TLCTugger wrote:Malice wrote:circumcision does not cause significant or lasting harm because:
-The operation has a reasonably low level of risk to the infant, and recovery is not overly onerous;
-Social effects are not a factor (unlike say FGM)
-Sensitivity has not been proven to be significantly reduced, and men who have the procedure as infants go on to have healthy, productive sex lives
-Any emotional trauma is undocumented/unproven
Basically the harm argument is much less convincing than the rights argument.
This is going to look familiar because I posted much of it before. But I think nobody saw it because it was in a new-guy moderation queue until the thread had moved a couple pages beyond.
- - - - -
Hundreds of thousands of men are enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo just some of the sexual damage of circumcision.
Do you have a cite for this?
The reason to advocate against forced genital cutting is NOT because it is barbaric. Many things we need to do for kids could be described as barbarically painful; they need to get over it if we deem it necessary (like cleaning broken glass out of a wound or drilling holes in their teeth for example). The reason to oppose forced genital cutting is the permanent harm it causes.
The foreskin includes thousands of specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings and about 15 square inches (in the adult) of sexual interface. Removing that healthy normal body part dramatically alters sexual sensation. You simply can't take away a large sensitive surface (even if done magically with no risk or scar) without changing sensation. The penis owner has natural human right to keep his whole body and make decisions about which parts to keep. Denying this right is a HARM to him.
The penis owner physically can't make the decision re: circumcision as an infant, full stop. An infant can't talk and can barely think, let alone weigh complex variables and extrapolate into the future. You, the parent, are the only one in the room who can decide whether that infant will go from age zero to age 18 with a cut or uncut penis. The alternative being that the government decides, which seems to me to be somewhat intrusive (and I'm a Democrat, so there you go).
As for changing sensation, am I the only one who assumes nerve endings work like Daredevil's senses? (Okay, it sounds dumb when I put it like that. But!) Isn't it accepted medical theory that nerves, senses, and even bits of your brain will compensate for damage? That process might be slow when you're an adult, but an infant will adapt tremendously to its environment and physical circumstances. This is why men missing those "15 square inches" still experience full, productive sex lives and sex drives.
The rest of that presumably copy-pasted "rah-rah, foreskins-boom-bah" is rife with emotional arguments and (you'll pardon my french) merde du vache--what little of it isn't talking about adult circumcision, which is irrelevant to this discussion. (I'm most amused at how the passage argues simultaneously that uncut men have vastly greater sensation and last longer before orgasm, as if those things weren't mutually goddamn exclusive.)
Assuming there were no accidents and unintended consequences (only the predictable losses I describe above), exactly how many men would have to regret having been cut at birth for it to warrant not closing that door for all men, but instead leaving the option so he can get cut (or stay intact) later at a rational informed age?
600,002. Or you could cite how many there actually are and we could talk about whether that is too many.
Exactly how many healthy normal babies would have to die each year to cause the government to ban something? Three deaths per year was enough to cause banning of drop-side cribs. I can produce media accounts of four infant circumcision deaths from this year, and I assert that studies showing deaths of 100-200 per year are more likely reflecting the true number.
Would you like to produce evidence or just wave it around hypothetically?
Most of the world is not cutting infant genitals or conducting studies to justify it. The fact the you think studies are mixed reflects the efforts of circumcisors to justify the practice. Non-circumcisors have no profit or cultural motive to do anything. It is in my mind inappropriate to give all studies equal weight.
So one side of the argument is inherently biased, therefore all of their evidence is worthless? Wow. That is some Olympic-level handwaving.
I am very curious what you mean by "Social effects are not a factor (unlike say FGM)."
Female genital mutilation, in most of its forms, contributes to (or is a symptom of) the oppression of women. Circumcision does not have that issue.