Choping off parts of children's genitals

[DavisModerator]

Article from the NYT:

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/world/europe/denmark-circumcision.html

While female genital mutilation is almost unanimously condemned in western democracies as well as being illegal, a moderate form of male genital mutilation is still permitted everywhere. First, female genital mutilation has four levels of severity (or child abuse). The worst is the absolute butchering of the entire vagina and then sewing it up. The least damaging form is a symbolic prick, one that does no notable physical damage yet still fulfills the ritual of using a cutting instrument to draw blood. The psychological damage however is always there. Her parents and friends held her down, took her clothes off and touched her genitals in a ritual meant to make her more chaste. Even this form of FGM is illegal (as it is sexual assault and should be illegal).

And yet 2nd degree boy genital mutilation is still legal. The excision of flap of the penis. Done in front of an audience of family and friends. An adult holding down a boy, taking off his clothes, grabbing the boys genitals and butchering it in front of their parents…is somehow not grotesque enough to warrant criminal laws against it.

Unless it is deemed medically necessary by two doctors there is absolutely no moral or justifiable reason to do this. The questionable benefits of it being more sanitary does not outweigh the fact that it leads to dampened sexual sensitivity and that it is an act of genital touching and scarring by an adult. Not to mention it happens without the child’s consent. Excising the flap of a little boy can also lead to severe side effects, in the worst case involving extreme sexual dysfunction and in the most horrific cases, amputation of the head of the penis.

And yet tradition and religion prevails, even in secular highly atheist societies. Why? Because the tenticles of religion still reach deep. So deep they justify scarring little boys genitals. It seems like a no brainer making this illegal…and yet even atheists get uncomfortable when banning male circumcision comes up.

• This topic was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.

[UnseenParticipant]

There actually is another side to this story, and not one put out by politicians. BTW, I scanned that article looking for professional medical/scientific info largely to no avail.

Here’s the other side, put out by professional medical people with MD’s and PhD’s:

Three randomized trials in Africa demonstrated that adult male circumcision decreases human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men by 51% to 60%,1 and the long-term follow-up of these study participants has shown that the protective efficacy of male circumcision increases with time from surgery. These findings are consistent with a large number of observational studies in Africa and in the United States that found male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in men.1 Thus, there is substantial evidence that removal of the foreskin reduces the risk of male heterosexual HIV acquisition. However, the effect of male circumcision on reducing HIV acquisition among men who have sex with men is unclear. There may be protection against insertional but not against receptive anal intercourse, so men practicing both forms of sexual intercourse may have limited protection associated with male circumcision.

In addition to HIV, male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of other heterosexually acquired sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Two trials demonstrated that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquiring genital herpes by 28% to 34%, and the risk of developing genital ulceration by 47%.1Additionally, the trials found that male circumcision reduces the risk of oncogenic high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) by 32% to 35%.1 While some consider male circumcision to be primarily a male issue, one trial also reported derivative benefits for female partners of circumcised men; the risk of HR-HPV for female partners was reduced by 28%, the risk of bacterial vaginosis was reduced by 40%, and the risk of trichomoniasis was reduced by 48%.1,2 It should be noted that no large-scale randomized controlled trial has assessed the benefit of neonatal male circumcision throughout several decades, which is when many of the potential health benefits would be realized. Such a trial is probably not feasible. However, observational data of men predominantly circumcised during childhood support the findings of the 3 randomized trials conducted in Africa1 and the long-term medical benefits of male circumcision. (source)

And, BTW, I’m circumcized and am not sure I could even handle much increased “sensitivity.”

• This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.
• This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.

[DavisModerator]

Its no surprise that its almost only American doctors talking about the very questionable efficacy of circumcision as they are also more likely to perform they mostly pointless excision. The UTI benefits are tenuous at best, AIDS protection is about avoiding infection with unprotected sex un places of highinfection rate and none of them take into account the dangers of circumcision like  loss of sexual sensitivity and infection and other medical problems due to cutting off the foreskin. There are better articles that cover the questionable interpretation of studies, many of them, this one however covers them all and provides references.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tonic.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/nz5kmm/is-a-circumcised-penis-really-any-healthier

The only reason we keep doing it is because of grotesque ritual and our Christian heritage. If the religious custom didn’ influence us…no one would start advocating foreskin chopping…especially on such dubious medical grounds.

 

• This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Davis.

[.Spectator]

100% agree with you Davis!

[StregaModerator]

Yes, Belen, I agree with @davis so totally on this subject. I cannot for the life of me understand how people do this.  Religions have brainwashed people into thinking this is a normal thing.  It is not normal. It is grotesque. The hygiene thing is a myth. The only way that the concept of hygiene could apply is if a dick-owner completely fails to wash himself there.   Where are the medical examples of dick infections caused by foreskin existences?

 

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

Infant circumcision is a human rights violation.

 

 

[DavisModerator]

I thought that an analogy would help. Imagine if it was somehow discovered that if we scrape part of our tastebuds off, we will be a little less likely to get brain cancer (already a pretty low risk), will avoid tongue infections (pretty uncommon), will have 10% less likelihood of having the tonsils removed (few people suffer this anyways) and is less likely to get clamidia if they have unprotected oral sex.

Would we start scraping off parts of children’s tastebuds when they are little children. I mean yeah, they will lose 30% of their ability to taste things, and yeah there is the small chance of complications happening when we scrape the tastebuds off, but that low risk of brain cancer and less likelihood of having tonsils removed is totally worth a lifetime of lower taste perceptions when enjoying food.

What say we start scrapping of children’s taste buds tomorrow? Who is with me?

Now imagine that this was requested of a deity in a 2500 year old book and that it has been happening for generations. Well. In that case…there are two sides to the story…right?

[StregaModerator]

Very good, @davis

[Daniel W.Participant]

@davis, I agree with you on this.  Male circumcision is unnecessary, has risks, and the benefits for a Western male are not worth the negatives.

I don’t know if most adult men who were circumcised as infants actually miss their foreskins or if the trauma at that time is of any meaning or significance later, but why do it?  We could prevent virtually all breast cancer by giving all women mastectomies in their 20s.  We could prevent all colon cancers by remove all colons.  We can get by without them.  We could prevent all stomach cancers by removing all stomachs – most of mine was removed 5 years ago, and I’m doing fine.  In fact, I’m probably healthier, due to lost weight, although there are plenty of negatives to that.  I realize that losing a foreskin is a much more minor procedure compared to a colectomy or mastectomy, but I think the analogy is valid.

Routine infant circumcision is a waste of resources and money, in a society that way overprices medical care.  It takes choice away from the child, is yet another forced social conformity, and has potential for negative outcomes.   It should be stopped.

As an aside, I’ve known a few intersex people who had genital “correctional” surgery, and the psychological trauma lasted well into adulthood.  No intersex child should have genital mutilation just for the sake of looking like other kid’s genitals or to force them into a binary sex identification.  If there is a dysfunction or deformity that risks health and well being, yes, but not just to be one gender or the other.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Isn’t it important to distinguish between circumcision that is performed safely in a hospital and circumcision that is a religious or cultural ritual?

[DavisModerator]

Hi Jake,

I’d say a big yes. If a doctor can properly demonstrate why it is necessary and is sincere about it (absolutely no cultural or religious motivations) then it is a lot more acceptable than a Rabbi performing it (no matter how sanitary he tries to make it).

There are a few rare cases of women having part of their genitals removed to avoid infection or complication as well as after severe sexual assault. It’s hard to argue about this if several doctors demonstrate why it is necessary without religious coersion. I’d say also that is a whole lot more acceptable than a village quack doctor cutting of girls private parts with a sacred traditional knife.

[DavisModerator]

@danielw

I agree with you. For me the most disturbing part of it is the ritual touching and physical violence to a family members genitals. It’s abusive.

But the second most disturbing thing is what you say:

It takes choice away from the child, is yet another forced social conformity, and has potential for negative outcomes.

The loss of bodily autonomy.

To be absolutely clear, I’m not saying that family members or even the chop-doctors are outright participating in sexual abuse or intending to harm the child psychologically nor damage their child…having done this to one’s children in the past shouldn’t equate to bad parents or clear evil…necessarily. But as you say…there’s no reason to do this today, and short of buying into the “medical benefits of it” at this point, it has become pointless and abusive.

[UnseenParticipant]

Davis, can you site any academic articles or studies demonstrating or proving you “loss of sensation” allegation and quantifying how much sensation is alleged to be lost? I know the difference between a fact and a conjecture, and I think I smell a conjecture there.

And what about the benefits to females? Reducing the risk of HR-HPV for female sex partners by 28% als well as a reduction of the risk of bacterial vaginosis 40%, as well as trichomoniasis risk reduced by 48%. Are those states just plain wrong or of no import?

[StregaModerator]

Not sure that many babies have sex, Unseen.  What do you imagine would happen if we moved the age of circumcision to 18 years?  Fully informed by the available information on STD reduction potential, and any other alleged health benefits, what proportion of men would choose to be circumcised, in your opinion?

[UnseenParticipant]

Strega wrote:

Not sure that many babies have sex, Unseen. What do you imagine would happen if we moved the age of circumcision to 18 years? Fully informed by the available information on STD reduction potential, and any other alleged health benefits, what proportion of men would choose to be circumcised, in your opinion?

Probably about as many women who would be enthusiastic about a preventative hysterectomy based on statistics rather than the pressure of a clear and present danger. They might walk away from the idea thinking that their parents blew it by not doing it when they should have. The wise decision isn’t always the most appealing.

Where did I imply infants are having sex? I’m thinking back. Don’t remember that. “And what about the benefits to females? Reducing the risk of HR-HPV for female sex partners by 28% als well as a reduction of the risk of bacterial vaginosis 40%, as well as trichomoniasis risk reduced by 48%. Are those states just plain wrong or of no import?”

• This reply was modified 6 years, 4 months ago by  Unseen.

[Author]

Posts