Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon

[finewine]

I don't see how NOT circumcising the child is acting against their interests.

Couldn't agree more - thank you for capturing the point with concise precision!

[Kayden]

Couldn't agree more - thank you for capturing the point with concise precision!

I think I shall make a banner for it.

[Vancha]

This has probably already been stated on this thread numerous times, but I am going to take Freud's standpoint that there are subconscious memories that we all possess that impact our behavior for the rest of our lives; memories of events that took place before we were able to retain conscious memory.  I think this theory speaks for itself; imagine an infant that was in a small cage and fed only with a robotic hand.  The infant would be scarred for life.  Trials with animals of high intelligence have shown that those who are given something to snuggle with, or social interaction when infants grow into far more stable adults; those who do not are neurotic.  I think then, a traumatic experience in infancy has the potential to scar children. 

I don't believe in circumcision myself, you could say, but I know some do.  My opinion is that while I don't think religion should ever dictate that something as irrelevant as that be done, which is purely ritualistic, if it needs to be, or will be regardless of laws or pressure, it should be done with anesthetic.  We give animals anesthetic and perhaps we could argue they won't remember it.  It's simply barbaric not to give a newborn anesthetic when dealing with such sensitive areas of the body.  I do think circumcision is a ritual that reflects religion's hatred and repression of sexuality, and I think that should have no place in modern society.  ...But what I think doesn't really have an impact at all.

[DarkLady]

Now the petition has my signature. 

[Alyssa M.]

That's one decision of my parents I'm happy about. It's not my parent's business to mess with my bits, however I might feel about them. I figure that at least I ended up with more raw material to work with for SRS.

[placeholdername]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here correctly.
Every time I read it I see "what the child doesn't remember doesn't harm the child".
Surely you don't mean that. That would mean that as long as the child doesn't remember it, inflicting any kind of pain or abuse on the child is "okay".
Surely you don't mean to imply that an infant screaming in pain is "no biggie cause he'll just forget".
Where do you draw the line? How much damage can be done to an infant without it mattering just cause he/she won't remember?

Trying to clarify what my point is because it's a bit tricky: I'm not saying that because the child won't (or likely won't) won't remember the pain, then that means it's okay.  I'm saying: if the child likely won't remember the pain, then let's be very clear about why exactly we want to stop this practice, which clearly includes more than just 'sparing the child pain that probably won't affect them ever'.  Mostly a reaction to the people (not everyone) who were going on about male circumcision being traumatic/sadistic/barbaric/etc.

And what about intersexed infants?

Actually I made sort of a similar argument in a thread on that subject:  Yes I agree that some intersex children are irrevocably harmed by the 'corrective' surgeries.  And yet a fair number of intersex kids who had those surgeries go on to lead completely normal lives and would be surprised to learn they were ever anything other than what they appear to themselves to be.  In fact, had those children NOT had that surgery, they might have suffered plenty of trauma from being teased and abused and possibly even murdered if a prospective sexual partner experienced so-called 'trans-panic'.

So on the subject of intersex surgery, as with male circumcision, my opinion is not that either is 'definitively right' or 'definitively wrong', but that the answer is complicated and cannot be simply one or the other.

One is a cosmetic alteration of a bodypart, one that inflicts extreme amounts of physical pain and is done without anaesthesia, and is perfectly avoidable.
The other is not. Being gay/trans/etc is not a choice, circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not something that is done to you (let alone without permission), circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not cosmetic, circumcision is.
See what I'm getting at?
There's quite a leap between telling people "no, you may not consciously choose to inflict extreme damage and pain on your children's genitalia" and suggesting that parents somehow prevent children from growing up to be themselves.

Er, I think you're taking that example opposite of how I meant it.  Parent's have a choice in whether they have their male children undergo circumcision, and part of the logic used against it is to 'spare the child the pain' (as is exemplified in this thread).  Mistakenly or not, many parents have the idea that they can spare their child the 'suffering' (such as societal discrimination and prejudice) of being g/l/b/t.  If there were a pregnancy test for determining your child's sexuality (such as with down's syndrome etc), and there were a genetic treatment which could 'correct' this in the womb so that the child would be born heteronormal, how many parents would choose to make this correction?  A hell of a lot of parents would, no matter how much we on this forum would all agree that that would be wrong, and many would do so on the basis of 'sparing the child the pain'.

My point in making that example is not to compare one to the other objectively, but to point out that arguments based on 'sparing the child the pain' can lead to dangerous thinking.  Pain is not objectively bad, and physical pain especially is the easiest to overcome and in many cases forget entirely (as evidenced by the majority of people who have no regrets about their own circumcision).

So overall, as I stated previously, I'm not really decided for or against male circumcision, but I don't think 'sparing the child the pain' is a valid reason in and of itself.

[Nicky]

Seems like a totally bizarre thing to do. In many cases it seems to have lost any real cultural significance and is done just because 'that's what you do'.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

[YoungSoulRebel]

I started to watch but it became way too technical for me.  But Circumcision is nothing more than a Jewish/Christan tradition that goes back to Abraham.

Technically, it's not even a Christian one.  Paul specifically noted that it wasn't necessary.

The reason it's so common in the United $tates goes back to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (yes, one of the Corn Flakes guys [his brother actually took the patent for those and ran]), who... was pretty messed-up in the head.  While he had a few good ideas (he was one of the first doctors to advocate vegetarianism for health benefits), he was vehemently anti-masturbation and in his personal life, was anti-sex to the point that all his children were adopted.  He advocated circumcision to a Victorian anti-sex society as a means of preventing masturbation (and for infant girls, he recommended burning off the clitoris with carbolic acid).  By the time people who weren't Kellogg (cos he lived well into his nineties) realised that circumcised boys masturbate anyway, the U$ medical community somehow had somehow lost all knowledge of how to clean intact penises, so they started making up reasons to keep doing it -- the most prevalent being "it's cleaner / you'll get smegma, otherwise", which completely ignores the fact that the average vulva produces far more smegma than the vast majority of intact penises.

In short, there is no reason to circumcise, en masse, in the United $tates.

[Alex_C]

Ask the man who owns one 

I like my little developing foreskin! And I've been looking like crazy for smegma and that's just not a problem.

Yes, there was a HUGE anti-masturbation and anti-sex movement in the US, there was some of this in England too (the Boy Scouts were started in England and the idea was to basically keep boys busy enough hiking etc that they'd be too tired to masturbate at night) but we in the US really took it to the Nth degree.

Apparently little kids like to hump stuff, mostly boys do it but some girls too, and parents are often startled (if they're living in a nuclear family where there are no aunts, uncles, grandparents etc around to tell 'em it's normal) to see their teeny kids humping blankets, the vacuum cleaner, each other..... it passes in time and it just part of "learning play" that kids do. Parents get all freaked out that their kids are "sinning" and yell at them, etc getting them started on the whole sex = bad thing that's a fundamental belief here in the Empire.

[childofwinter]

Circumcision of any child (or adult without consent) is wrong. It is mutilating the body.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Ask the man who owns one 

I like my little developing foreskin! And I've been looking like crazy for smegma and that's just not a problem.

Well, the circumcision racket in the U$ has actually seriously confused people as to what smegma actually is.  Basically smegma is the lubricating film that keeps the glans of the penis, as well as the folds of the labia minora and clitoris moist -- the word comes from the ancient Greek for "soap" because it has that filmy-soapy sort of texture.  Trust me, barring some bizarre medical condition, you're producing it, but you don't even really notice it because (I'm guessing) you shower or bathe daily.

If you don't bathe yourself regularly, smegma can build up quite thick and produce a kind of pungent odour similar to certain cheeses -- but my room-mate, who is a natal man, is circumcised and his pyjama shorts get that same kind of funk if he goes two weeks without washing them.  Basically, it's just a natural sort of musk that morphs into a "cheesey" sort of smell when allowed to build up and kind of "go stale".

[Alex_C]

Haha yes well I know a little about not bathing for a few days, and yeah, it's a cheesy smell.

[Myself]

Personally I didn't even know how one should *really* look like before seeing my boyfriend's.

I think mine looks prettier (I hate mine :/)

I don't think it had any effect at all, some people said it has loss of sexual sensation but I won't know that even if I tried, and I don't really use it so..

To only real loss I can imagine is for people doing GRS (genital, not gender), to lose a bit of material.
But reading on sites like suporn, who really needs 8.5 inch deep vagina when the average is maybe like 5 inch?
And it;s only a bit of material loss.

I find the outside look and sensations be be more important than how deep it is, I don't think that tyhe surgery is only so people can change from "mine is longer" to "mine is deeper"

The only reason I find against it is that parents do it without the child's agreement.
I might be able to say "there is a sexual sensation loss too" but I dunno..

The only other reason (I find only to be so incorrectly used in this post [only ]) is that people do it because of some silly fairy tale just seems.. where are the guys with the white outfits? oh! I know! they are too busy "taking care" of people with actual biological disorders rather than people who believe in fairy tales

[Jay]

To be honest, I haven't posted in this topic.. simply because I don't really care.

Heartless?? Maybe meh..

Jay

[Jamie-o]

Am I the only one who is bugged by the deliberately misleading title of this post? Nobody is recommending mandatory circumcision for all boys.  Please, leave the fear-mongering sensationalism to the right-wing idiots and keep to the actual facts.

Now, that being said, I agree that forcing circumcision on infants is wrong, especially if they really do do it without anesthetic.  That's just cruel. 

However, studies have shown that circumcision does reduce the chances for acquiring an STD, especially AIDS, because the foreskin is more fragile, and therefore more likely to be torn and create a route into the body.  Circumcision also greatly reduces the number of UTIs that boys suffer from.  And further research, focusing on men who have been circumcised as adults, has shown that little if any sensation is lost due to circumcision.  (I suspect it's very much like for FTMs when the little guy outgrows the hood.  It's over-sensitive, and therefore less pleasurable for a while, but once it gets used to being out in the open, it goes back to normal.)

Plus, circumcised penises just look so much better.  Uncut dicks are just ... ick. 

Still, as a parent, I think I would choose to let the boy make that decision when he is grown, rather than to make it for him.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Now, that being said, I agree that forcing circumcision on infants is wrong, especially if they really do do it without anesthetic.  That's just cruel.

It is does without anesthetioc because anesthetising infants can be dangerous -- of course, it's very rare, but sometimes the pain from circumcisision can cause shock and that can be fatal in infants.

However, studies have shown that circumcision does reduce the chances for acquiring an STD, especially AIDS, because the foreskin is more fragile, and therefore more likely to be torn and create a route into the body.

No, that's not how it works.

Basically, the way that circumcision has proved a somewhat effective preventative measure against the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and against HIV alone, interestingly -- there have been no scientific studies concerning other STIs) is because the way HIV "works" as a virus is by attacking immunity cells.  The purpose of the foreskin is to keep the mucus membrane of the glans and a portion of the shaft moist and prevent kertanisation (hardening and dulling) of this membrane; this is an important mucus membrane because when minor infectious cells such as bacteria or lesser vira become folded into it, the foreskin actually keeps loads of immunity cells within it.  So basically the forskin, by doing its job, can make men more susceptible to HIV transmission -- but this is not at all an excuse for circumcising infants in the developed world with excellent education on HIV and STI prevention.

Circumcision also greatly reduces the number of UTIs that boys suffer from.

No, it does not.  The reason many intact boys get UTIs is because a paediatrician who has no idea how to care advise parents on foreskin care tells them that the foreskin has to be forced back in infancy -- but the foreskin does not retract naturally until the boy is between three and five years old.  Forcing back the foreskin causes tears, making the child more susceptible to infection.  Infant boys with UTIs aren't all that common at all in Europe and the UK -- where compulsory infant circumcision has been all but banned in most countries (save Sweden -- where it IS banned) since the 1940s.  I grew up part-time in the UK -- trust me, I know this is fact.

And further research, focusing on men who have been circumcised as adults, has shown that little if any sensation is lost due to circumcision.  (I suspect it's very much like for FTMs when the little guy outgrows the hood.  It's over-sensitive, and therefore less pleasurable for a while, but once it gets used to being out in the open, it goes back to normal.)

Considering that a circumcised penis is basically a form of callus from the scar down, this makes no sense to anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology.

Plus, circumcised penises just look so much better.  Uncut dicks are just ... ick.

This is your opinion -- and my opinion is that cut penises are weird-looking.  But then again, erect, cut and intact penises look almost the same.  The only difference is that cut men have those horrid ring-around-the-willy scars.

[Jamie-o]

It is does without anesthetioc because anesthetising infants can be dangerous -- of course, it's very rare, but sometimes the pain from circumcisision can cause shock and that can be fatal in infants.

They can use topical, local anesthetics.  But in any case, I agree with you.  It's cruel and not worth the risks. 

No, that's not how it works.

Basically, the way that circumcision has proved a somewhat effective preventative measure against the AIDS pandemic in Africa (and against HIV alone, interestingly -- there have been no scientific studies concerning other STIs) is because the way HIV "works" as a virus is by attacking immunity cells.  The purpose of the foreskin is to keep the mucus membrane of the glans and a portion of the shaft moist and prevent kertanisation (hardening and dulling) of this membrane; this is an important mucus membrane because when minor infectious cells such as bacteria or lesser vira become folded into it, the foreskin actually keeps loads of immunity cells within it.  So basically the forskin, by doing its job, can make men more susceptible to HIV transmission -- but this is not at all an excuse for circumcising infants in the developed world with excellent education on HIV and STI prevention.

You obviously know more about biology than I.  I was only going with what I read in a few articles several years ago.  The comment about the fragility of the foreskin was actually in an article specifically dealing with the possibility of contracting AIDS from oral sex.  At the time the only known cases of men getting AIDS from oral were linked to times when the foreskin tore during particularly vigorous, ah... activity.  But this quote from a recent article in the Boston Globe supports that statement in other situations: 

"Foreskin is more subject to inflammation than a circumcised penis, making it easier for germs to enter. The sensitive skin also contains certain cells that link easily with the AIDS virus."

The same article also mentions findings that circumcised men are also less susceptible to syphilis and chancroid, and other articles have mentioned gonorrhea and chlamydia.

But your point about the availability of education and healthcare in developed nations is a good one.  STD prevention in the western world is not a good enough excuse, at least not on its own.

No, it does not.  The reason many intact boys get UTIs is because a paediatrician who has no idea how to care advise parents on foreskin care tells them that the foreskin has to be forced back in infancy -- but the foreskin does not retract naturally until the boy is between three and five years old.  Forcing back the foreskin causes tears, making the child more susceptible to infection.  Infant boys with UTIs aren't all that common at all in Europe and the UK -- where compulsory infant circumcision has been all but banned in most countries (save Sweden -- where it IS banned) since the 1940s.  I grew up part-time in the UK -- trust me, I know this is fact.

Another excerpt from the same article:

Repeated medical studies have demonstrated that circumcised infants have a significantly lower risk of contracting a urinary tract infection, with some reports estimating that uncircumcised boys are 10 times more likely to suffer a urinary tract infection before their first birthday.

``With the foreskin there, there's nothing really to rub the bacteria off, and so they have a nice environment for multiplication," said Dr. George Klauber , chief of pediatric urology at Tufts-New England Medical Center .

That being the case, it also goes on to say:

Still, even in uncircumcised infants, the incidence of urinary tract infections is low -- about 1 percent -- and usually they can be treated with antibiotics.

Again, clearly not a good enough reason on its own to do it.  I agree.

Considering that a circumcised penis is basically a form of callus from the scar down, this makes no sense to anybody with rudimentary knowledge of biology.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense, and certainly the results of studies have been mixed.  But by far the largest study - consisting of 4456 males age 15-45, none of whom had been circumcised up to that point - found that:

Adult male circumcision does not adversely  affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.

You can read the entire study here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119420541/PDFSTART

This is your opinion -- and my opinion is that cut penises are weird-looking.  But then again, erect, cut and intact penises look almost the same.  The only difference is that cut men have those horrid ring-around-the-willy scars.

Yes, it is my opinion.  Though I actually meant it to be taken tongue-in-cheek, but I forgot to put in the emoticon.  Sorry.


In the end, the fact is I agree with you.  Infant circumcision is an unnecessary risk for little reward, unless there are other circumstances to recommend it.   It just really puts my back up when people use sensationalism to push their view points.  It makes me want to challenge them, even if I more or less agree.  It's probably childish of me, but there it is. 

[finewine]

Unfortunately the circumcision & HIV area has been an area of poor scientific work in some quarters - a lot of noise has been made about studies that were inconclusive or abandoned early.  The oft referenced studies (excluding the abandoned African one that always gets referenced alas) actually show that there is a statistical possibility that circumcision can affect the penetration of the HIV virus but that possibility does nowhere near a probability - in other words, for the general population it makes no significant difference at all.

Circumcision is about as proportionate a response to HIV as beheading is to dandruff (although at least the latter can claim to be an effective preventative measure).

[Radar]

"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."

I've never completely understood this. How do you measure pleasure? An intact man doesn't know how sex feels to a cut man (unless he got circumcised as an adult) and a cut man doesn't know what sex feels like to an intact man. If we want to say the pleasure is from sensory nerves there's more in the foreskin... alot more. Plus, how can you truly measure pleasure in a person? Someone may outwardly show alot of pleasure, but someone else might feel more pleasure but are more inward and shows less. I think that whole argument is very flawed.

[YoungSoulRebel]

Unfortunately the circumcision & HIV area has been an area of poor scientific work in some quarters - a lot of noise has been made about studies that were inconclusive or abandoned early.  The oft referenced studies (excluding the abandoned African one that always gets referenced alas) actually show that there is a statistical possibility that circumcision can affect the penetration of the HIV virus but that possibility does nowhere near a probability - in other words, for the general population it makes no significant difference at all.

Circumcision is about as proportionate a response to HIV as beheading is to dandruff (although at least the latter can claim to be an effective preventative measure).

Very true.  The more generalised the population, the more ineffective circumcision would be as any sort of preventitive measure.  The study referenced in Africa was on specific populations where HIV infection rates are much higher than other populations, and it is both relevant and odd that, as you rightly point out, earlier such studies produced inconclusive results.  On the other hand, I've taken the time to leaf through my room-mate's old biology texts (he has a master's in biology and took two years off due to PTSD, basically, then found himself unable to afford going back to finish his Phd, and he also maintains subscriptions to peer-review journals -- so while my own education is primarily in art and history, I'm constantly pouring through these things out of boredom and interest), so I do know that the male prepuce (as well as the labia minora) do house a slightly-higher population of these cells than many other areas of the body, so the theory on how these results come from certain concentrated populations in Africa at least makes sense.

Ultimately, though, the problem in Africa with HIV infection rates is more due to local superstition, socialisation, and education issues.  This can't (nor should it) replace education, and if people were truly acting in the best interests of Africa, they'd promote HIV prevention education rather than just across-the-board male circumcision.