The Big C: Circumcision

Just thought I'd add this as food for thought:"Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity."
George Bernard Shaw------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

if there was a young child who'd suffered horrific burns, could they not expect to receive some treatment which was cosmetic (and not medically "necessary") - if the child was young enough, it would have to be sanctioned by the parents. And wouldn't this cosmetic surgery to prevent the child from being stigmatised in later life by society (or culture).

---

PrimordialEgg, this is not a sound analogy. A child who has received burns has been disfigured from the "natural" state. A child with a foreskin is not disfigured - he is already in the natural state.I can, however, think of a couple of "disfiguring" and unnecessary procedures that are performed on non-consenting children and that are therefore vaguely related to circumcision: piercing babies' ears/noses, and fixing their belly buttons. I don't know at what age the latter operation is generally done, ie. whether the kids have a say. But I have seen tiny babies with pierced bodies and I find that pretty sickening - both because of the pain that was inflicted, and the scar that has been created.Since the complications from piercing and the long-term effects on bodily function (eg. sexual function) are negligible, my overall objection to this practice is pretty small compared to infant circumcision. It still gives me the creeps, though, that parents think they have the right to poke holes in their babies to satisfy their own sense of aesthetics.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

(me) If a baby girl's genitals were simply "snipped" under surgical conditions to alter their appearance and engineering, would you be okay with that?

​

(you) If it was what society considered "normal", and would allow for a greater degree of acceptance among her sexual peers; and if enjoyable seuxal function was preserved, then yes, I would be ok with that.

---

That is sick.

quote:

---

I want to make absolutely sure that everybody understands that I agree with this sentiment. Let's make it so we don't have to cut bits off our sons.

---

And that is hypocritical. If you truly want to "make it so we don't have to", how about getting your head out of the sand and starting with your own child?

quote:

---

all to preserve a flap of skin.

---

This indicates that you consider the foreskin to have no value. I realise it's easier that way, but it's untrue. Unfortunately, parents, doctors and cut men have to persist with this fantasy in order to live with themselves - what they've done, and what was done to them.------------------
o--greyline--o

doctrbill, here's a link to the article in the British Journal of Urology (1996) about the anatomical structure of the foreskin:Erogenous Tissue Loss after CircumcisionConsidering the recent date of this article, it leads me to believe that the foreskin hasn't been studied much histologically until recently.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

What annoys me is that I didn't know enough about circumcision before having it done to my son. Had I been as knowledgeable then as I am now on the subject, I would never have had it done.
It pains me to remember that day. And now, my little 20 month old son will be undergoing another procedure on his penis (along with a hernia operation) to cut away the adhesions that have formed subsequent to the circumcision. Why does he have adhesions? Because no one bothered telling brand new parents that they needed to make sure and pull the skin back from time to time to keep adhesions from forming. All we heard was "you don't have to do anything - leave it alone." Uh huh... and here we are.

---

I think lack of information is the main reason parents do this - I can't think why they would decide to do it once they know the facts, particularly the value of the foreskin sexually and as protection for the glans. At the hospital where my sister gave birth, there are now little pamphlets about why not to circumcise, along with the "how to breastfeed" pamphlets etc. Childbirth is becoming demedicalised, which is a good thing.I just wanted to point out that for boys whose foreskins are left intact, you should *not* retract the foreskin (it's meant to be adhered to the glans until the child is about 3-5 years old - in fact, tearing it off the glans with a blunt instrument is part of the painful circumcision procedure). I don't know much about the care of a baby's circumcised penis, however.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

men and women I know (and whose opinion I respect) have been around both circumcised and uncircumcised penises, and they are unanimous in their preference of circumcised penises. Even those who opted for circumcision later in life think it's better. Statistically circumcised men have more active and satisfying sex lives.

---

This is certainly a strange statement to make without references. Here's a study that shows 6 out of 7 women prefer uncut penises (again from the BJU, based on survey results of presumably British women):Male Circumcision and Sexual Enjoyment of the Female PartnerA few paraphrased results follow.With an uncircumcised partner:- women were more likely to have orgasms, more likely to have a vaginal orgasm (ie. orgasm without clitoral stimulation), and had more multiple orgasms- women were less likely to have vaginal discomfort/drying (the anatomical reason for this is explained in the article)- women had more positive post-coital feelings.With a circumcised partner:- during prolonged intercourse women were less likely to 'really get into it' and more likely to 'want to get it over with'- because of the need for the man to thrust harder (due to decreased sensitivity of the cut penis) women reported negative feelings more often such as irritablity, "sexually violated", "partner cared little about me", "other than my vagina partner wouldn't know I was there", thrusting out of sync, "he's working awfully hard", "disinterested", "my vagina doesn't like this", "pumping until it hurts me". (Can I just add that this conforms with my own experience in terms of the feelings of closeness and shared experience during sex.) Essentially there was a "striking" difference in that women "felt more intimate with their [uncut] partners".******************The researchers give the anatomical reasons why an uncut penis doesn't need to thrust so hard, relating to the special nerve endings in the ridged band I previously mentioned. "Circumcised men tend to thrust harder and deeper, using elongated strokes, while unaltered men by comparison tended to thrust more gently, to have shorter thrusts, and tended to be in contact with the mons pubis and clitoris more". (I realise women may *like* it hard and deep, but the point is that with an uncut partner you get the choice to have it either way!)Regarding non-vaginal forms of sex: "some respondents commented that unaltered [uncut] men appeared to enjoy coitus more than their circumcised couterparts. The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying" [ie. so they don't seek oral/anal sex as often].------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

I don't object to a token snip of the labia in order to fit the girl into the sexual culture.
  —crashfrog

---

quote:

---

I most certainly do object to anyone thinking they have the right to mess about with my nether regions without getting my approval!
  —schrafinator

---

I was going to suggest that crashfrog repeat his above comment to the women in his life - his sisters, mother, colleagues, wife, girlfriend, etc. and see what kind of response it drew! (Not that male circumcision is a "token snip", but that only makes the point more clearly - women in general would strenuously object to even the slightest interference with their genitals.)This again harks back to my original reason for starting this thread - the ethics of amputating someone else's body parts when those parts are perfectly healthy and when that person did not consent. Why do parents think they have the right to irreversibly alter their child's genitals? They don't own their children's bodies - they are meant to be *guardians* of their children.And why do doctors think they have the right to perform unnecessary mutilations on non-consenting people? That doesn't conform to any standards of medical ethics. A Queensland law paper a few years ago proved this along with all the associated legal jargon, and made the obvious point about repercussions: that men could sue their parents or doctor for their infant circumcisions.------------------
o--greyline--o

quote:

---

Upon doing exactly that, I discovered that my wife at least felt that a token snip of the labia, performed at birth and entailing no alteration of function later in life, was not that big a deal.

---

I'm assuming neither of you has children and that your wife isn't particularly maternal, because it's the only way I can make sense of this statement.Please think about what you're saying here. You are so determined to justify your own circumcision that you have convinced yourself that cutting into a baby girl's genitals is fine, too.My post is notwithstanding (1) your later post where you apparently do an about-face, since I can't tell if you're being facetious, and (2) the fact that a "token snip of the labia" with "no alteration of function" is in no way analagous to routine infant circumcision as carried out on American boys. Since you're okay with the latter, I'm assuming you're okay with an analogous operation on baby girls: removal of the clitoral hood so that the clitorus is left unprotected, dries out and becomes desensitised.Seriously, I am incredulous that your wife (in particular) is okay with the idea of altering the appearance of her baby daughter's genitals just because, say, it was done to her.

quote:

---

I have no reason to suspect that my wife is alone in this assessment, I guess.

---

I very much doubt her opinion is in the majority, even in America. I suspect most women respond with horror to this question.Usually when I have asked this question (of people who are circumcised or have circumcised their sons) the response is: "But male circumcision has nothing to do with female circumcision!" Which I believe was also your response. This answer is irrelevant since I have clearly stated a theoretical analogous surgery, not infibulation, and it neatly avoids the child's rights at the heart of the issue.------------------
o--greyline--o

Do you have a reference for this? I think it's very very very very unlikely. It is true that routine infant circumcision was often done without parental consent - before our modern age of litigation arrived.

Tee hee.