Making genital mutilation illegal and means of enforcement.

[Arctish]

I just don't understand why "It's his penis, he should decide if his foreskin gets surgically removed" isn't the default position.

 

[Toni]

I just don't understand why "It's his penis, he should decide if his foreskin gets surgically removed" isn't the default position.

Because newborns can't make that decision for themselves. Because parents of newborns must deal with caring for their baby's penis for a couple of years. Because circumcision of an adult is actually more complicated than for a newborn. Because parents make medical decisions for their children for the first 16-18 years of their lives.

Again, I'm not advocating for or against. I'm well aware of the pros and cons and what can go wrong in either case.

It sucks but no one has a window into what the future holds for their baby if they have him circumcised or if they don't.

It's interesting to me that there are zero threads about forbidding parents from having their child's ears pierced or allowing it to be done before the child is an adult, if it's about a child's body integrity. Or about giving their kids bizarre names or haircuts or dressing them funny if they are concerned about social issues.

FWIW, I haven't seen a newborn baby whose foreskin was completely removed since I've seen baby's diaper areas.

 

[Arctish]

I just don't understand why "It's his penis, he should decide if his foreskin gets surgically removed" isn't the default position.

Because newborns can't make that decision for themselves. Because parents of newborns must deal with caring for their baby's penis for a couple of years. Because circumcision of an adult is actually more complicated than for a newborn. Because parents make medical decisions for their children for the first 16-18 years of their lives.

I understand that, but still don't understand why the default position isn't "Don't cut anything off the baby unless it's necessary. He can decide if he wants to have his foreskin removed when he's older."

I understand circumcision as a treatment for phimosis. I understand it might be necessary during surgery to correct hypospadias. I understand circumcision to remove a tumor, cyst, cancerous growth, etc. I even understand it when the parents genuinely believe God will smite their baby if they don't cut off his foreskin.

What I don't understand is the "Eh, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, so go ahead and do something that can't be undone to someone who can't complain".

Again, I'm not advocating for or against. I'm well aware of the pros and cons and what can go wrong in either case.

It sucks but no one has a window into what the future holds for their baby if they have him circumcised or if they don't.

It's interesting to me that there are zero threads about forbidding parents from having their child's ears pierced or allowing it to be done before the child is an adult, if it's about a child's body integrity. Or about giving their kids bizarre names or haircuts or dressing them funny if they are concerned about social issues.

FWIW, I haven't seen a newborn baby whose foreskin was completely removed since I've seen baby's diaper areas.

We've had those discussions before, usually when someone says circumcision is a minor procedure and someone else points out that a Prince Albert penis piercing is even more minor, so why not let parents do that to their babies?

 

[angelo]

Circumcision in most cases is not necessary. Female genital mutilation is illegal in most Western Democracies, yet in many cases it's placed in the too hard basket. Why aren't the mainly Muslims who practice this barbaric practice prosecuted?

 

[Toni]

I understand that, but still don't understand why the default position isn't "Don't cut anything off the baby unless it's necessary. He can decide if he wants to have his foreskin removed when he's older."

I understand circumcision as a treatment for phimosis. I understand it might be necessary during surgery to correct hypospadias. I understand circumcision to remove a tumor, cyst, cancerous growth, etc. I even understand it when the parents genuinely believe God will smite their baby if they don't cut off his foreskin.

What I don't understand is the "Eh, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, so go ahead and do something that can't be undone to someone who can't complain".

That's not really my position. My position is that parents need to weigh the decision, taking into consideration as much medical information as possible before they decide.

I think there may be some reason to consider social mores, although I am much less concerned about that. Not all parents feel the same way. I know one father who wanted his son to be circumcised because the father's cousins had not been and 'they looked weird.' Which is trivial, I agree. Would not have entered into my decision making at all. But, I am not so sure that it is trivial to consider the social ramifications for a young boy if his penis does not look like those of his peers. I honestly do not know the answer to that. My understanding is that boys do a LOT of comparing and things an adult thinks are inconsequential can be traumatizing. I may think that is crazy but it is not something I've ever had to go through myself.

Frankly, I would have been much more adamantly against circumcision if I hadn't known that one child who had a serious, painful and traumatizing issue that his parents tried very hard to resolve without putting their kid through a surgery. What that taught me is not: circumcise! but: humility.

Again, I'm not advocating for or against. I'm well aware of the pros and cons and what can go wrong in either case.

It sucks but no one has a window into what the future holds for their baby if they have him circumcised or if they don't.

It's interesting to me that there are zero threads about forbidding parents from having their child's ears pierced or allowing it to be done before the child is an adult, if it's about a child's body integrity. Or about giving their kids bizarre names or haircuts or dressing them funny if they are concerned about social issues.

FWIW, I haven't seen a newborn baby whose foreskin was completely removed since I've seen baby's diaper areas.

We've had those discussions before, usually when someone says circumcision is a minor procedure and someone else points out that a Prince Albert penis piercing is even more minor, so why not let parents do that to their babies?

Those are not comparable. A Prince Albert piercing conveys zero--zero possible medical benefits while circumcision does convey some potential short term and long term benefits, and IMO, doing a Prince Albert piercing on a newborn over-sexualizes the child.

A kid (long since an adult) that I used to work with talked pretty openly for a while about having been born with an extra digit on each hand, which his parents had surgically removed. Had his parents (or more likely older siblings) not told him about this surgery he had when he was an infant, he would never have known. I think he only really talked about it when he did because he was approaching adolescence and was contemplating being different/not different. FWIW, he was an immensely popular boy/young man who is now a practicing physician.

A co-worker's child was born with an extra digit on each hand and she and her husband went through a great deal of soul searching and many consultations with their pediatrician (who advised the surgery) about having the extra digits removed when their daughter was an infant--which they ultimately did. I don't think either set of parents was wrong to do what they did.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is exactly one piece of medical information that is important, and if so, it is not "decision", it is a prognosis: is the penis mutated in a way that will cause dysfunction or pain?if that's true, then circumcize, else, do nothing. This is both easy to encode into law, and very simple.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's not a red herring. Frankly, the poor kid expressed pain and discomfort from birth until he was circumcised. His parents worked pretty hard with their pediatrician and child care providers to avoid circumcision.

Did I say that his experience influenced my own decisions? Nope. I just said it did influence my opinion: that there are valid reasons for a parent to decide that circumcision is right--not just ones that might or might not happen 50 years down the road but things that can affect the boy from infancy onward. That little boy is now a full grown man with a spouse and children of his own. His parents had other children after he was born, two of whom were boys. They had their sons circumcised to prevent the issues the oldest had.

I know what decisions my husband and I made when our sons were born. I know why we made those decisions.

And finally, I would never advise a parent to circumcise--or to not circumcise.

Issues with regards to a deformity, genital or otherwise, that is causing an issue would merit whatever medical treatment is determined to be best.

So tell me again how this is in any way different from making the proclamation that it is OK for parents to elect *at birth* to cut off the hymen of female children regardless of the actual presence or absence of a deformity there. It's 100% a red herring.

You are just trying to defend unethical decisions you and others make because you happened to have been the ones who made those unethical decisions

No, but you are extremely attached to your belief. I respect that. You are free to offer whatever advise you would like to parents regarding circumcision for their sons.


My belief is that it is up to the parents, with best medical advise to make the decision regarding circumcision. There are known health benefits, short and long term to circumcision. Negative medical outcomes are exceedingly rare. Aside from potential medical benefits, it truly is a matter of personal belief about which is 'better.'

There are no, absolutely ZERO positive medical outcomes for cutting open the hymen of an infant girl.

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

Wow, so, you're dead wrong. There are all manner of hymen deformations that can cause issues for girls, up to and including complete occlusion of the vaginal opening.

You have a habit of lying to support positions, from the proclamations that women don't pee on the seat now to the proclamation that hymen deformatities don't cause medical issues.

So answer the question: would you judge the removal of a hymen at birth to be mutilation?

 

[Toni]

No, but you are extremely attached to your belief. I respect that. You are free to offer whatever advise you would like to parents regarding circumcision for their sons.


My belief is that it is up to the parents, with best medical advise to make the decision regarding circumcision. There are known health benefits, short and long term to circumcision. Negative medical outcomes are exceedingly rare. Aside from potential medical benefits, it truly is a matter of personal belief about which is 'better.'

There are no, absolutely ZERO positive medical outcomes for cutting open the hymen of an infant girl.

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

Wow, so, you're dead wrong. There are all manner of hymen deformations that can cause issues for girls, up to and including complete occlusion of the vaginal opening.

You have a habit of lying to support positions, from the proclamations that women don't pee on the seat now to the proclamation that hymen deformatities don't cause medical issues.

So answer the question: would you judge the removal of a hymen at birth to be mutilation?

I’m not sure who you are confusing me with but you’re going back on ignore

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, but you are extremely attached to your belief. I respect that. You are free to offer whatever advise you would like to parents regarding circumcision for their sons.


My belief is that it is up to the parents, with best medical advise to make the decision regarding circumcision. There are known health benefits, short and long term to circumcision. Negative medical outcomes are exceedingly rare. Aside from potential medical benefits, it truly is a matter of personal belief about which is 'better.'

There are no, absolutely ZERO positive medical outcomes for cutting open the hymen of an infant girl.

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

Wow, so, you're dead wrong. There are all manner of hymen deformations that can cause issues for girls, up to and including complete occlusion of the vaginal opening.

You have a habit of lying to support positions, from the proclamations that women don't pee on the seat now to the proclamation that hymen deformatities don't cause medical issues.

So answer the question: would you judge the removal of a hymen at birth to be mutilation?

Goalpost alert!

Yes, there are two medical issues that come to mind that warrant cutting the hymen and I certainly won't say that's all the possible reasons. However, neither is an issue for an infant.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, but you are extremely attached to your belief. I respect that. You are free to offer whatever advise you would like to parents regarding circumcision for their sons.


My belief is that it is up to the parents, with best medical advise to make the decision regarding circumcision. There are known health benefits, short and long term to circumcision. Negative medical outcomes are exceedingly rare. Aside from potential medical benefits, it truly is a matter of personal belief about which is 'better.'

There are no, absolutely ZERO positive medical outcomes for cutting open the hymen of an infant girl.

You don't know what decision my husband and I made regarding circumcision. I haven't said, and I won't. It doesn't alter my opinion is that it is truly up to the parents to make that decision.

Wow, so, you're dead wrong. There are all manner of hymen deformations that can cause issues for girls, up to and including complete occlusion of the vaginal opening.

You have a habit of lying to support positions, from the proclamations that women don't pee on the seat now to the proclamation that hymen deformatities don't cause medical issues.

So answer the question: would you judge the removal of a hymen at birth to be mutilation?

Goalpost alert!

Yes, there are two medical issues that come to mind that warrant cutting the hymen and I certainly won't say that's all the possible reasons. However, neither is an issue for an infant.

And it doesn't matter either way; the point is to provide an example of something that is analogically similar (deformations of the genitals that a parent may have a valid medical purpose for electing of a child) and trying to show her that she is producing a double standard, in arguing that the presence of a readily identifiable medical condition in some children validates the decision to mutilate *any* child... So long as that mutilation is to a penis and not a vagina.

Also, lol, apparently she doesn't remember the whole thread where she argued for pages that bathrooms shouldn't have urinals.

 

[Toni]

Goalpost alert!

Yes, there are two medical issues that come to mind that warrant cutting the hymen and I certainly won't say that's all the possible reasons. However, neither is an issue for an infant.

And it doesn't matter either way; the point is to provide an example of something that is analogically similar (deformations of the genitals that a parent may have a valid medical purpose for electing of a child) and trying to show her that she is producing a double standard, in arguing that the presence of a readily identifiable medical condition in some children validates the decision to mutilate *any* child... So long as that mutilation is to a penis and not a vagina.

Also, lol, apparently she doesn't remember the whole thread where she argued for pages that bathrooms shouldn't have urinals.

Sure, I remember that urinal discussion. You think that all bathrooms should be unisex. I do not. Then you went pretty far off the rails in a pretty nasty way+ making all sorts of inaccurate accusations, so: ignore.

And there you are once again, where you will stay.

 

[Jarhyn]

Goalpost alert!

Yes, there are two medical issues that come to mind that warrant cutting the hymen and I certainly won't say that's all the possible reasons. However, neither is an issue for an infant.

And it doesn't matter either way; the point is to provide an example of something that is analogically similar (deformations of the genitals that a parent may have a valid medical purpose for electing of a child) and trying to show her that she is producing a double standard, in arguing that the presence of a readily identifiable medical condition in some children validates the decision to mutilate *any* child... So long as that mutilation is to a penis and not a vagina.

Also, lol, apparently she doesn't remember the whole thread where she argued for pages that bathrooms shouldn't have urinals.

Sure, I remember that urinal discussion. You think that all bathrooms should be unisex. I do not. Then you went pretty far off the rails in a pretty nasty way+ making all sorts of inaccurate accusations, so: ignore.

And there you are once again, where you will stay.

Ah, the head-in-the-sand manuver. Kinda classic. Timeless even. Then the feigning of indignity as a means to sidestep the valid point: that you are creating yet another ridiculous double-standard and trying to defend it by distracting from it.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I respectfully disagree with toni. There are no valid reasons to circumcise a healthy male infant.

Actually, there is one reason--it lowers their risk of catching HIV.

Of course condoms are far better protection but in sufficiently poor areas the effect is noticeable.

In a very select case it does. Not in general.

If I recall correctly, it only help in one particular case. In Africa, some of the prostitutes engage in a procedure known as "dry sex" where they use various ointments to make the vagina as dry as possible. Some men apparently prefer it. If the prostitute is HIV+ and the sex is unprotected, then a man engaging with this prostitute is less likely to contract HIV if circumcised.

So my advice on that particular risk is - if you want to have unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, then in that case it is a good choice to get circumcised. However, if you're having unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, you're probably not good at making good choices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I respectfully disagree with toni. There are no valid reasons to circumcise a healthy male infant.

Actually, there is one reason--it lowers their risk of catching HIV.

Of course condoms are far better protection but in sufficiently poor areas the effect is noticeable.

In a very select case it does. Not in general.

If I recall correctly, it only help in one particular case. In Africa, some of the prostitutes engage in a procedure known as "dry sex" where they use various ointments to make the vagina as dry as possible. Some men apparently prefer it. If the prostitute is HIV+ and the sex is unprotected, then a man engaging with this prostitute is less likely to contract HIV if circumcised.

So my advice on that particular risk is - if you want to have unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, then in that case it is a good choice to get circumcised. However, if you're having unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, you're probably not good at making good choices.

What I was reading was far more general than this--for cultural reasons one group was circumcised, one was not. The circumcised group had a far lower HIV rate despite the researchers not being able to find any behavioral differences to account for this. The thing is, HIV is actually extremely hard to transmit to skin--and the penis is covered with skin. A foreskin provides a place for it to hide where it can survive and thus makes infection easier. (Corollary--your risk of contracting HIV is far greater if you already have a sore-producing STD.)

 

[Arctish]

Whatever slight difference circumcision makes in HIV transmission rates in Africa is not apparent in developed Western nations. And even if there was a measurable difference in transmission rates here in the US as well, that's something that only applies to sexually active people, not to infants.

 

[Toni]

I respectfully disagree with toni. There are no valid reasons to circumcise a healthy male infant.

Actually, there is one reason--it lowers their risk of catching HIV.

Of course condoms are far better protection but in sufficiently poor areas the effect is noticeable.

In a very select case it does. Not in general.

If I recall correctly, it only help in one particular case. In Africa, some of the prostitutes engage in a procedure known as "dry sex" where they use various ointments to make the vagina as dry as possible. Some men apparently prefer it. If the prostitute is HIV+ and the sex is unprotected, then a man engaging with this prostitute is less likely to contract HIV if circumcised.

So my advice on that particular risk is - if you want to have unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, then in that case it is a good choice to get circumcised. However, if you're having unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, you're probably not good at making good choices.

Some time back, I posted links to studies about circumcision and HIV transmission. Here's a much more general/non-medical link that provides information about circumcision and the circumstances under which it seems to provide some protection against HIV transmission. Loren is almost correct when he talks about foreskin as being a 'good place for HIV to hide,' but HIV is actually quite a fragile virus outside of the body. Foreskin is also a fragile tissue, often enduring very small tears and abrasions through which HIV can find a way into the body where it replicates, destroys T-cells and is transmitted through semen and blood products, primarily.

http://www.catie.ca/en/fact-sheets/prevention/penile-circumcision-reduce-risk-hiv-infection

Actually some more articles if you are so inclined:

https://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV


Please note: Circumcision does NOT prevent male to female transmission of HIV nor does it prevent male to male transmission of HIV. Use of a condom is still necessary. In the US, HIV transmission is mostly through sharing needles and male to male sex. This is because in the US, HIV is more prevalent among needle sharing drug users and among gay men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whatever slight difference circumcision makes in HIV transmission rates in Africa is not apparent in developed Western nations. And even if there was a measurable difference in transmission rates here in the US as well, that's something that only applies to sexually active people, not to infants.

As I said, a condom is a far better answer.

If it's going to be done, best done in infancy, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In a very select case it does. Not in general.

If I recall correctly, it only help in one particular case. In Africa, some of the prostitutes engage in a procedure known as "dry sex" where they use various ointments to make the vagina as dry as possible. Some men apparently prefer it. If the prostitute is HIV+ and the sex is unprotected, then a man engaging with this prostitute is less likely to contract HIV if circumcised.

So my advice on that particular risk is - if you want to have unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, then in that case it is a good choice to get circumcised. However, if you're having unprotected dry sex with HIV positive prostitutes, you're probably not good at making good choices.

Some time back, I posted links to studies about circumcision and HIV transmission. Here's a much more general/non-medical link that provides information about circumcision and the circumstances under which it seems to provide some protection against HIV transmission. Loren is almost correct when he talks about foreskin as being a 'good place for HIV to hide,' but HIV is actually quite a fragile virus outside of the body. Foreskin is also a fragile tissue, often enduring very small tears and abrasions through which HIV can find a way into the body where it replicates, destroys T-cells and is transmitted through semen and blood products, primarily.

Poor wording on my part---I meant a good place to hide from the harsh environment outside the body. Behind the foreskin is pretty similar to what it would encounter inside the body.

Please note: Circumcision does NOT prevent male to female transmission of HIV nor does it prevent male to male transmission of HIV. Use of a condom is still necessary. In the US, HIV transmission is mostly through sharing needles and male to male sex. This is because in the US, HIV is more prevalent among needle sharing drug users and among gay men.

Reducing female to male transmission means fewer infected males to pass it on.

 

[Arctish]

Whatever slight difference circumcision makes in HIV transmission rates in Africa is not apparent in developed Western nations. And even if there was a measurable difference in transmission rates here in the US as well, that's something that only applies to sexually active people, not to infants.

As I said, a condom is a far better answer.

If it's going to be done, best done in infancy, though.

I disagree that it's best done in infancy. Infants can't express their desire to either keep their foreskin or have it removed. IMO, barring a genuine need to alleviate suffering or treat an existing medical condition, its best to wait until the kid can decide for himself.

It's his body. It should be his choice.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Whatever slight difference circumcision makes in HIV transmission rates in Africa is not apparent in developed Western nations. And even if there was a measurable difference in transmission rates here in the US as well, that's something that only applies to sexually active people, not to infants.

As I said, a condom is a far better answer.

If it's going to be done, best done in infancy, though.

If you can convince me that the infant has given consent.

If the government has any job at all, it is to defend the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. This really is such a case.