Infant Circumcision

[sourmìlk]

No, what he means is that if your child owns a house or other property (including money, say, if they were a child actor), then the parents act as custodians of those things until such time as the child is able to take care of them. In this case, the parents are expected to use those resources exclusively to further the interests of the child--if the child has money, the parents can't use the money to fly to Vegas and gamble it all away or whatever, but they can use it to buy food and clothing and stuff.

At least in the US, this isn't true.

[edit]Softy is arguing that the parents are then effectively acting as custodians of the child's inherent rights until such point as the child is able to exercise them fully.

I don't think this contradicts anything I said.

[LaserGuy]

No, what he means is that if your child owns a house or other property (including money, say, if they were a child actor), then the parents act as custodians of those things until such time as the child is able to take care of them. In this case, the parents are expected to use those resources exclusively to further the interests of the child--if the child has money, the parents can't use the money to fly to Vegas and gamble it all away or whatever, but they can use it to buy food and clothing and stuff.

At least in the US, this isn't true.

California, at least, has a law specifically dealing with the issue of assets from child actors. Trust funds in general operate very much in this manner. If you are in control of a trust and you misuse the funds, you can be liable for the difference, or even charged with theft if it is serious enough.

[edit]Here's a link for United States trust law.

[Malice]

I think Malice was referring to the semiprivate changing of clothes before and after gym class. An uncircumcised Jewish kid could face serious social consequences.

My incredulity remains, though somewhat lessened. I might have led a very sheltered life, but at my schools, we had this fascinating new technology known as "doors".

I agree: you might have led a very sheltered life.

--

If my child owns a house, and I decide that kitchen needs to be remodeled in order to keep its decor in keeping with social expectations of what kitchens should look like (ie., not in an 18-year-old style by the time he grows up), I will most certainly arrange for that kitchen to be remodeled, because my responsibility is not simply to keep the house the way it is, but to exercise my discretion in what is hopefully the ultimate best interests of the child. Hooray for metaphors!

[TLCTugger]

adult circumcision is problematic, both in terms of risk and the potential for a loss of sensation.

I'll take your citation for that. I hope by risk you mean something surpassing 1 deaths per 10,000 healthy normal patients, as with infant circumcision.

[sourmìlk]

I'll take your citation for that. I hope by risk you mean something surpassing 1 deaths per 10,000 healthy normal patients, as with infant circumcision.

Google and Wikipedia must think I'm a real sick bastard for searching for "circumcision" this much. Anyways, 1 in 10,000 is on the high end of estimates for death when it comes to infants. The American Pediatrics Association estimates 1 in 500,000.

[curtis95112]

I have a question.
If circumcision was viewed as a method of preventing masturbation, isn't that a real cost of circumcision?

[sourmìlk]

I have a question.
If circumcision was viewed as a method of preventing masturbation, isn't that a real cost of circumcision?

It would be, except that there was never any evidence to support that.

[curtis95112]

I have a question.
If circumcision was viewed as a method of preventing masturbation, isn't that a real cost of circumcision?

It would be, except that there was never any evidence to support that.

Really? I thought circumcised men were much more likely to need lube.

[sourmìlk]

I have not encountered any such data to suggest that.

[The Great Hippo]

I have a question.
If circumcision was viewed as a method of preventing masturbation, isn't that a real cost of circumcision?

Interesting feature that the majority of conservative anti-sex dickholes tend to carry: They rarely have a scientific bone in their body¹. As a result, a lot of their attempts to suppress sexuality involve heaping portions of pseudo-science.




¹ Ha-ha! ...bone.

[distractedSofty]

I agree: you might have led a very sheltered life.

Still, I maintain that if "not having been subjected to institutionalised genital inspections as a child" is "a sheltered life", then that society has more important penis fish to fry than circumcision.

[lutzj]

I agree: you might have led a very sheltered life.

Still, I maintain that if "not having been subjected to institutionalised genital inspections as a child" is "a sheltered life", then that society has more important penis fish to fry than circumcision.

Well, I'd certainly hope your genitals were regularly examined by a doctor during your childhood.

Between sleepovers, locker rooms, swimming, and, y'know, sex, most kids are seen naked by their peers or by adults as they grow up.

[Friego]

Why are we still arguing about statistical benefits/risks when it has already been established that either the statistics can't be trusted because of the wildly different conclusions they come up with and that they're statistically insignificant?

(Primarily directed towards this line of reasoning) (Unless, of course, there is statistically significant data that mostly agrees with each other for the risks of adult circumcision)

adult circumcision is problematic, both in terms of risk and the potential for a loss of sensation.

I'll take your citation for that. I hope by risk you mean something surpassing 1 deaths per 10,000 healthy normal patients, as with infant circumcision.

[distractedSofty]

Well, I'd certainly hope your genitals were regularly examined by a doctor during your childhood.

That's clearly not what I meant, but also, no, they weren't, because there was nothing wrong with them.

Between sleepovers, locker rooms, swimming, and, y'know, sex, most kids are seen naked by their peers or by adults as they grow up.

There's a difference between showing someone your genitals: stripping off to swim naked, comparing sizes in a sleepover, or having sex, and being forced into that situation, such as in a locker room with no privacy. Apparently, so forced into the situation, that surgically altering your body to fit in sounds like a good idea.

[Tomo]

Well, I'd certainly hope your genitals were regularly examined by a doctor during your childhood.

Between sleepovers, locker rooms, swimming, and, y'know, sex, most kids are seen naked by their peers or by adults as they grow up.

Seriously? Where? I never encountered anything like this growing up.

[TLCTugger]

I'll take your citation for that. I hope by risk you mean something surpassing 1 deaths per 10,000 healthy normal patients, as with infant circumcision.

Google and Wikipedia must think I'm a real sick bastard for searching for "circumcision" this much. Anyways, 1 in 10,000 is on the high end of estimates for death when it comes to infants. The American Pediatrics Association estimates 1 in 500,000.

So some studies (which attempted to account for cases where the official cause of death was something like "septic shock" but it was actually a result of a circumcision) found between 2 to 4 infant deaths per week in the US, and the AAP says it's officially about 2 per year.

I personally saw reports of 4 infant deaths that made the news this year.

But my question was about the origin of a belief that adult circumcision is somehow risky or painful.

Have you ever heard of an adult death? Has an adult ever been denied pain meds during the procedure or recovery? Do adults have to heal under the care of lay people to whom they can't communicate, with the raw wound in a feces filled diaper?

I think a predictable result is much more likely for an adult surgery, when everything is larger, the synechial bonds don't need to be torn, nobody is likely squirming or bucking in agony, and the patient can weigh in about the style of cut preferred (or call the whole thing off at his discretion). If you Google "circumcision damage" the examples generally arise from infant circumcisions, although the harm is often not evident until puberty.

[blackened45]

for my part of the cake, circumcision is a regular practice for some cultures and religious beliefs.
we all know what it is for, a form of rite of passage for a boy entering manhood or adulthood. i think for me, its just a primitive precaution for men in those times in preventing sexual diseases. since the penis is actually a tool for reproduction, people in those times to prevent unwanted circumstances during and after sex, and the reaction on a woman's pregnancy.

also, in some cultures, it is considered getting 'clean', so somewhat a basis for my theory posted above.

also, if i am in favor of doing circumcision today, i would say yes. maybe people from before were right, prevention is better than cure. and if a day comes when an antiseptic and safe way to clean the insides of the penis' skin, and man's willingness to clean their genitalia, would be the day i'd change my position.

just my 2 cents.

[curtis95112]

also, if i am in favor of doing circumcision today, i would say yes. maybe people from before were right, prevention is better than cure. and if a day comes when an antiseptic and safe way to clean the insides of the penis' skin, and man's willingness to clean their genitalia, would be the day i'd change my position.
just my 2 cents.

You mean like bathing regularly?
There are many reasonable arguments for circumcision. This is not one of them. I mean, I assume you're talking about the same parts of the world as the rest of us.

[sourmìlk]

we all know what it is for, a form of rite of passage for a boy entering manhood or adulthood.

We're specifically talking about infant circumcision. And in very poor countries with little access to medical care and poor sanitation, I would definitely recommend circumcision as a universal medical procedure. In countries where people bathe regularly, there is only a negligible effect on the rate of STD transmission.

[TLCTugger]

In countries where people bathe regularly, there is only a negligible effect on the rate of STD transmission.

I don't know where people get this business about bathing. The natural way to keep the space within the foreskin hygenic has nothing to do with bathing. Just let the sterile urine flush te area clean as it exits the body. Want to be cleaner than that? Knock yourself out.

The reason reports say there would be a different effect from mass circumcision in more developed nations is the background rate of HIV infection. When there are fewer infected people to encounter, the odds of a circumcision preventing an infection (low in any case) are just very low, so the supposed benefit is far outweighed by the known risks and drawbacks of circumcising. This has been spelled out in separate official policy statements from Australia, Holland, and the UK.

As there has never been a double-blinded randomized controlled trial of circumcision's effect on HIV transmission, it is instructive to note that most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth, and that the US has three times the HIV incidence seen in Europe (where circumcising is rare). Also, Israel has an HIV incidence as high as non-cutting Japan's. Circumcision is neither neccesary nor sufficient to thwart AIDS.

And infants don't have sex. Unlike other decisions about immunizations, this one can easily wait for the one person who's directly affected to make it.

[Izawwlgood]

Why are you repeating already disputed points?

[TLCTugger]

Why are you repeating already disputed points?

You asking me?

Did you happen to notice that the post above mine said "I would definitely recommend circumcision as a universal medical procedure" and that my post was a rebuttal to the reasons given for that?

Since when is the fact that something is in dispute a reason to stop talking about it? What gives?

[Izawwlgood]

Just read the thread for answers (and more!) to all your inquiries. We've been over each of those, multiple times.

[TLCTugger]

We've been over each of those, multiple times.

Odd that Sourmilk isn't being scolded for asserting things not settled as if they were facts.

I've read the thread and its false premise that circumcision causes no harm.

[Izawwlgood]

Then you didn't read it carefully enough. We've been over and over the notion that the risks associated with circumcising a child are incredibly minimal. We've also been over and over the false notion that circumcision causes damage. I believe people even went over the word 'harm' and discussed whether or not circumcision caused harm, and because people utilized different definitions, it seems rather evident that if you include 'harm' to mean 'changed from untouched', then sure, circumcision causes harm. But because, as already pointed out, that doesn't really mean much, the claim that circumcision causes *detrimental* harm remains unproven.

But by all means, continue to bring up previously discussed points.

[Malice]

We've been over each of those, multiple times.

Odd that Sourmilk isn't being scolded for asserting things not settled as if they were facts.

I've read the thread and its false premise that circumcision causes no harm.

Briefly, 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.

[Tomo]

-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

Pretty sure you could say all of that about any infant molestation, for a start. Secondly, all of those effects are you repeatedly ignoring negative effects which have been proven to occur in a minority simply because they have not been statistically shown to appear in a majority. That's arguably fine if the action you're proposing doesn't violate bodily autonomy and shows a significant benefit to the recipient, but this isn't the case here.

You're completely happy to cause demonstrable harm to an (admittedly, possibly small) number of people for no real gain, for personal or religious benefit, and I think that's disgusting.

[Izawwlgood]

You're completely happy to cause demonstrable harm to an (admittedly, possibly small) number of people for no real gain, for personal or religious benefit, and I think that's disgusting.

This again. Pay attention.

That's arguably fine if the action you're proposing doesn't violate bodily autonomy and shows a significant benefit to the recipient, but this isn't the case here.

Babies don't have this.

[Tomo]

That's arguably fine if the action you're proposing doesn't violate bodily autonomy and shows a significant benefit to the recipient, but this isn't the case here.

Babies don't have this.

ok, brb raping babies? Or cutting off their earlobes? Or the skin between their nostrils! Or lets cut out one of their kidneys, or half of their liver! They'll probably adapt to it just like the trauma from circumcision! I see no evidence to the contrary!

You're completely happy to cause demonstrable harm to an (admittedly, possibly small) number of people for no real gain, for personal or religious benefit, and I think that's disgusting.

This again. Pay attention.

Also, screw you for thinking "pay attention" is a sensible response to a moral decision. I've read the thread, I understand what you're saying. I disagree.

[Copper Bezel]

I'm posting nothing new to this thread in saying it, but insisting on absolutes does no good. If these points, which have been raised, were not addressed to your satisfaction, then you'll need to suss out the specific nuances which haven't been, define them carefully, and argue from there. Otherwise, Izawwlgood is left guessing at which objections you're actually making, so of course his responses aren't going to be satisfactory to you.

[Tomo]

I'm posting nothing new to this thread in saying it, but insisting on absolutes does no good. If these points, which have been raised, were not addressed to your satisfaction, then you'll need to suss out the specific nuances which haven't been, define them carefully, and argue from there. Otherwise, Izawwlgood is left guessing at which objections you're actually making, so of course his responses aren't going to be satisfactory to you.

I'm not sure there are absolutes, or specific nuances, or anything that needs to be defined carefully; my points are thus.

Circumcision CAN cause numerous negative effects: http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
Circumcision has no great benefits - remains to be proven, I suppose? I've seen no evidence of this anyway.
Circumcision infringes upon bodily autonomy. - there have been opinions throughout this threat which infer infants have no such thing, in which case sexually abusing infants is ok? I disagree but I suppose that's personal?

In conclusion;
Accepting an action which carries no clear benefit, has a potential negative, and infringes on bodily autonomy is a terrible thing.
If you wish to infringe on the bodily autonomy of an infant, I personally require you to show huge benefit with no compromising negative, this isn't the case.
Finally, if you insist that infringing on the bodily autonomy of an infant is ok regardless of given benefit, I conclude that you are also ok with various other forms of infant mutilation/abuse, and I think that is disgusting.

If you're still guessing at which observations I am making, feel free to point out where.

[Izawwlgood]

Tomo, I'm not giving you much of a discussion here because you're simply bringing up previously discussed points, and stating them as absolutes, as CB pointed out.
So, does circumcision cause harm? No, not demonstrably. Do babies have rights? No, not demonstrably. Is comparing circumcision to removing a childs kidney a worthwhile discussion point to mention? No, it's not.
So, if you're going to get testy because you've hopped up on page 12 of a rehashed to death topic to bring up already discussed points, and I didn't give you the debate you were looking for, tough shit. There's 12 pages of discussing exactly what you just brought up already, and you've added nothing new to the discussion. If you wanted to state everything as a 'In my opinion, this causes harm', then cool, neat opinion.

EDIT: And for FUCKS sake, I will not accept "www.circumcisionisevil.com" as a source of why I should agree with your position.

[Tomo]

Tomo, I'm not giving you much of a discussion here because you're simply bringing up previously discussed points, and stating them as absolutes, as CB pointed out.
So, does circumcision cause harm? No, not demonstrably. Do babies have rights? No, not demonstrably. Is comparing circumcision to removing a childs kidney a worthwhile discussion point to mention? No, it's not.
So, if you're going to get testy because you've hopped up on page 12 of a rehashed to death topic to bring up already discussed points, and I didn't give you the debate you were looking for, tough shit. There's 12 pages of discussing exactly what you just brought up already, and you've added nothing new to the discussion. If you wanted to state everything as a 'In my opinion, this causes harm', then cool, neat opinion.

I've actually been present throughout this discussion, but whatever. Grats on reading.

if you think circumcision CANNOT cause harm, you're a fool. If circumcision is not comparable to removing a kidney, prove it. If you think babies have no rights, I personally think you are a huge fucking dick, but feel free to back up that opinion with a view to which things I stated otherwise are unacceptable - If babies have no rights, why can't I rape them?

EDIT: And for FUCKS sake, I will not accept "www.circumcisionisevil.com" as a source of why I should agree with your position.

EDIT: Then I'm just gonna not accept all of the sources you haven't posted so far. Except you haven't posted them. But whatever.

[Azrael]

If circumcision is not comparable to removing a kidney, prove it.

Circumcision is not comparable to removing 50% of a vital life support system and hoping the other half will always be able to pick up the slack.

Nor did he say that babies have no rights, only that they don't have a right to bodily autonomy. While that position which has been debated at great length, it stems from the fact that babies cannot exert any semblance of autonomy over their own bodies.

...I conclude that you are also ok with various other forms of infant mutilation/abuse, and I think that is disgusting.

And, as the famous question goes, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I think it's long past time for everyone to remove at least 50% of their hyperbole.

[Tomo]

If circumcision is not comparable to removing a kidney, prove it.

Circumcision is not comparable to removing 50% of a vital life support system and hoping the other half will always be able to pick up the slack.

I think it's long past time for everyone to remove at least 50% of their hyperbole.

I agree with this, but there's a double standard in the way that only one side gets called on it. There are studies showing that circumcision can have a huge effect on a person, as posted previously. And yet half of the thread is simply people ejecting "Well that's only some people, it's not conclusive". As if that was a reason to still violate personal bodily functions for no clear gain.

So yes, what I posted was hyperbole. But until the other side stops their shit, and posts an overwhelming volume of scientific information supporting any scientific benefit to circumcision, you can focus that at them as much as me.

And, as the famous question goes, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

I can think of numerous reasons not to beat my "wife", mostly that he has a right to his own body, and infringing upon that is violent and rude. But apparently babies don't have that right... so you go figure.

[Azrael]

So yes, what I posted was hyperbole. But until the other side stops their shit, and posts an overwhelming volume of scientific information supporting any scientific benefit to circumcision, you can focus that at them as much as me.

Actually, no. Because that magic "they" still aren't being rampantly hyperbolic and needlessly inflammatory.

[Tomo]

So yes, what I posted was hyperbole. But until the other side stops their shit, and posts an overwhelming volume of scientific information supporting any scientific benefit to circumcision, you can focus that at them as much as me.

Actually, no. Because that magic "they" still aren't being rampantly hyperbolic and needlessly inflammatory.

Um, ok? So why should we cicumcise kids? i'd like a list of benefits with sources, please.

[tetris]

The title of this thread is very problematic. Men/boys are not the only people to receive the type of circumcision discussed in this thread--I think everyone will agree that the type of circumcision being discussed in the removal of the foreskin from a penis? If so, a more accurate thread title would be "Infant Circumcision of Penises," since that's what's actually being discussed.

I think this is an important distinction, and helps highlight one of the (myriad) ways circumcision can "cause harm"; women who are coercively assigned a male sex at birth are often circumcised, and this removes valuable tissue that can later go towards genital reconstruction surgery, if the woman decides that that is a course they want to take (and many women do choose to go this route). How is it not harmful for parents to reduce the efficacy of this operation by removing valuable tissue?

[Tomo]

The title of this thread is very problematic. Men/boys are not the only people to receive the type of circumcision discussed in this thread--I think everyone will agree that the type of circumcision being discussed in the removal of the foreskin from a penis? If so, a more accurate thread title would be "Infant Circumcision of Penises," since that's what's actually being discussed.

I think this is an important distinction, and helps highlight one of the (myriad) ways circumcision can "cause harm"; women who are coercively assigned a male sex at birth are often circumcised, and this removes valuable tissue that can later go towards genital reconstruction surgery, if the woman decides that that is a course they want to take (and many women do choose to go this route). How is it not harmful for parents to reduce the efficacy of this operation by removing valuable tissue?

Oh, but where are the stats saying that circumcision can "cause harm" to women coercively assigned a male sex!! Without conclusive evidence I must assume that no harm is caused! </everyone in this thread>

Have fun here, try not to take them too seriously.

[Azrael]

Um, ok? So why should we cicumcise kids? i'd like a list of benefits with sources, please.

Ah, much better. But still more obtuse than I'm going to bother with. So I'll let someone who wants to argue that position do so at their leisure.

What I'm interested in exploring are your feelings on ear piercing. What if there was a culture that developed a ritualistic piercing of their children's ears? They'd been doing it for centuries, and have incorporated it into their social fabric. There's no medical benefit, but like any procedure there can be complications. It's a "mutilation" because it's altering the aesthetics of the "natural" human state (and yes, I know the problem with "natural", thus the quotes).

Should they be allowed to keep doing it?