Infant Circumcision

[Elliot]

I didn't say anything like that. Indeed I went on to consider and allow a situation in which a parent force-feeds a child. The only caveat was that the parent needs to believe that doing so is in the child's interests. I ask again, how is that too restrictive?

I'm sorry, I don't see how that's analogous to circumcision.

Nor do I, but it's one of the examples that were disucssed earlier and you keep insisting that all of those examples demonstrate that my view of parental discretion is too restrictive.

If there was no way a person could harm you, then it's not battery. And actually yes, to sue somebody you have to show that there were damages. It's not a matter of violated rights, it's a matter of harm. Hell, rights only exist to protect people from harm. So, as I said, victimless crimes with no possibility of harm should not be considered crimes at all. Under what moral system to actions with no consequences and no possible consequences bad?

I don't have time right now to research the US position, but here in Australia (and traditionally in English common law) battery is actionable per se. That means that harm/damage/loss is not an element of the cause of action. If you show that someone interfered with your person without consent or lawful excuse, that's battery. If you fail to show that you suffered any harm, then you will only be entitled to nominal damages (usually $1 here), which are paid in recognition of the fact that your rights were violated.
These actions only have 'no consequences' if you consider the violation of rights to be itself inconsequential. I don't, nor does the law, nor does human rights theory.

[sourmìlk]

Nor do I, but it's one of the examples that were disucssed earlier and you keep insisting that all of those examples demonstrate that my view of parental discretion is too restrictive.

Oh, okay, I see. That was intended to address the argument that parents can't do anything that might harm their children, even if the chance of harm is negligible.

I don't have time right now to research the US position, but here in Australia (and traditionally in English common law) battery is actionable per se. That means that harm/damage/loss is not an element of the cause of action. If you show that someone interfered with your person without consent or lawful excuse, that's battery. If you fail to show that you suffered any harm, then you will only be entitled to nominal damages (usually $1 here), which are paid in recognition of the fact that your rights were violated.

In the united states, you have to show damages. But I don't get it: how can there be battery with no damages? I don't know of any form of battery that causes no harm at all.

These actions only have 'no consequences' if you consider the violation of rights to be itself inconsequential. I don't, nor does the law, nor does human rights theory.

How could you consider a violation of a right, in itself, a bad thing? Shouldn't that violation do harm? If my rights are violated but I don't know that and it doesn't affect any of my experiences or what I do, how is that a bad thing? And indeed, what is the purpose of rights if not to protect from harm?

Ultimately though, why shouldn't parents be allowed to do harmless things to their children? A child's rights extend to education, food, shelter, and freedom from harm. Assuming those rights aren't violated, why should a parent be banned from doing something that doesn't cause harm? And if none, shouldn't we prefer the moral standpoint that offers people more freedom?

I feel like your view that parents should only do things they think will benefit a child is designed specifically to be against circumcision. What benefits does it have over the view that parents shouldn't do things that harm the child?

[natraj]

In the united states, you have to show damages. But I don't get it: how can there be battery with no damages? I don't know of any form of battery that causes no harm at all.

Untrue. This is a thing that was drilled into us over and over again in EMT training. In the US you can be charged with "battery" simply for ANY contact with anyone at all without their consent. If I put my little finger on you and you didn't want me to, that is battery, whether or not you were harmed.

People have a right not to be interfered with, damages or no damages.

[sourmìlk]

In the united states, you have to show damages. But I don't get it: how can there be battery with no damages? I don't know of any form of battery that causes no harm at all.

Untrue. This is a thing that was drilled into us over and over again in EMT training. In the US you can be charged with "battery" simply for ANY contact with anyone at all without their consent. If I put my little finger on you and you didn't want me to, that is battery, whether or not you were harmed.

People have a right not to be interfered with, damages or no damages.

Well, legally the unwanted contact counts as damages. By damages I did not, in this case, mean lasting physical harm.

[The Great Hippo]

Frankly I don’t know why parents actually do circumcise their children. Do parents always investigate the risks and make an assessment of the child’s interests? Or do some people just do it without much thought?

I believe the vast majority of parents do it without much agonizing over the decision. I plan to circumcise any male children I may give birth to because I see the minor benefits (cleanliness, cultural, like family) to be worth it. I had no idea there was a controversy over it in the first place until I met this (and the previous) thread on this very forum. I grew up with the idea -- my grandfather is jewish, so he, my father, my brother, and my fiance are all circumcised. I personally prefer the aesthetic of a circumcised penis. It helps that I've never personally met anyone who has expressed unhappiness with their own circumcision.

It's a mark of my cultural upbringing that I just don't think it's a big deal. To me, it's part of life.

Just wanted to re-iterate this point because I think its importance is easily glossed over. The issue is whether the parents think it's important (obviously, a lot of them do) and whether or not the children are going to grow up to regret the parents' decision (obviously, most of them don't). You can talk about violating rights all you want, but what's important is how people feel about this decision ten or twenty years down the line.

Obviously, some people aren't happy with the fact that their parents chose to circumcise them. Some people are also probably unhappy with the fact that their parents chose to raise them on a vegan diet. Until there's some clear evidence that shows it's likely that children will grow into adults who are unhappy with these decisions, I see no reason to restrict them. Instead, I'd rather just trust the parents.

[natraj]

Obviously, some people aren't happy with the fact that their parents chose to circumcise them. Some people are also probably unhappy with the fact that their parents chose to raise them on a vegan diet. Until there's some clear evidence that shows it's likely that children will grow into adults who are unhappy with these decisions, I see no reason to restrict them. Instead, I'd rather just trust the parents.

The huge difference between the two of these things being that one is reversible and one is not. A vegan child can elect to stop being vegan one day without all that much difficulty save a period of adjustment. A circumcised child cannot elect to stop being circumcised ever; even after expensive and invasive surgery results will not be the same.

[lutzj]

If you've been raised vegan since birth you'll have a hard time digesting meat or dairy food.

[natraj]

I know a number of people who were raised vegan since birth (I am vegan myself and heavily involved in animal rights circles so I know lots of people who are currently raising or did raise vegan kids; many vegan kids choose later to not be vegan) and had no problems later being not vegan, it just takes a little time, you can't do it overnight.

Circumcision, though, is irreversible.

[Elliot]

How could you consider a violation of a right, in itself, a bad thing? Shouldn't that violation do harm? If my rights are violated but I don't know that and it doesn't affect any of my experiences or what I do, how is that a bad thing? And indeed, what is the purpose of rights if not to protect from harm?

The purpose of rights is to protect things that society considers important. One of those things is personal security. The idea of a right to personal security is that personal security is inherently a good thing, we want to have it, and so we make it illegal to violate it. In all seriousness, I would be pissed off if you anaesthetised me and then burned me with cigarettes. I don’t care that it’s ‘harmless’, it would still bother me. And I think the vast majority of people would share my position on that. To take a more realistic example, I would consider it wrong if you were to push me. It wouldn’t cause me any actual loss; it is wrong simply because it violates my right. Most of us don't want to live in a society where you can be pushed around for no reason, unless you are able to prove that it results in some permanent loss of function.

Ultimately though, why shouldn't parents be allowed to do harmless things to their children?

I’m not saying parents shouldn’t be allowed ‘to do harmless things’. I’m saying they shouldn’t be allowed to exercise the child’s rights except in the child’s interests. The reason is because they are the child’s rights, not the parent’s.

A child's rights extend to education, food, shelter, and freedom from harm. Assuming those rights aren't violated, why should a parent be banned from doing something that doesn't cause harm?

Why those rights? Are you suggesting that those are the only rights that children have at law? Presumably not, since it was just explained to you that a right to personal security is protected at law. So are you getting those from some human rights instrument? One that doesn’t include personal security?
Given that our disagreement is clearly based on the fact that I recognise a right to personal security and you don’t, it seems unhelpful for you to just declare a list of the child’s rights that doesn’t include personal security without providing any sort of explanation at all for that omission. You know exactly why I’m going to disagree with that position.

I feel like your view that parents should only do things they think will benefit a child is designed specifically to be against circumcision.

My view follows from the fact that children have a right to personal security. That fact is supported by the law of both our countries (and many others) and has been for as long as those countries have existed. It is also reflected in many influential rights instruments going back to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.
Further, I have repeatedly stated that my position does not necessarily mean that parents cannot circumcise their children. It just means they cannot do so for the reason that you have suggested; they need to base their decision on there being a benefit to the child.
So I think your accusation is quite unjustified.

What benefits does it have over the view that parents shouldn't do things that harm the child?

It is consistent with the law. It is consistent with dominant views of human rights. It explains why non-consensual circumcision would be wrong. It doesn’t require that rape of children is acceptable pending proof of harm. If affords infants the dignity to which they are entitled as humans.

[Izawwlgood]

Circumcision, though, is irreversible.

And his point was it is also, the incredible majority of the time, inconsequential to an individual penile functionality or contentment.

Untrue. This is a thing that was drilled into us over and over again in EMT training. In the US you can be charged with "battery" simply for ANY contact with anyone at all without their consent. If I put my little finger on you and you didn't want me to, that is battery, whether or not you were harmed.

Good luck proving battery with a little finger touch. In fact, can you find any cases wherein such an accusation was successful?

It's a mark of my cultural upbringing that I just don't think it's a big deal. To me, it's part of life.

This is an important thing that people need to realize: the procedure has worth to some, which is actually a net benefit. The number of people who are dissatisfied with their circumcisions is mind bogglingly low for how long this discussion tends to go on.

[sourmìlk]

The purpose of rights is to protect things that society considers important. One of those things is personal security. The idea of a right to personal security is that personal security is inherently a good thing, we want to have it, and so we make it illegal to violate it. In all seriousness, I would be pissed off if you anaesthetised me and then burned me with cigarettes. I don’t care that it’s ‘harmless’, it would still bother me. And I think the vast majority of people would share my position on that. To take a more realistic example, I would consider it wrong if you were to push me. It wouldn’t cause me any actual loss; it is wrong simply because it violates my right. Most of us don't want to live in a society where you can be pushed around for no reason, unless you are able to prove that it results in some permanent loss of function.

These things would bother you because you'd known I'd done them, and thus they'd have a falsifiable consequence. The situations are not analogous.

I’m not saying parents shouldn’t be allowed ‘to do harmless things’. I’m saying they shouldn’t be allowed to exercise the child’s rights except in the child’s interests. The reason is because they are the child’s rights, not the parent’s.

I've already explained why parents require a right to discretion to raise their children with any freedom.

Why those rights?

Those are the only rights the law requires that children have. Personal security is not one: parents are perfectly within their rights to forcibly move a child or otherwise touch them without their permission.

It is consistent with the law.

So is my view.

It is consistent with dominant views of human rights.

[citation needed]

It explains why non-consensual circumcision would be wrong.

This isn't necessarily a good thing.

It doesn’t require that rape of children is acceptable pending proof of harm. If affords infants the dignity to which they are entitled as humans.

My moral system doesn't require that rape is acceptable pending proof of harm. If you think that, you've entirely misunderstood the point of our hypotheticals.

So again, what benefit does your moral system, in which parents have to think an action is beneficial towards children to enact it, have over my moral system?

Actually, I'll answer that question for you: there is no benefit. That's because my moral system only allows more morally neutral actions than yours, and allows no more harmful actions than yours. Thus, as my moral system grants more freedom, without hurting anybody any more, it is a better one. Unless you think that freedom is necessarily bad or inherently neutral.

[The Great Hippo]

I know a number of people who were raised vegan since birth (I am vegan myself and heavily involved in animal rights circles so I know lots of people who are currently raising or did raise vegan kids; many vegan kids choose later to not be vegan) and had no problems later being not vegan, it just takes a little time, you can't do it overnight.

Circumcision, though, is irreversible.

Nothing is reversible. The decision of what I should eat as a child was made for me; I can't go back in a time machine and change that any more than I can change my circumcision. And hey, who knows--my diet during my formative years might have had a deeper impact on me than the particular shape of my genitalia--biologically, socially, and even culturally!

And that's the thing; everything we do to our children consists of an irreversible decision. It's possible they'll regret any one of these. I'm all for minimizing the 'bad' decisions and maximizing the 'good' ones, but there's a point where you just have to trust the parents. So long as the vast majority of people are alright with their circumcisions--so long as parents have no reason to believe their children will come to regret them--I'm comfortable with the procedure.

My discomfort grows only as more people speak of their circumcision as a negative experience, and I'd hope that this discomfort would be shared by prospective parents as well.

[Izawwlgood]

My discomfort grows only as more people speak of their circumcision as a negative experience, and I'd hope that this discomfort would be shared by prospective parents as well.

Out of curiosity, how does compiling anecdotes in this case really make a difference? As pointed out, there are approximately 225,000 circumcisions performed annually, with incredibly low complication rates and a rather vocal, if tiny, number of people kicking a fuss about it. The rate of issues seems to be very, very low. So, are there complications? I'm sure there are. Are people dissatisfied? I'm sure some are. I don't think it's enough to warrant increasing discomfort.

[Elliot]

These things would bother you because you'd known I'd done them, and thus they'd have a falsifiable consequence. The situations are not analogous.

People know that they have been circumcised. Even if we accept your ‘harmless’ nonsense, circumcision obviously has a falsifiable consequence. You’re being absurd. And in any case, the fact that you don’t know your rights have been violated doesn’t mean they haven’t been. People often commit thefts, for instance, with the intention that they not be detected. Are you saying that a shopkeeper who steals $20 from the till has not acted wrongly, provided the discrepancy is never detected? There’s no interference with property rights there? Must we enquire as to whether the owner has lost the function of any of his body parts?

I've already explained why parents require a right to discretion to raise their children with any freedom.

Yes, apparently this is incontrovertibly demonstrated by all of the examples on pages two and three, except for all the ones that I have responded to. Unfortunately I’m not clever enough to understand why. Terribly sorry.

Those are the only rights the law requires that children have. Personal security is not one: parents are perfectly within their rights to forcibly move a child or otherwise touch them without their permission.

Seriously? But ... you just said:

Well, legally the unwanted contact counts as damages. By damages I did not, in this case, mean lasting physical harm.

Which is wrong, incidentally. Legally ‘damages’ actually refers to the money, and ‘damage’ refers to quantifiable loss. Unwanted contact would be an ‘injury’, but not damage. But terminology aside, you clearly acknowledged that the law considers ‘unwanted contact’ to be wrong, and that it does not share your criterion of harm. How can you now say that there is no legal right to personal security?
As I have repeatedly said (and it is pretty obvious anyway) the rights of a child are exercised by his parents on his behalf. So a parent can, on behalf of the child, consent to the child being forcibly moved by the parent. But I cannot go and forcibly move some stranger’s child. If I did, I could be sued for battery. Because I would be violating the child’s right to security of person, without consent or lawful excuse.

It is consistent with the law.

So is my view.

As mentioned above, you clearly acknowledged that the law does not rely on your criterion of harm to determine that something is wrong. I don’t know why you think that your position is consistent with the law. Children do have legal rights. An action for battery can be brought on behalf of a child, or by an adult in respect of something that happened to them as a child. They do not have to show that they were harmed. One of us is missing something here.

It is consistent with dominant views of human rights.

[citation needed]

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 3: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 9.1: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’
Declaration of the Rights of man and of the Citizen, Art 2: ‘The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.’
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, preamble: ‘…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom…’

It explains why non-consensual circumcision would be wrong.

This isn't necessarily a good thing.

It … what? Are you seriously saying that it should be okay, without any kind of consent from anyone, to cut off someone’s foreskin? If someone cuts off my foreskin against my will, you think the proper response would be, ‘I am unharmed, so it doesn’t matter’? 'No harm, no foul'?

My moral system doesn't require that rape is acceptable pending proof of harm. If you think that, you've entirely misunderstood the point of our hypotheticals.

Well you agreed that harmless rape would be acceptable, didn’t you? And when you were still trying to explain why rape is wrong, you said that it is always harmful. It certainly seemed like you were saying that rape is only wrong because it’s harmful. And in the case of circumcision your position appears to be that it must be assumed to be harmless unless evidence of harm is conclusive.

Actually, I'll answer that question for you: there is no benefit. That's because my moral system only allows more morally neutral actions than yours, and allows no more harmful actions than yours. Thus, as my moral system grants more freedom, without hurting anybody any more, it is a better one. Unless you think that freedom is necessarily bad or inherently neutral.

Once again, that’s only true if you consider the arbitrary violation of someone’s rights to be morally neutral. I don’t. I don’t consider your definition of ‘harm’ to encompass all negative actions, and I don’t think I have ever met anyone who would.
And I think ‘more freedom’ is a ridiculous oversimplification. Under my system (that is, the existing legal system) I have a freedom from unwanted interference with my person. Under your system I do not. Really the 'more freedom' is restricted to parents seeking to exercise coercive force over their children without considering the children's interests. It's a reduction in freedom for everyone else.

[sourmìlk]

People know that they have been circumcised. Even if we accept your ‘harmless’ nonsense, circumcision obviously has a falsifiable consequence. You’re being absurd. And in any case, the fact that you don’t know your rights have been violated doesn’t mean they haven’t been. People often commit thefts, for instance, with the intention that they not be detected. Are you saying that a shopkeeper who steals $20 from the till has not acted wrongly, provided the discrepancy is never detected? There’s no interference with property rights there? Must we enquire as to whether the owner has lost the function of any of his body parts?

My point was to show that your situation was not analogous to the hypotheticals, rather than to circumcision. It's too weird to track who is talking about what at this point, just forget about it.

Terribly sorry.

And I responded to your responses. Whereas you just asserted correctness again.

Which is wrong, incidentally. Legally ‘damages’ actually refers to the money, and ‘damage’ refers to quantifiable loss. Unwanted contact would be an ‘injury’, but not damage. But terminology aside, you clearly acknowledged that the law considers ‘unwanted contact’ to be wrong, and that it does not share your criterion of harm. How can you now say that there is no legal right to personal security?

That applied to adults. Children can be touched, against their will, by an adult, and that is perfectly legal. As it should be. Unless you also think parents shouldn't ever hold their babies because they're unable to provide consent?

As I have repeatedly said (and it is pretty obvious anyway) the rights of a child are exercised by his parents on his behalf. So a parent can, on behalf of the child, consent to the child being forcibly moved by the parent. But I cannot go and forcibly move some stranger’s child. If I did, I could be sued for battery. Because I would be violating the child’s right to security of person, without consent or lawful excuse.

Okay, but that's totally irrelevant to the situation as we have never at any point been talking about what strangers do to other people's children, but rather what parents do.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 3: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 9.1: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’
Declaration of the Rights of man and of the Citizen, Art 2: ‘The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.’
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, preamble: ‘…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom…’

With the exception of the last one, those all applies to adults rather than children, and the last one doesn't actually contradict anything I've said.

It … what? Are you seriously saying that it should be okay, without any kind of consent from anyone, to cut off someone’s foreskin? If someone cuts off my foreskin against my will, you think the proper response would be, ‘I am unharmed, so it doesn’t matter’? 'No harm, no foul'?

I didn't say "without any kind of consent from anyone." Nonconsensual generally means without the consent of the person being acted upon, not without the consent of nobody involved. For example, a rape isn't consensual because the rapist was cool with it.

Well you agreed that harmless rape would be acceptable, didn’t you? And when you were still trying to explain why rape is wrong, you said that it is always harmful. It certainly seemed like you were saying that rape is only wrong because it’s harmful. And in the case of circumcision your position appears to be that it must be assumed to be harmless unless evidence of harm is conclusive.

Of course rape is only wrong because it's harmful. Things that are not harmful cannot be wrong, by definition. But we already know that rape is harmful. We do not know that of circumcision.

Once again, that’s only true if you consider the arbitrary violation of someone’s rights to be morally neutral. I don’t. I don’t consider your definition of ‘harm’ to encompass all negative actions, and I don’t think I have ever met anyone who would.

Name one negative action that my definition of harm does not encompass.

And I think ‘more freedom’ is a ridiculous oversimplification. Under my system (that is, the existing legal system) I have a freedom from unwanted interference with my person. Under your system I do not. Really the 'more freedom' is restricted to parents seeking to exercise coercive force over their children without considering the children's interests. It's a reduction in freedom for everyone else.

It's a reduction in freedom for children, but I'm more concerned with the rights of adults.

But, in all your nitpicking, you have still failed to answer my question: what benefit does your moral code provide? Give me a single example of a bad thing my moral code allows that yours does not.

[Elliot]

And I responded to your responses. Whereas you just asserted correctness again.

That’s not how I see it. Your response has been to direct me to unspecified examples on pages two, three and ten. I have responded to some of them. In the case of the food example you then responded by saying that it’s not analogous to circumcision. You don’t appear to have responded to my response to the examples of other cosmetic procedures on children. Your response to my response on cigarette burns was to challenge my explanation of battery, a point you appear to have since conceded (although it’s hard to tell).
If I haven’t given you the response you’re looking for, it’s probably because you have been extremely vague about why my theory is too restrictive, refusing to do more than narrow it down to some hundred or so posts that were not discussing exactly the same point anyway. Give me a specific question, and I’ll give you a specific answer. I’ve tried guessing which of the examples you think makes your point, but apparently my guesses have all been incorrect. Again, I’m sorry about that but I’m not clever enough to work it out without some kind of hint.

That applied to adults. Children can be touched, against their will, by an adult, and that is perfectly legal. As it should be. Unless you also think parents shouldn't ever hold their babies because they're unable to provide consent?

If you’re saying that the law recognises an interference with someone’s person as wrong only if that person is an adult, I would appreciate a citation. The law, at least, you don’t have the privilege of making up as you go along.
As for holding babies, I explained in my previous post that the parent can give consent to such contact on the child’s behalf. Indeed my entire argument has been based on the idea that parents give consent to physical interference with their child on the child’s behalf. This explains why the parent can touch a child against the child’s will, but a stranger generally cannot. How do you explain that?

Okay, but that's totally irrelevant to the situation as we have never at any point been talking about what strangers do to other people's children, but rather what parents do.

The fact that your theory of children’s rights cannot explain the treatment of children in another context is relevant to the validity of that theory. It tends to show that the theory is wrong.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 3: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art 9.1: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.’
Declaration of the Rights of man and of the Citizen, Art 2: ‘The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.’
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, preamble: ‘…recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom…’

With the exception of the last one, those all applies to adults rather than children, and the last one doesn't actually contradict anything I've said.

The last one contradicts the first part of that sentence. And rather than asking for a citation for your claim that the first three don’t apply to children, I’ll just provide the citation that they do:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art 1: ‘All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.’
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, preamble: ‘… recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom …’
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Art 1: ‘Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.’
Also I don't understand how you interpreted the term 'everyone' in my previous citations to refer exclusively to adults. Normally I would expect someone to provide some kind of explanation when saying something which seems so clearly false.

Nonconsensual generally means without the consent of the person being acted upon, not without the consent of nobody involved.

I'm relieved to hear that it was a misunderstanding. But as you now have surely realised, I was saying that my theory explains why circumcision is wrong when there is no consent from anyone. I don't see how your 'harm' theory does that.

Things that are not harmful cannot be wrong, by definition.

Well I've already explained that harmless things can be legally wrong, wrong according to human rights, and wrong according to common perceptions of what people should not be able to do to one another. I don't know what else to tell you. I think you're mistaken about what 'wrong' means, and I have explained why.

But we already know that rape is harmful.

Legally, ‘rape’ covers a pretty wide range of things. Here in South Australia, the definition of ‘sexual intercourse’ as it applies to the offence of rape includes penetration of a person’s anus with any object. That would include, for instance, taking a baby’s temperature using a rectal thermometer. Without consent on behalf of the baby, that would be rape. Used properly, I would consider rectal thermometry to be harmless, certainly according to your definition of ‘harm’.
Now, according to my view, you can’t stick something up someone else’s anus without consent, and in the case of an infant the consent must be provided by a parent on behalf of (i.e. in accordance with the interests of) the child. That would allow the procedure where there is some need to take the child’s temperature, but it would not allow it purely because the parent ‘felt like it’. Can your understanding of parental discretion make that distinction? Or do you consider it acceptable for a parent to stick something into their child’s anus for their own sexual gratification?

Name one negative action that my definition of harm does not encompass.

Your definition of harm doesn’t include wounds, provided there is anaesthetic used and no proven loss of function. I consider wounding people to be a negative action. I would not like to be wounded.

It's a reduction in freedom for children, but I'm more concerned with the rights of adults.

Yes, I’ve picked up on that. But you accept then that your theory is not to be preferred simply on the basis of ‘more freedom’, yes? It’s a reallocation of freedom, not an increase.

But, in all your nitpicking, you have still failed to answer my question: what benefit does your moral code provide?

I gave you five answers to that exact question two posts ago. And I do not think the recognition of fundamental human rights is nitpicking. As trivial as the issue of circumcision might be, I think it does matter that children are treated as humans rather than as chattels.

[BattleMoose]

My discomfort grows only as more people speak of their circumcision as a negative experience, and I'd hope that this discomfort would be shared by prospective parents as well.

Out of curiosity, how does compiling anecdotes in this case really make a difference? As pointed out, there are approximately 225,000 circumcisions performed annually, with incredibly low complication rates and a rather vocal, if tiny, number of people kicking a fuss about it. The rate of issues seems to be very, very low. So, are there complications? I'm sure there are. Are people dissatisfied? I'm sure some are. I don't think it's enough to warrant increasing discomfort.

In the right time period, I am sure the very same thing could be said of foot binding in China.

[lutzj]

In the right time period, I am sure the very same thing could be said of foot binding in China.

Probably, and that's why it's hard to judge parents that bound their daughters' feet too harshly. But footbinding has the additional problem of crippling people. If it didn't have such adverse effects on things like being able to walk it would probably still be practiced today.

[sourmìlk]

Elliot, I'm going to simplify this because I think the quote tree is so complex that we're arguing points that we don't disagree on.

I do not approve of nonconsensual contact just because it doesn't cause permanent harm. I am okay with actions that cannot possibly cause falsifiable harm. Note that I do not just consider physical injury harm: if a person takes offense to his rights being violated, he has been armed (albeit not physically); if he is otherwise hurt, emotionally or physically, he is harmed.

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

And the thing about foot binding is that it had verifiable negative effects (even without reported complaints) and that, as Izawllgood linked to pages ago, part of the purpose of foot binding was functional impairment.

[BattleMoose]

In the right time period, I am sure the very same thing could be said of foot binding in China.

Probably, and that's why it's hard to judge parents that bound their daughters' feet too harshly. But footbinding has the additional problem of crippling people. If it didn't have such adverse effects on things like being able to walk it would probably still be practiced today.

Social acceptance of an action is absolutely no excuse although you might think otherwise. We are individuals and need to be held accountable as such.

And if a society can be accepting, for so long of a practice that is so demonstrably harmful that even those on who the practice is inflicted are accepting and furthering the practice, can we really expect those involved and have had circumcision inflicted upon them to stop and pause and consider, perhaps this really isn't a very good idea?

[Elliot]

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

What is wong is your idea that the child has no rights to violate. The parents are the ones who choose how to exercise the child's right to bodily autonomy, but it remains the child's right. Someone made a comparison with a trust a few pages ago, which I think was apt. As trustee of the child's rights, the parent can exercise those rights only in the interests of the beneficiary (the child), and not for their own purposes. Just as it is theft if a trustee disposes of trust property for their own benefit, so it is a violation of the child's rights if his parent waives his rights purely because they 'felt like it'.
If the child's right can be arbitrarily suspended without regard to his interests, then he has no right. And that is, as I have explained, inconsistent with human rights and with the law in both our countries.

[BattleMoose]

As this applies to circumcision, if done correctly, the infant does not have any rights to violate (as the right to bodily autonomy rests within his parents), and suffers no physical or emotional harm (except in trivially rare circumstances.) As such, circumcision can be, for all practical purposes, considered harmless. If a parent chooses to do something harmless to his child, given that that child has an inability to consent, what is wrong?

Where exactly did you pull that gem from? Is it from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights? Or perhaps in the Convention on the Rights of the child? Or did you just make it up? Because I think its the latter.

And even an infant has all the rights within both the UNDHR and within the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

A child is not the property of the parents. http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_protecting.html

Further Parents are obliged to act in the best interest of the child and wherin a child is able to form an opinion Article 12 applies.

Article 12
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

And this issue has come up in the forming of the Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Circumcision
A number of submissions objected to the practice of male circumcision
arguing that it is a non-therapeutic, invasive and an irreversible operation. Certain
religious groups, on the other hand, emphasised the significance of this practice to
their beliefs.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/j ... pt17ex.pdf

Now the whole issue is so frustrating because the practice is inflicted on infants, where parents do have so much control on what they can do to their child largely because the child cannot express his views at that age.

And I suggest that because circumcision is inflicted on infants who by definition have no religion, for religious reasons is non-nonsensical and clearly inflicting religious practices on non-religious bodies would indeed go against the best interests of the child. And indeed a child may want to adopt a religion that doesn't have circumcision as a requirement or if it is can choose to do that when the child choose a religion. And that the child may possibly want his forskin. Perhaps the most that can be said that forced male circumcision may go against the best interests of the child. And shouldn't that be enough?

The idea that I could legitimately be denied my foreskin, without my consent, fills me with rage.

EDIT:
Also, I think there are a lot of people here that disagree and some vehemently that it is a harmless procedure.

[Izawwlgood]

Social acceptance of an action is absolutely no excuse although you might think otherwise. We are individuals and need to be held accountable as such.

And if a society can be accepting, for so long of a practice that is so demonstrably harmful that even those on who the practice is inflicted are accepting and furthering the practice, can we really expect those involved and have had circumcision inflicted upon them to stop and pause and consider, perhaps this really isn't a very good idea?

If you are proposing that circumcision is an unacceptable procedure, then I expect you, right now, to claim that the other cosmetic procedures are unacceptable to perform on a non-consenting infant/child as well. You must, for your position to be consistent, state that you find orthodontia, cleft palate restoration, birth mark removal, and syndactyly removal, to be unacceptable.

As to your above bolded, yes, we can. We can have them, hopefully like their parents did, consider the motivations for circumcision. If they find those reasons lacking, they will choose whatever they want.

But, again, for the like, 20th time in this thread, making a statement about how foot binding was socially acceptable in China completely whiffs on the point.

[The Great Hippo]

My discomfort grows only as more people speak of their circumcision as a negative experience, and I'd hope that this discomfort would be shared by prospective parents as well.

Out of curiosity, how does compiling anecdotes in this case really make a difference? As pointed out, there are approximately 225,000 circumcisions performed annually, with incredibly low complication rates and a rather vocal, if tiny, number of people kicking a fuss about it. The rate of issues seems to be very, very low. So, are there complications? I'm sure there are. Are people dissatisfied? I'm sure some are. I don't think it's enough to warrant increasing discomfort.

In the right time period, I am sure the very same thing could be said of foot binding in China.

No. Foot-binding directly reduces your quality of life in almost every circumstance. My quality of life was not reduced via my circumcision. The two are incomparable.

EDIT: The important issue here to note--while you might state that your quality of life was reduced by your circumcision (and you are welcome to this claim if you make it, and in no way would I consider it an illegitimate claim), the majority of those who received a circumcision do not consider it to be thus. If you came up to a circumcised adult and offered them a chance to magically 'rewind the clock' and undo their circumcision, most would probably not take you up on it (outside of some sense of curiosity). If you offered a victim of foot-binding the same opportunity, I'd expect most would be quite keen to take you up on the offer (particularly if you could magically 'wave away' the social stigma of not having your feet bound).

Again and again, the only relevant question here is: How many people have had their quality of life reduced by circumcision? Is it a significant number? Enough to feel more strongly about circumcision than we do about correcting webbed feet?

[DSenette]

Social acceptance of an action is absolutely no excuse although you might think otherwise. We are individuals and need to be held accountable as such.

And if a society can be accepting, for so long of a practice that is so demonstrably harmful that even those on who the practice is inflicted are accepting and furthering the practice, can we really expect those involved and have had circumcision inflicted upon them to stop and pause and consider, perhaps this really isn't a very good idea?

If you are proposing that circumcision is an unacceptable procedure, then I expect you, right now, to claim that the other cosmetic procedures are unacceptable to perform on a non-consenting infant/child as well. You must, for your position to be consistent, state that you find orthodontia, cleft palate restoration, birth mark removal, and syndactyly removal, to be unacceptable.

As to your above bolded, yes, we can. We can have them, hopefully like their parents did, consider the motivations for circumcision. If they find those reasons lacking, they will choose whatever they want.

But, again, for the like, 20th time in this thread, making a statement about how foot binding was socially acceptable in China completely whiffs on the point.

unnecessary orthodontia (rare), unnecessary cleft palate restoration (even more rare....seriously, can you please link me to some information about a type of cleft palate that isn't medically detrimental to the person who has the condition? can you give me some kind of evidence that there's such a thing as a cleft palate repair that is PURELY cosmetic?), unnecessary birth mark removal, and unnecessary syndactyly/polydactyly should totally not be acceptable either. if it's something that's not medically necessary, then the child should get the option to make the choice once they understand the procedures and ramifications thereof

My discomfort grows only as more people speak of their circumcision as a negative experience, and I'd hope that this discomfort would be shared by prospective parents as well.

Out of curiosity, how does compiling anecdotes in this case really make a difference? As pointed out, there are approximately 225,000 circumcisions performed annually, with incredibly low complication rates and a rather vocal, if tiny, number of people kicking a fuss about it. The rate of issues seems to be very, very low. So, are there complications? I'm sure there are. Are people dissatisfied? I'm sure some are. I don't think it's enough to warrant increasing discomfort.

In the right time period, I am sure the very same thing could be said of foot binding in China.

No. Foot-binding directly reduces your quality of life in almost every circumstance. My quality of life was not reduced via my circumcision. The two are incomparable.

ironically, during the time period when foot binding was "the thing to do" your quality of life was increased tremendously by having your feet bound. in fact, you couldn't be part of high society with regular people's feet. your ability to walk was not exactly increased, but your overall quality of life was increased because your status was increased. add to that the fact that a very large amount of women with bound feet didn't actually have to walk (they were carried a lot), then you've got a balance on loss of mobility and increased status.

now, foot binding wasn't an easy thing to miss. you could not look at a person and not know whether their feet had or hadn't been bound. there are only two ways to know if someone is circumcised or not, to look at their dick or to ask them. IF circumcision conveyed some kind of actual social status enhancement, and there were no way to force someone to prove their circumcision status, then people could just say they were circumcised and move up the ladder.

[The Great Hippo]

ironically, during the time period when foot binding was "the thing to do" your quality of life was increased tremendously by having your feet bound. in fact, you couldn't be part of high society with regular people's feet. your ability to walk was not exactly increased, but your overall quality of life was increased because your status was increased. add to that the fact that a very large amount of women with bound feet didn't actually have to walk (they were carried a lot), then you've got a balance on loss of mobility and increased status.

Yeah, that's why I added the whole 'magically wave away the social stigma' thing to my post in an edit--an edit that you probably (understandably) missed.

Foot-binding is a hairy subject because of the immense social pressure exerted by society (in the form of marriage and standards of beauty) to be foot-bound, which doesn't exist with circumcision. It's just not a very functional comparison.

Also, as to your discussion with Izawwlgood: Define 'medically necessary'? There are a multitude of gradients. Sure, cleft lips come with complications, including nutritional ones--but none of those complications involve death. I'm sure plenty of people could live full, productive lives without having their cleft lips corrected at birth (and waiting until they're full-grown adults). If you're going to be consistent with this view, I think you should put the child's right to self-autonomy above the benefits gained from correcting cleft lip at birth--particularly when none of those benefits involve 'staying alive'.

[Tomo]

now, foot binding wasn't an easy thing to miss. you could not look at a person and not know whether their feet had or hadn't been bound. there are only two ways to know if someone is circumcised or not, to look at their dick or to ask them. IF circumcision conveyed some kind of actual social status enhancement, and there were no way to force someone to prove their circumcision status, then people could just say they were circumcised and move up the ladder.

In addition, they can choose to undergo circumcision after they reach the age of consent.

[The Great Hippo]

In addition, they can choose to undergo circumcision after they reach the age of consent.

Should we do the same thing for cleft lips? What about vegan diets? Or playing baseball?

Children can't consent to any of these, and they all represent irreversible decisions; should we also wait till children are of the age of consent before we teach them how to read and speak? What if the kid wanted Swahili as their first, primary language? We taught them English--now they're screwed!

[BattleMoose]

Social acceptance of an action is absolutely no excuse although you might think otherwise. We are individuals and need to be held accountable as such.

And if a society can be accepting, for so long of a practice that is so demonstrably harmful that even those on who the practice is inflicted are accepting and furthering the practice, can we really expect those involved and have had circumcision inflicted upon them to stop and pause and consider, perhaps this really isn't a very good idea?

If you are proposing that circumcision is an unacceptable procedure, then I expect you, right now, to claim that the other cosmetic procedures are unacceptable to perform on a non-consenting infant/child as well. You must, for your position to be consistent, state that you find orthodontia, cleft palate restoration, birth mark removal, and syndactyly removal, to be unacceptable.

I have constructed a consistent and coherent argument why circumcision is different to other cosmetic procedures an argument which you have either chosen to forget, ignore or never read. I consistently received the rebuttal of NATURALIST FALLACY! Which I argued made no sense but again I was frustrated by the response of NATURALIST FALLACY.

I maintain still that the argument I constructed was coherent, consistent and valid and no one has even attempted to argue otherwise.

Besides perhaps screaming NATURALISTIC FALLACY. :-/

But, again, for the like, 20th time in this thread, making a statement about how foot binding was socially acceptable in China completely whiffs on the point.

Yeah I completely disagree, I think it makes the point very well that a harmful procedure has been considered socially acceptable. That is the point I am trying to bring across. Not much more than that, and if you cannot understand that simple concept that I am trying to bring across, is that a harmful procedure has been considered socially acceptable then you are doing something very wrong.

No. Foot-binding directly reduces your quality of life in almost every circumstance.

I KNOW RIGHT! But the Chinese didn't think that.

Again, the point that I am trying to make is that a clearly harmful procedure was socially acceptable, inflicted on their children and those doing the inflicting and whom it was inflicted upon were all socially accepting of the procedure. It should be much easier to abandon such a demonstrably harmful procedure but still there was incredible resistance, everyone being wholly unaware of the harm that was being caused.

As has been argued consistently in this thread by many is that circumcision is a harmful procedure.

So the consistencies between foot binding and circumcision are:
1. socially acceptable procedure
2. inflicted on infants or small children
3. for aesthetic reasons
4. society wholly unaware of the harm it caused
5. resistance to abandoning the procedure

But I am sure I will receive much resistance still on the harm aspect which is kinda the point that you are unaware of the harm of a lack of foreskin as was Chinese society about the harm of foot binding. I am really tempted to however upload firstly a video of the masturbation of an uncircumcised penis and that for a circumcised one, because really, I think most people here have no idea of how different it works, and the role the foreskin plays. I wonder if that would help. :-/

[The Great Hippo]

I KNOW RIGHT! But the Chinese didn't think that.

Have you asked the actual Chinese people who got their feet bound? Because those are really the only opinions I'd be interested in. Something like: "Do you think this was harmful to you? If you had the choice of not doing it, but still receiving the social benefits (increased likelihood of marriage, social status), would you choose not to have it done to you? Is this something you want done to your children?"

Those are important questions which, I think, directly relate to the matter. Do you think those are important questions? What do you think the answer to those questions would be?

But I am sure I will receive much resistance still on the harm aspect which is kinda the point that you are unaware of the harm of a lack of foreskin as was Chinese society about the harm of foot binding. I am really tempted to however upload firstly a video of the masturbation of an uncircumcised penis and that for a circumcised one, because really, I think most people here have no idea of how different it works, and the role the foreskin plays. I wonder if that would help. :-/

Are you going to take the same stance that's been innate in this thread--that people who have been circumcised are in some form of denial, living in ignorance at how deeply they've been wronged?

Hi. I'm someone who's been circumcised. My quality of life has not been reduced. I'm happy with my body and beyond a vague sense of curiosity, have no regrets about the procedure. Am I in denial? Ignorant? Wrong? Or does the way I feel about my body trump the way you feel about it?

[DSenette]

ironically, during the time period when foot binding was "the thing to do" your quality of life was increased tremendously by having your feet bound. in fact, you couldn't be part of high society with regular people's feet. your ability to walk was not exactly increased, but your overall quality of life was increased because your status was increased. add to that the fact that a very large amount of women with bound feet didn't actually have to walk (they were carried a lot), then you've got a balance on loss of mobility and increased status.

Yeah, that's why I added the whole 'magically wave away the social stigma' thing to my post in an edit--an edit that you probably (understandably) missed.

Foot-binding is a hairy subject because of the immense social pressure exerted by society (in the form of marriage and standards of beauty) to be foot-bound, which doesn't exist with circumcision. It's just not a very functional comparison.

you've never been an uncircumcised teenager that had to shower in gym class have you? yeah, social pressure, or at least social costs are associated with not being circumcised. why else do people who don't belong to a group that mandate it practice it? it is TOTALLY a standard of beauty that western society views the circumcised penis as the "way they're supposed to look" even though there isn't a SINGLE one of them that actually comes out that way by default.

foot binding, or other modifications for purely cosmetic/aesthetic/membership purposes are the only things that can be compared to circumcision. 99%(made up number) of all circumcisions are done for non-medical reasons, just like 99.99999999% of all tattoos are done for purely aesthetic reasons, and just like 100% of foot bindings or neck stretching were done for the same purposes.

there simply isn't a medical purpose for the procedure. people who still claim that there is such are simply not correct.

Also, as to your discussion with Izawwlgood: Define 'medically necessary'? There are a multitude of gradients. Sure, cleft lips come with complications, including nutritional ones--but none of those complications involve death. I'm sure plenty of people could live full, productive lives without having their cleft lips corrected at birth (and waiting until they're full-grown adults). If you're going to be consistent with this view, I think you should put the child's right to self-autonomy above the benefits gained from correcting cleft lip at birth--particularly when none of those benefits involve 'staying alive'.

note, he said cleft palates....which are not cleft lips. a "hair lip" and a malformed palate are two different conditions, typically they are comorbid, but they are not always.

i do put the child's autonomy above the benefits gained from non-medically necessary treatment. medically necessary is with reference to the procedure and not the reasons for the procedures. so a procedure that is medically necessary is one that is administered to correct, diagnose, or treat a medically recognized condition, disorder or disease.

you'll note that "having a normally functional foreskin" isn't a recognized medical condition, disorder or disease. neither is having boobs that are too small, or skin that isn't tattooed. these are called having anatomy that is consistent with being born a human.

luckily, having a cleft palate, a cleft lip, extra fingers, webbed fingers, etc.. are medically recognized conditions, disorders, or diseases, so there's no real reason to argue here. using any actual medical condition to compare to not medical conditions is silly.

I KNOW RIGHT! But the Chinese didn't think that.

Have you asked the actual Chinese people who got their feet bound? Because those are really the only opinions I'd be interested in. Something like: "Do you think this was harmful to you? If you had the choice of not doing it, but still receiving the social benefits (increased likelihood of marriage, social status), would you choose not to have it done to you? Is this something you want done to your children?"

Those are important questions which, I think, directly relate to the matter. Do you think those are important questions? What do you think the answer to those questions would be?

these questions can actually be asked of other groups that encourage or require modification for inclusion.

the maori are relaxing their requirements for moko these days, but people still choose to practice it because they feel that it's a part of their culture and heritage. but more and more maori are not getting the moko but are still receiving the same social benefits as those who do within their clans. so you can see as the incentive to get the moko has been reduced, the occurrence of it has been reduced, but not eliminated in consenting adults. maori don't force moko on children of course.

same with the neck stretching. it's not forced on children any more. you can totally be accepted in the tribe without the neck rings, but some people still choose to do it. the point is, it's a choice now, and that choice doesn't come with negative impacts when you choose not to do it. and everyone is given the choice.

which is what I personally argue for with circumcision, not that it be completely banned, but that the incentive to have it done is removed to a point where people can choose to do it or not do it without the social pressure involved, without it being incentivised by western culture. and i'd prefer that when it is done, the person getting it done has a choice in the matter

[BattleMoose]

I KNOW RIGHT! But the Chinese didn't think that.

Have you asked the actual Chinese people who got their feet bound? Because those are really the only opinions I'd be interested in. Something like: "Do you think this was harmful to you? If you had the choice of not doing it, but still receiving the social benefits (increased likelihood of marriage, social status), would you choose not to have it done to you? Is this something you want done to your children?"

Those are important questions which, I think, directly relate to the matter. Do you think those are important questions? What do you think the answer to those questions would be?

Important questions certainly and also impossible to answer as I am sure you are well aware. We do know there were several attempts to ban the practice which failed which at least suggests to me that the Chinese people liked the practice. And I think that is as far as we will ever get, in this thread at least in addressing those questions.

But I am sure I will receive much resistance still on the harm aspect which is kinda the point that you are unaware of the harm of a lack of foreskin as was Chinese society about the harm of foot binding. I am really tempted to however upload firstly a video of the masturbation of an uncircumcised penis and that for a circumcised one, because really, I think most people here have no idea of how different it works, and the role the foreskin plays. I wonder if that would help. :-/

Are you going to take the same stance that's been innate in this thread--that people who have been circumcised are in some form of denial, living in ignorance at how deeply they've been wronged?

Hi. I'm someone who's been circumcised. My quality of life has not been reduced. I'm happy with my body and beyond a vague sense of curiosity, have no regrets about the procedure. Am I in denial? Ignorant? Wrong? Or does the way I feel about my body trump the way you feel about it?

The first point that needs to be made is that there are those who are unhappy about the procedure inflicted upon them and the fact that you are content with the procedure that was inflicted upon is no justification for inflicting the procedure on others.

The second point is something I have avoided bring up so far but what the hell at this point, firstly I strongly recommend watching this Ted Talk on the subject.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_as ... happy.html

Seriously please watch it. And yes, the suggestion is that you are happy in accepting the procedure that was inflicted upon you without a choice, because you didn't have a choice. Its a fairly sensible psychological trait to have, to accept and be happy with things that we have absolutely no control over. Its also of little surprise that something in this thread also demonstrates that those who were circumcised are happy about it and those who weren't are happy about being not. Food for thought.

[The Great Hippo]

you've never been an uncircumcised teenager that had to shower in gym class have you? yeah, social pressure, or at least social costs are associated with not being circumcised. why else do people who don't belong to a group that mandate it practice it? it is TOTALLY a standard of beauty that western society views the circumcised penis as the "way they're supposed to look" even though there isn't a SINGLE one of them that actually comes out that way by default.

foot binding, or other modifications for purely cosmetic/aesthetic/membership purposes are the only things that can be compared to circumcision. 99%(made up number) of all circumcisions are done for non-medical reasons, just like 99.99999999% of all tattoos are done for purely aesthetic reasons, and just like 100% of foot bindings or neck stretching were done for the same purposes.

there simply isn't a medical purpose for the procedure. people who still claim that there is such are simply not correct.

All that might be true, but I don't see the relevance? I've never claimed that circumcision is medically relevant--only that its medical relevancy is irrelevant.

note, he said cleft palates....which are not cleft lips. a "hair lip" and a malformed palate are two different conditions, typically they are comorbid, but they are not always.

i do put the child's autonomy above the benefits gained from non-medically necessary treatment. medically necessary is with reference to the procedure and not the reasons for the procedures. so a procedure that is medically necessary is one that is administered to correct, diagnose, or treat a medically recognized condition, disorder or disease.

you'll note that "having a normally functional foreskin" isn't a recognized medical condition, disorder or disease. neither is having boobs that are too small, or skin that isn't tattooed. these are called having anatomy that is consistent with being born a human.

luckily, having a cleft palate, a cleft lip, extra fingers, webbed fingers, etc.. are medically recognized conditions, disorders, or diseases, so there's no real reason to argue here. using any actual medical condition to compare to not medical conditions is silly.

Why are you relying on 'medically diagnosed as a disorder' as a metric? There have been points (in American history, at least) when homosexuality has been diagnosed as a medical disorder! Let's find some better metrics.

I think one excellent metric is "How do people who have experienced this procedure feel about it". Don't you?

the maori are relaxing their requirements for moko these days, but people still choose to practice it because they feel that it's a part of their culture and heritage. but more and more maori are not getting the moko but are still receiving the same social benefits as those who do within their clans. so you can see as the incentive to get the moko has been reduced, the occurrence of it has been reduced, but not eliminated in consenting adults. maori don't force moko on children of course.

same with the neck stretching. it's not forced on children any more. you can totally be accepted in the tribe without the neck rings, but some people still choose to do it. the point is, it's a choice now, and that choice doesn't come with negative impacts when you choose not to do it. and everyone is given the choice.

which is what I personally argue for with circumcision, not that it be completely banned, but that the incentive to have it done is removed to a point where people can choose to do it or not do it without the social pressure involved, without it being incentivised by western culture. and i'd prefer that when it is done, the person getting it done has a choice in the matter

I'd agree, with the added statement that parents can choose to do it to their children so long as their children continue to grow up into adults that don't regret that decision.

Important questions certainly and also impossible to answer as I am sure you are well aware. We do know there were several attempts to ban the practice which failed which at least suggests to me that the Chinese people liked the practice. And I think that is as far as we will ever get, in this thread at least in addressing those questions.

What do you mean by 'impossible to answer'? Obviously, it's not impossible for the Chinese to answer.

The first point that needs to be made is that there are those who are unhappy about the procedure inflicted upon them and the fact that you are content with the procedure that was inflicted upon is no justification for inflicting the procedure on others.

Oh, I acknowledge that, and I've stated in this thread: If a significant portion of people who receive circumcisions feel uncomfortable or regretful about them, I want to put a stop to circumcisions. There are deeper demographics we can look at, of course (does a significant portion of the Jewish community feel that way, for instance).

Seriously please watch it. And yes, the suggestion is that you are happy in accepting the procedure that was inflicted upon you without a choice, because you didn't have a choice. Its a fairly sensible psychological trait to have, to accept and be happy with things that we have absolutely no control over. Its also of little surprise that something in this thread also demonstrates that those who were circumcised are happy about it and those who weren't are happy about being not. Food for thought.

Can't we make the same argument for someone who wasn't circumcised? Isn't that also a decision that you had no control over--whether or not for the first sixteen years of your life you'd live with an uncircumcised penis? Can't we say the same about your parents' decision to teach you English instead of Russian, or showing you how to play baseball rather than football? Maybe you'd be happier if they'd given you violin lessons rather than cello lessons. These are all decisions made for you, that you've "learned to live with".

Also, let me make this clear: As much rage as you feel toward the arguably barbaric act of genital mutilation, I feel an equal amount of rage when people tell me precisely how I should feel about my body. That's what you're doing when you tell me that I've 'learned to live' with my circumcision. Can you understand why that frustrates me? Or, at the very least, just how paternalistic that sounds?

[BattleMoose]

Important questions certainly and also impossible to answer as I am sure you are well aware. We do know there were several attempts to ban the practice which failed which at least suggests to me that the Chinese people liked the practice. And I think that is as far as we will ever get, in this thread at least in addressing those questions.

What do you mean by 'impossible to answer'? Obviously, it's not impossible for the Chinese to answer.

Do you suggest asking them? Considering that penalties for foot binding were implemented in 1912 and was apparently able to strictly enforce outlawing the practice, you will struggle to find many people who have gone through the process. And those that you do find did so while it was illegal and must have really wanted to do it and that would be a sample group with a very strong bias.

The first point that needs to be made is that there are those who are unhappy about the procedure inflicted upon them and the fact that you are content with the procedure that was inflicted upon is no justification for inflicting the procedure on others.

Oh, I acknowledge that, and I've stated in this thread: If a significant portion of people who receive circumcisions feel uncomfortable or regretful about them, I want to put a stop to circumcisions. There are deeper demographics we can look at, of course (does a significant portion of the Jewish community feel that way, for instance).

Seriously please watch it. And yes, the suggestion is that you are happy in accepting the procedure that was inflicted upon you without a choice, because you didn't have a choice. Its a fairly sensible psychological trait to have, to accept and be happy with things that we have absolutely no control over. Its also of little surprise that something in this thread also demonstrates that those who were circumcised are happy about it and those who weren't are happy about being not. Food for thought.

Can't we make the same argument for someone who wasn't circumcised? Isn't that also a decision that you had no control over--whether or not for the first sixteen years of your life you'd live with an uncircumcised penis? Can't we say the same about your parents' decision to teach you English instead of Russian, or showing you how to play baseball rather than football? Maybe you'd be happier if they'd given you violin lessons rather than cello lessons. These are all decisions made for you, that you've "learned to live with".

Yeah you clearly didn't watch it. Its a really interesting video in its own right. Watch it and then I'll respond to this although, hopefully I won't have to then.

Also, let me make this clear: As much rage as you feel toward the arguably barbaric act of genital mutilation, I feel an equal amount of rage when people tell me precisely how I should feel about my body. That's what you're doing when you tell me that I've 'learned to live' with my circumcision. Can you understand why that frustrates me? Or, at the very least, just how paternalistic that sounds?

And let me be clear, I don't care how you feel about your body. And if everyone did feel the way about circumcision as you do, it would hardly be a problem. So this isn't about you personally or about the group of people who are content about being circumcised.

Its about the group that do feel mutilated by circumcision and those feelings are real and aren't even being acknowledge by the pro circumcision camp in this thread.

[DSenette]

you've never been an uncircumcised teenager that had to shower in gym class have you? yeah, social pressure, or at least social costs are associated with not being circumcised. why else do people who don't belong to a group that mandate it practice it? it is TOTALLY a standard of beauty that western society views the circumcised penis as the "way they're supposed to look" even though there isn't a SINGLE one of them that actually comes out that way by default.

foot binding, or other modifications for purely cosmetic/aesthetic/membership purposes are the only things that can be compared to circumcision. 99%(made up number) of all circumcisions are done for non-medical reasons, just like 99.99999999% of all tattoos are done for purely aesthetic reasons, and just like 100% of foot bindings or neck stretching were done for the same purposes.

there simply isn't a medical purpose for the procedure. people who still claim that there is such are simply not correct.

All that might be true, but I don't see the relevance? I've never claimed that circumcision is medically relevant--only that its medical relevancy is irrelevant.

medical necessity/relevance is important to the WHEN of a procedure not necessarily to the procedure itself and if it should ever be done.

if there's no medical reason to perform a medical procedure, then why do it to someone without their consent?

note, he said cleft palates....which are not cleft lips. a "hair lip" and a malformed palate are two different conditions, typically they are comorbid, but they are not always.

i do put the child's autonomy above the benefits gained from non-medically necessary treatment. medically necessary is with reference to the procedure and not the reasons for the procedures. so a procedure that is medically necessary is one that is administered to correct, diagnose, or treat a medically recognized condition, disorder or disease.

you'll note that "having a normally functional foreskin" isn't a recognized medical condition, disorder or disease. neither is having boobs that are too small, or skin that isn't tattooed. these are called having anatomy that is consistent with being born a human.

luckily, having a cleft palate, a cleft lip, extra fingers, webbed fingers, etc.. are medically recognized conditions, disorders, or diseases, so there's no real reason to argue here. using any actual medical condition to compare to not medical conditions is silly.

Why are you relying on 'medically diagnosed as a disorder' as a metric? There have been points (in American history, at least) when homosexuality has been diagnosed as a medical disorder! Let's find some better metrics.

I think one excellent metric is "How do people who have experienced this procedure feel about it". Don't you?

because someone's ability to discern the difference between two non-interchangeable states is unreliable. how do you know you wouldn't prefer to have been uncircumcised? you've never not been circumcised so you can't make that decision. an uncircumcised person can, in fact, simulate being circumcised so they can make a somewhat educated decision on the subject. circumcision is a change from the default state to a non-default state and it's irreversible, so once you've changed states you cannot adequately evaluate how you would feel about the default state.

your ability to accept something that can't be changed and has effects associated with you that you have no way of actually personally evaluating isn't a good metric at all.

the maori are relaxing their requirements for moko these days, but people still choose to practice it because they feel that it's a part of their culture and heritage. but more and more maori are not getting the moko but are still receiving the same social benefits as those who do within their clans. so you can see as the incentive to get the moko has been reduced, the occurrence of it has been reduced, but not eliminated in consenting adults. maori don't force moko on children of course.

same with the neck stretching. it's not forced on children any more. you can totally be accepted in the tribe without the neck rings, but some people still choose to do it. the point is, it's a choice now, and that choice doesn't come with negative impacts when you choose not to do it. and everyone is given the choice.

which is what I personally argue for with circumcision, not that it be completely banned, but that the incentive to have it done is removed to a point where people can choose to do it or not do it without the social pressure involved, without it being incentivised by western culture. and i'd prefer that when it is done, the person getting it done has a choice in the matter

I'd agree, with the added statement that parents can choose to do it to their children so long as their children continue to grow up into adults that don't regret that decision.

except that this decision isn't one that's actually regrettable from the standpoint of the procedure itself (which i know sounds like a shit argument). the regrettable part revolves around the way the procedure was decided. which some people are more sensitive to.

regret over circumcision done at birth only revolves around the violation of bodily autonomy. which, by the way, is kind of a new concept with regards to the general population as a whole, most people through history haven't even thought about the concept of bodily autonomy that much, especially thinking about it as a right that people deserve. most people only think about it when they're getting pushed down a flight of stairs or tortured.

now, you can take the first hand accounts of people who have had circumcisions done as adults for evidence of regret about the procedure itself because they've actually experienced both states. a lot more of this group experience regret about the actual procedure than those that are circumcised at birth. which should give some information about how those that were circumcised at birth MIGHT feel if they had been given the chance to make the decision themselves.

[Izawwlgood]

Re: Cleft Palates; I urge you to consider, given the frequency of it occurring (1 in 700 births have some form of cleft lip/palate), the number of PEOPLE (that is, adults!) world wide who are living with cleft lips or palates. Do you mean to tell me that ALL of those people, worldwide, have corrected their harelip? Surely you can't be suggesting that everyone in the world who was born with it, has had it corrected? It is, simply, a fairly common malformation that in it's less severe forms, does not seem to pose a quality of life detriment, minus of course, the social impediment. Given that everyone seems to be in agreement that it is perfectly acceptable to fix a cleft palate in an infant, it seems to me that people are comfortable making cosmetic (or even mostly cosmetic) alterations to an infant without it's consent, more so if that change is aimed at, what the parents feel anyway, is going to be a positive change in the child's life.

Now, this is where I want the dots to be connected: if the parents feel it will provide a positive change, and the change itself has no negative medical affect, shouldn't we defer to the parents to decide what is defined as 'positive change'?

And let me be clear, I don't care how you feel about your body. And if everyone did feel the way about circumcision as you do, it would hardly be a problem. So this isn't about you personally or about the group of people who are content about being circumcised.

The pertinent point is that MOST people feel exactly like he, and I, do. That is, we are perfectly happy with our circumcised penises. So, because this isn't about what MOST people think, but rather, what the incredibly small minority of people think, tell me, how low would the %'age have to be before you were willing to ignore it?

there simply isn't a medical purpose for the procedure. people who still claim that there is such are simply not correct.

Yes, we've been saying this for ages; there is no net medical effect of circumcision. I'm glad you're on board with this. But because the procedure isn't performed for the medical reasons, that must mean it has value to communities/societies/groups/parents.

[The Great Hippo]

Do you suggest asking them? Considering that penalties for foot binding were implemented in 1912 and was apparently able to strictly enforce outlawing the practice, you will struggle to find many people who have gone through the process. And those that you do find did so while it was illegal and must have really wanted to do it and that would be a sample group with a very strong bias.

I'm confused; are we talking about the people who performed foot-binding, or the people who received foot-binding? I realize that in circumstances like these, you often have overlap between the two groups; was that the case here?

And let me be clear, I don't care how you feel about your body. And if everyone did feel the way about circumcision as you do, it would hardly be a problem. So this isn't about you personally or about the group of people who are content about being circumcised.

Then why do you keep bringing us into the discussion? Threatening to post a video that demonstrates the benefits of masturbation between circumcised and uncircumcised penises--who is that aimed at besides circumcised people who are happy with their circumcision? What is that besides an attempt to convince me that there's something 'wrong' with my body, even when I clearly feel otherwise?

If someone tells me that they're not happy with their circumcision, that's all the information I need. You don't need to explain how, or why, or give me the details--the fact that they have a problem with their circumcision is all the rationale they need. "My circumcision has reduced my quality of life"--that's the only thing they need to say.

Its about the group that do feel mutilated by circumcision and those feelings are real and aren't even being acknowledge by the pro circumcision camp in this thread.

'Pro-circumcision'? Is that fair? Do you think there's a group in this thread who wants everyone to be circumcised regardless of anything?

More to the point, though: I have acknowledged, time and time again, that those who feel violated by their circumcision have legitimate concerns. Their sense of violation is wholly valid. My sense of non-violation is also wholly valid. Two people can walk away from the same experience with entirely different results. At least one, possibly two, posters here have told me the opposite--that I should feel violated, that my sense of contentment is a delusion, that my experience in this regard is invalid. I find that frustratingly stupid of them, and I wish the dialogue would get dialed back a notch.

if there's no medical reason to perform a medical procedure, then why do it to someone without their consent?

Because it's reasonable to believe that the person's quality of life will not be impacted by said procedure (and keep in mind, there's a difference between "I don't give my consent", and "I'm incapable of giving consent to anything" - the difference between "NO!" and "<No answer>" is subtle, but very important).

because someone's ability to discern the difference between two non-interchangeable states is unreliable. how do you know you wouldn't prefer to have been uncircumcised? you've never not been circumcised so you can't make that decision. an uncircumcised person can, in fact, simulate being circumcised so they can make a somewhat educated decision on the subject. circumcision is a change from the default state to a non-default state and it's irreversible, so once you've changed states you cannot adequately evaluate how you would feel about the default state.

I'm sorry, why are we talking about default and non-default states in biology? Also, what about aposthia--a rare condition where you're born without a foreskin? Is that a 'non-default state'? Or is it magically default because any condition you're born with is magically default? You're playing with word-games, here. What concerns me is how people feel about their bodies and the decisions made about them. Everything else is irrelevant.

Also, how can uncircumcised people simulate all the related cultural and biological changes that circumcision entails?

now, you can take the first hand accounts of people who have had circumcisions done as adults for evidence of regret about the procedure itself because they've actually experienced both states. a lot more of this group experience regret about the actual procedure than those that are circumcised at birth. which should give some information about how those that were circumcised at birth MIGHT feel if they had been given the chance to make the decision themselves.

your ability to accept something that can't be changed and has effects associated with you that you have no way of actually personally evaluating isn't a good metric at all.

Except, outside of mind control, personal evaluation is the only metric that matters (to me, at least). How people 'might' feel under imaginary circumstances doesn't concern me; how people do feel under real circumstances do.

I don't understand why you're concerned with what an imaginary segment of the population might say when we have plenty of real people saying real things that are really applicable.

[DSenette]

Re: Cleft Palates; I urge you to consider, given the frequency of it occurring (1 in 700 births have some form of cleft lip/palate), the number of PEOPLE (that is, adults!) world wide who are living with cleft lips or palates. Do you mean to tell me that ALL of those people, worldwide, have corrected their harelip? Surely you can't be suggesting that everyone in the world who was born with it, has had it corrected? It is, simply, a fairly common malformation that in it's less severe forms, does not seem to pose a quality of life detriment, minus of course, the social impediment. Given that everyone seems to be in agreement that it is perfectly acceptable to fix a cleft palate in an infant, it seems to me that people are comfortable making cosmetic (or even mostly cosmetic) alterations to an infant without it's consent, more so if that change is aimed at, what the parents feel anyway, is going to be a positive change in the child's life.

Now, this is where I want the dots to be connected: if the parents feel it will provide a positive change, and the change itself has no negative medical affect, shouldn't we defer to the parents to decide what is defined as 'positive change'?

and you're mixing terms. a "hairlip" or cleft lip can come without having a cleft palate. a cleft palate is when the inside of your mouth isn't formed correctly, this ALWAYS poses immediate medical issues, not just social stigma issues of having a weird looking lip. a cleft palate, even MILDLY cleft palate can cause serious medical issues and medical detriments, like speech impediments, sinus issues, issues swallowing, etc.... a mildly cleft lip that isn't comorbid with a cleft palate rarely causes the same amount of medical issues as a cleft palate, but typically comes with more issues than "a funky looking lip", such as speech impediments and issues swallowing or containing saliva.

so again, there is no form of cleft palate that i have EVER heard of that only causes purely cosmetic issues. if you can point me to such a case i'll take it under consideration.

MOST cleft lips are associated with cleft palates, so the repair is going to be done while repairing the malformation of the palate.

MOST of the instances of cleft lips that DON'T also involve a cleft palate (rarer still) are also associated with actual medical issues that are not cosmetic in nature (such as saliva containment, speech issues, etc..)

so, what you end up with is a handful (ridiculously rare) quantity of PURELY cosmetic cleft lips, that pose no actual impediment. it's my position that these should be left alone until the child reaches such an age where they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they should do something about the condition.

it's not about the result of the change, it's about the imposition of a decision on someone who cannot consent when there is no pressing need to make the decision.

there simply isn't a medical purpose for the procedure. people who still claim that there is such are simply not correct.

Yes, we've been saying this for ages; there is no net medical effect of circumcision. I'm glad you're on board with this. But because the procedure isn't performed for the medical reasons, that must mean it has value to communities/societies/groups/parents.

that something has a value doesn't mean that it should have a value. you keep saying "people like to have this thing done so it should be done because people like to have it done", and that's stupid

if there's no medical reason to perform a medical procedure, then why do it to someone without their consent?

Because it's reasonable to believe that the person's quality of life will be positively impacted by said procedure (and keep in mind, there's a difference between "I don't give my consent", and "I'm incapable of giving consent to anything" - the difference between "NO!" and "<No answer>" is subtle, but very important).

right, and in states where someone is incapable of giving consent to anything, and will not reasonably be able to do so for the extended future, one should err on the side of preserving their right to give or retract consent

because someone's ability to discern the difference between two non-interchangeable states is unreliable. how do you know you wouldn't prefer to have been uncircumcised? you've never not been circumcised so you can't make that decision. an uncircumcised person can, in fact, simulate being circumcised so they can make a somewhat educated decision on the subject. circumcision is a change from the default state to a non-default state and it's irreversible, so once you've changed states you cannot adequately evaluate how you would feel about the default state.

I'm sorry, why are we talking about default and non-default states in biology? Also, what about aposthia--a rare condition where you're born without a foreskin? Is that a 'non-default state'? Or is it magically default because any condition you're born with is magically default? You're playing with word-games, here. What concerns me is how people feel about their bodies and the decisions made about them. Everything else is irrelevant.

yes, a rare condition where your biology is not in line with what is accepted as generally normal (hence the use of the word, rare, or defect, or condition) is totally not the default state for human anatomy.

humans, by default have certain parts, they don't all look the same, they don't have to all look the same, but as a general rule there is a default part list and a generalized default or expected state for all of them. if there wasn't, then there would be no such thing as an anatomical defect. i have no idea why that's such a contentious statement or position.

the vast majority of people born with penises are born with foreskins on those penises, that constitutes a default, or expected state.

Also, how can uncircumcised people simulate all the related cultural and biological changes that circumcision entails?

i didn't claim they could simulate the cultural changes, though if they just told everyone that they were circumcised, but then never showed their penis to anyone i'm pretty sure they'd get the standard "meh" as opposed to the "really? that's weird" that quite frequently accompanies the opposite revelation.

as for physicality, you can simply retract the foreskin and get a reasonable approximation of not having a foreskin. exactly the same? no, but it's a reasonable enough approximation to be able to make an educated assumption about the difference between the two states. much more approximate than a circumcised person simulating having a foreskin

now, you can take the first hand accounts of people who have had circumcisions done as adults for evidence of regret about the procedure itself because they've actually experienced both states. a lot more of this group experience regret about the actual procedure than those that are circumcised at birth. which should give some information about how those that were circumcised at birth MIGHT feel if they had been given the chance to make the decision themselves.

your ability to accept something that can't be changed and has effects associated with you that you have no way of actually personally evaluating isn't a good metric at all.

Except, outside of mind control, personal evaluation is the only metric that matters (to me, at least). How people 'might' feel under imaginary circumstances doesn't concern me; how people do feel under real circumstances do.

I don't understand why you're concerned with what an imaginary segment of the population might say when we have plenty of real people saying real things that are really applicable.

because your suggested metric is how many people are experiencing or at least voicing regret for something. when you're using a base group that can't really adequately express regret instead of a group that can then the metric seems a bit wonky.

if you were asking someone what the different experiences between having something, and not having something, you wouldn't ask someone who's always had it, or someone who's never had it. you'd ask someone who started out having it and ended up not, or someone who started not and ended up having.

so you can't actually take the number of people who regret having circumcisions as children and compare that experience directly to the number of people who don't. the only valuable metric as far as regret of the ACTUAL procedure (not the loss of autonomy, just the procedure) are those who had the procedure done as consenting parties after a period of having a foreskin.

this isn't to illustrate how you or anyone else should feel about anything one way or the other. it's about what metrics can be used for gaging this stuff. the argument that reads "well, millions of males have been circumcised over the years, if it was such a bad thing they'd be complaining about it. since they're not, it can't be that big of a deal" doesn't give any valuable information.

the fact that a non-insignificant quantity of people who have been circumcised as adults/late teens express regret and/or discomfort from the procedure DOES give valuable information because this is the only group who can adequatly relate the differences between the two states enough to get viable data

[lucrezaborgia]

the fact that a non-insignificant quantity of people who have been circumcised as adults/late teens express regret and/or discomfort from the procedure DOES give valuable information because this is the only group who can adequatly relate the differences between the two states enough to get viable data

How can people who have never had a foreskin know to bitch about what they are missing?

[The Great Hippo]

right, and in states where someone is incapable of giving consent to anything, and will not reasonably be able to do so for the extended future, one should err on the side of preserving their right to give or retract consent

I thought most states err on the side of letting your next-of-kin give consent, since we assume (particularly in the case of marriage!) that they'll know what you'd have wanted. I think that's a reasonable position? Isn't that relationship also extendable between parents and children?

yes, a rare condition where your biology is not in line with what is accepted as generally normal (hence the use of the word, rare, or defect, or condition) is totally not the default state for human anatomy.

humans, by default have certain parts, they don't all look the same, they don't have to all look the same, but as a general rule there is a default part list and a generalized default or expected state for all of them. if there wasn't, then there would be no such thing as an anatomical defect. i have no idea why that's such a contentious statement or position.

the vast majority of people born with penises are born with foreskins on those penises, that constitutes a default, or expected state.

The vast majority of people are born with umbilical cords attached. That constitutes a default, or expected state. Down with doctors crudely cutting our umbilical cords?

The definition of 'defect' is born out of utility, not of reality. Again, homosexality has been described as a defect. It fits the criteria you're using (how many people are born homosexual versus heterosexual? Couldn't we describe 'heterosexual' as the default?), but its utility has evaporated (we [hopefully!] no longer consider homosexuality to be something we need to correct--so we no longer consider it to be a defect). This is what I mean when I say this is a 'word-game'; circumcision is different from changing webbed feet because webbed feet isn't the 'default'?--No, the only real difference is that no one complains about correcting webbed feet.

Similarly, not correcting a cleft palate--or even a cleft lip!--when the resources to do so are readily available?--I'm comfortable describing that as child abuse. Nevermind that it's a 'defect'; just the sheer social stigma is enough reason. Parents have every reason to believe that a child with this condition will have their quality of life negatively impacted by it. People who would interfere with this for the sake of preserving the child's 'physical autonomy' are, from my perspective, engaged in abusive behavior.

because your suggested metric is how many people are experiencing or at least voicing regret for something. when you're using a base group that can't really adequately express regret instead of a group that can then the metric seems a bit wonky.

What is the end goal of your metric? Is it how positively people feel about themselves and their bodies? If that's the end goal of your metric, the only thing that matters is how people actually feel about themselves and their bodies. If that isn't the end goal of your metric, then I think we're coming from two very different places.