Circumcision..Child abuse or parental right?

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-03-31 07:45am

Icehawk wrote:Im the same stance as Darth Zod. Since their is no real benefit or reason to get it done, then yes technically it shouldnt really be done at all. Also, the "religious" reasons behind it are ridiculous and I don't think the proceedures should be done on that basis. HOWEVER, being a circumsized at birth person myself, Im not crying over it.

I do not really consider myself "mutilated" in anyway since my dick works, feels and looks fine and I resent the idea that I should feel degraded or less a man over something so trivial. Even if it would be more sensitive with the original skin on it, Im not going to get worked up over that. If the proceedure had actually damaged my dick like preventing it from getting an erection or mangled its appearance, then I would be pissed.

You don't have to consider it mutilated after the fact. It's your body. But from an ethical standpoint that's how it should be treated. The difference between mutilation and body modification, IMO, is consent. I go to a piercer and get a nipple ring, it's body modification. My parents strap me down at age 10 and make me get one, it's mutilation.

Metrion Cascade · Post by **Metrion Cascade** » 2004-03-31 07:56am

From what I see, Icehawk isn't saying that other men aren't entitled to remain intact. He's just saying that he's not dissatisfied with his own body. Which is just as valid a personal choice as a guy choosing to get cut as an adult.

And Broomstick - good points overall. But FGM and MGM are both unethical for the same reason if not to the same extent. It's like the difference between stealing $1000 and stealing someone's Dodge. They're not equally wrong, but both violate a person's right to security of property. And someone saying MGM is okay because FGM is worse is using a false dilemma fallacy. A doctor can tout potential medical benefits and say he only wants to remove the hood of the clitoris under hospital conditions, but the right to bodily integrity trumps the lot of his bullshit until he shows medical necessity (cancer or something). And then he should try to preserve as much tissue as possible.

Another false dilemma I hear alot on the RIC issue. People say that getting it done as a baby is better than getting it done as an adult. Which assumes one or the other will happen, even though there is no longer a single disorder that requires circumcision. True phimosis is about as common in men as breast cancer, and only requires a dorsal slit in the most extreme cases.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-31 10:56am

I'd like to point out my reason for comparing MGM to FGM is not because they are exactly the same. One is indeed far worse, but because they are both barabric "traditions" if you dont know what's wrong with something that continues simply as a tradition then really, you shouldnt be allowed out on your own. Never mind "traditions" that cause damage or pain...

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-31 11:31am

In other words, if people don't agree with your opinion, they're obviously stupid. Let's see here...

Excuse me. Don't put a fucking Strawman in my mouth. I didn't say any such goddamn thing.

Well, people told you what they thought, and now you're attacking them for it. Looks like baiting to me. If you want opinions and ask for them, you should expect to get them and some of them will differ from yours. Its bad form to solicit someone's opinion and then attack him for it. (Someone presses their opinion on you and you don't like it, go ahead. But you did ask for it in this case, so don't be surprised when you get it.)

Bullshit I'm attacking them for it. Debating the merits of their opinion is what you call attacking? How the fuck do you expect to ever have discussions to change people's minds without passing back and forth arguments that surround a persons opinion and their position held? I suppose the big legislative debate over homosexual marriage in the US should just stop talking and simply cast a vote without further ado. Mustn't discuss the issue with each other since that will be "attacking" each others position.

Don't you see how stupid that is?

Besides, I made it clear that people were entitled to their opinion, (I spelled it out exactly in fact), and also expressed that I think it's lucky for them to personally not be as disturbed by it. Not once did I say anything even RESEMBLING "You are an idiot for not being concerned".

Now do you have a personal opinion of your own to contribute or would you rather just throw false accusations at me instead?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-31 11:37am

I don't see that it's a big deal either way, but with no benefit I see absolutely no reason to carry out the procedure.

I'm just curious. Is this your personal feeling towards it, not being a big deal either way, or did you actually research what they have discovered is lost from circumcision and decided that it still doesn't matter to you?

Most people simply don't know what they had, and until looking into the different structures of the prepuce and the functional ability of it, they are simply unaware. It's hard to know what you've lost if you've had it for such a short time.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2004-03-31 12:16pm

Circumcision is multilation by any definition. That's indisputeable. (BTW I'm circumcised) Whether a proceedure is done by consent or not, the definition stands.

As to the validity and necessity of circumcision, I haven't seen any evidence suggesting circumcision is in any way useful or warranted. I say dispense with the proceedure entirely.

As to my personal circumcision, it's never bothered me, I haven't yet had a problem with it, and don't ever expect to have one.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-31 12:58pm

MarkIX wrote:
Un-Circed and fucking glad. And furthermore, how could anyone NOT!!! want more pleasure?
If I offered you a drug that would give you Ultimate Pleasure by reducing you to a vegetable would you take it?

How fucking stupid are you Mark?

If someone offered you a pill that would forever reduce the amount of pleasure you were capable of feeling would you take it?
Thats more apt for this you dipshit.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-31 02:07pm

Justforfun000 wrote:
In other words, if people don't agree with your opinion, they're obviously stupid. Let's see here...
Excuse me. Don't put a fucking Strawman in my mouth. I didn't say any such goddamn thing.

Indeed, the "you just have a problem with anyone who disagrees with you" tactic is such a common and worthless pseudo-rebuttal that there should be a name for this particular "debate" technique.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2004-03-31 02:08pm

Just the notion that anyone would need a lotion to masturbate is alien to me and a telling sign that the removal of the foreskin for any reason except medical.

IE to tight or some sort of disease of an abnormity and should be banned.

I am really happy that the removal of the foreskin is not an common practice here in Sweden.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-03-31 02:24pm

Not once did I say anything even RESEMBLING "You are an idiot for not being concerned".

Really?

The bigger issue here is that other people DO feel like it's a big deal, and if other men brush off the issue as irrelevant, then they are condoning this practice as opposed to condemning.

Emphasis mine. You're telling me that this isn't saying "You must think this or you're immoral." Odd, because it sure reads like it. It is heavily implied if not outright stated in that sentence that failing to condemn the practice is stupid or wrong in some way. Well not everybody is going to get all frothing at the mouth on your say-so. Sorry to disappoint you.

As for my opinion, I really don't care. I'm in the same boat as Icehawk. Never had it, so I can't really miss it. I'm not about to get worked up over something that I wouldn't even know I ever had if not for others telling me about it, at least if its something largely inessential such as this.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-31 02:37pm

Rogue, that's just it, you dont know what you're missing...and will never know....and that choice was made for you....if you dont find the mutilation of children by parents for NO reason save tradition or religion then quite frankly there is something very very wrong with you.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-03-31 02:55pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Justforfun000 wrote:The bigger issue here is that other people DO feel like it's a big deal, and if other men brush off the issue as irrelevant, then they are condoning this practice as opposed to condemning.
Emphasis mine. You're telling me that this isn't saying "You must think this or you're immoral." Odd, because it sure reads like it. It is heavily implied if not outright stated in that sentence that failing to condemn the practice is stupid or wrong in some way. Well not everybody is going to get all frothing at the mouth on your say-so. Sorry to disappoint you.

Did you read what you bolded? Justforfun000 said "if other men brush off the issue as irrelevant" then they condone the practice. There is a difference between being

neutral - ie, I don't care strongly one way or another

ignorant - ie, I don't actually know what this issue is about

apathetic - ie, I sorta know and sorta don't, but I'm like, not in a hurry to do whatever...

and callous which was what he was referring to. Callous, as in "brush off the issue as though IRRELEVANT." Like cutting newborn babies to appease long standing traditions is irrelevant. Like not caring about causing pain to a baby and fellow human being is irrelevant. Like there being no good reason to do the practice, which clearly causes pain and suffering, is irrelevant. Being callous about this subject - or indeed, any subject - gives tacit approval on the subject. In effect, you condone it because you neither have the inclination to change it, learn about it, or argue against it.

Failure to condemn this practice can be seen as marginally acceptable if you don't know the facts or don't feel strongly for or against. Dismissing the issue as irrelevant however is immoral given what we know about it and the suffering it causes.

CrimsonRaine · Post by **CrimsonRaine** » 2004-03-31 03:10pm

I have had this question, or something like it, for a bit now. Is it right to enforce religion on our children? The liberal side of me says no, as I found my own way to God and as others I know have. But the other side of me gets all fundie-ish and I think, "Well, I don't want them growing up, either, believing that there is nothing out there for them." (This obviously doesn't apply to atheists, before I get "there is no God" rammed down my throat.)

But honestly, I don't think we do. As far as circumcision goes, I know a lot of people who haven't been circumsized and get along just fine. But that's accepted in this country. In other countries, more grotesque things are accepted as well (like the cutting of the clitoris in African nations). We would, of course, say absolutely not to that. So why do we say it's okay for circumcisions, other than the occasional health reason?

So I would have to say no to this. Even though, if I had a child, wouldn't I know what's best for my child?

Maybe not always.

Crimson Raine

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-03-31 03:13pm

You hit the crux of this on the head....and theres a reason that appealing to tradition is a fallacy.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-31 04:20pm

Well thanks to other people I don't have to defend myself against Rogue9.

Thanks everyone. I'm glad to see what I was ACTUALLY saying got through to most.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-03-31 04:35pm

There's also guys that been circumcised as adults that says that once the glans become moist they sensation the sensation is basically the same. Only disadvantage that I could see is when it comes to anal sex since you have a moisture problem over there.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-03-31 04:39pm

Oh yeah, but I think circumcision is unnecessary in this day of age. I think the decision should be left to the person that is going to get the procedure even though I'm glad it was done when I was just a baby since I don't remember any of it and I doubt there was pain ( according to my parents I just kept sucking on my sucky thing). Even though I'm happy that it was done, I wouldn't go through the pain as an adult for what I feel is no real big deal.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-31 04:39pm

There's also guys that been circumcised as adults that says that once the glans become moist they sensation the sensation is basically the same.

This is totally contrary to what I have heard from men in the same circumstance. Besides, it's not JUST that the glans is moist, it's also a removal of a great deal of sensitive tissue, the frenulum which has unique sensitivity, and the ridged bands. The skin becomes less sensitive because it's exposted to open air. It's called keratinization I believe. so the sensitivity is altered. Temporary moistening is not going to restore the sensation.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2004-03-31 04:57pm

CrimsonRaine wrote:I have had this question, or something like it, for a bit now. Is it right to enforce religion on our children? The liberal side of me says no, as I found my own way to God and as others I know have. But the other side of me gets all fundie-ish and I think, "Well, I don't want them growing up, either, believing that there is nothing out there for them." (This obviously doesn't apply to atheists, before I get "there is no God" rammed down my throat.)

THERE IS NO ..er.. well, you can still be religious and not abusive. Ritual scarification counts as abuse, naturally.

So why do we say it's okay for circumcisions, other than the occasional health reason?

Appeals to either tradition or because god gets really fucking angry when he sees some skin he made, but that's just the first one, really.

So I would have to say no to this. Even though, if I had a child, wouldn't I know what's best for my child?

Maybe not always.

Unwarranted ritual scarification is simply morally wrong, that's how it is. Medical necessity would be warrant to do it on an unconsenting child, that's it.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2004-03-31 05:01pm

This is totally contrary to what I have heard from men in the same circumstance. Besides, it's not JUST that the glans is moist, it's also a removal of a great deal of sensitive tissue, the frenulum which has unique sensitivity, and the ridged bands. The skin becomes less sensitive because it's exposted to open air. It's called keratinization I believe. so the sensitivity is altered. Temporary moistening is not going to restore the sensation.

The keratinization layer is only about 10 cells thick, the affect is less than that of wearing a condom (you could get around this by wearing a condom to protect the glans from the elements). The skin on the shaft is not really a issue since it's the glans has the highest concentration of nerves. Taylor's ridged band was discovered by Taylor studying less than a dozen dead bodies. From this he inferred that it was for sexual purposes. Not a very scientific study if you ask me. I guess the lack of a frenulum could be considered a loss since it gives a unique sensation.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-03-31 05:51pm

The keratinization layer is only about 10 cells thick, the affect is less than that of wearing a condom

That may be, but have you ever compared condomless sex to protected? It's not a minor difference, it's a MAJOR difference. It's like night and day. Besides you are still talking about the skin itself and it's potential for sensitivity. You can put a condom on and take it off with no long term affect. Not so with your "natural" covering.

The skin on the shaft is not really a issue since it's the glans has the highest concentration of nerves.

True, which is why I've concentrated on the foreskin and the inner tissue that goes with it.

Taylor's ridged band was discovered by Taylor studying less than a dozen dead bodies. From this he inferred that it was for sexual purposes. Not a very scientific study if you ask me.

Actually, it was 22 bodies. The results of this study stated:

Skin and mucosa sufficient to cover the penile shaft was frequently missing from the circumcised penis. Missing tissue included a band of ridged mucosa located at the junction of true penile skin with smooth preputial mucosa. This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa.

I would say that it's highly likely that they are erogenous tissue.

This is an excellent link showing pictures and examples of how the foreskin is designed and works in function. Might be an eye opener to some of you. It's much more complicated than the common assumption of a "flap of skin".

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

Sporkzen · Post by **Sporkzen** » 2004-03-31 06:39pm

Being one of the cut ones i think that it is wrong to have it done on your child. Even though being that i never experienced life with mr. happy's hat and it hasnt hurt my quality of life in any way. I still think that it is a stupid practice. Personally it pisses me off that i had something done to me that has lifelong ramifications that was not needed at all and that i had no say in. I have no feeling of inadequacy or anything of the sort. But i would enjoy a little more feeling in sex... but who wouldnt. Nothing i can do about it now, but i know my son if i have one wont have to worry about the knife on Mr. Winky.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-03-31 06:55pm

Those who defend the practice have no explanation for why it is ethical to inflict unnecessary suffering upon a child.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-03-31 07:47pm

Okay guys (yeah, even you lucky uncut guys) lets compare.

Lameass Parenting 101 - Immunisation is bad, because it makes my beautiful baby cry and I'm a huge pussy who wants to raise a kid with no discipline or control. I don't care about health issues; it'll never happen to *MY* baby. I also don't care about others; who cares if everyone in school catches a mutated strain because of my baby? My baby will not cry.

Lameass Parenting 102 - Cutting off my newborn sons foreskin is absolutely essential, for undisclosesed health reasons. I just believe that, and health reasons are very important for me, even if there's no evidence. Also, I don't have a foreskin myself, and I don't want my son to be more of a man than me because I'm lame. He'll never know what happened until he's older, and then it's too late. Oh and I've heard it'll stop him playing with himself. Now *I* jerk off five times a day, but my son better not or i'll beat him.

I'm cut; and it's shit me for as long as I've understood what happened, which is almost twenty years now. I rememeber bringing it up, and asking my parents why they thought they had the right to cut a bit of my cock off, and you know what? It was for 'health reasons'. Non-specific ones. Oh, and my dad being cut had nothing to do with it, I bet.

Now I'll agree with the cut guys here that I don't care; I don't lie awake at night thinking bout what I'm missing. I am, however, deeply offended by the violation of my body. It's mine, dammit, and by the time I took possesion the warranty had already been violated.

oh since you guys have done some research, can circumsicions go really wrong and inflict additional scarring along the length of a penis? What other childhood sources of such scarrage are there?

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2004-03-31 08:02pm

Stark wrote: oh since you guys have done some research, can circumsicions go really wrong and inflict additional scarring along the length of a penis?

Even without research I would say yes. Someone is taking a scalpal to your penis, there are many things that can go wrong that I would rather not think about.