Making genital mutilation illegal and means of enforcement.

[Toni]

???

What are you talking about? Just curious. My poor FIL had to have a circumcision done at 80 years old for penile cancer. But it was technically the same procedure.

Yes.

And before anyone starts posting about medical necessity, that's a different kind of surgery.

Your FIL had a life saving surgery that involved removing a diseased body part in order to stop the spread of something that could have killed him. It's comparable to my father's partial amputation of his foot to stop the spread of gangrene.

Circumcision as religious or cultural expression removes a healthy body part. It's unnecessary for the preservation of life. That's a different kind of surgery even though it involves the same body parts. I have no problem with it if the person being circumcised is a consenting adult. I don't think it's right to impose it on a child.

When I was having my children, in most parts of the US, circumcision of male children was far more common than declining circumcision. A close friend's son contracted a serious infection shortly after birth and as a result, his parents did not have him circumcised as a newborn, against norms of the day. Unfortunately, a couple of years later, circumcision became necessary due to phimosis, a condition that was quite painful for the child and distressing for both parents and child--and for those who cared for the boy. Poor boy screamed in pain during routine diaper changes. Following various pediatrician recommended strategies did not alleviate the distress and so they opted for a later than usual circumcision. This resolved the situation. Phimosis is not common but it was quite distressing. Life threatening? Perhaps not but certainly distressing and painful.

There are valid medically based reasons to circumcise that focus on preventing future negative health impacts on males and their (future) sexual partners.

 

[southernhybrid]

I respectfully disagree with toni. There are no valid reasons to circumcise a healthy male infant. In 1970, I gave birth to a male child. At the time, almost all baby boys were circumcised in the US. I read and researched everything I could find about circumcision, which wasn't easy as this was long before we had access to information like we do today. I came to the conclusion that there was no good reason to circumcise my newborn son. He never had any issues throughout his childhood. He is the father of two children and ASFAIK, is happily married.

Without getting much more personal, let me just say that I've had sex with both cut and uncut men. It never seemed to make any difference in their abilities to perform. I personally think there might be a small benefit to a woman, if her lover is uncut. But, things like this are highly subjective, so who knows if circumcision has little if any impact on male performance and pleasure?

As far as the argument that one might end up with penile cancer and need to have the foreskin removed at that time, that's similar to saying that a woman might end up with vaginal cancer or breast cancer in the future so she should go ahead and have those organs removed. We rarely remove a body part for preventive reasons. So, I'm all for leaving nature's originals intact, unless or until those parts gives us problems later in life.

As far as making the procedure illegal, I have mixed feelings. It's less commonly done than it was when my son was born. Parents are making more informed decisions. There is an argument to be made that men who have been cut, have less sensation at the head of the penis, which could interfere with sexual pleasure. If enough men feel strongly about this issue and are willing to put in the time to educate people and help pass legislation, than I would support that. On the other hand, if only a small percentage of men feel that having been circumcised has inhibited or destroyed their sexual pleasure, perhaps it's best to let the practice fade away on its own. I'm pretty sure that legislation was passed in New York City a few years back that forbid the procedure to be done by Rabbi's, or at least the Rabbi was not permitted to use his tongue to suck the blood away from the penis. Ew. Ew. Ew. I remember conservative Jewish groups were outraged, but to the best of my aging memory, the bill was passed. Big cultural changes usually don't happen over night, but it does seem as if we are moving in the right direction.

 

[Toni]

I respectfully disagree with toni. There are no valid reasons to circumcise a healthy male infant. In 1970, I gave birth to a male child. At the time, almost all baby boys were circumcised in the US. I read and researched everything I could find about circumcision, which wasn't easy as this was long before we had access to information like we do today. I came to the conclusion that there was no good reason to circumcise my newborn son. He never had any issues throughout his childhood. He is the father of two children and ASFAIK, is happily married.

Without getting much more personal, let me just say that I've had sex with both cut and uncut men. It never seemed to make any difference in their abilities to perform. I personally think there might be a small benefit to a woman, if her lover is uncut. But, things like this are highly subjective, so who knows if circumcision has little if any impact on male performance and pleasure?

As far as the argument that one might end up with penile cancer and need to have the foreskin removed at that time, that's similar to saying that a woman might end up with vaginal cancer or breast cancer in the future so she should go ahead and have those organs removed. We rarely remove a body part for preventive reasons. So, I'm all for leaving nature's originals intact, unless or until those parts gives us problems later in life.

As far as making the procedure illegal, I have mixed feelings. It's less commonly done than it was when my son was born. Parents are making more informed decisions. There is an argument to be made that men who have been cut, have less sensation at the head of the penis, which could interfere with sexual pleasure. If enough men feel strongly about this issue and are willing to put in the time to educate people and help pass legislation, than I would support that. On the other hand, if only a small percentage of men feel that having been circumcised has inhibited or destroyed their sexual pleasure, perhaps it's best to let the practice fade away on its own. I'm pretty sure that legislation was passed in New York City a few years back that forbid the procedure to be done by Rabbi's, or at least the Rabbi was not permitted to use his tongue to suck the blood away from the penis. Ew. Ew. Ew. I remember conservative Jewish groups were outraged, but to the best of my aging memory, the bill was passed. Big cultural changes usually don't happen over night, but it does seem as if we are moving in the right direction.

Please don’t misunderstand: I’m not advocating for or against circumcision. There are good, sound medical reasons in favor of circumcision—and arguments against. Whether those medical reasons are sufficient is something that parents need to make with the guidance of their child’s doctor. In the case of the little boy I wrote about, his early childhood would have probably been much easier if circumcisiion had been possible when he was a newborn. I sometimes changed his diapers— the discomfort was pretty extreme. I found it both shocking and heartbreaking. I know there were many,many conversations and discussions with multiple physicians about how to best address this child's situation before the parents decided to have the circumcision performed. Their child's physical and emotional well being was their only concern. Yes, there was a valid medical reason. It’s not a common condition, but it does happen.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

 

[Toni]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

Yes.

 

[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.

 

[Arctish]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

Yes.

It depends on which form of female genital mutilation you're talking about. The one where the clitoral hood is removed is quite comparable to the removal of the foreskin. Other forms are far worse.

Suppose there's a group of people who clip off the clitoral hoods of their newborn daughters for religious and cultural reasons. Would you support their right to do it, or would you be opposed?

 

[Toni]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

Yes.

It depends on which form of female genital mutilation you're talking about. The one where the clitoral hood is removed is quite comparable to the removal of the foreskin. Other forms are far worse.

Suppose there's a group of people who clip off the clitoral hoods of their newborn daughters for religious and cultural reasons. Would you support their right to do it, or would you be opposed?

I am certain I would oppose it. I am unaware of any medical reason to remove a clitoral hood. Perhaps there are medical reasons I am not aware of. I am aware of medical reasons for-- and against removing penile foreskin. I know of one case where a child would probably have been better off if his parents had been able to have him circumcised at birth--that that's speculative, and based only on what I know of the short term discomfort and even suffering this kid went through prior to his circumcision. I am quite aware that this was an unusual case.

I am also aware that most parents of boys who chose circumcision do not do so out of medical concerns but from cultural, aesthetic or religious reasons. However, I cannot un-know sound medical reasons for (and against) male circumcision. And I cannot be made unaware that there is more than one type of male circumcision.

I'm also aware that there are possible inconsistencies within my points of view.

 

[Frikki]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

There are levels of female circumcision from the removal of the labia and clitoris to a small incision in the clitoral hood. So if you want to compare it you can pick the horrendous or the more "benign" type which is similar to male circumcision. All of them are of course silly unless they are medically necessary.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your FIL had a life saving surgery that involved removing a diseased body part in order to stop the spread of something that could have killed him. It's comparable to my father's partial amputation of his foot to stop the spread of gangrene.

Circumcision as religious or cultural expression removes a healthy body part. It's unnecessary for the preservation of life. That's a different kind of surgery even though it involves the same body parts. I have no problem with it if the person being circumcised is a consenting adult. I don't think it's right to impose it on a child.

When I was having my children, in most parts of the US, circumcision of male children was far more common than declining circumcision. A close friend's son contracted a serious infection shortly after birth and as a result, his parents did not have him circumcised as a newborn, against norms of the day. Unfortunately, a couple of years later, circumcision became necessary due to phimosis, a condition that was quite painful for the child and distressing for both parents and child--and for those who cared for the boy. Poor boy screamed in pain during routine diaper changes. Following various pediatrician recommended strategies did not alleviate the distress and so they opted for a later than usual circumcision. This resolved the situation. Phimosis is not common but it was quite distressing. Life threatening? Perhaps not but certainly distressing and painful.

There are valid medically based reasons to circumcise that focus on preventing future negative health impacts on males and their (future) sexual partners.

Ah. So because one kid needed a circumcision because he was in pain due to an abnormal medical condition it's perfectly acceptable for all parents to mutilate their children against the wishes of those children despite an absence of such extenuating circumstances. Got it.

 

[Jon Osterman]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

This is a disingenuous post because it trivialises male circumcision by comparing it to jaywalking. You would have been better to ask "Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and rape because crime is bad?" Then the answer should be obvious.

I would not try and claim that male genital mutilation (circumcision) is as bad as FGM, but it is still wrong, still abuse and should be made illegal with very severe penalties.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

This is a disingenuous post because it trivialises male circumcision by comparing it to jaywalking. You would have been better to ask "Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and rape because crime is bad?" Then the answer should be obvious.

I would not try and claim that male genital mutilation (circumcision) is as bad as FGM, but it is still wrong, still abuse and should be made illegal with very severe penalties.

The entire point was to trivialize male circumcision in relation to female circumcision. If you don't like the jaywalking analogy, consider male circumcision the equivalent of hearing that someone double parked on a residential street two towns over.

 

[Arctish]

Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and jaywalking because crime is bad?

This is a disingenuous post because it trivialises male circumcision by comparing it to jaywalking. You would have been better to ask "Isn't talking about male and female circumcision in the same thread kind of like saying we should be equally against murder and rape because crime is bad?" Then the answer should be obvious.

I would not try and claim that male genital mutilation (circumcision) is as bad as FGM, but it is still wrong, still abuse and should be made illegal with very severe penalties.

The entire point was to trivialize male circumcision in relation to female circumcision. If you don't like the jaywalking analogy, consider male circumcision the equivalent of hearing that someone double parked on a residential street two towns over.

I'd say it's more like hearing that someone's finger was cut off but at least it wasn't their thumb.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, losing a finger creates negative effects. That kind of kills the comparison.

 

[LordKiran]

No, losing a finger creates negative effects. That kind of kills the comparison.

I'd compare it to losing the tip of your finger rather than the entire digit. You can make value distinctions between the two if you want but both should be illegal.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, losing a finger creates negative effects. That kind of kills the comparison.

I'd compare it to losing the tip of your finger rather than the entire digit. You can make value distinctions between the two if you want but both should be illegal.

Well, no. Losing the tip of your finger creates negative efforts. That kind of kills the comparison.

 

[LordKiran]

No, losing a finger creates negative effects. That kind of kills the comparison.

I'd compare it to losing the tip of your finger rather than the entire digit. You can make value distinctions between the two if you want but both should be illegal.

Well, no. Losing the tip of your finger creates negative efforts. That kind of kills the comparison.

what's a 'negative effect' for the purposes of discussion?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, no. Losing the tip of your finger creates negative efforts. That kind of kills the comparison.

what's a 'negative effort' for the purposes of discussion?

If you lose the tip of one of your fingers, it makes it slightly more difficult to pick your nose with that finger and you might have to use one of the other nine to do so. That makes it a more serious issue than male circumcision. The level of triviality of male circumcision means it has no place in a discussion about female circumcision.

 

[LordKiran]

Well, no. Losing the tip of your finger creates negative efforts. That kind of kills the comparison.

what's a 'negative effort' for the purposes of discussion?

If you lose the tip of one of your fingers, it makes it slightly more difficult to pick your nose with that finger and you might have to use one of the other nine to do so. That makes it a more serious issue than male circumcision. The level of triviality of male circumcision means it has no place in a discussion about female circumcision.

Who decides what is trivial and what isn't? Is there a committee? I didn't ask you to restate your personal value judgements between the two types of genital mutilation. I asked you to tell me what a "Negative effect" is. I ask because it seems very vague, as if it could be applied to anything if you try hard enough.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If you lose the tip of one of your fingers, it makes it slightly more difficult to pick your nose with that finger and you might have to use one of the other nine to do so. That makes it a more serious issue than male circumcision. The level of triviality of male circumcision means it has no place in a discussion about female circumcision.

Who decides what is trivial and what isn't? Is there a committee? I didn't ask you to restate your personal value judgements between the two types of genital mutilation. I asked you to tell me what a "Negative effect" is. I ask because it seems very vague, as if it could be applied to anything if you try hard enough.

I'd say that all the doctors who've studied the matter and not found enough valid reasons to recommend either for or against it because it's neither essential nor detrimental to the kids' health. There are slightly more potential positives in adulthood than there are potential negatives, but really it's not a big enough issue to give two shits about either way, especially given that the vending machines in the hospital lounge carry both Snickers and Mars Bars, which are pretty much the same thing and taking up a slot for both of them limits one's snack choices and, since there's only 24 hours in a day, they should spend their limited time focusing on that more serious matter. That's what I mean by trivial.

Female circumcision, on the other hand, is a very serious matter and the impact of it should not be diminished by grouping it in with irrelevancies.