San Francisco judge removes circumcision ban from ballot

[blu]

What if they did it via a painless method? (I'm assuming anesthesia for circumcision: I don't support it without.)

If you're talking about religious circumcision, you're assuming wrong.

until someone shows without a shadow of a doubt that circumcision bears a negative impact (and 'being circumcised' will not suffice here for 'negative impact'), I'm not going to agree that infants are protected from being circumcised.

Well, supposedly fellatio won't feel as good if you're circumcised. That's the best I've got, barring complications from the surgery.

[Chuff]

What if they did it via a painless method? (I'm assuming anesthesia for circumcision: I don't support it without.)

Still wrong, because that doesn't give the kid their eye back.

To be fair, in the metaphor both sourmilk and I were using, you stab the kid in the eye, and the eye heals with whatever color you wanted it to, by magic.

Honestly, I don't know enough about the effectiveness of anesthetic to have a clear opinion. I know every time I've been put under local anesthetic, it has hurt when I came out of it, but IANAMP, so I'm not going to offer judgement.

[Box Boy]

To be fair, in the metaphor both sourmilk and I were using, and you stab the kid in the eye, the eye heals with whatever color you wanted it to, by magic.

Apologies, the fora seems to be broken for me lately (as in posts and avatars are missing, I need to refresh several times to quote or post, ect.) and I missed the part where this was to change the eye colour of the kid.

[Izawwlgood]

By your argument, Izawwl, it's okay to cut your baby to give it cool scars

I am ok with that so long as the cutting is performed in a manner to minimize pain, are done once, and bear no lasting physical detriment. As I mentioned in a previous discussion about this topic, I knew a guy who when he was a young child (not 8 day old blob of pooping fleshmeat), his father placed three or four or whatever small slices across some part of his arm, as his father before him had, ad nauseum.
Circumcision is a very mild, very minor cosmetic procedure. If you want to hold the position that parents have no rights to impact their children like that, I put forth the idea that many children have their ears pierced at a young age. Furthermore, because that's admittedly sort of a weak point, I'm going to suggest that parents detrimentally affect their children in a billion ways; this is not one of the ways to get bent out of shape over.

@blu: you're wrong on both counts. Prior to cutting at a bris, an infant is given a small amount of wine, and anestetic cream is used. Blowjobs feel just awesome, thank you very much, and I'm very curious as to why you think fellatio, of all the sex acts, is the one that's affected.

[Telchar]

You have no will as an infant. I think of it this way: if parents could choose to switch their child's natural eye color, would somebody consider it mutilation if they took that option? Would it be immoral for them to do so?

If they did so by stabbing the kid in the eye, absolutely.

What if they did it via a painless method? (I'm assuming anesthesia for circumcision: I don't support it without.)

You would be hard pressed to find an anesthesiologist that will anesthatize a newborn.

Izzawl:Getting someone drunk is civil war era anesthesia. I don't think that's quite the understood term in modern day. Not that a bris age kid is going to remember it anyway, but saying anesthesia means something different now.

[Box Boy]

By your argument, Izawwl, it's okay to cut your baby to give it cool scars

I am ok with that so long as the cutting is performed in a manner to minimize pain, are done once, and bear no lasting physical detriment. As I mentioned in a previous discussion about this topic, I knew a guy who when he was a young child (not 8 day old blob of pooping fleshmeat), his father placed three or four or whatever small slices across some part of his arm, as his father before him had, ad nauseum.
Circumcision is a very mild, very minor cosmetic procedure.

so, to be clear, you think parents have the right to give kids cosmetic procedures without their consent, (which they don't because, y'know, they don't have that much control over their bodily autonomy and shouldn't) when the kids aren't yet old enough to have any idea if they want them, let alone to understand what they mean?
Or am I just mis-reading here?

Furthermore, because that's admittedly sort of a weak point, I'm going to suggest that parents detrimentally affect their children in a billion ways; this is not one of the ways to get bent out of shape over.

And? Just because there's other, bigger issues doesn't mean this one should be ignored, otherwise we'd only ever focus on stuff like (trigger)

Spoiler:

rape, child prostitution, slavery, ect.

and ignore other, lesser forms of abuse and such, which is just a bad idea.

[blu]

@blu: you're wrong on both counts. Prior to cutting at a bris, an infant is given a small amount of wine, and anestetic cream is used. Blowjobs feel just awesome, thank you very much, and I'm very curious as to why you think fellatio, of all the sex acts, is the one that's affected.

I am basing the first assertion on Brit Mila ceremonies I've been invited to (the wine doesn't do crap), and the second on a discussion with friends who decided to get circumcised at their 20's. I've asked them if they had felt any differences, and they both mentioned fellatios as less great than before, that's all.

Edit: And they had a clean, medical circumcision too.

[Lucrece]

@blu: you're wrong on both counts. Prior to cutting at a bris, an infant is given a small amount of wine, and anestetic cream is used. Blowjobs feel just awesome, thank you very much, and I'm very curious as to why you think fellatio, of all the sex acts, is the one that's affected.

I am basing the first assertion on Brit Mila ceremonies I've been invited to (the wine doesn't do crap), and the second on a discussion with friends who decided to get circumcised at their 20's. I've asked them if they had felt any differences, and they both mentioned fellatios as less great than before, that's all.

Edit: And they had a clean, medical circumcision too.

"Think of the potentially better fellatios they haven't realized they could have!"

Sounds pretty hysterical to me

[blu]

The whole circumcision tradition is pretty funny when you think about it, in a perplexing way.

And, by the way, I am not arguing for the ban, I'm not even American. I'm circumcised myself, and no, not bitter towards my parents. I just think that saying it has no consequences whatsoever isn't true.

[MartianInvader]

as the health benefits and affect on sexual performance and such are pretty much negligible.

I may be walking into a 326 here, but I couldn't resist... the noun is "effect".

Also, what I can't believe is that piercings are still allowed for children under the age of 18. Piercings can become infected and complications can arise, and why we allow parents to mutilate their children this way is beyond me.

[Malice]

My parents gave me cosmetic surgery when I was a child--I had a lump on my eye, or just above it (can't remember) and they had it removed. They had me circumcised so that I would be in case I decided to follow Judaism (my father's side of the family is Jewish). In both cases, they made the right decision, even though I'm not religious today. I was too young to make medical decisions, so they chose for me. Parents do that a hundred times a day, because by and large, they know what's best for their kid.

I also agree with the notion that there's a lot worse out there to deal with. Not that we shouldn't have the discussion here; but spending legal and political resources on trying to ban a practice that is massively less harmful than actual abusive behavior is kind of a waste.

[folkhero]

My parents gave me cosmetic surgery when I was a child--I had a lump on my eye, or just above it (can't remember) and they had it removed.

I had a similar situation as a young child, although the surgery was rather more involved than a lump removal (took some thigh muscle and put in in my eyebrow to cure droopy eyes). My surgery wasn't purely cosmetic, but the insurance company said it was. I was lucky that my grandmother paid for the operation, and that the third party (besides my parents and doctors) involved only had the power to not fund the surgery, and not to ban it outright. Parents and doctors won't always make the right decisions when it comes to medical procedures involving children, but I'd rather they be the ones making the decisions, not some far-off legislature.

I'd also like to point out that orthodontics is a practice of enacting painful and intrusive procedures on people who aren't really old enough to make the decision on their own, and has almost entirely cosmetic value. Should we ban orthodontics also?

[Izawwlgood]

so, to be clear, you think parents have the right to give kids cosmetic procedures without their consent

Cosmetic procedures that have negligible negative impact on their lives, yes.

(the wine doesn't do crap)

Citation Needed. Getting a 9 lb infant drunk doesn't take much. Yes, the kid cries. I've also seen them not cry at the ceremony.

I've asked them if they had felt any differences, and they both mentioned fellatios as less great than before, that's all.

So, just to be clear, your N=? and this is an anecdotal story involving people controlling for fellatio performer? No? Yeah, anecdotal evidence isn't going to convince me: I've met a few people who were circumcised in their late 30's and claimed sex got better.

The whole circumcision tradition is pretty funny when you think about it, in a perplexing way.

A lot of things humans do is pretty funny when you think about it. Dancing? What the fuck is up with that?

Also, what I can't believe is that piercings are still allowed for children under the age of 18. Piercings can become infected and complications can arise, and why we allow parents to mutilate their children this way is beyond me.

Because generally speaking, I'm pro-letting parents decide what's best for their children, not some overseeing government? That so long as the procedure isn't causing detrimental quality of life damage or excessive risk to the child, I don't really give a fuck what it is.
I had to go through a bar mitzvah, that shit was traumatizing. I was forced to play organized sports, practice a few instruments, and eat my peas. GodDAMN, I was abused. Oh, also, someone nipped some skin from my foreskin before I was able to form conscious thought. Take a guess which I find more influential.

[meatyochre]

IMO the most important takeaway point is that we aren't going to change people's minds on this by legislating it. Put the facts out there, inform people who aren't informed, re-inform people who've been misinformed (on the health benefits, for example) and it will change on its own, over time, until voluntary non-religious circumcision is a vague memory in our history. It's already not a big thing in European countries, except among Jewish communities.

[nitePhyyre]

1) Circumcision is a brand of body mutilation that bears zero negative and zero positive physical effects. Go ahead and cite me an article that finds either a positive or a negative effect, and I'll cite you a dozen that show the exact opposite.

Positive, it lets you be lazy about penis hygiene.

Negative,

Some recent researchers have asserted that the foreskin may be sexually responsive.[17][18][19][20] Opponents of circumcision have cited these studies, which report on the sensitivity or innervation of the foreskin, claiming a sexual role based upon the presence of nerve-endings in the foreskin sensitive to light touch, stroking and fluttering sensations.

Circumcision removes the ridged band at the end of the foreskin.[19] Taylor (1996) observed that the ridged band had more Meissner's corpuscles — a kind of nerve ending that is concentrated in areas of greatest sensitivity[citation needed] — than the areas of the foreskin with smooth mucus membranes. Taylor postulated that the ridged band is sexually sensitive and plays a role in normal sexual function. He also suggested that the gliding action, possible only when there was enough loose skin on the shaft of the penis, serves to stimulate the ridged band through contact with the corona of the glans penis during vaginal intercourse.[21] This gliding action was also described by Lakshmanan (1980).[22]

Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells et al., the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.[9] This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that when they re-analyse Sorrells' data, no significant differences are found; that light touch is only one form of sensitivity, and that sexual pleasure may sometimes require less sensitivity. They also criticized Sorrells' recruitment methods.[14] In response, Young criticizes Waskett and Morris's use of the Bonferroni correction and argues that the methods of selecting subjects would not affect the results, that the two most sensitive positions on the circumcised penis represent small areas of circumcision scar, as compared to a much larger area of sensitive tissue on the foreskin, and that sales of sensation-dulling products do not necessarily indicate that such are widely used other than on scar tissue.[15] In 2009, Schober et al reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were uncircumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.[23]

Boyle et al. (2002) argued that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with "heightened erogenous sensitivity," stating "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision."[24] They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."

In a study by Korean researchers of 255 men circumcised after the age of 20 and 18 who were not circumcised, Kim and Pang reported that masturbatory pleasure decreased in 48% of the respondents and increased in 8%. Masturbatory difficulty increased in 63% but was easier in 37%. They concluded that there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure after circumcision.[32]

Laumann et al. reported that circumcised men in their survey displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.[27] For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for uncircumcised men." Dr. Laumann provides two explanations for the difference in sexual practices. "One is that uncircumcised men, a minority in this country, may feel a stigma that inhibits them. Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, leading circumcised men to try a range of sexual activities."[35]

Fink et al. did not find a change in sexual activity with adult circumcision (p=0.22).

O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.[36] A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is circumcised.[37] Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder.[verification needed] The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an uncircumcised partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication.[verification needed] They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.[24]

Cortés-González et al. studied 19 female partners of men scheduled for circumcision. They reported a significant reduction in vaginal lubrication following circumcision, from 78% to 63%, but found no statistically significant differences in "general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal penetration, desire, [or] vaginal orgasm".[38]

Kigozi et al. reported on a prospective study of 455 female partners of men circumcised as part of a randomised trial. 39.8% reported improved sexual satisfaction following circumcision, 57.3% reported no change, and 2.9% reported reduced sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised.[39]

Williamson et al. (1988) studied randomly selected young mothers in Iowa, where most men are circumcised, and found that 76% would prefer a circumcised penis for achieving sexual arousal through viewing it.[40] Wildman and Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the uncircumcised penis).[41] Bailey et al. report that there is a preference by women for circumcised men, mentioning that the circumcised penis enters a woman more easily and is less likely to cause injury to the vagina.[42][verification needed]

Frisch et al. (2011) studied participants in a Danish national health survey, and found that male circumcision was associated "with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."[33]

[Izawwlgood]

You are absolutely picking and choosing from that article, and anyone who bothers to click on the link can plainly see that you are simply selecting the studies that report a difference, while ignoring those that don't.

[nitePhyyre]

You are absolutely picking and choosing from that article, and anyone who bothers to click on the link can plainly see that you are simply selecting the studies that report a difference, while ignoring those that don't.

If you had gone to the article, you probably would have noticed that those are whole paragraphs. Uncut, unedited. So, no. Try again.

[MartianInvader]

Also, what I can't believe is that piercings are still allowed for children under the age of 18. Piercings can become infected and complications can arise, and why we allow parents to mutilate their children this way is beyond me.

Because generally speaking, I'm pro-letting parents decide what's best for their children, not some overseeing government? That so long as the procedure isn't causing detrimental quality of life damage or excessive risk to the child, I don't really give a fuck what it is.

I guess it's a law of the internet that no matter how ridiculous your statements are, someone's sarcasm detector will fail to go off.

So I'll say it more plainly: Do the people arguing for banning circumcision also believe we should ban ear piercings, braces, and corrective cosmetic surgery for children under 18? Because they all have risks and downsides associated to them, and I don't see any real difference. I find banning any of these things ridiculous, and much more on the side of "enforcing a belief system on others" than "protecting people from other belief systems."

[omgryebread]

Negative,

Some recent researchers have asserted that the foreskin may be sexually responsive.[17][18][19][20] Opponents of circumcision have cited these studies, which report on the sensitivity or innervation of the foreskin, claiming a sexual role based upon the presence of nerve-endings in the foreskin sensitive to light touch, stroking and fluttering sensations.

Circumcision removes the ridged band at the end of the foreskin.[19] Taylor (1996) observed that the ridged band had more Meissner's corpuscles — a kind of nerve ending that is concentrated in areas of greatest sensitivity[citation needed] — than the areas of the foreskin with smooth mucus membranes. Taylor postulated that the ridged band is sexually sensitive and plays a role in normal sexual function. He also suggested that the gliding action, possible only when there was enough loose skin on the shaft of the penis, serves to stimulate the ridged band through contact with the corona of the glans penis during vaginal intercourse.[21] This gliding action was also described by Lakshmanan (1980).[22]

Sorrells et al. (2007), in the study discussed above, measured fine-touch pressure thresholds of the penis, and concluded "The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates" (removes) "the most sensitive parts of the penis." According to Sorrells et al., the five penile areas most sensitive to fine-touch are located on the foreskin.[9] This is disputed by Waskett and Morris, who argue that when they re-analyse Sorrells' data, no significant differences are found; that light touch is only one form of sensitivity, and that sexual pleasure may sometimes require less sensitivity. They also criticized Sorrells' recruitment methods.[14] In response, Young criticizes Waskett and Morris's use of the Bonferroni correction and argues that the methods of selecting subjects would not affect the results, that the two most sensitive positions on the circumcised penis represent small areas of circumcision scar, as compared to a much larger area of sensitive tissue on the foreskin, and that sales of sensation-dulling products do not necessarily indicate that such are widely used other than on scar tissue.[15] In 2009, Schober et al reported on self-assessed sexual sensitivity in 81 men, 11 of whom were uncircumcised. When assessing areas producing sexual pleasure, the foreskin was ranked 7th, after the glans, lower and upper shaft, and the left and right sides of the penis, but above the area between scrotum and anus, the scrotum itself, and the anus.[23]

Boyle et al. (2002) argued that circumcision and frenectomy remove tissues with "heightened erogenous sensitivity," stating "the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings—many of which are lost to circumcision."[24] They concluded, "Evidence has also started to accumulate that male circumcision may result in lifelong physical, sexual, and sometimes psychological harm as well."

In a study by Korean researchers of 255 men circumcised after the age of 20 and 18 who were not circumcised, Kim and Pang reported that masturbatory pleasure decreased in 48% of the respondents and increased in 8%. Masturbatory difficulty increased in 63% but was easier in 37%. They concluded that there was a decrease in masturbatory pleasure after circumcision.[32]

Laumann et al. reported that circumcised men in their survey displayed a greater rates of experience of various sexual practices, including oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation.[27] For example, among whites the "estimated ratio of the odds of masturbating at least once a month for circumcised men was 1.76 that for uncircumcised men." Dr. Laumann provides two explanations for the difference in sexual practices. "One is that uncircumcised men, a minority in this country, may feel a stigma that inhibits them. Another is that circumcision reduces sensitivity in the penis, leading circumcised men to try a range of sexual activities."[35]

Fink et al. did not find a change in sexual activity with adult circumcision (p=0.22).

O'Hara and O'Hara argue that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and helping her achieve orgasm more quickly and more often. Without the foreskin's gliding action, they suggest, it can be more difficult for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.[36] A study by psychologists Bensley & Boyle (2003) reported that vaginal dryness can be a problem when the male partner is circumcised.[37] Boyle & Bensley (2001) reported that the lack of a foreskin in the male partner produces symptoms similar to those of female arousal disorder.[verification needed] The authors hypothesized that the gliding action possibly involved intercourse with an uncircumcised partner might help prevent the loss of vaginal lubrication.[verification needed] They stated that the respondents were self-selected, and that larger sample sizes are needed.[24]

Cortés-González et al. studied 19 female partners of men scheduled for circumcision. They reported a significant reduction in vaginal lubrication following circumcision, from 78% to 63%, but found no statistically significant differences in "general sexual satisfaction, pain during vaginal penetration, desire, [or] vaginal orgasm".[38]

Kigozi et al. reported on a prospective study of 455 female partners of men circumcised as part of a randomised trial. 39.8% reported improved sexual satisfaction following circumcision, 57.3% reported no change, and 2.9% reported reduced sexual satisfaction after their partners were circumcised.[39]

Williamson et al. (1988) studied randomly selected young mothers in Iowa, where most men are circumcised, and found that 76% would prefer a circumcised penis for achieving sexual arousal through viewing it.[40] Wildman and Wildman (1976) surveyed 55 young women in Georgia, US, reporting that 47 (89%) of respondents preferred the circumcised penis (the remainder preferred the uncircumcised penis).[41] Bailey et al. report that there is a preference by women for circumcised men, mentioning that the circumcised penis enters a woman more easily and is less likely to cause injury to the vagina.[42][verification needed]

Frisch et al. (2011) studied participants in a Danish national health survey, and found that male circumcision was associated "with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."[33]

Deceptive much? I bolded all the parts that were either a positive, neutral, or inconclusive.

[gmalivuk]

but spending legal and political resources on trying to ban a practice that is massively less harmful than actual abusive behavior is kind of a waste.

So evidently you're also of the expert legal opinion that no effort should be spent changing parking laws or transit fares or street direction or any of another million or so things that laws are made about, despite not preventing actual abusive behavior?

[sparkyb]

If you are against circumcision, then don't have your children circumcised. However, unless you were yourself circumcised without your consent and you now resent it, I don't think your opinion of what potential damage it could do to a person is relevant. Only those who would say they were circumcised against their will have the right to say they are a victim themselves. I don't think anyone has a right to declare victimization for anyone else. And without victims there is no crime.

As someone who was circumcised as an infant and has never had a problem with that, I feel like those who argue against circumcision are trying to make me feel like a victim. Just because I was circumcised before I had a say in it shouldn't rob me of the right to choose it for myself now, which I do. Discussions over the ethics of circumcision always upset me because it feels like people telling me that my parents did some horrible thing to me, and I don't feel that way. I think that's my decision.

Would those who call it barbaric and genital mutilation when parents do it to their children have the same disgust at circumcised adults who chose it for themselves? If so, do you look down on all cosmetic surgery? I accept that it may be unnecessary, but I also don't see conclusive objective negatives. If it is your belief that the fact that it is unnecessary is enough to make it wrong, at least without a child's right to choose, then fine. But there must a way of trying to convince people that they shouldn't have unnecessary procedures performed on their children without vilify everyone who has ever had it done. It isn't done with malice, and most probably thought it was helpful (even if they were misinformed). Comparing it to female genital mutilation is just uncalled-for hyperbole. They are not comparable.

[gmalivuk]

Would those who call it barbaric and genital mutilation when parents do it to their children have the same disgust at circumcised adults who chose it for themselves?

No, of course not, because that's not the actual problem most of us have with infant circumcision.

Kind of like how I don't object to an adult choosing to get plastic surgery, but would do so extremely strongly if parents decided their child needed a "prettier" nose or some shit.

But there must a way of trying to convince people that they shouldn't have unnecessary procedures performed on their children without vilify everyone who has ever had it done.

And there also must be a way to argue against unnecessarily surgically altering your child's genitals without everyone who's had it done feeling like we're vilifying them. But evidently we haven't figured that out here yet.

[Princess Marzipan]

ut there must a way of trying to convince people that they shouldn't have unnecessary procedures performed on their children without vilify everyone who has ever had it done. It isn't done with malice, and most probably thought it was helpful (even if they were misinformed). Comparing it to female genital mutilation is just uncalled-for hyperbole. They are not comparable.

They're both cutting up of genitals; I would say there is ample room to compare the practice.

What about the arguments people are making makes you feel vilified?

[Izawwlgood]

They're both cutting up of genitals; I would say there is ample room to compare the practice.

Except one results in a confirmed negative impact, and the other doesn't. So no, they aren't the same, at least insofar as outcome.

What about the arguments people are making makes you feel vilified?

The most legitimate and conversation worthy side of this discussion, as I see it, is whether or not parents have a right to do things to their children. It's pretty well established that it has no significant positive or negative influence over a males sexual development, and I feel that the constant attempts to paint cut cocks as inferior to uncut cocks is trying and obnoxious.

[Lazar]

Comparing it to female genital mutilation is just uncalled-for hyperbole. They are not comparable.

FGM, as defined by the WHO and relevant statutes, includes procedures as small as clitoridotomy (removal of the clitoral prepuce), which is the direct anatomical equivalent of male circumcision, and is sometimes sought by Western women for medical reasons.

[Princess Marzipan]

They're both cutting up of genitals; I would say there is ample room to compare the practice.

Except one results in a confirmed negative impact, and the other doesn't. So no, they aren't the same, at least insofar as outcome.

But they are both the cutting up of genitals, yes?

and I feel that the constant attempts to paint cut cocks as inferior to uncut cocks is trying and obnoxious.

I don't see that happening here. Where is that happening here?

[Izawwlgood]

FGM, as defined by the WHO and relevant statutes, includes procedures as small as clitoridotomy (removal of the clitoral prepuce), which is the direct anatomical equivalent of male circumcision, and is sometimes sought by Western women for medical reasons.

It is not the direct anatomical equivalent; the equivalent would be removal of the entire head of the penis.
Actually, here, take a look at both of these videos. Mildly NSFW, they are developmental drawings of male and female genitalia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-QghLAxi3U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnuocfRkOz8&NR=1
You can pretty clearly see the clitoris is derived from tissue that similarly derives the entire head of the penis.

But they are both the cutting up of genitals, yes?

Indeed, I'm not disputing that. However, a lobotomy is quite different from severing of the corpus callosum (both in terms of medical necessity and outcome, of course), yet both are 'cutting up of brains'. To say FGM and circumcision are equivalents is incorrect, unless one wants to only consider 'procedures involving genitalia and cutting or removal of tissue'.

I don't see that happening here. Where is that happening here?

You don't see where in this thread people are calling uncircumcised penises inferior to circumcised penises? Inferior, in this context, referring to sexual pleasure, sensed stimulation, and/or 'happiness with one's cock'?

[Lazar]

It is not the direct anatomical equivalent; the equivalent would be removal of the entire head of the penis.

No, you're thinking of clitoridectomy. Clitoridotomy is the removal of the female prepuce (or clitoral hood), which is, unsurprisingly, the equivalent to the male prepuce (or penile foreskin).

[sparkyb]

Would those who call it barbaric and genital mutilation when parents do it to their children have the same disgust at circumcised adults who chose it for themselves?

No, of course not, because that's not the actual problem most of us have with infant circumcision.

Well, yes, that was the answer I was expecting, but I had to put the question in there because my position doesn't stand without it. If you were against circumcision altogether, I'd have nothing to say other than "I disagree".

And if you're only against it for non-consenting children but not adults, if it was done to me as a child, am I still able to chose it for myself as an adult? I'm of the belief that I still can, and I shouldn't be judged any differently than someone who wasn't circumcised until adulthood. Save your sympathy for those who were circumcised at birth and later want to chose to be uncircumcised but can't. While there are a lot of statistics about the percentage of men in the US who are circumcised, I would be much more interested in a study of what percentage regret it. If that number was zero or close to it, would that make this a non-issue?

They're both cutting up of genitals; I would say there is ample room to compare the practice.

Except one results in a confirmed negative impact, and the other doesn't. So no, they aren't the same, at least insofar as outcome.

But they are both the cutting up of genitals, yes?

You are right. I over-spoke by saying they aren't comparable. I just disagree with dishonest comparisons whose goal is to say they are exactly equivalent. I agree with Izawwlgood that if I were to compare them I'd say, they are the same in that both are a cutting of the genitals, and they are different in that one is harmless and was often thought to have a possible health benefit, and the other is a practice whose goal is to intentionally limit female sexual pleasure. So they are different in both motive and outcome.

and I feel that the constant attempts to paint cut cocks as inferior to uncut cocks is trying and obnoxious.

I don't see that happening here. Where is that happening here?

When people refer to circumcision as "genital mutilation", there are connotations that come with the word mutilation. You may mean for the argument to be against parents doing it without the child's permission, but it comes off as a condemnation of circumcision as a whole. Just because you disagree with the choice my parents made now I'm supposed to regard my cock (which I never had a problem with before) as mutilated? This creates for me a non-choice. I can't agree with a stance against circumcision without thinking there's something wrong with me which I don't.

I think an argument that was just "why would you do this to your kids if it isn't necessary and they might later resent it?" would be a lot more compelling to me because I don't have a good answer to that question. I'm not sure if I'd do it to my son or not. But it still puts me in an uncomfortable place where I don't know how to choose to be against it while still supporting my parents choice to have me circumcised. When people cite as a reason to get their baby circumcised "so he'll look like his dad", I agree that that argument makes no sense. But perhaps what people who say that really mean is "to justify my parents' decision to do it to me since I don't regret it." That might not be a good enough argument either, but at least I can understand it.

[Dream]

FGM, as defined by the WHO and relevant statutes, includes procedures as small as clitoridotomy (removal of the clitoral prepuce), which is the direct anatomical equivalent of male circumcision, and is sometimes sought by Western women for medical reasons.

It is not the direct anatomical equivalent; the equivalent would be removal of the entire head of the penis.

Removal of the clitoral hood is the closest possible equivalent of removal of the foreskin. Is it that you disagree with that, or that you don't feel that a girl shipped off to east africa to have her clitoral hood cut off is not undergoing mutilation?

[Izawwlgood]

Perhaps my understanding of what female genital mutilation entails is incorrect: I was under the impression that it meant 'removal of the clitoris'. The wikipedia entry starts with the procedure called a 'clitoridectomy', but continues to address different types of FGM. If you want to call circumcision the equivalent to FGM, you should be specific which type you are referring to.

[Princess Marzipan]

But they are both the cutting up of genitals, yes?

Indeed, I'm not disputing that. However, a lobotomy [...]

I left some words out of my question. (My fault.)

They are both medically unnecessary cutting up of genitals, yes? (I know circumcision often IS medically necessary, but we're discussing cases where parents decide they want it done for non-medical reason x.)

I don't see that happening here. Where is that happening here?

You don't see where in this thread people are calling uncircumcised penises inferior to circumcised penises? Inferior, in this context, referring to sexual pleasure, sensed stimulation, and/or 'happiness with one's cock'?

I see it being discussed as empirically and objectively as possible. I really don't see how you take that and conclude that people are insulting your penis.

And if you're only against it for non-consenting children but not adults, if it was done to me as a child, am I still able to chose it for myself as an adult? I'm of the belief that I still can, and I shouldn't be judged any differently than someone who wasn't circumcised until adulthood. Save your sympathy for those who were circumcised at birth and later want to chose to be uncircumcised but can't. While there are a lot of statistics about the percentage of men in the US who are circumcised, I would be much more interested in a study of what percentage regret it. If that number was zero or close to it, would that make this a non-issue?

NO ONE is trying to tell you how you should feel about your penis. If you're happy with it, awesome. If you'd choose circumcision yourself, great. But...you didn't, and never have.

Just to clarify that it is in fact possible, I am circumcised and have managed to read this thread without feeling like my junk is under attack.

[Izawwlgood]

They are both medically unnecessary cutting up of genitals, yes? (I know circumcision often IS medically necessary, but we're discussing cases where parents decide they want it done for non-medical reason x.)

Certainly, both are purely cosmetic, unnecessary procedures. The difference between the two is quite drastic though, to the point that I feel saying 'both are unnecessary cutting up of genitals' is misleading. One has no net effect, the other has a pretty drastic net effect.

I see it being discussed as empirically and objectively as possible. I really don't see how you take that and conclude that people are insulting your penis.

There is no penis but my penis. My penis is the penis of penises. eseses.
Honestly, if the conversation is going to be 'empirical and objective', it shouldn't include paragraphs that avow no statistical difference, and claim otherwise. It shouldn't rely on anecdotes like 'fallatio is less fun'. But most of these 'empirical and objective' conversations about circumcision rely on cherry picking research studies and deliberately ignoring others. So ya, I'm not seeing a lot of empiricism or objectivity.

[gmalivuk]

The citations generally seem to suggest neutral or negative long-term effects of an unnecessary and painful procedure performed on non-consenting infants. Calling that "no net effect" is rather disingenuous.

And yes, obviously it's not anything like as bad as FGM as generally practiced. But that doesn't magically make it a totally okay thing to do.

[Izawwlgood]

The citations generally seem to suggest neutral or negative long-term effects of an unnecessary and painful procedure performed on non-consenting infants. Calling that "no net effect" is rather disingenuous.

I would disagree with that interpretation of the myriad sources available, especially the wiki entry. They (the various studies) seem to suggest possible positive effects, such as resistance to viral infections and an improvement to hygiene, and non-statistically significant or non-reproducible negative effects, like a reduction of sensation.

[Princess Marzipan]

They are both medically unnecessary cutting up of genitals, yes? (I know circumcision often IS medically necessary, but we're discussing cases where parents decide they want it done for non-medical reason x.)

Certainly, both are purely cosmetic, unnecessary procedures. The difference between the two is quite drastic though, to the point that I feel saying 'both are unnecessary cutting up of genitals' is misleading. One has no net effect, the other has a pretty drastic net effect.

But you agree that "both are unnecessary cutting up of gentials." Since that statement, with which you agree, is a very important part of why many object to imposed circumcision, it's worth mentioning.

Saying that circumcision has no net effect is both irrelevant to its necessity and misleading in its own right. We know there are people for whom sexual pleasure has decreased after they chose to have the procedure. It follows that of those who had the procedure imposed on them, a nontrivial fraction is experiencing less pleasurable sexual activity than they would have without the procedure.

It shouldn't rely on anecdotes like 'fallatio is less fun'. [...] So ya, I'm not seeing a lot of empiricism or objectivity.

I did purposely add the words "as possible" to the end of that claim. We're really not going to get much better than amalgamations of anecdotes as far as actual sexual enjoyment. For whatever reason some people have less fun after. How is that not worth taking into account?

And resistance to infection and improvement to hygiene would seem to be rather easily explained by a circumcised penis simply being easier to wash. That mild convenience to parents early doesn't balance an infant or child's right to not have their genitalia cut up. And while it would make it easier for said child once they start washing themselves, I believe it was put pretty well in an ancient debate on the same topic.

How do you wash your dick?
You just FUCKING WASH YOUR DICK.

When people cite as a reason to get their baby circumcised "so he'll look like his dad", I agree that that argument makes no sense.

So which reasons make sense, which don't, and what exactly determines that?

[tetris]

I think in debates like these there's a tendency for some people to rely overly much on (conflicting) scientific studies, ignoring the evidence of real human pain and unhappiness. There have already been anecdotes regarding people unhappy with choosing circumcision later in life (or at least, admittance of reduced pleasure), and obviously there is a significant amount of people who do feel pain or regret regarding nonconsensual infant circumcision--otherwise, why do you think there would be a movement of people trying to ban nonconsensual circumcision in the first place?

More anecdotes, to balance the ones of people who are happy enough having circumcised penises*:

I used to live with a man who had been circumcised as an infant. This brought him a great deal of pain (mainly from the helplessness of his body being modified without his consent), which he dealt with by writing songs opposing nonconsensual circumcision and writing zines about it.

Closer to home, I was circumcised as an infant. While I am a woman and no longer have a penis**, when I did have it I felt tremendous betrayal that my parents would choose to modify my genitalia in such a way. It made me feel dirty and betrayed--after all, what right did my parents have to alter the way I would experience sex and sexuality later in life? It felt like a horrible imposition of their values onto my body, and an imposition that I could never change.


*Note: I think it's wonderful that y'all are happy with your circumcisions. These anecdotes don't invalidate your feelings, but they do show that not everyone is happy with circumcision being forced upon them.

** An an aside, I feel my case highlights the absurdity of referring to "male genital mutilation" or "female genital mutilation." I am female and my genitals were mutilated, but this was through circumcision, not so-called "FGM". Wouldn't it make more sense to refer to these acts as "penis mutilation" and "clitoral mutilation"?

[Izawwlgood]

But you agree that "both are unnecessary cutting up of gentials." Since that statement, with which you agree, is a very important part of why many object to imposed circumcision, it's worth mentioning.

Right, which is why I said I think the real discussion to be had is 'should parents be allowed to modify their children in non-detrimental ways?'. I don't think it's worth discussing how awful circumcision is, or whether or not we should end this traumatic, life shattering procedure, because it's more or less demonstrably not awful.

For whatever reason some people have less fun after. How is that not worth taking into account?

It's certainly worth taking into account, I just don't think the numbers are high enough to warrant, in and of themselves, a strong argument against circumcision. Again, in the range of things that parents can do that negatively impact a child, I feel that circumcision is very low on the list of 'things to worry about'. Some disagree, and that's fine, I hope they don't feel any pressure to circumcise their child. For whatever it's worth, as a religion hating self-identified 'cultural only Jew', I'm on the fence about whether or not I would circumcise my hypothetical children.
Basically, I see people stating "Circumcision carries a very low risk of complication, and some people, but not a statistically significant group of people, have some vaguely described minor reduction of sensitivity. Ergo, circumcision is barbaric" and I don't feel the argument follows.

And resistance to infection and improvement to hygiene would seem to be rather easily explained by a circumcised penis simply being easier to wash.

Actually, and I'm having trouble finding the article on this, foreskin fibroblasts are commonly used in tissue culture because they are incredibly easy to transfect, more so than other tissue lines. I recall reading, and I'll try and dig this up, that foreskin fibroblasts are very susceptible to viral infection, perhaps explaining the success of certain sexually transmitted infections. It stands to reason, perhaps, that removal of excess foreskin could diminish the likelihood of those infections.
Which has nothing to do with other types of infection, especially in terms of infant care.

I felt tremendous betrayal that my parents would choose to modify my genitalia in such a way.

I can understand that, more so for, people who feel a disconnect or disagreement with the shape of their body in the first place.
To stay with the anecdotes, I knew a guy whose parents were non-practicing Jews, and didn't circumcise him. He found himself drawn to the religion and felt betrayed, 'feeling like he should have been included in the traditions'. He chose to to get circumcised at the age of 14 or 15, and said it was one of the most painful things of his life. So, I dunno, his choice, certainly, but it caused quite a schism in his family for some time.

I think in debates like these there's a tendency for some people to rely overly much on (conflicting) scientific studies, ignoring the evidence of real human pain and unhappiness.

I think when trying to formulate an opinion on the matter one should rely on the data to base an opinion, and contextualize that opinion with anecdotes. Anecdotes are the face of a problem, but they don't provide a very objective perspective on the problem, obfuscating the issue with people's bias. There's a reason huge amounts of money have been allocated to help Panda's breed, but no one gives a fuck about preserving ocean krill.

[Princess Marzipan]

I don't think it's worth discussing how awful circumcision is [...] because it's more or less demonstrably not awful.

I disagree with that statement.

Again, in the range of things that parents can do that negatively impact a child, I feel that circumcision is very low on the list of 'things to worry about'.

Please never make this argument again? It's been demonstrated as worthless in thread after thread about topic after topic.

Basically, I see people stating "Circumcision carries a very low risk of complication, and some people, but not a statistically significant group of people, have some vaguely described minor reduction of sensitivity. Ergo, circumcision is barbaric" and I don't feel the argument follows.

My stance is: "Imposed circumcision is straight up cutting a kid's penis without his consent. How is that possibly a good idea?"

[stuff about STD protection]

Okay, I won't even argue any of that. But I will bet my life's savings on a condom being orders of magnitude more effective than circumcision at preventing STD transmission. ...well, multiple condoms. I doubt the same one retains effectiveness for very long...

[gmalivuk]

My stance is: "Imposed circumcision is straight up cutting a kid's penis without his consent. How is that possibly a good idea?"

Yeah, there's no need to worry about whether the word "barbaric" is really applicable, or whether the anecdotes of people who've had negative consequences from circumcision are significant enough. At the end of the day you are still cutting off a part of your child unnecessarily without any input from said child.