Male Genital Mutilation

[Flyndaran]

I...
Unlike infants, adult males get erections in their sleep,....

I have to disagree with you there. Infants and even fetuses get erections without stimuli. It wouldn't be very engineeringly unsound to leave a structure unfinished for a decade or more.

[Flyndaran]

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

That seems dangerously close to saying that democracy is sensible with your use of the word "us".

[Slytovhand]

Is that not a decision better left to the parents instead of the state?

yeah, well, that's why I started the other thread. And unfortunately for me, I can't adequately answer it... because for some the answer is a whole-hearthed "NO!!!", and yet, that takes away from the rights of the more enlightened of us in society to make intelligent, informed and sane decisions. The 'laws' the state enacts are basically done so to bring us down to the safest minimal denomination... precisely because people are unlikely to think things through and use the brains they've been given (or let their ego's over-rule them).

My bad - I'm an idealist....

[Pedersen]

Damn. I typed up a long reply last night, and somehow managed to avoid hitting "Submit". Now that is frustrating.

So, now to try to re-capture what I wrote, and add in a bit of new to reply to the new posts.

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.

This is true. Your position has been remarkably consistent, and I do have to applaud you for that. I'm not sure I'm as consistent (I try, but am not sure I succeed).

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.

There are parallels between this and other debates when it comes to government instrusions versus freedoms. It is very hard not to bring those debates into this one, but they are there, and make nice little comparisons for my brain.

However, since you wish to make it an issue of personal freedoms (while refusing to allow the child the personal freedom to decide on his own), let's explore other aspects of the personal freedom of the parents. Should they be allowed to tatto their child? It is, in many ways, similar to circumcision: A "cosmetic" procedure, supposedly negligible medical risk when performed by qualified professionals, mostly reversible later in life (though not without some pain and scarring), etc. Should parents be allowed the personal freedom to get tattoos on their children? Let's both assume the tattoos will be kept in private areas (such as the buttocks, maybe) and that the tattoos will be inoffensive. If this is acceptable, what body modifications can the parent do that are not acceptable? Where is your limit? For instance, I doubt that you would accept the parent having an arm removed. I know there are limits. I'm curious to know where you place them.

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.

Damn. I have to completely stop and re-evaluate my ideas. Wait, so do the people out there who are against it. And the people who are upset about it being done to them. We're obviously totally in the wrong. After all, we've found someone who disagrees! Let me go back under my rock.

No, wait, that's stupid. One person disagrees with me. That does not change one very important fact: Your friend has a choice. If getting circumsized really matter to him, he could do it.

In that regard, I am jealous. He gets to decide. I didn't. And neither do millions of other male infants every year. I hope your friend realizes how lucky he is.

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?

As I had said way back here, I'm not really angry with my parents over this. When I was born, this is what was done. Even if they had resisted, they would have been given all the usual stories about it (most of which are a lie of some form or other): He'll be grateful later, he'll be normal, it won't hurt him now, there's strong medical benefits, etc. There would have been no way for them to know any differently, and so they would have signed off and said okay.

Going to them now and saying this would do nothing positive, either for them or for me. It could only give them a guilt trip. Why do that to them? I get along very well, why put an elephant in the room every time we get together? No, there's no point in saying anything to them.

Now, the medical personnel who performed the procedure? Them I'd like to talk to.

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.

Ah, the favorite bit: Let's ignore the problem here because it's so much worse elsewhere. Well, if we're going to discuss it, let's talk about what's done elsewhere, shall we? Now, I found a bunch of sites on circumcision in the middle east and Africa last night. They talked about how it's done to children, not infants, more often than not. 6 to 8 years old is the youngest, with 10 to 12 years old being common. Here's the one I remember: http://www.circlist.com/

There is a side benefit to my post not getting made, though. I remembered something else that I wanted to share with you. If you wish to compare the extreme versions of FGM, let's do so. Here, I'll help: Subincision. That page has links to a few others. It does not discuss (that I could find) whether or not it was done involuntarily to the boys, but it does mention that it's done as a coming of age ritual. I've never heard of being able to opt out of those rituals, though, so I'm fairly certain that you don't get a choice.

Since I know of at least one person in this thread who won't bother to read that link, I'll include some detail from it: Subincision involves cutting an opening on the underside of the penis starting at the head, and exposing the urethra. This can go as far down the shaft as the practitioner desires. Another variation involves splitting only the head. And yet another variation involves complete bisection of the shaft only, and yet another variation involves bisection of the shaft and head.

Many of those still are considered (and practiced as) coming of age rituals.

Now, we come back to my original point: In the US (and several other westernized nations), females are given the full protection of the law to prevent any genital cutting until they reach the age of majority. Males are not. The studies which show widespread medical benefit of such procedures have been discredited already in this thread. So now I am left with the original question I asked: Why are males not afforded the same protections as females?

For reasons I am not entirely clear on, the very idea of equal protection for both genders under the law seems to be viewed as anathema by several people posting to this thread. Maybe they've explained it, and I've failed to understand it, but that is a fairly simple question to me.

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?

Necessary is fairly easy to define, I would think. If not doing the procedure would either reduce the life expectancy of the recipient, or severely impact the quality of life of the recipient, then it can be viewed as necessary.

Almost any form of genital cutting would easily fit that bill, with one exception: Where the child is born with the sex organs of both genders (which happens 1%-2% of the time, if memory serves). For that child, not removing one set of sexual organs would have a severe impact on quality of life, since gender still does play a significant role in society, and such a child would be unable to tell which geneder it is.

Infants also heal at light-speed compared to adults.

So, since infants heal so much faster, and can handle such things so much better, would you now argue for routine removal of the appendix in infants? After all, in a noticeable portion of the population, appendicitis is a serious problem, and removal has no ill effects. So, we should remove it before the child goes home for the first time, right?

[Boozy]

I have to disagree with you there. Infants and even fetuses get erections without stimuli. It wouldn't be very engineeringly unsound to leave a structure unfinished for a decade or more.

You're entirely right; I should have been more specific.

Adult male erections are more powerful (harder) and last longer in duration. The more minor and fleeting erections of an infant do not generally cause problems for a non-sutured circumcision wound, whereas those of an adult generally would.

So, since infants heal so much faster, and can handle such things so much better, would you now argue for routine removal of the appendix in infants?

Actually, I'm not arguing anything. I was simply sharing what information I had about the differences between adult and infant circumcision.

I have no strong opinion on this subject, because I can't bring myself to care that much. That's nothing against those that do care; I just don't see myself getting really into this issue.

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.

I agree, and I think that's what makes medical procedures a parental or individual choice, in consultation with a doctor. Only someone close to the situation is going to truly be able to understand all the variables.

I was simply expressing my discomfort with making blanket laws to cover all circumstances when each and every person and situation is different.

But that's just my general stance. Like I said, I'm not coming down either way on this specific issue. I haven't thought much about it.

[Flyndaran]

You're entirely right; I should have been more specific.

Adult male erections are more powerful (harder) and last longer in duration. The more minor and fleeting erections of an infant do not generally cause problems for a non-sutured circumcision wound, whereas those of an adult generally would..

There are anti-erection drugs.

Maybe T.M.I., but even though my medication almost entirely removed my sex drive, I still get nightly and even sometimes during the day non-sexual erections

...
I was simply expressing my discomfort with making blanket laws to cover all circumstances when each and every person and situation is different.
...

Law writers are politicians, not lawyers, doctors, grammarians, or anything else reliably. I remember one nonsensicle unneeded law about female genital mutilcation that because of the wording would have made any form of voluntary piercing illegal. When asked about this squashing of female rights, he simply replied, "They do that?"

That's one of the reasons I greatly prefer few laws and a generally small government. Socially more liberal than a european and fiscally conservative unlike modern american republicans.

[rdp78]

Well, I don't think anyone have mention the Jewish tradition of circirmcising 8-day-old baby boys and well, I think that its really young but again it has been going on for thousands of years. I didn't really know that Muslims practice this (how odd that Muslims and Jews have a lot in common but yet they can't get along well) but I did know that female gential mutation is practices by many Muslims as well as Christians in Africa. I remember seeing a picture in a socialogy book of a preteen girl have this done to her and the pain on her face. Now ladies if you ever had a pap smear (or any other similiar procedure) you know that someone messing with your vaj-jay is painful but yet it is only for a few minutes. Now from what I understand female gential mutation is removing some tissue and skin but it can also sewing up the vagina with some space for peeing. It can also be burning it or even ripping it. This is a pain I bet is felt for years to come for these girls and women.

Now I with male circirmcising I mean as long as the person who is doing it is very well trained and certified I don't think it would be a problem. From what I understand it's just the foreskin and nothing else is remove so it can't be that painful. Of course, in that same book there is a story about identical twin boys who got circimcise with a electrical knife and one didn't go so well. The parents decided to make that boy a girl and the twins faternal. Later in life the girl found out she really is a he and converted back to a guy. 20/20 did a story on them and Law & Order: SVU used it as a plot line.

[Pedersen]

Well, I don't think anyone have mention the Jewish tradition of circirmcising 8-day-old baby boys and well, I think that its really young but again it has been going on for thousands of years.

Yep, they have. More times than I care to count. One point, though: The fact that a practice has been going on for thousands of years is not considered sufficient reason to allow that practice to continue. For instance, Westerners frown on any female genital cutting so much that we have enacted laws to prevent all of it, at least here in the USA. We also frown on slavery, and that, too, is a custom still practiced in some places around the world.

Tradition is not a valid reason to allow a morally repugnant practice to continue.

but I did know that female gential mutation is practices by many Muslims as well as Christians in Africa. I remember seeing a picture in a socialogy book of a preteen girl have this done to her and the pain on her face.

Many of us have seen similar pictures. Extremely few of us have seen pictures of the boys who undergo subincision, and who have to do so as a rite of passage into their tribe. In fact, they will not be considered adults until they have done so.

Now from what I understand female gential mutation is removing some tissue and skin but it can also sewing up the vagina with some space for peeing. It can also be burning it or even ripping it. This is a pain I bet is felt for years to come for these girls and women.

There are various types of it. Wikipedia lists the types, along with links to the World Health Organization official definitions of the types. Type Ia is identical to circumcision. And if the WHO is willing to call it mutilation when it's done to females, I think it's only fair to give it the same name when done to males.

Now I with male circirmcising I mean as long as the person who is doing it is very well trained and certified I don't think it would be a problem. From what I understand it's just the foreskin and nothing else is remove so it can't be that painful.

And yet, it is unnecessary, opens up risks for infection, and excessive bleeding with the negative side effects that that causes. And it removes the choice from the person it is being done to.

Why should we allow such behavior, when the benefits are so rare?

[Slytovhand]

Question Mr P.

If the US decided to ban (make illegal) all forms of Genital Mutilation (thus, any form of circumcision), but there were a tribe of Native Americans who use it as part of a right of adulthood, where would you stand with that?

I ask, because as has been mentioned, there are still aboriginal cultures in the world that practice it. And I'm not 100% where you stand on that - no to Jewish, but to others?

[Boozy]

If the US decided to ban (make illegal) all forms of Genital Mutilation (thus, any form of circumcision), but there were a tribe of Native Americans who use it as part of a right of adulthood, where would you stand with that?

I would guess that Pedersen would be against all forms of MGM on non-consenting males in all cultures, based on what he's said thus far.

If a Native American tribe wanted to perform something as a rite of passage into adulthood, they would have to wait until the boy is old enough to legally consent to medical procedures. That age would probably vary from state to state.

[Pedersen]

Boozy has it correct. To sum it up, if it's something that is unacceptable unless medically necessary, why put an exception in that says "Oh, unless you happen to a specific ethnicity, then it's okay" ?

[Flyndaran]

Boozy has it correct. To sum it up, if it's something that is unacceptable unless medically necessary, why put an exception in that says "Oh, unless you happen to a specific ethnicity, then it's okay" ?

I think you mean rigid religion. Ethnicity means nothing when talking about people's actions except with regards to racism of course.

[Slytovhand]

Therein would lie some sort of paradox/irony.

Said child wouldn't be considered an adult until the ceremony was performed, and thus wouldn't be able to consent as an adult to make the decision.

(of course, this is in an instance where tribal law overrides national laws).

[Saydrah]

Pedersen, I just saw your question for me.

To answer that question, yes, under certain conditions, I would say parents could have infants tattooed with small, unobtrusive designs that are expected in their culture, so long as pain relief is used and the tattoo site receives proper care. However, I would only support this if the same situation exists: A practice is so mainstream that its absence is quite unusual in a particular culture, the procedure is safe, and parents see it as an obligation, meaning they might seek tattooing that would be less safe and more likely to result in infection if the safe tattooing in hospitals under a doctor's supervision was banned.

There are still certain cultures where tattoos are a form of decoration expected of all or certain adults, and to refuse a culturally normal tattoo would be seen as a rejection of one's own family's traditions. I don't think it's my business to say that because I have no tattoos, my viewpoint on the matter is better than theirs. That sort of snooty, superior attitude reeks of xenophobia and cultural bigotry.

[boringscreenname]

I haven't read this entire thread but wanted to add my 2 cents. My son is not circumsized, for all the many reasons already covered in this thread. My BF is also not circumsized and strongly opposes circumcision. Here's a list of websites containing additional information, if anyone's interested.

Procedure
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/methods.html
http://www.usask.ca/medicine/family/...#slide0001.htm

Typical Canadian Circumcision
http://www.intact.ca/video.html

General info
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/preg...rcumcision.htm
http://www.mothering.....by/circumci...cumcision.html
http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/FAQ/
http://www.infocirc.org/vice.htm
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/information.htm

MGMvsFGM
http://www.noharmm.org/comparison.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/Develop.html
http://www.infocirc.org/pressrel.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html

Rates
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2001/ (American)
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ (American)
http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/rate1m.html (Canadian)
http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/s...hi-2005-e.html (Canadian)

Medical Communities
http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/
http://www.nocircnc.org/medicalstatements.htm
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
http://www.intact.ca/saskmemo.html
http://www.nurses.cirp.org
http://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DOC/

Circumcision Not Cost Effective
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb180294.htm

UTIs
http://www.infocirc.org/uti2.htm

Risks and Complications
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/complications.html
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/circumcision.html (clamping methods)
http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm (plastibell)
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/3/216 (plastibell)


Breastfeeding
http://www.nocirc.org/statements/breastfeeding.php
http://www.cirp.org/library/birth/

Cancer
http://www.cirp.org/library/statemen...s/1996-02_ACS/
http://www.cancer.or.....enile_cance...5.asp?sitearea

Personal Experiences
http://www.stopcirc.com/
http://www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/chose_to_circ.html
http://www.childbirthsolutions.com/a...laire/circ.php
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/mothers.html

"Look Like Daddy"
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/Like-Son.htm

IntactvsCirced penis care
http://www.nocirc.org/publish/4pam.pdf
http://www.nocirc.org/publish/5pam.pdf
http://www.tornwing.com/peacefulbegi...ysgenitals.htm
http://www.cirp.org/library/normal/

Hygiene&problems
http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanhowe/

Won't it Have to be Done Later?
http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...uncircson.html

News articles
http://www.cirp.org/news/
http://www.infocirc.org/news.htm
http://www.infocirc.org/articles.htm

Pain
http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/
http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm
http://www.infocirc.org/babypain.htm
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/100/4/626

%Of Pain Control Actually Used
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...full/101/3/423
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or.../full/101/6/e5

Pain Relief that SHOULD Be Used
http://www3.us.elsevierhealth.com/WOW/op043.html

Sexual side effects
http://www.boystoo.com/medical/conversion.htm
http://www.reserach/cirp.org/
http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Ethics
http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/
http://www.canadiancrc.com/circumcis...rcumcision.htm
http://www.sentienttimes.com/03/dec_...umcisionT.html

After-Market Foreskin
http://www.nbc10.com/health/1808693/detail.html

Christian Perspective
http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html

Cute articles
http://www.geocities.com/raisingintactsons/
http://www.circumstitions.com/Itsaboy.html

Adult circumcision(why not leave it up to him?)
http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/
http://www.nocircoftx.org/info/vs.html

Foreskin restoration
http://www.norm.org


Other great sites for research
http://www.cirp.org
http://www.circumcision.org
http://www.infocirc.org
http://www.circumcisionquotes.com
http://www.nocirc.org
http://www.noharm.org
http://www.intact.ca
http://www.mothering.com
http://www.fathermag.com
http://www.circumstitions.com
http://www.boystoo.com
http://www.courtchallenge.com
http://www.sicsociety.org
http://www.stopcirc.com
http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org
http://www.norm-uk.org