The Big C: Circumcision

Agent Uranium [GPC] writes:

quote:

---

I don't miss my foreskin.

---

You can't miss what you don't have.You are perfectly free to think that a circumcised penis looks better. But the question is:Who should be the final arbiter on whether it gets hacked off?Don't you think the owner of the penis gets to make that decision?In another direction, breast cancer is a horrible way to die. We have found that there is a genetic component to some types of breast cancer and can even do screening for it. Some women have decided that given their family history of breast cancer and a screening that shows they have the genetics for contracting breast cancer, they are going to have a "preventative mastectomy."Would it be acceptable for parents to perform such a procedure on their infant girls under the same circumstances of family history and genetic profile? Or should it be left up to the one who actually has the breasts?I'm trying to see where one would draw the line. After all, one of the reasons given for circumcision is a supposed prevention of penile cancer. Given that more women will die of breast cancer than men will even contract penile cancer, I'm wondering at what point this "health" argument breaks down.On the other side: Knowing that our culture values larger breasts, should parents subject their daughters to breast implants should it appear that they're not up to snuff? Or is it something that the owner of the breasts gets to decide?Shouldn't it be the owner of the penis who gets to decide what to do with the foreskin?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dan Carroll responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You can't miss what you don't have.

---

​

What the Hell are you talking about? You can only miss what you don't have!

---

Not if you never had it.Don't be contrary just to be contrary.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Agent Uranium [GPC] responds to me:

quote:

---

But I did have a foreskin.

---

But by your own admission, you don't remember it.Don't be contrary just to be contrary.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Would it be acceptable for parents to perform such a procedure on their infant girls under the same circumstances of family history and genetic profile? Or should it be left up to the one who actually has the breasts?

---

​

Didn't you answer your own question?

---

Yes, a long time ago. It should be left up to the person whose body is going to be cut open.

quote:

---

You can't miss what you don't have.

---

That doesn't make it right. The claim that we should go ahead and do it because, since they're infants, they won't remember it and won't have any other experience except that without what was taken away isn't sufficient to justify it.It still isn't your body. It still isn't your decision to make. If your religion requires you to cut off a body part, then you go right ahead and do it, but leave your children out of it. They'll join you when they decide they want to. If thy right eye offends thee, then pluck it out, but I think I'll be the one to decide if my right eye offends me.Why deprive your child of something he or she might find valuable?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

What value does it have? Certainly none sexually.

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What value does it have? Certainly none sexually.

---

​

(*blink!*)

​

Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?

---

​

Considering all the studies that confirm that circumsized men experience less in the way of sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised men, and that they experience no less in the way of sexual pleasure,

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?

quote:

---

and that their mates (in this country at least) tend to prefer their circumcision,

---

And the fact that so few males are intact in this country has nothing to do with it, of course.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to greyline:

quote:

---

Not to mention that the glans itself contains as many nerve endings that might very well not be stimulated in the presence of the foreskin.

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?Yes, I know I'vve repeated that line a lot. It's because I cannot believe I'm hearing you say this. Do you seriously believe what you're saying? Have you ever actually been around an uncircumcised penis in the act of sex?

quote:

---

From all reports, the foreskin reduces friction during sex.

---

You're using an overly broad definition of "friction." What the foreskin does is remove abrasive friction that happens when two dry skin surfaces rub against each other. It allows the sebaceous secretions to accumulate on the glans, providing lubricant that allows for easier penetration. It keeps the skin of the glans from thickening, thus making it more sensitive.

quote:

---

I happen to enjoy the friction of sex.

---

(*chuckle*)Yeah...let's have you go in dry...both sides...we'll see how well you like it.

quote:

---

If the foreskin reduces that then you can keep mine.

---

But it doesn't. It actually increases sensation. The studies of men who have been circumcised after adulthood and thus can tell the difference generally report reduced sensation after circumcision.And given the complication rate mentioned previously in the other thread, it is not something that should be done routinely.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to greyline:

quote:

---

I find I don't much care for the characterization of a circumcised penis (for instance, mine) as "abnormal".

---

What else would you call a mutilated organ? Or perhaps you don't like the term "mutilated." Ok...um...how's this: What else would you call a "surgically altered" organ?"Typical"?Only in the statistical sense. Is a hand that has had one of the fingers surgically removed "normal"? "Typical"?

quote:

---

I can't see that there's likely to be much headway (if you'll pardon the pun) in this discussion if such a vast gulf of viewpoint separates us.

---

Indeed, which is why we're back to one of my original statements:If you want to cut of your foreskin, you go right ahead. If you don't like the way your penis looks, then you do what you want to make it amenable to your standards.What makes you think your son shares your opinion?I find it interesting that you seem to think that forced removal of a body part on an unconsenting individual and done without the benefit of anesthesia is not something of outrage...just because you don't seem to have minded when it happened to you.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

In a context where a lack of circumcision carries with it deep social stigma, circumcision is as corrective a surgery as getting rid of webbed feet.

---

Irrelevant. We don't let "culture" determine when to perform surgery.And even religion doesn't get to decide. We don't let Christian Scientists deny needed medical treatment to their children because of their religion. The reverse is true: We don't let parents subject their children to unneeded medical treatment because of their religion.Yeah, I know...that means Jews will have to wait well beyond the eighth day. Tough. When the child grows up and decides for himself, then he can get himself circumcised.

quote:

---

Change culture, then, so that it's no longer neccesary.

---

But that's not the point. The question is not to challenge why anybody would want to remove his foreskin. The question is who has the final say in who cuts off whose foreskin.

quote:

---

But as long as it's necessary to have a fulfilled sexual life in this culture,

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to greyline:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And that's why female circumcision continues in other cultures.

---

​

Male circumcision is not comparable to clitorectomy.

---

Who said anything about clitorectomy? He said "female circumcision." How many times do I need to remind you that not all female circumcision is infibulation?

quote:

---

While the justification may be largely similar the effects are anything but.

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say that, did you?Have you forgotten all of the examples I have shown you about what happens when circumcision goes wrong? Do you not remember my comparing the total number of males who have had severe complications due to their circumcisions to the total number of females who have had any form of circumcision?Little boys die from their circumcisions, crash. Isn't that enough?

quote:

---

It's not a matter of having them look like me, but rather having them look normal to their sexual partners.

---

And just how on earth do you know who those partners are going to be?Here's a silly thought: What if your son turns out to be gay? A foreskin could make him quite popular. Why are you dictating who your child sleeps with?I still cannot understand why you think you should have any say over your child's sex life.

quote:

---

I care that they look like all the other guys in the locker room.

---

Why? Surely you're not going to use the "But he'll get teased!" argument. I thought we had determined that was a ludicrous argument when it came to adoption by same-sex couples. Kids will find a reason to tease your children, don't you worry about that.

quote:

---

Perhaps if you were not a boy in high school you might have difficulty understanding.

---

Oh, I was. Do I get to veto your attitude, then?I've got a better idea: Why don't you let your son decide for himself? It's his body. If he's upset by it, he'll do something about it. Why force your neurosis onto him?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to schrafinator:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You must expect them to be with some pretty shallow women.

---

​

Yeah, I'd say that largely describes girls age 16-25. Human beings in general, perhaps.

---

So? You're going to make the decision for your son? Have you stopped to consider that he might want his foreskin? Who are you to take it away?

quote:

---

quote:

---

By this logic, we should perform surgery on or "treat" all children who look "different". Liposuction on the fat ones, breast augmentation for the flat-chested/overdeveloped ones, hormones for the short boys/tall girls, nose jobs for the Jewish and Italian kids, eyelid jobs for the Asian kids, etc. etc...

---

​

Plenty of teenagers do those things with their parents blessing anyway.

---

And that's fine. Notice that the child is involved in making the decision. It isn't like the parent forces a nose job on the child. No surgeon would ever consent to such a procedure.This is the part I cannot seem to understand: You want to force your opinion of fashion upon your child's body without even pausing to think about what he might want.

quote:

---

You don't seem critical of braces to straighten only barely-crooked teeth, or parent-sanctioned tanning, or even girls stuffing their bras.

---

That's because the children are involved in the decision. Infants don't have a choice in the matter.

quote:

---

Despite that these are as socially-driven "corrections" as anything listed above.

---

These are consented procedures.Why is it you can't seem to grasp the importance of consent? Did you ask your son if he wants to be circumcised? Why not? What makes you think you know what he wants better than he does?

quote:

---

Quite frankly, if you're odd or different in high school, you get dumped with shit that lasts you most of your life.

---

Oh, so you are using the, "But he'll be teased!" argument. Grow up. Teach your child to say the following, "Why are you so obsessed with my penis, dude?"You're absolutely right: If you're odd or different, you'll be teased.News flash! Everyone is odd and different. Everyone gets teased. And the way you stop it is not by making the victim be the one to change his ways. You do it by refusing to tolerate those who are doing the teasing.

quote:

---

I went through that. I imagine that most of us here did, too. Why would I wish that on my kid?

---

Because your child will always be different in some way.

quote:

---

Why would I burden a son with one more reason to get picked on in an already stressful evironment?

---

Because it's not your decision to make. It isn't your body.Should we prevent Jewish people from practicing their religion? After all, they get teased about it. Why would people do that to their children? Don't they know how cruel kids can be? Why burden them with that? What about vegetarians? Should they be forced to give their children bologna sandwiches lest the other children make fun?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

I find it interesting that you seem to think that forced removal of a body part on an unconsenting individual and done without the benefit of anesthesia is not something of outrage...just because you don't seem to have minded when it happened to you.

---

​

And what I find interesting is that you keep insisting it's an outrage even though the vast majority of persons to whom it's happened don't mind, either.

---

Very few of the women who have been circumcised complain about it, either.So why is that such an outrage that it had to be outlawed here in the US by Federal mandate, even though it doesn't happen here?

quote:

---

If it's such an outrage, why aren't more circumcised men outraged about it?

---

Because they, like you, have bought into the cultural attitude that a man's body is not his own.And again, you can't miss what you never had. When you talk to the men who used to be intact but were circumcised as adults, the general consensus is that they want their foreskins back.

quote:

---

And what prompts you to be so outraged on their behalf?

---

My sense of justice. I seem to find the idea of performing unnecessary surgery on an unconsenting individual to be barbaric.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Primordial Egg responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

We don't let "culture" determine when to perform surgery.

---

​

Apologies if you think I've taken out of context, but I think this is a matter of degree rather than an absolute. For instance, if there was a young child who'd suffered horrific burns

---

Hold it right there.Do I have to remind every single person that there is a difference between necessary and unnecessary surgery? If your child needs medical treatment or face death, then we would find the parents negligent if they were to refuse.Please explain how circumcision is so absolutely necessary that we need to perform it on all infants?So please, everyone, stop trying to compare circumcision to some sort of life-threatening state.Yes, parents have the duty to maintain the health of their children.Since when did having a foreskin mean your child was likely to die?

quote:

---

I would say that there are several shades of grey in determining whether culture should determine medical treatment.

---

I agree that few things are black and white. But this isn't nearly as grey as you are making it out to be. Cutting off a body part is not like cutting hair. Your hair will grow back. Your foreskin won't.Just to show you my consistency: Parents shouldn't be allowed to pierce their infant girls' ears, either. It isn't something you can undo. Leave it up to your child. It's not your body to play with.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Primordial Egg responds to me:

quote:

---

The child will live, but will be horibbly disfigured unless she has cosmetic reconstructive surgery. She is too young to speak let alone make the decision to surgery herself.

---

There's more to it than that. Part of the reason behind plastic surgery is to actually make living fine. One of the complications that happens in circumcision, for example, is cutting off too much skin. This can cause the penis to be forced into the body as well as causing painful erections.The point is that the child would undergo plastic surgery not just to have an improved cosmetic appearance but also to have functional use. Our body works fairly well the way it is. When it gets damaged, we try to get back to that state because it works well.That's why we fix things like harelips, even though the child can't really voice a concern.Greyline's argument is more direct: A child suffering from burns has been disfigured. A child born with a foreskin is not disfigured.There is a difference between trying to restore a mutilated body to its original condition and taking a body in its original condition and mutilating it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog writes:

quote:

---

But for as long as it's necessary to my sons to fit in to our sexual culture

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say this, did you?

quote:

---

To do so sentences them to great social ostracism

---

(*blink!*)Excuse me? You didn't just say this, did you?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!