Male Genital Mutilation

[Saydrah]

No; however, doctors are terrified of lawsuits. Trust me. I have a brain surgeon in the family, and he spends almost 20% of his salary on malpractice insurance. And you KNOW that a doctor refusing to perform circumcision would be risking a lawsuit for "religious bias" or something like that.

And Pedersen, birth control is a medication prescribed by a doctor, to be dispensed by a pharmacy. I know that's sarcasm, but in case anyone actually thinks that argument is legitimate, I thought I'd address it. Giving a DOCTOR the freedom to make a medical choice is different from giving a pharmacist the ability to second-guess a woman's doctor despite not having the same credentials, and specifically FOR reasons of religion-- rather than refuse to perform a procedure done for reasons of religion, because the doctor feels it's unsafe.

I don't think banning circumcision is smart. There is insufficient evidence that it does any substantial harm other than MAYBE reducing sensation insignificantly enough that most circumcised men have no complaints whatsoever. There is also some evidence it does good, in that HIV transmission risks are reduced-- and no matter how rarely it's transmitted in vaginal intercourse, when it's YOUR son with HIV, I bet it hurts just as much to find out you've only got a few more years with him. Plus, parents who see it as a religious obligation would just have the procedure done anyway, by a non-doctor, in a less safe way with a higher risk of contamination or a botched surgery, and with no painkillers.

Besides, Pedersen, how do you suggest this be enforced? Government inspections? "Knock knock, take off your son's pants, we need to check to be sure he has a foreskin?"

[Pedersen]

No; however, doctors are terrified of lawsuits. Trust me. I have a brain surgeon in the family, and he spends almost 20% of his salary on malpractice insurance. And you KNOW that a doctor refusing to perform circumcision would be risking a lawsuit for "religious bias" or something like that.

The doctors are in a bind here, and can't escape it. They can be sued either way. For instance, there are doctors who refuse to allow an infant male to leave without a circumcision. I've even read of one who was so adamant about it that, when the child was born, performed the circumcision before handing the child over to the parents right there in the delivery room.

Also, this is one time that the lawsuit would be frivolous. A refusal by a doctor to perform a procedure that the doctor does not feel is necessary is very thoroughly enshrined in the law and in ethics already. There is no requirement for them to do so.

And Pedersen, birth control is a medication prescribed by a doctor, to be dispensed by a pharmacy.

Okay, I see round N beginning, so let me point something out: Go speak to your pharmacist. Ask him (or her) about problems with prescriptions. The number of times that doctors prescribe something that will be a problem for the patient is simply staggering. That's a largely unknown part of the pharmacist's job: Knowing what the people who come to him are already taking, and knowing about the interactions between the drugs.

In theory, that aspect of their job should be unnecessary. In reality, the pharmacists wind up calling up doctors to get prescriptions changed much more often than we we would ever like to know. Why? Because the pharmacist has knowledge of the patient that the doctor doesn't (but should), since the patient can be visiting a number of doctors for whatever ails them, but usually only visits one pharmacist.

I don't think banning circumcision is smart.

I don't believe it should be outright banned. There are times it may be actually necessary for medical reasons. There are times that an adult male may want to have it done for whatever reason.

However, I do believe it should require the consent of the recipient. No infant is capable of either consenting or refusing. Hence, I believe it should be banned on infants.

There is insufficient evidence that it does any substantial harm other than MAYBE reducing sensation insignificantly enough that most circumcised men have no complaints whatsoever.

Okay, again with the "insignificantly enough" bit. I've seen it elsewhere in this thread. So, I'll ask for the study which shows this. Cite it. To be a quality study, it should be done on adult males who were uncircumcised and were sexually active, then became circumcised and were sexually active afterwards, with them reporting on the amount of difference.

What I have heard has been "Well, males who were circumcised as infants still enjoy intercourse, so there's no significant reduction in sensation" and, quite frankly, that's bullshit. Unless you've got an infant who remembers having a foreskin, and was sexually active, and can still accurately remember the sensations into adulthood, how can they compare?

Sensation is lost. This is unavoidable. The foreskin contains nerves that are cut. The nerves are gone, and cannot be regrown even with the "foreskin restoration" procedure that was mentioned elsewhere. Since nerves are the source of all sensation, sensation is lost.

Furthermore, the foreskin provides a protection over the head and shaft of the penis. Without that protection, the body works to provide a different method of protection by forming layers of keratinous cells. These cells are especially meant to dull the sensation of the constant friction with the cloth that is constantly rubbing against the genitals. Again, loss of sensation.

There is also some evidence it does good

And those studies are finding themselves discredited. Check here and here. On the flip side, we have the Stallings study, which shows that female circumcision results in reduced risk of HIV transmission.

Sauce for the goose?

Besides, Pedersen, how do you suggest this be enforced? Government inspections? "Knock knock, take off your son's pants, we need to check to be sure he has a foreskin?"

Perhaps in the same way that USC Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 7, Section 116 is enforced? Since that's the same section of the US Code that forbids any form of FGM by any person on any woman under the age of 18?

That's all I'm asking for: Equality. If you're going to accept the studies which show the MGM is beneficial (even as those same studies are being discredited) as a valid reason for inflicting it, then I would hope you accept the studies which show that FGM can also be beneficial (even if those studies turn out to be discredited), and cite them as a valid reason for inflicting it on infant females.

And if you won't, then I hope you'll demand that both sexes be protected to the best of our ability to protect them.

[Flyndaran]

....
Okay, again with the "insignificantly enough" bit. I've seen it elsewhere in this thread. So, I'll ask for the study which shows this. Cite it. To be a quality study, it should be done on adult males who were uncircumcised and were sexually active, then became circumcised and were sexually active afterwards, with them reporting on the amount of difference.
...
Furthermore, the foreskin provides a protection over the head and shaft of the penis. Without that protection, the body works to provide a different method of protection by forming layers of keratinous cells. These cells are especially meant to dull the sensation of the constant friction with the cloth that is constantly rubbing against the genitals. Again, loss of sensation.

Sauce for the goose?

....

I was circumcised as an infant and I certainly don't have keratinised cells all over my penis. Ewww.

Second, your proposed study is not scientifically valid. The only legitimate one would be to find the percentage of men circumcised at birth and those not that are satisfied with their sexual sensations. Since, we are dealing with at birth circumcisions, then only those circumcised at birth should be studied.

I won't dignify your lame comparison of female genital mutilation to male circumcisions with a response.

[Pedersen]

I was circumcised as an infant and I certainly don't have keratinised cells all over my penis. Ewww.

Well, Flyndaran, you are one of two things:
1. The only circumcised adult male in the world without keratinization.
2. Wrong.

Before you say you are #1, I advise you to learn a bit about what keratinization actually is. I'll help. Here's a page that discusses what it is, and shows pictures to help you understand it. Keratinization

Warning, you will see pictures of both circumsized and uncircumsized penises there.

Second, your proposed study is not scientifically valid.

Then one of us is misunderstanding how to apply the proper methodology for studies. On the one hand, you have one of us saying that, in order to do a proper study on this, we need to find people who are fully aware of their current status, make a change to that status, and then measure the difference.

On the other, we have a person saying that we need to perform procedures on people who are unable to consent to the procedures, wait 20 years or so, and then ask them how their sexual experiences compare to people who did not have the procedure performed upon them. Now, unless you propose to do this to telepaths. I'm unaware of a means of accurately comparing the level of sensation in one person versus the level of sensation in another person, and then performing a quantitative analysis.

I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark, and suggest that, maybe, just maybe, your study would have a flaw or two in it. But, once you do manage to find/confirm telepathy, and perform circumcisions on telepaths, then I will agree that your version of the study will be closer to legitimate.

Of course, even then, you are unable to do a true one-to-one comparison, since everybody has minor differences. As a result, what one male might experience as an intense sensation, another might experience as something mild.

Even telepathy can't compensate for differences of perception, and since what we talking about is purely perception, well, I would still have to suggest that the flaws in your version of the study abound. My version of the study asks the question after a single change is made of the same people before and after the change.

So, which of us has the invalid study again?

I won't dignify your lame comparison of female genital mutilation to male circumcisions with a response.

I provide links which debunk earlier studies about the supposed health benefits of circumcision. I furthermore provide link to a study which shows that female circumcision can provide the same benefits that people are saying will be provided by male circumcision. And this is your response?

That I have made a (to quote you):

lame comparison of female genital mutilation to male circumcisions

???

Astounding Flyn. Absolutely astounding. Since I didn't actually compare the two (and instead provided evidence to state that maybe we should reconsider our positions, since we have evidence that debunks the male circumcision studies, and other evidence that shows that female circumcision can be a good thing), I guess you just decided to go for the knee jerk straw man response.

Just ... astounding.

[Slytovhand]

Actually, Ped, it'd be empathy, not telepathy

Hey - how about making it a 'ban' (ie - illegal) to perform such a procedure unless there is sufficient medical reason to justify it? After all, that's pretty much how most laws in western societies operate...

Smiley - it still says that the child doesn't have the right... only an expression of choice, which legally can be completely ignored by the parents (something which, to an extent, pisses me off no end). So the significant word there is 'right'.

[LewisLegion]

I tell you what. If I ever had a son and the doctor performed a circumcision on him at any time without my explicit permission I'd sue his ass until his face was blue.

What's this? You circumcised my son in the delivery room before even handing him to me? Without my permission? Hope you got a really good lawyer!

A doctor refusing to do a proceedure that is not medically necessary is one thing...if the parent is hell-bent on getting their kid circumcised and the doc won't do it...they just go to another doc. A doctor performing a proceedure that is not medically necessary without permission on an underaged child that can't necessarily be reversed is a whole nother ball of wax...and he would so pay for it.

[Slytovhand]

So... doctors can't be male??? :wink:

[Saydrah]

Second, your proposed study is not scientifically valid. The only legitimate one would be to find the percentage of men circumcised at birth and those not that are satisfied with their sexual sensations. Since, we are dealing with at birth circumcisions, then only those circumcised at birth should be studied.

This is true. Pedersen's proposed study would not be valid, because a procedure done during adulthood would likely have a very different result from one done at birth, before the nervous system is done growing. Also, the brain is your most important sexual organ-- circumcision done after the brain has already adapted to sex with a foreskin would be harmful in a way circumcision in infancy could not be.

[Pedersen]

Hey - how about making it a 'ban' (ie - illegal) to perform such a procedure unless there is sufficient medical reason to justify it? After all, that's pretty much how most laws in western societies operate...

Slyt, I've called for this any number of times. Check below. For some reason, gender equality seems to be viewed as repugnant. Yes, gender equality. Females are protected from unnecessary cutting, but males are not.

Good. I approve of allowing someone to make their own choices about their bodies. But to have such a choice forced upon an infant is abhorrent to me.

I am not against voluntary circumcision. If you choose it, then more power to you. If there is a medical reason (which does happen, but is a very small fraction of the total number of cases), I accept it, and quietly.

What I am actually against: Parents forcing it on their sons without a strong medical reason. That constitutes a very large majority of the cases of circumcision, and those are what I oppose.

There are some males who get circumsized later in life, but they are a small minority. In addition, they are making the choice to have this done to themselves, for whatever reason (well, except for the times where the parent forces it on a child who has not yet left the home). I do not disagree with allowing this to occur in males who are making an informed choice.I do disagree, though, with allowing someone else to make that choice for them.

Per Title 18, USC:


All types of female genital mutilation on underage females are illegal. Why isn't the same true for males?

And now, it actually is making me angry. I want someone to tell me why it is that girls receive this protection, girls have the ability to choose what happens to their bodies (at least in this instance, I'm not interested in arguing about abortion, and will thoroughly beandip anyone who tries to bring it into this thread). but guys are denied this same protection and choice.

Actually, that question is much simpler to answer. Equal protection under the law for both males and females would mean that males would not be able to consent to such surgeries until the same age that females can consent.

In other words, 18 years old.

Like I said, much easier to answer.

I don't believe it should be outright banned. There are times it may be actually necessary for medical reasons. There are times that an adult male may want to have it done for whatever reason.

However, I do believe it should require the consent of the recipient. No infant is capable of either consenting or refusing. Hence, I believe it should be banned on infants.

Lots of agreement with that sentiment. But, for some reason, this is viewed as absolutely abhorrent. Maybe someone will explain it to me in a way that sense to my obviously addled brain someday.

This is true. Pedersen's proposed study would not be valid, because a procedure done during adulthood would likely have a very different result from one done at birth, before the nervous system is done growing. Also, the brain is your most important sexual organ-- circumcision done after the brain has already adapted to sex with a foreskin would be harmful in a way circumcision in infancy could not be.

Wait, wait, let me make sure I understand this: It is possible to perform a scientific study to compare a subjective event (the amount and quality of a given sensation) against different people who will experience the events in their own bodies, and have no method of directly comparing the level of sensation to other people in the same study?

Versus having people experience one specific change and then rating the differences between before and after the change? And that method is invalid?

And are you actually seriously saying that that brain can compensate for missing and destroyed nerves so much that people will be unable to tell a difference between them, especially when those nerves were removed before they could understand what they were experiencing?

I'm astounded at these sorts of statements. I know that, somehow, I must be misunderstanding them. Please help me to understand them properly.

[Saydrah]

Presuming your last sentence is not facetious:

Consider the experience of a person who is paralyzed with a fairly high level of spinal cord injury. No feeling from the nipples down, say.

The majority of people with this degree of nerve death are still able to achieve orgasm (both female and male) eventually, with the help of an understanding partner or possibly just a few really good toys and a sex therapist to instruct them in their use. If you want a source on this, I have several-- the disability website that employs me has some great articles on the subject, and a few bloggers who've discussed their personal experiences with it.

So, there's one example of the nervous system adapting to perform the body's most critical function-- reproduction-- after a serious injury.

Next, consider the several existing cases of very young children (with developing nervous systems) who have survived the removal of an entire hemisphere of the brain with very minimal impairment. I recall reading about one girl who was able to walk, talk, see, and was indistinguishable on the surface from her peers, despite having only one hemisphere. Or, various cases of extremely young children who have been nerve damaged from dog bites, botched surgeries, etc., and have recovered all or nearly all sensation.

Or, for another example of nervous adaptation: One common sexual problem that doctors and sex therapists see is inability to reach orgasm with a partner, in a male, because of excessive "deathgrip" masturbation as an adolescent and as an adult. The brain and relevant nerves become accustomed to a specific sensation and don't respond to more gentle stimuli. This is treated mostly through a stern "absolutely no masturbation" regimen forcing the male to adapt eventually to the stimuli that come from intercourse-- this often takes months. (Source: Various Dan Savage columns, mostly)

So yes, the nervous system is an amazing, adaptable, and also stubborn thing. I think that really for an absolutely complete picture of the situation, a wide study of men circumcised or not at birth should be conducted, asking them to rate their sexual satisfaction over a period of several months, possibly by logging into a website after sex and rating a variety of factors-- overall satisfaction, satisfaction with partner's performance, satisfaction with own performance, etc.

Then the same study could also be done with uncircumcised men and men preparing to undergo circumcision as adults, then following these men for a few years while their nerves adapt to the changes.

If the two studies obtained the same conclusion-- sexual satisfaction is greater one way or the other-- the case would be pretty much closed. If the conclusions differed, it would be clear that there is a difference between the nerves' adaptation to this procedure as adults versus in infancy. Or, possibly, as you say, that men circumcised as infants would "not know what they're missing." That would warrant further research.

[Pedersen]

Man, you guys are good at helping me forget the original question!

Okay, let's assume for a minute that absolutely every ounce of sensation can be recovered, through a restoration process (which is by all accounts, painful). Let's also assume that such a process is unnecessary, since no sensation is lost over the entire lifetime of the male. No, I don't believe it, but I'll go ahead and stipulate it for the sake of this debate.

Now, I've already shown that the studies which show the supposed medical benefits were flawed (ref: here and here).

There are cases where circumcision is required for medical reasons. There is no reason to prevent this, and I do not seek any action against this.

What is left are infectious disease benefits, religious reasons, and aesthetic reasons.

We don't allow infectious disease benefits to be a reason to permit any genital cutting of females at any time before they reach the age of majority here in the US.

We don't believe that religious reasons are sufficient reasons to allow any cutting on females, since it's illegal in this country, and we frown on the places which do it as part of their religion.

So, that leaves aesthetics. And people in this thread seem to believe this to be an acceptable reason. Is aesthetics a sufficient reason to allow people to cut off functioning body parts of other people without their consent? And, if so, this begs the question: Are we willing to allow parents to perform other (and less destructive) body modification on their children? If this is acceptable, how about parents getting their children tattoo'ed? It is extremely similar to all the other arguments presented (won't impact sensations, can look more pleasing, etc).

And if we don't agree to allowing parents to do body modification, why is aesthetics a sufficient reason to allow this practice to continue?

[kiwi]

Are you referring to something other than transexual surgery here?

Im referring to children who are born with both sexual organs when doctors and parents decide which sex they are to become. Ive seen more than one documentary on children who were raised as girls who had to go through years of emotional torment because the wrong gender was assigned.

[Saydrah]

Pedersen, your conclusion is fallacious. I believe this is the fallacy called "begging the question," in which you presume that both parties agree to a premise that supports your side.

Here, the premise is "FGM = circumcision, therefore if A is not a good argument in favor of FGM, then A is also disqualified as an argument in favor of circumcision."

I do not agree with this premise, and here is why: I don't believe in excessively restricting freedom by banning a very common and fairly harmless practice, in countries where it is common and relatively safe. Now, I don't really have a dog in this fight so to speak as I don't want kids and if I did, I've already stated what my choice about circumcision would be. However, I believe that circumcision is so common in the US that it would do more harm than good to prohibit it on an infant, from encouraging back-alley circumcisions to setting a dangerous precedent of government interference in private medical decisions for children. I'm envisioning pediatricians discovering a circumcision during a routine physical and having a child taken from his parents for it, for example.

Instead of advocating for a legal prohibition of a common and safe procedure, why not advocate for expanded education of physicians and new parents about risks involved, lack of benefits (which I still don't agree that there are none), and possible pain or sexual dissatisfaction as a result of circumcision? If it became as rare in the US as female genital mutilation, it might then be the time to advocate for a ban.

Possibly another solution would be to allow adults who feel a circumcision caused them harm to sue their parents in civil court.

Also, in countries where FGM is routine, I would favor a ban on the more common varieties that involve such extreme mutilation that it interferes with the urinary system and with childbirth; however, I'd take the same approach to reducing the fairly harmless removal of the clitoral hood. It's a question for me of how much suffering would be created versus prevented here, and I think more suffering (both for parents and infants) would be created than alleviated by a ban of circumcision in the USA.

[Pedersen]

Pedersen, your conclusion is fallacious. I believe this is the fallacy called "begging the question," in which you presume that both parties agree to a premise that supports your side.

Here, the premise is "FGM = circumcision, therefore if A is not a good argument in favor of FGM, then A is also disqualified as an argument in favor of circumcision."

Actually, I'm not arguing whether or not you agree with the premise. I'll stick with definitions from organizations like the World Health Organization, which defines FGM pretty rigorously, including this little bit:

Type I — Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy).

I'll then refer to Wikipedia, which explains the term prepuce (along with many many many other sites) thusly:

The prepuce (IPA: /ˈpriːpju:s/) is a retractable piece of skin which covers part of the genitals of primates and other mammals.

* On a male, this covers the head of the penis (glans penis). See foreskin
* On a female, it surrounds and protects the head of the clitoris (glans clitoridis). See clitoral hood

In other words, whether you consider it identical or not, the WHO winds up defining circumcision as being precisely identical with the mildest form of FGM.

I don't believe in excessively restricting freedom by banning a very common and fairly harmless practice, in countries where it is common and relatively safe.

What if it's something else that's relatively common, safe, and relatively harmless? For instance, what if we start tattooing all infants with something really pretty on their back? Still meets all the criteria, since tattoos are relatively common, very safe (when done by reputable artists), and really harmless. I assume this would be acceptable to you?

Instead of advocating for a legal prohibition of a common and safe procedure, why not advocate for expanded education of physicians and new parents about risks involved, lack of benefits (which I still don't agree that there are none), and possible pain or sexual dissatisfaction as a result of circumcision? If it became as rare in the US as female genital mutilation, it might then be the time to advocate for a ban.

My ultimate desire in this is a legal ban on doing this to people who cannot consent. For now, I have to settle for making people think about it, and hope to make a small difference that way. With some luck, I can help prevent someone from growing up and asking "Why was this done?"

I do ask, personally. It happened to me. And every so often, I find myself asking this exact question. Why was this done to me? Why did people suggest it to my parents, and why did they go along with it? And why do people still allow (and even prefer) that it be done? If I were born today, it would likely still happen to me.

And this is seriously depressing. To say that it is a relatively harmless procedure is to denigrate the very real feelings of those who experience depression over it. It doesn't do any harm, and it's helped you out, so get over it.

I'm not over it. And since I cannot be made whole, I doubt I ever will be.

[Slytovhand]

possibly by logging into a website after sex

Just like CS forum members have been doing.... apparently

And Pedersen - you've only suggesed a non-medical ban 7 times... you've got to keep going til you hit the magic number

Why not just say (as Pedersen has been banging his head on a brick wall about) that 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 - ie nothing non-medical. Especially since, I'm damn sure that if you asked why parents had their kid circumcised, they couldn't give you a really valid reason for doing it that didn't reek of sheepishness (not referring to religion - but only cos that's a different thread).

So my take on this argument has nothing to do with relativity of severity (FGM), but on the rights of a child/person.

And, lastly, ummmm - the body and the person are not the same thing