Male Circumcision

[Tigress]

The thread discussing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) prompted me to open up a thread discussing/debating the ethics of male circumcision, or 'Male Genital Mutilation.' Yes, I realize that this may offend some, as I also realize that the effects are generally not as severe as, or fatal like FGM, however, the question still begs:

How can some people defend a practice as moral simply because the practice exists and is wide spread?

Taken from Sunstone's post:

WARNING: GRAPHIC QUOTE!

If only one perosn in the world held down a terrified, struggling, screaming little girl, cut off her genitals with a septic blade, and sewed her back up, leaving only a tiny hole for urine and menstrual flow, the only question would be how severely that person should be punished... But when millions of people do this, instead of the enormity being magnified millions-fold, suddenly it becomes "culture", and thereby magically becomes less, rather than more, horrible, and is even defended by some Western "moral thinkers".

-- Donald Symons

I will never understand how some people can defend a practice as moral simply because the practice exists and is wide spread.

 

[Sunstone]

Tigress, I think any kind of genital mutilation done to children who cannot consent to it is highly suspect and possibly barbaric.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree with Sunstone. It is a barbaric practice, even if you remember the pain of not, and I'm thankfull I wasn't forced to go through with it.

 

[michel]

I agree with Sunstone. It is a barbaric practice, even if you remember the pain of not, and I'm thankfull I wasn't forced to go through with it.

Of course, that goes without saying. But that is just one aspect of it; what of the men who voluntarily undergo Circumcision, for their Faith (for example) ?

As with every subject, there are fors and againsts.

For:- Cleanliness, less risk of infection.
Against: (I am told) Loss of a degree of sensitivity.

Strangely enough, the doctor suggested to my mother that I be circumscised (he thought I might trip up on my foreskin when going around the house with no clothes on.........) but my Mother declined.

In a way, I wish she had agreed.........there was no way I was going to go through that voluntarily!

I have had a few major ops, but that just makes my eyes water, at the thought of it.

 

[nutshell]

I'm sorry, but there is NO comparison between male and female circumcision. It's like trying to compare ear piercing to cutting the ear off.

 

[Flappycat]

It's really stupid. If it's such a sanitary concern, teach your kids to clean up in there.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'm sorry, but there is NO comparison between male and female circumcision. It's like trying to compare ear piercing to cutting the ear off.

Perhaps a better comparison would be that the equivilant of FGM performed on a male would be a complete castration of the penis. You have an opening for urine after castration, but the genitals are permanently mutilated and there is no sexual satisfaction afterward.



The male circumcision debate is a good one, but to compare it to FGM is a little far-fetched.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[TashaN]

There is an ongoing debate on the value of neonatal circumcision. Indeed, the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics since 1975 has been that there are no valid or absolute medical indications for routine circumcision of newborn male infants. On the other hand, the results of recent clinical and epidemiological studies are supportive of the practice of circumcision in newborn and infant males. From a two-part study involving cohorts of 3,924 and 422,328 infants respectively Wiswell and Roscelli found a higher rate of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised compared with male circumcised infants. These investigators observed that as the circumcision frequency rate decreases, the incidence of urinary tract infections increases. Infection usually begins in the foreskin which becomes swollen and difficult to retract. A medium for bacterial growth and further spread of infection is provided by the fecal material trapped between the foreskin and glans of the penis. Such a condition probably leads to other more serious complications.

Proper hygienic care of the penis, which includes regular washing, will prevent some infections, but among children this is difficult to maintain and is probably not as effective as circumcision. Some conditions, such as phimosis, often lead to circumcision at a later age that could have been prevented if it had been performed earlier. The possible risk for long term urological complications in the infected, uncircumcised male infant has not been properly studied. It is known, however, that as many as 50% of male infants with urinary tract infections will subsequently reveal demonstrable radiologic abnormalities.

What do you think of this?

 

[TashaN]

The male circumcision debate is a good one, but to compare it to FGM is a little far-fetched.

I agree. :yes:

 

[Inky]

From what I've read, the male process which would physically mirror female circumcision would range from removal of most of the penis to complete removal of the penis, scrotum and some of the surrounding skin, with the edges of the remaining skin sewn together. It depends because there are different severities of FGM. So it's not as severe, but I think the analogy still holds--it's not necessarily justified to circumcise males because some women have it far worse.

Another difference besides the severity is the fact that most males were too young to remember, and the ones who were old enough generally had a choice. This doesn't really make it better, but it does mean that guys don't usually feel like they have an obligation to protect future generations of boys from it, since there isn't the same empathy as if they remembered what the kid is going through. If I ever land in the position to decide whether a baby gets circumcised, I'd say no.

 

[Mike182]

It's really stupid. If it's such a sanitary concern, teach your kids to clean up in there.

agreed - if an adult chooses to be circumcised, so be it, he has every right to choose how he wants his body to be - but a child? they can't consent :no:

 

[universal_brother]

Circumcision 'helps to halt HIV'

Foreskin cells are thought to be more susceptible to HIV

New research suggests circumcision could be effective in preventing the spread of HIV among men. The study of more than 3,000 men in South Africa was done by the French agency for Aids and Viral Hepatitis.
The data, outlined at a conference in Brazil, shows male circumcision prevented about seven of 10 infections.
UN health agencies have cautioned that more trials are necessary before they will recommend this as a method to protect against Aids.
Previous studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection.
It is thought that the cells of the foreskin are much more susceptible to HIV than cells on other parts of the penis, so by removing the foreskin, the likelihood of infection drops.
Further trials are being carried out in Uganda and Kenya to measure the effect of circumcision on other populations.
If similar results are found, then circumcision could be used alongside condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, the BBC's Ania Lichtarowicz reports from the conference in Rio de Janeiro.
But implementing this measure on a large scale will be complicated, our correspondent says.
She says that ensuring safe techniques and changing cultural and social attitudes towards male circumcision will prove challenging.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4719409.stm

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not sure where you would be able to get routine circumcision in the UK.
It is a very minority practice now. Very few GP's will do it.
Hospitals only do it if it is indicatedfor a medical condition.
I suppose you could always find a foreign doctor who knows how.

 

[darkpenguin]

Tigress, I think any kind of genital mutilation done to children who cannot consent to it is highly suspect and possibly barbaric.

i am with you on that, it has caused interesting debate between me and my fiance as she wants any future male children of ours to be however i dissagree with the practice as i think its flat out wrong and should be upto the child when they can make a serious decision about it. we met halfway though and seeing as i want to name a male child in the future my fiance can have her own way lol! anything for a quiet life

 

[Mike182]

Circumcision 'helps to halt HIV'

Foreskin cells are thought to be more susceptible to HIV

New research suggests circumcision could be effective in preventing the spread of HIV among men. The study of more than 3,000 men in South Africa was done by the French agency for Aids and Viral Hepatitis.
The data, outlined at a conference in Brazil, shows male circumcision prevented about seven of 10 infections.
UN health agencies have cautioned that more trials are necessary before they will recommend this as a method to protect against Aids.
Previous studies have suggested that men who are circumcised have a lower rate of HIV infection.
It is thought that the cells of the foreskin are much more susceptible to HIV than cells on other parts of the penis, so by removing the foreskin, the likelihood of infection drops.
Further trials are being carried out in Uganda and Kenya to measure the effect of circumcision on other populations.
If similar results are found, then circumcision could be used alongside condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, the BBC's Ania Lichtarowicz reports from the conference in Rio de Janeiro.
But implementing this measure on a large scale will be complicated, our correspondent says.
She says that ensuring safe techniques and changing cultural and social attitudes towards male circumcision will prove challenging.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4719409.stm

if this has sufficient evidence to support it, then yes, when a child becomes an adult and is ready to choose if they want to have sex, they can also choose if they want to be circumcised as well - i have no problem with that, but i will have a problem if people use this as justification for a child to be circumcised

 

[Flappycat]

Maybe this is because I am operating from a Western standpoint, Truth. Throughout my childhood, I bathed in a large tub of hot, soapy water every single day. Water is plentiful here, so this was not a difficult matter. Smegma simply wasn't a problem, for enough time soaking up suds will eventually clear out anything. I didn't prefer the shower over the tub until I was close to twelve. Now, I generally spend between ten and fifteen minutes in the shower, twice a day, and I prefer the water scalding hot; the activity is a pleasurable one. In a more arid region, such as North America's desertscape, perhaps circumcision would be worth the risks. North Carolina is one of the wettest parts of the US, though, as is Florida, in which I spend about a fourth of my year. If the hurricanes keep flooding southeastern North Carolina, we'll have to start putting up barriers to keep from being drowned in the stuff. It's coming out of our ears. If you'll look up a group of regional studies, I'm sure you'll find that poorer countries and regions in which people have to limit their consumption of water have a stronger tendency for getting such infections.

 

[Flappycat]

On the HIV research: again, the benefit must outweigh the cost, including costs in terms of risk.

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm fine with male circumcision. I've been with both uncircumcised and circumcised men and as a personal preference, I like circumcised better. That's certainly not to say that I would reject an uncircumcised man that I was interested in. If I were to have a male child (and I'm not because I'm not having any children), I would get them circumcised for hygiene reasons. You can tell me all day that if you clean it properly there aren't any problems, but there is no guarantee that the child you have will maintain good hygiene even if you do teach them properly. I would rather not have to worry about it.

I also agree with the people who said it isn't comparable to female circumcision.

 

[Simon Gnosis]

Tigress, I think any kind of genital mutilation done to children who cannot consent to it is highly suspect and possibly barbaric.

Yup.

Its tantamount to child abuse.

Especially female circumcision, which is illegal in this country.

I feel very sorry for cicumcised guys, the ahem skin is there because natured intended it so, it provides a barrier from infection and injury, any real doctor will concur.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm sorry, but there is NO comparison between male and female circumcision. It's like trying to compare ear piercing to cutting the ear off.

I have to agree.