yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
Harry, since BluRmGrl had already posted a link to a different article on this same topic in nb's thread, I'm merging them.
Harry Vest said:There's a new report that just came out today from the World Health Organization (could someone PLEASE post it below - I'm computer illiterate and don't know how) that claims circumcision could save millions from AIDS - particulary in Africa. It sounds like an interesting study. Again, could someone post it here so you can all read it for yourselves. Thanks.
nbcrusader said:Is there room left for discussion on circumcision? We really don’t have much room if you have concluded that the practice is “utterly useless” and chosen by non-thinking parents. To the contrary, it has been my experience as a parent that pediatricians carefully present the subject, providing enough information to at least satisfy informed consent requirements.
As for the utility of circumcision, the cleanliness argument deserves a little more weight than to be dismissed with a “do a better job cleaning” response. Conversely, the perceived increase in sexual pleasure from lack of circumcision lacks the evidentiary basis to support the discontinuance of the procedure. The posted article regarding lower incidents of AIDS among circumcised men would seem enough to justify mandating the procedure.
I think the burden of evidence actually falls on the people who continue male genital mutilation, not the people who want to stop it. As for a lack of evidence about sexual pleasure, if you do a little research, you'll find hoards of anecdotal evidence suggesting that being circumcised significantly reduces sexual gratification; one story which sticks in my mind is that of a man circumcised as an adult. He said his orgasms went from a 10, before the circumcision, to a 2, after the procedure. Talk to people who have slept with both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and they'll tell you that on average, uncircumcised men are more sensitive. As for clinical trials, none exist that I know of, but the fact that such a study has never been conducted doesn't mean that we can keep mutilating boys until the results come in.nbcrusader said:Conversely, the perceived increase in sexual pleasure from lack of circumcision lacks the evidentiary basis to support the discontinuance of the procedure.
To assume that circumcising everything in sight is going to stop the AIDS crisis in Africa is wrong. This might seem like a justification for circumcision, but using protection is the only way to prevent the spread of AIDS. Would you have sex with someone you knew to have full-blown AIDS without a condom, relying on a circumcision to protect you? If not, then why should it be good enough for the entire African continent? Spreading ignorance about genital mutilation isn't going to prevent the spread of AIDS.Originally posted by nbcrusader The posted article regarding lower incidents of AIDS among circumcised men would seem enough to justify mandating the procedure.
melon said:
I do not think it is ethically proper to perform any unnecessary procedure on anyone who is unable to consent. Babies cannot consent. Period. My idea isn't so radical; infant circumcision rates in North America have plummeted in the last 20 years.
If foreskins are unnecessary, then I guess you can blame God. I guess he wasn't so "intelligent" with His "design" after all.
Melon
nbcrusader said:As for the utility of circumcision, the cleanliness argument deserves a little more weight than to be dismissed with a “do a better job cleaning” response. Conversely, the perceived increase in sexual pleasure from lack of circumcision lacks the evidentiary basis to support the discontinuance of the procedure. The posted article regarding lower incidents of AIDS among circumcised men would seem enough to justify mandating the procedure.
maycocksean said:So you would also oppose piercing the ears of an infant or young child, correct?
All the arguments that a circumcision are unnecessary are compelling. What I don't get is the strong emotions behind it--the idea that it must be stopped, it must be banned. . .I don't get that. It's like there's an unspoken assumption you have about those who have their children uncircumsized. What is that assumption? Because I'm guessing that even if you do oppose other unnecessary procedures (such as ear piercing) I have a feeling it your opposition to that would be less strident.
nbcrusader said:Anecdotal evidence is considered presumptuous in certain situations.
nbcrusader said:Do you realize the number of times you ripped apart a post using similar logic?
Is that what you twentysomethings do?
There's no outcry because the vast majority of men have no idea what they're missing. They're completely uninformed on how a penis is supposed to function naturally, and they're completely ignorant as to what sex with and without an uncircumcised penis feels like, never having had the chance to try both.Originally posted by nbcrusader Considering the high value our society places on sex, it doesn’t seem to have hindered men’s ability to enjoy sex or else the outcry against circumcision would be far, far louder. If there is medical evidence to support your position, please share. Anecdotal evidence is considered presumptuous in certain situations.
The Tonic said:My genitals were mutilated as an infant in a senseless oppressive religious rite, and you expect me NOT to be emotional?
The Tonic said:
There's no outcry because the vast majority of men have no idea what they're missing. They're completely uninformed on how a penis is supposed to function naturally, and they're completely ignorant as to what sex with and without an uncircumcised penis feels like, never having had the chance to try both.
Also, they're not given a choice. It's not presented to you as something you even get to decide. So it never even broaches consciousness in most men. Make it an option on the child's 18th birthday and see how many men go for it.
As for scientific evidence that circumcision hinders sexual gratification - why not supply me with some evidence that it doesn't?
There's been mention of the fact that circumcision in the Jewish tradition is a mark of Abraham's covenant. How can an infant make a covenant? It's completely meaningless as a religious gesture. Why not let the person choose to get circumcised as an adult, as Abraham did, as a proof of faith? The minutiae of this ceremony have evolved over time anyway, as seen by the fact that rarely does the mohel perform a circumcision using a lengthened fingernail, or suck blood from the penile incision into his mouth, as they traditionally did.
I don't think that babies should get their ears pierced, but neither do I feel this is an apt analogy. Yes, I'm getting defensive. Yes, I have very strong emotions on this subject. Why? Because I carry on my body (and not just my earlobes, which truly ARE useless as evidenced by the fact that lots of people are born without them) the scars of an operation done without my consent, which hinders my sex life to this day. And because I know the motivation behind this act, however it was justified, is actually Puritanical, sexphobic ignorance. And every time I look at the scars on my genitals, and face sexual dysfunction, I'm reminded of how our entire society is just blindly repeating the same errors made by the generation before, and the generation before that, and the one before that. Apply a little rationality to circumcision and the problem evaporates. But a little rationality is too much to expect from the human race.
This makes me disappointed at my parents and in my own body on a micro level, and cynical about the future entire human race on a macro level. My genitals were mutilated as an infant in a senseless oppressive religious rite, and you expect me NOT to be emotional?
Agree strongly with the good fortune of living in a country without as much mad protestantism.melon said:
The "slash-and-burn" circumcision techniques that we use today originated from 19th century American Protestants who were obsessed with masturbation. They were so obsessed with it that they believed that removing the foreskin completely would prevent children from doing it. Prior to the 19th century, "circumcision," even in Biblical times, referred to removing only a small portion of the end of the foreskin, so as to have a small portion of the tip exposed.
It was their idea from the start to have less sensitivity, and, yes, it was about hatred of male sexuality. If adults wish to be circumcised, then so be it. But I do not think it would be ethical to give tattoos to infants, so I don't see what is ethical about mutilating infants' penises without their consent.
Melon
maycocksean said:While circumcision might be a "silly custom" in the U.S., I don't think it can be compared to the genital mutilation and breast ironing, because I believe these practices are rooted in misogynistic thinking. These practices are about the hatred of women, and the fear and suppression of female sexuality.
Male circumcision is not about fear and hatred of men or male sexuality or the penis, right? I mean, is it really that big deal? Isn't it not much different from getting piercing or a tattoo--something that means something to the people who do it, but is essentially harmless.
As to reduced sexual function, to be honest, I hadn't noticed. But who knows, maybe I'd be on the "Who got lucky thread" two and three times a day if my parents had made a different decision. Dang those parents!!!
Devlin said:
Dude - I hate to break it to you, but removing part of the penis (the foreskin) does mutilate the penis. Not to the extent of FGM, but yes, it's mutilation and completely unneccesary for the most part. Rarely will a male need, medically, to have his foreskin removed. It takes extra time to wash, I'm sure, but most guys could do with an extra five minutes in the shower!