Male Genital Mutilation

[Saydrah]

Question for the men in this thread who feel that the right of an infant to an intact foreskin trumps parents' rights to make a decision they feel may be medically beneficial, as well as doctors' rights to recommend a procedure they feel is medically beneficial:

Would you feel the same way if, say, we were all born with a funny-looking flap of skin on our earlobes? If some parents had it removed at birth, either for religious or aesthetic reasons? Let's say removing it reduces the risk of serious ear infections leading to hearing loss very slightly. Let's also say, to be fair to your side, that its removal in adults causes some very minor loss of hearing, but that babies whose earflaps were removed at birth grow up to report no perceived problems with their hearing. The procedure to remove it is almost painless. In some parts of the world leaving it intact is the norm; in America, it's normal to remove it.

Let me ask you for a moment to forget that we're on opposite sides here and just consider my question. Would you feel so strongly about prohibiting snipping away the extra earlobe flap, or any similar flap of skin anywhere on the body besides the penis?

How strongly some men feel about this just reeks to me of the same leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness that makes some men refuse to neuter their dogs despite clear evidence of health benefits, behavior improvements, and the obvious benefit of sterilization. As soon as something threatens the male reproductive organs, some men become deaf to anything but their own desire to protect their penises.

Slytovhand, I think the inalienable rights of infants are the right to life if delivered alive, the right to a safe home where they are fed and sheltered, and the right not to be beaten or otherwise abused. I don't think they have a right to make their own medical decisions. If they did, there would be a lot of doctors wondering how to act on the decision, "Goo." The rest of the rights of an adult human being vest over time as a child grows to be capable of understanding these rights-- like the right to own property or to speak its mind freely or to vote.

If you both can honestly say you would in fact also support a ban on the removal of imaginary earflaps, I think you're silly, but congrats, you're not hypocrites. But once we start saying that one cultural choice (intact foreskin) is better than another in this realm, we set a dangerous precedent of government interference in personal parental choices. What about Hispanic culture, where piercing baby girls' ears is normal? Or children born with vestigal sixth fingers, like Gemma Argent? Would she then be forced to undergo surgery as an adult and cope with increased pain and danger, instead of having had her parents step in and decide to have these little finger-stubs removed when she was an infant? Or people (like me) born with narrowed nasal passages-- would parents no longer be able to decide whether or not to send their child for surgery to expand narrow nasal passages? My parents decided against it, and I just happen to have a shitty singing voice and more frequent congestion than most people, but some kids with the same problem grow up to have frequent sinus infections. What about braces, for cosmetic reasons only, to which a child objects? Can a parent make THAT decision for their child?

I don't want kids, but if I did have them, I'd sure as heck want the government to stay out of all the decisions in the last paragraph.

[Rapscallion]

If we were all born with an extra flap of skin on our earlobes, it wouldn't be funny looking, since it was normal.

doctors' rights to recommend a procedure they feel is medically beneficial

'they feel' isn't the same as proven.

How strongly some men feel about this just reeks to me of the same leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness

Pretty much how women feel about female circumcision, yes? I'm fairly sure I would if I were a woman.

Pierced ears - a procedure that requires quite a bit of upkeep to prevent infections, if what I know of it is right, but the important thing is that it's reversible as long as the lobe isn't stretched too far.

Let me ask you for a moment to forget that we're on opposite sides here and just consider my question. Would you feel so strongly about prohibiting snipping away the extra earlobe flap, or any similar flap of skin anywhere on the body besides the penis?

I would. If there's no medically proven reason to do so, why would you?

I find the aesthetic question to be ridiculous. "Oh, I wouldn't want Timmy to look different to the other boys." If they weren't circumcised as well, then he wouldn't. Sure, if someone's born with an extra finger or two, that will stand out without even taking clothing off, but that is very rare in a birth, whereas foreskins occur in pretty much every male birth going.

Teeth braces - as a citizen of a country often derided by the colonials for our allegedly poor teething arrangements, I find this obsession to be a mark that the US is doing rather well for itself, thank you very much. Why else would there be a desperate desire to ensure that teeth appear to such an exacting standard whilst so many other social ills are apparently extant.

Rapscallion

[smileyeagle1021]

I find the aesthetic question to be ridiculous. "Oh, I wouldn't want Timmy to look different to the other boys." If they weren't circumcised as well, then he wouldn't. Sure, if someone's born with an extra finger or two, that will stand out without even taking clothing off, but that is very rare in a birth, whereas foreskins occur in pretty much every male birth going.
Rapscallion

but but but... what would happen to poor Timmy if he were to get pantsed on the school playground

yeah, a lot of the arguments are pretty weak, especially when you consider just how easy it is to get used to a new appearance... I mean it takes what, a day or two at most to get used to someone's new haircut, so why is it all the sudden when talking about the aesthetics of the penis people freak out that "little Timmy looks different"

Though I must confess, it wasn't until I was 14 that I saw an uncircumcised penis... you want to know my reaction? Honestly my first reaction was "oh, that's different... but then again everyone's is different... " and I'm sure that if someone who had seen nothing but uncircumsized were to see a circumcized penis would have a similar reaction.

[DrT]

I find the aesthetic question to be ridiculous. "Oh, I wouldn't want Timmy to look different to the other boys." If they weren't circumcised as well, then he wouldn't. Sure, if someone's born with an extra finger or two, that will stand out without even taking clothing off, but that is very rare in a birth, whereas foreskins occur in pretty much every male birth going.

I'm jumping in on that point, if you allow me:
you say the aesthetic question is ridicoulous for foreskin, but not for the extra finger ?

On what grounds ?
aesthetics depend on the 'norm', a very changing/fleeting concept. So what makes you certain that the prepuce will be acceptable versus the extra finger ?
And more importantly: what gives you ground to forbid the first and not the other ?

Personnaly I didn't circumcise my children, simply didn't see the point. The medical evidence is laughable, in its best light, and I don't give a rat's ass what people think.
But it was my decision. I wouldn't appreciate being forced in any direction by people who pretend to know better than me, particularly if that knowledge is based on a principle as fleeting as 'the norm'.


I do believe that as long as medical reasons against a procedures are absent; these decisions are to be left to the parents.

[Pedersen]

parents' rights to make a decision they feel may be medically beneficial, as well as doctors' rights to recommend a procedure they feel is medically beneficial:

As Raps pointed out: "they feel" does not equal "proven".

Would you feel the same way if, say, we were all born with a funny-looking flap of skin on our earlobes? If some parents had it removed at birth, either for religious or aesthetic reasons? Let's say removing it reduces the risk of serious ear infections leading to hearing loss very slightly. Let's also say, to be fair to your side, that its removal in adults causes some very minor loss of hearing, but that babies whose earflaps were removed at birth grow up to report no perceived problems with their hearing. The procedure to remove it is almost painless. In some parts of the world leaving it intact is the norm; in America, it's normal to remove it.

Let me ask you for a moment to forget that we're on opposite sides here and just consider my question. Would you feel so strongly about prohibiting snipping away the extra earlobe flap, or any similar flap of skin anywhere on the body besides the penis?

If you're going for truly equivalent, you're forgetting to include a couple of "let's say"s. Here, let me add them for you:

Let's say that there is actual controversy over whether or not the removal of this flap of skin actually does reduce the risk of serious ear infections. Let's say that, in certain parts of the world, it is illegal to perform the removal on one gender, and not the other. Let's say that some of the adults who have it done as infants grow up and learn about what was done, and are upset about it having been done, especially when they learn that the studies showing the benefit are considered to be, at best, controversial. Let's say that there is a process by which this flap of skin can be restored, but it's a rather painful process taking a long time to complete.

I think that's a bit more equivalent. Of course, when you add in those little extra details, I think that my answer becomes more obvious. I am decidedly against it.

I'll admit, though, that when you paint the picture without them, it's more difficult for me to say yes or no to. It took me a minute to realize that those were left out. I would hope that wasn't a deliberate oversight on your part.

How strongly some men feel about this just reeks to me of the same leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness that makes some men refuse to neuter their dogs despite clear evidence of health benefits, behavior improvements, and the obvious benefit of sterilization. As soon as something threatens the male reproductive organs, some men become deaf to anything but their own desire to protect their penises.

To me, the part that reeks is this: I've linked to this study numerous times throughout this thread. It has gone quite ignored.

However, it basically says that there is evidence that female circumcision slows the transmission of the HIV virus. There has yet to be one single person saying anything similar to "Well, if we're going to do it for males under the umbrella of medical benefits, then maybe we should consider it for females for the same reason." I have asked, but not one person (that I can remember right now) has responded to the question.

Maybe the women are trying to ignore it and/or prevent the question taking root in some sort of leg-crossing, crotch-shielding protectiveness? Nah, must be because we men are afraid of getting our penis cut off.

I would have thought that, by now, it would be clear that I know there is nothing I can do for me. I'm cut, and the restoration process can mostly make me whole (not entirely, the cut nerves cannot be restored). It's not about me, simply because it's too late. It's about simply giving other males the choice.

I don't think they have a right to make their own medical decisions.

Neither do I, Saydrah. In fact, I believe I've said numerous times that infants cannot consent or refuse to any medical procedure. Hell, I've said that more often than I've called for a ban on infants, so I'm not going to go back through this entire thread and quote every time I've done it.

Instead, I'm saying to let the individual make the choice when they can make the choice. There is no harm in waiting.

The other part of what I'm saying: Go for gender equality. I have to admit, to me, one of the surprising parts of this thread is that, in this highly unscientific survey, nearly all of the women have said "cut the men!" and nearly all of the men have said "don't do it!" Some of the women have couched it in "Well, I wouldn't do it to my son, but go ahead and let it happen to any others." I have to wonder if that result scales to the general population. I'll try to research that online later.

I don't want kids, but if I did have them, I'd sure as heck want the government to stay out of all the decisions in the last paragraph.

Congratulations, Saydrah. You've changed the question from "Why was someone allowed to cut me?" to "Gah! Keep the government out of my private life!"

If it's okay, I'd like to change the question back now? I hope you don't mind. Oh, I suppose you'll be upset if I don't answer your questions first: I'm against unnecessary body modifications being done to a minor. I'd allow an exception ear piercings to a person who had grown out of infancy, but not yet reached the age of majority. The nature of a piercing allows for complete reversal very easily, and is pretty well demanded well before the age of majority by many teenagers, at least here in the US. I'd also allow exceptions where the quality of life is being severely adversely affected. Of course, that pretty well hits the "medical necessity" range, so I guess it's not really an exception.

Now, if it's okay, I really would like to switch back to the real topic, instead of "OMG! Keep the gov't out of my pants!"

[Boozy]

...the child does actually have some rights that are completely inalienable... such as the right to decide what happens with their body in regards to surgery...

I see that several people have already addressed this, but you do know that children are not mentally-equipped to make their own health care decisions, right?

How many three year-olds would go to the dentist or get their infected tonsils removed if the choice were completely up to them?

[Flyndaran]

Medicine is NOT an exact science. You probably couldn't get 100 doctors to agree on most procedures given the same information.
The degree of good or bad of circumcism isn't the real issue.

The real issue is whether an almost non-issue trumps parental control of medical choice for their children.
The state normally only intervenes to force medical actions when it is beyond any doubt that to not do so would cause serious injury or death to children and heck sometimes for adults.

I don't even consider it a religious argument. The reasons for a middle of the road good/bad medical decision don't matter.

Should parents be allowed to pierce their child's ears, circumcise, or any other middle of the road choice based mostly on their own preference.

The state should only intervene when it is beyond a doubt, which is rare, that to allow a procedure would cause irreperable harm to said children.

I consider what many parents do to and "for" their children to be disgusting, like forcing them to attend religious organisations and schools. They should only consent when adults. But I value personal adult parental freedom too important to damage through over-legislation even assuming my atheist outlook were the majority.

(I wish I would live that long.)

[Rapscallion]

I'm jumping in on that point, if you allow me:
you say the aesthetic question is ridicoulous for foreskin, but not for the extra finger ?

On what grounds ?
aesthetics depend on the 'norm', a very changing/fleeting concept. So what makes you certain that the prepuce will be acceptable versus the extra finger ?
And more importantly: what gives you ground to forbid the first and not the other ?

I'll make up a statistic here, since I can't be bothered googling for a result.

Almost 100% of males are born with a foreskin. I only say 'almost' because I suspect there's a medical condition out there where one or two male children are born every year without one.

Okay, I hit a search engine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyl Polydactyl births are about one in every five hundred. I don't personally see anything wrong with an extra finger or toe here or there, but there is a huge peer-pressure industry involved in making people uncomfortable with the way they are. Far more common, but it will make someone stand out.

Thinking about it, I don't really have a problem with extra digits (I could learn guitar twice on the same hand!), so I wouldn't necessarily advocate the removal of such. However, I could understand parents wanting it removed from their children far more than I would accept them circumcising everything that couldn't move fast enough.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

...
Thinking about it, I don't really have a problem with extra digits (I could learn guitar twice on the same hand!), so I wouldn't necessarily advocate the removal of such. However, I could understand parents wanting it removed from their children far more than I would accept them circumcising everything that couldn't move fast enough.

Rapscallion

The major problem with your analogy is that in almost every single case of extra digits, they are useless un-articulated fleshy outgrowths.
I've only seen one case of fully usable sixth fingers.

A more appropriate, if salacious, analogy would be those few males born with fully bifurcated penises... in effect having two usually side by side rather than one above the other penises. These are far more likely to be fully functional than any other extra appendages that I know of.
Should doctors remove one of them so as to look almost normal when nude?

I heard of one japanese male that had one removed because his wife refused to have sex with him otherwise.

[Pedersen]

Wait, this was a very nicely executed (and subtly done) change. I must congratulate the defenders of MGM. It took me several posts to catch it.

We have two distinct scenarios:

1. A birth defect occurs which results in biological abnormality (such as extra fingers), and we can consider removal of the extra finger to bring the child into normality.
2. No birth defect occurs, and we will actively pursue a surgery to bring the child into a cultural normality without questioning whether this cultural normality is a good thing.

Well played, I must admit. Instead of attacking the original problem, a very effective straw man has been set up, distracting from the real issue.

So, I'll return back to the real issue: Why do we provide the force of law to prevent any non-medical cutting of female genitals before the age of majority, but do not provide equal protection to the other gender?

That, to me, is the core question. And now that I've seen it, I'll be more likely to call a straw man just that.

Well done, though.

[Saydrah]

Can't stay long, just taking a brief break from writing a long and annoying article, but I'd like to make one point:

Pedersen, if you look back through my posts, you will find that I have said that in countries where it is the norm and in cases where only the prepuce is removed, I would agree that the best option to lower rates of female circumcision would be education, not a legal prohibition. This is the exact same way I feel about circumcision in the US.

Also, you needn't condescend and accuse me of changing the subject. This IS an issue of personal freedom and getting the government out of my (hypothetical son's?) pants. Every little intrusion of the government into parents' choices reduces freedom just a little bit more. And, by the way, I asked my male friends since this topic came up here and was on my mind, and I found that I have at least one male friend who regrets that his parents did not have him circumcised at birth. He is afraid of pain and lengthy recovery if he had it done now, but wishes it would have been performed when he was an infant.

Okay, last point, then I go back to my Black Friday (UGH) article: If you are so angry and confused about your parents' decision regarding your own circumcision, why not ask them about it? I'm not saying this as a debate opponent; rather as someone who generally gets along with you and sees you as a decent person, although we disagree on this topic. Are they no longer living, or are you estranged in some way? It seems like maybe some of this resentment you're carrying around would be alleviated if you could at least tell them, "Mom, Dad, I have to say, I've been feeling sad and angry because you chose circumcision for me when I was too young to have a say in the matter. Why did you do that?"

[BookstoreEscapee]

I really wish aniti-circumcision people would stop comparing it to female genital mutilation.
Removal of the clitoris is comparable to removal of the first half of the penis. Circumcision is comparable to removal of the clitoral hood. Such a big difference that comparing the procedures makes those people look silly. It makes me and most other potential listeners tune out.

Add to that the fact that often female "circumcision" goes further than just the clitoris, and is also often done with no anesthesia and in less than sanitary conditions. There is a huge difference between an infant boy, who does not know what's happening, being circumcised in a hospital under anesthesia (as is the most common scenario in Western culture), and a young girl being traumatized by having her most sensitive areas cut apart while being held down by her family members who are supposed to protect her.

"female circumcision or female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), refers to "all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs whether for cultural, religious or other non-therapeutic reasons. The term is almost exclusively used to describe traditional, cultural, and religious procedures where parents must give consent, because of the minor age of the subject...FGC is practiced throughout the world, with the practice concentrated most heavily in Africa. Its practice is extremely controversial. Opposition is motivated by concerns regarding the consent (or lack thereof, in most cases) of the patient, and subsequently the safety and long-term consequences of the procedures."

While issues of consent may be similar, there is a big difference in the practice.

[Slytovhand]

Ah.. the 'norm'... just like slavery was once the 'norm'. Just like public floggings was like the 'norm'... and... yeah, well, you get the idea.

Nope, 'norm' isn't a good enough reason to do anything. And I agree with you Flyn, keep the parents' religion out of a child's life until they're at a stage to understand it (which would actually be rather hypocritical of me, except I don't have kids )

And yes, Saydrah, as you can probably guess from my other thread, I'm against any medically unnecessary surgeries on anyone who can't make such a decision for themselves (even if we don't like it... of course, you still have to find a doctor who will go along with some things that may be requested - after all, there are people out there who do a stack of non-norm body modifications...). After all, I've expressed disapproval for unnecessary tonsil removals.

(and yes, it means I need to change my statement to 'non-necessary medical surgery').

Now need to go to 'age of consent' thread.

Saydrah, I'd ask precisely why your friend 'regrets' not having a circumcision. Besides, his arguments are just as invalid as the argument for it.. don't infants go through 'pain and a lengthy recovery' as well??? (or is that only for a longer sized man?? )

[Boozy]

And yes, Saydrah, as you can probably guess from my other thread, I'm against any medically unnecessary surgeries on anyone who can't make such a decision for themselves

I guess I am too - except who are we to decide what is and is not "necessary"? Is that not a decision better left to the parents instead of the state?

...don't infants go through 'pain and a lengthy recovery' as well??? (or is that only for a longer sized man?? )

Unlike infants, adult males get erections in their sleep, creating the need for suturing of the circumcision wound. Suturing is more painful than the circumcision, but it's necessary to prevent the wound from continually breaking open, scarring, or becoming infected.

Infants also heal at light-speed compared to adults.

[Rapscallion]

I guess I am too - except who are we to decide what is and is not "necessary"?

We're adults who can research, debate, and make an informed choice. I think that qualifies us pretty good for making a general statement of what is acceptable.

Rapscallion