Comparing circumcision with vaccination

[fireheart17]

Oh, and no, I am not a fan of female circumcision either as that is done to deaden the girl's sensitivity down there so they won't enjoy sex. At least that is what I have come across in my readings about the subject. Now, if a grown woman were to decide that is what they wanted, all the power to them.

There's four types. Type 1 is about as close to the male version of circumcision you can get (removal of the the clitoral hood only), types 2 and 3 are the removal of the clitoris and (in the case of type 3) the labia minora, basically leaving a hole for fluids to escape. The women need to be "cut open" down there for childbirth in that case. Type 4 is the pricking, burning etc. of the clitoris.

First conclusion jumped to is FTM, I do recall reading someone say that if you were to under go full genital reconstructive surgery that having a foreskin is preferred as most of the nerve endings that make up the clitoris will be coming from there, circumcised is doable, but the sensations will not be the same.

I think you mean MTF, as most women will already have a clitoris.

As far as FTM goes, the clitoris itself grows under testosterone and is either "released" (with or without the ability to stand up peeing through it and prosthetic testicles an option) or is shaped into a penis with the aid of some skin from the arm or butt. In the case of the latter, erection is nigh but impossible unless you have an device of some kind in there (or in use) while in the case of the former, sensations are still there but it's not big enough for penetration.

[Ginger Tea]

I think you mean MTF, as most women will already have a clitoris.

Aye didn't catch that one.

[static]

1234567890

[bex1218]

I guess mutilation was too strong of a word to use. My apologies everyone. But also its the arguments I hear from people I know that call it that.

[Aethian]

I believe it to be a mutilation of the body. If I have sons I will elect to not have the procedure done. It's called baths and cleanings through out the day.

[Gravekeeper]

Oh lordie. Well, from a purely pragmatic perspective; Circumcision has a number of health benefits. Mainly in the realm of reduced infection rates of UTIs ( Especially in children 2 years or younger ), STDs, etc such as HIV, HPV and what not which in turn reduces rates of penile and cervical cancer. Conversely, not being circumscribed has no conclusive medical benefits. This is why major health organizations stay neutral on the subject. There are health benefits, but the benefits are not so great as to declare it mandatory.

The official position of the WHO for example is that circumcision is a significant form of HIV prevention and control and should be included in any comprehensive HIV reduction plan. This is of great benefit to undeveloped countries. Not so much in the west.

The official position of the CDC is that circumcision is one of the most cost effective methods of preventing HIV. As it reduces the lifetime chance of contracting HIV by an average of 16% in western countries. Which in turn saves tens of thousands of dollars per quality adjusted life year.

Thus I would assume, way back somewhere, someone noticed a correlation between weiner covers and syphilis. Then made it a religious thing to avoid said syphillis. Much like shellfish.

I believe it to be a mutilation of the body. If I have sons I will elect to not have the procedure done. It's called baths and cleanings through out the day.

For the record, it is not a matter of hygiene. Though the foreskin providing a little disease pocket is part of it with some diseases ( Such as UTI's and to some degree HPV ).

The problem is that the foreskin, as well as the vagina and mouth, all have concentrations of antigen presenting cells. Which are a favoured initial infection target of HIV ( and why its primarily sexually transmitted ). Because these cells trap possible invaders and essentially bring them to your immune system for trial at your lymph nodes. And your immune system is exactly where HIV wants to go. So they in effect are a vector for HIV invasion and a reservoir of the virus that makes its whole scale elimination from the body more difficult. Other potent viruses, like SARS, likewise hitchhike on these cells to get to their target.

So you can wash all you want, but it won't make any difference against serious targeted viral infections like HIV.

[Aethian]

And just where would my infant son be (if I had one) that would expose him to HIV or other STD's that would get caught in the folds of his uncircumcised penis?

[anakhouri]

Obviously he would hopefully be in no position to be exposed to those things as an infant. But as an adult? Anyone can make mistakes. And anyone can be circumcised at any age, but as a child it is said to be less painful and traumatic so probably parents are looking at that angle as well.

Parents make all sorts of decisions for their children, from what to feed them to what doctors to see and what vaccinations to get. While I think vaccination cannot be compared to circumcision, it is just another decision that parents are asked to make for their kids.

[Aethian]

But it's also our decisions to make. I don't want to run the risk if infection, having to change bandages, or the procedure going horribly wrong. So I'll leave my boy intact down there. He's welcome to do something different later in life.

You can throw studies at me or say what you believe those studies to be saying but in the end it's my decision not the doctors, not yours, not some random person off the street.

Just like with vaccinations. I'm going to make sure my kid(s) get them all and then I'm going to stay up to date on the boosters.

[Kheldarson]

But it's also our decisions to make. I don't want to run the risk if infection, having to change bandages, or the procedure going horribly wrong. So I'll leave my boy intact down there. He's welcome to do something different later in life.

You can throw studies at me or say what you believe those studies to be saying but in the end it's my decision not the doctors, not yours, not some random person off the street.

Just like with vaccinations. I'm going to make sure my kid(s) get them all and then I'm going to stay up to date on the boosters.

And it's fine to say that's your decision, when it comes to circumcision. Just like it was mine to have my child circumcised. I did the research, asked questions, made up my mind.

But that doesn't mean you get to call me a child mutilator just because I made a different decision from you.

Now, vaccines are different. You threaten the herd immunity, we're gonna have issues.

[Aethian]

I never said you were a child mutilator. I don't even recall where I said that people who have had it done are child mutilators. I did say, however, that I find circumcision to be a mutilation. Or in other words, I find the procedure to be a mutilation.

[TheHuckster]

I never said you were a child mutilator. I don't even recall where I said that people who have had it done are child mutilators. I did say, however, that I find circumcision to be a mutilation. Or in other words, I find the procedure to be a mutilation.

Can you explain your logic where you believe a procedure to be a mutilation, yet those who choose to have the procedure done you do not consider to be mutilators? There's a disconnect here, and I'm genuinely confused.

I'd think you'd either have to believe if the procedure is a mutilation, then the parents requesting it must be mutilators, and visa versa, if the procedure is not a mutilation, then the parents must not be mutilators solely for requesting the procedure.

[Kheldarson]

I never said you were a child mutilator. I don't even recall where I said that people who have had it done are child mutilators. I did say, however, that I find circumcision to be a mutilation. Or in other words, I find the procedure to be a mutilation.

I was going for a generic you there. But as TheHuckster pointed out, if you think that circumcision is a mutilation, then it's an easy jump to I must be a mutilator for having my child get one. And there are plenty of others who do make that jump.

[Aethian]

Can you explain your logic where you believe a procedure to be a mutilation, yet those who choose to have the procedure done you do not consider to be mutilators? There's a disconnect here, and I'm genuinely confused.

I'd think you'd either have to believe if the procedure is a mutilation, then the parents requesting it must be mutilators, and visa versa, if the procedure is not a mutilation, then the parents must not be mutilators solely for requesting the procedure.

I was going for a generic you there. But as TheHuckster pointed out, if you think that circumcision is a mutilation, then it's an easy jump to I must be a mutilator for having my child get one. And there are plenty of others who do make that jump.

I'm separating the people from the procedure at it's not fair to those who chose to do something for me to judge them. I thought that was something that would be appreciated. It's a lot like the ones who use the rings to stretch their necks or the gauges to stretch their ear lobes out. I find those procedures to be part of a mutilation of the body but I don't call the people self mutilators. They wish to do something it's not right for me to judge them personally. I'm ONLY juding the PROCEDURES itselves.

[TheHuckster]

I'm separating the people from the procedure at it's not fair to those who chose to do something for me to judge them. I thought that was something that would be appreciated.

If you believe it's a mutilation of the body, then there's absolutely no way to deny that you believe those who elect to perform the procedure are mutilating the body. You can't make one statement without making the other... and it also means you are considering a good percentage of the population to be mutilated.

The problem I have with the term "mutilation" is it's defined as an act of disfiguring a person, and degrading their physical attributes. I consider that to be a rather harsh term to use for circumcision, and you're effectively considering a rather large percentage of the world to be disfigured and their physical attributes degraded.

I don't have a problem with people being personally against circumcising their own child, or believing it causes unwarranted harm to someone, but, as someone who was circumcised as a baby, I don't carry any emotional scars, nor do I consider myself deformed or mutilated in any way, and I do take offense when someone considers me deformed for lacking a foreskin.