Male Circumcision

I understand the Jewish and Muslim thing about circumcision. I had no idea that it was also a Christian thing - in fact, I'm not at all sure that it is!

I do think that it's an American, cultural thing. From what I hear, it is far more the "norm" over there than it is here. Here it is about 16% but, in the US, it is around 80%.

For what it's worth, I had mine done in my early teens (for medical reasons). I started masturbating well before then, so I know what it is like "with" and "without".

The good news is, it makes no real difference. I'm very happy both ways.

It does seem to get an emotional response, though! My word!

 

I would like to point out being intolerant is not in and of itself a bad thing. Some things ought not be tolerated. I, for instance, would place removing parts of the genitalia of small children, boys or girls, without their consent in that category.

 

I have yet to see the accurate and non-extreme analogies presented in this thread addressed...

 

Levite addressed my question about the practice of 'knicking' way back page two.

It would seem any amount of modification is acceptable as long as the children don't complain and the parents and grandparents all think it should be done.

 

And you are entitled to that opinion, because we tolerate many opinions in this country, whether they are widely held or not, whether everyone agrees with them or not. Pluralism is freedom. Tolerance means that everyone gets their say and can find a way or a place for themselves, at least in theory. And the more we curtail that by forcibly imposing single sets of cultural or social values, the more it erodes everyone's freedom-- and just as that holds true in going down the road to theocracies by imposing single, specific sets of religious opinions on everyone, as it does in going to down the road to atheocracies, where we impose the same single, specific set of abstractly secularized and deculturated values on everyone.

 

Except where we impose upon individuals the unalienable right to decide whether they get to keep their foreskins or not.

I should add, for the record, that I'm cut, and for no particular reason, other than "Well, that's what mofos did when you were born." This reasoning to me is as compelling as "This old book says we ought to." My dad isn't even cut.

I still enjoy the sexes despite my mutilated dick. However, I'd like to have had the fucking choice. My son isn't cut. He doesn't need a constant reminder throughout his life that his parents thought culture should dictate how his penis should look. Seems disrespectful to me, like tatooing "Fuck the Devil." on the back of a little boy's hand so that he can't ever forget that his parents were Christians, no matter what he decides to believe. Not to mention that little girls are apparently not important enough to warrant the cursory minor genital mutilation required for piety. Good for them. I guess this is one instance where religious-based sexism has them coming out ahead (hah, nice pun there, Bodkin).

 

You want to compare a penis which is under the majority of circumstances not readily visible to an earlobe which would be a mark a person publicly for life. As you also pointed out a large gauging and a earlobe clipping would be permanent with the exception of cosmetic surgery. It is actually very possible to restore foreskin with or without surgery. It can be a time consuming process non-surgically but it can be done. Google foreskin restoration and you will find clear instructions how to do so. It isn't witchcraft and I am not trying to sell you a penis enlargement device it is an actual thing you can do simply at home.

For one, in your analogies it is assumed that the reasons for the ear gauging and snipping is entirely religious in nature. People do not always circumcise for religious reasons, many parents make that choice for their children simply because they believe it will be in their best interest to do so earlier than have to be forced to do so later on because issues coming up. Circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer, prevents phimosis, reduces the risk of HPV which is a known cause of cervical cancer in women, and does also modestly reduce the risk of STDs. I have never heard of a medical reason for ear gauging or the snipping off of one's earlobe.

Parents for the most part cherish their children above all else. They want the best they can provide for them. Parents make choices every day, from simple things like soda pop, to fluoridate or not to fluoridate, to remove their wisdom teeth or to give them braces, to have that mole removed at a young age so the skin will heal with less scarring, to have tonsils taken out or ear tubes, to get cochlear transplants, to wear corrective shoes. When a little one is born into your life, they are your shining star, you want the best and sometimes the best isn't what we thought it was. I hope every day that the choices that I made were the right ones, I am sure that I undoubtedly made some mistakes along the way. Regardless, I know that I did my best with pure love in my heart.

 

Having to exhibit my circumcision to every girl I fuck may not be quite as public, but it is much more personal.

Similar non-surgical procedures could be argued for snipped or gauged earlobes. This doesn't make it right.

As has been stated many times in this thread, no study has fully and conclusively proven that a properly cared for uncircumsized penis is any more likely to suffer from these ailments than a properly cared for circumsized penis.

Out of the medical procedures listed, they all have at least a level of medical necessity. Circumcision is elective.

Circumcision is only tolerated because, if it wasn't, religious people would have a fit. We can pretend that is not the case all we want but the fact remains that if it wasn't in the bible, people wouldn't be doing it in our time. It's as simple as that and it's wrong...

 

This video presents a compelling case that people who dissociate themselves from the cultures that circumcised them, but aren't terribly upset about the circumcision is not a very good argument that circumcision isn't particularly barbaric. Although I doubt we need to point out much more than the places where the majority of women are in favor of FGM for their daughters, in some cases by healthy margins. That hardly makes a case for the civilized nature of FGM.


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA


[super short version]It would seem that our brains are particularly good at convincing us things are better than they are when we don't have any choice but to accept the circumstances that have been handed to us. Compelling example: a study that shows that multimillion-dollar lottery winners and paraplegics are equally happy one year after the event.[/super short version]

 

I am going to cease posting in this thread for the time being.

I am finding the intolerance and the absolute lack of any empathy or care for the preservation of my culture to be just too sad to keep coming back to. I see enough hatred and ignorance in my regular life. I don't need to visit it online, in my favorite spots.

 

Abandoning a discussion because your feelings are hurt is also not a very effective debating method. Plus, I don't think anyone expects mere debate to be able to dislodge an opinion based on a religious text. That's not how religious ideas typically seem to work. In case that last sentence seemed judge-y, I want to preiterate (I just made that word up) that I'm not judging anyone.

 

Just because you perceive judgment doesn't mean it exists. But if it makes you feel better, by all means, feel judged (or feel judged on behalf of someone else). I'm just trying to avoid mofos taking things personally, because for some folks on the tfp, everything is personal (I'm not saying Levite is one of those mofos).

 

I personally see no point in discussing medical circumcisions amongst several whom seem ultra paranoid that being circumcised is somehow an automatic label that you are religious. I have made my points and see no reason to follow hamsters running on the wheel.

 

Who thinks that circumcisions are an automatic religious label? I don't know that "ultra paranoid" is the correct term here. What's paranoid about making a connection between circumcision and religion? If you're done with this discussion, your doneness doesn't seem to be the result of understanding the positions of the people with whom you disagree.


Is this going to turn into a discussion about how done we all are with this discussion?

 

Would the term ignorant be more sufficient with you? No, I understand clearly well that the majority of the voice against, or shall I say pro-waiting for the decision for the children to decide seems to be clear suggesting that parents who make the decision to circumcise their children are ignorant and illogically based. While I don't suggest that any person make the decision to circumcise their child if they don't have any basis for doing so (factual logic based or even religiously based) I do support the parent's right to make decisions on behalf of their child that they feel are right. Whether you choose to cut or leave your child as is I fully believe is your right.

Parents make a lot of decisions for their children, some illogically and some using logic. Parents decide not to have blood work drawn, parents decide not to allow blood transfusions, parents decide whether to treat their child's ADD with medicine or with counseling/therapy or not to treat at all, parents decide whether to immunize their children or not, parents decide to allow their children to ingest an unhealthy diet and lifestyle. Some of these decisions can wait, should they wait, should we allow a child with an underdeveloped brain to fully decide on their own, should harm develop in delaying the decision? Some decisions I agree with, some I think are based on uninformed judgment. Regardless, I do believe that a parent does have some right in deciding how to raise their children, that is what I support. That is my bottom line.

 

I don't recall, what I'll refer to as 'the opposition' calling anyone else ignorant or illogical. I'll go one step further and point out that it is not outside the realm of logical possibility to be informed and favor of circumcision. I can also tell you what that would look like and it's largely what we've seen in this thread. There are only a few real defenses that make sense: that the medical benefits outweigh the risks; that parental rights cover elective corporal modification; that cultural identity trumps bodily autonomy.

As far as I'm concerned the latter two are right out and everyone agrees whenever the extent of the damage is obvious and incredible, such as in FGM. I don't understand why the tipping point for the latter two rests on the extent of the damage. I don't see why should it be ok even if the damage is minor and later, when they're old enough to understand, the affected individuals claim not to mind. Nobody has really provided me with an explanation for why it's ok either, merely asserted that it is.

As for the medical aspect, I don't find it compelling. Nor does, as you pointed out, the AAP whose opinion in the matters of the childhood health is perhaps the most well informed on the planet and therefore the one to be most seriously considered. Now, I'm not naive either. I'm well aware of the political shitstorm they would find themselves in if they took a firm stance one way or the other and I wouldn't blame them for wanting to stay above the fray. Look at what happened when they tried to broker a middle ground on female circumcision. Still, I'm willing to consider points that have been raised individually: there are problems with the HIV transmission study that everyone cites. There are far more effective ways to prevent the spread of STDs. As for phimosis, I understand it's pretty hard for double amputees to sprain their ankles. Penile cancer? Lifetime risk of appendicitis is ~1 in 12 for men vs. about 1 in 600 for even uncircumcised men and I don't hear any talk of preventative appendectomies.

I think your career has jaded your ability to weigh the cost v. benefit of circumcision as a preventative medical procedure due to exposure bias. The same way that watching too much violence on the news can make you think the world is more dangerous than it really is.

It's not that I think your reasoning is faulty, it's that I think the premises you're basing them on aren't necessarily true or compelling.

 

I honestly believe that you are being irrational with this whole "preservation of culture" thing. We're not hating on Jews or attempting to marginalize them. There are cultures that are bad for us and we rightly did away with them. Stonings, beheadings, even now we're contemplating getting rid of the death penalty. No, I am not comparing your religious practices to the crusades, I am making a point that culture is not always a good thing.

Culture to me comes down to 'We've always done it that way'. Which is why a medical alternative to the method of circumcision was sought after. Even medical reasons for it were conjured up. Why don't we then practice laser hair removal of pubic hair to prevent crabs?

You can rationalize something as much as you want, that doesn'r make it right. You have absolutely NO right to make an irreversible modification to someone else's body without their consent. Parent or otherwise.