Circumcision

[Fantasies_only]

The more you post, the more impressed I am at your ability to completely miss the point, answer a completely different question, and generally make no sense at all.

My point is why grow up without something then suddenly get it fixed, when they can fix it before maturity?

 

[Cattypuss]

Well then I have a question about genital warts:
Would a circumcised man of say 34 who masturbated more times than usual (at least twice daily) be more or less subject to get this?
I've heard semen + skin + rubbing = genital warts, is this true?

I'm guessing the poster is a 34-year-old circumcised man who masturbates at least twice daily lol.

I suppose you could get genital warts by rubbing someone ELSE's semen into your skin

 

[Etoile]

My point is why grow up without something then suddenly get it fixed, when they can fix it before maturity?

I guess you're going to have to explain it for me. What does this have to do with circumcision?

 

[gregor2001us]

So, in as simple terms as I can put it, the cochlear implant debate - as relevant to this discussion.

First of all, a cochlear implant is a medical device that is surgically implanted in the ear. The device translates external audio input into electrical signals which are directly communicated to the brain. The well-trained brain interprets these signals ...

But where is the infant's right to bodily integrity? What if that baby didn't want its head pylled open, its life changed, its process of living disrupted? Why is it so much better for the baby to hear than to not have a scar on its head? Why is the baby deformed the way it is, and better with this device attached to it? What's wrong with the baby the way it was born! Why does it need surgery just so it learns English the same way as everybody else, gets the same education as everybody else, and can listen to music just like everybody else! Why?...

Great example to consider, thanks for laying it out. So if I understand the issues, it could be restated like this. Parents have a difficult decision to make:

1) Agree to cochlear surgery or 2) wait and and see how things go.

Deciding on infant surgery has advantages:

Best chance for intervention to reach its full potential in restoring hearing,
Best chance for the child to adapt

On the other hand, there are disadvantages:

Violates human rights,
Takes away future options,
risk of complications form surgery and anesthesia,
risk of infection,
pain and suffering,
need for future surgeries perhaps?

And not doing the surgery probably give the child the best potential to learn and become competent in sign language and assimilate with the deaf community? Feel free to correct the above if I am not stating things correctly or have missed important points. I am not knowledgeable in this area, however, let me go on for the purpose of our circumcision discussion.

Certainly a difficult choice. The trade offs are difficult to choose from. The most helpful process I have found for navigating difficult choices like this is to carefully weigh the trade offs while considering my values, risk tolerance, and the uncertainties in my understanding.

So one person may decide on surgery. They put a high value on being able to hear and function as normally as possible in society. They feel the risk of complications and infection is tolerable. And they are willing to trade the pain and suffering against the benefit of having hearing. And they feel that the outcome is reasonably certain to be beneficial.

But another person may choose not to do the surgery. They value bodily integrity, individual choice and avoiding pain and suffering in infants highly. They feel the risk of infection and complications are too high. They are less certain that the outcome will be much better than his potential to communicate without the surgery and put a value on his being better adapted to function as a deaf person without the surgery.

Sometimes choices are not easy to make and the trade offs rely more on values and risk tolerance than on predicted outcomes. And even the best choice can still end up with a bad outcome. But the process remains the same in my mind. Weigh the trade offs and consider your values and risk tolerance, coupled with your certainty.

So let me pose another example, picked to be extreme and hopefully a clearer choice. We could prevent all testicular cancer by castrating all male infants.

Of course we would never agree to this because the disadvantages (taking away his ability to have children, causing him to need hormone therapy for the rest of his life, pain, etc) heavily outweigh the small benefit of reducing a rare cancer that can be treated in other ways if that time comes.

Now, getting back to circumcision, specifically Routine Infant Circumcision, let me try and lay it out the same way. It of course has some advantages:

small potential reduction (still being debated) UTIs,

small potential reduction (apparently still being debated as well) in penile cancer,

reduced risk of phimosis,

small reduction in the probability that any one sexual encounter will result in becoming infected with HIV/STDs.

On the other hand, it has some disadvantages:

violates human rights,

takes away his future options,

risk of complications from surgery and anesthesia,

risk of infection,

pain and suffering,

removes normal, healthy body tissue that provides significant sexual function and feelings to both him and his partner(s),

difficult to do effectively during infancy because the penis is not fully developed and the doctor cannot predict what it will be like when fully developed.

For me the best choice is clear. I value highly human rights to bodily integrity, so the decision to violate this must have large advantages. In my reading and exploration of the materials available, the advantages listed above do not seem compelling:

The incidence of UTIs in male infants is far below the incidence in female infants, so this seems a small benefit since we do not do anything similar to avoid them in female infants.

Penile cancer is rare and typically happens in older men. In fact, my information indicates that more men actually contract and die from breast cancer.

Phimosis is a rare problem that has other, less invasive treatments if it happens to develop, and these other treatments preserve the foreskin and its function.

As far as HIV & STDs, circumcised men still need to wear condoms and practice all the safe sex practices that intact men must do and there is evidence that circumcised men are less likely to use condoms due to the reduced feelings that result from loss of the foreskin. So the trade off does not seem to be there either.

Note that I have not brought the appearance, cleanliness, fitting in with society, or father like son arguments into it. This was intentional because the rates of circumcision are changing and in some parts of the this country (not to mention the rest of the world) a large part of society is intact. So whether you will fit in or not and what the standards of appearance will be does not argue one way or the other.

I have high confidence that the foreskin is an integral part of sexual function and feeling. Because of this, my stance is to be risk averse, leave his options open. My decision is clear. For others, it may not be so.

"His body, his choice"

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper....it's the candy"

Regards

 

[HarlotMinx]

The more you post, the more impressed I am at your ability to completely miss the point, answer a completely different question, and generally make no sense at all.

I second this, I've given up on replying to F_O's posts because I have to follow them up with a second post that tries to explain why he misunderstood my first post and try and clarify what I was saying. And I second Nh, the sugar comment, the Asprin comment, and the description of the surgery itself are pure fallacies.

gregor2001us, I question that reference. I know that for myself I didn't cry at all much less go catatonic. I mostly question your articles based on the source since it's more than a tad biased. However, until I find one that I find suitable unbiased I'm going to address more the other part of your posts.

Part of why I'm getting defensive is that you've classified it as both torture and traumatic but I'm unsure of what exactly is traumatic? I mean is it mental? I know I can't even remember being younger than three much less my circumcision. Is it social humiliation? I find that hard to believe in a society where it's been normalized and quite popular. I just am failing to see the negative of the procedure.

When I was 2 I managed to pry a metal table leg guard off and started chewing on it before my parents noticed. The metal cover cut into the rough of my mouth and stopped short of the brain. That was when I was 2 and quite frankly beyond a scar along the inside of my mouth i have no lasting trauma or damage and that was quite a bit later in my life and significantly more damaging. I just fail to understand what about the procedure is terrible beyond the violation of someone's sense of morality.

 

[Etoile]

Great example to consider, thanks for laying it out. So if I understand the issues, it could be restated like this. Parents have a difficult decision to make:

1) Agree to cochlear surgery or 2) wait and and see how things go.

Deciding on infant surgery has advantages:

Best chance for intervention to reach its full potential in restoring hearing,
Best chance for the child to adapt

On the other hand, there are disadvantages:

Violates human rights,
Takes away future options,
risk of complications form surgery and anesthesia,
risk of infection,
pain and suffering,
need for future surgeries perhaps?

And not doing the surgery probably give the child the best potential to learn and become competent in sign language and assimilate with the deaf community? Feel free to correct the above if I am not stating things correctly or have missed important points. I am not knowledgeable in this area, however, let me go on for the purpose of our circumcision discussion.

Certainly a difficult choice. The trade offs are difficult to choose from. The most helpful process I have found for navigating difficult choices like this is to carefully weigh the trade offs while considering my values, risk tolerance, and the uncertainties in my understanding.

So one person may decide on surgery. They put a high value on being able to hear and function as normally as possible in society. They feel the risk of complications and infection is tolerable. And they are willing to trade the pain and suffering against the benefit of having hearing. And they feel that the outcome is reasonably certain to be beneficial.

But another person may choose not to do the surgery. They value bodily integrity, individual choice and avoiding pain and suffering in infants highly. They feel the risk of infection and complications are too high. They are less certain that the outcome will be much better than his potential to communicate without the surgery and put a value on his being better adapted to function as a deaf person without the surgery.

Sometimes choices are not easy to make and the trade offs rely more on values and risk tolerance than on predicted outcomes. And even the best choice can still end up with a bad outcome. But the process remains the same in my mind. Weigh the trade offs and consider your values and risk tolerance, coupled with your certainty.

So let me pose another example, picked to be extreme and hopefully a clearer choice. We could prevent all testicular cancer by castrating all male infants.

Of course we would never agree to this because the disadvantages (taking away his ability to have children, causing him to need hormone therapy for the rest of his life, pain, etc) heavily outweigh the small benefit of reducing a rare cancer that can be treated in other ways if that time comes.

Now, getting back to circumcision, specifically Routine Infant Circumcision, let me try and lay it out the same way. It of course has some advantages:

small potential reduction (still being debated) UTIs,

small potential reduction (apparently still being debated as well) in penile cancer,

reduced risk of phimosis,

small reduction in the probability that any one sexual encounter will result in becoming infected with HIV/STDs.

On the other hand, it has some disadvantages:

violates human rights,

takes away his future options,

risk of complications from surgery and anesthesia,

risk of infection,

pain and suffering,

removes normal, healthy body tissue that provides significant sexual function and feelings to both him and his partner(s),

difficult to do effectively during infancy because the penis is not fully developed and the doctor cannot predict what it will be like when fully developed.

For me the best choice is clear. I value highly human rights to bodily integrity, so the decision to violate this must have large advantages. In my reading and exploration of the materials available, the advantages listed above do not seem compelling:

The incidence of UTIs in male infants is far below the incidence in female infants, so this seems a small benefit since we do not do anything similar to avoid them in female infants.

Penile cancer is rare and typically happens in older men. In fact, my information indicates that more men actually contract and die from breast cancer.

Phimosis is a rare problem that has other, less invasive treatments if it happens to develop, and these other treatments preserve the foreskin and its function.

As far as HIV & STDs, circumcised men still need to wear condoms and practice all the safe sex practices that intact men must do and there is evidence that circumcised men are less likely to use condoms due to the reduced feelings that result from loss of the foreskin. So the trade off does not seem to be there either.

Note that I have not brought the appearance, cleanliness, fitting in with society, or father like son arguments into it. This was intentional because the rates of circumcision are changing and in some parts of the this country (not to mention the rest of the world) a large part of society is intact. So whether you will fit in or not and what the standards of appearance will be does not argue one way or the other.

I have high confidence that the foreskin is an integral part of sexual function and feeling. Because of this, my stance is to be risk averse, leave his options open. My decision is clear. For others, it may not be so.

"His body, his choice"

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper....it's the candy"

Regards

You did did an excellent job breaking down the cochlear implant issue. Simply brilliant. And in understanding how it fit into this discussion too!

 

[Etoile]

I second this, I've given up on replying to F_O's posts because I have to follow them up with a second post that tries to explain why he misunderstood my first post and try and clarify what I was saying. And I second Nh, the sugar comment, the Asprin comment, and the description of the surgery itself are pure fallacies.

Yeah...I'm starting to wonder if it's worth it too...

 

[gregor2001us]

gregor2001us, I question that reference. I know that for myself I didn't cry at all much less go catatonic. I mostly question your articles based on the source since it's more than a tad biased. However, until I find one that I find suitable unbiased I'm going to address more the other part of your posts.

Part of why I'm getting defensive is that you've classified it as both torture and traumatic but I'm unsure of what exactly is traumatic? I mean is it mental? I know I can't even remember being younger than three much less my circumcision. Is it social humiliation? I find that hard to believe in a society where it's been normalized and quite popular. I just am failing to see the negative of the procedure.

When I was 2 I managed to pry a metal table leg guard off and started chewing on it before my parents noticed. The metal cover cut into the rough of my mouth and stopped short of the brain. That was when I was 2 and quite frankly beyond a scar along the inside of my mouth i have no lasting trauma or damage and that was quite a bit later in my life and significantly more damaging. I just fail to understand what about the procedure is terrible beyond the violation of someone's sense of morality.

Well, you have me confused. You don't remember anything earlier than 3 but you are aware that you didn't cry or go catatonic?

Of course my source is biased. Every source is biased. But that source has the observations in enough detail to give some confidence in it. If you find other information that is comparable but takes the opposite side, I will be interested to see it.

I agree that common definitions are needed. Otherwise we will never understand what each is saying. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to come up with a common set of pain terms that cover a range. For instance an injection is relatively low on the pain scale I think, while getting a second degree burn causes a lot more pain. My understanding from both reading and watching and listening to a circ being performed on an infant is that the pain of a circ causes a level of pain significantly higher than a second degree burn. Each person reacts to pain differently, so it can be hard to come up with a one size fits all. But here is another research report on pain in infants, premature infants actually:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4875196.stm

I do not actually remember saying torture. But from watching a RIC I can see how some would characterize it that way.

Your experience is your experience. Hard to argue with personal experience. But on the other hand, what is true for one person is not necessarily true for others. that is one of the things that can make this type of discussion difficult. Separating one persons feelings and experiences from a societal guideline intended to protect all.

For me what makes it so bad is 1) it violates human rights and the right to genital integrity, 2) it causes pain, 3) it removes important sexual tissue that has a high value for sexual function and feelings. You do not think the pain is enough to be an issue.

OK, for argument's sake I will give you that for now. It still violate a basic tenant of our society. It goes against our laws and moral values. It goes against the doctor's guidelines and Hippocratic. In fact, the medical communtiy washes their hands of it and say that it is something the parents can choose to do. That doesn't make it sound very compelling to me.

More importantly, it reduces the man's ability to reach his full sexual function and pleasure. This is a big cost from my perspective. Other may disagree. But for me it is a big cost, and I fail to see a compelling advantage to pay this big cost.

Regards

 

[gregor2001us]

You did did an excellent job breaking down the cochlear implant issue. Simply brilliant. And in understanding how it fit into this discussion too!

Thanks!

Have a great 4th!

 

[HarlotMinx]

Well, you have me confused. You don't remember anything earlier than 3 but you are aware that you didn't cry or go catatonic?

First hand account from the doctor who performed the circumcision, he's an old family friend and I see him every year at the apple butter festival.

Of course my source is biased. Every source is biased. But that source has the observations in enough detail to give some confidence in it. If you find other information that is comparable but takes the opposite side, I will be interested to see it.

Yes every source is biased but you picked one from a organization who says in their mission statement that circumcision is wrong and traumatic as opposed to something from a source that has no particular agenda. I recognize this was not always the case and I agree that performing it without medication is a bit intimidating but as the procedure stands now I don't see it causing something comparable with severe burns.

I agree that common definitions are needed. Otherwise we will never understand what each is saying. Perhaps a better way to say it would be to come up with a common set of pain terms that cover a range. For instance an injection is relatively low on the pain scale I think, while getting a second degree burn causes a lot more pain. My understanding from both reading and watching and listening to a circ being performed on an infant is that the pain of a circ causes a level of pain significantly higher than a second degree burn. Each person reacts to pain differently, so it can be hard to come up with a one size fits all. But here is another research report on pain in infants, premature infants actually:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4875196.stm

And yet every resource I can see shows that they perform anesthesia on the child though I recognize that it hasn't always been a practice or even one for very long. Having had surgery while conscious and under anesthesia I remember I was actually quite surprised by just how little was felt.

I do not actually remember saying torture. But from watching a RIC I can see how some would characterize it that way.

This is true, you never did but the word was thrown around and despite the reply to your post I was including the people who did say it was torture as a general question about what about it fit the criteria.

For me what makes it so bad is 1) it violates human rights and the right to genital integrity, 2) it causes pain, 3) it removes important sexual tissue that has a high value for sexual function and feelings. You do not think the pain is enough to be an issue.

OK, for argument's sake I will give you that for now. It still violate a basic tenant of our society. It goes against our laws and moral values. It goes against the doctor's guidelines and Hippocratic. In fact, the medical communtiy washes their hands of it and say that it is something the parents can choose to do. That doesn't make it sound very compelling to me.

Oh I wont even begin to pretend it doesn't violate their right to choice but as a child their is a lot of procedures that parents perform that violate the child's rights. Determining gender for children born with ambiguous genitalia comes to mind, as does medicating your children to adjust their personality. Or when mothers get their girls ears pierced before she has he right to decide. Oh, or corrective plastic surgery on a child who's viewed to be deformed. Enforcing religious doctrine, social doctrine, gender doctrine; all of those violate the child's. Parents violate their child's rights all the time for, in their view, their child's own good and short of being abusive it's their right. If parents want to raise their kid vegan or home school them or staunch catholic it's up to them.

Now I think it clearly doesn't break the law nor the Hippocratic oath. We can see medical reasons for the procedure though yes ones that can have their worth challenged. And as to morality, who are you or me or anyone else to decide what others morals are? From it's apparent popularity in western culture it's clear their are plenty of people who don't find it morally objectionable.

But I digress, it's not morality that I wished to argue as such a debate by itself is rarely fruitful. I was challenging more the idea that it was traumatic or as others would put it, torture. I just didn't see evidence of long term damage or even sufficient short term to justify the view and wanted someone to clarify what about it made it traumatic.

More importantly, it reduces the man's ability to reach his full sexual function and pleasure.

I think that is a entirely subjective statement due to every individual's sexual organ and experience being entirely unique. I think the only way to validate or invalidate such a statement would be to look at a poll of men who underwent a circumcision prior to reaching sexual activeness and even at that point it's difficult to say the least to ask a person to rate their sexual experience before and after unless there's some extreme difference they notice.

Side note on the cochlear implant This may be a very select portion of the community and likely doesn't speak for the mass as a whole but I once visited Gallaudet and got to talk with them. A number of the students who I talked with actually resented the idea of the implant as they felt that it implied they were impaired or that deafness should even be fixed. I confess that the notion that deafness would be considered just a physical difference like hair color and not a impairment is slightly alien to me and I still think they were a bit elitist about their deafness so I ended up shrugging. I found though that it was fascinating that people would prefer being deaf and view it as something to have great pride in. I've never seen that mentality in people who are born blind or physically impaired in some fashion.

 

[Fantasies_only]

I have high confidence that the foreskin is an integral part of sexual function and feeling. Because of this, my stance is to be risk averse, leave his options open. My decision is clear. For others, it may not be so.

"His body, his choice"

"The foreskin isn't the wrapper....it's the candy"

Regards

Have you ever licked the inside of a candy wrapper that has melted chocolate still on it?
Yes foreskin does have something to do with sexual pleasure, but the entire skin is not taken off.
Sensitive nerve endings are exposed that I suppose might feel better in the vagina.
The genital itself is just for orgasms, but the foreskin (the inside) triggers these orgasms.

 

[FurryFury]

Please just because you've had serious medical problems at an early age and now can't remember pain doesn't mean there was no pain experienced by you then.

I happen to tend to forget pain myself. It's a defense mechanism. That doesn't mean pain never occurred.

I really don't understand how people can defend circumcision and beat up on people for being against it.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Please just because you've had serious medical problems at an early age and now can't remember pain doesn't mean there was no pain experienced by you then.

I happen to tend to forget pain myself. It's a defense mechanism. That doesn't mean pain never occurred.

I really don't understand how people can defend circumcision and beat up on people for being against it.

Who are you referring too?

 

[FurryFury]

Who are you referring too?

Anyone who claims small children and babies don't feel pain or feel it the way adults do.

Anyone who feels a need to put down those that are against circumcision or defend.

Personally, I'm against it, the only exceptions to my thinking being when truly medically necessary or for religious purposes.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Anyone who claims small children and babies don't feel pain or feel it the way adults do.

Anyone who feels a need to put down those that are against circumcision or defend.

Personally, I'm against it, the only exceptions to my thinking being when truly medically necessary or for religious purposes.

Just because not everyone thinks like you doesn't give you the right to slam everybody else.

 

[FurryFury]

Just because not everyone thinks like you doesn't give you the right to slam everybody else.

True, nor does it give anyone else the right to slam other who don't agree with them but there has been a LOT of such slamming in this thread. I didn't feel what I said amounted to slamming. If you did and that's how you see it, I'm sorry that you see it that way. Again, we will have to disagree, it seems.

 

[HarlotMinx]

Please just because you've had serious medical problems at an early age and now can't remember pain doesn't mean there was no pain experienced by you then.

I happen to tend to forget pain myself. It's a defense mechanism. That doesn't mean pain never occurred.

I really don't understand how people can defend circumcision and beat up on people for being against it.

I'm hardly trying to beat up anyone, I was trying to understand what people meant by the idea of trauma being caused. I'm not saying there isn't pain, though I do question a how babies interpret pain upon just leaving the womb. What I was saying furry was that trauma denotes some type of long lasting mental or physical damage. I really wasn't trying to beat anyone up and in fact don't even necessarily support the procedure because frankly I don't think it's terribly necessary for a person to live their life happily but I still question whether it's a all terrible crime upon these children. Actually I quite liked that greg was the first to step up and reference sources though I wish the site it was from was more neutral. Most of what I was looking for was some development in the argument against them beyond statements of emotion, a bit of debate so I could better understand why people found them so distasteful beyond the fact that they do.

Quite honestly I'm not saying that everyone should be required to have one or that it's absolutely necessary because I believe neither, I just believe that the parent should have the right to make or not make that decision. One thing I don't believe is that the doctor should make that decision for the parent.

On a side note, with exception of maybe one person I think this board has been quite calm and surprisingly so, greg for example has made a number of good arguments and defended his belief with reasons and I know Etoile did a great job at making a comparison with the implants.

 

[FurryFury]

I'm hardly trying to beat up anyone, I was trying to understand what people meant by the idea of trauma being caused. I'm not saying there isn't pain, though I do question a how babies interpret pain upon just leaving the womb. What I was saying furry was that trauma denotes some type of long lasting mental or physical damage. I really wasn't trying to beat anyone up and in fact don't even necessarily support the procedure because frankly I don't think it's terribly necessary for a person to live their life happily but I still question whether it's a all terrible crime upon these children. Actually I quite liked that greg was the first to step up and reference sources though I wish the site it was from was more neutral. Quite honestly I'm not saying that everyone should be required to have one or that it's absolutely necessary because I believe neither, I just believe that the parent should have the right to make or not make that decision. One thing I don't believe is that the doctor should make that decision for the parent.

I so agree with you there! I'm pretty big on parental rights.

 

[HarlotMinx]

[/B]

I so agree with you there! I'm pretty big on parental rights.

See, we aren't too different in our outlooks then. I mean, I just get frustrated at seeing arguments who's sum basis is "I feel this" which is why I found myself being.... sharp with Samuelx. I just don't see the point of arguing against someone unless you form some reasons in support, some machine by which you can convert or change their own opinion. Arguments should never be to bash or to blindly express emotions, people wont listen and then it stops becoming a conversation. And ultimately you probably will agree to disagree but maybe with a new outlook or even more firmly convinced of the one you started with. That's what makes it all worth it.

 

[FurryFury]

See, we aren't too different in our outlooks then. I mean, I just get frustrated at seeing arguments who's sum basis is "I feel this" which is why I found myself being.... sharp with Samuelx. I just don't see the point of arguing against someone unless you form some reasons in support, some machine by which you can convert or change their own opinion. Arguments should never be to bash or to blindly express emotions, people wont listen and then it stops becoming a conversation. And ultimately you probably will agree to disagree but maybe with a new outlook or even more firmly convinced of the one you started with. That's what makes it all worth it.

Maybe we do agree in some ways. However, I will say that on issues like this I don't like to argue to expect anyone to change their minds or change mine. When I see personal slams happening or too many people siding one way, I tend to speak up then. I don't want to debate or offer proof of my opinion though because it's simply an opinion. I'm fine with people disagreeing with such an opinion as long as it doesn't get personal you know?

I think anyone who has read me here or on any other online forum knows I don't tend to attack others unless they've already been attacking others. That's one of my triggers.

 

[gregor2001us]

First hand account from the doctor who performed the circumcision, he's an old family friend and I see him every year at the apple butter festival.

Yes every source is biased but you picked one from a organization who says in their mission statement that circumcision is wrong and traumatic as opposed to something from a source that has no particular agenda. I recognize this was not always the case and I agree that performing it without medication is a bit intimidating but as the procedure stands now I don't see it causing something comparable with severe burns.

And yet every resource I can see shows that they perform anesthesia on the child though I recognize that it hasn't always been a practice or even one for very long. Having had surgery while conscious and under anesthesia I remember I was actually quite surprised by just how little was felt....

...Oh I wont even begin to pretend it doesn't violate their right to choice but as a child their is a lot of procedures that parents perform that violate the child's rights....

...And as to morality, who are you or me or anyone else to decide what others morals are? From it's apparent popularity in western culture it's clear their are plenty of people who don't find it morally objectionable....

But I digress, it's not morality that I wished to argue as such a debate by itself is rarely fruitful. I was challenging more the idea that it was traumatic or as others would put it, torture. I just didn't see evidence of long term damage or even sufficient short term to justify the view and wanted someone to clarify what about it made it traumatic.

I think that is a entirely subjective statement due to every individual's sexual organ and experience being entirely unique. I think the only way to validate or invalidate such a statement would be to look at a poll of men who underwent a circumcision prior to reaching sexual activeness and even at that point it's difficult to say the least to ask a person to rate their sexual experience before and after unless there's some extreme difference they notice....

Yes, my source is biased. But I would point out that a family friend, who performed the surgery on you, is unlikely in my mind to be unbiased. Far more likely to actually lie and tell you you didn't cry very much and it was no big deal. You took it like a man, so to speak. I just have trouble imagining he would be honest and potentially say to you that you cried like a stuck pig and finally collapsed from the pain. And there is anecdotal evidence that doctors did say that babies slept through the procedure, most likely lying to parents so they would not feel bad. But you said you would try and find references that argued for the minor pain side with specific observations, so no need to debate this point right now, I will wait until you provide those references.

I do not have references saying that the majority of RIC is now done with anesthesia. However, I do have references that say anesthesia is not always used. More importantly, the anesthesia used is not as effective as that which can be used when a person is older. this indicates to me that significant pain is still involved. Furthermore, there have been two very recent articles that tested food and music as a way of lessening pain during RIC. That does not make it sound like pain is not an issue.

In addition, the pain during the procedure is only part of the issue. If you read that article I linked, there appears to be significant pain afterward, enough to potentially interfere with breast feeding and mother child bonding. But even if it is just discomfort for a week or so, the point remains, why cause the pain?

For me, there has to be a good trade off. Just as you say, we do trade off pain for other advantages. A vaccination is an example. Short term pain for protection against disease. So i agree with you that if the advantages outweigh the benefits, then it can be reasonable to violate the infants rights to bodily integrity and cause pain and suffering. But that does not give parents the authority to do whatever they want. they still legally and morally are supposed to put the child's interests up before their fears and feelings. they are supposed to advocate for the child, foe his best interests. This is well supported by our society. Doesn't necessarily happen, but that is what we as a society have agreed should.

I really like your point of who are you or me or anyone to decide what the morals of others should be. Great statement, but a little too simplistic. Our society actually does impose its morals on others. That is why we have laws. And they are there to protect the rights of others, including children. Including their right to be protected form unnecessary pain, having normal body parts chopped of without good justification.

So far I haven't seen a compelling advantage that outweighs the pain and discomfort. Not to mention the loss of sexual function and feeling.

I am confused by what you are saying in the last paragraph that I quoted. If you are saying it is hard to determine whether the foreskin has much of a role to play in sexual function and feelings, I agree that this is a difficult point to make to many people. And is argued against by many. And any source seems to be easily characterized as being too biased to be worth anything. But that does not mean it does not play a role, either. If you wish to explore this more, I am happy to do so and can point you to some reading material, but it will likely not sway you as you 1) do not have any way to compare, and 2) will likely not trust anyone who does because of perceived bias. I understand because I felt very similarly once.

Regards and happy 4th!

 

[Cattypuss]

I really don't understand how people can defend circumcision and beat up on people for being against it.

People ar enot being "beat up on" for being against it. They are being "beat up on" for the way they present their arguments or - more often - assertions.

 

[myinnerslut]

*snip for length*

you have never been to a bris, have you?

 

[HarlotMinx]

Yes, my source is biased. But I would point out that a family friend, who performed the surgery on you, is unlikely in my mind to be unbiased. Far more likely to actually lie and tell you you didn't cry very much and it was no big deal. You took it like a man, so to speak. I just have trouble imagining he would be honest and potentially say to you that you cried like a stuck pig and finally collapsed from the pain.

Considering I'm a transsexual, I sincerely doubt he's interested in defending my manliness nor under the illusion that i would want it defended. I trust the man but if you really want I can see if I can't get a hold of someone who could have been on nursing staff though I think that's a bit extreme.

And there is anecdotal evidence that doctors did say that babies slept through the procedure, most likely lying to parents so they would not feel bad. But you said you would try and find references that argued for the minor pain side with specific observations, so no need to debate this point right now, I will wait until you provide those references.

Note both of these are from the same group though I question some of it it lists a series of possible benefits. I'm going to look into specifics of them to confirm them so feel free to take them with a gain of salt.
intersting benefits not just from the male standpoint but the female.
another pamphlet on the risks

I would like to note that this site has articles both in support and in opposition to the procedure.
a reference
another reference

This site is mildly biased but has plenty of info on possible reasons to perform the operation.
turns out you're right, neonatal children do feel pain though I think it agrees with my assessment that they experience it differently. I freely admit that some of the content in previous posts are wrong.
info on penile cancer
info on possible psychological damage

A more unbiased source than the others
another example of a unbiased source
example of a extremely biased supporting site

I hope this helps clarify the difference between biased and unbiased sources.

For me, there has to be a good trade off. Just as you say, we do trade off pain for other advantages. A vaccination is an example. Short term pain for protection against disease. So i agree with you that if the advantages outweigh the benefits, then it can be reasonable to violate the infants rights to bodily integrity and cause pain and suffering. But that does not give parents the authority to do whatever they want. they still legally and morally are supposed to put the child's interests up before their fears and feelings. they are supposed to advocate for the child, foe his best interests. This is well supported by our society. Doesn't necessarily happen, but that is what we as a society have agreed should.

The issue I have with your argument is that you've said that it's their moral obligation to look out for their child's best interest but then you go to the point of saying that moral obligation is to not get circumcision. Many parents get circumcisions for their child out of the desire to protect their child's health because they have numerous sources that recommend it. And the reason doctors wash their hands of it is because their simply isn't any conclusive evidence to one direction or the other. I don't think that we have the right to tell those parents that they can't perform a relatively minor procedure that could help their children live a healthier life because we morally disagree. If it comes to light that their is no benefit, then by all means, make that decision but until then....

I really like your point of who are you or me or anyone to decide what the morals of others should be. Great statement, but a little too simplistic. Our society actually does impose its morals on others. That is why we have laws. And they are there to protect the rights of others, including children. Including their right to be protected form unnecessary pain, having normal body parts chopped of without good justification.

Actually not simplistic at all. Laws are comprised upon a generally agreed upon morality or course of action. You deciding that something is against other peoples morals for example does not make it law. The statement holds true though it begs it's counterpart "who are we to decide our morals" well depending on how big we are we very well might be able to fairly decide social morals even if certain members disagree. I simply don't feel that there are enough people who believe it's a violation of body to consider circumcision to be morally reprehensible for anyone other than yourself. And actually to say that law is in any way based on morality is more than a bit simplistic because often law has no correlation to morality or at least not to the general public's version. However do you feel that there is some law that prohibits circumcision? I've heard of none to date and would be curious to look at some.

So far I haven't seen a compelling advantage that outweighs the pain and discomfort. Not to mention the loss of sexual function and feeling.

Having seen quite a number of men who are happy circumcised and stories about men having been circumcised later in life with positive results I think that sentence is inconclusive at best. There just hasn't been any proof for or against that statement so it's more of a personal opinion at this point than a fact.

I am confused by what you are saying in the last paragraph that I quoted. If you are saying it is hard to determine whether the foreskin has much of a role to play in sexual function and feelings, I agree that this is a difficult point to make to many people. And is argued against by many. And any source seems to be easily characterized as being too biased to be worth anything. But that does not mean it does not play a role, either. If you wish to explore this more, I am happy to do so and can point you to some reading material, but it will likely not sway you as you 1) do not have any way to compare, and 2) will likely not trust anyone who does because of perceived bias. I understand because I felt very similarly once.

I think that last comment is a bit uncalled for. I am quite open to looking at your comments fairly. I think just taking a page from a site that admits to being a dedicated opponent of circumcisions that says circumcisions are bad makes it a liiiitle questionable. If you were to say pull papers directly from a medical journal, or maybe a circumcision health site that didn't flat out state in it's mission statement that circumcisions are trauma I might be more open. There is such thing as plainly biased and reasonably biased and yours doesn't fall into the latter.

 

[HarlotMinx]

People ar enot being "beat up on" for being against it. They are being "beat up on" for the way they present their arguments or - more often - assertions.

Nods, exactly. I admit I should have been nicer but I hold by my assessment.