Infant Circumcision

[Izawwlgood]

BattleMoose, you're cherry picking. The whole thing you linked also includes:

Although deaths have been reported,[102][114] the American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000 from circumcision.

That is STRIKINGLY different from 1 in 10,000.

But sure, you want to make a medical argument? Respond to the fact that it's acceptable to remove birthmarks, correct cosmetically crooked teeth, or correct even mild polydactyly.

In your opinion.

Wait, seriously? You're going to use the 'your opinion is wrong' argument, when you've done nothing but present your opinion?

[Tomo]

Wait, seriously? You're going to use the 'your opinion is wrong' argument, when you've done nothing but present your opinion?

No, that was my point. I didn't say that opinion was wrong, just that it was an opinion. One I disagree with, as I have been saying throughout.

[sourmìlk]

In my correct, valid opinion. I backed it up. You cannot ignore my argument and say my point is invalid or irrelevant.

[Tomo]

In my correct, valid opinion. I backed it up. You cannot ignore my argument and say my point is invalid or irrelevant.

I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm saying I believe that a case of even minor risk, while associated with insignificant benefit, is a case for over-ruling parental discretion with regards to a child.

That's my opinion.

[sourmìlk]

In my correct, valid opinion. I backed it up. You cannot ignore my argument and say my point is invalid or irrelevant.

I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm saying I believe that a case of even minor risk, while associated with insignificant benefit, is a case for over-ruling parental discretion with regards to a child.

But how can you say that in light of the argument I provided for the opinion that significant risk is required?

[Izawwlgood]

Tomo, this applies to you too then:

But sure, you want to make a medical argument? Respond to the fact that it's acceptable to remove birthmarks, correct cosmetically crooked teeth, or correct even mild polydactyly.

Circumcision has been shown to have benefits. It has also been shown to have risks. From this we can infer that the risks are going to be talked about in anti-circumcision proponents, and the benefits are going to be talked about by pro-circumcision proponents. If you want to back your opinions up with research, you're going to have to recognize that evidence exists BOTH ways. If you don't want to back your opinions up with anything, at all, then be prepared for some circular fucking arguments.

[BattleMoose]

I have made a number of arguments why its a bad idea, you have nitpicked the medical aspect and thats fine. And I am making a medically argument not to do it, because medical it can be harmful and its morally unacceptable to perform unnecessary medical procedures. Especially if they carry risk.

the risk is not significant enough to override a parents right to discretion over his child, as I explained earlier.

That is just opinion and cannot be argued with. You consider the risk to be acceptable I do not. And again, lets not ignore all the other negative aspects of circumcision that have already been discussed.

"Right to discretion over child?" What is this exactly and where does it come from? Because there are those who argue that male circumcision violates the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

From the Convention of the Rights of the Child, "The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child."

So from my reckoning, best interests of the child trumps parents discretion to do whatever the fuck they want. :-/

[sourmìlk]

I have made a number of arguments why its a bad idea, you have nitpicked the medical aspect and thats fine. And I am making a medically argument not to do it, because medical it can be harmful and its morally unacceptable to perform unnecessary medical procedures. Especially if they carry risk.

the risk is not significant enough to override a parents right to discretion over his child, as I explained earlier.

That is just opinion and cannot be argued with. You consider the risk to be acceptable I do not.

I made an argument for why the risk is acceptable. Do you have an argument for why you do not, or are you going to assert it?

And again, lets not ignore all the other negative aspects of circumcision that have already been discussed.

"Right to discretion over child?" What is this exactly and where does it come from? Because there are those who argue that male circumcision violates the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

From the Convention of the Rights of the Child, "The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that states act in the best interests of the child."

So from my reckoning, best interests of the child trumps parents discretion to do whatever the fuck they want. :-/

That passage didn't mention parental discretion, it mentioned the state's discretion. I agree that states should need to act in ways specifically beneficial to a child. Parents have more freedom than that, and they should.

[Izawwlgood]

So from my reckoning, best interests of the child trumps parents discretion to do whatever the fuck they want. :-/

This is an opinion, and by classic definitions of parenting, is incorrect. The interests of the child are often to be wholly ignored. As pointed out in the previous circumcision thread, it is perfectly acceptable to CAGE YOUR CHILD in an effort to prevent them from harming themselves. Lets not mince words here: Parents have complete and utter discretion of their child. So long as what they do to that child does not harm it, they can do whatever they want.

And seriously, circumcision is what you're going to get bent out of shape over? You want to talk about damaging shit done to children and focus on circumcision?

[BattleMoose]

BattleMoose, you're cherry picking. The whole thing you linked also includes:

Although deaths have been reported,[102][114] the American Academy of Family Physicians states that death is rare, and cites an estimated death rate of 1 infant in 500,000 from circumcision.

That is STRIKINGLY different from 1 in 10,000.

But sure, you want to make a medical argument? Respond to the fact that it's acceptable to remove birthmarks, correct cosmetically crooked teeth, or correct even mild polydactyly.

In your opinion.

Wait, seriously? You're going to use the 'your opinion is wrong' argument, when you've done nothing but present your opinion?

Hey so there is disagreement about the risks, shocking. As I mentioned before it is not so much about the actual quantification of the risks but the fact that risks are being taken for no gain and thats always a bad move. If theres a coin that if you flip it, theres a chance 1 in a billion that your child will die, why would you ever flip it? And lets not ignore all the other negatives associated with circumcision, the argument against circumcision is not just about the medical risks, it is a part of the argument against it. Further, the risk of non lethal complications are more likely and again, why take the risk, its nonsensical.

But sure, you want to make a medical argument? Respond to the fact that it's acceptable to remove birthmarks, correct cosmetically crooked teeth, or correct even mild polydactyly.

There are real benefits for the child to perform these procedures. You will find no argument from me for these procedures.

[yurell]

And seriously, circumcision is what you're going to get bent out of shape over? You want to talk about damaging shit done to children and focus on circumcision?

Because there are great wrongs we should ignore 'little' ones?

[sourmìlk]

Hey so there is disagreement about the risks, shocking. As I mentioned before it is not so much about the actual quantification of the risks but the fact that risks are being taken for no gain and thats always a bad move. If theres a coin that if you flip it, theres a chance 1 in a billion that your child will die, why would you ever flip it?

It depends on what happens if it comes up heads.

And lets not ignore all the other negatives associated with circumcision, the argument against circumcision is not just about the medical risks, it is a part of the argument against it. Further, the risk of non lethal complications are more likely and again, why take the risk, its nonsensical.

Yeah, I personally find the rights argument more convincing than the medical argument.

But sure, you want to make a medical argument? Respond to the fact that it's acceptable to remove birthmarks, correct cosmetically crooked teeth, or correct even mild polydactyly.

There are real benefits for the child to perform these procedures. You will find no argument from me for these procedures.

What benefits exist that do not exist in circumcision for, say, birthmarks and mild polydactyly?

Because there are great wrongs we should ignore 'little' ones?

Seeing as we have a finite amount of time, yes, we should prioritize. That said, I'm so bad at focusing on the big picture there is no way in hell I'm going to be criticizing somebody for not doing that.

[Izawwlgood]

Because there are great wrongs we should ignore 'little' ones?

No, obviously if something is amiss we should fix it. But I don't consider this to be an injustice worthy of our troubles, when parents are still resorting to the power of prayer, or even worse, teaching their kids to trust in the power of prayer. There's so much shit out there that parents do to completely, legally, fuck over their children, that I find focusing on circumcision to be neigh on the definition of 'time waster'.

for no gain

There are a number of gains. One is the cosmetic change of making your child look the way you want it to. Another is the slight health benefits. The third, and obvious one, is the cultural/ceremonial aspect. That you are focusing on the 'no gains' or 'higher risk' side of things shows you're picking a side, a side in an argument with, as you said, conflicting positions.

There are real benefits for the child to perform these [port wine birthmark removal, orthodontics, and polydactyly correction] procedures. You will find no argument from me for these procedures.

No, there aren't. Port wine stain birthmarks are cosmetic birthmarks, with at worst, slight, minor health risks associated with the surrounding tissue. I personally had crooked teeth that were straightened with braces for cosmetic reasons. I went to college with a dude who had polydactyly of two or three of his toes (minor webbing). Having minor polydactyly corrected is PURELY cosmetic.

[BattleMoose]

So from my reckoning, best interests of the child trumps parents discretion to do whatever the fuck they want. :-/

This is an opinion, and by classic definitions of parenting, is incorrect. The interests of the child are often to be wholly ignored. As pointed out in the previous circumcision thread, it is perfectly acceptable to CAGE YOUR CHILD in an effort to prevent them from harming themselves. Lets not mince words here: Parents have complete and utter discretion of their child. So long as what they do to that child does not harm it, they can do whatever they want.

Do you not get how human rights work? They are inalienable and fundamental and cannot be abused just because a parent wants to do something. It is certainly not just an opinion it is based in Internationally recognized treaties!

Male circumcision is often not in the best interest of the child and many certainly consider it as harmful.

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

And seriously, circumcision is what you're going to get bent out of shape over? You want to talk about damaging shit done to children and focus on circumcision?

Its a thread about circumcision, I am going to talk about circumcision. I think we all generally agree that doing damaging shit to children is bad, there is no discussion there, but there is here, because some people think male circumcision constitutes bad damaging shit and others don't.

So seriously, are you complaining that I am arguing about circumcision in a thread started to argue about male circumcision?

[Izawwlgood]

Do you not get how human rights work? They are inalienable and fundamental and cannot be abused just because a parent wants to do something. It is certainly not just an opinion it is based in Internationally recognized treaties!

And children are not individuals with full rights. Especially not infants. Infants are entities to be cared for, not members of society whose opinions should be weighed.

Male circumcision is often not in the best interest of the child and many certainly consider it as harmful.

Yes, but as we've been over, this is a contested statement. Male circumcision may be a completely acceptable risk to put a child through given the low rate of complications and minimal to zero long term effects, and many consider it completely neutral. So... Cool, impasse?

Its a thread about circumcision, I am going to talk about circumcision. I think we all generally agree that doing damaging shit to children is bad, there is no discussion there, but there is here, because some people think male circumcision constitutes bad damaging shit and others don't. So seriously, are you complaining that I am arguing about circumcision in a thread started to argue about male circumcision?

No, I'm not complaining that people are talking about it, I'm complaining that a third thread was started on it, with the intent of rehashing the entirety of arguments already made. But yes, apologies for giving you specifically guff for discussing the topic in the thread, that wasn't fair of me.

[yurell]

No, obviously if something is amiss we should fix it. But I don't consider this to be an injustice worthy of our troubles, when parents are still resorting to the power of prayer, or even worse, teaching their kids to trust in the power of prayer. There's so much shit out there that parents do to completely, legally, fuck over their children, that I find focusing on circumcision to be neigh on the definition of 'time waster'.

But for those who do have issue with circumcision and have it inflicted upon them, it is literally as life-destroying as rape. I agree that there are a great deal of other things that need to be addressed, perhaps more urgently, but with that said it doesn't change the fact that I'm against modifying someone else's body without their permission unless there's considerable risk in the case of not doing so.
Perhaps others disagree (e.g. Sourmilk's view of children as property), but it's a very strong moral principle for me.

[Tomo]

But for those who do have issue with circumcision and have it inflicted upon them, it is literally as life-destroying as rape. I agree that there are a great deal of other things that need to be addressed, perhaps more urgently, but with that said it doesn't change the fact that I'm against modifying someone else's body without their permission unless there's considerable risk in the case of not doing so.
Perhaps others disagree (e.g. Sourmilk's view of children as property), but it's a very strong moral principle for me.

I agree completely with this post.

In addition, I'm still failing to see a benefit of circumcision at all? Aesthetics are something that should be left up to the individual to decide, STDs aren't an issue until after the age where the individual can be allowed to consent anyway. Could someone explain to me what exactly are the benefits of circumcision?

[BattleMoose]

for no gain

There are a number of gains. One is the cosmetic change of making your child look the way you want it to. Another is the slight health benefits. The third, and obvious one, is the cultural/ceremonial aspect. That you are focusing on the 'no gains' or 'higher risk' side of things shows you're picking a side, a side in an argument with, as you said, conflicting positions.

Firstly, I am looking at this purely from the perspective of the child.

So first benefit aesthetics:

Aesthetics to a baby mean absolutely nothing to a baby and to make the baby more aesthetically pleasing for the parent is inappropriate to perform the procedure. If aesthetics do become important later in life, then that guy can go and get circumcised. And the parents are essentially guessing that the child wants to be circumcised, they could be wrong, or they are just doing it for themselves.

So aesthetics, if its important to the child, do it later, with consent.

Second benefit, slight health benefits:

Learn to bathe, thats it, seriously, bathe.

Third benefit: cultural/ceremonial aspect

This is actually the only one I am willing to give ground on. For a Jewish kid, not getting circumcised would cause issues and I would consider this falling within 'best interests of the child' although I am generally very anti all religion I really don't like how this would essentially be pandering to religion.

There are real benefits for the child to perform these [port wine birthmark removal, orthodontics, and polydactyly correction] procedures. You will find no argument from me for these procedures.

No, there aren't. Port wine stain birthmarks are cosmetic birthmarks, with at worst, slight, minor health risks associated with the surrounding tissue. I personally had crooked teeth that were straightened with braces for cosmetic reasons. I went to college with a dude who had polydactyly of two or three of his toes (minor webbing). Having minor polydactyly corrected is PURELY cosmetic.

Aesthetics matter, medically they may pose no medical issue, but aesthetics do matter to quality of life, and I would consider doing these procedures in the best interest of the child. I would not argue against them.

[sourmìlk]

But for those who do have issue with circumcision and have it inflicted upon them, it is literally as life-destroying as rape.

First, the incidence of this is extremely low. Second, it would have to be shown that the supposed life-destruction is, in fact, the result of circumcision and not an expression of a larger mental problem. And third, [citation needed].

Perhaps others disagree (e.g. Sourmilk's view of children as property), but it's a very strong moral principle for me.

I don't view children as property. With property, you can do whatever you'd like with it, whether it harms the property or not. Property has no rights. Children have some.

And by the way, none of you have provided arguments for why your standards for overriding parental discretion are reasonable.

[Tomo]

Aesthetics to a baby mean absolutely nothing to a baby and to make the baby more aesthetically pleasing for the parent is inappropriate to perform the procedure. If aesthetics do become important later in life, then that guy can go and get circumcised. And the parents are essentially guessing that the child wants to be circumcised, they could be wrong, or they are just doing it for themselves.

So aesthetics, if its important to the child, do it later, with consent.

It's also worth noting that this is hugely culture dependent. Outside of the US, cut is generally viewed as being much uglier.

[Izawwlgood]

Aesthetics matter, medically they may pose no medical issue, but aesthetics do matter to quality of life, and I would consider doing these procedures in the best interest of the child. I would not argue against them.

I find it interesting that you would acknowledge having no argument against some cosmetic changes to a child, but objecting, specifically to circumcision, which you also acknowledge as having a significant cosmetic component. To me, this is the crux of the entire debate: people finding issue specifically with one type of change but not others. If you hold that altering a child for cosmetic reasons is unacceptable (a valid stance to take!), then be consistent. If you hold that those procedures are acceptable, then you have to accept that all cosmetic procedures on children are acceptable.
If you put some purely cosmetic procedures on the 'ok' list, and some on the 'not ok' list, then I fear again, we're at an impasse. A baby doesn't really denote a different between birthmark removal or foreskin removal or webbing removal either.

Second benefit, slight health benefits:

Actually, there's ample evidence that eliminating foreskin reduces the amount of tissue that is susceptible to viral infections, reducing the chances of transmission. This is, of course, sort of moot unless you live somewhere where protection is in low supply and viral infections are high, and you will still be having sex.

It's also worth noting that this is hugely culture dependent. Outside of the US, cut is generally viewed as being much uglier.

Excuse me if I pull a citation needed.

[sourmìlk]

I doubt you'd find that circumcision is unattractive in the middle east and other muslim countries.

[Izawwlgood]

Here, Tomo, to show you you're wrong about the prevalence of circumcision being a US only thing.

[Tomo]

Actually, there's ample evidence that eliminating foreskin reduces the amount of tissue that is susceptible to viral infections, reducing the chances of transmission. This is, of course, sort of moot unless you live somewhere where protection is in low supply and viral infections are high, and you will still be having sex.

Again, this is a moot point, assuming individuals could consent to their own circumcision at the same age at which they could consent to sex.

RE. aesthetics, I should probably have said Europe, not outside of the US. I was looking for a citation, but it's somewhat of a difficult topic to search for. I'll get back to you.

Edit on that:

Here, Tomo, to show you you're wrong about the prevalence of circumcision being a US only thing.

Yeah my bad, I was comparing America to Europe as those are the countries I find most heavily represented on this forum, and that I have the most experience with. Still, the map on that page shows a pretty large difference in circumcision rates between US/Africa and the EU/China. I still can't find a reference that cut/uncut is more or less culturally acceptible in each area, but it's not a stretch to assume people prefer that which they're used to, and that's definitely been my experience. I'll try to reference more thouroughly next time.

[sourmìlk]

Actually, there's ample evidence that eliminating foreskin reduces the amount of tissue that is susceptible to viral infections, reducing the chances of transmission. This is, of course, sort of moot unless you live somewhere where protection is in low supply and viral infections are high, and you will still be having sex.

Again, this is a moot point, assuming individuals could consent to their own circumcision at the same age at which they could consent to sex.

People often start having sex as minors, I'm told. I don't think minors can agree to go into elective surgery without parental consent.

[BattleMoose]

Aesthetics matter, medically they may pose no medical issue, but aesthetics do matter to quality of life, and I would consider doing these procedures in the best interest of the child. I would not argue against them.

I find it interesting that you would acknowledge having no argument against some cosmetic changes to a child, but objecting, specifically to circumcision, which you also acknowledge as having a significant cosmetic component. To me, this is the crux of the entire debate: people finding issue specifically with one type of change but not others. If you hold that altering a child for cosmetic reasons is unacceptable (a valid stance to take!), then be consistent. If you hold that those procedures are acceptable, then you have to accept that all cosmetic procedures on children are acceptable.

I was very thorough in my first post to cover all the issues relating to circumcision, and went with the discussion that we now reach this point, where my position has been confused because we have been so focusing on certain issues.

I support the notion of essentially correcting aesthetic issues at birth, as which have been listed already. I consider such things as being in the best interest of the child and I expect that all children who have undergone such procedures to be happy or at least indifferent that these procedures were performed.

It is very wrong to assume that circumcision is a positive aesthetic change. It is an aesthetic change but often not considered a positive one. However, aesthetics is not the only issue.


Everything that has been said about sensitivity loss.
Feelings of being violated, a permanent change forced on your body by your parents.
Potential sexual partners having strong feelings about circumcision, one way or the other.

[sourmìlk]

Please, stop bringing up the supposed loss of sensitivity and feelings of being violated and such: we have a few anecdotes, but the evidence is totally inconclusive to show that this is a problem. You may as well be saying that cell phones cause cancer (before the very recent studies came out). Sure, there are reports of data seeming to suggest that, and while data didn't explicitly rule it out, it wasn't really a valid concern.

[Izawwlgood]

I still can't find a reference that cut/uncut is more or less culturally acceptible in each area, but it's not a stretch to assume people prefer that which they're used to, and that's definitely been my experience

This argument suggests that continuing to circumcise because it now a cultural norm is acceptable. If aesthetically modifying a child to 'what we're all used to' is acceptable, as in the case with straight teeth (definitely an American aesthetic), or removing birthmarks, then I don't see what makes circumcision much different. It's a dick, so, clearly everything that happens to it is worse than, say, a face, hands/feet, or anywhere else a birthmark can be.

If your kid had a birthmark on their face/body/arm/genitalia, would you have it removed? If your kid had crooked teeth, would you force them into orthodontics? Imagine also, if you will, that teeth in America may be a strong indicator of success, and having straight, white teeth is a powerful strong variable in opportunities available to someone. This if anything suggests that some cosmetic surgeries, possibly even including circumcision, carry with them cultural value beyond the physical effect.
@BattleMoose: oh, you're only talking about detrimental physical effects? We already went over those; the 'negative effects' are not equivalents and the risks are small.

It is very wrong to assume that circumcision is a positive aesthetic change. It is an aesthetic change but often not considered a positive one. However, aesthetics is not the only issue.

But that's just the point; if aesthetic changes are kosher in the name of ''making child fit an ideal", than the ideal is set by arbitrary standards. Those standards, while arbitrary, exist, so this works both ways; it both means that what is aesthetically pleasing to one person may be unappealing to another, and it also means that changing people to fit an aesthetic is an acceptable thing to do to a child (again, so long as there is no detrimental physical side effects).

The data on loss of sensation is in ADULTS who have been circumcised. This is not a valid comparison, because obviously something has changed; they have undergone surgery in their memorable past. If you could compare sensitivity of individuals circumcised from birth vs uncircumcised individuals, it would be an acceptable comparison. No such study exists.

[sourmìlk]

That's not entirely true, Izawwlgood. I know of at least one study that I quoted from wikipedia which states that circumcised men have slightly less disfunction and more varied sex lives. But that alone shouldn't be taken to be conclusive.

[yurell]

The data on loss of sensation is in ADULTS who have been circumcised. This is not a valid comparison, because obviously something has changed; they have undergone surgery in their memorable past. If you could compare sensitivity of individuals circumcised from birth vs uncircumcised individuals, it would be an acceptable comparison. No such study exists.

But that's the problem — people cannot know how someone else feels. I can't compare what, say an orgasm feels like to me to what it feels like to you. The only people in the position to make a comparison are those who have experience of sexual interactions before and after circumcision. All we know is that sensitive nerve endings are definitely removed, and others are exposed to constant stimulation. We can suggest that there is a loss of sensation (this would seem to follow from loss of nerve endings, but apparently this is contested), and we have the word of those who are in a position to compare, as well as some studies showing that the me last longer on average once they've been circumcised (presuming on average the same total amount of pleasure required for orgasm, this would seem to indicate that they get the pleasure at a lesser rate, although that is pure conjecture) but apparently those aren't enough.

In lieu of some mind-reading device, what would you require as evidence for loss of sensation?

[sourmìlk]

But that's the problem — people cannot know how someone else feels. I can't compare what, say an orgasm feels like to me to what it feels like to you.

This kind of proves our point about a loss of sensitivity. If it is unfalsifiable that there is less sensitivity in circumcised men than in uncircumcised men, you cannot make an argument based on lost sensitivity. Thus we assume the null hypothesis, i.e. no effect.

[BattleMoose]

If your kid had a birthmark on their face/body/arm/genitalia, would you have it removed? If your kid had crooked teeth, would you force them into orthodontics? Imagine also, if you will, that teeth in America may be a strong indicator of success, and having straight, white teeth is a powerful strong variable in opportunities available to someone. This if anything suggests that some cosmetic surgeries, possibly even including circumcision, carry with them cultural value beyond the physical effect.
@BattleMoose: oh, you're only talking about detrimental physical effects? We already went over those; the 'negative effects' are not equivalents and the risks are small.

I know, thats why I support procedures that may be purely aesthetic in nature.

It is very wrong to assume that circumcision is a positive aesthetic change. It is an aesthetic change but often not considered a positive one. However, aesthetics is not the only issue.

But that's just the point; if aesthetic changes are kosher in the name of ''making child fit an ideal", than the ideal is set by arbitrary standards. Those standards, while arbitrary, exist, so this works both ways; it both means that what is aesthetically pleasing to one person may be unappealing to another, and it also means that changing people to fit an aesthetic is an acceptable thing to do to a child (again, so long as there is no detrimental physical side effects).

Supporting teeth straightening is something I support, for example, I had my teeth straightened and this was good, if not painful and unpleasant but the gains were certainly worth it. And the main point is that everyone has a universal idea of what good teeth look like, teeth should be straight, people should not have birth marks and peoples feet should not be webbed, these attitudes are for perhaps very few exceptions are universal.

The opinions regarding penises are much more varied, one cannot I think, make an assertion that cut is aesthetically better than not or otherwise. In the absence of a universal idea of what a penis should look like, meddling with its aesthetics is not something I can support.


On sensitivity for Izawwlgood and Sourmilk:

The quantified scientific data on sensitivity of penises and circumcision is certainly lacking. As mentioned before the only penis most men are familiar with is their own, clearly there is a lack of reference for comparison. Asking questions about sensitivity changes are unlikely to yield useful data and making the assumption that adult circumcision behaves the same way on sensitivity as does infant is an assumption that should not be made. We don't have quantified data of what 18 years of uncovered penis head does to its sensitivity. In this absence of data, caution is advised.

Further, it is the responsibility of those in favor of circumcision to demonstrate that it has no effect on sensitivity. Continuing despite the lack of data is inappropriate.

For the most part anecdotal evidence is largely what we have to go on and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a loss of sensitivity relating to male circumcision. Now we can dismiss anecdotal evidence if we have quantified data but we don't so we can't. We should also not just accept anecdotal evidence either but we should certainly be open to it and investigate further. Now there is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong link but I cannot make the assertion that male infant circumcision effects sensitivity.

Further, no one here can make the assertion that male infant circumcision doesn't effect sensitivity either.

Please, stop bringing up the supposed loss of sensitivity and feelings of being violated and such: we have a few anecdotes, but the evidence is totally inconclusive to show that this is a problem.

No, they are issues and they will be brought up.

Also, there are people who do feel violated about involuntary circumcision or are just angry that they were, they are real and not hard to find and are certainly not anecdotal.

[BattleMoose]

But that's the problem — people cannot know how someone else feels. I can't compare what, say an orgasm feels like to me to what it feels like to you.

This kind of proves our point about a loss of sensitivity. If it is unfalsifiable that there is less sensitivity in circumcised men than in uncircumcised men, you cannot make an argument based on lost sensitivity. Thus we assume the null hypothesis, i.e. no effect.

But it is falsifiable. Take a huge sample of males, touch their penises in different ways and get qualified descriptions of sensations and we will get our answer. Welcome to the social sciences.

[sourmìlk]

Further, it is the responsibility of those in favor of circumcision to demonstrate that it has no effect on sensitivity. Continuing despite the lack of data is inappropriate.

Wrong. I've explained about twice that the burden of proof is on the person wanting to override parental discretion. This would be correct to recommend it as a medical procedure, but we're not making an argument about whether it's medically beneficial.

For the most part anecdotal evidence is largely what we have to go on and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a loss of sensitivity relating to male circumcision. Now we can dismiss anecdotal evidence if we have quantified data but we don't so we can't. We should also not just accept anecdotal evidence either but we should certainly be open to it and investigate further. Now there is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong link but I cannot make the assertion that male infant circumcision effects sensitivity.

Anecdotal evidence is equally unclear. I have heard both anecdotes of people saying they lost sensitivity after circumcision and people saying they have gained sensitivity. We do have data, but it's contradictory.

No, they are issues and they will be brought up.

They've been dismissed as irrelevant, is my point.

Also, there are people who do feel violated about involuntary circumcision or are just angry that they were, they are real and not hard to find and are certainly not anecdotal.

Er... yes they are? Unless you have a study showing what percentage of males feel exactly what ways about their circumcision.

But it is falsifiable. Take a huge sample of males, touch their penises in different ways and get qualified descriptions of sensations and we will get our answer. Welcome to the social sciences.

With that method, we have contradictory data. There are studies suggesting both that circumcised males have better sex and others suggesting that they have worse.

[Izawwlgood]

In lieu of some mind-reading device, what would you require as evidence for loss of sensation?

SCIENCE! I recall reading about a device that is placed over the penile shaft, that effectively monitors blood flow. I'm (quite reasonably I think) forgetting the name of this device or the metric it uses for measuring arousal, but, given the incredibly varied thing that is the human sexual experience, I don't think that would be an easy study, even comparing arousal response due to touch in blindfolded (shit half of them are already aroused) men.

The things you have listed previously are not acceptable (in my opinion) metrics of detrimental side effects; they are examples of someone describing a change in sensation after surgery. It's akin to someone who has a bone spur removed, and noting that they have changed sensation at the point of surgery; of course they do, they had surgery. If the surgery occurs prior to a child's memory, and prior to the developments of sexual associations/memories/context, then things will still develop 'normally'. It becomes, in effect, a wash.

The opinions regarding penises are much more varied, one cannot I think, make an assertion that cut is aesthetically better than not or otherwise. In the absence of a universal idea of what a penis should look like, meddling with its aesthetics is not something I can support.

Do you not find it curious then that 'modifying aesthetics that you are comfortable with' is ok, but 'modifying aesthetics you are not comfortable with' isn't? Ostensibly, who are you to define those aesthetics? Now, don't get me wrong, in the absence of an opinion one way or the other, or even an opinion against circumcision, I would certainly advocate for NOT circumcising. I'm not trying to suggest that we circumcise ALL the penises; I'm suggesting that in the absence of detrimental side effect, let the parents decide, based on what they prefer, or, what society prefers (I'm less comfortable with the latter).

Further, it is the responsibility of those in favor of circumcision to demonstrate that it has no effect on sensitivity. Continuing despite the lack of data is inappropriate.

I think the opposite: here we have a procedure that has been performed on an incredibly wide cross section of the human male population, with very, very low risk of complication and continued rate of normal physical performance, and you are claiming that it produces adverse side effects, side effects that you cannot support because of, at your own admission, the data doesn't exist. Again, if the data existed to prove that there is a significant loss in function or sensitivity, then I would change my stance on circumcision to be consistent with my outlook. For example, Feet Binding is a practice that while bearing positive aesthetic and cultural attributes, has a clear and obvious negative impact on the physical quality of life for those who undergo the procedure. As such, I would never in a million years support someone wanting to perform the procedure on their child.

[BattleMoose]

Further, it is the responsibility of those in favor of circumcision to demonstrate that it has no effect on sensitivity. Continuing despite the lack of data is inappropriate.

Wrong. I've explained about twice that the burden of proof is on the person wanting to override parental discretion. This would be correct to recommend it as a medical procedure, but we're not making an argument about whether it's medically beneficial.

And as I have explained, with reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child holds the best interest of the child as being paramount and if there is an issue regarding potential harm, it is incumbent on those performing the action to show that no harm is being caused.

For the most part anecdotal evidence is largely what we have to go on and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a loss of sensitivity relating to male circumcision. Now we can dismiss anecdotal evidence if we have quantified data but we don't so we can't. We should also not just accept anecdotal evidence either but we should certainly be open to it and investigate further. Now there is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong link but I cannot make the assertion that male infant circumcision effects sensitivity.

Anecdotal evidence is equally unclear. I have heard both anecdotes of people saying they lost sensitivity after circumcision and people saying they have gained sensitivity. We do have data, but it's contradictory.[/quote]

This is only relevant to adult circumcision, which is not the issue.

No, they are issues and they will be brought up.

They've been dismissed as irrelevant, is my point.

No, you have dismissed them, inappropriately I might add.

Also, there are people who do feel violated about involuntary circumcision or are just angry that they were, they are real and not hard to find and are certainly not anecdotal.

Er... yes they are? Unless you have a study showing what percentage of males feel exactly what ways about their circumcision.[/quote]

I am arguing that there is the potential to do harm. One such individual is enough to demonstrate that harm can be caused. You are now entering the mirky grey area where you are willing to accept a low possibility to cause harm, I won't go there, not without consent.

But it is falsifiable. Take a huge sample of males, touch their penises in different ways and get qualified descriptions of sensations and we will get our answer. Welcome to the social sciences.

With that method, we have contradictory data. There are studies suggesting both that circumcised males have better sex and others suggesting that they have worse.[/quote]

This is actually not about the quality of sex being achieved, but about sensitivity. And if there is contradictory data, the response is bigger sample, always a bigger sample until we hit statistical significance or no trend.

Also, can you please list these studies being linked, I actually couldn't find any on google scholar relating sensitivity to circumcision, albeit not looking very hard.

[BattleMoose]

Further, it is the responsibility of those in favor of circumcision to demonstrate that it has no effect on sensitivity. Continuing despite the lack of data is inappropriate.

Wrong. I've explained about twice that the burden of proof is on the person wanting to override parental discretion. This would be correct to recommend it as a medical procedure, but we're not making an argument about whether it's medically beneficial.

And as I have explained, with reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child holds the best interest of the child as being paramount and if there is an issue regarding potential harm, it is incumbent on those performing the action to show that no harm is being caused.

For the most part anecdotal evidence is largely what we have to go on and a lot of anecdotal evidence suggests that there is a loss of sensitivity relating to male circumcision. Now we can dismiss anecdotal evidence if we have quantified data but we don't so we can't. We should also not just accept anecdotal evidence either but we should certainly be open to it and investigate further. Now there is no doubt in my mind that there is a strong link but I cannot make the assertion that male infant circumcision effects sensitivity.

Anecdotal evidence is equally unclear. I have heard both anecdotes of people saying they lost sensitivity after circumcision and people saying they have gained sensitivity. We do have data, but it's contradictory.

This is only relevant to adult circumcision, which is not the issue.

No, they are issues and they will be brought up.

They've been dismissed as irrelevant, is my point.

No, you have dismissed them, inappropriately I might add.

Also, there are people who do feel violated about involuntary circumcision or are just angry that they were, they are real and not hard to find and are certainly not anecdotal.

Er... yes they are? Unless you have a study showing what percentage of males feel exactly what ways about their circumcision.

I am arguing that there is the potential to do harm. One such individual is enough to demonstrate that harm can be caused. You are now entering the mirky grey area where you are willing to accept a low possibility to cause harm, I won't go there, not without consent.

But it is falsifiable. Take a huge sample of males, touch their penises in different ways and get qualified descriptions of sensations and we will get our answer. Welcome to the social sciences.

With that method, we have contradictory data. There are studies suggesting both that circumcised males have better sex and others suggesting that they have worse.

This is actually not about the quality of sex being achieved, but about sensitivity. And if there is contradictory data, the response is bigger sample, always a bigger sample until we hit statistical significance or no trend.

Also, can you please list these studies being linked, I actually couldn't find any on google scholar relating sensitivity to circumcision, albeit not looking very hard.

[sourmìlk]

And as I have explained, with reference to the Convention on the Rights of the Child holds the best interest of the child as being paramount and if there is an issue regarding potential harm, it is incumbent on those performing the action to show that no harm is being caused.

It only holds the government to that standard, not the parents.

This is only relevant to adult circumcision, which is not the issue.

Right, I'm not trying to make an argument for or against infantile circumcision with that.

I am arguing that there is the potential to do harm. One such individual is enough to demonstrate that harm can be caused. You are now entering the mirky grey area where you are willing to accept a low possibility to cause harm, I won't go there, not without consent.

Well okay, anecdotes often function as existence proofs (sort of), but I've already said that you need to show a significant probability for harm before overriding parental discretion, and I've explained that. Nobody has approached that argument, despite the fact that all of your points hinge on it.

This is actually not about the quality of sex being achieved, but about sensitivity. And if there is contradictory data, the response is bigger sample, always a bigger sample until we hit statistical significance or no trend.

I'm not quite sure I understand the difference, not having had sex, but whatever.

Also, can you please list these studies being linked, I actually couldn't find any on google scholar relating sensitivity to circumcision, albeit not looking very hard.

From wikipedia:

The American Academy of Pediatrics points to a survey (self-report) finding circumcised adult men had less sexual dysfunction and more varied sexual practices, but also noted anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males.[26]

In January 2007, The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) stated "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown. Because the epithelium of a circumcised glans becomes cornified, and because some feel nerve over-stimulation leads to desensitization, many believe that the glans of a circumcised penis is less sensitive. [. . .] No valid evidence to date, however, supports the notion that being circumcised affects sexual sensation or satisfaction."

Payne et al. reported that direct measurement of penile sensation in the shaft and glans during sexual arousal failed to support the hypothesised sensory differences associated with circumcision status.

There are a few studies listed contradicting those, but I assume you're aware of them.

[Copper Bezel]

I find it interesting that you would acknowledge having no argument against some cosmetic changes to a child, but objecting, specifically to circumcision, which you also acknowledge as having a significant cosmetic component. To me, this is the crux of the entire debate: people finding issue specifically with one type of change but not others. If you hold that altering a child for cosmetic reasons is unacceptable (a valid stance to take!), then be consistent. If you hold that those procedures are acceptable, then you have to accept that all cosmetic procedures on children are acceptable.
If you put some purely cosmetic procedures on the 'ok' list, and some on the 'not ok' list, then I fear again, we're at an impasse. A baby doesn't really denote a different between birthmark removal or foreskin removal or webbing removal either.

It's old, it's cultural, and it removes an actual, feeling component of the body. Objectively, i agree that it's not much different from your examples of braces or birthmark removal, and certainly polydactyly surgery. Subjectively, however, I associate those things with an attempt to correct "errors" in variation from an idealized "natural" human form. They're cultural trends that are consistent with a worldview that's less than a century old. Circumcision reflects the kind of worldview that foot-binding does, even if it doesn't have the same adverse effects, so it seems like something we should have been and done with by now. While I agree with your earlier comments on its insignificance as a form of poor parenting or abuse, it's more iconic than most; it is mutilation, and it's just terribly weird that we still allow it.

It's also not universal enough to constitute "the" norm, and even if it were, it would be an odd bit of cultural inertia, only being done because it's been done. Ultimately, I'd like to live in a world where we got past all of it and accepted that no one way of looking is any more perfect than any other. Accepting that I don't, I'm going to be more supportive of the (however slightly) less regressive worldview offered.

I don't think I would support banning the practice, but I also wouldn't support perpetuating the sensibility that it's somehow acceptable.

Some elective surgeries are of course more effective at an earlier stage of development, and I understand that; the growing body can heal in ways that a mature one can't. Those are decisions that have to be made at that stage, so it's impossible for the child to have a say in it, thus, it's natural for the parent or society to make the decision by proxy. Polydactyly and cleft lips fall into that category, and they do generally impair function in any case. There's no similar argument for circumcision (or braces and birthmark removal, for that matter.)

[sourmìlk]

There are those arguments for circumcision, actually. Adult circumcision has significantly more complications.