Just jumping in here randomly, but the thing that always bothers me about these arguments is the “sexual function” arguments, as exemplified by catsix and DSeid:
Is there any competing study from the intactivist side that indicates that sexual dysfunction in circumcised males is greater than that in uncircumcised ones, or is this purely a matter of speculation on the part of the intactivists (what a silly-sounding word that is!) based on their feelings on the matter?
Full disclosure: circumcised as an infant, wife prefers it that way (having had similar experiences to eleanorigby), on the fence about any kids we may or (most likely) may not have. Also in the “slightly mystified by the commotion” camp as I honestly can’t imagine needing or wanting more sexual sensitivity and i lack the feelings alphaboi and others have regarding reminders of ownership of my body at one point–but then again, given my upbringing, I had a significant uphill battle with my parents over ownership of my emotional and intellectual self, which held far more significance for me.
The same could be said of the HPV vaccine (or some theoretical AIDS vaccine) - would you agree that therefore such vaccines are a hideous attack on a child’s bodily integrity?
No. I made my own personal choice which was swayed by the medical evidence. “Pro-circumcision” would imply that I’m out there going “Rah! Rah! Circumcision!”
I wasn’t aware that the two were mutually exclusive.
Which, coincidentally, is most effective when given around ages 9-11, a window when most of us wouldn’t normally entrust our children to making their own medical decisions.
If two parents are circumcising their boy purely for medical reasons, I would respect them more than those doing it for cultural/religious reasons, but I would still disagree with the circumcision. As has been said, the medical reasons are currently based on sketchy evidence.
That said, if everybody was circumcising infants today for health benefits I would care a lot less about this issue, but I fear that not to be the case, far from it.
So that absolute right of bodily integrity is not really absolute. It is relative to what you consider trivial or significant, or even as part of the body vs grooming and subject to what you consider is evidence as more benefit than harm. How would you feel about a child with a large birthmark on the face: should any decision about removal wait until adulthood? Is orthodonture a violation of these absolute rights?
You may begin to see that reality is not so clear as moral absolutes. Reality is about balancing and weighting different moral imperatives. The parent’s right to make decisions on their child’s behalf. The child’s right to be protected from abusive decisions. The value placed on different possible benefits, both medical and cultural. The value of respecting different religious and cultural traditions in a pluralistic society. How much risk. And so on.
True, but a 9-11 year old is capable of having some input into their care. Would have your 10 year old son circumcised against his will? And a vaccine isn’t a good comparison to circumcision since it doesn’t do any cosmetic damage. At most you’d end up with a small scar (like with a smallpox vaccination) at injection site. Circumcision significantly changes the appearence of the penis.
If you’re talking about extracting baby teeth they’d fall out anyway a new one will grow in it’s place. The same is not true of a foreskin. I doubt any dentist would remove an adult tooth for cosmetic reasons if the patient (even if underage) objected.
All good points. But then, I wasn’t trying to equivocate the two either. Just pointing on a coincidental similarity in the “window of opportunity” aspect.
What you said was, “it played a major role in my own decision.”
I don’t understand your point about not being “rah, rah!” for circumcision. You do advocate for it, at least neonatally. You’re talking about sparing your son the extremely treatable disease of skin cancer somewhere after the year 2067, while denying him a lifetime of the use of a large, highly sensitive erogenous portion of his penis.
HIV prevention? Yeah, if you live in certain parts of Africa. Maybe.
Outside of Israel, where circumcision is something like 95%, the US, at around 80% has the highest incidence of HIV infection in world - among wealthy, modern industrialized nations. Japan OTOH with a circumcision rate somewhere between 1-3%, doesn’t even show up the charts for HIV prevalence. Correlation between circumcision and HIV infection? Heck, even Israel with its 95% circumcision rate, has an HIV prevalence of 0.1%.
Another thing I frequently hear, not necessarily from you - I’m too lazy to check - is “some women prefer it.” What a load of popularized, institutionalized, internalized anti-male misandry that is.
Can you imagine the outcry if we advocated neonatal circumcision of girls in nice clean, sterile hospital settings because anecdotally, “some men prefer it”?
People tend to prefer what they are used to. Ask Americans, and you get your answer. Ask a Brit and your answer will be “Circumcised? Oh that just looks too strange!”
Good for you, but that doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s beyond presumptuous for parents to surgically alter their child’s body to make it more sexually attractive to someone the kid may never even want to have sex with.
If the vaccine caused permanent disfigurement and was given to infants who couldn’t make the decision themselves, then yes, it would be a hideous attack on bodily integrity.
For what it’s worth, my four month old son is not circumcized. I am, I don’t care too much either way about it and don’t hate my parents. But it is an unnecessary mutilation that really shouldn’t be done without some reason. In my opinion, “Mom thinks it looks better”, or even “that’s tradition”, is not an acceptable reason. I mean, if you don’t like the analogies given so far, what about earlobes, septums, the webbing between the fingers and toes, even pinkies, etc.; would people really be vociferously defending parents rights to chop these off willy-nilly for aesthetic reasons? Sure, it may not impede the child in life that much, but it really isn’t the parent’s decision to make.
The reason I replied like I did was because it was put forth that a preference for such things was anti-male. That makes no sense to me.
I’m more than willing to admit that I’m culturally biased about it. If I were to have any sons(which is highly unlikely), I would probably have them circ’d. Yes, there are some medical benefits and its also the ‘norm’ in this country. I don’t see that it does them any harm, so why not. I’m not saying everyone should do it, but as I’ve said before, I don’t get the big deal about it.
I realize the not getting the big deal comment sounds flippant. It really isn’t meant that way. I have honestly thought through the arguments presented by those that are opposed to circumcision, but have not come to the same conclusions they have.
I realize that for several of our dopers this is a major issue that has caused them a lot of pain in their life and I do respect that. I will say that I don’t believe I will ever understand it.
Yet again you invite analogy. The idea girls should be circumcised because some men prefer it is absurd, aberrant, abhorrent, anti-female and overwhelmingly practiced in Egypt and illegal in the US.
Of course I am. By the absolute rights espoused here braces are even worse. Kids often express their desire to not have them and yet they are still placed.