Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big C: Circumcision
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 104 (48861)
08-06-2003 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by doctrbill
08-06-2003 12:35 AM


quote:
As Greyline attests, the foreskin acts to protect the glans penis. Not a mucous membrane though, greyline, but a very tender and sensitive tissue indeed, in its natural state.
Thanks for the correction - it's the inner surface of the foreskin that is mucous membrane. Anyway, it's meant to be wet not leathery and dry.
There was an article about the specialized cells lost to circumcision (ie. in the foreskin) in the British Journal of Urology: The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision (based on histological examination), which I'm paraphrasing here:
At the junction of the inner (smooth mucosa) and outer foreskin (normal sensitive skin) is a band of ridged mucosa that contains specialized nerve endings - Meissner's corpuscles - also found in the smooth mucosa but higher in concentration here. The sliding of this ridged band (sort of like a sphincter) over the glans is itself a pleasurable sensation (so I hear) that cut men can never know. It also protects the glans and urethra from contaminants.
Then there's the sensitive frenulum, which is often removed or damaged during circumcision (it attaches the foreskin on the underside).
The point about all this is that the penis in its natural state is a marvellous piece of engineering. Take off the foreskin and it becomes... a dildo. (Sorry guys. I don't personally care one way or the other for the reasons you stated doctrbill, although the uncut penis is more fun to play with IMO, but my point remains that circumcision is not just a "little snip" - it removes a third of the penile skin and creates major long-term irreversible changes in the penis.)
quote:
Has anyone discussed the hemorrhaging and infections which used to kill a number of freshly circumcized infants? Could we call that Natural Selection of the Surgically Unfit?
Complications are still common, requiring further outpatient treatment. Hmm, no wonder doctors like doing it...
What annoys me is that parents consent to this surgery for their babies without having the first idea what it is they're cutting off. A father doesn't want to know, because then he'd realise what *he* was missing.
------------------
o--greyline--o
[This message has been edited by greyline, 08-06-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by doctrbill, posted 08-06-2003 12:35 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 1:15 AM greyline has not replied
 Message 58 by doctrbill, posted 08-06-2003 11:18 AM greyline has replied
 Message 63 by roxrkool, posted 08-06-2003 6:14 PM greyline has replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 104 (48862)
08-06-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by greyline
08-06-2003 1:11 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 1:11 AM greyline has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 104 (48889)
08-06-2003 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
08-05-2003 3:36 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2003 3:36 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 8:55 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 49 of 104 (48891)
08-06-2003 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
08-05-2003 3:03 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2003 3:03 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 08-06-2003 5:33 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 104 (48893)
08-06-2003 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Rrhain
08-06-2003 8:39 AM


Its quite interesting to see where this discussion goes. (I was circumcised myself, am most likely still alive, and don't feel violated - but I accept thats neither here nor there). I do wonder about this though:
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, 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).
It reminds me of a v. funny British film called "East is East" about a British Pakistani family growing up in England. The youngest son hasn't been circumcised and is teased about it at school by his Pakistani peers who stand in awe to watch him pee.
I'm ot saying that male circumcision is justified here btw, as I'd rather stand back and watch this one pan out. I would say that there are several shades of grey in determining whether culture should determine medical treatment.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 8:39 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:14 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 51 of 104 (48894)
08-06-2003 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by crashfrog
08-05-2003 8:44 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2003 8:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 9:09 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 52 of 104 (48895)
08-06-2003 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by crashfrog
08-05-2003 10:49 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 08-05-2003 10:49 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 104 (48896)
08-06-2003 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rrhain
08-06-2003 9:00 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:00 AM Rrhain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 9:32 AM greyline has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 104 (48898)
08-06-2003 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 8:55 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 8:55 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 9:28 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 104 (48902)
08-06-2003 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Rrhain
08-06-2003 9:14 AM


quote:
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
Think you've misunderstood my example, or I didn't made it sufficiently clear to begin with. 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.
q1. should she have the surgery?
q2. is this surgery not being done for cosmetic (to tenuously lead on to cultural) reasons?
Everything else you wrote I don't find objectionable.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:14 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:57 AM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 104 (48903)
08-06-2003 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by greyline
08-06-2003 9:09 AM


quote:
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 wasn't using the analogy in the context of whther or not circumcision was a "valid" operation, rather to argue (nitpick, really) against the blanket statement that we do not allow culture to tell us when to perform surgery. I still think its sound in that respect.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 9:09 AM greyline has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 57 of 104 (48914)
08-06-2003 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2003 9:28 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 9:28 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2003 12:11 PM Rrhain has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 58 of 104 (48924)
08-06-2003 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by greyline
08-06-2003 1:11 AM


greyline writes:
- it's the inner surface of the foreskin that is mucous membrane. ...
The most notable characteristic of mucous membrane is that it is moist, wet to the touch in fact. The mouth contains mucous membrane. The vagina contains mucous membrane. I have never before heard the assertion that foreskin contains mucous membrane. My personal experience, as well as my education, suggest otherwise. If it is so, then I would like to know more. Perhaps you could provide a link to the article you mentioned, or otherwise identify where this information may be reviewed?
Anyway, it's meant to be wet not leathery and dry.
I'll go along with the last part -"not leathery and dry." Wet does describe the default condition of mucous membrane, but it does not describe the default condition of the glans/foreskin interface. In fact, there are times when when the foreskin seems to be attached to the glans with adhesive. A mucous membrane would not permit this situation.
The sliding of this ridged band (sort of like a sphincter) over the glans is itself a pleasurable sensation (so I hear)
Indeed, but it is not the foreskin which provides the pleasure.
I believe it was Rrhain who alluded to glands in the urethra which produce a lubricant. If the glans were already sheathed in mucous, such a lubricant would be unnecessary, or at least redundent. As for the presence of Meissner's corpuscles in the foreskin - there are none in mine. Once again, my education would deny that they should be expected there. Please provide reference.
Your argument is good and getting better. I hope that clarification of these details will help to assure that it becomes unassailable.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 1:11 AM greyline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 6:23 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 73 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 10:12 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 104 (48933)
08-06-2003 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rrhain
08-06-2003 9:57 AM


Rrhain,
As mentioned in my post to greyline - I'm not arguing in favour of circumcision. Indeed, you've posted some very powerful arguments against it and I tend to agree with you.
I am arguing that just because any operation is performed purely for cultural reasons, or to avoid social stigma, does not automatically make it undesirable. Each case should be argued on its own merits.
With your argument comes an implicit idea of reverting to the norm, which is fair enough, really - although, in the case of circumcision, you've restricted the norm to be that which the boy in question was born with. And in situations where circumcision is the norm in society, you've previously argued along the lines that the child should have the -ahem- cajones to avoid teasing by declaring his penis a non-topic for conversation. Now its a matter of degree really, social stigma caused by growing up with an outward appearance that differs from the norm and the attendant mental anguish / suffering that this causes - but I certainly wouldn't put it so bluntly as to say that the prevailing culture was irrelevant to the decision to operate in all cases.
As with all these things, the decision needs to be made in light of what is best for the child, and not simply because it may be a backward practice. You've done a pretty good job so far of arguing that circumcision is rarely very good for the child.
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:57 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 6:30 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 104 (48966)
08-06-2003 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by greyline
08-05-2003 11:24 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by greyline, posted 08-05-2003 11:24 PM greyline has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by greyline, posted 08-06-2003 10:04 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024