Circumcision

[Umaro]

Ah! Now you're making a good point. But again, my main argument is whether having (in our view) an 'imperfect' body is worth getting upset about - especially when our bodies are fully functional and look perfectly fine - regardless of whether we consented to it or not?

It's all well and good to say it's not worth getting upset about, but is that really something people can help? Rationally I know there's nothing I can to do change what has been done, and "it's no use crying over spilt milk," but that doesn't stop me from being really angry about it, especially when my body was fully functional before this was done to me.

To go off on a slight tangent - if it were possible for such men to get a surgically-implanted foreskin ... well what are they expecting exactly? Will it magically make their sex lives better? Will it give their genitalia a more pleasing appearence? Or is it just a latent form of rebellion against their parents? Even if they didn't consent to the circumcision, would getting a foreskin really improve their lives so much?

If it were possible to restore you bet your donkey I'd have it done. Even if it didn't change my sex life, I'd still feel better about it. Yes, I do think my genitalia would look more pleasing. It would look like it's supposed to.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I think if someone surgically removed my [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shortly after birth, no matter how noble their intentions, it would still upset me.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It's all well and good to say it's not worth getting upset about, but is that really something people can help? Rationally I know there's nothing I can to do change what has been done, and "it's no use crying over spilt milk," but that doesn't stop me from being really angry about it, especially when my body was fully functional before this was done to me.

Some people get upset over things which I find difficult to fathom - does a minor imperfection matter that much? But still, we're capable of controlling our emotions and don't go running off to the plastic surgeon whenever something new comes into fashion.

If it were possible to restore you bet your donkey I'd have it done. Even if it didn't change my sex life, I'd still feel better about it. Yes, I do think my genitalia would look more pleasing. It would look like it's supposed to.

So, it's about looks?

I think if someone surgically removed my [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shortly after birth, no matter how noble their intentions, it would still upset me.

We can't compare the two. Removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be like removing the glans - very different from merely removing the foreskin.

 

[OGM]

I think if someone surgically removed my [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] shortly after birth, no matter how noble their intentions, it would still upset me.

I would be upset if someone did that to you as well. Unless it was malignant…why remove it.

Can you imagine the outcry if someone removed only "your clitoral hood" when you were a baby because they felt it would reduce HIV… because you would be less likely to be promiscuous... they felt?!

 

[Umaro]

Some people get upset over things which I find difficult to fathom - does a minor imperfection matter that much? But still, we're capable of controlling our emotions and don't go running off to the plastic surgeon whenever something new comes into fashion.

Maybe it's minor to you, but it's important to me. If you got a mastectomy do you think you'd walk around lopsided or get it fixed up?

So, it's about looks?

Why do people who are missing fingers get fake ones? Why do people who have lost ears or their nose in an accident get a fake one put there? Sure, part of it is about looks. I want to look like a human male is supposed to. I'd also like those 20,000 nerve endings back, and the gliding functionality, but that isn't ever going to happen.

We can't compare the two. Removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be like removing the glans - very different from merely removing the foreskin.

So can we remove a girls nipples? Sure, they have sensitivity and nerve endings, but its not necessary.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Some people get upset over things which I find difficult to fathom - does a minor imperfection matter that much? But still, we're capable of controlling our emotions and don't go running off to the plastic surgeon whenever something new comes into fashion.



So, it's about looks?



We can't compare the two. Removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be like removing the glans - very different from merely removing the foreskin.

Physically, yes. But the core issue is the same: involuntary surgical alteration and removal of the gentials. The key word there is 'involuntary'.

If someone removed your ear, you'd still be able to hear.
If someone removed your hair, you would still be physically functional.
If someone lasered off any and all tattoos you had, you'd be physically OK.
If someone removed your labia majora, your genitals would still function.

But so what? This isn't about function - it's about consent. If someone cut off your labia majora without your consent, would you be OK with that?

Please, don't dodge the question by saying "But it's not the same!". An answer would be most helpful.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So can we remove a girls nipples? Sure, they have sensitivity and nerve endings, but its not necessary.

They are necessary, so again you can't compare the two. Sorry to be brusk but been there, done that. We can't compare female circumcision to male circumcision.

But the core issue is the same: involuntary surgical alteration and removal of the gentials.

The core issues are different, due to anatomical and cultural differences (boys are cut for hygiene reasons, girls are cut to prevent any future adultery they may or may not commit). Again, been there, done that.

Why do people who are missing fingers get fake ones? Why do people who have lost ears or their nose in an accident get a fake one put there? Sure, part of it is about looks. I want to look like a human male is supposed to. I'd also like those 20,000 nerve endings back, and the gliding functionality, but that isn't ever going to happen.

Which goes back to an example I used earlier: if a child is born with a large, ugly birthmark or additional fingers (polydactylism) few people complain about the parent's decision to remove them. Even though it's the child's body and they can't consent to the operation and such mutations are relatively harmless, their parents want them to look 'normal'. As someone who's argued against circumcision, is that OK by you?

 

[Umaro]

They are necessary, so again you can't compare the two. Sorry to be brusk but been there, done that. We can't compare female circumcision to male circumcision.

They're not necessary. In this day and age plenty of women don't breastfeed. Women without nipples can lead identical lives to women who have them, just with less sexual sensitivity.

Which goes back to an example I used earlier: if a child is born with a large, ugly birthmark or additional fingers (polydactylism) few people complain about the parent's decision to remove them. Even though it's the child's body and they can't consent to the operation and such mutations are relatively harmless, their parents want them to look 'normal'. As someone who's argued against circumcision, is that OK by you?

Those examples are different though. A child with 6 fingers is outside the norm, a child with a foreskin IS the norm.

But no, I don't think a parent should be able to remove ANY part of the body that isn't medically necessary to remove without consent from the individual undergoing the operation. What other part can a parent amputate for non medical reasons on a healthy baby? I don't think there are any. Why is this one different?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I find it quite interesting that you completely ignored my question.

They are necessary, so again you can't compare the two. Sorry to be brusk but been there, done that. We can't compare female circumcision to male circumcision.

Yes, we can: both are involuntary and unnecessary.

The core issues are different, due to anatomical and cultural differences (boys are cut for hygiene reasons, girls are cut to prevent any future adultery they may or may not commit). Again, been there, done that.

If boys are cut for hygiene reasons, why not wait till they can make the decision? I mean, my goodness, how hard is it to wash?

Which goes back to an example I used earlier: if a child is born with a large, ugly birthmark or additional fingers (polydactylism) few people complain about the parent's decision to remove them. Even though it's the child's body and they can't consent to the operation and such mutations are relatively harmless, their parents want them to look 'normal'. As someone who's argued against circumcision, is that OK by you?

Since he's arguing for normality, yes: normality is preserving the foreskin, not removing it. But the objection is the same: we'd leave the extra digit and the foreskin until the child can and does consent to the operation. Just because parents force children to undergo involuntary and unnecessary surgical procedures doesn't make it xright.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Some people get upset over things which I find difficult to fathom - does a minor imperfection matter that much? But still, we're capable of controlling our emotions and don't go running off to the plastic surgeon whenever something new comes into fashion.



So, it's about looks?



We can't compare the two. Removing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] would be like removing the glans - very different from merely removing the foreskin.

Pick any other portion of the genitalia and replace [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] with that then.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

They're not necessary. In this day and age plenty of women don't breastfeed. Women without nipples can lead identical lives to women who have them, just with less sexual sensitivity.

A woman without nipples would be forced to bottlefeed, whereas circumcised men don't need any special equipment to enjoy sex.

Those examples are different though. A child with 6 fingers is outside the norm, a child with a foreskin IS the norm.

The basis of my original question is whether looking 'normal' is that important. If it is then parents of children with mutations should try their very best to make their child look as 'normal' as possible. If it isn't then it doesn't matter then you care whether or not you have a foreskin? The health benefits / disadvantages are so few between cut and uncut men the presence of a foreskin seems moot.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

I would be upset if someone did that to you as well. Unless it was malignant…why remove it.

Can you imagine the outcry if someone removed only "your clitoral hood" when you were a baby because they felt it would reduce HIV… because you would be less likely to be promiscuous... they felt?!

Absolutely! It would be an outrage!

 

[Rebekka]

Physically, yes. But the core issue is the same: involuntary surgical alteration and removal of the gentials. The key word there is 'involuntary'.

If someone removed your ear, you'd still be able to hear.
If someone removed your hair, you would still be physically functional.
If someone lasered off any and all tattoos you had, you'd be physically OK.
If someone removed your labia majora, your genitals would still function.

But so what? This isn't about function - it's about consent. If someone cut off your labia majora without your consent, would you be OK with that?

Please, don't dodge the question by saying "But it's not the same!". An answer would be most helpful.

I agree with you, but ears, hair and labia maiora do have a function, so that's another reason (besides the consent issue) not to remove them.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

If you remove my mons pubis, would I not still bleed?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I find it quite interesting that you completely ignored my question.

Which one?

Yes, we can: both are involuntary and unnecessary.

No we can't compare the two, for reasons I've already mentioned. Losing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is equivalent to losing the glans - which would you rather lose? The end of your penis or simply the skin that surrounds it?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I agree with you, but ears, hair and labia maiora do have a function, so that's another reason (besides the consent issue) not to remove them.

Hah, arguably, so does the foreskin . We can live without labia, foreskins, hair, and external ears, but that doesn't give parents the right to chop off bits of their children. Unless there is an obvious medical emergency, we should defer to the person's body.

It boggles me how some people just don't understand that a person has the right to which parts of their body are removed - and no one else.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is unnecessary though.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is unnecessary though.

Heh, no! Why do you think they remove it? So the girl can't experience any pleasure.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Which one?

Here's my post you responded to:

"Physically, yes. But the core issue is the same: involuntary surgical alteration and removal of the gentials. The key word there is 'involuntary'.

If someone removed your ear, you'd still be able to hear.
If someone removed your hair, you would still be physically functional.
If someone lasered off any and all tattoos you had, you'd be physically OK.
If someone removed your labia majora, your genitals would still function.

But so what? This isn't about function - it's about consent. If someone cut off your labia majora without your consent, would you be OK with that?

Please, don't dodge the question by saying "But it's not the same!". An answer would be most helpful. "

The question is in the penultimate paragraph. It's the sentence with the question mark.

No we can't compare the two, for reasons I've already mentioned. Losing the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is equivalent to losing the glans - which would you rather lose? The end of your penis or simply the skin that surrounds it?

The glans, obviously.
Which would you rather lose, a hand or an arm?
A hand, obviously.
Does that mean you'd be perfectly happy losing a hand?
Barring exceptional medical circumstances, I daresay you would not.

So, I ask my question again: if someone forcibly cut off your labia majora without your consent, would you be OK with that, medical emergencies notwithstanding?

 

[Caitlin.ann]

Right but its not necessary to life or procreation. Its just not necessary. Its just an extra bit to help make life more enjoyable just like the foreskin. It may encourage people to procreate because of the pleasure but its not necessary to sex or procreation as an act.