Isn’t it, though? And not to boast, but mine actually gets stiffer as I age…
See, but there you go again: denying them their own experiences, or even the right to have a different experience from yours.
You assert that “cut men fully enjoy sex” as though the truncation of major nerve pathways can NEVER alter nerve sensation. If you said “I fully enjoy sex, and every cut male I have ever spoken to, says he fully enjoys sex”, I will not disagree with you one bit.
But I know that cutting through nerves can lead to sensation deficits, dear Dave, despite the fact that nerves can re-connect to some degree…I’ve had cesarean surgical births. My lower abdomen? Is numb like unto a dullness, and it’s not just in my head. My thumb, where I stupidly gashed it on the serrated blade on a pastic-wrap box? Has a spot where the sensation is not quite all there. It is therefore entirely within the scope of belief that at least SOME men might, in fact, experience less sensation because nerves have in fact been severed, all the way around the penile shaft.
Yet you deny that this can even be possible, because the BRAIN can make up for it! Um, no. The brain cannot make up for every sort and degree of of nerve damage. And some men do seem to receive more physical damage than others during the procedure. However, I will agree with you thus far: the body is pretty good at rerouting nerves. The vast majority of men seem to retain plenty of sensation. That does not translate into “all of them”.
So if you broke your neck and became a quadruplegic, it would have no effect on your sex life?
I think the same about male circumcision. I have spent the last hour reading and r-reading every post in this thread. Yet I still think male circumcision is an act of torturous abuse that must not be condoned in the least. Could someone please show me something in this thread that would change my mind on that.
Because deep down, all gentile men resent being born inferior instead of a member of the Hebrew Master Race. They can’t cope with being goyem. So, they lie to themselves. They tell themselves the same lies over and over until they very nearly believe them. One of the Top 5 Big Lies- I am better because I am not circumcised. Ridiculous, no? Then they fight to keep foreskins on Jewish shmeckles believing, erroneously of course, that an uncut Jew is their equal.
There you have it. The crux of the matter is gentile inferiority. The only cure is to come to terms with the fact that as gentile, you are inferior.
<Snip!>
This was the most unkindest cut of all…
Having engaged in the cir wars before I will mainly defer having said what I have to say … except that I’d like to explore catsix’s belief set a bit more.
What she likes to play with I have no interest in, but I would like to explore two issues raised.
The first is the concept of “absolute medical necessity.” I am a doctor and I can tell you that very little is of “absolute medical necessity.” There are much more often informed medical decision and for minors those decisions are usually made by parents on their children’s behalves. These decisions can be as small as extracting a tooth or whether or as big as not to use surgery vs chemotherapy on a localized cancer. Within a wide bearth parents are allowed to decide for their minor children. Even if I think they are making the wrong choice. Would you eliminate that deference we give to parents in our culture for most medical decision making?
The separate issue is cultural arrogance. If some segment of our society includes a culture that notches the earlobes of children at age 5 as a religious rite of great importance to them, would you condemn it as mutilation and want to forbid it?
Having a foreskin is not a disease, a defect, or a painful condition that requires surgical repair in and of itself. How many people do you encounter who have healthy teeth pulled from their children’s mouths? How many of those involve permanent teeth versus deciduous teeth? How many completely healthy body parts have you removed at the parents’ request?
On a healthy male who does not have phimosis or fibrosis, what condition does circumcision actually treat?
I would very handily make it illegal to circumcise any boy without medical need (such as phimosis or fibrosis requiring circumcision as treatment) or the consent of the one being circumcised. Female circumcision is not legal in this country, no matter what form of it is being discussed, and I see no reason why male circumcision should be any different. We do not allow parents to remove any part of their daughter’s labia or clitoral hood or clitoris for cosmetic reasons.
Yes, I would. Just like I condemn female circumcision and male circumcision.
Thanks for confessing your bias, but this should really not be done to those who have no ability to consent, absent absolute medical necessity.
Yes, and I would make it illegal for you to approach one, but I’m willing to trust the parents on this issue, as long as you begin talking from an escapable distance.
Parents who shied from paying for the surgical removal of a disfiguring but non-life-threatening anomaly and excused the decision on the grounds that the infant could not give consent should donate part of the money they save to a statue of you, made out of lump of granite by a sculptor armed with a wet sponge. At least it can be an accurate representation of your mind.
Dude, she wasn’t talking about playing with the penises of infant boys. It doesn’t help your argument to take the discusison that direction.
And by the way, a prepuce is not a ‘non life threatening anomaly’. Almost every newborn male human is born with one, and it is, rather, anomalous (but reasonably common) for an infant male to be born without one. All other mammals are born with protection for the glans of the penis, and this glans is rarely observed except when mating is imminent or the male is cleaning himself.
One my daughters was born with a ‘non life threatening anomaly’. In her case: a congenital deformity of the stomach. It required surgery, and that surgery gave her an improved quality of life, to wit: she isn’t throwing up everything in her stomach 8-10 times a day. But she wasn’t going to die without it. She just wouldn’t really have lived. Some babies are born with cleft lips and palates. They don’t die. But their lives are better - observably and measurably better in every way - after surgery.
Given that the majority of men in the world grow up and live just fine without the surgical alteration of their genitals…I sincerely don’t think the argument can be made that this is an anomaly that requires surgical alteration to improve quality of life. it is a very American cultural thing (and Jewish, yes, and Muslim, but let’s stay out of that) thing to do. Nothing more.
As I am not a surgeon I haven’t removed too many body parts myself, but certainly I have had patients who have had surgeries to remove large congenital birthmarks for example. Some have chosen to do this because of cosmetic indications alone and some have chosen to do this because of a small increased risk of melanoma (a skin cancer) in the large congenital nevus at some later date. The actual risk is quite small, as is the increased risk of HIV associated being uncircumcised, but the choice is not an outrageous one even though I might not make it on my child’s behalf. And some minors do indeed have healthy wisdom teeth removed or even adult teeth as part of an orthodontic plan or because they may cause a problem in the future.
But you’ve not answered the question. I only asked two. The first one. Here I’ll ask it again: would you eliminate the deference we give to parents in our culture for most medical decision making? (I can bold it if it would help.) The issue here isn’t if you or I believe the decision is the correct one, the issue in this question is who decides when the medical data is less than completely conclusive. (And despite the stridency on both sides that is the situation with regards to the health risks vs benefits of neonatal circumcision, as is evinced by both the CDC fact sheet and the AAP’s fence-sitting position.There are measurable health benefits. They are small. There are measurable risks. They are also very small. Which one is less small is debatable.) I have my answer already but I’m curious as to what yours is.
As to my second question, yes, I expected that is what you would say. This must be a difficult world for you, having to deal with people of other cultural traditions and our primitive ways. A world in which the barbarians are not only at the gates but living among you. Good luck with that. As for me, I give extra wide berth to respecting religious traditions.
This is what it all came down to for me. When my son was born (actually, before, so I’d know what I wanted) I looked at the risks associated with the procedure. I looked at the health risks that uncircumcised men had later in life (primarily penile cancer, IIRC, the HIV study wasn’t complete at that point, but since it’s come out it only reinforces that I made the right choice.) The both risks were very small, but the risk of a surgical mistake during the procedure was smaller than the risk of cancer in uncut males. Cut or uncut? Both choices presented some (minor) risk to my child. I chose the one with the least amount of risk associated with it, and had him cut. It was the safest thing for my child, and thus it became my responsibility as a parent to do it. If someone else reaches a different conclusion with their son…shrug OK. That’s perfectly fine with me. MY responsibility is to MY child and I made the best choice based upon the information available at the time.
You apparently didn’t like the answer, but here it is again:
I would ban male circumcision in the exact same way that female circumcision is illegal in the United States.
I would remove that ‘deference’ which allows parents to cut off a healthy, non-defective body part.
I take it, then, that you see nothing wrong with female circumcision?
So you had part of your son’s body removed to reduce his risk of penile cancer from 9 in 1 million to 4.5 in 1 million? That’s what, 0.000009% if he wasn’t cut to 0.0000045% now that he is? Yeah, I can see the pressing need for safety. It would’ve been much safer to remove your daughter’s breast buds at birth, considering the rate of incidence for breast cancer in the United States, but I suppose you let her keep those.
Way I see it, the two procedures are in no way comparable other than semantically. It is closer to equating ear piercing with a lobotomy because both involve altering the head with sharp implements.
Don’t suppose this will convince you (I’ve seen this argument enough times to know no-one is ever convinced either way), but the notion that male “circumcision is an act of torturous abuse” is one that is generally not accepted by the vast majority of those who have actually undergone it, whereas I’d be willing to bet most females who have undergone “female circumcision” of the more extreme varieties would be quite willing to accept that description.
It is wild and excessive hyperbole such as “torturous abuse” or “serious human rights issue” (used upthread) that, quite frankly, undermine whatever valid points the anti-circ crowd have to make. Put simply, it just ain’t that big a deal.
That’s exactly right. (although I didn’t check the percentages you used) Do you disagree that I lowered the risk for my child (by some amount)? Your argument is that it was an inconsequential amount. OK. I already said that I wasn’t going to beef with that, if you ever have a child you are quite free to make a different decision for him.
Breasts are serve a purpose. Foreskin does not. It goes back to the question I first asked in the thread, one that nobody even tried to answer: Are their any health benefits to having an uncircumcised penis (as opposed to a cleanly(not botched surgery) circumcised one )? (And as much as you might disagree “I like to play with them” isn’t a health benefit, sorry. 
)
catsix, I didn’t like the answer because it didn’t answer the question asked. You still have not answered what your thoughts are about the deference we give to parents regarding medical decision making for their minor children other that to say that you would over rule it for these circumstances because it is the removal of healthy tissue. That at least is a partial answer and I will go with that.
Does it then follow that you would be against allowing parents to decide to have a congentital nevus removed (which is also healthy tissue)? Or an early erupting wisdom tooth that is at risk to cause orthodontic problems later on? Or an incidental appendectomy (removing a healthy appendix) during a separate abdominal surgical procedure?
All of these are decisions made by parents with input by their doctors on behalf of their children and all involve the removal of healthy non-defective body parts.
Again, this question is not specifically about male circumcision but is instead trying to flesh out under which circumstances you believe parents have the right to make medical decisions for their children and under which circumstances you feel that such decision making should limited.
As to the inevitable and tiresome female genital cutting analogies …
First of all, female genital cutting is not a religious mandate. It is a local custom in various communities.
Hypothetically and for the sake of discussion, what if it was a significant religious mandate? In matter of religious practice my default is to allow a practice unless there is conclusive evidence of harm far outweighing any potential benefit. The specifics of the form of the rite and the documented harm vs possible benefit would then need to be objectively looked at. Since there are serious harms overwhelmingly and conclusively documented with the more severe forms of female genital cutting, I would be in support of measures to effectively reduce the practice. I would not automatically extend that to all forms of the practice. That would be easy but lazy thinking resultant of cultural arrognace. I’d need to know more about those forms than I do before I could have an informed opinion about them. Interestingly enough the most progress in reducing the rates of female genitial cutting have been had by involving local religious leaders in educating their own that such is not a religious practice and convincing mothers of the harm in a grass roots manner. Bans historically have been highly ineffective.
Applying that general principle to male circumcision rites: a brit milah is an essential religious mandate in Judaism, part of the basic identity as a Jewish male; and there is no conclusive evidence of significant harms, no where close. Default applies … butt out.
And just for kicks, since we are still in the Winter Holiday season … Banning circumcision has been tried before.
I said I have a problem with the removal of a non-defective body part that’s not causing problems. How much more clear can I be? A foreskin is not a defect, it does not generally cause problems, and I don’t think parents should be allowed to remove it unless there is a problem such as phimosis or fibrosis.
Your continued questions about other medical procedures to correct actual problems and/or defects in no way relate to the removal of a healthy sex organ, particularly since the existence of said organ is not a defect.
We don’t allow the cutting of female genitalia for religious reasons, why should males be any different?
Your inability to read is awe inspiring.
The examples given were explicitly ones in which normal tissue that was not currently causing a problem is being removed as part of an informed medical decision over an assessment of possible of future risks. An uninfected appendix is not a defect. A birth mark is not causing a current problem. Do you have a problem with parents agreeing to their removal or is it just that you happen to enjoy playing with foreskins?
As to your remaining comment: there is ignorance and there is willful fingers in the ears shouting “LALALA… I CAN’T HEAR YOU!” ignorance. Yours goes beyond that. Your question has been answered if only you actually had any neurons that were on speaking terms with each other.
Well, let me try.
A ‘nevus’ (why you couldn’t just call it a large, dark pigmented and possibly hairy birthmark, I have no idea)? Well, I would say “that depends”. The removal of a birthmark will probably leave a scar. Where is it? How big? how likely to become a problem in future years? I knew a girl when I lived in Mexico who had a large (at least 2" across) hairy ‘nevus’ on her cheek. She was a popular as anyone else, and while I’m certain Americans would have had it removed in a heartbeat, I have no reason to believe she did not go forward and have a perfectly normal, healthy life and relationships. To that degree, it did not affect her social life.
Now the removal of wisdom teeth is more a matter of actual health. It’s known that people with badly-crowded and badly-aligned teeth have more trouble with their teeth in life - I mean, that’s pretty much a given. It’s not hard to predict and/or measure whether a given person’s jaw will accommodate their 20-year molars. Their removal may truly be a matter of ‘good teeth’ or ‘bad or no teeth’. And bad teeth frequently means bad health. They go together.
As for pre-emptive removal of the appendix merely because the abdomen happens to be open for something else? That apalls me. Utterly. Why would that even be offered? And what possible justification would be made? I assure you: the several times people in my immediate family have had abdominal surgery…nobody said “Hey, want us to take out extra bits?” Geez.
Which brings us to…the prepuce. Since, in the US anyway, its removal is not generally done for religious reasons, I wish we’d leave that out of the argument for now. I can think of very few other body-parts which are removed merely for existing, nor can I imagine that the average doctor would now remove tonsils merely upon parent request, even though most of us probably had them out as a matter of course (I had mine out twice). My young niece had hers out recently, but she had repeated, nigh-endless bouts of tonsillitis. In her case, it was ‘for cause’. Her sister do not have theirs out.) For that matter, many adults cannot find a doctor who will perform sterilization surgery on them, under a certain age. Why not? Don’t they have a right to own their own bodies? Evidently not.
Why these discrepencies? Why is it okay to remove skin, muscle, and mucous membrane from a boy’s genitals, but not an infant girl’s clitoral hood - which is anatomically homologous? (How many adult women would voluntarily have their clitoral hood removed? Not I! Heavens no.) Why not tonsils? Why not earlobes, for a nice smooth look to the side of the throat? And hey, you’d never collect icky stuff behind your ears.
I still argue that this has more to do with culture than with medicine. And medicine is not consistent even within itself.