The African studies show how absurd the logic is too.
The studies say that circumcision helps prevent HIV (which is suspicious, since Muslims tend to circumcise and also are less likely to have sex out of wedlock, but whatever).
Well, gee, a condom is MUCH more effective at preventing HIV. There’s not much of a point of making unprotected sex a few percentage points more safe if it’s still really unsafe. It might even encourage unprotected sex. “Don’t worry, I’m circumcised.”
Missed this part:
Then you’re quite likely a minority.
Normal function or normal parts should be presumed to be, you know, normal.
Crooked teeth (which are much more than cosmetic problems) and birth marks aren’t normal. Foreskin is.
That’s the starting point.
Except very rarely, vaccinations have absolutely no downside and a huge upside.
No, circumcision does not have its origins in preventing masturbation … and of course it does not prevent it either.
Why is a birthmark “abnormal”? The kid was born with it.
Crooked teeth, an overbite, do not typically cause cavities. Anyway good hygiene could prevent that. Most people would normally have somewhat crooked teeth. They are not “abnormal”. There are not just only small, there are no medical benefits for most who get braces. They cause discomfort, cost a fair amount, and can contribute to cavities and staining during the process. There is some small risk of altering the jaw structure and causing TMJ. Most through history have existed just fine with crooked teeth. What is the “good reason” to allow orthodontics whose only function in most cases is to have a child fit a parentally perceived socioculturally desired appearance? Less justification than circumcision other than that you accept that cultural need to look a certain way and do not accept a different cultural justification based on family or religious norms.
Most who are circumcised do not curse their parents. A few wackos with sexual dysfunctions looking for someone and something to blame do.
Cutting off the feet causes significant harm and no benefit. That’s why it would not be allowed. Yup, that is how it goes by my standard (which is generally the American one).
WHAT IS YOUR STANDARD?
Again please offer one. So far I have heard that the standard should be fostering social acceptance by the majority within the society in which the person lives should allow something which doesn’t even answer the question of when should parental decision making be trumped. Unless the answer is that parents have no right to make a decision to do anything unless such causes better acceptance by the majority? A silly answer if so. And that parents should not be allowed to do anything to something that typically comes that way as a default position. Ear mutilation (also known as piercing) prohibited I guess.
This is what I moderated earlier. If you have facts that illustrate a bias, post them - they would be a significant contribution to the thread. If not, this is unsuported and lacking in merit whether it’s applied to Jewish doctors, American doctors, circumcision proponents, or some other group.
The modern, non-religious use of circumcision in the U.S. does. That’s what I’m talking about.
Look up “normal.”
Didn’t say that. It does cause other functional problems though, beyond appearance. And it doesn’t involve removing the teeth.
That’s both a statement you can’t possibly know, and an inflammatory one.
Of course it is. Your standard is whatever you are used to.
I did.
Among ancient peoples, cutting has it’s origins in Africa. There was the northern area around Egypt, who spread it to Semitic peoples, and it was also practiced among the Niger–Congo language group which at this point is all over Africa except the northern part.
It was a manhood initiation ceremony to prove you’re a tough warrior. It wasn’t practiced on infants. It was a painful and dangerous body modification ritual to prove you’re a man. Pretty much it. Judaism introduced the idea it was directed by God, which has been heavily debated within Judaism itself).
Later the 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD) argued it on health grounds including the idea that foreskins block semen so cutting it off would increase the population, that it should be performed on infants because men wouldn’t do it of their own free will, and that it was an effective means of reducing sexual pleasure, thought to be a superfluous pleasure.
The Jewish philosopher Maimonides(1135–1204) insisted that faith should be the only reason for circumcision, reinforced the idea it reduces pleasure (and it must have if they kept doing it for 1000 years, right?), added that it weakens the penis thereby reducing lustful thoughts, and warned that women who have sex with uncut guys get stuck and can’t separate. Like dogs I guess.
A later disciple of his, Isaac ben Yediah added in the 13th century that it also reduces pleasure on the woman’s side, because women have orgasms with uncut guys and with cut guys they get no pleasure or orgasms because of the “heat and fire within them” from cut guys.
If it seems I’m nefariously focusing on Jews, it should be noted in Europe Jews were practically the only cutters. The Catholic Church declared it a mortal sin and Christians in general found it a horrible practice. Not much to talk about there. Europeans didn’t die out from penis cancer and sexual pleasure.
Skipping ahead to more recent times, 19th cent, cutting, while being explicitly identified and described as a Jewish religous ritual, begins to become thought of as medically necessary foremost, and religiously secondarily. Medical reason you say?
Masturbatory Insanity! Christian doctors considered it a sin already, but now cutting was good for: “hernia, bladder infections, kidney stones, insomnia, chronic indigestion, rheumatism, epilepsy, asthma, bedwetting, Bright’s disease, erectile dysfunction, syphilis, insanity, and skin cancer.”
Cutting was good for what ails you. Oh, and clitoridectomies were also performed on women for the same masturbatory (am I using that right?) medical reasons it was performed on boys.
Around the 1920’s preventative cutting starting having problems with advancing medical science and understanding of disease.
After that, cutting drops way off, and it’s proponents start feeling threatened. More and more medical associations in Europe, the world and even here in the US reject it as unnecessary. Various government health plans stop paying for it.
Now the cutters are feeling threatened and cornered so among other things they cling to a study claiming cutting African men is a cost-effective way of reducing HIV which is a ridiculous and unethical easy-to-grasp soundbite that makes little if any sense and has nothing to do with American newborns.
In short, it’s all about religion and penis phobia (masturbatory insanity).
Although you offer a long narrative, I note that you haven’t linked the practice of circumcision to “masturbatory insanity”. It’s a bare assertion that seems dubious on its face, since circumcision neither prevents nor in any way hinders masturbation. In my experience as a circumcised male, interacting with males who have been predominantly circumcised, the effect must be minimal — most such men seem very much to desire and enjoy sex.
Maybe someone can fill me in on the big deal here.
I’m not positively asserting that, but I think it’s a fair question. This is a twofold query of course. Obviously the AAP wasn’t doing the studies themselves, so the first question is what is the motivation behind examining the policy. The second is examining the motivation of the various studies the policy is based on. I’m not making the assertion that the motivations in either case were bad, just that they need to be determined. There are clear examples where other studies had obvious biases, such as studies conducted by the industry that makes a product, or certain ones that examine race and intelligence.
In some cases the studies are objective, but still initiated because of societal biases - in some cases to refute those biases, and in some cases just to examine them. And, in others, to try and confirm them. Even in the most objective of cases, there is still a motivation that is related to bias and so it’s important to subject it to closer scrutiny.
That’s a proper motivation, but not the only conceivable one.
That’s a fair point.
Motivations can be evidence of inherent bias.
I’m not sure how this is a response to what I wrote.
I hope you don’t object to the above response, which is answering Malthus’ questions rather than making definitive assertions.
To respond to you directly, as I explained above, I wasn’t making definitive assertions about there being bias. I was pointing out that these policies and studies seem weighted heavily towards countries in which circumcision is popular for non medical reasons, and that this would seem to be evidence of bias if it were true. But it was a question - namely, does this apparent skewing of policy of policy and study really correlate with the social popularity of the procedure? I’d love it if someone can point to any investigations into this obvious question. I can see you objecting to saying there is a bias without evidence, but not to pointing out an obvious source of potential bias and asking whether or not there is evidence for against.
I will concede at the very least, that the article from the OP is Australian, which surprised me. I wasn’t aware of any countries other than the US with it’s unique history with regard to circumcision, countries where it has obvious relation to the prevailing religion, and Africa with it’s high incidence of AIDS - where circumcision was popular.
I didn’t find the technical report very helpful, but the full article (PDF here - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1990.full.pdf+html) goes into more depth and has actual references. I’m still reading through it. I’ll comment on it when I’m done.
You’re right. Male circumcision to prevent masturbation on Wiki.
It was introduced to the U.S. during the Victorian era as an attempt to prevent masturbation. Not sex, but masturbation.
Obviously it doesn’t work.
But that was the intent.
Thanks - this link contains a quote that makes my point:
In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[40] Karen Erickson Paige writes: “In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control ‘masturbatory insanity’ – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the ‘polluting’ practice of ‘self-abuse.’”
I know this little factoid gets repeated by those opposing circumcision like a religious mantra, but it is at best a half-truth.
“Preventing masturbation” was one reason cited by some commentators and physicians, notably Kellogg. However, it was most certainly not the only, or even the major, reason the procedure became widely prominent. That reason was, in essence, because it was thought to promote hygene, and as a propylactic for various diseases. Some of which is, roughly speaking, now demonstrated to be true (while anyone actually circumcised can tell you from personal observation that Dr. Kellogg was wrong on the wanking thing 
)
All of which, BTW, is outlined in your wiki article.
Nobody said it was the only reason. Doesn’t matter anyway. What matters is now.
Well, with the possible exception of the person you quoted, one assumes to prove something, in the post right before mine!
Note the phrase "The original reason … ".
Problem is, this is just part and parcel of the shall we say selective use of evidence those seeking to prohibit the practice apparently rely on.
Modern science says there are benefits? Must be biased! Can’t trust doctors!
Why did the practice become widespread in NA? The only reason was because people back then believed crazy stuff like “'masturbatory insanity”! Pretty wacky huh?
Etc. etc.
Not to say there isn’t a legitimate debate here. But it is hard have one when one side is apparently impervious to facts.
It didn’t say that.
Nobody is using this as evidence. It’s just a discussion about how our cultural biases happen, and how they can overwhelm science.
The ONLY issue that is relevant is the risk, benefits, and ethical considerations, today.
[Emphasis added]
I mean, what do you think this says? To my mind, it quite clearly and unequivocally states that the “original reason” was to control wanking. Not some medical reason, which developed later.
Except that “cultural biases overwhelming science” isn’t, in fact, what happened. What happened was that that science of the day proposed a bunch of reasons, some correct (hygene, reduces STDs like syphilus) and some wrong. That science was gradually discredited by new science in the middle of the 20th century, leading many physicians to declare that the practice had no medical justification. Now, in the 21st century, science is stating that the mid-20th century science was incorrect - the practice does have medical justification, albeit minor.
That’s how science works - each scientist continually questioning the status quo state of knowledge.
Naturally, in each shift popular culture takes time to catch up to the science, but the widespread adoption of the practice had nothing whatever to do with “cultural bias”. Most NAs are Christian and have zero “cultural bias” in favour of circumcision. The popularity of the practice was a result of science, not religion or culture.
Well, to be sure. Which is no doubt exactly why your “side” keeps going on about cultural biases etc. - to discredit the current state of scientific analysis of risks and benefits, which is unfavourable to your arguments.
Masturbation, or “self abuse” was absolutely considered a medical problem.
Not the point in this context, very obviously I meant ‘something we would consider, today, a medical problem’.
As in the original quote, which contrasted ‘masturbatory insanity’ against the “current medical rationale”.
Well, a current medical problem is AIDS in Africa, and according to the very latest cutting edge (heh) cutter-science on the issue, cutting American babies will reduce AIDS among adult African men.
If I understand this correctly, American newborns are sneaking over to Africa at night and infecting adult African men with the AIDS.
Can’t bring myself to get behind that rationale.
The fact that we’re even having a discussion about circumcision, here and in the scientific community, is the cultural bias part. In most countries, the idea isn’t even considered as an alternative.