Circumcision debate - why the obsession?

[Chotii]

yosemite said:

So you’re saying that my grandfather did a bad thing? (Granted, with “good intentions,” but a bad thing?)

I think we can safely say that one can make a choice with the best of intentions, and still have a bad outcome.

Sorry to piggyback my own post, but I need to clarify:

The question of ‘bad thing’ would be your father’s to make. If he is or was contented with his sex life etc., and was unimpaired, then I guess nobody can say it was a bad thing. On the other hand, what if your father had genuinely been damaged (as happens sometimes), or if he felt his sexual experience had been impaired? Could it then be said that it was a bad thing, done with the best of intentions? I think yes, and the next question should be “How can we make the best of a bad situation?”

I think what happens instead, all too often, is for people to say “No, the surgery cannot possibly have been the cause of the problem, it’s all in his head, it didn’t bother ME and it didn’t bother the men in study X. I don’t know what his problem is, but that isn’t it.” That seems wrong to me.

[CanvasShoes]

@sevastopol

Just to clear up this point.

One of the things our society turns on is respect for physical integrity of the person. Every breach of that integrity is a crime unless:

The person is subject to legal restraint, or

• The person gives informed consent or
• If the person is unable to give that consent, the procedure is in the best interests of the child.
• To be in the best interests of the child there must be a sound medical reason for the procedure.

There isn’t in the case of circumcision. That it is permitted is simply an anomaly of selective non-prosecution for cultural reasons.

To clarify, children are not property. Parents do not have the right to do as they please with children.

Sorry, if it is within the law, we DO have that right. As many of us have explained several times. Currently, circumcision is a protected right of parents, as is the aforementioned cosmetic dentistry, what religion you choose for your child, where and how they go to school (homeschool? public? prep? private? boarding school?), how they dress, (young lady, you are NOT leaving this house dressed like THAT), their lifestyle…and on and on…

[yosemite]

@Chotii

Could it then be said that it was a bad thing, done with the best of intentions? I think yes, and the next question should be “How can we make the best of a bad situation?”

Yes, in the same way that giving a kid a vaccine that they have a very bad reaction to is a “bad thing.” Sometimes a parent can’t win for losing. You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Had my grandfather not chosen circumcision for his son, even knowing what he (grandfather) knew about the hassles of uncircumcision, would not that choice be equally bad if my dad had all sorts of troubles with it, or, worst case, turned up with penis cancer later on? (Cecil states that almost all cases of penis cancer occur in uncircumcised men.) Now, I don’t know anything about penis cancer, but I know that very often you CUT TUMORS OUT and if that were the case, then my poor uncircumcised dad would end up having parts of it cut off. Damn. :eek: Of course, my dad could have (had he not been circumcised as a baby) still chosen circumcision as an adult, to avoid the small risk of penis cancer or other problems. But even then, he’d have to have the procedure done as an adult, and damn, that’s gotta be miserable. So, bottom line, I definitely think that my dad would have considered my grandfather’s choice (to not circumcise) to be a bad one, but made with the best of intentions.

So, it’s sort of six of one, half a dozen of the other, isn’t it? What’s the parent to do? Either way, they can have their choice thrown back in their face, told that they made a BAD DECISION. What’s a parent to do? Doing nothing can be just as “bad” of a decision as doing something, depending on the situation.

[Weirddave]

@Chotii

I think what happens instead, all too often, is for people to say “No, the surgery cannot possibly have been the cause of the problem, it’s all in his head, it didn’t bother ME and it didn’t bother the men in study X. I don’t know what his problem is, but that isn’t it.” That seems wrong to me.

Fair enough, but if you read a lot of the anti-circ stuff, it becomes obvious that a great many men on that side of the debate are focusing unrealistyicaly on their penises and circumcision as the root of all the problems in their life, and often of all the problems in society at large, to the exclusion of reality. JDT(admittedly an extreme example) seriously claimed that MC was directly responsible for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for God’s sake! This means the voice of the poor guy who perhaps did have a botched circ is lost among the lunatics, and it’s hard to seperate the rare legitimate complaint from all of the background hubub of people screaming that it’s not their fault they are unhappy/depressed/bad in bed/whatever, it’s because they were circumcised.

[CanvasShoes]

@catsix

Once again I see that people are not interested in what I actually think, only the straw man they’ve built and attributed to me.

The responses to you, by so many of the other posters in this thread have absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject matter, and EVERYTHING to do with your insistance upon controlling others’ rights to choose, and rights to religious freedom (you know, that thing we boated across the pond from merry old england to acheive?), among other things.

The posts “against” you can also be attributed to your insistance upon using anecdotal hearsay as “proof” or 'evidence" to support your position. Unlike most of the other posters, you are incapable of seeing even a miniscule fraction of another poster’s point.

You are utterly incapable of even attempting to see others’ viewpoints, let alone understand or allow them.

THAT, along with your constant insults of people who have or do believe in circumcision is what is getting you dissed in this and so many other threads, NOT your opinions.

[Chotii]

@yosemite

Of course, my dad could have (had he not been circumcised as a baby) still chosen circumcision as an adult, to avoid the small risk of penis cancer or other problems. But even then, he’d have to have the procedure done as an adult, and damn, that’s gotta be miserable. So, bottom line, I definitely think that my dad would have considered my grandfather’s choice (to not circumcise) to be a bad one, but made with the best of intentions.

Well. Y’know. Some very small part of me has a hard time feeling sympathy for men who bitch about having to have surgery as adults if it’s necessary, because they didn’t have it as infants when it was elective. I’ve had 5 necessary surgeries on my girlie bits, and these were treated as ‘just the way things are’. Why is it that women have episiotomies and surgeries and all sorts of things on their reproductive organs, and this is considered normal and they ought to just get over it, but god forbid an adult man should have to experience a medically-necessary circumcision?

Sorry, big hijack, big exaggeration. Of course I understand and sympathise and shudder on behalf of adult men who must have genital surgery, the pain must be awful. I am serious though about why it’s so much big a deal for men to have to have surgery on their boy bits, and yet society considers it no big deal at all for women to have to deal with the same?

[Chotii]

@Weirddave

Fair enough, but if you read a lot of the anti-circ stuff, it becomes obvious that a great many men on that side of the debate are focusing unrealistyicaly on their penises and circumcision as the root of all the problems in their life, and often of all the problems in society at large, to the exclusion of reality. JDT(admittedly an extreme example) seriously claimed that MC was directly responsible for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for God’s sake! This means the voice of the poor guy who perhaps did have a botched circ is lost among the lunatics, and it’s hard to seperate the rare legitimate complaint from all of the background hubub of people screaming that it’s not their fault they are unhappy/depressed/bad in bed/whatever, it’s because they were circumcised.

I agree with you about this JDT person, but I do wonder, how does one decide whose complaint is legitimate? What criteria would you use?

[yosemite]

@Chotii

I am serious though about why it’s so much big a deal for men to have to have surgery on their boy bits, and yet society considers it no big deal at all for women to have to deal with the same?

But, it’s not a big deal to have something cut off as a boy baby (many here say, because it is done routinely) but yet it is a big deal, so much so that some of you don’t want it done? Which is it?

Besides, as you point out, it is a hijack. Whether or not my grandfather chose circumcision, there was a chance that my dad would have been pissed off and angry that he (grandfather) made a bad choice. Either way. Grandfather took a chance, either way. But it was his choice to make, his chance to take.

[Sevastopol]

So what you’re saying is that children *are * property to be mutilated as seen fit, without any intervening principle.

[Chotii]

@yosemite

But, it’s not a big deal to have something cut off as a boy baby (many here say, because it is done routinely) but yet it is a big deal, so much so that some of you don’t want it done? Which is it?

Besides, as you point out, it is a hijack. Whether or not my grandfather chose circumcision, there was a chance that my dad would have been pissed off and angry that he (grandfather) made a bad choice. Either way. Grandfather took a chance, either way. But it was his choice to make, his chance to take.

deep breath

Let me try to explain myself better. I have heard MANY men, including many in this thread, say that they’re very glad they were cut as babies, because they wouldn’t want to be cut as adults.

Well, no shit. Nobody wants surgery. Especially, nobody wants surgery on their genitalia. The baby didn’t like it either but mercifully will have no conscious memory of it later.

<hijack>
Why, then, are the many surgeries done on women, including routine episiotomies during childbirth, and women forced into cesareans because their hospitals will not permit VBAC no matter what the woman wants, treated as though they were irrelevant? I mean, why is it okay to cut womens’ reproductive organs (not infrequently against their wishes, and for no pressing medical reason), but cutting an adult man who happened to have problems with his foreskin is unthinkable? Why the double standard?</hijack>

I have not, PLEASE go back and read what I said again, stated that your grandfather didn’t have the choice. I’m not sure what you’re arguing with, but I have never said it wasn’t your grandfather’s choice to make. It was. I also understand why he made it, as I understand why my father made his.

[CanvasShoes]

Quote:
CanvasShoes said:

That is not any more easily avoided than having a circumcision. And in many cases, fanatical religion (and as a christian, I think I abhor those people MORE than atheists do), can caues much death, injury and destruction of human life and psyche. David Koresh? I’ll bet those kids didn’t choose to burned to death for their faith.

Catsix And for this to hold any water at all you’d have to point out where I argued that people have the right to drag their kids into a firefight with the BATF.

Good luck.

You cannot POSSIBLY be this obtuse. I did not SAY that you thought people had the rights to drag their kids into this. My point was in disputing your other point besides the one where Jewish people don’t have a right to practice their most basic covenent with God.

And THAT is, your oft repeated whine of “but it’s done without the kid’s will”. Your answer to many posters’ saying “well, many things are done by parents in the best interests of their kids and are against the child’s will”.

You then came back with (paraphrased), well yeah, but none of them are so easily avoided as simply NOT having a circumcision done.

THAT is where my example of David Koresh’s mistake came in. REGARDLESS of who you believe was at fault in the Waco incident (and lets NOT hijack this thread further), the kids had NO CHOICE in their presence at the compound. And that was mindbogglingly easily avoided. MUCH more than circumcision.

Easily avoided? So, very, VERY easily avoided. That whole group was in the throes of religious idiocy. It all could have been SO easily avoided had Koresh sent the kids out as the federal agents begged him to, and as some of the parents in the compound begged him to.

It was but one mere example disproving your opinion that choices parents make, either good OR bad, are not as easily avoided as circumcision.

Another one is walthrus’ example of cosmetic dentisty. Not only EASILY avoidable, but so many of the benefits of avoiding it (saving several tens of thousands of dollars), would make it very easy to do, were it not for the parents’ love and belief that they are doing the best they can do for their children.

As one who was dragged practically kicking and screaming into the dentist’s chair, I think that’s a VERY apt analogy of something that; causes pain, is against the child’s will, has associated medical risks, and is for mostly cosmetic and hygienic reasons.

You gonna scream and yell that they STEAL kid’s teeth against their will, AND at an age where they very well remember the fear, pain, nausea and boredom, as well as, something that had useful function, so that their teeth could be straight and pretty, and so that it was easier to keep them clean, possibly preventing future dental disease?

[yosemite]

@Chotii

deep breath

Let me try to explain myself better. I have heard MANY men, including many in this thread, say that they’re very glad they were cut as babies, because they wouldn’t want to be cut as adults.

Well, no shit. Nobody wants surgery. Especially, nobody wants surgery on their genitalia. The baby didn’t like it either but mercifully will have no conscious memory of it later.

And I am not sure what your point is. So what is earthshatteringly amazingly new about this tidbit of information?

<hijack>
Why, then, are the many surgeries done on women, including routine episiotomies during childbirth, and women forced into cesareans because their hospitals will not permit VBAC no matter what the woman wants, treated as though they were irrelevant?

I don’t know, but what does that do with this subject? Oh wait—nothing.

It might be a good topic for a new thread, however, and you can gripe about the medical double standard there, but it really has very little to do with what we were discussing here.

I have not, PLEASE go back and read what I said again, stated that your grandfather didn’t have the choice. I’m not sure what you’re arguing with, but I have never said it wasn’t your grandfather’s choice to make. It was. I also understand why he made it, as I understand why my father made his.

Yeah, you said that “choices made with good intentions can still be bad choices” or something like that. When I pointed out that this works both ways, and my grandfather would be damned if he did, damned if he didn’t—accused of making a bad choice no matter what he chose, you suddenly started in with the totally irrelevant hijack about how unfair it is that you’ve had all these surgeries done to your girly bits. It’s too bad, and it’s an interesting hijack, but it is a hijack.

[Sevastopol]

This is an interesting new line of argument.

You’re saying circumcision should only be performed on those children with a cosmetic defect of the prepuce. Aren’t you.

A cosmetic defect that affecting their social interactions and that may incidentally cause poorer functioning of the penis.

How many male children would this affect. Ask of the society of Pediatricians and you shall find.

[CanvasShoes]

@sevastopol

So what you’re saying is that children *are * property to be mutilated as seen fit, without any intervening principle.

What who is saying?

Is this directed at my post? (it helps if you enclose quotes from the person to whom you’re replyig, the “reply” button will do that for you). I’m guessing you likely are. If not, ignore this.

At any rate, no. Do please read my post again. I said within the law. One is not allowed to abuse or hurt their children.

HOWEvER, before you get started, ala catsixn on what constutes “mutilation”, you should probably read the rest of this thread prior to the point at which you posted, for dozens of the previous posts answer JUST what you ask as I quoted you above.

[CanvasShoes]

@sevastopol

This is an interesting new line of argument.

You’re saying circumcision should only be performed on those children with a cosmetic defect of the prepuce. Aren’t you.

WHO are you directing this to? Me? or Yosimete and Chobi? Someone 5 pages ago? If you want to participate, you need to learn how the board works. Hit the REPLY button, and enclose the quotes from the people to whom you wish to reply/engage in conversation.

If your post was to my second one. The answers are as follows;

This is an interesting new line of argument.

You’re saying circumcision should only be performed on those children with a cosmetic defect of the prepuce. Aren’t you.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. Again, to see what I, and others ARE actually saying, and why, you need to read the WHOLE thread, not just pick and choose.

A cosmetic defect that affecting their social interactions and that may incidentally cause poorer functioning of the penis. How many male children would this affect. Ask of the society of Pediatricians and you shall find.

Um, huh? The above statement, particularly since there is no way to tell what post its replying to, makes no sense.

Since no one in this thread has introduced cosmetic defects to the penis, what on earth is it you’re talking about?

[Chotii]

I’d like to explore a comment Excalibre made regarding my attempt to address potential chemical alteration to the brain caused by cortisol, produced in response to the stress of circumcision, and potential emotional injury (post-traumatic stress disorder), ditto:

I had said, in part:

We know infants who suffer traumatic events as infants can exhibit altered behaviors later in life.

And Excalibre replied, in part:
A major, major traumatic event is different not just quantitatively from a minor event - there has to be a certain amount of pain to trigger a traumatic disorder at all.

I don’t know much about the study of post-traumatic stress illnesses. I do know that different people will react differently to similar stresses/traumas, however. Something that would absolutely devastate me, might merely give you nightmares for a week. Some people can be mugged, or be in a bad car wreck, and shrug it off. Others will never dare set foot on the street alone again, or never get behind the wheel of a car. Some soldiers in a war will snap (‘shell-shocked’) and become non-functional, sometimes for the rest of their lives, and some will manage to tough it out, persevere, and come home to take back up their lives in peacetime society. So I’m not entirely sure how we find what constitutes that certain amount of pain/trauma that triggers a traumatic disorder, or how indeed we can measure it.

It may be that some infants - perhaps even most - will not be at all bothered by the same procedure that upsets others at a deep level of their being. But we can’t know which ones in advance. In fact, we can’t really even know it afterward, as we have no way to compare the pre-surgery child to the post-surgery child.

I’m afraid we have to take it on faith, or odds, or percentages, that this newborn child being strapped into the circumstraint, will be one of the ones (maybe one of the vast majority) who will shrug it off, heal rapidly, and grow up to be perfectly happy with his body and his life.

What I still don’t have an answer for the question of “But what if he’s not one of those?” Do we apologise and offer him support - ‘Here, try this Tug-Ahoy, maybe it will help you’? Do we shrug and say “Tough luck, buddy?” Or what? This is a serious question to me because of the degree of criticism and cynicism that has been directed toward the restoration community in this thread. Comments have ranged from their efforts being stupid, to a waste of time, to ‘too bad they didn’t just get it into their heads that they’d like to be pierced, it would be faster’. They’ve had all kinds of mental or emotional problems attributed to them, even the ones who are perfectly quiet about it and don’t go around calling people mutilators, or even saying that they have been mutilated, only that they want to have something resembling what they were born with.

What is a reasonable reaction as a culture to men who decide they don’t like having been circumcised for cultural reasons?

[Weirddave]

@Chotii

I agree with you about this JDT person, but I do wonder, how does one decide whose complaint is legitimate? What criteria would you use?

That’s easy. I think reasonable people are fairly easy to spot if you look for them, particularly amongst a group of unreasonable ones.

“My circumcision was done wrong, the skin is too tight and when I have an erection it hurts, these are the mediacal options I have and this is what my doctor an I think we should do” is reasonable, so is “Let’s discuss why I am unhappy I was circumcised, you might benefit from my perspective”.
Things that are not reasonable include stridently presenting an arguement as “fact”, yet refusing to back it up with any cites, demonizing those who have an opposing viewpoint as evil, basing your arguements completely upon anecdototal evidence, forming your arguements in an emotional, unrealistic manner, just to get a reaction (YOU’RE MUTILATING THE BABIES!!!), making rediculous comparisons (MC is the exact same as FGM!), again, usually for emotional impact, telling other people what they believe, or that they are wrong about their beliefs, claiming that the lack of proof for what they are saying is due to some type of conspiracy, blaming MC for things not related, or at best extremely tangentally related to MC(I can’t talk to girls/got fired from my job/feel inadiquate/whatever because I am circumcised), completely ignoring what other people are saying and repeating the same thing over and over again ad nausieum, as if repitition makes it true, among others.

Make sense?

[clairobscur]

@Chotii

This is so fundamental that it may be impossible to express a concept in another language, particularly when there are also cultural differences involved (see the thread about untranslatable words and phrases for an illustration).

Totally irrelevant to the issue, but could you link to this thread? I’m interested and I didn’t notice it…

[clairobscur]

@Chotii

Of course I understand and sympathise and shudder on behalf of adult men who must have genital surgery, the pain must be awful. ?

No, actually, the pain isn’t awful. It’s painful, and it lasts for some days, but it’s bearable. There are worst toothaches.

[Malthus]

@Chotii

I’d like to explore a comment Excalibre made regarding my attempt to address potential chemical alteration to the brain caused by cortisol, produced in response to the stress of circumcision, and potential emotional injury (post-traumatic stress disorder), ditto:

I had said, in part:

I don’t know much about the study of post-traumatic stress illnesses. I do know that different people will react differently to similar stresses/traumas, however. Something that would absolutely devastate me, might merely give you nightmares for a week. Some people can be mugged, or be in a bad car wreck, and shrug it off. Others will never dare set foot on the street alone again, or never get behind the wheel of a car. Some soldiers in a war will snap (‘shell-shocked’) and become non-functional, sometimes for the rest of their lives, and some will manage to tough it out, persevere, and come home to take back up their lives in peacetime society. So I’m not entirely sure how we find what constitutes that certain amount of pain/trauma that triggers a traumatic disorder, or how indeed we can measure it.

It may be that some infants - perhaps even most - will not be at all bothered by the same procedure that upsets others at a deep level of their being. But we can’t know which ones in advance. In fact, we can’t really even know it afterward, as we have no way to compare the pre-surgery child to the post-surgery child.

I’m afraid we have to take it on faith, or odds, or percentages, that this newborn child being strapped into the circumstraint, will be one of the ones (maybe one of the vast majority) who will shrug it off, heal rapidly, and grow up to be perfectly happy with his body and his life.

What I still don’t have an answer for the question of “But what if he’s not one of those?” Do we apologise and offer him support - ‘Here, try this Tug-Ahoy, maybe it will help you’? Do we shrug and say “Tough luck, buddy?” Or what? This is a serious question to me because of the degree of criticism and cynicism that has been directed toward the restoration community in this thread. Comments have ranged from their efforts being stupid, to a waste of time, to ‘too bad they didn’t just get it into their heads that they’d like to be pierced, it would be faster’. They’ve had all kinds of mental or emotional problems attributed to them, even the ones who are perfectly quiet about it and don’t go around calling people mutilators, or even saying that they have been mutilated, only that they want to have something resembling what they were born with.

What is a reasonable reaction as a culture to men who decide they don’t like having been circumcised for cultural reasons?

The problem is that the “trauma” associated with an objectively minor event is impossible to control for. Yes, it is possible that some may be mentally ruined for life by the act of circumcision. It is hard to see it as being common, or even causitive, as most newborns (a) don’t remember events soon after being born and (b) if they did, are more likely to be traumatized by the immensely greater pain and dislocation of being born … but let us simply accept that it could happen. People can be mentally ruined for life by any event. Unless you live in a plastic bubble, you are bound to be upset by something. At some point, a reasonable limit must be placed on the seriousness of events which will attract real sympathy and attention!

The problem is that while subjectively circumcision can cause immense trauma, you will find it very difficult to convice people (who are often circumcised themselves) that objectively, it is worthy of that trauma!

Look at your list: muggings, car accidents, soldiers in war … and circumcision. Buddy, one of these things stands out as not belonging in the same league.

As a society, we cannot afford to cater to every subjective “issue” and “trauma” that comes up. It is hard enough to deal with the objectively serious ones. So, if you happen to be so unfortunate as to have an inordinate mental reaction to such things, you are just shit out of luck.