread.

Female genital mutilation is only compared to male circumcision by the ignorant or the down-right assholish. An actual "female circumcision" would involve, at most, removal of a portion of the clitoral hood or a portion of the labia, and would be performed by a medical professional in a clean and safe environment.

If that's what FGM was, then I would say the same thing about it that I say about male circumcision.

Let me say that again:

IF "female circumcision" were legitimately comparable to male circumcision, I would say the same shit about female circumcision that I've been saying about male circumcision.

But it's not.

In FGM, non-medical professionals perform non-regulated "operations," typically without use of any safeguards or anesthetic.

Instead of a safe hospital environment with medical tools, the "operation" is performed in non-sterile conditions with objects like a piece of broken glass or sharp bit of bone.

In FGM, the clitoris is frequently removed. This would be like cutting off the head of your penis.

The labia majora and labia minora are largely or nearly completely cut away. This would be like removing a lot more skin than just the foreskin. Maybe skinning part of the shaft, or removing skin from your testicle region too.

The remnants of the external labia are then sewn together leaving only a small opening for urination or menstruation.

Also, if you read up on the practice of FGM, you will find that the intended purpose of FGM is to prevent the vagina from functioning normally. It is specifically performed to prevent the girl/woman from being able to use her vagina normally. The clitoris is removed so that it cannot perform the function of giving her sexual pleasure. The vagina is sewn closed so it cannot perform the function of having heterosexual sex (until it is cut open after she is wed). Circumcision is NOT intended to stop the penis from functioning, nor does it do so unless there is some kind of horrible error during the procedure.

Please, I'm begging you, don't compare FGM to male circumcision. Until male circumcision involves cutting off the head of your dick, skinning the shaft of your penis, and then sewing your dick shut, it's a bogus comparison.

It's fine if you object to male circumcision. I really want to make it clear that I'm not trying to diminish how you feel about male circumcision, and I'm not trying to say that you can't talk about it or object to it because there are worse things in the world.

Just please do not try to compare circumcisions performed in hospitals by qualified doctors to the butchery that is inflicted on the victims of FGM. You aren't helping your case by doing that, and you are trivializing the experiences of others.

Well, prenatal care and giving birth (which may or may not require surgery) generally is available without parental consent. It is only abortion (surgical or not) that often is not. I think this points much more to the attitude of many towards abortion itself than to the surgical or dangerous nature of the procedure.

I certainly agree with you on this.


No, they can't. I was presuming that it would be seen as a possible preventative measure for preventing STD transmission.

But you're one of the people who's been pointing out that it's not necessarily legit for that purpose. So what if evidence establishes, conclusively, that circumcision does NOT prevent STD transmission?


Indeed, but that's how our law works. Cosmetic procedures can be done at any time and do not deal with issues of life, disease, and death, so there is no reason not to make them wait until adulthood.

I disagree with that. That's like saying that a 25 year old could get a nose job any time, so there's no reason not to make her wait until she's 35.

There's certainly REASONS to allow a minor to have cosmetic surgery. It's just that many people feel the reasons NOT to let a minor have cosmetic surgery will out weigh the reasons to allow it.


Medical and reproductive procedures, on the other hand, can be more immediate.

Is it arbitrary? A bit. But so is the age of legal adulthood or any of the other age-related responsibilities and rights.
Absolutely.

After reading the last ten pages, there is nothing left to say because Bottle won the thread.

Or at least be old enough to ask for the procedure. My ears were pierced when I was 6. Yes, my mother had to sign for it because I was underage, but the decision to actually do it was mine. In fact, I'd been begging for it for over a year. A circumcision is a bit more complicated, and should be carried out by a doctor, but the comparison has been made here.

So if a 6 year old is begging for a circumcision, then it would be okay?

What if, at age 15, he regrets it and wishes that his parents had used their judgment to stop him?

What about a 6 year old begging for boob implants?

Much as I would like to give every individual (child or adult) full control over their own body, I simply can't agree that a 5 or 6 year old should be making choices about whether or not they have cosmetic surgery.


Why shouldn't circumcision be carried out when a boy is old enough to ask that it be done and discuss that wish with the doctor himself? At that young an age anyways, I would still expect parental consent to be a part of the process, but it need not be initiated by the parents.
Personally, I think I agree with you that it would be better to wait until the kid is old enough to have an opinion for themselves. But that's a reflection of how I think parenting should work. And I don't think I get to tell every parent that they've got to use my style for raising their kids.

But you're one of the people who's been pointing out that it's not necessarily legit for that purpose. So what if evidence establishes, conclusively, that circumcision does NOT prevent STD transmission?

If it the medical community ever establishes, conclusively, that there are no medical benefits to circumcision, then I would advocate making it illegal to carry it out on a child unless that child has a medical condition which indicates it, just as I advocate it being illegal to cut off any other part of a child's body without a medical indication for it. If an adult male wanted to do it for cosmetic or religious purposes, I would still have no problem with that.

I disagree with that. That's like saying that a 25 year old could get a nose job any time, so there's no reason not to make her wait until she's 35.

No, it isn't. Both a 25 year old and a 35 year old are legal adults, and making them wait until an arbitrary age would be a civil rights issue. It's more like saying, "I don't need my belly ring, so it doesn't bother me that I couldn't get it without parental consent until I was 18."

There's certainly REASONS to allow a minor to have cosmetic surgery. It's just that many people feel the reasons NOT to let a minor have cosmetic surgery will out weight the reasons to allow it.

Indeed.

Sigh. Read the thread.

Female genital mutilation is only compared to male circumcision by the ignorant or the down-right assholish. An actual "female circumcision" would involve, at most, removal of a portion of the clitoral hood or a portion of the labia, and would be performed by a medical professional in a clean and safe environment.

If that's what FGM was, then I would say the same thing about it that I say about male circumcision.

Let me say that again:

IF "female circumcision" were legitimately comparable to male circumcision, I would say the same shit about female circumcision that I've been saying about male circumcision.

But it's not.

In FGM, non-medical professionals perform non-regulated "operations," typically without use of any safeguards or anesthetic.

Instead of a safe hospital environment with medical tools, the "operation" is performed in non-sterile conditions with objects like a piece of broken glass or sharp bit of bone.

In FGM, the clitoris is frequently removed. This would be like cutting off the head of your penis.

The labia majora and labia minora are largely or nearly completely cut away. This would be like removing a lot more skin than just the foreskin. Maybe skinning part of the shaft, or removing skin from your testicle region too.

The remnants of the external labia are then sewn together leaving only a small opening for urination or menstruation.

Also, if you read up on the practice of FGM, you will find that the intended purpose of FGM is to prevent the vagina from functioning normally. It is specifically performed to prevent the girl/woman from being able to use her vagina normally. The clitoris is removed so that it cannot perform the function of giving her sexual pleasure. The vagina is sewn closed so it cannot perform the function of having heterosexual sex (until it is cut open after she is wed). Circumcision is NOT intended to stop the penis from functioning, nor does it do so unless there is some kind of horrible error during the procedure.

Please, I'm begging you, don't compare FGM to male circumcision. Until male circumcision involves cutting off the head of your dick, skinning the shaft of your penis, and then sewing your dick shut, it's a bogus comparison.

It's fine if you object to male circumcision. I really want to make it clear that I'm not trying to diminish how you feel about male circumcision, and I'm not trying to say that you can't talk about it or object to it because there are worse things in the world.

Just please do not try to compare circumcisions performed in hospitals by qualified doctors to the butchery that is inflicted on the victims of FGM. You aren't helping your case by doing that, and you are trivializing the experiences of others.

QFT, FTW, ETC.

If it the medical community ever establishes, conclusively, that there are no medical benefits to circumcision, then I would advocate making it illegal to carry it out on a child unless that child has a medical condition which indicates it, just as I advocate it being illegal to cut off any other part of a child's body without a medical indication for it. If an adult male wanted to do it for cosmetic or religious purposes, I would still have no problem with that.

But earlier you were saying that you thought it would be OK to let a little boy ask for a circumcision. Or was I misreading you?


No, it isn't. Both a 25 year old and a 35 year old are legal adults, and making them wait until an arbitrary age would be a civil rights issue. It's more like saying, "I don't need my belly ring, so it doesn't bother me that I couldn't get it without parental consent until I was 18."

Yes, making an adult wait would also be a civil rights issue, because they're a legal adult. But that's beside my point.

My point was that the 25 year old has a reason why they want their cosmetic procedure NOW, as opposed to 10 years from now. Just like how a 15 year old has reasons for wanting their cosmetic procedure NOW, as opposed to years from now.

You said "there is no reason not to make them wait until adulthood." My point was simply that yes, there are reasons not to make them wait, just like there are reasons why an adult doesn't want to wait for their surgery.

But earlier you were saying that you thought it would be OK to let a little boy ask for a circumcision. Or was I misreading you?

Outside of the possible medical benefits, I'm iffy on that one. I suppose that, if a minor can get a Prince Albert with parental consent, he should probably be able to get a circumcision with parental consent as well. But, in both cases, I think the practitioner supplying it should speak to the minor himself to make sure he isn't being pressured to do it and should refuse to perform it if he is.

Yes, making an adult wait would also be a civil rights issue, because they're a legal adult. But that's beside my point.

My point was that the 25 year old has a reason why they want their cosmetic procedure NOW, as opposed to 10 years from now. Just like how a 15 year old has reasons for wanting their cosmetic procedure NOW, as opposed to years from now.

Yes, but a 15-year old isn't a legal adult, and thus doesn't have the final say on it.

You said "there is no reason not to make them wait until adulthood." My point was simply that yes, there are reasons not to make them wait, just like there are reasons why an adult doesn't want to wait for their surgery.

Ah, I should have clarified. There is no reason that the law cannot do so. Sure, there are reasons that they want it right now. However, they are still under the care of their parents, and their parents have the legal right to make such decisions. Since the reasons are much less immediate than reproductive issues, the law need not accommodate them.

If we wanted to talk about whether or not a parent should allow such a procedure, that would be another conversation. I would also say that it would vary greatly based on the particular situation involved.

First of though if you really don't know the differance between cutting of that bit of flappy skin, and cropping the ears then I shudder to imagine how you grew up.


Why?

The area of the ear, except for the conch serves basically no purpose. One could argue, in our civilised societies, even the conch itself is largely superfluous.

The procedure of 'cropping ears' - I don't know if you are ignorant of the procedure - doesn't involve removing the entire external ear. It is more like 'shaping' it by removing excess tissue. It serves no real advantageous purpose, except for something purely cosmetic, and.. in Dobermans.. 'traditional'.

So - in many ways, it is identical to circucision.

What is 'the difference'?


I am happy with my lack of foreskin, it makes no difference to my life.


How would you know?


It is a parents job to make tough decisions for and on behalf of their children, yes even without the child's consent.


This is true. That is our job as guardians. That is why we have to be involved in medical procedures, etc.

However, 'shall I cut chunks out of someone's cock' isn't really a 'tough decision', unless you accept that parents also have the right to mutilate children for their own satisfaction.

I wonder if you'd make the same defence if we were talking about cosmetic branding?


So the argument about the right of the child is also void.


Obviously it isn't. But that would be irrelevent anyway. Does the parent have the right to deliberately mutilate a child for no good reason except aesthetics... that's the argument.

Sigh. Read the thread.

Female genital mutilation is only compared to male circumcision by the ignorant or the down-right assholish...

...Please, I'm begging you, don't compare FGM to male circumcision.

Except... it was you that raised the spectre that - basically - it is okay if the victim accepts it later in life.

If you open that door, you've got to allow that the same justification can be used for other, even more barbaric practices.

Except... it was you that raised the spectre that - basically - it is okay if the victim accepts it later in life.

No, the "spectre" of the comparison with female genital mutilation was raised by the anti-circumcision zealots.

And I really, really hate being told I'm a "victim" of "abuse." There are actual victims of actual abuse who, when you say that, are being told that their real abuse is no worse than what I "suffer" through. That is to say I don't suffer one bit and am not a victim.

So when you make the comparison you basically take down your pants, bend over, and take a huge, nasty shit on abuse victims faces everywhere.

Except... it was you that raised the spectre that - basically - it is okay if the victim accepts it later in life.

If you open that door, you've got to allow that the same justification can be used for other, even more barbaric practices.
What door?

I've consistently and repeatedly stated that the reason I think it should be up to the parents to choose regarding male circumcision is because of the extremely low risk involved, and because men who have been circumcised confirm that they are quite able to have full, healthy, normal sex lives after being circumcised. I specifically and repeatedly stated that IF circumcision procedures posed significant medical risk to infant boys then I think it would be fucked up to allow that to continue. (Off the top of my head, I know I expressed clear disapproval of the use of general anesthetic on infants for cosmetic procedures.)

As I made clear in the post you (sort of) quoted, I believe it's up to the parents to make choices regarding minor medical procedures. In fact, I said TWICE in the post you picked out that IF "female circumcision" actually was analogous to male circumcision, then I would support parents' right to make that choice.

The specific reason I do not was clearly spelled out: because the medical fallout, risks, and lasting health consequences of FGM are major and profoundly negative. The medical fallout from male circumcision is no where even close to remotely comparable.

Also, the intent of FGM is to make the vagina unable to function. The intent is to damage the female body and render it unable to perform as it is naturally able to do. That's the stated purpose of the practice. If the intent or result of male circumcision was to render the penis unable to function, I would oppose it.

No, the "spectre" of the comparison with female genital mutilation was raised by the anti-circumcision zealots.

Yeah, I would also like to just get this on the record:

I don't want FGM being referenced in topics about male circumcision. I think it's a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad idea to be comparing the two practices. I respond when other people bring up FGM, out of courtesy and a desire to continue the discussion, but if FGM were totally and completely left out of this discussion then I would be delighted. Please, don't blame me for raising that particular "spectre," because if it were up to me it would never be raised in this type of thread.

No, the "spectre" of the comparison with female genital mutilation was raised by the anti-circumcision zealots.


I'm not talking about that.

Bottle said:

"If you've read the thread, you've seen that there are adult men who do not feel mutilated by the circumcision they received in infancy. Is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by your opinion?"

We aren't talking about whether the surgery is comparable... she is basically saying that 'circumcision is okay, because people don't mind it later'.

So - if people don't mind female circumcision later... the same logic suggests it must be okay.


And I really, really hate being told I'm a "victim" of "abuse."


Okay.

So?

There are actual victims of actual abuse who, when you say that, are being told that their real abuse is no worse than what I "suffer" through.


Not at all. This, my friend, is called a strawman.

I knew someone who was abused by having a very angry parent that often caused them emotional pain and humiliation. I knew someone else who was repeatedly raped over a number of years, by a family member.

Both were abused, but I'd argue on is 'worse' than the other.


That is to say I don't suffer one bit and am not a victim.


That's certainly how you perceive it. This is what Bottle said.

So when you make the comparison you basically take down your pants, bend over, and take a huge, nasty shit on abuse victims faces everywhere.

Again, more straw. I care about victims of abuse. I care about the important things - the kids still in danger, etc. However, I also care about the institutionalised mutilation of babies.

It seems like it is you that is trying to suggest that abuse is abuse is abuse. I've never claimed that butchering a childs reproductive organs on a whim equates with a mother sawing her daughter's arms off, or a husband habitually smashing his wife's face.

We aren't talking about whether the surgery is comparable... she is basically saying that 'circumcision is okay, because people don't mind it later'.

So - if people don't mind female circumcision later... the same logic suggests it must be okay.

If an adult woman feels satisfied with her "female circumcision," then I would respect her feelings and not try to tell her she had been "mutilated" or "crippled." It's her vagina.

However, as I have gone over many many many many times already, performing FGM on infants is not comparable to performing a male circumcision on an infant in my opinion.

The male analog of FGM would be like cutting off the head of the boy's penis and then sewing the remnant shut. I would not support a parent's right to choose to do that to their son, unless there were proven medical reasons why it needed to be done.

What door?

I've consistently and repeatedly stated that the reason I think it should be up to the parents to choose regarding male circumcision is because of the extremely low risk involved, and because men who have been circumcised confirm that they are quite able to have full, healthy, normal sex lives after being circumcised. I specifically and repeatedly stated that IF circumcision procedures posed significant medical risk to infant boys then I think it would be fucked up to allow that to continue. (Off the top of my head, I know I expressed clear disapproval of the use of general anesthetic on infants for cosmetic procedures.)

As I made clear in the post you (sort of) quoted, I believe it's up to the parents to make choices regarding minor medical procedures. In fact, I said TWICE in the post you picked out that IF "female circumcision" actually was analogous to male circumcision, then I would support parents' right to make that choice.

The specific reason I do not was clearly spelled out: because the medical fallout, risks, and lasting health consequences of FGM are major and profoundly negative. The medical fallout from male circumcision is no where even close to remotely comparable.

Also, the intent of FGM is to make the vagina unable to function. The intent is to damage the female body and render it unable to perform as it is naturally able to do. That's the stated purpose of the practice. If the intent or result of male circumcision was to render the penis unable to function, I would oppose it.

I'm not saying the surgery is the same.

You said: "If you've read the thread, you've seen that there are adult men who do not feel mutilated by the circumcision they received in infancy. Is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by your opinion?"

You've made it:

a) a matter of opinion... where I'd have to disagree... mutilation is still mutilation no matter whether you are conscious of it. (Or, indeed, conscious, at all)

b) a matter of the objection being opinion which is intrinsically inferior to the status quo... UNLESS I can present a 'particular reason'.

So - you've argued that circumcision is, basically, okay if the victim is okay with it.

The other poster merely responded to that. Not by arguing that female circumcisions are okay.. but by pointing out that there are also victims of that kind of barbarism, that accept it as okay. By your logic... well, it's okay, then.

I'm not talking about that.

Bottle said:



We aren't talking about whether the surgery is comparable... she is basically saying that 'circumcision is okay, because people don't mind it later'.

No, she is saying, "If I say I am not a victim of abuse, what position are you in to say that I am wrong about myself and that you are right?"


So - if people don't mind female circumcision later... the same logic suggests it must be okay.

If you say someone is a victim and that someone vehemently denies it, guess whose opinion I'm going to respect here.

That's all. It's not about whether not-being-a-victim amounts to "must be okay." It's about whether you insisting on their victimhood means they must be victims.

Okay.

So?

So? So what? Is that your whole point - piss people off by asserting that they're victims of child abuse? Then they go, "i'm not," and you can dismiss them ... based on what, because if you actually listened to these "abuse victims" you wouldn't have a fucking leg to stand on? I think so.

Not at all. This, my friend, is called a strawman.

I knew someone who was abused by having a very angry parent that often caused them emotional pain and humiliation. I knew someone else who was repeatedly raped over a number of years, by a family member.

Both were abused, but I'd argue on is 'worse' than the other.

Yes, it would be a strawman if the argument wasn't already made in this thread that "abuse is abuse."

An argument I don't really disagree with. Abuse is wrong, and thus any abuse is wrong, it's not like there's "more wrong." If I kill one more person than Hitler, am I more evil? Is it worse? I think it's just more prolific.


Again, more straw. I care about victims of abuse. I care about the important things - the kids still in danger, etc. However, I also care about the institutionalised mutilation of babies.

Because you equate the two with one another. No strawman points for you today.

It seems like it is you that is trying to suggest that abuse is abuse is abuse. I've never claimed that butchering a childs reproductive organs on a whim equates with a mother sawing her daughter's arms off, or a husband habitually smashing his wife's face.

But abuse is abuse. Are you saying circumcision is abuse, or not? If you are, then yes you ARE claiming that they are comparable.

If an adult woman feels satisfied with her "female circumcision," then I would respect her feelings and not try to tell her she had been "mutilated" or "crippled." It's her vagina.


But she WOULD have been mutilated. Whether you are willing to tell her that or no.


However, as I have gone over many many many many times already, performing FGM on infants is not comparable to performing a male circumcision on an infant in my opinion.


Granted. But irrelevent to that point - which was that you said it was (basically) okay to do it, if they don't mind later.


The male analog of FGM would be like cutting off the head of the boy's penis and then sewing the remnant shut.

No, not really. Cutting away the area around the frenulum, perhaps... and there I have to leave it. I'm sure you are aware, there is only a 'small opening' for guys to urinate through anyway. Perhaps your example would have worked better if you'd come up with a version that stitched the penis to the body, or some such. I assume it would also have to interrupt the passage of blood into the penis...

I'm not saying the surgery is the same.

You said:

You've made it:

a) a matter of opinion... where I'd have to disagree... mutilation is still mutilation no matter whether you are conscious of it. (Or, indeed, conscious, at all)

Ahhh, here's the problem.

I'm talking about the individual's opinion of a procedure which (we have established) does not cripple them or render any part of their body non-functional. There is, in my opinion, not really an objective way of deciding whether a cosmetic procedure was "mutilation" or not, because it's cosmetic...it's being done to make something more aesthetically please, and aesthetics are a matter of personal opinion.


b) a matter of the objection being opinion which is intrinsically inferior to the status quo... UNLESS I can present a 'particular reason'.

So - you've argued that circumcision is, basically, okay if the victim is okay with it.

I'm arguing that it's rude to insist that all circumcision is mutilation, since plenty of circumcised individuals don't agree with you. That's like saying that everybody who's had a nose job has been mutilated.


The other poster merely responded to that. Not by arguing that female circumcisions are okay.. but by pointing out that there are also victims of that kind of barbarism, that accept it as okay. By your logic... well, it's okay, then.
No, that's not my logic. Hopefully I've cleared that up for you on this page already.

No, she is saying, "If I say I am not a victim of abuse, what position are you in to say that I am wrong about myself and that you are right?"


Because mutilation is mutilation. If you poke someone's eyes out, it is still damaging their body even if they immediately cry out 'no, it's okay really... I didn't need my eyes anyway'.

Ripping parts of the body isn't ameliorated by fuzzy feelings later in life.

Your opinion is that it's okay.. but, well, what choice do you have?


If you say someone is a victim and that someone vehemently denies it, guess whose opinion I'm going to respect here.


Whichever one the evidence supports?

Victims of rape and other violent abuses - especially where it is institutionalised and long-running, often deny abuse.


That's all. It's not about whether not-being-a-victim amounts to "must be okay." It's about whether you insisting on their victimhood means they must be victims.


Not at all. If someone is circucised before they can consent, for no valid (i.e. medical) reason, then they were mutilated. Whether or not I insist it, it is still a physically clear and present fact.


So? So what? Is that your whole point - piss people off by asserting that they're victims of child abuse? Then they go, "i'm not," and you can dismiss them ... based on what, because if you actually listened to these "abuse victims" you wouldn't have a fucking leg to stand on? I think so.


So - you said you 'hate being told you are a victim of abuse'. And.. well, so?

So what if you hate it?

Men that have been raped often hate being told that they have been victims of rape. Does that mean they weren't raped?


Yes, it would be a strawman if the argument wasn't already made in this thread that "abuse is abuse."


I didn't make that argument. To attack MY argument, based on the weak point of someone else's argument IS a strawman.


An argument I don't really disagree with. Abuse is wrong, and thus any abuse is wrong, it's not like there's "more wrong." If I kill one more person than Hitler, am I more evil? Is it worse? I think it's just more prolific.


Is capital punishment the same as genocide? Is self-defence the same as murder?

Is it possible to kill for a good reason... and if so, wouldn't that mean that it is possible for Hitler and someone to kill exactly the same number of people... but one of the scenarios to be 'more evil' than the other?

I knew someone who said they were abused.. because their parents spanked them when they were naughty. Compared to someone else who was shot at by one of their parents... yopu could argue the two scenarios may belong on the same map... but they are nowhere near each other on that map.


Because you equate the two with one another. No strawman points for you today.


No.. I didn't.


But abuse is abuse. Are you saying circumcision is abuse, or not? If you are, then yes you ARE claiming that they are comparable.

Circumcision is mutilation. I'd argue that you could call that abuse. I'd argue that you could say teaching children a religion before the age of majority... is abuse too. That doesn't mean that would be mutilation - or that the two are of the same scope and magnitude.

But she WOULD have been mutilated. Whether you are willing to tell her that or no.

I don't agree. Just like I don't think that every person who chooses to have a nose job has been mutilated.


Granted. But irrelevent to that point - which was that you said it was (basically) okay to do it, if they don't mind later.

No, that wasn't my argument. I wasn't talking about whether or not it is okay to do it, I was talking about how I feel one should refer to other people's bodies as they are.

It's actually kind of a crucial distinction. There are plenty of things you could do to a kid that they either wouldn't remember or wouldn't worry too much about down the line, but it's still not okay to do those things.



No, not really. Cutting away the area around the frenulum, perhaps... and there I have to leave it.

Sorry, but that's not a valid comparison to cutting the clitoris away.


I'm sure you are aware, there is only a 'small opening' for guys to urinate through anyway. Perhaps your example would have worked better if you'd come up with a version that stitched the penis to the body, or some such. I assume it would also have to interrupt the passage of blood into the penis...
I was actually trying to restrain myself from being even more overly graphic. I'm certainly inclined to be, but I also wanted to make sure that the "ick" factor wouldn't get in the way of discussion.

Whether or not they agree is irrelevent.

If I am decapitated, I am dead... regardless of my opinion on the matter.
Okay, so then you do believe that all individuals who have had a nose job have been mutilated?

(I'm not being snarky here, I'm trying to figure out your though process.)

EDIT: I wish you would have quoted this part of my post:

" There is, in my opinion, not really an objective way of deciding whether a cosmetic procedure was "mutilation" or not, because it's cosmetic...it's being done to make something more aesthetically please, and aesthetics are a matter of personal opinion."

I think this is where the disconnect is occurring. You appear to be arguing that there is some objective standard by which to judge if ANY procedure is "mutilation." I'm saying that when it comes to cosmetic procedures the only real standard is whether or not the person in question feels they were mutilated. If somebody gets a nose job and loves the result, I think it would be weird to say they've been "mutilated." A nose job is a far more aggressive medical procedure than a circumcision, so it's hard for me to see why a nose job would not be "mutilation" while a circumcision would.

Yes, it would be a strawman if the argument wasn't already made in this thread that "abuse is abuse."

An argument I don't really disagree with. Abuse is wrong, and thus any abuse is wrong, it's not like there's "more wrong." If I kill one more person than Hitler, am I more evil? Is it worse? I think it's just more prolific.

There may not be "more wrong" to you, but there is "more damaging," which largely equates to "more wrong" in my opinion. The idea that abuse is abuse and there are no degrees is actually much more of a slap in the face to many abuse victims than the idea that those degrees exist.

It took me a long time to be able to say that I was the victim of abuse as a child, because what was done to me didn't seem "bad enough" to qualify. Many people had gone through much more traumatic events and had been much more obviously affected by it. How could I call what happened to me abuse when it was so much less harmful than what had happened to others? The answer is simple, there are levels of abuse. A group of actions may all be abuse, but some of that is going to be worse than the rest.

But abuse is abuse. Are you saying circumcision is abuse, or not? If you are, then yes you ARE claiming that they are comparable.

It is against the law to bust the taillight in someone's car. It is also against the law to murder someone. Does that mean they are comparable actions?

I'm arguing that it's rude to insist that all circumcision is mutilation, since plenty of circumcised individuals don't agree with you. That's like saying that everybody who's had a nose job has been mutilated.


Whether or not they agree is irrelevent.

If I am decapitated, I am dead... regardless of my opinion on the matter.

Okay, so then you do believe that all individuals who have had a nose job have been mutilated?

(I'm not being snarky here, I'm trying to figure out your though process.)

I would argue that all girls who had the skin of their noses removed, would have been mutilated. Or those that had been disolfacated.. or whatever the term would be.

Sorry, but that's not a valid comparison to cutting the clitoris away.


Why? That's where the main nerve ganglion is, isn't it?


I was actually trying to restrain myself from being even more overly graphic. I'm certainly inclined to be, but I also wanted to make sure that the "ick" factor wouldn't get in the way of discussion.

Well, lopping the head off seems pretty graphic.. and stitching the remains shut seems pretty graphic..

So... it's only too graphic when it is accurate?

Why? That's where the main nerve ganglion is, isn't it?

Well, lopping the head off seems pretty graphic.. and stitching the remains shut seems pretty graphic..

So... it's only too graphic when it is accurate?
Grave, I was trying to make a point while also trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to not go over the top. Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to debate with me at this point. Are you trying to argue that FGM really is comparable to male circumcision? Are you disagreeing with me about the point I was trying to make? Because I really don't think we disagree about any of that.

If you'd like to describe what you think a male equivalent of FGM would be, then go ahead. Personally, as I've said, I would really prefer to just quit talking about FGM and male circumcision in the same thread.

I would argue that all girls who had the skin of their noses removed, would have been mutilated. Or those that had been disolfacated.. or whatever the term would be.
Okay. Then it appears we simply do not use the term "mutilate" in the same way.

To clarify:

For me, the term "mutilate" refers to damaging something in order to either make it unable to function, or to make it aesthetically...deficient? I can't think of the right word to use here.

In the case of the human body, I also don't think it is mutilation if you are removing something for a medical purpose. (Like if somebody has to have their appendix out lest it burst.)

Circumcision does not interfere with the penis' ability to perform any of its many functions. (Some men report that circumcision improves the penis' ability to give sexual pleasure, while other men report the opposite, so I think the jury's out on that part.) This means that, using my interpretation of "mutilate," circumcision is not a "functional mutilation."

This leaves the "aesthetic" mutilation. Since aesthetics are subjective, I believe that "aesthetic mutilation" is also subjective. In the case of the human body, I believe that the opinion which trumps all others is the opinion of the individual who owns the body in question. If the man who has been circumcised does not feel he was mutilated, then his circumcision does not qualify as an "aesthetic mutilation." The only way you can objectively over-rule his opinion is if you can provide evidence that he experienced a functional mutilation.

Sorry to be so long winded, I'm just trying to clear things up because I was getting the impression that there were a lot of crossed wires on this topic.

Honestly, I don't know what you're trying to debate with me at this point.

The point I was debating with you, at that point... was that 'I'm okay with it now, so it's okay" doesn't make a thing not abuse/mutilation/whatever.

The example the other user provided was about people who make the same protestations about FGM, which, I'm pretty sure, you don't think are 'okay'.

This leaves the "aesthetic" mutilation. Since aesthetics are subjective, I believe that "aesthetic mutilation" is also subjective. In the case of the human body, I believe that the opinion which trumps all others is the opinion of the individual who owns the body in question. If the man who has been circumcised does not feel he was mutilated, then his circumcision does not qualify as an "aesthetic mutilation." The only way you can objectively over-rule his opinion is if you can provide evidence that he experienced a functional mutilation.

If a man who has been circumcised does believe that it qualifies as "aesthetic mutilation," does it mean he has been mutilated? [/hasn't read most of the 42 page thread]

The point I was debating with you, at that point... was that 'I'm okay with it now, so it's okay" doesn't make a thing not abuse/mutilation/whatever.

That's the problem, then! THAT WASN'T MY POINT! And I certainly don't believe that is a valid argument.

To use another common topic as a reference point, there are people around here who were beaten as children, yet who don't believe it was child abuse when their father hit them with a belt. Their belief that being hit with a belt wasn't abuse does not magically make it non-abusive to hit your kid with a belt.

I am NOT trying to argue otherwise!

All I'm talking about is the individual's opinion of their own body. I am objecting to the way that some people are saying "circumcision is mutilation," because there are plenty of men who are circumcised by choice and are happy with the result. It's as bogus to say that "circumcision is mutilation" as it would be to say "rhinoplasty is mutilation."

You appear to be defining "mutilation" based on whether or not the party was consenting at the time that the procedure occurred. (Am I wrong about that?) If this is the case, then honestly I think this was a semantic disagreement more than an ideological one.


The example the other user provided was about people who make the same protestations about FGM, which, I'm pretty sure, you don't think are 'okay'.
Just please don't assume that what other people say is necessarily going to match up with MY stance.

If a man who has been circumcised does believe that it qualifies as "aesthetic mutilation," does it mean he has been mutilated? [/hasn't read most of the 42 page thread]
I certainly am not going to tell him that he can't use that term about his own penis. His opinion of the aesthetics is what matters.

[I just thought of a complicating factor with this, though, which is stuff like body dismorphic disorder. I'm going to have to chew on that for a bit before I know what I think.]

I certainly am not going to tell him that he can't use that term about his own penis. His opinion of the aesthetics is what matters.

[I just thought of a complicating factor with this, though, which is stuff like body dismorphic disorder. I'm going to have to chew on that for a bit before I know what I think.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder#Common_locations_of_imagined_defects

So, for what it's worth, it seems that the genital area isn't something that most people with that disorder are concerned with.

Also, how am I supposed to know what to think if you don't tell me what to think. Bah.

:p

Maybe it will help if I mention that I have a close friend who is transgender. If all goes as planned, she will be transitioning within the next 18 months to 2 years.

This is largely why I get so unhappy about the use of the term mutilation when we're talking about "cosmetic" genital surgeries. There are many people who believe that what my friend will go through is mutilation. Many pieces of healthy, functioning tissue are going to be removed from her genital region. If removal of the foreskin counts as "mutilation" no matter what, then what she will have done would certainly qualify as well. But I'm really not okay with anybody telling her that she is going to be "mutilated" when she transitions.

This is why the subjective element is so important to me. I don't feel comfortable telling ANYBODY that their genitals have been "mutilated" if they themselves disagree.

EDIT: Just FYI, I have to head out to a meeting right now, and I may not get to check this thread until tomorrow. Sorry if I've ticked anybody off, I feel like I'm doing a piss-poor job of expressing myself today.

It's as bogus to say that "circumcision is mutilation" as it would be to say "rhinoplasty is mutilation."


Here is our bone of contention.

I say 'mutilation' is an absolute. Either it is.. or it isn't.

Genital mutilations are mutilations, no matter how much you like it.

Maybe it will help if I mention that I have a close friend who is transgender. If all goes as planned, she will be transitioning within the next 18 months to 2 years.

This is largely why I get so unhappy about the use of the term mutilation when we're talking about "cosmetic" genital surgeries. There are many people who believe that what my friend will go through is mutilation. Many pieces of healthy, functioning tissue are going to be removed from her genital region. If removal of the foreskin counts as "mutilation" no matter what, then what she will have done would certainly qualify as well. But I'm really not okay with anybody telling her that she is going to be "mutilated" when she transitions.

This is why the subjective element is so important to me. I don't feel comfortable telling ANYBODY that their genitals have been "mutilated" if they themselves disagree.

Transgender surgery is medical, I'd say. You can still argue mutilation, of course.

But then... to the transgender, isn't it often a matter of already BEING mutilated, at birth? From their perspective... at least. A mutilation they try to fix?

As a woman I prefer a foreskin, just personal preference.

On the other hand I had a boyfriend who needed to be circumcised as an adult and that was not pleasant.

So if there is a medical reason I think OK. As for health benefits, these seem limited. The HIV prevention is because cells in the foreskin act in a way that prevents disease spreading - but has the opposite effect for HIV - something to do with the way the virus works. So chances of getting HIV slightly less, chances of getting other sexually transmitted disease more.

Hygiene - don't you guys wash properly?

Religious reasons - OK I admit I know next to nothing about this but could someone explain please. If god made man in his own image then why remove part of that man?

Another Jewish fad unwitting Goyim have taken on. It's all part of their plan to assimilate you... "oh, now that your dick has been mutilated, you're practically one of us!"

There may not be "more wrong" to you, but there is "more damaging," which largely equates to "more wrong" in my opinion. The idea that abuse is abuse and there are no degrees is actually much more of a slap in the face to many abuse victims than the idea that those degrees exist.

Mm. Maybe you should take it up with the earlier poster, who was arguing against circumcision, who first in this thread said "abuse is abuse."

Or maybe you could take it up with GnI who says "mutilation is mutilation."


It is against the law to bust the taillight in someone's car. It is also against the law to murder someone. Does that mean they are comparable actions?

Yes, they are both crimes.

Because mutilation is mutilation. If you poke someone's eyes out, it is still damaging their body even if they immediately cry out 'no, it's okay really... I didn't need my eyes anyway'.

Ripping parts of the body isn't ameliorated by fuzzy feelings later in life.

Your opinion is that it's okay.. but, well, what choice do you have?

Why, I had no more choice about it than I did about any other decisions of consequence made when I was a child. Not having a choice doesn't make it abuse, otherwise being a human is being abused.

Your argument seems mostly concerned with emotive language and rhetoric. You try to make it seem as graphic and horrific as possible, you compare it with female genital mutilation - hell, why not say it's terrorism too?

Whichever one the evidence supports?

Victims of rape and other violent abuses - especially where it is institutionalised and long-running, often deny abuse.

Yeah, OK. I declare you a victim. You disagree? Oh, well that's just because you aren't thinking rationally, because you're a victim. You're a victim because you deny being a victim, because you are a victim.

As for "evidence," well I don't see any legal precedent for declaring circumcision to be abuse. Maybe you meant "evidence" to mean, "my personal opinion."

Not at all. If someone is circucised before they can consent, for no valid (i.e. medical) reason, then they were mutilated. Whether or not I insist it, it is still a physically clear and present fact.

Oh, a FACT is it? Let's see, factually speaking, the definition of "mutilation."

Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE

Merriam-Webster.

Now, I don't consider the foreskin to be a "limb or essential part." It certainly hasn't been essential to any of my sexual life, daily life or anything else.

Too bad, because that was the most severe connotation, and that's the one I think you mean. And that is in fact applicable to female genital mutilation, which pretty much by definition is maiming and crippling.

Otherwise, it's just a pretty word for "cutting up" something. From that loose definition any surgical cut is "mutilation." I don't think you're arguing that. No, what I think is you use the word "mutilation" because of the emotional shock value and nothing more.

So - you said you 'hate being told you are a victim of abuse'. And.. well, so?

So what if you hate it?

Men that have been raped often hate being told that they have been victims of rape. Does that mean they weren't raped?

So what if I hate it? So, stop doing it. You're sitting here trying to tell me that I and every other male with a circumcision is a ZOMG ABUSE VICTIM who is CRIPPLED AND MAIMED, OHNOES. That gets annoying no matter what the context.

I didn't make that argument. To attack MY argument, based on the weak point of someone else's argument IS a strawman.

Ah yes. You made the argument "mutilation is mutilation," not "abuse is abuse." How exceptionally different.

Is capital punishment the same as genocide? Is self-defence the same as murder?


Is male circumcision the same as female genital mutilation? Your answer here has been essentially, yes. Don't look at *me* when your A=A arguments sink instead of swim.

If you've read the thread, you've seen that there are adult men who do not feel mutilated by the circumcision they received in infancy. Is there any particular reason why their opinions about their bodies should be overruled by your opinion?

Just as there are men who do feel mutilated. Google “foreskin restoration” a bit…

I was circumcised as an infant for medical reasons. And to this day, I fell that there’s something missing from my body.
Had it been done for purely cosmetic reasons I would have been really pissed…

Here is our bone of contention.

I say 'mutilation' is an absolute. Either it is.. or it isn't.

Genital mutilations are mutilations, no matter how much you like it.
Exactly, that is our bone of contention. I don't believe that "mutilation" is absolute at all. I think there is a very large subjective component in many cases.

Why wouldn't it be alright? It makes the baby look like he has a "package" lol... Helps the baby find his baby mate. :P

Transgender surgery is medical, I'd say. You can still argue mutilation, of course.

You CAN argue mutilation for every single surgery that is ever performed, from a technical standpoint. But why would you want to?


But then... to the transgender, isn't it often a matter of already BEING mutilated, at birth? From their perspective... at least. A mutilation they try to fix?
No, that's not what "mutilate" means. Some transgender individuals feel they were deformed at birth, in that their external sex was not the "right" sex, but unless somebody actively selected the wrong gender for them it would not be accurate to say they were "mutilated." (Though that selection does happen sadly often, with intersex individuals, but that's a different topic.)

At any rate, using your definition of mutilation would require that my friend be informed that her transition is a mutilation. Perfectly healthy, functioning tissue is being removed for no purpose other than to make her body take on the appearance and feel that she chooses. Heck, you've flat-out stated that removal of the foreskin IS mutilation, and that's that. Well, her foreskin sure as hell is going to be removed, if she gets her way.

This is why I don't think it's always accurate to say that a particular procedure ALWAYS is or is not mutilation. The subjective aspect is quite important.

Just as there are men who do feel mutilated. Google “foreskin restoration” a bit…

I was circumcised as an infant for medical reasons. And to this day, I fell that there’s something missing from my body.
Had it been done for purely cosmetic reasons I would have been really pissed…
You may have me confused with somebody else in this thread. I'm the person who is asserting that the individual man's opinion is what matters. What I am objecting to is people who label ALL circumcision as universally "mutilation," since there are obviously men who don't agree with that. If you feel that YOUR circumcision was a mutilation, I'm not one of the people who will try to tell you that you must view your body in terms of somebody else's standards for mutilation.

Religious reasons - OK I admit I know next to nothing about this but could someone explain please. If god made man in his own image then why remove part of that man?
I don't know very much about circumcision practices in other religions, but I grew up in a Jewish community so I know a bit about their religious practices:

A ceremony called a Brit milah (also known as a "bris") is performed 8 days after birth, to welcome an infant Jewish boy into the faith. Brit milah means "covenant of circumcision," and reflects the belief that ritual circumcision is part of the covenant between God and the children of Israel. If memory serves, this dates back to Abraham in the Hebrew Bible. The circumcision is a token, a symbol, of the covenant that God made with Abraham.

Why, I had no more choice about it than I did about any other decisions of consequence made when I was a child. Not having a choice doesn't make it abuse, otherwise being a human is being abused.


Inflicting harm on a child counts as abuse... perhaps just in my book. Let me qualify that, actually... if one has to inflict 'harm' to mitigate greater harm - example - giving permission for a surgery (which DOES damage your child) inorder to alleviate a harmful condition.. wouldn't be abuse.

If one opts to commit a child to a surgery, for no GOOD reason, that would be abuse.


Your argument seems mostly concerned with emotive language and rhetoric. You try to make it seem as graphic and horrific as possible, you compare it with female genital mutilation - hell, why not say it's terrorism too?


I have never compared it with female genital mutilation. Not once.


Yeah, OK. I declare you a victim. You disagree? Oh, well that's just because you aren't thinking rationally, because you're a victim. You're a victim because you deny being a victim, because you are a victim.


Errr... okay. So - people that haven't been raped, really HAVE?

The point is - merely DENYING abuse, isn't 'evidence' that no abuse has taken place.

If someone is raped, there is usually evidence that can verify it. If that person disclaims rape, the evidence can actually suggest strongly, that their testimony is flawed.

In the case of someone that has been circumcised, the evidence is there for all to see... well, all of those who have viewing access.


As for "evidence," well I don't see any legal precedent for declaring circumcision to be abuse. Maybe you meant "evidence" to mean, "my personal opinion."


No - I mean 'evidence' in the same way that one would mean 'evidence' if we were discussing domestic abuse... is there a trace of the injury. Yes - the whole foreskin is missing. Pretty glaring.


Oh, a FACT is it? Let's see, factually speaking, the definition of "mutilation."

Main Entry: mu·ti·late
Pronunciation: 'myü-t&-"lAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors>
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : CRIPPLE

Merriam-Webster.

Now, I don't consider the foreskin to be a "limb or essential part." It certainly hasn't been essential to any of my sexual life, daily life or anything else.

Too bad, because that was the most severe connotation, and that's the one I think you mean. And that is in fact applicable to female genital mutilation, which pretty much by definition is maiming and crippling.

Otherwise, it's just a pretty word for "cutting up" something. From that loose definition any surgical cut is "mutilation." I don't think you're arguing that. No, what I think is you use the word "mutilation" because of the emotional shock value and nothing more.


Amusing that you chose the secondary meaning, and then ignore half of the first meaning.

"to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" - this perfectly describes circumcision.

It's not bout emotional shock value.. .it's about it being the most accurate word to describe something.


So what if I hate it? So, stop doing it. You're sitting here trying to tell me that I and every other male with a circumcision is a ZOMG ABUSE VICTIM who is CRIPPLED AND MAIMED, OHNOES. That gets annoying no matter what the context.


I didn't say any of that 'ohnoes' related stuff.. but we both already knew you were just playing that for the effect.

If I hate people calling me an 'Englishman'... should they stop? Is it inaccurate? Yes - my parents were English, I was born in England, raised in England, lived most of my life in England, speak with an English accent, and lack citizenship in any other countries... but they should stop doing it, because I hate it, right?


Ah yes. You made the argument "mutilation is mutilation," not "abuse is abuse." How exceptionally different.


If I say The United States of America IS The United States of America... does that mean that all forms of abuse are equal? No. Even if I equate two things, it doesnt mean all other things equated are 1) necessarily equal, or 2) considered equal (or argued as being equal) by me.

Thus - strawman.


Is male circumcision the same as female genital mutilation? Your answer here has been essentially, yes. Don't look at *me* when your A=A arguments sink instead of swim.

No, it hasn't. My answer has never been that, no matter how much you seem to wish it to be so.

Show me where I said it.

"to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" - this perfectly describes circumcision.

Geez are we still on this one?

So to alter from what it naturally looks like is to make something imperfect is it?
Is that the definition of imperfect that you are going with?

I have no foreskin, and I don't feel mutilated, or abused, nor do I think my cock is imperfect, nor am I crippled.

My knob works just as well as any knob out there flappy bit of skin or not.

I have not been harmed, either physically or mentally, you will find that the majority of 'roundheads' feel this way. Isn't it up to us to decide whether or not we have been abused, are imperfect etc...?

Mm. Maybe you should take it up with the earlier poster, who was arguing against circumcision, who first in this thread said "abuse is abuse."

Maybe I missed something, but you're the only one I've seen making that argument - suggesting that someone must actually equate two things as equally bad if they happen to categorize them the same way.

Yes, they are both crimes.

So they fall under the same category. That doesn't really make the comparable. All sorts of things are crimes. Some crimes are much, much worse than others.

Is male circumcision the same as female genital mutilation? Your answer here has been essentially, yes. Don't look at *me* when your A=A arguments sink instead of swim.

Where on earth did Grave_n say that?

Inflicting harm on a child counts as abuse... perhaps just in my book. Let me qualify that, actually... if one has to inflict 'harm' to mitigate greater harm - example - giving permission for a surgery (which DOES damage your child) inorder to alleviate a harmful condition.. wouldn't be abuse.

If one opts to commit a child to a surgery, for no GOOD reason, that would be abuse.

So, you would declare then that my parents are abusive parents and I am indeed a child abuse victim? Just to clarify your increasingly ridiculous position.


I have never compared it with female genital mutilation. Not once.

Yeah I guess this whole "mutilation" thing is just a random coinciding of ten letters.


Errr... okay. So - people that haven't been raped, really HAVE?

Why yes! Kind of like how people who haven't been abused, really HAVE! This is G_n_i world now. Denial = confirmation!


The point is - merely DENYING abuse, isn't 'evidence' that no abuse has taken place.

Exactly. You deny you've been raped. But that's no evidence that you haven't been raped. Therefore, you've been raped.

If someone is raped, there is usually evidence that can verify it. If that person disclaims rape, the evidence can actually suggest strongly, that their testimony is flawed.

In the case of someone that has been circumcised, the evidence is there for all to see... well, all of those who have viewing access.

Sadly, this would only apply if merely being circumcised is evidence of abuse. While I understand that this is your assumption, it isn't anyone else's, hence this "evidence" is little more than biased conclusion.


No - I mean 'evidence' in the same way that one would mean 'evidence' if we were discussing domestic abuse... is there a trace of the injury. Yes - the whole foreskin is missing. Pretty glaring.

If we were "discussing" domestic abuse to begin with, and lacking a foreskin qualified as such, then yes. But in the real world, see, circumcision is not abuse, no matter how much you apparently wish it were.



Amusing that you chose the secondary meaning, and then ignore half of the first meaning.

I figured I'd do you a favor and assume you were making a real argument with this whole "mutilation" thing. Guess not.

"to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect" - this perfectly describes circumcision.

Yes. And dentistry.

It's not bout emotional shock value.. .it's about it being the most accurate word to describe something.

Liar. Of course it's about emotional shock value, because the most accurate word to describe circumcision is "circumcision."


I didn't say any of that 'ohnoes' related stuff.. but we both already knew you were just playing that for the effect.

True, you didn't actually say OHNOES.

But it comes out anyway when you whine about how "mutilated," "abused", "imperfect" male circumcision "victims" are.

If I hate people calling me an 'Englishman'... should they stop?

Not comparable. "Englishman" does not translate to "abuse victim who is in denial of their abuse and who is imperfect and mutilated." Your "argument" is quite literally an insult, whereas "Englishman" describes, in an antiquated sorta way, someone who is English and male.

Is it inaccurate? Yes - my parents were English, I was born in England, raised in England, lived most of my life in England, speak with an English accent, and lack citizenship in any other countries... but they should stop doing it, because I hate it, right?

You know, if someone is calling you an Englishman and you don't like it, and you ask them to stop, yes, they should stop. But again its not comparable, because "Englishman" is just a description whereas "mutilated imperfect child abuse victims whose arguments are false because they are mutilated imperfect child abuse victims in denial" is not. ;)


If I say The United States of America IS The United States of America... does that mean that all forms of abuse are equal?

You're not even making the slightest bit of sense.

No. Even if I equate two things, it doesnt mean all other things equated are 1) necessarily equal, or 2) considered equal (or argued as being equal) by me.

Thus - strawman.

Is mutilation mutilation, or is it not?

If you're going to argue this, try not to do it so half-assedly. I'm really disappointed with you here.


No, it hasn't. My answer has never been that, no matter how much you seem to wish it to be so.

Mutilation is mutilation. According to you. Female Genital Mutilation is mutilation. Male circumcision is (according to you) mutilation. A=C and B=C. A=C.

When you stop getting confused by what you've posted let me know.

Maybe I missed something, but you're the only one I've seen making that argument - suggesting that someone must actually equate two things as equally bad if they happen to categorize them the same way.

No, the "abuse is abuse" argument has already been made by the slobbering anti-circumcision crowd in this thread. I'm too lazy to find which of the 650 posts it's in.

And I happen to agree. Abuse is abuse. To sit aside as a third party and callously declare that some abuse is "less bad" or "almost OK" in comparison to another abuse strikes me as insensitive. Only the abuse victim knows how "bad" it was, except in this case since I, a circumcised male, apparently am in denial about my "abuse" and my opinion of it is therefore irrelevant somehow.


So they fall under the same category. That doesn't really make the comparable. All sorts of things are crimes. Some crimes are much, much worse than others.

Yes, but we're not talking about a misdemeanor traffic violation being compared with multiple homicide. We're talking about "child abuse" (male circumcision, aka "mutilation") being compared with child abuse (female genital mutilation). I don't see anything in G-n-i's arguments that suggest he thinks the latter is "much, much worse." Quite the contrary. But maybe you know him better than I do - I am after all a child abuse victim, in denial...

So to alter from what it naturally looks like is to make something imperfect is it?
Is that the definition of imperfect that you are going with?


That works. If one takes a perfectly functional heart, and slices bits out of it, I'd say that makes it a) imperfect and b) mutilated.

Why plead special exception for Jontom?


I have no foreskin, and I don't feel mutilated, or abused, nor do I think my cock is imperfect, nor am I crippled.


How you feel or think about it is irrelevent.


My knob works just as well as any knob out there flappy bit of skin or not.


How would you know?

Of course.. you make a huge assumption here, anyway. One has to assume that a foreskin serves some purpose, otherwise why has evolution favoured it?


I have not been harmed, either physically or mentally, you will find that the majority of 'roundheads' feel this way. Isn't it up to us to decide whether or not we have been abused, are imperfect etc...?

No.

No, the "abuse is abuse" argument has already been made by the slobbering anti-circumcision crowd in this thread. I'm too lazy to find which of the 650 posts it's in.

And I happen to agree. Abuse is abuse. To sit aside as a third party and callously declare that some abuse is "less bad" or "almost OK" in comparison to another abuse strikes me as insensitive.

And yet, as I've already pointed out, claiming that all abuse is equivalent is damaging to those who know that others were abused in much worse ways than they were, leading them to feel bad about even claiming that they were abused at all, in light of those treated worse.

Yes, but we're not talking about a misdemeanor traffic violation being compared with multiple homicide. We're talking about "child abuse" (male circumcision, aka "mutilation") being compared with child abuse (female genital mutilation). I don't see anything in G-n-i's arguments that suggest he thinks the latter is "much, much worse." Quite the contrary. But maybe you know him better than I do - I am after all a child abuse victim, in denial...

Then you haven't been reading what he's writing. Instead, you've been reading what you want to see. G_n_I brought up FGM as an example of a practice that most people would call mutilation - but that many of those who have had it done to them would not consider as such. Many women have gone through FGM and do not see it as wrong.

What G_n_I did not do - at any point - was equate the harm caused by the two practices. In fact, he has pointed out numerous times that there is no direct male equivalent to the usual practices of FGM. All he did was categorize the two together in much the same way that you might categorize both battery and murder as violent crimes.

Mutilation is mutilation. According to you. Female Genital Mutilation is mutilation. Male circumcision is (according to you) mutilation. A=C and B=C. A=C.

*recommends a bit of set theory*

Well...
Here is my take.

I was not circumcised as an infant. I am circumcised now (three years now).
It was a relatively painless procedure, although it was quite bizzare.

Anyway, I am glad I did it.
It DOES in fact, feel better.
It is easier to keep clean.
It gives the illusion of more size, though I know it is the same.

Edit: I got it done because my wife wanted it done and her word is law to me.
Yes, I am whipped, but hey... I'm damn happy.
We will have our children circumcised (if we have boys).

So, you would declare then that my parents are abusive parents and I am indeed a child abuse victim? Just to clarify your increasingly ridiculous position.


My position isn't 'increasingly' anything.

You seem to have forgotten that it was you, not I, that first decided this was a matter of 'abuse'. I was discussing in terms of 'mutilation, when you decided that this was an appropriate response:

"No, she is saying, "If I say I am not a victim of abuse, what position are you in to say that I am wrong about myself and that you are right?""

To which I replied:

"Because mutilation is mutilation. If you poke someone's eyes out, it is still damaging their body even if they immediately cry out 'no, it's okay really... I didn't need my eyes anyway'.

You said:

"it would be a strawman if the argument wasn't already made in this thread that "abuse is abuse"."

To which I replied:

"I didn't make that argument. To attack MY argument, based on the weak point of someone else's argument IS a strawman.

You said:

"But abuse is abuse. Are you saying circumcision is abuse, or not? If you are, then yes you ARE claiming that they are comparable".

To which I responded:

"Circumcision is mutilation. I'd argue that you could call that abuse. I'd argue that you could say teaching children a religion before the age of majority... is abuse too. That doesn't mean that would be mutilation - or that the two are of the same scope and magnitude.


So, you see - it was you insisting that 'mutilation' must equate to 'abuse'. It was you suggesting that all abuses are equal, and that, thus, all mutilations must be equal.

You misrepresent my argument... which makes me wonder if you understand it, or if you realise how much of 'my' argument is your own fabrication?


Yeah I guess this whole "mutilation" thing is just a random coinciding of ten letters.


One can 'mutilate' a book. One can mutilate a child.

The fact that both sentences contain the word 'mutilate', does not imply that the exact same process is being enacted, or that the two things are of equal import or severity.


Why yes! Kind of like how people who haven't been abused, really HAVE! This is G_n_i world now. Denial = confirmation!


I assume this is supposed to be sarcasm - because otherwise, it means you completely failed to understand the point.

Denial doesn't equate to confirmation, and I never said it did. This isn't the first time you have (apparently) deliberately (?) misrepresented my argument.

What I said was - if you insist on a paraphrased version: denial isn't automatically evidence of no confirmation.


Exactly. You deny you've been raped. But that's no evidence that you haven't been raped. Therefore, you've been raped.


That doesn't make any sense, and bears no relation to what I said.


Sadly, this would only apply if merely being circumcised is evidence of abuse. While I understand that this is your assumption, it isn't anyone else's, hence this "evidence" is little more than biased conclusion.


No - again, this is your wording. I was talking about evidence. For example - in circumcision, the circumcision itself is absolute evidence that circumcision took place. That mutilation took place. This 'abuse' argument is yours.


If we were "discussing" domestic abuse to begin with, and lacking a foreskin qualified as such, then yes. But in the real world, see, circumcision is not abuse, no matter how much you apparently wish it were.


Comparing, for the sake of explaining the functionality of evidence.


I figured I'd do you a favor and assume you were making a real argument with this whole "mutilation" thing. Guess not.


That doesn't make any sense. I've been using the word correctly, and your idea of debating the meaning of the word was to ignore HALF of the primary meaning, and pretend, instead, that we were discussing the secondary meaning.

Whatever floats your boat, but it has nothing to do with my argument.


Yes. And dentistry.


Perhaps. And?

I've argued that processes that could be considered 'mutilation' are capable of being the lesser of two evils. So...


Liar. Of course it's about emotional shock value, because the most accurate word to describe circumcision is "circumcision."


Liar? Show me a lie. If you have the conviction you can make such a claim, let's see the courage of those convictions. It looks like you're just flaming me.

I agree that circumcision is the most accurate phrase to describe circumcision - IF we were examining circumcision IN ISOLATION. But, we aren't. There is a context. In that context, circumcision is one form of mutilation.


True, you didn't actually say OHNOES.

But it comes out anyway when you whine about how "mutilated," "abused", "imperfect" male circumcision "victims" are.


I don't believe I 'whined' about any of those things. And, of course, the 'abused' part, well, that's your schtick, not mine.


Not comparable. "Englishman" does not translate to "abuse victim who is in denial of their abuse and who is imperfect and mutilated." Your "argument" is quite literally an insult, whereas "Englishman" describes, in an antiquated sorta way, someone who is English and male.


Okay. Good. So - something I did say, isn't equivalent to something I didn't say. I already knew that, but I'm glad you're on-board now, too.


You know, if someone is calling you an Englishman and you don't like it, and you ask them to stop, yes, they should stop. But again its not comparable, because "Englishman" is just a description whereas "mutilated imperfect child abuse victims whose arguments are false because they are mutilated imperfect child abuse victims in denial" is not. ;)


I should ask them to stop.. they should stop. Maybe.

But, the important point is, it wouldn't affect whether or not I am and Englishman.


You're not even making the slightest bit of sense.


That's the point. Youa re saying if one thing is like another thing... then a third thing must be like a fourth. It makes no sense. Hence - my example.

Again - I already KNEW there was no sense in your assertion, and - again - I'm glad you're now on-board.


Is mutilation mutilation, or is it not?


Yes. All mutilations are mutilations, and should be considered as such. However, it isn't all equal. As I've continuously said.


If you're going to argue this, try not to do it so half-assedly. I'm really disappointed with you here.


The problem doesn't seem to be about fractions of my ass, but about your willingness to engage the arguments i actually make, in reference to your strawman versions.


Mutilation is mutilation. According to you. Female Genital Mutilation is mutilation. Male circumcision is (according to you) mutilation. A=C and B=C. A=C.


My dog has four legs. A table has four legs.

If your little math works... my dog is a table.


When you stop getting confused by what you've posted let me know.

I'm not entirely convinced I've been confused by my posts, yet.

Sigh. Read the thread.
Read up on the topic of both male and female GM.. Please, before you continue.


Female genital mutilation is only compared to male circumcision by the ignorant or the down-right assholish.
The type of opinion expected from either the blindly ignorant or the indoctrinated, or both.



An actual "female circumcision" would involve, at most, removal of a portion of the clitoral hood or a portion of the labia, and would be performed by a medical professional in a clean and safe environment.
EARTH TO Bottle! That IS female genital mutilation!

From the WHO:
"Female genital mutilation (FGM), often referred to as 'female circumcision', comprises all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. There are different types of female genital mutilation known to be practised today. They include:" .....


"- excision of the prepuce, with or without excision of part or all of the clitoris"

"- pricking, piercing or incising of the clitoris and/or labia; stretching of the clitoris and/or labia; cauterization by burning of the clitoris and surrounding tissue"

We're not just talking about the first world. A large number of the male circumcisions performed around the world, are done in third world nations. Most of the same nations where the different forms of FGM are also performed, and by the same type of people no less. So just what type of difference of environment do you imagine in these cases?


If that's what FGM was, then I would say the same thing about it that I say about male circumcision.
You, like most others admittedly, seem to be confusing your terms.

*FGM comprises many different procedures, not just one. But you're using it with a singular meaning, or only in a worst case context.

*Circumcision is one form of genital mutilation, MGM does not mean only circumcision.

circumcision = MGM
MGM =/= only circumcision


But it's not.
Only in your mind.


In FGM, non-medical professionals perform non-regulated "operations," typically without use of any safeguards or anesthetic.
"A large number of the male circumcisions performed around the world, are done in third world nations. Most of the same nations where the different forms of FGM are also performed, and by the same type of people no less. So just what type of difference of environment do you imagine in these cases?"
Again, we're not just talking about the first world here.

Plus you're focusing exclusively on medical risks. Ignoring the fact that a large part of the argument against FGM is centered around human rights and bodily integrity arguments. Really making the risk arguments mostly irrelevant.


Instead of a safe hospital environment with medical tools, the "operation" is performed in non-sterile conditions with objects like a piece of broken glass or sharp bit of bone.
Same for males. What's the point?


In FGM, the clitoris is frequently removed. This would be like cutting off the head of your penis.
No, it really wouldn't be the same. Because cutting off the head of the penis would make sex (penetration) very, very difficult, if not impossible.


The labia majora and labia minora are largely or nearly completely cut away.
Yes, in some forms of FGM.


This would be like removing a lot more skin than just the foreskin. Maybe skinning part of the shaft, or removing skin from your testicle region too.
(^)

*Also see Subincision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subincision)?


Also, if you read up on the practice of FGM, you will find that the intended purpose of FGM is to prevent the vagina from functioning normally. It is specifically performed to prevent the girl/woman from being able to use her vagina normally.
Again yes, in some of the more severe forms of FGM.


The clitoris is removed so that it cannot perform the function of giving her sexual pleasure. The vagina is sewn closed so it cannot perform the function of having heterosexual sex (until it is cut open after she is wed).
Again(x2) yes, in some of the more severe forms of FGM.


Circumcision is NOT intended to stop the penis from functioning, nor does it do so unless there is some kind of horrible error during the procedure.
Um..., and if you actually read up on the practice of circumcision, you'll find that it's original and intended purpose, even before the long ever-changing list of medical reasons, was to prevent masturbation by limiting/reducing penile sensitivity.

So again, incorrect.


Please, I'm begging you, don't compare FGM to male circumcision.
It's not being compared to all "FGM". I'm just pointing out the similar natures between circumcision and some forms of FGM.


Until male circumcision involves cutting off the head of your dick, skinning the shaft of your penis, and then sewing your dick shut, it's a bogus comparison.
One problem though, (well more then one really) your analogies don't represent all forms of FGM. Just the most severe ones. It's little more then a comparison of all, or at least the worst, forms of FGM, against just one form of MGM. it fails.


It's fine if you object to male circumcision. I really want to make it clear that I'm not trying to diminish how you feel about male circumcision, and I'm not trying to say that you can't talk about it or object to it because there are worse things in the world.
I understand that.


Just please do not try to compare circumcisions performed in hospitals by qualified doctors to the butchery that is inflicted on the victims of FGM. You aren't helping your case by doing that, and you are trivializing the experiences of others.
Again, not all circumcisions are performed in hospitals by qualified doctors... Most aren't. And there's nothing trivializing about the comparing of two forms of "butchery". So please just get over it.

My position isn't 'increasingly' anything.

You seem to have forgotten that it was you, not I, that first decided this was a matter of 'abuse'.

"Circumcision is mutilation. I'd argue that you could call that abuse. I'd argue that you could say teaching children a religion before the age of majority... is abuse too. That doesn't mean that would be mutilation - or that the two are of the same scope and magnitude.

Circumcision = mutilation (according to you)
Circumcision = abuse (according to your rather-hedged "I'd argue that you could call that abuse").

Therefore, I'm a mutilated abuse victim and my parents are mutilating abusers. That's your argument.

So, you see - it was you insisting that 'mutilation' must equate to 'abuse'. It was you suggesting that all abuses are equal, and that, thus, all mutilations must be equal.

You misrepresent my argument... which makes me wonder if you understand it, or if you realise how much of 'my' argument is your own fabrication?

Right now, you don't seem to *have* an argument.

One can 'mutilate' a book. One can mutilate a child.

The fact that both sentences contain the word 'mutilate', does not imply that the exact same process is being enacted, or that the two things are of equal import or severity.

Yes, but the topic at hand is female genital mutilation and male circumcision. You are comparing the two. There is in both cases "cutting" done to children, and in both cases you would (by your own words) they are abuse, and in both cases "mutilation." Seems to me there is a rather greater correlation than say, circumcision and "mutilating a book." But hey maybe I just don't understand the complex subtlety you're blathering, what with my psychological denial of my abuse and all.


I assume this is supposed to be sarcasm - because otherwise, it means you completely failed to understand the point.

Denial doesn't equate to confirmation, and I never said it did. This isn't the first time you have (apparently) deliberately (?) misrepresented my argument.

What I said was - if you insist on a paraphrased version: denial isn't automatically evidence of no confirmation.

I assert that I have never been abused.

I don't need "evidence" to prove that I've *not* been abused. You need "evidence" to prove that I *have*. Otherwise you're just pissing my time with stupid semantic games.


That doesn't make any sense, and bears no relation to what I said.

Sure it does. See, your problem is that you're arguing that I've been abused, but you're unwilling to really stand by this argument. I would be too, because it's a stupid argument, but if it was me I'd just drop it.

No - again, this is your wording. I was talking about evidence. For example - in circumcision, the circumcision itself is absolute evidence that circumcision took place. That mutilation took place. This 'abuse' argument is yours.

No, you've argued that it's abuse and you clearly think it's abuse because of your insistance on the term "mutilation." Who exactly are you thinking you're fooling here? People who can't read what you yourself have posted?

Circumcision is "evidence" only of circumcision. If you're just using the word "mutilation" but not implying "abuse," then I have to ask you now why you're using "mutilation" as the "best term to describe" circumcision instead of "circumcision." Saving energy by using fewer letters, I suppose?

That doesn't make any sense. I've been using the word correctly, and your idea of debating the meaning of the word was to ignore HALF of the primary meaning, and pretend, instead, that we were discussing the secondary meaning.

Whatever floats your boat, but it has nothing to do with my argument.

The secondary meaning seemed more relevant to the discussion. Otherwise as I said, the first one "to make imperfect, to cut" is too broad to be of any real use. As again I said, dental surgery counts as "mutilation" under that definition and logic.

I was doing you a favor by thinking your argument had more substance than it really does.

Perhaps. And?

I've argued that processes that could be considered 'mutilation' are capable of being the lesser of two evils. So...

Mmm. So, let's see you argue vehemently against dental surgery. ITS MUTILATION! OF CHILDREN! WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT!

Liar? Show me a lie. If you have the conviction you can make such a claim, let's see the courage of those convictions. It looks like you're just flaming me.

I agree that circumcision is the most accurate phrase to describe circumcision - IF we were examining circumcision IN ISOLATION. But, we aren't. There is a context. In that context, circumcision is one form of mutilation.

The "context" is nothing more than your own bias against circumcision. That is the context which lead you to bring up "mutilation" at all. Circumcision is and remains the best term to describe circumcision.

I don't really need courage to call you a liar, either. No more than you need courage to call my parents child-abusers.

I don't believe I 'whined' about any of those things. And, of course, the 'abused' part, well, that's your schtick, not mine.

Did you like, not read your own words? Why don't you look in this post and see if you can find anything that might possibly amount of equating circumcision and/or "mutilation" with abuse. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can find it. 12-point font.

Okay. Good. So - something I did say, isn't equivalent to something I didn't say. I already knew that, but I'm glad you're on-board now, too.

I suppose you think you're being awful clever here. What you are saying here is absolutely nothing.


I should ask them to stop.. they should stop. Maybe.

But, the important point is, it wouldn't affect whether or not I am and Englishman.

I have only your word that you're an "Englishman" at all. In accepting that you are an Englishman I am accepting that you know better than I whether you are or not. Now why can't you grant circumcision "victims" that same courtesy? I'll tell you why. It's easier to dismiss their arguments on the basis of their "trauma."

That's the point. Youa re saying if one thing is like another thing... then a third thing must be like a fourth. It makes no sense.

No, that's not what I am saying. But hey, might as well misrepresent arguments as long as you're accusing me of doing the same.


Again - I already KNEW there was no sense in your assertion, and - again - I'm glad you're now on-board.

Are you done patting yourself on the back for imaginary concessions?

Yes. All mutilations are mutilations, and should be considered as such. However, it isn't all equal. As I've continuously said.

They are all "equal" in the sense of being all "mutilations." This isn't a hard concept to get. It's called the law of identity. It doesn't matter if they are inequal in terms of amount of flesh, the gender, the circumstances of operation, the purpose, the effects. They are all mutilations, and presumably "mutilation" of children is a bad thing. Presumably, because you are not using the term "mutilation" for things you think are good, like dental surgery. And because of the emotional charge of the word itself, which is really rather undeniable.

The problem doesn't seem to be about fractions of my ass, but about your willingness to engage the arguments i actually make, in reference to your strawman versions.

Of the two, the problem really seems to be your ass. Perhaps you were abused as a kid and your arguments are colored by that. Perhaps your parents mutilated you.

My dog has four legs. A table has four legs.

If your little math works... my dog is a table.

Sorry, that would be your math. I am not saying that Female Genital Mutilation is Male Circumcision.

I am saying that FGM is mutilation and, your argument, so is male circumsision, therefore both are mutilation and both qualify in your view as abuse. They are both equatable, based on their shared quality, which is "mutilation" of children "without their consent," which you have admitted is "abuse."

I'm not entirely convinced I've been confused by my posts, yet.

Perhaps that's because of your rape experience. Never been raped you say? I say you have!

That works. If one takes a perfectly functional heart, and slices bits out of it, I'd say that makes it a) imperfect and b) mutilated.

Why plead special exception for Jontom?

Beacuse taking the foreskin away does nothing to help or hinder the working of the penis. In other words it makes no difference.



How you feel or think about it is irrelevent.

Bollox is it! If I cut your arm off, your feelings on the matter don't matter?



How would you know?

Contrary to popular belife it is not just woman who talk about sex with their freinds. Also coz when I use my dick, I have no problems with it, ohhh except there is nowt there to pull back.



Of course.. you make a huge assumption here, anyway. One has to assume that a foreskin serves some purpose, otherwise why has evolution favoured it?

Umm you do know that evolution is not flawless, that some things that have evoluved we don't use any more.



No.

Again, bollox!

You may have me confused with somebody else in this thread. I'm the person who is asserting that the individual man's opinion is what matters. What I am objecting to is people who label ALL circumcision as universally "mutilation," since there are obviously men who don't agree with that. If you feel that YOUR circumcision was a mutilation, I'm not one of the people who will try to tell you that you must view your body in terms of somebody else's standards for mutilation.

We can easily agree that it should be up to the individual - which is why is should not be done to infants. You say that it's ok because some men don't fell that it's wrong. But what about those who do fell that it's wrong? Once it's gone, it's gone.

It's a decision that should be made by the man, once he's a man, and not by the parents...

We can easily agree that it should be up to the individual - which is why is should not be done to infants. You say that it's ok because some men don't fell that it's wrong. But what about those who do fell that it's wrong? Once it's gone, it's gone.

It's a decision that should be made by the man, once he's a man, and not by the parents...

Yet throughout this whole thread, the fact that there is no difference between the working of the circumcised penis and the uncircumcised penis seems to have been lost.

The act of circumsicion, causes no damage neither physical nor mental in the vast majority of case, it IS a row about nothing, we may as well be arguing about whether it is good or bad to force kids to eat all of their dinner before leaving the table, it makes as much sense.

Yet throughout this whole thread, the fact that there is no difference between the working of the circumcised penis and the uncircumcised penis seems to have been lost.

The act of circumsicion, causes no damage neither physical nor mental in the vast majority of case, it IS a row about nothing, we may as well be arguing about whether it is good or bad to force kids to eat all of their dinner before leaving the table, it makes as much sense.

If there's no difference, then why do it?

And please don't tell me that it's comparable to being forced to eat all that's on my plate. Eating some salad hasn't harmed me, whereas the circumcision removed a part of me permanently.

If there's no difference, then why do it?

And please don't tell me that it's comparable to being forced to eat all that's on my plate. Eating some salad hasn't harmed me, whereas the circumcision removed a part of me permanently.

There are lots of reasons to do it, medical, religous, coz the wife nagged you into it, cosmetic.

And it is comparable to being forced to eat all on you plate. What actual harm has the removal of your foreskin done to you?

Parents are allowed to perform procedures that show definite benefit to their children (ie. not harm). I didn't mean to say that callouses form on circumcised penises(and I'm sure that you didn't think I did), but the point remains that the head of a circumcised penis is exposed to a lot more abuse than that of an uncircumcised one, and therefore reduces sensation. as far as pain, I'm sure no guy in his right mind would consent to a circumcision without painkillers (and lots of 'em). Elevated heart rates(duh), as well as screaming, trouble with feeding etc. have been noted for those who have been circumcised as infants, to claim that their pain is insubstantial is nonsense. I used to have a video of a circumcision around somewhere... lemme see if I can find it.

Seriously, whats the bfd? No way you can remember it. No way to get your foreskin back (and if there was I wouldn't take it), and its NOT necessary to keep in the first place. I wanna bring up some more points on this, but i gotta get some sleep. in the morning, im going to get my foreskin, toe(and finger)nails, hair, and anything else that may have been removed from me before i had the ability to wipe my own ass. sheesh. lol

Yet throughout this whole thread, the fact that there is no difference between the working of the circumcised penis and the uncircumcised penis seems to have been lost.


It's not 'been lost'... it hasn't been shown to be true.

Pubic hair serves a purpose, but you're not 'at risk' or anything, if you shave it off. There IS a difference between the working of an unshaved groin, versus a shaved one.

Differences don't necessarily have to be big differences.

Beacuse taking the foreskin away does nothing to help or hinder the working of the penis. In other words it makes no difference.


Or, it does. It serves purposes of protection, both on a macro- and micro- scale. It serves pheremonal purposes.


Bollox is it! If I cut your arm off, your feelings on the matter don't matter?


Not to whether or not I've been 'dis-armed', no.


Contrary to popular belife it is not just woman who talk about sex with their freinds. Also coz when I use my dick, I have no problems with it, ohhh except there is nowt there to pull back.


I have a friend who likes having his scrotum played with during sex. For me, it is unbearably ticklish.

Two people can share data, but only you can ever experience what it feels like to be you.

Do you remember what it was like before your circumcision?


Umm you do know that evolution is not flawless, that some things that have evoluved we don't use any more.


And what... we should make a habit of chopping off (or out) anything that isn't needed?


Again, bollox!

That's it? Your whole response?

It isn't up to you "to decide whether or not" you "have been abused, are imperfect".

To use your own 'arm' example... do I get to decide if I am 'imperfect', if you lop my arm off? No - my 'opinion' is irrelevent... I have one arm, no matter what my own opinion might be.

Circumcision = mutilation (according to you)
Circumcision = abuse (according to your rather-hedged "I'd argue that you could call that abuse").
*snip*

I'm done with you.

You've constantly claimed comments for me that I didn't post.

I can't tell if you've got yourself actually so twisted round, you think I said it? Or - are you just being obtuse?

Anyway... if you won't respond to the things I actually type... well, there's no point wasting my time on you. I'll debate, instead, with those who will address my actual responses.

Yet throughout this whole thread, the fact that there is no difference between the working of the circumcised penis and the uncircumcised penis seems to have been lost.

The act of circumsicion, causes no damage neither physical nor mental in the vast majority of case, it IS a row about nothing, we may as well be arguing about whether it is good or bad to force kids to eat all of their dinner before leaving the table, it makes as much sense.

Hmmm... what percentage of babies would have to have a problem with fake boobs before we decided it was a problem?

The act of circumcision is DESIGNED to create some damage. In order to claim what your claim you have to either be willingfully ignorant or accidentally so. Cutting of healthy and useful body parts is damage.

There is much debate as to whether the workings are the same, first of all. Rationally, we don't cut off body parts unless we're SURE there is no effect.

Second, there are MANY side effects. I'm quite certain that any child who has irreparable damage to their penis thinks it's okay. Well, technically, every child has such damage, but I'm refering to children who lose function in the penis, not just the foreskin.

This is a ritual. Nothing more. Nothing less. The ritual maiming of children and it's considered barbaric in nearly every Western country in the world. There is no medical indication for it according to EVERY Western country in the world.

There are lots of reasons to do it, medical, religous, coz the wife nagged you into it, cosmetic.

And it is comparable to being forced to eat all on you plate. What actual harm has the removal of your foreskin done to you?

Hmmm... I've decided you're accidentally ignorant so let's talk. Do you approve of ALL unnecessary surgery on children? Do you recognize there are ALWAYS risks to every surgery? Are you aware that you are cutting a part off the body, that could be cut of later, if the child so decides, offers no medical benefit, and cann never be replaced?

You think it's no big deal because you agree with it, but it's not different than claiming that birth control is unnecessary because you don't use it, or any other impingement on freedoms of a person. Your views are a reason for YOU to make decisions about YOU, not a reason to allow an irreversible surgery on children that endangers thier lives and denies them working and healthy body parts.

No, you're ignorance of the function of the foreskin is not an argument. It's an embarrassment. This is where you open a book and decide you'd rather not embarrass yourself further.

Hmmm... I've decided you're accidentally ignorant so let's talk. Do you approve of ALL unnecessary surgery on children? Do you recognize there are ALWAYS risks to every surgery? Are you aware that you are cutting a part off the body, that could be cut of later, if the child so decides, offers no medical benefit, and cann never be replaced?

You think it's no big deal because you agree with it, but it's not different than claiming that birth control is unnecessary because you don't use it, or any other impingement on freedoms of a person. Your views are a reason for YOU to make decisions about YOU, not a reason to allow an irreversible surgery on children that endangers thier lives and denies them working and healthy body parts.

No, you're ignorance of the function of the foreskin is not an argument. It's an embarrassment. This is where you open a book and decide you'd rather not embarrass yourself further.

yeah, no but no yeah, no.

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

Yup. Circumcised or intact. Exactly the same. Right?

It should be noted that it is not recommended routinely by any major medical organization in the world. In the US, where it is still more or less routinely practiced and often presented to parents as if they should do it despite the lack of medical indication, even our medical organizations do not support the routine practice.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686
"the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being"

At one time, they came out and plainly stated that this has no medical indications, but under pressure, make their statements a little more bland. Still, it's an elective procedure performed on infants that cuts of their healthy and normal body parts and can never be undone. I suspect if this were fake breasts on girls or cutting of pinky toes, because, you know, who needs 'em, there wouldn't even be a debate.

Second, there are MANY side effects.

Yeah? Like what.

I'm done with you.

Concession accepted.

You've constantly claimed comments for me that I didn't post.

Yeah, whatever. You posted it in the very same post I was quoting.

I can't tell if you've got yourself actually so twisted round, you think I said it?

I learned how to read. Pretty twisted, I know. Maybe it's because of my maiming, mutilation, and child abuse...

Anyway... if you won't respond to the things I actually type... well, there's no point wasting my time on you. I'll debate, instead, with those who will address my actual responses.

Translation - when your own words get examined you bail. Typical.

If there's no difference, then why do it?


Um, because not everything is done to impair or improve the function of a thing? Just a guess.


And please don't tell me that it's comparable to being forced to eat all that's on my plate. Eating some salad hasn't harmed me, whereas the circumcision removed a part of me permanently.

I love this romanticism people are getting about circumcision. "A part of me." It's been described as "mutilation," "maiming," "barbaric," "child abuse." It tells me only that a lot of men - strangely, the ones who generally didn't have circumcisions - are unhappy about their penises and their focusing their emotions on circumcision.

I would say it's probably not the circumcision.

It's probably just penis size and lack of play. Focus on that instead of making asinine comments. That's my recommendation to the raving anti-circumcision crowd in general.

Yeah? Like what.

Okay, so you admit your ignorant about the procedure. Excellent. There are links provided. Read them and return when you've educated yourself enough to actually make an argumet for cutting body parts off children.

Concession accepted.

Yeah, whatever. You posted it in the very same post I was quoting.

I learned how to read. Pretty twisted, I know. Maybe it's because of my maiming, mutilation, and child abuse...

Translation - when your own words get examined you bail. Typical.

Well, considering you're still pretending to not understand there are consequences to surgical procedures and cutting a healthy, useful part off a child, I'd say he hit the head of that nail.

Now, since you claim he said those things, provide quotes rather than summaries. I'm certain you can, no? You're not a liar, are you?

Um, because not everything is done to impair or improve the function of a thing? Just a guess.

So you approve of cosmetic and irreversible surgeries on children? Interesting argument.

I'm circumcised and lovin' every minute of it!!

So you approve of cosmetic and irreversible surgeries on children? Interesting argument.

So you like to have sex with clowns?

Sorry, I thought this was the part of the thread where we invent "arguments" for other people and ignore what they say.

Okay, so you admit your ignorant about the procedure.

I admit my ignorant what?

Really, is this what you've come down to. And some people on here hold your debate skills in such high regard.

Excellent. There are links provided. Read them and return when you've educated yourself enough to actually make an argumet for cutting body parts off children.

There is absolutely no link you can provide which can argue about how *I* am disabled. You're going to have to do better than that. I'm starting to wonder if you can. I think your head is so far up your ass on this matter that you honestly thought calling me ignorant was some kind of intelligent argument.

Now, since you claim he said those things, provide quotes rather than summaries. I'm certain you can, no? You're not a liar, are you?

Since you're so interested, why don't you go through the posts and find quotes yourself. I'm certain you can, no? You're not illiterate, are you?

So you like to have sex with clowns?

Sorry, I thought this was the part of the thread where we invent "arguments" for other people and ignore what they say.

So you didn't admit this is a cosmetic procedure? Hmmm... if it's not done for medical reasons, it's cosmetic, my friend.


I admit my ignorant what?

Really, is this what you've come down to. And some people on here hold your debate skills in such high regard.

Did you or did you not just admit you don't know anything about the complications related to the procedure? You didn't just ask me to explain them to you?


There is absolutely no link you can provide which can argue about how *I* am disabled. You're going to have to do better than that. I'm starting to wonder if you can. I think your head is so far up your ass on this matter that you honestly thought calling me ignorant was some kind of intelligent argument.

My friend, you can chose to cut off anything you like. We are talking about cutting parts off of others. In order to analyze whether or not that should be acceptable we have to weigh benefits and detriments and if benefits are not provable, you don't get to cut parts off of children. It's simple.

The child who dies from the procedure (yes, it's a low incidence, about 1 per million) is necessarily affected by the procedure. The between 2 and 10 percent of complications from the procedure, a large percentage of which are permanent, are certainly disability.

I didn't realize this argument was about you. I didn't realize you're the only neo-natal circumcision performed. I didn't realize it's all about you. Or do we perhaps want to expand the argument

I didn't suddenly call you ignorant. You admitted you need me to teach you about the surgery and I accurately described that as ignorance of the procedure. You don't know what ignorant means?

Since you're so interested, why don't you go through the posts and find quotes yourself. I'm certain you can, no? You're not illiterate, are you?

Your claim. I love your fallacies. So the requirement is that people provide everything for you. I don't believe those quotes exist. I'm calling you out, my dishonest friend. If the quotes exist, provide them or we'll assume, rightfully, that this is just more of your attempts to avoid making an actual argument.

I'm circumcised and lovin' every minute of it!!

Your welcome to it. I completely approve of people choosing to get cosmetic procedures performed on themselves. No problem with it all. If every male in the country chose to get a circumcision I would not be here.

Routine circumcision unfortunately denies that right.

Your welcome to it. I completely approve of people choosing to get cosmetic procedures performed on themselves. No problem with it all. If every male in the country chose to get a circumcision I would not be here.

Routine circumcision unfortunately denies that right.

It's more than just cosmetic: regardless if you choose to get your children circumcised or not I couldn't care less. But WHO is trying to increase the number of circumcision on a global scale even as we type because they believe it is not just cosmetic.

WHO and UNAIDS said in March of 2007:
Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.
link (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html)

And older information, did not ‘oppose’ circumcision from the American Cancer Society @ 2002
*Women are less likely to develop cancer of the cervix if their partners are circumcised men rather than men who are not circumcised,

*It also lowers sexually transmitted infections with HPV that cause genital warts in men. Finally, penile cancer arises less often in men who were circumcised as babies.

*Uncircumcised Men Twice as Likely to Have HPV
link (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_New_Study_Shows_Benefit_of_Male_Circumcision.asp)

The medical field does not discourage infant circumcision since 1999 either @ PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, and they say there there were medical benefits recognized then as well.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.
link (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686)

It's more than just cosmetic: regardless if you choose to get your children circumcised or not I couldn't care less. But WHO is trying to increase the number of circumcision on a global scale even as we type because they believe it is not just cosmetic.

WHO and UNAIDS said in March of 2007:
Based on the evidence presented, which was considered to be compelling, experts attending the consultation recommended that male circumcision now be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men. The international consultation, which was held 6-8 March 2007 in Montreux, Switzerland, was attended by participants representing a wide range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, researchers, human rights and women's health advocates, young people, funding agencies and implementing partners.
link (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2007/pr10/en/index.html)

K, first of all, those studies have been repeatedly shown to have procedural flaws, but rather than show it, I'll just provide a link that discusses the problems with the most prevelant studies.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

Their controls were much less than acceptable. Meanwhile, as an adult I can choose to get a circumcision to deal with said risk if I believe it exists. It's a decision made by individuals. We don't force medical procedures on children in any case unless the benefits are indisputably proven and necessary, with exception of maiming the penis.


And older information, did not ‘oppose’ circumcision from the American Cancer Society @ 2002

*Women are less likely to develop cancer of the cervix if their partners are circumcised men rather than men who are not circumcised,

*It also lowers sexually transmitted infections with HPV that cause genital warts in men. Finally, penile cancer arises less often in men who were circumcised as babies.

*Uncircumcised Men Twice as Likely to Have HPV
link (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_New_Study_Shows_Benefit_of_Male_Circumcision.asp)

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3421602b.html

Again, this is heavily disputed. The flaws are that they've been unable to control for circumcision. There is a general pattern for who is circumcised and who isn't, much like the circumcision studies. This requires them to adjust for other factors, and these studies are not doing so.

Regarding other potential health benefits of circumcision, the investigators recommend that "further study is needed to determine whether routine circumcision can reduce the risks of HIV and HPV infections and other sexually transmitted diseases."


The medical field does not discourage infant circumcision since 1999 either @ PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, and they say there there were medical benefits recognized then as well.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.
link (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/103/3/686)

They said the procedure is not essential to the child's well-being. It's cosmetic. It does not have a medical indication. It's a personal choice. This is your quote and it clearly says all of those things. Since 1971, AAP has held that it's an elective procedure. It has repeatedly stated that it has no medical indication.

By the way, I appreciate that you're actually presenting evidence. It's refreshing in light of what usually passes for an argument in this area, as demonstrated by the last couple of pages. You'll notice your the first in some time to present any evidence for your side of the argument.

K, first of all, those studies have been repeatedly shown to have procedural flaws, but rather than show it, I'll just provide a link that discusses the problems with the most prevelant studies.

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

Their controls were much less than acceptable. Meanwhile, as an adult I can choose to get a circumcision to deal with said risk if I believe it exists. It's a decision made by individuals. We don't force medical procedures on children in any case unless the benefits are indisputably proven and necessary, with exception of maiming the penis.

Okay, so while it's being debated, the World Health Organization is proceeding with it's actions to increase circumcision as a precautionary measure. They don't seem to be overly concerned that there is a chance it will turn out to be false. Caution on the side of helping more people now than it might be hurting if they don't do it.

In the meantime, it still debunks your claim that it's for cosmetic reasons only.


http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3421602b.html

Again, this is heavily disputed. The flaws are that they've been unable to control for circumcision. There is a general pattern for who is circumcised and who isn't, much like the circumcision studies. This requires them to adjust for other factors, and these studies are not doing so.

Regarding other potential health benefits of circumcision, the investigators recommend that "further study is needed to determine whether routine circumcision can reduce the risks of HIV and HPV infections and other sexually transmitted diseases."

They do request more research, of course they do, every study always does. In this quote though, they are requesting more before recommending routine circumcisions. In other words, they think there are benefits, they don't yet know if every male should be circumicised. That's a far cry from not being any medical benefit.


They said the procedure is not essential to the child's well-being. It's cosmetic.

That's a false conclussion you've reached there. the prodedure is not essential =/= it's cosmetic.


It does not have a medical indication. It's a personal choice. This is your quote and it clearly says all of those things. Since 1971, AAP has held that it's an elective procedure. It has repeatedly stated that it has no medical indication.

Lots of medical studies have changed the way we do things since 1971. Doctors used to smoke cigarettes while talking to patients in the examination rooms in 1971... Just an example of how much more we know now than we did then.

By the way, I appreciate that you're actually presenting evidence. It's refreshing in light of what usually passes for an argument in this area, as demonstrated by the last couple of pages. You'll notice your the first in some time to present any evidence for your side of the argument.

Your welcome.

This is a personal expression : I do not agree with the proceedure, and would advise any one asking me against it, save for medical necessity.

Religious necessity -honestly I'm torn - If your religion says you can't be a part of the religion without one's foreskin...Damned petty deity to be worshiping, but not my religion, but it is apparently yours so go for it.

And also on a personal note- Greater Trostia, Jocabia - both of you have descended into posts that seem to be little more than shameful personal attacks on one another.

Okay, so while it's being debated, the World Health Organization is proceeding with it's actions to increase circumcision as a precautionary measure. They don't seem to be overly concerned that there is a chance it will turn out to be false. Caution on the side of helping more people now than it might be hurting if they don't do it.

In the meantime, it still debunks your claim that it's for cosmetic reasons only.



They do request more research, of course they do, every study always does. In this quote though, they are requesting more before recommending routine circumcisions. In other words, they think there are benefits, they don't yet know if every male should be circumicised. That's a far cry from not being any medical benefit.




That's a false conclussion you've reached there. the prodedure is not essential =/= it's cosmetic.



Lots of medical studies have changed the way we do things since 1971. Doctors used to smoke cigarettes while talking to patients in the examination rooms in 1971... Just an example of how much more we know now than we did then.



Your welcome.

I'll accept that. It's not cosmetic, but it is not medically indicated. No one is disputing that there are reasons to do it when the medical indications are there. We are talking about the routine practice where there are no exceptional circumstances (thus, routine).

It is not true that the WHO is increasing circumcision. They are only doing so in high risk areas. The US is not one of them. Meanwhile, there is no medical indication. The burden of proof is on the side of proving the benefit. An unproven benefit is not a medical indication for the precedure.

And yes, much has changed since 1971. The AAP's stance against the routine practice has not. They still hold that there is no reason for a routine procedure. That hasn't changed.

Are there any clear advantages of keeping the foreskin?

Or are there any clear disadvantages of being circumsized?

(Asking because I am Jewish)

Are there any clear advantages of keeping the foreskin?

Or are there any clear disadvantages of being circumsized?

(Asking because I am Jewish)

Burden of proof fallacy. The burden is on you. You must show that there is some just cause for removing a body part from a child.

What, to you, would be a "clear advantage"? It's an organ designed to protect the penis. ALL surgical procedures carry risk. The associate risk here varies from 2% to 10% depending on who you ask. Circumcision is available to you throughout your life. Waiting till you choose is not the same as denying you a circumcision. Not waiting, is the same as forcing one on you. As such, it's on you to show why we cannot wait to allow the decision for human beings about their own body.

Burden of proof fallacy. The burden is on you. You must show that there is some just cause for removing a body part from a child.

What, to you, would be a "clear advantage"? It's an organ designed to protect the penis. ALL surgical procedures carry risk. The associate risk here varies from 2% to 10% depending on who you ask. Circumcision is available to you throughout your life. Waiting till you choose is not the same as denying you a circumcision. Not waiting, is the same as forcing one on you. As such, it's on you to show why we cannot wait to allow the decision for human beings about their own body.

Ugh..don't be so difficult..this time I wasn't! I just simply wanted to know!

For instance, being Jewish we're circumized....but we don't suffer any disadvantages for this....and really..the only thing that changes (besides the look) is that we don't have to worry about dirt and infection under the foreskin....

Um, because not everything is done to impair or improve the function of a thing? Just a guess.

Ok, so basically we mutilate newborn babies for nothing...?


I love this romanticism people are getting about circumcision. "A part of me." It's been described as "mutilation," "maiming," "barbaric," "child abuse." It tells me only that a lot of men - strangely, the ones who generally didn't have circumcisions - are unhappy about their penises and their focusing their emotions on circumcision.

I would say it's probably not the circumcision.

It's probably just penis size and lack of play. Focus on that instead of making asinine comments. That's my recommendation to the raving anti-circumcision crowd in general.

It's got nothing to do with romanticism; it's got to do with personal choice. I can live without my foreskin - in fact, my life would probably not have been very funny if it hadn't been removed.
But the fact remains: this procedure is done without the consent of the child, and it’s irreversible. So why, baring acute medical necessity, do we do it?

Ugh..don't be so difficult..this time I wasn't! I just simply wanted to know!

For instance, being Jewish we're circumized....but we don't suffer any disadvantages for this....and really..the only thing that changes (besides the look) is that we don't have to worry about dirt and infection under the foreskin....

I'm not being difficult. You came here with conclusion in hand as you've now said and you expect me to provide proof to against ritrualistic surgery. I'm afraid like an ritualistic surgery the burder of proof should be on you.

Meanwhile, the only disadvantages? 2 to 10% of these surgeries have complications, including my own. Those complications can vary from a mild threat to death (death is very rare). In a small number of cases the entire penis must be removed and a gender reassignment occurs or there is simply a death. That's a major disadvantage. The other times scar tissue buldups occur or various other physiological problems.

But, hey, provided no complication occurs there is no disadvantages unless you consider the denial of use of a healthy body part.

So, yes, if you qualify your argument enough, there are no disadvantages. But that's true of any ritual, no?

I think everybody except the people who do it agrees that slicing girls up is an atrocity. Why should it be any different for boys? There is hardly anything there in little girl, so why bother? Why not clip children's ears or tattoo them or cut boys' nipples off? While we accept some of these things as tribal initiations, we don't allow them ourselves. I've seen and copied a report on a female American Rabbi who is refusing circumcision, including on her own sons, but I can't find it now.

Hmmm... I've decided you're accidentally ignorant so let's talk. Do you approve of ALL unnecessary surgery on children? Do you recognize there are ALWAYS risks to every surgery? Are you aware that you are cutting a part off the body, that could be cut of later, if the child so decides, offers no medical benefit, and cann never be replaced?

You think it's no big deal because you agree with it, but it's not different than claiming that birth control is unnecessary because you don't use it, or any other impingement on freedoms of a person. Your views are a reason for YOU to make decisions about YOU, not a reason to allow an irreversible surgery on children that endangers thier lives and denies them working and healthy body parts.

No, you're ignorance of the function of the foreskin is not an argument. It's an embarrassment. This is where you open a book and decide you'd rather not embarrass yourself further.

Umm really.

Lets start at beginning huh.

I don't agree nor disagree with male circumsicion, and that is the whole point. Foreskin on or foreskin off what is the difference, especially one that you claim is damaging? I ask you because you act like an expert on the subject.

To me the whole question makes as much sense arguing over whether or not to cut your babies hair.

What do you actually find so objectionable, and why?

Opps got the poll slightly wrong.. Tiredness kicking in.
I'm not circumcised and think it's fucking terrible.
Yuck, even the thought of doing it makes me feel a little sick.

Umm really.

Lets start at beginning huh.

I don't agree nor disagree with male circumsicion, and that is the whole point. Foreskin on or foreskin off what is the difference, especially one that you claim is damaging? I ask you because you act like an expert on the subject.

To me the whole question makes as much sense arguing over whether or not to cut your babies hair.

What do you actually find so objectionable, and why?

Hair is temporary, a circumcision is permanent. The question being the extent parents should be allowed to permanently alter their children, in the UK for example tattoos are illegal for under 18s but I wouldn't imagine they're much more dangerous than circumcision.

Hair is temporary, a circumcision is permanent. The question being the extent parents should be allowed to permanently alter their children, in the UK for example tattoos are illegal for under 18s but I wouldn't imagine they're much more dangerous than circumcision.

That is indeed a question, but the one I'm more interested in getting the answer to is what actual damage does removing the foreskin do?

That is indeed a question, but the one I'm more interested in getting the answer to is what actual damage does removing the foreskin do?

The drying out and de-sensitising of the area that is exposed to the air when it is removed.

The drying out and de-sensitising of the area that is exposed to the air when it is removed.

And that is it is it? Just that? Not only is that 'no damage', but it doesn't happen in all cases either.

Are there any clear advantages of keeping the foreskin?

Or are there any clear disadvantages of being circumsized?

(Asking because I am Jewish)

Aye, its there. The human body is the shape it is for a reason. If life were so much better without one, we would have evolved differently. Or if you prefer the cuddly ID theory, god made us that way (with foreskins) so who are we to change that?

Did pinkfloyd not write a song about it?

"We don't need no circumcision, we don't need no birth control,
no dirty doctors molesting my babies, teachers leave my cock alone?" Or am I getting confused again?

AMK
xxx

And that is it is it? Just that? Not only is that 'no damage', but it doesn't happen in all cases either.

I would argue that it is damage, and also that the removal of it is in itself damage. And also that parents are generally prohibited from other actions of a permanent nature unless there is a justifiable medical reason for it.

What are everyone's views on circumcision?

Personally I think its an abhorrent practice, and is one of those cases where it would be justified to step in despite religious beliefs. Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions), that doesn't mean it should be allowed without consent of the patient. While its not perfectly proved, several studies have shown that circumcision results in less feeling in the penis (and therefore less pleasure during sex), although some other studies have shown the opposite. However logically it makes sense that when a sensitive part of your body is exposed that it will become less sensitive (think calloused hands/feet). Add this to the fact that the procedure is extremely painful, provides no definite benefit to the individual, and in infants cannot be performed with general anesthesia, it is simply barbaric. Of course there is also the possibility of infection and that the doctor makes a mistake and removes the entire penis. However many people, without religious reasons, continue to have this procedure performed on their children.

Nocirc.org (http://www.nocirc.org/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

There is no link between circumcism and AIDS/HIV prevention. I had a look at the study, its as stupid as stating that because I have a brick letter box and my house hasn't been robbed, therefore the letter box has protected me.

Its all bulshit in the end. The only way to prevent spreading is protection, water based lube and monogamous relationships.

I would argue that it is damage, and also that the removal of it is in itself damage. And also that parents are generally prohibited from other actions of a permanent nature unless there is a justifiable medical reason for it.

Fine but what is damaging about it? In what way is the removal of the foreskin damage in and of it's self?

Fine but what is damaging about it? In what way is the removal of the foreskin damage in and of it's self?

It's the removal of part of the body.

Aye, its there. The human body is the shape it is for a reason. If life were so much better without one, we would have evolved differently. Or if you prefer the cuddly ID theory, god made us that way (with foreskins) so who are we to change that?

We also have not evolved proper resistance to any number of disease, yet we feel free in augmenting our bodies so that we can resist them, but as you say who are we to change that? Should naturally obese men not strive to loose weight? I mean their body shape must be as it is for a porpuse.

It's the removal of part of the body.

So is the hair, the finger and toe nails, is this also damaging?

So is the hair, the finger and toe nails, is this also damaging?

Yes. And parents shouldn't be allowed to permanently damage their children without medical justification.

Yes. And parents shouldn't be allowed to permanently damage their children without medical justification.

You keep using the word damage, yet have not define what damage you are talking about.

What damage are you talking about?

You keep using the word damage, yet have not define what damage you are talking about.

What damage are you talking about?

The removal of the foreskin. Take the body of a hypothetical person in its natural state. Take negatively effecting the living cells of that person's body as damage.

So is the hair, the finger and toe nails, is this also damaging?

I, for one, would certainly argue that a parent should not perform electrolysis on their children or have their toenails removed (note: removed, not trimmed) without medical indication for it. Do you think it would be a good idea to do either?

So is the hair, the finger and toe nails, is this also damaging?

Hair grows back. As do nails.

The way the anti-circumcision group in this thread is talking about removing a piece of skin to reduce the chance of infant urinary tract infection in your male son, you would think that otoplasty, craniofacial and ophthalmology would be capital punishment crimes...

The removal of the foreskin. Take the body of a hypothetical person in its natural state. Take negatively effecting the living cells of that person's body as damage.

So then you eqaute 'damage' as change. So a hair cut is damage, growing older is damage, eating anything is damage, washing is damage.

Come on now, be serious what actual damage is done by the removal of the foreskin? How does it debilitate, or harm or hinder the performance of the member or effect the health of the child?

I, for one, would certainly argue that a parent should not perform electrolysis on their children or have their toenails removed (note: removed, not trimmed) without medical indication for it. Do you think it would be a good idea to do either?

Is that what you really think I said?

So then you eqaute 'damage' as change. So a hair cut is damage, growing older is damage, eating anything is damage, washing is damage.


Harm is damage. Washing removes dead skin cells rather than living ones. Growing older is the body breaking down, usually helped from damage sustained during life.

What I'm against is parents inflicting permanent damage on their children without a benefit (removing an appendix for example would be damage, but if there was appendicitis etc then I'd be in favour since the benefit outweighed the damage), if the foreskin grew back then I wouldn't be bothered.

Harm is damage. Washing removes dead skin cells rather than living ones. Growing older is the body breaking down, usually helped from damage sustained during life.

What I'm against is parents inflicting permanent damage on their children without a benefit (removing an appendix for example would be damage, but if there was appendicitis etc then I'd be in favour since the benefit outweighed the damage), if the foreskin grew back then I wouldn't be bothered.

So then what is the benefit to getting a hair cut? You also use the word harm here, what harm does the removal of the foreskin do?

I notice that I have now asked you what amounts to the same question, in different ways at least 3 times, and you have not answered me, other to keep repeating the mantra, harm and damage.

We face both harm and damage every day, so do our children. Logically if you are against all harm, and all damage then you should be against life itself.

Come on you must surly have a stronger argument, for your strong opinion.

Interesting topic. Just had a bit of a debate with an old friend over the weekend on this very subject.

I like it ^^ Brings some beauty to an otherwise ugly organ XP

Really? The part I don't like is the scrotum. Ugly dangling sack of skin. Should I remove that instead? :p

Regarding phimosis, it should not be the diagnosis on anyone under the age of 10. The skin will loosen itself enough to roll back behind the head by the time puberty kicks in, and if not, there are actual creams(betamethasone, I think), that can be rubbed to loosen it. The only person who should roll back the foreskin should be the child himself. Additionally, nobody except whatever deity you believe created you(and actually physically communicates with you, rather than "Okay, I meditated on it, and I think God says...") knows for sure how long your foreskin will be, and how much removal is "right".

Regarding stimulation, I would say it actually increases sensation for the partner, since they would have both the deeper sensation of the head and shaft moving in and out, as well as the rolling action of the foreskin a little nearer the entrance, compared to just the head and shaft on a circumcised male.

Regarding Jews choosing not to circumcise: www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

Chopping off part of a kid for ANY reason other than GENUINE medical reason (rather than "he MIGHT get [insert supposed disease here] if we don't do it despite this not having happened to millions of uncircumcised people") is child abuse.

Child abuse is sick, regardless of religion or of the gender of the child being abused. Period.

If an ADULT wants to be circumcised, that's up to them.

Yep. That last line is my stance. Nice sig btw. I've been using that as my own life rule for the past 15 years, more or less.

Funny thing. Let's see. Which hurts more? Stabbing a needle in my arm for all of 1 second, or spending the better part of some minutes while some ogre tugs my foreskin and chops it off. I've actually gotten caught in my fly, and while it hurt like hell, I came off unscathed, so that isn't really any benefit of circumcision(and could have been avoided if I'd bothered to wear some underwear that day).

"If my parents had removed any other part of my body, they would have been prosecuted."

Funny thing. I spoke to my mother earlier this year, and she told me she'd wanted the doctor to circumcise both my brother and myself, and the doctor refused. Whenever I think about it, I offer a thanks to that doctor. In fact, I never even heard of circumcision till I was about 7, when I read about it in a book, and was put off by the description.

So looking at the poll, it seems that about 3/10(~40 / ~130) of circumcised men don't want it to happen to infants, while 1/6(~ 20 / ~120) of intact men do. Additionally, 2/3 of women apparently don't want it to occur either.

Wait, let me get this straight. Because the operation requires anaesthetic in order to numb the pain, the operation is not painful? Brilliant logic!:rolleyes: By that same token, having a woman knocked unconscious(without her knowledge, so presumably roofies), then raping her is not criminal, since she won't remember it, and there will be no consequences(assuming healthy and using multiple forms of protection)?

I guess I have a question for those uncircumcised males out there. How would you feel if you woke up and found that someone had cut off your foreskin?

I'd strangle them with their own intestines as soon as I could stand upright again.

To be honest I'm interested in what effect your foreskin has had on your life and how you feel about it. I guess it sounds really weird, but earlier people had commented on foreskins being very amusing ("like starcraft on your dick") and a woman complained that uncircumcised men pay too much attention to it.

It provides all sorts of different sensations as it moves, as opposed to holding the skin all the way back and merely stimulating the head and frenulum(which gets ridiculously, painfully itchy from friction. However, from what I've seen of circumcised guys in porn, that's pretty much all they do, which to me, looks like it would hurt like hell, considering all the callouses on the palms).

Appendix: Some recent research supposedly points to the appendix as a necessity to build up the immune system or something like that.

As for rights, you are claming that we shouldn't change any part of someone's body without their consent, correct?

Not directed at me, but yes. Silence does not mean consent.

Hmm, by the logic of "circumcision prevents penile cancer and HIV", should we then amputate the throats of every child? After all, there's a chance they could pick up the disgusting habit of smoking and get throat cancer.

Additionally, the "studies that prove circumcision prevents AIDS" were, IIRC, performed in Africa, and what it basically amounted to was:

Circumcised group: "Keep the area clean, abstain from sex for a week."
"Control Group"(nothing changes from normal): No information, no hygiene, nothing.

Gee, you mean abstaining from sex for 1 week prevents HIV? Wow, who would have guessed that would work for a sexually transmitted disease?

In addition, it's ridiculously stupid and irresponsible to think that just being circumcised prevents AIDS, since that would lead to them thinking they're immune to it and continue with irresponsible sexual behaviour. They also believe having sex with a virgin cures AIDS. Should we also send over the people who can't get laid as "humanitarian aid"?

By the way, "cleanliness"? Gee. My mother told me when I was young to wash it. What did I do? Less than 2 seconds of rubbing it in soapy water whenever I showered. No cancer or infections here.

Oh yes. "Small circle of skin". In an adult male, the foreskin is approximately this large:

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/unfold-pisa.gif
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/ruler.gif

Yes, it's actually a double layer of skin, with slightly moist mucous inner layer, and a rougher outer layer that protects the glans and end of the urethral tunnel from infection.

IIRC for the penile cancer studies, they basically found that older men(who were less likely to be circumcised) were more vulnerable than younger, circumcised men. Gee, old people get cancer easier.:rolleyes:

One reader pointed out that the popularity of circumcision in the U.S. among non-Jews was partly due to the fact that it makes masturbation more difficult. I had never heard this, but it makes sense -- if you read old medical books, written when masturbation was believed to be harmful, you might find mentions of ways in which parents can discourage their children from masturbating. So, circumcision could, in part, be a holdover from that era.

So then what is the benefit to getting a hair cut? You also use the word harm here, what harm does the removal of the foreskin do?

I notice that I have now asked you what amounts to the same question, in different ways at least 3 times, and you have not answered me, other to keep repeating the mantra, harm and damage.

We face both harm and damage every day, so do our children. Logically if you are against all harm, and all damage then you should be against life itself.

Come on you must surly have a stronger argument, for your strong opinion.


If you read my posts I said I was only against permanent damage. A hair cut not being permanent.

if the foreskin grew back then I wouldn't be bothered.

I defined damage as a negative effect on living cells

Take negatively effecting the living cells of that person's body as damage.

and I said I was against Parents deliberately inflicting permanent damage on their children

What I'm against is parents inflicting permanent damage on their children without a benefit

The damage is the removal of the foreskin itself, since that kills (a negative effect) living cells. It is also permanent. As I mentioned before, I'm against parents (or adults in general) inflicting permanent damage without benefit on children, whether that's circumcision or anything else fulfilling that requirement.

Hmm, by the logic of "circumcision prevents penile cancer and HIV", should we then amputate the throats of every child? After all, there's a chance they could pick up the disgusting habit of smoking and get throat cancer.

Heheh that is always funny that. Lets not factor in the difference between a throat and a foreskin, and call it logic! Heheheh.

Ohh and you lefty out a percentage of men that have been circumsiced, not seeing it as an issue. I think that would be most of us.

Heheh that is always funny that. Lets not factor in the difference between a throat and a foreskin, and call it logic! Heheheh.

Ohh and you lefty out a percentage of men that have been circumsiced, not seeing it as an issue. I think that would be most of us.

Well, someone already took the breast option. How about this? Skin cancer occurs if you get hit by sunlight that damages the cells via UV rays, ergo, we must flay every child at birth.

The damage is the removal of the foreskin itself, since that kills (a negative effect) living cells. It is also permanent. As I mentioned before, I'm against parents (or adults in general) inflicting permanent damage without benefit on children, whether that's circumcision or anything else fulfilling that requirement.


Which still makes no sense at all. Just living has a negative effect on living cells. By being alive you are slowly dieing. when you cut the hair on your head, you kill that hair, that hair that you have cut off does not grow back again, it is different hair that grows.

So by you reckoning, even a hair cut is 'damaging'.

I think you are clinging to a definition of 'damage' that is not up to the job you are trying to squeeze out of it, I think that this definition makes a mockery of even living.

When I say damage I mean something that debilitates, either physically or mentally. So again, what actual damage does the removal of a foreskin do?

Which still makes no sense at all. Just living has a negative effect on living cells. By being alive you are slowly dieing. when you cut the hair on your head, you kill that hair, that hair that you have cut off does not grow back again, it is different hair that grows.

So by you reckoning, even a hair cut is 'damaging'.

I think you are clinging to a definition of 'damage' that is not up to the job you are trying to squeeze out of it, I think that this definition makes a mockery of even living.

When I say damage I mean something that debilitates, either physically or mentally. So again, what actual damage does the removal of a foreskin do?
Then we have a different definition of damage. I've said repeatedly that yes, a hair cut comes under the heading of damage, but since it isn't permanent I'm not bothered by it. The hair that grows back is identical in practically everyway to the ones it replaced, so it comes to the same thing.

Damage comes in life certainly, I don't see why we should have parents adding to that.

Then we have a different definition of damage. I've said repeatedly that yes, a hair cut comes under the heading of damage, but since it isn't permanent I'm not bothered by it. The hair that grows back is identical in practically everyway to the ones it replaced, so it comes to the same thing.

Damage comes in life certainly, I don't see why we should have parents adding to that.

You see that is very bizzare. You have admitted that even though cutting the hair is damaging? You have no problem with it, as it grows back, even though it is not the same hair that grows back,you still have no problem with it because 'it is identical in practically every way'.

What then if it isn't? What if I have a hair cut and it all grows back grey?

What If I decide to have all of my hair shaved off and then suffer a bout of alapecia, and it never grows back?

Where in your scheme of damage does that fit?

As to parents, I'm with Larkin on that score, there are going to damage you anyway.

Ohh and you still have not answered the question. Using my definition of damage what actual damage does the removal of the foreskin do?

You see that is very bizzare. You have admitted that even though cutting the hair is damaging? You have no problem with it, as it grows back, even though it is not the same hair that grows back,you still have no problem with it because 'it is identical in practically every way'.

What then if it isn't? What if I have a hair cut and it all grows back grey?

What If I decide to have all of my hair shaved off and then suffer a bout of alapecia, and it never grows back?

Where in your scheme of damage does that fit?

As to parents, I'm with Larkin on that score, there are going to damage you anyway.
Accidentally certainly. If the parents knew that the hair wasn't going to go back and shaved it off anyway I'd be against that.


Ohh and you still have not answered the question. Using my definition of damage what actual damage does the removal of the foreskin do?
Under your definition it's hard to say the damage it does, according to wikipedia there's a load of studies, most of them contradicting each other.

Which still makes no sense at all. Just living has a negative effect on living cells. By being alive you are slowly dieing. when you cut the hair on your head, you kill that hair, that hair that you have cut off does not grow back again, it is different hair that grows.

So by you reckoning, even a hair cut is 'damaging'.

I think you are clinging to a definition of 'damage' that is not up to the job you are trying to squeeze out of it, I think that this definition makes a mockery of even living.

When I say damage I mean something that debilitates, either physically or mentally. So again, what actual damage does the removal of a foreskin do?
Yes, living does have a negative effect on living cells, but your general everyday life will damage cells that the body can easy make replacements for, the body can not replace.

And let me pose a question to men who are circumcised and believe it is a parents right to force this upon their children: how would you feel if your parents had decided to remove other aspects of your body that aren't vital to the quality of your everyday life. Would you be fine with them tattooing something on you or removing, say, your earlobes? At most all they do is keep ears a tiny bit warmer, whereas the foreskin has many more benefits (besides it being a natural part of the human male anatomy, and in most cases will cause no detriment in keeping it, so there is no reason to remove it.)

And what exactly gives a parent the right to decide that they don't think a certain part of their child's body isn't theirs to have? The foreskin does in fact have benefits, such as an environment for precum to remain in and thus lubricate the penis, making sex more pleasant. That alone should be enough reason to leave it be.

And don't bring up pitiful arguments like it can reduce the risk of contracting HIV, it reduces not eliminates. You know what else reduces the risk of contracting the virus? Condoms, knowing your partners well enough, abstinence (hey! That stops it entirely!)

There is no justifiable cause for letting parents make an unchangeable physical alteration to their child; and for the record, circumcision isn't comparable to the manner in which a child is raised, the parent affecting the personality and life a child will have is inevitable, circumcision however isn't, and should be the choice of an informed man of an age appropriate to make decisions about his body.

Is that what you really think I said?

No, but it is the only way to actually equate hair or nail removal to circumcision, which is something you have been trying to do. In order to be an accurate comparison, we would have to be talking about permanent and irreversible hair or nail removal - hence, electrolysis or removal of the nail bed.

The way the anti-circumcision group in this thread is talking about removing a piece of skin to reduce the chance of infant urinary tract infection in your male son, you would think that otoplasty, craniofacial and ophthalmology would be capital punishment crimes...

A, there isn't support for routine circumcision to prevent a condition that can be fixed without surgery and a much lower incidence than the incidence of complications of the surgery. It's like cutting off breasts to prevent breast cancer, in isolated cases, it might make sense. IF you're in an extremly high risk group, it might make sense, but routinely it's killing a mosquito on your arm with a shotgun.

No, but it is the only way to actually equate hair or nail removal to circumcision, which is something you have been trying to do. In order to be an accurate comparison, we would have to be talking about permanent and irreversible hair or nail removal - hence, electrolysis or removal of the nail bed.

Ahhh gotch-ya.

In all fairness though I was just trying to work through Forsakia's definition of damage.

Accidentally certainly. If the parents knew that the hair wasn't going to go back and shaved it off anyway I'd be against that.


Under your definition it's hard to say the damage it does, according to wikipedia there's a load of studies, most of them contradicting each other.


Ahhh there it is. So then if we don't use your definition, then you are hard pressed to say exactly what damage occurs from male circumsicion?

Then I guess I'm finished.

Umm really.

Lets start at beginning huh.

I don't agree nor disagree with male circumsicion, and that is the whole point. Foreskin on or foreskin off what is the difference, especially one that you claim is damaging? I ask you because you act like an expert on the subject.

To me the whole question makes as much sense arguing over whether or not to cut your babies hair.

What do you actually find so objectionable, and why?

I find the lopping off of body parts objectionable without indication. I'm weird like that. Now, if YOU want to do it, you're quite capable when you're able to make your own decision. It's when you make that decision for babies, that I protest.

I know you're not familiar with what you're talking about, but let me help you out.

When you're born your foreskin is attached to the glans. Not the way it is on an adult, it's actually fixed onto it across the entire glans, leaving just a small opening at the end. It doesn't pull back, as an adult's would. This is also true of a girl's clitoral hood. For this reason removing either of these protective pieces of skin requires one to tear it away from a very sensitive part. They don't cut it away. They tear it away. This is why even the most mild form of female circumcision damages the clitoris, and why even the most mild form of male circumcision damages the glans of the penis.

Does it heal? Sort of. After they've torn the skin off and then cut around the penis, the child heals painfully. It leaves a scar across the penis. Some people find this scar visually pleasing, but I suspect if I was scaring the faces of infants someone would likely object.

In 2 to 10% of cases, there are further risks. In my case, another surgery was required to deal with the scaring from the first surgery I didn't need or want.

And here's the best part. If I wanted to be circumcised, magically, circumcision never stops being an option. However, being intact stops being an option the moment, you cut off a child's foreskin.

The burden is on you, my friend. You're the one denying individual rights and you're the one who's going to have to show why it's necessary to do so when the child cannot decide.

Incidentally, what percentage of people who are uncircumcised choose to be circumcised as adults? If it's such an innocuos procedure and it's a choice so many think is okay, why is it adults aren't getting it at approximately the same percentage as those who agree with it? I'm curious. Certainly, you must have an answer, no?

Ahhh there it is. So then if we don't use your definition, then you are hard pressed to say exactly what damage occurs from male circumsicion?

Then I guess I'm finished.

I've said. I've provided links. Other people have said. Denying the facts doesn't make them go away. The foreskin has a purpose, to protect the glans of the penis. The same purpose as the clitoral hood, and almost no one here would support cutting that off. I was denied that purpose. I wasn't asked. There was no reason to rush that surgery. I could choose now, if I desired, but that right was taken from me.

What damage occurs if I molest you as a child? I mean, if I'm careful, you'll won't have any change in physical function. Hell, if no one tells you, you probably won't remember it, if I do it early enough. I should be allowed to, right? I mean, it's not as if we should treat children like they have rights and concerns, should we?

I find the lopping off of body parts objectionable without indication. I'm weird like that. Now, if YOU want to do it, you're quite capable when you're able to make your own decision. It's when you make that decision for babies, that I protest.

I know you're not familiar with what you're talking about, but let me help you out.

When you're born your foreskin is attached to the glans. Not the way it is on an adult, it's actually fixed onto it across the entire glans, leaving just a small opening at the end. It doesn't pull back, as an adult's would. This is also true of a girl's clitoral hood. For this reason removing either of these protective pieces of skin requires one to tear it away from a very sensitive part. They don't cut it away. They tear it away. This is why even the most mild form of female circumcision damages the clitoris, and why even the most mild form of male circumcision damages the glans of the penis.

Does it heal? Sort of. After they've torn the skin off and then cut around the penis, the child heals painfully. It leaves a scar across the penis. Some people find this scar visually pleasing, but I suspect if I was scaring the faces of infants someone would likely object.

In 2 to 10% of cases, there are further risks. In my case, another surgery was required to deal with the scaring from the first surgery I didn't need or want.

And here's the best part. If I wanted to be circumcised, magically, circumcision never stops being an option. However, being intact stops being an option the moment, you cut off a child's foreskin.

The burden is on you, my friend. You're the one denying individual rights and you're the one who's going to have to show why it's necessary to do so when the child cannot decide.

Incidentally, what percentage of people who are uncircumcised choose to be circumcised as adults? If it's such an innocuos procedure and it's a choice so many think is okay, why is it adults aren't getting it at approximately the same percentage as those who agree with it? I'm curious. Certainly, you must have an answer, no?

Well let me re-state that I don't agree nor disagree with male circumsicion.

It is my contention that arguing over whether or not it is moral acceptable to cut the foreskin of a child without his consent is an argument over nothing, I have said in fact that we may as well argue over getting a child's hair cut.

I have argued that the actual damage this causes and also the actual difference haveing no foreskin makes are both negligible as to make this a non issue.

This is my stance, and I have heard nowt yet to sway me.

For the record, I am myself circumsised, I got done when I was 18 months old, for medical reasons. So yep I do know what you are talking about.

A, there isn't support for routine circumcision to prevent a condition that can be fixed without surgery and a much lower incidence than the incidence of complications of the surgery. It's like cutting off breasts to prevent breast cancer, in isolated cases, it might make sense. IF you're in an extremly high risk group, it might make sense, but routinely it's killing a mosquito on your arm with a shotgun.

I can and do agree with your logic and analyses, however, your numbers are more then controversial, they seem downright wrong, and if you start with bad numbers you end with bad results.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that complications from newborn circumcision occur at a rate of 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 circumcised newborn males and are most often minor; the two most common are mild bleeding and local infection, which is 0.2 to 0.5%, not 2% (or the 2%-10% you've been saying in other posts). And UTI in uncircumcised boys is twice that at 1%.

Circumcision reduces the from 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI to a circumcised male chance of 1 in 1000.

Link (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm)

and when other potential benefits are added it, a parent is well within their rights to determine that circumcision is a medically beneficial decision to make for their child at birth.

bottle: The foreskin produces lubrication, akin to the female sexual response(and apparently, takes a little while to come about). Circumcision either removes the production processes, or seals them off. Would that qualify under "functional mutilation"?

As I have said before, my position is that this is in fact a choice for the child to make. The parents have ~18 years of legal right over the child. The child has upwards of twice that amount in which to live out the remainder of their lives. I would rather leave things as is, and let the child discover for themselves whether or not they wish to be circumcised, intact, transgender, whatever. It's their body, and they should be the ones to make the decisions that will permanently affect it(yes, fires, accidents, and other situations may leave permanent effects upon the child, but why willingly add to it?)

Oh yes, and for those who think the foreskin is "dirty", amazing how it becomes magically "clean" when they need to use them to harvest stem cells, right? ;p

Is that what you really think I said?

You are comparing a non-surgical reversible procedure to a surgical and non-reversible procedure. She merely pointed out why your comparison is stupid.

So is the hair, the finger and toe nails, is this also damaging?

Don't fingernails, toenails, and hair grow back?

If foreskins grew back, the discussion would be very different.

Unfortunately, until they do, your 'hair and nails' argument is either irrelevent or deliberately confusing the issue.

I can and do agree with your logic and analyses, however, your numbers are more then controversial, they seem downright wrong, and if you start with bad numbers you end with bad results.

The American Academy of Pediatrics states that complications from newborn circumcision occur at a rate of 1 in 200 to 1 in 500 circumcised newborn males and are most often minor; the two most common are mild bleeding and local infection, which is 0.2 to 0.5%, not 2% (or the 2%-10% you've been saying in other posts). And UTI in uncircumcised boys is twice that at 1%.

Circumcision reduces the from 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI to a circumcised male chance of 1 in 1000.

Link (http://www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/marcircum.htm)

and when other potential benefits are added it, a parent is well within their rights to determine that circumcision is a medically beneficial decision to make for their child at birth.

The numbers are highly disputed. AAP admits they don't the incidence of circumcision (why such wouldn't be recorded is beyond me) nor the incidence of complications (again, beyond me). AAP reports some of the lowest numbers of any agency. They are widely considered to be incorrect. For one thing they don't take into account a large number of issues that go unreported. Much like you can't say the only rapes that occur in this country are the ones that are prosecuted, it's ludicrous to claim that the only complications of circumcision are the ones that are reported. For the most parts only the ones that REQUIRE medical attention are reported. There are tons of problems that are largely cosmetic.

It's a problem of what they consider a complication. My problem isn't in AAP's numbers, yet it required surgical correction. I've provided source studies for my numbers. Several times, in fact. You should try reading them and not relying on an agency in a only western country in the world that won't outright say that it's unnecessary and continues the routine practice.

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

You can find this study and all of it's sources on most medical sites, but as you'd have to pay for them, I pointed it out here. It's peer-reviewed and you're welcome to check it out. It's stood very well to criticism.

Actually, a parent isn't. It's not medically beneficial. There is no indication for routine circumcision. Even the AAP who you cited says that.

The burden is on you to show the benefit. Not the other way around. You are denying a person the right to make this decision for themselves. You better be able to prove you've got a good reason for doing before they were able to make that decision.

For example, so a surgery reduces the chance of a UTI by 90% which is a non-surgical, low-risk infection. Geez, can we cut off my nails just so I never get a fungal infection too? What other unlikely non-surgical issues can we find a surgical non-cure for? Let's just start cutting off everything we don't absolutely have to have. Oh, wait. That would be ludicrous. You're going to have to do better than preventing a UTI to excuse surgical excision of a body part.

Actually, a parent isn't. It's not medically beneficial. There is no indication for routine circumcision. Even the AAP who you cited says that.

Actually, that's not what the AAP says. It, along with several other major medical organizations, states that there is evidence of medical benefits to the procedure, but that this evidence is not conclusive enough in a risk/benefit analysis to recommend routine circumcision. It and most major medical organizations (that I've found a policy for) seem to think that it *should* be up to the parents to make that determination.

The wisdom of such a position is debatable, but they do not take the hard-line on it that you do. They basically say, "It may very well be medically beneficial, but we're not convinced enough that the benefits outweigh the risks that we'll recommend that everyone do it. If the parents think the benefits are there, they can go for it."

Well let me re-state that I don't agree nor disagree with male circumsicion.

It is my contention that arguing over whether or not it is moral acceptable to cut the foreskin of a child without his consent is an argument over nothing, I have said in fact that we may as well argue over getting a child's hair cut.

And it's an idiotic argument. Last I checked I can grow my hair still today. My foreskin is gone. Forever.

By the way, what are the complications of a haircut. Oh, wait, right, there aren't any.


I have argued that the actual damage this causes and also the actual difference haveing no foreskin makes are both negligible as to make this a non issue.

You've stated. Not argued. Arguments have support. You have none.



This is my stance, and I have heard nowt yet to sway me.

Well, hey, if you're not swayed, we must be wrong. You aren't listening. You've proven this. That you're not swayed says nothing of the quality of the argument, and more about how stubborn you are.

For the record, I am myself circumsised, I got done when I was 18 months old, for medical reasons. So yep I do know what you are talking about.

Oh, well, if you've gotten circumcised, you must know what you're talking about. I mean, I got in a car accident once, so I must know the insurance statistics for car accidents.

No, having a circumcision teaches you nothing about the effects. Do you remember your pre-circumcised penis? Was the sex better? What was the surgery like?

Meanwhile, you're individual experience was not routine. It's the opposite. If we were talking about circumcision when it's medically called for, I wouldn't be arguing. So, no, you've proven you don't know what you're talking about, mostly by claiming that having a circumcision makes you knowledgeable about the procedure. It says a lot about the low expectation of understanding you require to make claims.

By the way, what are the complications of a haircut. Oh, wait, right, there aren't any.


You could get a really bad haircut....

But circumcision is a just a rip off.

(*hi hat*)

Oooh, that's a sore point.

(*hi hat*)

Thanks for the tip.

(*hi hat*)

Actually, that's not what the AAP says. It, along with several other major medical organizations, states that there is evidence of medical benefits to the procedure, but that this evidence is not conclusive enough in a risk/benefit analysis to recommend routine circumcision. It and most major medical organizations (that I've found a policy for) seem to think that it *should* be up to the parents to make that determination.

The wisdom of such a position is debatable, but they do not take the hard-line on it that you do. They basically say, "It may very well be medically beneficial, but we're not convinced enough that the benefits outweigh the risks that we'll recommend that everyone do it. If the parents think the benefits are there, they can go for it."
We're talking about the routine procedure. What they say is that it is not necessary to the health of the infant. It's an unnecessary surgery.

And it shouldn't be up to the parents any more than they should be allowed to cut the nipples off of boys or any number of barbaric rituals. It should be up the human being who must live with it. Naturally, I can make the decision to circumcise as an adult. The only way I get denied a choice is if it's taken from me.

Would you support the removal of fingernails? Routine electrolisis of infants? I mean, hey, no ingrown hairs or nails. That's a life-saver, no? As long as I think there is a benefit, who cares whether or not there is a convincing medical indication, I can just lop things off.

I'm curious, what can we cut off girls to prevent UTI's? I mean, UTI's are much more prevelant there. Would you give up your clitoral hood?

Don't fingernails, toenails, and hair grow back?

If foreskins grew back, the discussion would be very different.

Unfortunately, until they do, your 'hair and nails' argument is either irrelevent or deliberately confusing the issue.

What do you want from a guy that says having a non-routine circumcision means he's educated about routine circumcision? He's confused.

Heheh that is always funny that. Lets not factor in the difference between a throat and a foreskin, and call it logic! Heheheh.

Ah, yes, like comparison the removal of the foreskin to a haircut. Don't you hate when you're thwarted by your own snarkiness?

Ohh and you lefty out a percentage of men that have been circumsiced, not seeing it as an issue. I think that would be most of us.

And if they would prefer to be circumcised they have that choice. Again, until foreskins grow back, we have to err on the side that can change. You can remove then if and when you choose. I can't put it back if and when I choose.

The majority of men who are uncircumcised also prefer it, have the added benefit of not having undergone an unnecessary surgery, and, strangely enough, when uncircumcised men decide they'd rather be circumcised, they is this interesting and almost magical solution.

So is the hair, the finger and toe nails, is this also damaging?
So we should be able to pull out all of an infant's nails and make it so they can't grow back in?

We're talking about the routine procedure. What they say is that it is not necessary to the health of the infant. It's an unnecessary surgery.

And they also say that there are possible health benefits and that it should be up to the parents. You disagree with this, I get it. I was just pointing out that the AAP's stance and your own are not equivalent.

And it shouldn't be up to the parents any more than they should be allowed to cut the nipples off of boys or any number of barbaric rituals. It should be up the human being who must live with it. Naturally, I can make the decision to circumcise as an adult. The only way I get denied a choice is if it's taken from me.

Would you support the removal of fingernails? Routine electrolisis of infants? I mean, hey, no ingrown hairs or nails. That's a life-saver, no? As long as I think there is a benefit, who cares whether or not there is a convincing medical indication, I can just lop things off.

Who says I support any of it? I have stated more than once in this very thread that I am not convinced that the possible health benefits of circumcision are clear enough or significant enough to warrant infant circumcision and that I would not personally have it done on any sons I might have.

I know this is an emotional topic for you, but it really doesn't help when you start jumping all over people because of assumptions you make about their views.

Ummm,
why not ask the kid? Its stupid to do it for non-medical emergencies. Same with pierced ears at age 3.

i had it done when i was born, my brother did not, from what i can figure out, sexual times are no better or worse for either of us.

Ever hear of Free Will?

I think the problem lies in the fact that one can not get it done, then undo it if they do not like it. :(

As for doing it to females...i would be banned for the style of rant that was going to erupt against the people who think it is a good idea.

Rant from a Pagan, Feminist, Gay guy,
Rafe
OOC

What are everyone's views on circumcision?

Personally I think its an abhorrent practice, and is one of those cases where it would be justified to step in despite religious beliefs. Though I admit it has it's uses (prevention of AIDS, certain medical conditions), that doesn't mean it should be allowed without consent of the patient. While its not perfectly proved, several studies have shown that circumcision results in less feeling in the penis (and therefore less pleasure during sex), although some other studies have shown the opposite. However logically it makes sense that when a sensitive part of your body is exposed that it will become less sensitive (think calloused hands/feet). Add this to the fact that the procedure is extremely painful, provides no definite benefit to the individual, and in infants cannot be performed with general anesthesia, it is simply barbaric. Of course there is also the possibility of infection and that the doctor makes a mistake and removes the entire penis. However many people, without religious reasons, continue to have this procedure performed on their children.

Nocirc.org (http://www.nocirc.org/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

What do you want from a guy that says having a non-routine circumcision means he's educated about routine circumcision? He's confused.

Ohhh handbags huh!

Now I never claimed this, you may claim that I did but you would be wrong.

It is clear that you still don't get what I'm saying, so I'll try once more then I'm outa this one.

You have admitted already that if we forgo your rather strange definition of damage, you would be hard pressed to quantify what damage the removal of the foreskin does.

It is this sense of damage that I equate with the cutting of the hair, and the nails. As I have said it seems a ridiculous argument to be having in the first place, you have not swayed me simply because you have not suggested what damage occurs outside the bounds of your dubious definition.

I will ask one more time, can you tell me how the removal of the foreskin, debilitates the use of the penis, or how it effects the male in any adverse way?

Does loss of natural lubrication count as "damage"?

Actually, that's not what the AAP says. It, along with several other major medical organizations, states that there is evidence of medical benefits to the procedure, but that this evidence is not conclusive enough in a risk/benefit analysis to recommend routine circumcision. It and most major medical organizations (that I've found a policy for) seem to think that it *should* be up to the parents to make that determination.

The wisdom of such a position is debatable, but they do not take the hard-line on it that you do. They basically say, "It may very well be medically beneficial, but we're not convinced enough that the benefits outweigh the risks that we'll recommend that everyone do it. If the parents think the benefits are there, they can go for it."
And they also say that there are possible health benefits and that it should be up to the parents. You disagree with this, I get it. I was just pointing out that the AAP's stance and your own are not equivalent.



Who says I support any of it? I have stated more than once in this very thread that I am not convinced that the possible health benefits of circumcision are clear enough or significant enough to warrant infant circumcision and that I would not personally have it done on any sons I might have.

I know this is an emotional topic for you, but it really doesn't help when you start jumping all over people because of assumptions you make about their views.


Thanks, you left nothing for me to say in my own defense so I just QFT :)

It is this sense of damage that I equate with the cutting of the hair, and the nails. As I have said it seems a ridiculous argument to be having in the first place, you have not swayed me simply because you have not suggested what damage occurs outside the bounds of your dubious definition.
It's more like pulling out the fingernails and preventing them from growing back. Hair and nails grow back when cut, foreskin doesn't. How can you think that this is still a good analogy?