Circumcision

[Aradia]

my penis is without a foreskin and therefore impervious to disease!

This made me giggle.

 

[Aradia]

How about we actually let the person being modified determine if its useless or useful in non emergency situations?

Why?

 

[Skaloop]

So why is it such a horrible thing that it happened?

Because part of a baby's body was unnecessarily removed for no good reason. The whole STI/HPV/STD situation is a relatively new finding; circumcisions before that had no real justification outside of religion, aesthetics, or ego (or some combination thereof).

 

[selfinflikted]

You aren't really just going to leave it there, are you? Care to elaborate on WHY it really is that much different? Pretty please? =D

It's that much different because it's MY PENIS. I was dragged to church as a kid, much like you were. The damage (to my psyche) was not irreparable. The damage (for lack of a better term) done to MY PENIS(!!) is irreparable.

So why is it such a horrible thing that it happened?

Well, it's not the end of the world, for sure. I just believe that this is a personal choice that should be made for oneself, and not by anyone else.

 

[Aradia]

It's that much different because it's MY PENIS. I was dragged to church as a kid, much like you were. The damage (to my psyche) was not irreparable. The damage (for lack of a better term) done to MY PENIS(!!) is irreparable.

Does it being YOUR PENIS mean that ONLY YOU get to make decisions about it? (And, of course, why?)
Are you 100% certain that the damage to *my* psyche was not irreparable?
And... this now has me wondering... is it possible to reverse a circumcision?

Well, it's not the end of the world, for sure. I just believe that this is a personal choice that should be made for oneself, and not by anyone else.

Apparently, your parents believe otherwise. Who's right?

 

[Aradia]

Because part of a baby's body was unnecessarily removed for no good reason. The whole STI/HPV/STD situation is a relatively new finding; circumcisions before that had no real justification outside of religion, aesthetics, or ego (or some combination thereof).

Why aren't religion, aesthetics, or ego good reasons?

 

[Chajara]

Why aren't religion, aesthetics, or ego good reasons?

Would you support parents having the right to tattoo their children?

 

[Aradia]

Would you support parents having the right to tattoo their children?

Would I support the *right*? Yes.
Would I support the *practice*? No.

 

[Skaloop]

Why aren't religion, aesthetics, or ego good reasons?

They're fine reasons for, say, choosing a name or sending them to a specific school or dressing them. But again, those are essentially harmless, and are changeable. Religion is a mediocre reason for circumcision. Aesthetics and ego are bad reasons for circumcision. "Because it looks better" is not a good reason; it it were, why not give little girls breast implants (to choose an extreme example) to make them look "better"? With circumcision, an infant is over a decade away from having to worry about what his penis looks like to girls. Why not wait until then and let him decide? As for ego, "looking like dad" is no good reason anymore than the previously mentioned implants to look more like mom are a good thing. If a dad had tattoos or enlarged piercings, would it be cool with you if he did the same to his newborn son to make him look more like daddy?

 

[Aradia]

Religion is a mediocre reason for circumcision.

But you say this as an atheist. If you believed that god commanded you to circumcise your male children, it would be far from a "mediocre" reason. What gives you the right to trivialise other people's beliefs?

Aesthetics and ego are bad reasons for circumcision. "Because it looks better" is not a good reason; it it were, why not give little girls breast implants (to choose an extreme example) to make them look "better"?

Because in due course, little girls' breasts will grow larger on their own. And, of course, breast implants don't look better. Heh. =D

With circumcision, an infant is over a decade away from having to worry about what his penis looks like to girls. Why not wait until then and let him decide?

To the best of my knowledge, some people believe that it's less traumatising if it's done early.

As for ego, "looking like dad" is no good reason anymore than the previously mentioned implants to look more like mom are a good thing. If a dad had tattoos or enlarged piercings, would it be cool with you if he did the same to his newborn son to make him look more like daddy?

Would it be cool with me? No. But not for reasons of "morality". As an ex-piercer, I loathe the fact that people take babies and young girls to get their ears pierced. But my reasons for that are not "moral" reasons.

 

[Skaloop]

But you say this as an atheist. If you believed that god commanded you to circumcise your male children, it would be far from a "mediocre" reason. What gives you the right to trivialise other people's beliefs?

The fact that they're trivial.

Because in due course, little girls' breasts will grow larger on their own. And, of course, breast implants don't look better. Heh. =D

And a grown boy can decide to get a circumcision on their own.

To the best of my knowledge, some people believe that it's less traumatising if it's done early.

Perhaps less traumatizing at the time, but as several men on this thread have mentioned, it is not without trauma. Besides, lots of things are less traumatizing if they're done while the person is a child, but we generally don't do them.

Would it be cool with me? No. But not for reasons of "morality". As an ex-piercer, I loathe the fact that people take babies and young girls to get their ears pierced. But my reasons for that are not "moral" reasons.

Then what are your reasons, and how are they distinguishable from objections to circumcision?

 

[Aradia]

The fact that they're trivial.

What a brilliant, witty reply. And a perfect example of why atheists annoy me. Bye!

 

[Skaloop]

What a brilliant, witty reply. And a perfect example of why atheists annoy me. Bye!

So no actual rebuttal, then? Cheers!

 

[Umaro]

Because in due course, little girls' breasts will grow larger on their own. And, of course, breast implants don't look better. Heh. =D

So if I give my infant daughter a double mastectomy so she doesn't have to worry about breast cancer, you'd support me?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Complaining about male circumcision? 'Mutilation'? Please, some of the posts here make it sound like a death sentence. The horrors of not having a foreskin.

The people that say it's NOT ok to cut off a piece of skin AFTER babies are born, are the same people who say that it IS ok to kill them BEFORE they are born...makes perfect sense. I mean, it's about the baby's body AFTER birth, but it's about the parent's BEFORE. Awesome.

Very good point.

 

[Jade Margery]

Does it being YOUR PENIS mean that ONLY YOU get to make decisions about it? (And, of course, why?)
Are you 100% certain that the damage to *my* psyche was not irreparable?
And... this now has me wondering... is it possible to reverse a circumcision?

I have never heard of a circumcision being reversed, and even if there were a way it would involve very expensive plastic surgery.

I've read a few pages of this discussion and I can't believe how strongly you are defending this archaic and barbaric behavior. Female circumcision is illegal in our country for a reason--it is an irreversible process done to children before they can consent that mutilates their bodies beyond repair, prevents sexual pleasure in the future, and can cause medical complications. Why male circumcision isn't similarly illegal (or requires informed consent) is a mystery to me. A parent is not allowed to break a child's finger because they believe 'god' told them to--that would be child abuse. Why should they be allowed to cut off part of their genitalia instead?

How about what is done to a person's body should be decided by that person alone? Measures taken to save a child's life aside, all elective procedures can and should wait until that child is old enough to make their own decision--and then that decision should be respected.

The assertion that circumcision has medical benefits is dubious. During sex the foreskin is stretched taught and there is little difference between a circumcised or uncircumcised penis--STIs are spread by unsafe sexual behavior, not having an uncircumcised wang. But this is only the latest in a long history of pseudo-medical reasons for circumcision. Why? Because when a doctor circumcises a baby boy, he bills the parents. $200+ for a five minute procedure.

Circumcision does only one thing for sure: It lessens a man's future ability to enjoy sex by removing the protective sheath of skin that would have kept him more sensitive and capable of pleasure. There is no good reason to inflict this permanent alteration on a baby.

 

[Aradia]

So if I give my infant daughter a double mastectomy so she doesn't have to worry about breast cancer, you'd support me?

Why don't you do it and find out? =)

 

[Aradia]

I have never heard of a circumcision being reversed, and even if there were a way it would involve very expensive plastic surgery.

I'm less interested in the cost than in the possibility. The point was brought up that it was irreversible, not that it wasn't inexpensively reversible. *shrug*

I've read a few pages of this discussion and I can't believe how strongly you are defending this archaic and barbaric behavior.

Why not? I like a good challenge.

Female circumcision is illegal in our country for a reason--it is an irreversible process done to children before they can consent that mutilates their bodies beyond repair, prevents sexual pleasure in the future, and can cause medical complications. Why male circumcision isn't similarly illegal (or requires informed consent) is a mystery to me. A parent is not allowed to break a child's finger because they believe 'god' told them to--that would be child abuse. Why should they be allowed to cut off part of their genitalia instead?

Please be specific about which country "our country is". I'm in the US. Unless you correct me, I'll assume that you are, too. In the US, minors (unless emancipated?) cannot give legal consent. Something to keep in mind. Their parents or legal guardians must give consent on their behalf.

I'm not aware of any religious requirements to break a finger. If you are aware of any, please let me know.

How about what is done to a person's body should be decided by that person alone?

Again, minors cannot give legal consent. They do not "own their bodies".

The assertion that circumcision has medical benefits is dubious.

Perhaps. I haven't read the articles about STI prevention in third world countries. It does make sense, though it's obviously not applicable to this country.

During sex the foreskin is stretched taught and there is little difference between a circumcised or uncircumcised penis--STIs are spread by unsafe sexual behavior, not having an uncircumcised wang.

STIs can also be spread by "safe" sexual behaviour. But you already knew that, I'm sure.

But this is only the latest in a long history of pseudo-medical reasons for circumcision. Why? Because when a doctor circumcises a baby boy, he bills the parents. $200+ for a five minute procedure.

Personally, I think the religious argument is the stronger argument, though the STI argument *might* be valid in third-world countries, as previously mentioned by other posters.

Circumcision does only one thing for sure: It lessens a man's future ability to enjoy sex by removing the protective sheath of skin that would have kept him more sensitive and capable of pleasure. There is no good reason to inflict this permanent alteration on a baby.

Really? So I would've been MORE sensitive had I been left uncircumcised? Wow. I gotta say, if that's true, I'm really glad I got circumcised. I don't think I could handle it otherwise!

 

[Jade Margery]

Please be specific about which country "our country is". I'm in the US. Unless you correct me, I'll assume that you are, too. In the US, minors (unless emancipated?) cannot give legal consent. Something to keep in mind. Their parents or legal guardians must give consent on their behalf.

I am in the US, and while parents and guardians are in charge of giving consent in the case of a minor, that DOESN'T mean that they can consent to just any act done to a child. There is a rather long list of things that parents cannot consent their child to, put in place for the child's protection. Your point is irrelevant.

I'm not aware of any religious requirements to break a finger. If you are aware of any, please let me know.

So... If a bunch of people believe that god says they should cut off their children's foreskin, it's a religious requirement, but if a one person believes god says to break their child's finger, it's totally different, right? And please don't bother to point out that circumcision has a long history and is entrenched in tradition. The same can be said for stoning 'immoral' women, beating children with sticks, binding Chinese girls' feet, and other harmful acts. The point is that we do not allow other damaging things to be done to children just because their parent may believe it's necessary.

Again, minors cannot give legal consent. They do not "own their bodies".

Actually, they do. They cannot give consent because they do not have the same mental faculties as an adult, but their bodies are completely their own. For a more material example, a child who inherits an estate but is too young to manage it still owns that estate even if adult trustees take care of it until they are old enough to do it themselves. If the trustees abuse their power and handle the estate badly, they can be subject to criminal charges. A parent is in the same situation, but they are in charge of their child's health as well as their belongings. They do not own their children.

Perhaps. I haven't read the articles about STI prevention in third world countries. It does make sense, though it's obviously not applicable to this country.

STIs can also be spread by "safe" sexual behaviour. But you already knew that, I'm sure.

When one limits one's sexual partners to those who get regular STI testing and/or are monogamous and regularly use condoms, STI spread is negligible. Regardless, circumcision has little to do with it.

Personally, I think the religious argument is the stronger argument, though the STI argument *might* be valid in third-world countries, as previously mentioned by other posters.

Really? So I would've been MORE sensitive had I been left uncircumcised? Wow. I gotta say, if that's true, I'm really glad I got circumcised. I don't think I could handle it otherwise!

Well, perhaps other people would prefer to experience their full range of sexual pleasure before deciding to have it permanently stunted.

 

[Skaloop]

But you say this as an atheist. If you believed that god commanded you to circumcise your male children, it would be far from a "mediocre" reason. What gives you the right to trivialise other people's beliefs?

Female circumcisions, which are far more intense and damaging than male ones, are also religion-based. So you're cool with those if they're done for those reasons?