Circumcision

[fls]

Is it not quite a black and white issue in that you either agree that parents can permanently alter the body of a child for non-medical reasons or you don't?

In all honesty, I don't see that as black and white. It is clear that throughout history and at present, humans embrace body modification, usually in relation to identification with a group. And that some of these modifications are begun in childhood. You bring up the idea of physical integrity as though it is universally valued, and get general agreement here because of the nature of the cultural backgrounds of those who come to the JREF. But I am not convinced this idea can generally be considered important when the vast majority of humans violate it. Not enough to interfere with what I consider private decisions, anyway.

Of course, at the other end of the scale are practices that are obviously harmful and 'consent' to such practices is coercive and we should interfere. FGM would be one of them.

Perhaps it's not possible to discuss how one rationally draws a line in a field of grey.

Linda

 

[kellyb]

Of course, at the other end of the scale are practices that are obviously harmful and 'consent' to such practices is coercive and we should interfere. FGM would be one of them.


Linda

All forms, or just the ones that are "worse" than male circumcision?

 

[fls]

Yeah, that is interesting. Just like it's interesting how few scientists actually disagree with the theory of gravity, and all have the same reasons for doing so...

I realize that you bring that up because you wish to give the impression that the strong emotional reaction is based on a rational assessment. I would like to believe that, too, as I find it difficult to whip myself into a frenzy otherwise. I'm just not getting there, though.

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to discover is whether this merely represents a personality flaw on my part.

Linda

 

[fls]

All forms, or just the ones that are "worse" than male circumcision?

Since the vast majority are worse than male circumcision, it doesn't make much difference to belabour the point. Keep in mind that Type I FGM can and usually does also include excision of part of the clitoris.

If FGM of the type equivalent to a routine male circumcision was done under situations that were not coercive, I don't think we would interfere.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

In all honesty, I don't see that as black and white. It is clear that throughout history and at present, humans embrace body modification, usually in relation to identification with a group. And that some of these modifications are begun in childhood. You bring up the idea of physical integrity as though it is universally valued, and get general agreement here because of the nature of the cultural backgrounds of those who come to the JREF. But I am not convinced this idea can generally be considered important when the vast majority of humans violate it. Not enough to interfere with what I consider private decisions, anyway.

Of course, at the other end of the scale are practices that are obviously harmful and 'consent' to such practices is coercive and we should interfere. FGM would be one of them.

Perhaps it's not possible to discuss how one rationally draws a line in a field of grey.

Linda

I know you're not going to answer me, but if FGM was carried out in a clean hospital by a trained surgeon and with proper pain relief, then what "harm" is there?

Women who have had the procedure can still have orgasms, get pregnant and give birth. The only danger from FGM is the sometimes extreme nature of it and how it is often performed.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Since the vast majority are worse than male circumcision, it doesn't make much difference to belabour the point. Keep in mind that Type I FGM can and usually does also include excision of part of the clitoris.

If FGM of the type equivalent to a routine male circumcision was done under situations that were not coercive, I don't think we would interfere.

Linda

And if male circumcisions were performed under situations that were not coercive, I don't think I would interfere.

 

[kellyb]

Since the vast majority are worse than male circumcision, it doesn't make much difference to belabour the point. Keep in mind that Type I FGM can and usually does also include excision of part of the clitoris.

Does this seem incorrect to you for some reason? (link in a post above..it's from the 2005 UNICEF survey on FGC statistics):

In the majority of countries that have included
questions regarding type of FGM/C, excision
of the prepuce (Type 1) is found to be the most
common. Only in Burkina Faso is excision of the
clitoris (Type 2) found to be most frequent.

That seems fairly specific to me compared to the older WHO stats that lump the prepuce and clitoris in together.

 

[Lonewulf]

I realize that you bring that up because you wish to give the impression that the strong emotional reaction is based on a rational assessment. I would like to believe that, too, as I find it difficult to whip myself into a frenzy otherwise. I'm just not getting there, though.

ETA: I guess what I'm trying to discover is whether this merely represents a personality flaw on my part.

Linda

Actually, no. My point was that everyone who tends to agree on a subject does not harm their point. Everyone can agree that the moon is not made of cheese, but this doesn't put them into a "moon-is-not-cheese" bigoted fact-denying biased "camp". There's a reason they all agree.

Just like when it comes to circumcision.


As for my strong feelings; I know what a circumcision is like. I've been through it while old enough to be able to remember it, remember. I find it interesting as I describe how painful and uncomfortable it is, people really don't seem to care. I've actually been through the process. It's not fun. It's not something that I would want forced on me ever again.

But what do I get in a thread like this? Derision. In fact, it was pointed out (rather blatantly and rudely) that babies can't consent, ever, as if this made it even more okay to go ahead and snip off a piece of their penis. That's what I find so disturbing about all of this.

It seems as if people are advocating doing things to people that can't consent more than they would to people who could consent and say "no".

If the Koran condoned child abuse, and I made sure to only slap around my baby when it was too young to remember the pain... does it suddenly become okay then? It's religion, and the baby can't consent, it's okay, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sure there are extremely rare medical conditions that pop up from time to time that require that.

And the referced people getting it to enhance their sexual function are they getting it at a hospital?

 

[kellyb]

If FGM of the type equivalent to a routine male circumcision was done under situations that were not coercive, I don't think we would interfere.

Linda

So you're in favor of the "medicalization" of FGC? Where women take their daughters in to doctors to have the procedure performed in sterile clinics?

 

[ponderingturtle]

About 150 years ago, when Victorian physicians were struggling with the GREAT MASTURBATION PROBLEM and adopted the idea of circumcising males, the solution proposed for females was clitoridectomy. Alas, the procedure did not catch on in the West. Nowadays the only hospital clitoridectomies are in the middle east.

ETA: I should have said non-medically indicated clitoridectomies. As KellyB points out, there are valid medical reasons to cut off almost any body part.

Yes and these same doctors knew that to regular massage of the vagina was needed to prevent hysteria. So female masterbation is of course wrong because they advocated it for the wrong reasons?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If the Koran condoned child abuse, and I made sure to only slap around my baby when it was too young to remember the pain... does it suddenly become okay then? It's religion, and the baby can't consent, it's okay, right?

By Linda's logic: since most people violate the 'don't slap other people' principle, then yeah, it's fine. I'm not going to interfere, just so long as they have enough 'spare capacity' to take the beatings.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I know you're not going to answer me, but if FGM was carried out in a clean hospital by a trained surgeon and with proper pain relief, then what "harm" is there?

Women who have had the procedure can still have orgasms, get pregnant and give birth. The only danger from FGM is the sometimes extreme nature of it and how it is often performed.

Does it have any medical benefits on the level of increased resistance to some STD's and UTI's?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, no. My point was that everyone who tends to agree on a subject does not harm their point. Everyone can agree that the moon is not made of cheese, but this doesn't put them into a "moon-is-not-cheese" bigoted fact-denying biased "camp". There's a reason they all agree.

Just like when it comes to circumcision.

That is also true of homeopathy, alien abduction and so on.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes and these same doctors knew that to regular massage of the vagina was needed to prevent hysteria. So female masterbation is of course wrong because they advocated it for the wrong reasons?

I think you've misunderstood.

Circumcision of both males AND females was introduced by Western physicians as a cure for the "disorder" of masturbation. The female version did not catch on in the West, whilst the male version had an ever growing list of aliments that it treated.

 

[3point14]

For me the question is pretty simple.

I have had in my hands an eight year-old male baby, perfect in every way, probably about as vulnerable as a human being gets, entirely at the mercy of those caring for it.

Now, I need an almost impossibly good reason to inflict pain and suffering on any human being whatsoever.

To inflict pain on a child a little over a week old would require an absolutely fantastic reason, and that reason would need to be examined closely by me and those I trust who are smarter than I in order to establish that the reasons were valid.

I will not inflict pain on an eight day old (or any age for that matter) child in response to entirely irrational (IMO) cultural norms.

I will not inflict pain on a child to garner some very minor health benefit. The benefit being less chance of contracting something that is curable, or something not astonishingly relevant if a condom is used.


In short, circumcision hurts, I do not inflict pain on those I love without good reason.

I have seen no good reason.

 

[Lonewulf]

That is also true of homeopathy, alien abduction and so on.

Or religion? Your "pro-circumcision" camp certainly has all the hallmarks of fundie faith.

 

[kellyb]

And the referced people getting it to enhance their sexual function are they getting it at a hospital?

It looks like a fairly minor procedure that can be performed in an outpatient clinic, but the physicians who do it also work at hospitals?


http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures.php
http://www.femalegenitalrefinement.com/procedures/hoodectomy.php

Safe and Simple
The procedure is very simple. It is done on an outpatient basis and takes only a few minutes. Like other procedures, it is nearly bloodless and is painless. There are no sutures to remove. The patient is able to return to normal activities within several days and may expect a complete return to sexual relations within 4-6 weeks.

http://www.drroyalbenson.com/

Dr. Benson provides medical services at all three regional hospitals: College Station Medical Center, St. Joseph Regional Health Center and The Physician's Centre. We accept a majority of insurance plans. Please call our office at (979) 776-1660 with any questions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So you're in favor of the "medicalization" of FGC? Where women take their daughters in to doctors to have the procedure performed in sterile clinics?

I should note that there being a kind of of FGC equivalent to male circumcision in terms of effect on sexual function and so on has not been well established. So this would be something that would need more documentation of the nature of its effects.

But if it seems to be about as much of a wash medically as male circumcision then I would not have problems with it. But I am not convinced that they are equivalent.

 

[fls]

Does this seem incorrect to you for some reason? (link in a post above..it's from the 2005 UNICEF survey on FGC statistics):

That seems fairly specific to me compared to the older WHO stats that lump the prepuce and clitoris in together.

Does this seem specific to you? (from Table 5 from your link):

Percentage of women who have had Clitoridectomy/Excision:

Benin (2001) 84.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 90.8
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 31.3/67.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 4.1
Eritrea (1995) 61.5/4.4
Guinea (1999) 44.0/46.2
Mali (2001) 81.4
Mali (1995–96) 52.1/46.9
Mauritania (2000–01) 75.3
Niger (1998) 66.5/4.8
Nigeria (2003) 43.5
Nigeria (1999) 82.2/6.8
Sudan (north) (2000) 21.5/1.7
Sudan (north) (1990) 14.8/2.7
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 56.6/35.3

Percentage of women who have have pinching or nicking:

Benin (2001) 7.0
Burkina Faso (2003) 1.2
Eritrea (2001–02) 46.0
Guinea (1999) 1.7
Mali (2001) 2.0
Mauritania (2000–01) 5.4
Nigeria (2003) 2.0

Percentage of women who have had infibulation:

Benin (2001) 3.5
Burkina Faso (2003) 2.0
Burkina Faso (1998–99) 0.7
Côte d’Ivoire (1998) 2.3
Egypt (1995) 0.7
Eritrea (2001–02) 38.6
Eritrea (1995) 34.0
Ethiopia (2000) 3.0
Guinea (1999) 7.4
Mali (2001) 1.9
Mali (1995–96) 0.5
Niger (1998) 0.0
Nigeria (2003) 3.9
Nigeria (1999) 3.7
Sudan (north) (2000) 74.1
Sudan (north) (1990) 82.3
United Republic of Tanzania (1996) 5.2

As you can see, the majority of procedures done are worse than routine male circumcision.

(I apologize in advance if I screwed up any of my editing.)

Linda