believe that there is some sort of distinction between the two and male circumcision can be okay because it isn't "as bad" as female circumcision
Yeah, because science and all that shit. I draw a distinction because they're different. The actual acts are different. The outcomes are different. The processes are different. They only resemble each other superficially.
One is assault, the other is murder. Both involve inflicting harm, yet we treat them differently because there is a large difference between those two things. Your argument is far too simplified to be useful, and your resulting stance is weak and ill-informed.
Yeah, it's not that one is less bad, it's that they aren't comparable. Like...One of them involves removing the functionality of a woman's clitoris, and the other involves removing a flap of skin that serves no purpose. The two procedures are unrelated beyond the convenience of similar names.
I think the problem is that the terminology is the same for two different things. That's what causes people to equate them. Maybe female genital mutilation shouldn't be called "circumcision" at all. Maybe we should get more specific with our nomenclature.
I think the problem is that the terminology is the same for two different things. That's what causes people to equate them. Maybe female genital mutilation shouldn't be called "circumcision" at all. Maybe we should get more specific with our nomenclature.
Apples and oranges, so to speak. Except eating the apple means you may deduct a bit of ultimately forgo-able pleasure for a reduced risk of STI contraction, and eating the orange means you never feel pleasure again and maybe go insane.
Except eating the apple means you may deduct a bit of ultimately forgo-able pleasure for a reduced risk of STI contraction, and eating the orange means you never feel pleasure again and maybe go insane.
The comparison to female genital mutiliation has no place in this thread.
However, I see no justification for circumcision of male babies, except when necessary for medical reasons. Why not leave the decision for when the child grows up?
As for banning it, it's such a common practice that, as has been said previously, in the absence of safe, legal means, people will seek out illegal ones, which could easily cause much more harm. As such, it's a matter that is best left up to social change.
Maybe female genital mutilation shouldn't be called "circumcision" at all.
It's generally not, at least as far as I've been educated. I've always heard it referred to in academia as "female genital mutilation."
And again, I cannot possibly emphasize the difference between "mutilation" and "surgery." Mutilation is specifically done for the purpose of rendering something useless and/or disfigurement. This is not what surgical removal is about, and no amount of passionate arguing will ever change that.
Well, the relative risk difference is quite large. The absolute rates of occurence, though, are fairly small.
Relative risk difference means little on its own; it's the overall effect that matters. According to Wikipedia, it takes on average roughly 100-200 circumcisions to prevent one urinary tract infection. Penile cancer is very rare as well, so circumcision is far from justified by these risk reductions.
I just wanted to point out that no one has talked about the fact that circumcision is a surgical operation, and has very real risks associated with it. 100+ babies die each year from complications in the US(source), you also have accidental genital deformity, various types of infections and diseases, and there are even rare cases where they accidentally amputate part of or the whole penis (the statistic I heard was 1 in a million, which means it should happen roughly once a year in the US). Serious complications are rare, but they do exist, and I thought they should be part of the discussion.
Some other notes: Speaking as an uncircumcised guy, I can't imagine that cleaning takes more than half a second longer for me, a second longer at the most, but I am also pretty sure that my foreskin is unusually small as well, so take that as you will.
According to Wikipedia at least, different studies have found that circumcision increases sexual performance and pleasure, decreases sexual performance and pleasure, and has no effect on sexual performance and pleasure, with roughly equal amounts of studies finding an increase and a decrease. To me at least, that indicates that there's probably no real effect. That same page also noted studies that found while the majority of women found the circumcised penis more attractive, it was not universal.
Sure, but it's much simpler to perform the procedure on a newborn than on an adult. Less anesthesia required and all that.
In countries where HIV is prevalent, the effectiveness in preventing HIV is a good reason for circumcision, but I don't know that it's sufficient to justify doing it to babies.
However, this isn't really a good enough reason in countries like the U.S. and Australia; safe sex practice (especially condom use) is sufficient.
I just wanted to point out that no one has talked about the fact that circumcision is a surgical operation, and has very real risks associated with it. 100+ babies die each year from complications in the US(source), you also have accidental genital deformity, various types of infections and diseases, and there are even rare cases where they accidentally amputate part of or the whole penis (the statistic I heard was 1 in a million, which means it should happen roughly once a year in the US). Serious complications are rare, but they do exist, and I thought they should be part of the discussion.
Yeah, they should; they're as relevant as the other rare beneficial effects being discussed.
Ultimately, though, the biggest issue is that it's painful. Given that the overall benefits are not particularly strong, it's quite clearly a cruel thing to do.
Being uncircumcised isn't a dealbreaker. It's an irritation and a deterrent if it bothers your SO, but if they give a damn, then it's not going to matter. It might affect your love life a little, but it shouldn't keep someone (worthwhile) from dating you.
Given that the overall benefits are not particularly strong, it's quite clearly a cruel thing to do.
I don't think it's really "clearly" anything. I think you're also projecting your own perception of the pain onto the procedure. Infants tend to forget that something hurt them pretty quickly after the pain stops. I don't see an overabundance of men with penis-pain trauma issues walking around.
Ultimately, it's a personal choice. There is no clear evidence that it makes a child any worse off one way or the other.
I don't think it's really "clearly" anything. I think you're also projecting your own perception of the pain onto the procedure. Infants tend to forget that something hurt them pretty quickly after the pain stops. I don't see an overabundance of men with penis-pain trauma issues walking around.
I'm not projecting anything, and I'm not claiming there is any lasting trauma involved. The point is a simple one - pain is bad.
Would you be indifferent to being hurt if I could entirely erase any memory of it afterwards?
That same page also noted studies that found while the majority of women found the circumcised penis more attractive, it was not universal.
And By not universal, I take it you mean "In the USA"? While purely anecdotal, the extraordinarily large majority I've discussed the issue with outside of the US have no preference either way. It's certainly the case here, where we had a Circumcision rate overall of about 59% and dropping in 2007(With the circumcision rate among the 16-25 age group being only about 30%), whereas in the US, it's about 79% and roughly steady, with rates varying between ethnic populations(For example, among non-ethnic white people, it's 88%, whereas among African americans and mexican americans, it's 73% and 42% respectively, with 50% among others.)
So, I'm not terribly surprised that many people find it more aesthetically pleasing in the US - because it's currently the majority. It probably used to be the case here back in the day - if it ever was, anyway - but it's certainly the case no longer, particularly among the younger generations.
Though, cutting up someone's body without their approval, for aesthetic reasons which will only come into play after about a decade and a half of time on average? Yeah, about that - kinda weird, guys, I'm not gonna lie to you.
Ummmmm. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with that blanket statement. Check in the vanilla column for the cheesester.
You are asking the wrong person. I am subjected to terrible pain for several hours once a month. After it's over, I feel an overwhelming sense of relief, and I am fine. It's something I expect and deal with. And that's not even considering the chronic pain I am in almost all of the time. I have also had cosmetic-ish surgeries to remove moles that were minor irritations. Oh yeah, and there's that bit about masochism where I occasionally get hurt by someone for no good reason other than the fact that they enjoy it (not all of the time, but occasionally). So no, I would not be indifferent, but I would be willing.
Ummmmm. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with that blanket statement. Check in the vanilla column for the cheesester.
Oh? I don't see an argument to the contrary. Sure, there are many cases where the benefits of some painful process outweigh the costs, but that doesn't make the pain itself good - it's still very much in the 'costs' column.
Please, go ahead and name one instance where pain is good in and of itself.
You are asking the wrong person. I am subjected to terrible pain for several hours once a month. After it's over, I feel an overwhelming sense of relief, and I am fine. It's something I expect and deal with. And that's not even considering the chronic pain I am in almost all of the time.
Sure, people deal with pain all the time, but would it not be preferable not to have that pain? The pain of circumcision is quite easily avoidable.
Oh yeah, and there's that bit about masochism where I occasionally get hurt by someone for no good reason other than the fact that they enjoy it (not all of the time, but occasionally).
That's a case where there is quite a clear benefit to that pain.
So no, I would not be indifferent, but I would be willing.
Anyone should be willing if there are enough benefits to outweigh the undesirable pain, but in the case of circumcision there clearly are not, by your own admission -
Ultimately, it's a personal choice. There is no clear evidence that it makes a child any worse off one way or the other.
I have no problem with it being a personal choice, but it should be the personal choice of the individual being circumcised, and it should be made as an adult. I don't think we should go so far as to ban the practice of infant male circumcision, but I do think it's cruel and I do think it's an area where social change is in order.
Please, go ahead and name one instance where pain is good in and of itself.
When it gets me off. Don't lie to yourself and think that masochists seek painful activities for some reason other than the pain. There is good pain and bad pain for us, and the good pain is actually quite enjoyable. You know, cuz we're freaks.
It's fine if you think it's cruel, but remember that that is based on your own point of view and value set. There are people who think that spanking your children as a method of discipline is cruel too. Honestly, if we are going to ban one kind of cosmetic surgery on a child below consenting age, shouldn't we ban ALL purely cosmetic surgery on them? By your reasoning, all cosmetic surgeries on children that cause pain and do not have clear benefits (other than aesthetics) should not be allowed. If that's what you believe, then fine. Let's just be clear on the extent.
Anyone should be willing if there are enough benefits to outweigh the undesirable pain, but in the case of circumcision there clearly are not, by your own admission -
Actually, I didn't say the benefits clearly do not outweigh the risks. I said it's unclear either way. I think what I said was pretty clear.
When it gets me off. Don't lie to yourself and think that masochists seek painful activities for some reason other than the pain. There is good pain and bad pain for us, and the good pain is actually quite enjoyable. You know, cuz we're freaks.
Sure, pleasure is good, even if you receive it from pain, but pain is still bad. That just seems to me like another case where the benefits exceed the costs, likely significantly so.
Regardless, for the vast majority of infants I very much doubt that they derive any pleasure from the circumcision process.
Honestly, if we are going to ban one kind of cosmetic surgery on a child below consenting age, shouldn't we ban ALL purely cosmetic surgery on them? By your reasoning, all cosmetic surgeries on children that cause pain and do not have clear benefits (other than aesthetics) should not be allowed. If that's what you believe, then fine. Let's just be clear on the extent.
I'm not saying we should ban it, for reasons mentioned previously; it's an issue that should be resolved socially. However, a law that ensures that infants receive effective pain relief for circumcision would definitely be warranted. Fortunately, from what I gather, most circumcisions nowadays use some kind of pain relief, though the available methods of pain relief seem to vary significantly in effectiveness. As for other kinds of cosmetic surgery, I do think that they can't be justified until the child is old enough to meaningfully agree to them. The issue of what counts as a "consenting age" from a legal perspective doesn't worry me as much.
Actually, I didn't say the benefits clearly do not outweigh the risks. I said it's unclear either way. I think what I said was pretty clear.
Yeah, that was poor wording by me. My point is that if there is no clear benefit, how can you justify inflicting pain on an infant?
There are people who think that spanking your children as a method of discipline is cruel too.
They're right; it is.
It's fine if you think it's cruel, but remember that that is based on your own point of view and value set.
So what? Do you disagree that inflicting pain on a conscious being in the absence of a clear benefit is wrong?
Comments
One is assault, the other is murder. Both involve inflicting harm, yet we treat them differently because there is a large difference between those two things. Your argument is far too simplified to be useful, and your resulting stance is weak and ill-informed.
However, I see no justification for circumcision of male babies, except when necessary for medical reasons. Why not leave the decision for when the child grows up?
As for banning it, it's such a common practice that, as has been said previously, in the absence of safe, legal means, people will seek out illegal ones, which could easily cause much more harm. As such, it's a matter that is best left up to social change.
And again, I cannot possibly emphasize the difference between "mutilation" and "surgery." Mutilation is specifically done for the purpose of rendering something useless and/or disfigurement. This is not what surgical removal is about, and no amount of passionate arguing will ever change that.
Personally, I'd say that the reduced rate of HIV transmission alone is worth it. HIV is a problem that's bigger than your dick.
Some other notes:
Speaking as an uncircumcised guy, I can't imagine that cleaning takes more than half a second longer for me, a second longer at the most, but I am also pretty sure that my foreskin is unusually small as well, so take that as you will.
According to Wikipedia at least, different studies have found that circumcision increases sexual performance and pleasure, decreases sexual performance and pleasure, and has no effect on sexual performance and pleasure, with roughly equal amounts of studies finding an increase and a decrease. To me at least, that indicates that there's probably no real effect. That same page also noted studies that found while the majority of women found the circumcised penis more attractive, it was not universal.
However, this isn't really a good enough reason in countries like the U.S. and Australia; safe sex practice (especially condom use) is sufficient.
I got 99 problems, but foreskin ain't one.
Ultimately, though, the biggest issue is that it's painful. Given that the overall benefits are not particularly strong, it's quite clearly a cruel thing to do.
Ultimately, it's a personal choice. There is no clear evidence that it makes a child any worse off one way or the other.
Would you be indifferent to being hurt if I could entirely erase any memory of it afterwards?
So, I'm not terribly surprised that many people find it more aesthetically pleasing in the US - because it's currently the majority. It probably used to be the case here back in the day - if it ever was, anyway - but it's certainly the case no longer, particularly among the younger generations.
Though, cutting up someone's body without their approval, for aesthetic reasons which will only come into play after about a decade and a half of time on average? Yeah, about that - kinda weird, guys, I'm not gonna lie to you.
You are asking the wrong person. I am subjected to terrible pain for several hours once a month. After it's over, I feel an overwhelming sense of relief, and I am fine. It's something I expect and deal with. And that's not even considering the chronic pain I am in almost all of the time. I have also had cosmetic-ish surgeries to remove moles that were minor irritations. Oh yeah, and there's that bit about masochism where I occasionally get hurt by someone for no good reason other than the fact that they enjoy it (not all of the time, but occasionally). So no, I would not be indifferent, but I would be willing.
Please, go ahead and name one instance where pain is good in and of itself. Sure, people deal with pain all the time, but would it not be preferable not to have that pain? The pain of circumcision is quite easily avoidable. That's a case where there is quite a clear benefit to that pain. Anyone should be willing if there are enough benefits to outweigh the undesirable pain, but in the case of circumcision there clearly are not, by your own admission - I have no problem with it being a personal choice, but it should be the personal choice of the individual being circumcised, and it should be made as an adult. I don't think we should go so far as to ban the practice of infant male circumcision, but I do think it's cruel and I do think it's an area where social change is in order.
It's fine if you think it's cruel, but remember that that is based on your own point of view and value set. There are people who think that spanking your children as a method of discipline is cruel too. Honestly, if we are going to ban one kind of cosmetic surgery on a child below consenting age, shouldn't we ban ALL purely cosmetic surgery on them? By your reasoning, all cosmetic surgeries on children that cause pain and do not have clear benefits (other than aesthetics) should not be allowed. If that's what you believe, then fine. Let's just be clear on the extent. Actually, I didn't say the benefits clearly do not outweigh the risks. I said it's unclear either way. I think what I said was pretty clear.
Regardless, for the vast majority of infants I very much doubt that they derive any pleasure from the circumcision process. I'm not saying we should ban it, for reasons mentioned previously; it's an issue that should be resolved socially. However, a law that ensures that infants receive effective pain relief for circumcision would definitely be warranted. Fortunately, from what I gather, most circumcisions nowadays use some kind of pain relief, though the available methods of pain relief seem to vary significantly in effectiveness.
As for other kinds of cosmetic surgery, I do think that they can't be justified until the child is old enough to meaningfully agree to them. The issue of what counts as a "consenting age" from a legal perspective doesn't worry me as much. Yeah, that was poor wording by me. My point is that if there is no clear benefit, how can you justify inflicting pain on an infant? They're right; it is. So what? Do you disagree that inflicting pain on a conscious being in the absence of a clear benefit is wrong?