190 replies to this topic

[DrinkTheElixir]

karaokeboy said:

*shrug* Whatever.  All sorts of people are free to disagree with learned bioethicists and other professionals.  Hell, if the doctor tells you that you're going to die of cancer, you can ignore him.  Clearly, if you're willing to substitute subjective personal experiences (I feel fine Doc, I can't have cancer) in place of objective, scientific research, then what I say here doesn't matter.  I can't imagine much of what anyone says does.

You assume that every Doctor agrees with you.

[trix]

karaokeboy said:

Refer to my post above where I make the point that the (real) justifications for female circumcision and male circumcision are exactly the same.

First, I think what Grace means by medicalized is performed in a sanitary environment with proper tools and sometimes local anesthetic.   If you wanted to make male circumcision with rusty instruments or broken glass illegal I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Second, when you say 'exactly the same' I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean they are both socio-cultural?  I suppose that's true.  If you mean they are intended to repress desire, the article you posted talks discusses Victorian ideas about male circumcision repressing desire, but nothing specific about the motivation for circumcision in Jewish and Islamic traditions that has been going on for millenia.   I have no idea what the philosophy of circumcision is in these faiths, but nor I have seen any evidence that it is intended to repress sexuality.  I know some Jewish traditions  were in part intended just to set Jews apart as a distict people and maintain their identity.

Basically, I agree that parents shouldn't have their infants circumcised due to some vauge notion about it being 'cleaner' or 'healthier.'  But is it bad enough that it should be outlawed for people where it is an integral part of their religion?  How many Jewish and Islamic men actually regret that they were circumcised? Until I start hearing complaints from them, I'm not inclined to be too concerned.

[karaokeboy]

DrinkTheElixer said:

The main point for many people is the is the result. That and I think it is disingenuous to proclaim that circumcision is 'entirely wrong to assume that circumcision holds any sort of thereaputic or prophylactic value at all'. That is simply not true - I have outlined that fac already. The fact that the Jewish faith circumcises males has nothing to do with the oppression as it is with females in some parts of the world. You seem to miss that point consistantly and disregard the reason why your blanket opinion insults some people. Female circumcision has been used to oppress a gender and is promoted as something entirely different.  That is the issue.  You are not, it appears, addressing the variety of issues that outline this, and at least appeared to be as blinkered as those you seem to be addresseing. Again we are not talking about the surgical removal of something that defines and expresses sexuality, agree with the procedure or not. Are you female? Do you know the difference between the removal of the foreskin and female circumcision? Do you know the implications? I think you do, but gloss over them.

You confuse me, because academically you seem sound (in regards your references) but lin regards understanding religion and reasoning behind actions, you are, in my opinion not so understanding. That is frustrating.

You haven't shown that routine circumcision holds theraputic or prophylactic value, especially not enough to outweigh the harms.  If I did, I missed it, and if you did and I missed it, could you show it to me so that I can prove you wrong ;) .  At best, you could probably get away with showing that we don't know that there isn't any prophylactic value.  I have here on my hard drive several papers from medical journals that dispell the notion that routine circumcision holds medical benefit enough to outweigh harms.

And before we continue, I'd like to mention again something I said to Ethan, which is that I am concerned first and foremost with circumcision in a medical setting and with regards to medical ethics.  This is what the article addresses (the BMA) and this is where all of my arguments have been.  While I do have my opinions on religious circumcision, I won't express them here, because I'd rather discuss the more, in my opinion, pressing matter of medical ethics.  Meaning: No offense meant to those practicing Islam or Judaism.

So yes, let's aknowledge that people have their religious beliefs and rituals.  And in a completely respectful, non-demeaning way, I don't care.  I don't care if you're Hindu, Lutheran, Jewish, or atheist.  I do care about medical ethics.

The cultural justifications that I'm pointing to are based in gender identity (hence the masculinity and pain section), not religion (for the overwhelming majority).  Most people are not Jewish or Muslim, yet the US has a ridiculously high circumcision rate.  Does that make sense what I'm saying?

Maybe I'm still missing the point of what you're saying.  I'm trying, I swear.

Maybe I'll say this again: The harms of FGM and MGM deserve to be unpacked because they are distinct and complex.  It's shortsighted to just say that one's worse than the other and use that as justification for only outlawing one.  And yes, I do know almost as much about FGM as I do MGM.  I understand the implications.  And it's extremely narrowminded to say that the foreskin isn't "something that defines and expresses sexuality."

I'm saying that both genders deserve protection.

And in regards to religion, there ought to be some reason why the FGM law in the UK and the US specifically say that simple bloodletting is wrong (even by licensed professionals), yet males are left to fend for themselves.  Clearly something is wrong with laws that don't protect both genders equally, no?

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

karaokeboy said:

Damnit, come on.  Do you use that kind of logic when it comes to FGM?  "Not my child, not my business?"  No, at least I hope not.

So why is it different when the gender of the neonate changes?

Second, ear piercing is different than the amputation of healthy sexual tissue.

It differs for the reasons I have set out. Ear piercing could be perceived as an assault on the intact body of an infant who is too young to give consent. I have known boys who have had to be circumcised for medical reasons, because their foreskin was not allowing these boys to urinate without difficulty. What we are talking about here is the difference between a circumcision carried out by a medical practitioner, with due care and sterile instruments, and young girls being sat on while an old woman with a rusty razor blade goes slicing up her genetalia often at the age where they are old enough understand to fear  dread and understand what is being done to them. Girls as old as 10, and may I add with no anasthesia. There is no comparison. The comparison is not in the gender, these things very rarely happen to female children when they are infants. It is almost universally done on much older children.

Quote

Third, human rights are universal.  And kids have them too.  Just because it's not my child doesn't mean she or he doesn't deserve human rights.  Identity does not change principle.

Differing circumstances. See above.

Quote

*shrug* Whatever.  All sorts of people are free to disagree with learned bioethicists and other professionals.  Hell, if the doctor tells you that you're going to die of cancer, you can ignore him.  Clearly, if you're willing to substitute subjective personal experiences (I feel fine Doc, I can't have cancer) in place of objective, scientific research, then what I say here doesn't matter.  I can't imagine much of what anyone says does.

I mean, you're free to disagree with me.  But it's extremely frustrating that you do it out of impulse and not logic.

Don't patronise me. Who are you to say I am speaking on the basis of impulse as opposed to logic? The same could be said about you, as you are so vehement and dogged on this  topic. OK, let's try this, in the spirit of open debate. Let's ask the men who are circumcised (and I know there must be a few who post on murmurs) whether they feel, cheated, robbed or sexually inadequate as a result of being circumcised. Guys, over to you.

[karaokeboy]

trix said:

First, I think what Grace means by medicalized is performed in a sanitary environment with proper tools and sometimes local anesthetic. If you wanted to make male circumcision with rusty instruments or broken glass illegal I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

Probably.  But the thing is, "medicalized" female circumcision is as illegal as rusty inhumanity circumcision.  It's not a defining criteria of acceptibility.

Quote

Second, when you say 'exactly the same' I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean they are both socio-cultural? I suppose that's true. If you mean they are intended to repress desire, the article you posted talks discusses Victorian ideas about male circumcision repressing desire, but nothing specific about the motivation for circumcision in Jewish and Islamic traditions that has been going on for millenia. I have no idea what the philosophy of circumcision is in these faiths, but nor I have seen any evidence that it is intended to repress sexuality. I know some Jewish traditions were in part intended just to set Jews apart as a distict people and maintain their identity.

In regard to religion, it is not my place to suggest anything.  I have read the writings of Jewish historians, but it is not my place here to suggest that what they wrote is "gospel" truth, as it were.

Quote

Basically, I agree that parents shouldn't have their infants circumcised due to some vauge notion about it being 'cleaner' or 'healthier.' But is it bad enough that it should be outlawed for people where it is an integral part of their religion? How many Jewish and Islamic men actually regret that they were circumcised? Until I start hearing complaints from them, I'm not inclined to be too concerned.

Ugh.  Why does it always go back to religion?  I mean, really?  It seems that anytime I discuss this with anyone, their kneejerk (and I'm not saying you are included here) reaction is to call me a bigot or anti-semitic.

You know what?  How about this: because I don't feel right putting my footprint all over the religious beliefs of others here on Murmurs, I'll propose a competing dillema.

Should Muslims be allowed to practice FGM for religious reasons?

What criteria or standard are you using to make this judgement?

Shouldn't all (let's say mainstream) religous beliefs be given equal legitimacy with respect to law?

[karaokeboy]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

It differs for the reasons I have set out. Ear piercing could be perceived as an assault on the intact body of an infant who is too young to give consent. I have known boys who have had to be circumcised for medical reasons, because their foreskin was not allowing these boys to urinate without difficulty. What we are talking about here is the difference between a circumcision carried out by a medical practitioner, with due care and sterile instruments, and young girls being sat on while an old woman with a rusty razor blade goes slicing up her genetalia often at the age where they are old enough understand to fear dread and understand what is being done to them. Girls as old as 10, and may I add with no anasthesia. There is no comparison. The comparison is not in the gender, these things very rarely happen to female children when they are infants. It is almost universally done on much older children.

That's not what I've been comparing.  I've been comparing bloodletting done in a first world country by licensed medical professionals (which is happening) with circumcision in the US and UK.  Bloodletting is against the law because it is "mutilation" but circumcision is not because ?  Because they're male.
  

Quote

OK, let's try this, in the spirit of open debate. Let's ask the men who are circumcised (and I know there must be a few who post on murmurs) whether they feel, cheated, robbed or sexually inadequate as a result of being circumcised. Guys, over to you.

And then we're back to subjectivity...  let's see, online poll, or medical journal, online poll, or medical journal...

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

karaokeboy said:

That's not what I've been comparing.  I've been comparing bloodletting done in a first world country by licensed medical professionals (which is happening) with circumcision in the US and UK.  Bloodletting is against the law because it is "mutilation" but circumcision is not because ?  Because they're male.
  


And then we're back to subjectivity...  let's see, online poll, or medical journal, online poll, or medical journal...

You seem to place all of your faith in medical journals. Not all of us do. I think an online debate, not poll, here would be constructive as it would involve the feelings of men speaking for themselves and saying whether or not they agree that they are mutilated and somehow short of requisite male parts. But no, if it involves actual human beings expressing their feelings, nah, let's just go find that medical journal, it has all the answers.

[trix]

karaokeboy said:

Ugh.  Why does it always go back to religion?  I mean, really?  It seems that anytime I discuss this with anyone, their kneejerk (and I'm not saying you are included here) reaction is to call me a bigot or anti-semitic.

You know what?  How about this: because I don't feel right putting my footprint all over the religious beliefs of others here on Murmurs, I'll propose a competing dillema.

Should Muslims be allowed to practice FGM for religious reasons?

What criteria or standard are you using to make this judgement?

Shouldn't all (let's say mainstream) religous beliefs be given equal legitimacy with respect to law?

This goes right back to the question of harm.   FGM is different from male circumcision because it is more harmful. If the least harmful methods of FGM were the vast majority, instead of 5%, you might have something worth debating here.  But they're not.

I agree with SFA, let's hear from the circumsized men about how harmful they feel it was to them.

[karaokeboy]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

You seem to place all of your faith in medical journals. Not all of us do. I think an online debate, not poll here would be constructive as it would involve the feelings of men speaking for themselves and saying whether or not they agree that they are mutilated and somehow short of requisite male parts. But no, if it involves actual human beings expressing their feelings, nah, let's just go find that medical journal, it has all the answers.

:rolleyes:  I'm not saying that people shouldn't have feelings on the subject.  I am saying that  that their feelings are not representative of the ethical dillema that is circumcision, nor do they adaquately decide the dillema.  You would be better served to actually respond to the arguments instead of resorting to using how people feel.  If a medical journal says that circumcision doesn't meet the proper standard of surrogate consent, and they justify it through logical arguments about ethics, then the ethical dillema is better resolved.

Besides, there are plenty of men who are upset with their circumcision.  Google: foreskin restoration, NORM, NOCIRC, Doctors opposing circumcision, cirp.org.

[karaokeboy]

trix said:

This goes right back to the question of harm. FGM is different from male circumcision because it is more harmful. If the least harmful methods of FGM were the vast majority, instead of 5%, you might have something worth debating here. But they're not.

I agree with SFA, let's hear from the circumsized men about how harmful they feel it was to them.

In circles we go.  What about bloodletting?  What about the fact that MGM is harmful, and much more so than you seem to think?  It's the loss of a substantial amount of sexual tissue.  Just because it isn't full castration doesn't mean that it isn't significantly harmful (physically or psychologically).

[Magnetic North]

karaokeboy said:

First off, medical ethics are different than personal moral beliefs.  They are a uniform, codified set of principles that all persons who are granted certain privileges (like practicing medicine) are obligated to follow.

By uniform are you suggesting that medical ethics are definitive? Because they aren't. If they were that article wouldn't have been written in the first place. They are a matter for debate.  And their path into legally binding obligations or obstructions isn't an easy ride either. Everyone knows that smoking is dangerous. Why isn't it outlawed for medical reasons? It does more harm to children of smokers without their consent than male circumcision. But society's traditions are resistant to legal change.  

I don't think people's objection to FGM is based on justification, so any similarity between male and female circumcision with regard to justification is moot. To me, its a question of how harmful it is. "Unpacking" FGM, we can clearly see that (according to the article) 95% of procedures are unquestionably more brutal than male circumcision (man, i'm getting tired of typing that word). As regards bloodletting being illegal, you could certainly argue that (if its done for a reason, religious or whatever) its ethically comparable to male circumcision. Your gripe is that it is illegal while male circ is not. As i've said, the link between ethical rights and wrongs and legal rights and wrongs is a strange one. That's the society we live in.  

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

Let's ask the men who are circumcised (and I know there must be a few who post on murmurs) whether they feel, cheated, robbed or sexually inadequate as a result of being circumcised. Guys, over to you.

Well, as an uncircumcised male, i like my foreskin very much, and i would feel very much cheated if it had been removed without my consent as an infant. Sexually, it wouldn't feel the same either - i'd really miss it. But then i wouldn't be aware of that if it had been removed in infancy. [/two cents]

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

karaokeboy said:

:rolleyes:  I'm not saying that people shouldn't have feelings on the subject.  I am saying that  that their feelings are not representative of the ethical dillema that is circumcision, nor do they adaquately decide the dillema.  You would be better served to actually respond to the arguments instead of resorting to using how people feel.  If a medical journal says that circumcision doesn't meet the proper standard of surrogate consent, and they justify it through logical arguments about ethics, then the ethical dillema is better resolved.

Besides, there are plenty of men who are upset with their circumcision.  Google: foreskin restoration, NORM, NOCIRC, Doctors opposing circumcision, cirp.org.

  
Excuse me?? You're saying that giving the people you are labelling victims of a form of mutilation a chance to put their perspective on it isn't valid?? Hearing what these  men say is somehow irrelevant? That flies in the face of your entire argument. Yes, some men may resent it and others will not. I HAVE responded to the arguments, as have others. You just have a big blind spot when  people's responses don't chime with your own, and you try to diminish the validity of anyone's opinion who has the temerity to disagree with an article in A MEDICAL JOURNAL, which you seem to have adopted as the bible for your own personal crusade.

[karaokeboy]

Magnetic North said:

By uniform are you suggesting that medical ethics are definitive?

No, just that Dr. Joe and Dr. Betsy both ought to follow them.

[karaokeboy]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

Excuse me?? You're saying that giving the people you are labelling victims of a form of mutilation a chance to put their perspective on it isn't valid?? Hearing what these men say is somehow irrelevant? That flies in the face of your entire argument. Yes, some men may resent it and others will not. I HAVE responded to the arguments, as have others. You just have a big blind spot when people's responses don't chime with your own, and you try to diminish the validity of anyone's opinion who has the temerity to disagree with an article in A MEDICAL JOURNAL.

Ok, I'm sorry that this is getting us both upset.

I never said that they shouldn't have feelings or a chance to express those feelings.  I am saying that 10 or 20 opinions doesn't solve an international medicoethical dillema.

Again, my apologies.  I know that you're a great person.  I like you.  You have good taste in music.  I'm sorry that this is getting the best of us.

[Magnetic North]

On the subject of justification, to the best of my knowledge/recollection the religious justification for female procedures in islamic countries is due to a passage in the koran about women being a temptation or distraction to men, and that they might lead them astray. In practise (and this is by no means stated anywhere in the koran) it is justified on the grounds that women whose genitalia have been altered so as to reduce or eliminate sexual pleasure (or even make it painful) will not actively seek to tempt men, thus reducing the possibility of all kinds of immoral sexual shenanigans going down.

I have absolutely no idea what the jewish position is on male circumcision. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Sweet Fanny Addams]

karaokeboy said:

Ok, I'm sorry that this is getting us both upset.

I never said that they shouldn't have feelings or a chance to express those feelings.  I am saying that 10 or 20 opinions doesn't solve an international medicoethical dillema.

Again, my apologies.  I know that you're a great person.  I like you.  You have good taste in music.  I'm sorry that this is getting the best of us.

No, it's cool. We can agree to disagree, but please just realize that not everyone feels as strongly about this as you do, and some circumcised men might find the claims you're making insulting to them as not recognising them as fully happy and complete sexual beings. Implying that they have been robbed or mutilated could cause offense. Pax.  :)

[karaokeboy]

Sweet Fanny Addams said:

No, it's cool. We can agree to disagree, but please just realize that not everyone feels as strongly about this as you do, and some circumcised men might find the claims you're making insulting to them as not recognising them as fully happy and complete sexual beings. Implying that they have been robbed or mutilated could cause offense. Pax. :)

Good!  I tend to be a bit of a hotheaded individual when it comes to things I'm passionate about.  Or, as some would say, I'm an asshole when I get going.

And yes, there are a lot of men who are perfectly satisfied with their penis in its circumcised state.  But would they have chose that?  Who knows?  I mean, thank God that circumcised men still have sexual function (good news for me!) but what are they missing, in the figurative sense?

Once again, I'm sorry for being a little tempermental.  But I do feel strongly about this, and sometimes it really spurns me, because I do feel like there I have been psychologically damaged, and sometimes when people refuse to really face this issue, they indirectly "justify" the damage that's been done to me.  That's how I feel at least.  It's times like that when I wish I were female, so I could either a) have avoided circumcision or b) had people sympathize with me without having to pull out the Journal of Medical Ethics.

[pebbles]

Just as an aside to this debate, there is also a movement among some circumsized men who want to "re-grow" the foreskin. It's done with stretching the skin with weights or tape, sometimes medical instruments.  Some even claim it's improved sensitivity to the head of the penis because it isn't always exposed any more.

Just an odd bit of knowledge I stumbled on.

I also know a couple of adult males who chose to get circumsized - both said "it'll be cleaner" beforehand, but I never asked about what they thought after it was done.

[trix]

karaokeboy said:

In circles we go.  What about bloodletting?  What about the fact that MGM is harmful, and much more so than you seem to think?  It's the loss of a substantial amount of sexual tissue.  Just because it isn't full castration doesn't mean that it isn't significantly harmful (physically or psychologically).

When I said "least harmful FGM" bloodletting is essentially what I meant.  If bloodletting was 99% of cases of FGM, I agree there might be something to debate, because  they could be construed as similar level of harm.  But in the current situation, where your article says 95% of FGM cases are severe, I'm sure enforcement is much easier when 100% of these type of procedures are illegal.  Practictioners won't be able to pass off more severe FGM as botched bloodletting, or offer 'legal' bloodletting but, under the counter, push more extreme practices.

[karaokeboy]

trix said:

When I said "least harmful FGM" bloodletting is essentially what I meant. If bloodletting was 99% of cases of FGM, I agree there might be something to debate, because they could be construed as similar level of harm. But in the current situation, where your article says 95% of FGM cases are severe, I'm sure enforcement is much easier when 100% of these type of procedures are illegal. Practictioners won't be able to pass off more severe FGM as botched bloodletting, or offer 'legal' bloodletting but, under the counter, push more extreme practices.

  
   But where does that leave Muslims?
  
You're telling these people that they can amputate roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the "skin" on their son's penis, but can't even so much as draw blood on their daughter.
  
How is that sensical?  What standard are you using to make this evaluation?  Harm inflicted?  How do you quantify that?  Can you quantify that?