Nothing to say about the American Cancer Society’s position that removal of the foreskin is not considered an accepted means of preventing penile cancer, Weirddave?
But I thought it did - reducing the risk all the way from four-fifths of five-eighths of fuck-all down to two-fifths of ditto. :dubious:
Really, you could do far more for length and quality of life by, say, always eating brown rice in preference to white, and never making any road journeys unless they were absolutely necessary. But I’m sure the Gnat-Strainer-In-Chief can assure us he already does this.
Pretty well my position: not a big deal. What makes it a “deal” worth arguing about is all the cries that it is “abusive” and ought to be outlawed.
Mmm. There are certainly men - and they are entitled to their own opinion - who feel they did lose something significant in being altered at birth. It is, in my opinion, the height of arrogance, not to mention condescension, to say to them “No you didn’t. Science says so. I say so. Everybody says so! And so we must be right.”
Please try to follow my thinking: Circumcision is not a science, it is at best an art form. Every infant’s surgery will be different - some are left with enough skin to have movement along the shaft, and some have so much skin removed that full erection is impossible at worst (“buried penis”) or perhaps merely so taut that it is painful…every single time. Moreover, it’s impossible to tell in infancy how large the penis will grow at puberty, and whether the lack of natural skin will result in a shorter shaft than nature would have given. It is quite normal for men who are ‘restoring’ through skin expansion to gain both girth and length - though this is anecdotal. There are however scientific studies on penile length and girth that bear this out, however. Less skin == less length/girth, and the numbers are statistically significant. No. I don’t have the cite.
Every infant’s nervous system will react differently to the need to re-enervate a portion of his body that has been crushed or cut away. It’s not nothing. The remarkable thing in my mind is that the re-enervation can occur at all, since a sleeve of skin (and muscle) is excised away entirely, with the edges pinched or sutured together. Yes! Obviously, the body does almost always re-enervate to an adequate and pleasurable degree. It does not follow that EVERY man winds up with that result. Yet these men are told “It’s in your head” and “Man up.” Dave?
I will posit that “a retention of adequate function” does not equal “a retention of complete natural function”. The ability to achieve orgasm does not mean nothing is lost, merely that enough is retained. Is it enough for you? I’m pleased. Must it therefore be enough for everyone? I disagree.
And here is where we come to the question of whether it may reasonably be considered ‘abusive’ to alter the body of another person for what is a minimal (if any) medical advantage, or more specifically, for aesthetic reasons. We do not alter our children in other ways except perhaps to pierce their ears. We do not tattoo them, file their teeth down, place genital piercings, scarify them. If they are girls, we do not remove the clitoral hood to expose the glans clitoris in the name of cleanliness or anything else. Such bodily alterations would be considered abusive under the law and by society in general. There might even be criminal prosecution.
We might reasonably correct a birth defect (a large nevus, a facial defect such as cleft lip or palate, finger webbing, extra digits - not to mention life-threatening and quality-of-life-threatening one congenital deformities. But everybody knows these are not supposed to occur naturally. What then the infant penis? Does this imply it is deformed on every male child, that it requires repair?
It is not unreasonable to say, if we do not alter children’s bodies for other things, except when there is observable and incontrovertible need…then to do so without need is abuse. It is abuse of their physical integrity, their right to own their own body. And…for some little boys, it rises to the level of mutilation, because they’re the unlucky ones who get the meatal stenosis, the buried penis, the denuded shaft, and so on. They do matter. They aren’t little blips who can be dismissed as irrelevent, because the numbers are small. For them, the results are lifelong and tragic. And were 100% avoidable.
No, because that’s not what the article you linked states. It equivacates, dances around a but, with liberal use of “Most”, “many” and “believe” before coming to the point, which is “The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer.”. Not the same thing you seem to think it is at all.
Yup. They “feel” that they did. There are people out there that feel all kind of things. They feel that abortion is murder. They feel that folks of a different ethnicity are inferior. They feel that because mommy didn’t buy them the bike they wanted when they were 12 that they had a rotten childhood. People feel lots of things. Doesn’t make any of them true.
You’re conflagrating two different things here, and it’s also the issue I had with Drain Bead earlier. If the circumcision is botched somehow, and you gave a list of some of the more common complications, than obviously that is an injury, and is a separate category from someone who had a normal, healthy, routine circumcision. IF the penis is not injured during the operation (and I don’t accept normal circumcision as an “injury”, tho I suspect you might), IOW there is no physical damage to the penis that makes it any different then the millions of other cut men who use their penises just fine, then yes, I say “man up” to the person who is whining about how his evil circumcision ruined his sex life. No, it didn’t. Get over it and deal with your real issues. It’s nothing more than (heh) a poor workman blaming his tool.
Still doesn’t pass the “meh” test for me. There is, I would say, a difference between stuff that is, objectively, “a big deal” worthy of outrage, criminalization and commotion and stuff that isn’t. This doesn’t even come close.
Certainly, men who think circ has messed them up “are entitled to their own opinion”. That isn’t what is at issue though.
What is at issue, is whether they are entitled to enforce their opinion on others, to make it part of the law, or to claim people who do not feel as they do are somehow victimized or abused (or are victimizers and abusers, should they choose differently for their kids). It is not in my opinion the height of condesention and arrogance to resist such an imposition.
Nor do I accept that this is somehow a unique case of parents making choices concerning their children, there are lots of purely cosmetic medical issues decided by parents for infants - such as some pediatric orthodontia. In this case, as with much orthodontia, there are both cosmetic and medical “benefits” alleged (as well as risks run), and I for one do not think I am in a better position to decide than a parent in consultation with their physician.
In short, a tempest in a teapot, exacerbated by the fact that anything to do with the penis is a hot-button issue for some.
There are certainly people - and their entitled to their own opinion - who feel permanently damaged by having had dental amalgam placed inside their mouths. Is it, in your opinion Chotii, the height of arrogance, not to mention condescension, to say to them that the scientific data shows that such is plain not true, if that is indeed what the science says?
Is it abuse to allow dental amalgams to be placed inside childrens’ mouths when they cannot give informed consent about that procedure because some people believe that they were damaged by it?
Should vaccines be considered child abuse because some people claim that they caused their children’s autism and because vaccines permentantly alter a child’s body in ways that you cannot see?
It is nice to say that there are some people who feel damaged by something but that bears little on the questions of whether or not something is the cause of what they complain about,or if an action was a justifiablly reasonable enough decision for a parent to make, let alone on whether or not an action should be labeled as abusive.
I don’t know if some men are blaming their sexual dysfunction or dissatisfaction on past neonatal circumcision as an available whipping boy or if it is in some occasions justified. I do know that there is reasoned debate about which is more important, the small but real risks associated with neonatal circumcision or the small but real benefits.
I do know that we alter children’s bodies all the time without “incontrovertible need” and that if such decisions regarding relative risks and benefits are okay for parents to make then then parents should be allowed such respect in this case as well.
btw Chotii circumcision is neither a science or an art form: it is a simple procedure. Despite your claim there is no muscle cut and no re-inervation required. Sutures are very very rarely required. “Buried penis” is not a complication of circumcision but is a congenital abnormality; a boy with “buried penis” should not be circumcised as the prepuce is used in the repair. I have never seen a study that shows your claim of size effect and it makes no sense either from a medical-anatomic POV for a routine neonatal circumcision.
Little has changed since the The AAP released its policy statement in 1999 except that the data on HIV prevention has thrown a small bit more to the possible benefit side. Their conclusion then is accurate today:
It all seems so reasonable, until you put things in perspective - for the article to be really be fair it needs to look at circumcision not in a vacuum but in various contexts:
-
Historical - while there might be some possible health benefits discovered more recently, the original justifications were definitely bunk, such that trying to find reasons to keep doing it come off a bit like a retcon.
-
Emotionality - While the “emotionality” aspect has been lobbied against the anti-circ folk, I think many of the pro-circ folk might want to examine their own feelings too. One can definitely get a strong sense that there’s more of a justification of tradition than actual concern for health issues. Even if your motives are pure, your essay comes across as including a lot of emotionality.
-
Regionality - why has it been and remains to be popular only within certain religious groups and in the USA?
-
Medical policy - Why are other elective procedures on infants frowned upon for routine performance?
-
Gender issues - Why are elective genital procedures done on females in other regions so much more frowned upon here than male ones? Why isn’t there more serious consideration of routine infant mastectomy? In general, why are the female genitals subject to so much more protection than male?
-
Human rights and body ownership - why don’t we routinely perform other elective procedures such as tattoos or RFID implants, which could be justified as identification for purposes of preventing kidnapping?
-
Science absent any other considerations - Lots of things sound great when you think of humans as simply organic robots. Why aren’t there a lot of articles in the SI promoting eugenics, for example? Or mandatory embryo testing and abortion of down syndrome kids?
-
Naturalism - I think you’re creating a bit of a strawman here. Not many would actually argue that everything ‘natural’ is always better - clearly that is false - but the counter claim that ‘natural’ is not in any way a useful metric is also clearly false. I think it is even useful enough medically speaking that the “burden of proof” for medical procedures be on going against the “natural order”. Hence the whole “do no harm” thing.
Hey it might still come out on top, but how it fares when put into various contexts definitely needs to be addressed.
But what is the effect of circumcision on zombies?
According to Elie Wiesel, the commandments do not apply to the dead. So, Jewish zombies don’t have to worry about eating only kosher brains.
WTF is with going back nearly 2 years and bringing up this thread? I know it’s not against the rules, but seriously, let it die. This isn’t the pet semetary pit.
Wow. So, having been “cut”, I should have become a nasty vicious monster? COOL! 
But that conflicts with the next gem you found
A wimp?
So now what? Should I be an overagressive beast, or a wuss?How about a wimpy brute?
I’m so cornfused now.
You have a sharp wit
Seriously. It’s like Jack Dean Tyler coming back from the grave.
The circumcision doctor’s name is Dickerman? I’m really the first one to mention this?
Oh, that’s just too rich
Why, in all this back-and-forth (that apparently happened almost two years ago) did not one person on either side mention the very simple fact that if you don’t circumcise your infant sons, there is nothing stopping them from deciding to get themselves circumcised later on in life if they feel the benefits are worth it?
I mean, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases aren’t such a concern until you’re actually sexually active, and barring a massive restructuring of society, we aren’t likely to be seeing a ton of sexually active infants any time soon. Meaning there’s no urgency, no need to get it done now rather than wait until the boy can look at the information himself and make the call about what happens to his body.
If you aren’t circumcised and are unhappy with your genitals, you have a pretty simple and obvious recourse. The same can’t exactly be said about those who have already had parts of their genitals amputated without their consent.
Edit:
Oh yes, people have been scrambling for an analogous procedure and failing due to the suggested procedures all being more invasive. I have one for you. Amputate the external structure of the infant’s ears. It makes the area infinitely easier to clean. (What parent hasn’t complained about their child no washing adequitely behind them?) Likewise, the procedure isn’t the least bit invasive, just cutting off a few extra folds of skin and cartlidge, after all.
And it’s not as though they’ll be deafened by the procedure unless it’s botched. Sure, they might not be able to hear quite as well as an intact person, but they’ll never know what they were missing if we cut them soon enough…
Cecil addressed this in a column
The glans is protected, that’s probably all.
My opinion is that the foreskin feels nice and mine have never given me trouble in my life (54 years old). I use more time washing my feet than washing under my foreskin so the inordinate time isn’t much of an argument, both places are naturally clean when I’m finished. Should my foreskin ever give the trouble some people predict, it can easily be rectified, I will still have had the advantage of having had that nice plaything most of my life.
Sorry, I didn’t see the dates before I answered :smack:.
However, I’m curious, did the OPs article ever get published? I find it unlikely but does anybody know?