Genital mutilation or religious right?

[Godwilling]

If you think it's good, I'd be interested to hear why you think so.

I find your line of argument rational and logical, but I think you are not convincing anyone. In fact, your line of argument appears to be striking a cord and making some people angry.

Most well intended people who cut a piece of their children's penis off probably have some subconscious remorse and the mere idea that they caused unnecessary pain to their children would be upsetting to them.

If you think that people have killed even relatives in the name of religion, I suppose that cutting a bit off the penis, or the ear lobes for that matter, would seem trivial.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Foreskin is gross. And as a parent, I'd have my son circumsized because when breastfeeding, I have no desire to clean breastfeeding, grainy poop out of that extra bit of crevice.

But you do want to clean poop out of a healing wound?

They can still pee. They can still have sex later. They still have a penis. And they can keep themselves cleaner! They're less likely to have yeast infections and as a parent, I don't have to worry about cleaning poop and ick out of extra skin. It's win/win!

Not really. At best, he'll have a decrease in sensitivity later in life (not to mention a painful experience in the circumcision and recovery). At worst, you're exposing him to risk of infection and complications.

Circumcism is done within the first three days here in the states, generally, before Mom and baby leave the hospital.

I don't have the link handy, but I've read studies that show that the risk of complications increases dramatically if circumcision is done before 30 days of age.

Fantastic for you. You might feel different if your foreskin wasn't attached. Ever think of that?

And I might've grown to like it if my parents had tattooed me when I was a week old. How is this relevant?

Seriously? It's extra skin! Extra skin that can be stinky and harbor grossness.

It's not "extra" skin; it's skin. It protects the glans. And it doesn't get stinky or "gross" if you wash it properly, which hopefully any parent would do with their infant, circumcised or not.

How many grown men look down at their penises and say...gee, I wish I wasn't circumsized? Or look at pictures of uncircumsized men and have foreskin envy? Give me a freaking break.

Depends on the culture they grow up in, probably.

I'm delighted that you love your foreskin and I'm not knocking it by any means. But, I don't think it's that big of a deal. I doubt that it lends to sexual experiences but so much and that overall, it amounts to much. It's extra skin. It's not like you're removing a hide or anything. Sheesh.

We could say the same thing about earlobes. They're just "extra skin"; would a parent be right to just have their kid's earlobes chopped off? If they grew up in a society where the practice was common, they might not even mind. Would that make it okay?

 

[Father Heathen]

Male and female circumcision aren't remotely comparable. Male circumcision is done for legitimate and beneficial medical reasons with anaesthesia and has no longterm ill effects, whereas the female circumcision is done without anaesthesia and is done simply to deter the female from having sex or experiencing sexual pleasure for the rest of her life.

I was circumised as an infant, yet I've experienced no tramatic memories nor emotional scarring because of it. I assure you that my penis is fully armed and operational. I prefer it as it is. It just looks better.

 

[Revoltingest]

Male and female circumsision aren't remotely comparable. Male circumcision is done for legitimate and beneficial medical reasons with anaesthesia and has no longterm ill effects, whereas the female circumcision is done without anaesthesia and is done simply to deter the female from having sex or experiencing sexual pleasure for the rest of her life.
I was circumised as an infant, yet I've experienced no tramatic memories nor emotional scarring because of it. I assure you that my penis is fully armed and operational. I prefer it as it is. It just looks better.

Pbbbbttttt!
Without pix, methinks yer brag'n.

 

[Father Heathen]

Pbbbbttttt!
Without pix, methinks yer brag'n.

Yeah, you would like some pix, wouldn't you. :sarcastic

 

[dawny0826]

But you do want to clean poop out of a healing wound?

Have you seen it? It's not much of a wound.

Not really. At best, he'll have a decrease in sensitivity later in life (not to mention a painful experience in the circumcision and recovery). At worst, you're exposing him to risk of infection and complications.

Not if the procedure is done properly and there ARE benefits to circumcision - his risk of penile cancer is significantly decreased. He is at lesser risk for UTI infection and yeast infection. Not to mention those religious reasons that people do have the right to observe, whether you agree with it or not. Going back to the OP, male circumcision doesn't compare to the mutilation of female genitalia that occurs. You can't compare the two.

Wound care for circumcision is fairly simplistic as is care for the umbilical chord. The wound heals rather quickly. Dear lord, the penis produces urine, which is sterile. And there is no longer that flab of skin, which harbors additional bacteria and warmth - a breeding ground for bacteria and yeast.

You've made up your mind on this issue and I respect that. But, good parents are going to listen to their pediatrician and weigh the pros and cons of the procedure and make an informed decision. If I felt for a moment after an examination of my son, that he would be in danger of complications, I wouldn't put him in harms way.

I don't have the link handy, but I've read studies that show that the risk of complications increases dramatically if circumcision is done before 30 days of age.

Again, in the US, circumcision is usually completed before Mom and baby are released from the hospital. I have C-sections. Therefore, if I delivered a baby boy, the procedure would be complete before day four, post delivery. If there were complications or concerns that prohibited the procedure being done by this point, we wouldn't have it done.

And I might've grown to like it if my parents had tattooed me when I was a week old. How is this relevant?

Nevermind. My failed attempt at humor.

It's not "extra" skin; it's skin. It protects the glans. And it doesn't get stinky or "gross" if you wash it properly, which hopefully any parent would do with their infant, circumcised or not.

Yes, boys and men get stinky and gross. Dudes, don't kid yourselves. At all ages, mankind have gross moments.

Depends on the culture they grow up in, probably.

I seriously don't get men, then.

We could say the same thing about earlobes. They're just "extra skin"; would a parent be right to just have their kid's earlobes chopped off? If they grew up in a society where the practice was common, they might not even mind. Would that make it okay?

This isn't comparable. Circumcision started as a religious practice that has proven health benefits as well. There are pros and cons to it. Ultimately, parents can decide whether or not their child undergoes the procedure. And a good parent will weigh the pros and cons.

You're not acknowledging at all that there are benefits of circumcision and that infants grow to be adult men without recollection of the procedure and without adverse effects. And in fact, some men look at their penises and when comparing them to uncircumsized penises are thankful that they are circumsized.

I've never met at man who is circumsized that wished he wasn't. And I ask these sorts of questions, because I'm a very odd girl.

 

[Kathryn]

Male and female circumsision aren't remotely comparable. Male circumcision is done for legitimate and beneficial medical reasons with anaesthesia and has no longterm ill effects, whereas the female circumcision is done without anaesthesia and is done simply to deter the female from having sex or experiencing sexual pleasure for the rest of her life.

I was circumised as an infant, yet I've experienced no tramatic memories nor emotional scarring because of it. I assure you that my penis is fully armed and operational. I prefer it as it is. It just looks better.

I agree with most of this, objectively speaking - except the part about about it "looking better." That is purely personal opinion, rather than fact. Different cultures and even different families and individuals have very different opinions about this, and no one is "correct" or "incorrect." But you did say that this is YOUR preference so I'm glad you're happy!

That being said, you are absolutely right about the level of emotional scarring - no comparison whatsoever between the male circumcision and FGM.

 

[dawny0826]

Pbbbbttttt!
Without pix, methinks yer brag'n.

No pix for you!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Male and female circumsision aren't remotely comparable.

I agree.

Male circumcision is done for legitimate and beneficial medical reasons

How can a procedure that gives no net medical benefit be "done for legitimate and beneficial medical reasons"?

And exactly what "legitimate and beneficial medical reasons" are you privy to that the Canadian Pediatric Society is not?

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it [the CPS] does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

with anaesthesia

Not always, and even when anaesthesia is used during the circumcision itself, there's still pain during recovery.

and has no longterm ill effects,

Again, not always. Circumcision creates risks of infection, complications, and problems later in life. These are risks, not certainties, and only happen in a minority of cases, but they do happen with high enough frequency that they can't be reasonably ignored.

whereas the female circumcision is done without anaesthesia and is done simply to deter the female from having sex or experiencing sexual pleasure for the rest of her life.

I agree.

I was circumised as an infant, yet I've experienced no tramatic memories nor emotional scarring because of it. I assure you that my penis is fully armed and operational. I prefer it as it is. It just looks better.

Two questions:

- does the fact that you have no memory of the event necessarily imply that you experienced no trauma?

- if you were emotionally scarred, how would you know? What other frame of reference do you have to judge things but your own?

 

[dawny0826]

No net medical benefit my booty. Male circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer and is actually RECOMMENDED for men who have reoccuring UTI and other infections.

 

[Songbird]

In general and as it was practicecd, FGM is probably more comparable to other coming of age rites - scarification, for example. It's not very common anymore.

 

[Apex]

It would be interesting to see a poll of the males here on their position on circumcision, and if they themselves are circumcised.

 

[Kathryn]

If anyone can give an example of a society that takes away the enjoyment of sex for life for the males in that society, I'd like to see it!

FGM is and has always been about controlling and abusing women.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You've made up your mind on this issue and I respect that. But, good parents are going to listen to their pediatrician and weigh the pros and cons of the procedure and make an informed decision. If I felt for a moment after an examination of my son, that he would be in danger of complications, I wouldn't put him in harms way.

At least in this country, pediatricians carefully examined the issue decades ago, and on the basis of the evidence, generally stopped recommending routine circumcision in the 70s. As noted in the link that I gave in my reply to FH, the Canadian Pediatric Society has actually recommended against routine circumcision since 1982, and even though it has periodically re-evaluated this policy, it has continued to find it to be sound and reasonable.

IMO, the American practice of routine circumcision has more to do with cultural norms than medical benefit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No net medical benefit my booty. Male circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer and is actually RECOMMENDED for men who have reoccuring UTI and other infections.

... while increasing risks in other ways.

No disrespect intended, but on medical issues, I'll put more weight on the opinions of actual pediatricians and medical researchers than yours.

 

[garrydons]

Why is it that the removal of any part of the female genitals for non-medical reasons is officially termed "female genital mutilation", and it is illegal in the US and Canada and the same done to males is called "circumcision" and it is legal in both countries?

Should both be called male and female "circumcision" and be legal, or should both be called male and female "genital mutilation" and be illegal?

The official acceptance of each term appears based on preferential treatment of one religion over another.

Is all non-medical removals of part of humans' genitals mutilation or a religious right?

US and Canada is a Christian Countries which means that their holy Book is the Bible. In the Bible, there is no command of genital mutilation but only circumcision for males.

 

[Storm]

At least in this country, pediatricians carefully examined the issue decades ago, and on the basis of the evidence, generally stopped recommending routine circumcision in the 70s. As noted in the link that I gave in my reply to FH, the Canadian Pediatric Society has actually recommended against routine circumcision since 1982, and even though it has periodically re-evaluated this policy, it has continued to find it to be sound and reasonable.

IMO, the American practice of routine circumcision has more to do with cultural norms than medical benefit.

Routine circumcision, sure. That doesn't mean there's no medical benefit ever. I didn't circumcise Raven when he was born, but it became necessary when he was 5.

 

[Storm]

US and Canada is a Christian Countries which means that their holy Book is the Bible. In the Bible, there is no command of genital mutilation but only circumcision for males.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

US and Canada is a Christian Countries which means that their holy Book is the Bible. In the Bible, there is no command of genital mutilation but only circumcision for males.

Neither the United States nor Canada are "Christian" countries.

Canada's head of state may also be the head of a Christian denomination, but Canada itself has no official church.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

... while increasing risks in other ways.

No disrespect intended, but on medical issues, I'll put more weight on the opinions of actual pediatricians and medical researchers than yours.

Just to expand a bit, several studies have found that there is no net benefit to circumcision. Note the parts I've highlighted:

Given an 85-year life expectancy, these investigators calculated that the expected lifetime cost of routine neonatal circumcision was $164.61 per patient, and the quality-adjusted survival was 84.999 years. For those not circumcised, the expected mean lifetime cost was $139.26 per patient and the quality-adjusted survival was 84.71 years. The investigators therefore concluded there was no medical indication for circumcision or contraindication against it. According to their sensitivity analyses, if the rate of surgical complications of neonatal circumcision fell below the threshold value of 0.6%, then circumcision would be preferred, both in terms of its cost and its favourable effect on lifespan. Similarly, if the risk of penile problems among uncircumcised males rose to 17% from the baseline value of 14%, then circumcision would be preferred from a cost perspective. The authors recognized and emphasized the need for epidemiologically sound data on the surgical complications of circumcision and on the incidence and outcome of therapy for balanitis, phimosis and other penile problems, in order to better assess the risks and benefits.

Ganiats and coworkers28 performed a cost-utility analysis of two hypothetical groups of 1000 neonates, one circumcised and the other uncircumcised. Their analysis included the reported differences in incidence of UTIs and of penile cancer, the estimated costs of treating these diseases, the incidence and cost of later therapeutic circumcision and the costs of neonatal circumcision and its complications. The net discounted lifetime cost of routine circumcision was $102 per man, and the net discounted lifetime cost to health of no circumcision was 14 hours per man. The results suggested that the financial and medical advantages and disadvantages of routine neonatal circumcision cancel each other out, and that personal cultural or religious views, rather than cost or health outcomes, should be the basis for decision making.

Poland10 commented that relatively few medical procedures are routinely recommended for the care of infants and children, and that a good general principle is to withhold the routine application of procedures to large groups unless the benefits clearly far outweigh the risks and costs. Our review of the literature leads us to conclude that, for routine neonatal circumcision, the benefits have not been shown to clearly outweigh the risks and costs.

Neonatal Circumcision Revisited ASSESSMENTS