Infant circumcision

[iknownothing]

They have the consent of the subject, by his agent.

A newborn can't consent to anything, so you can end every single sentence regarding a baby with the same words, "without the consent of the subject."

"Mandy took little baby Marcus to the mall, without the consent of the subject."

"We saw a bunny and I helped little Jimmy pet it, without the consent of the subject."

The mere fact that the baby didn't consent is without meaning. It adds nothing to your argument. I mean, that bunny might have had rabies! Should parents really be allowed to expose their children to rabies without the consent of the subject?

The answer, by the way, is, "Yes, they should."

OK, "We had little Jimmy's teeth filed into points, without the consent of the subject." Just because you can use the same phrase, doesn't mean it applies equally.

We don't give parents the choice to make permanent body modifications of their children with no medical need -- no filing teeth into points, no tattoos. Except for this one area, routine male circumcision. The reasoning behind it is purely tradition and religion -- much like female genital mutilation, although it's not a fair comparison -- and not medical. (People design studies expressly for the purpose of finding some kind of benefit for the procedure, to justify the fact that it's already routinely done. The reasons are tradition and religion; any medical benefit is an after-the-fact justification.)

Yes, it is widely accepted now, but so what? Lots of things have been widely culturally accepted, and later rejected. The fact that it is currently the norm, doesn't mean that people opposed to it should throw their hands in the air and not try to change things.

It's not the worst problem in the world. It doesn't seem to cause problems in most men. It may cause some discomfort for some boys & men if it was not well done. But in some cases, it causes serious problems. And occasionally death. All for what?

 

[iknownothing]

So long as you realize that you're argument is very likely going to lose, and keep losing forever, I think that's probably the most important thing.

Why do you think that? It's only been the norm in the US for around 100 years, and seems to be dying out fast. Why are you so set on believing it will always be done?

 

[Dave Rogers]

So long as you realize that you're argument is very likely going to lose, and keep losing forever, I think that's probably the most important thing.

What a wonderful argument to post on a skeptical forum.

Well, I don't live in a country where genital mutilation of children is seen as routine, so it's not as big a problem for me.

Dave

 

[Emet]

<snip>
We don't give parents the choice to make permanent body modifications of their children with no medical need -- no filing teeth into points, no tattoos. <snip>

Well, I've seen infants (usually female) in the US with pierced ears. While I'm fairly sure no M.D.s were involved, AFAIK, there are no criminal penalties for doing so.

 

[Vic Vega]

Well, I've seen infants (usually female) in the US with pierced ears. While I'm fairly sure no M.D.s were involved, AFAIK, there are no criminal penalties for doing so.

My uncle is a pediatrician and his practice pierces children's ears. They only do it for girs and only will do one set of holes in the earlobe, but they do offer it.

 

[Emet]

My uncle is a pediatrician and his practice pierces children's ears. They only do it for girs and only will do one set of holes in the earlobe, but they do offer it.

Thanks for that info, Vic. I wasn't sure who was doing the piercing.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Well, I've seen infants (usually female) in the US with pierced ears. While I'm fairly sure no M.D.s were involved, AFAIK, there are no criminal penalties for doing so.

I really HATE seeing babies with pierced ear. I'd be happy to ban that too.

 

[Cainkane1]

Infant circumcision is wrong big time. The baby has no say in the matter and there have been cases of baby boys losing their penises due to a botched operation.

 

[Darat]

OK, "We had little Jimmy's teeth filed into points, without the consent of the subject." Just because you can use the same phrase, doesn't mean it applies equally.

We don't give parents the choice to make permanent body modifications of their children with no medical need -- no filing teeth into points, no tattoos. Except for this one area, routine male circumcision. The reasoning behind it is purely tradition and religion -- much like female genital mutilation, although it's not a fair comparison -- and not medical. (People design studies expressly for the purpose of finding some kind of benefit for the procedure, to justify the fact that it's already routinely done. The reasons are tradition and religion; any medical benefit is an after-the-fact justification.)

...snip...

It is a very fair comparison - most of female circumcision is of type 1 and 2 and type 1 is very comparable to male circumcision, and the reasons for carrying out genital mutilation are common to either sex.

 

[JLord]

How about amputation of an earlobe - is that OK?

I think the sad fact is that if there were a traditional religious practice that had a large number of followers who wanted to but of earlobes of infants, it would be allowed. It wouldn't be today simply because it isn't a tradition religious practice like circumcision is.

People are often very protective of their right to do whatever they want to their child and the law gives parents wide latitude to mess with their kids if they can link it to a traditional religion. As long as you are keeping them alive (food, water, shelter) you can do a lot to mess up your kid.

You can withhold sex ed from your kid and have them wind up a teenage mother. You can force them to be members of the religion you choose . You can send them to therapy to change their sexual orientation. You can pull them out of school and teach them nonsense of your own choosing instead (usualy as long as they can pass standard tests in certain subjects).

You can prevent them from having a normal childhood in a number of other ways. In comparison, cutting off part of their genitals probably isn't doing as much long term damage to the child. And since it has the backing of tradition and religion, it something that society isn't even close to being able to outlaw.

 

[pgwenthold]

I really HATE seeing babies with pierced ear. I'd be happy to ban that too.

There was a 1 yo girl at my son's daycare with pierced ears.

I have to say, aside from the questions of whether such things should be done from a health/welfare pov, there was another issue that I thought was far more serious: it was bloody ugly.

I can't envision how the parent(s) thought that is "cute" in any way. I kept thinking, if that were my kid, I would conclude that was a failed experiment, pull the earrings out, and let her be.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

We don't give parents the choice to make permanent body modifications of their children with no medical need -- no filing teeth into points, no tattoos. Except for this one area, routine male circumcision.

This is untrue. Parents are allowed to have plastic surgery done on a child that is not medically necessary.

My parents had my ears pinned back when I was 6. Actually, the surgery went really badly, I got anesthesia poisoning and I almost died. I was sick for weeks afterwards and I can remember it pretty clearly.

I don't hold anything against my parents though. Something going wrong was incredibly unlikely, and plenty of things in life have a risk for it. They let me ride in cars even though we had access to public transportation, which is much safer. They let me play sports and do other things where you can get hurt. They let me swim in the ocean. Etc, etc.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

It is a very fair comparison - most of female circumcision is of type 1 and 2 and type 1 is very comparable to male circumcision, and the reasons for carrying out genital mutilation are common to either sex.

Yes but that's simply not the kind of circumcision people are talking about when they talk about the horrors of FGM, and I think it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

If all FGM had EVER consisted was was something as simple as a pinprick as with the most mild cases, I think it's pretty certain that it would be treated on the same level as Male circumcision and we would not have worldwide outrage against it. After all, plenty of societies have body modification of children that includes scarification, and they receive little to no public outcry. Often they are splashed across the pages of National Geographic as an example of beauty and culture.

When people talk about FGM that sparks global outrage, they are talking about the procedure in which a woman's clitoris is cut off, or in some cases, in which her clitoris is cut off, and her labia, and her vaginal opening is sewn shut. This is what sparks the outrage. And this procedure is not comparable to male circumcision. In this procedure, even if it goes completely as planned, the woman is unable to enjoy sex, and in the more extreme cases, sex will be extremely painful for her for the rest of her life, and simply things like urination and menstration are dangerous.

I also have a problem with this argument because of this:

When people compare female to male circumcision, they almost always do it in this matter:

They make male circumcision seem as horrible as possible.

But then when they try and compare it to female circumcision, and someone points out how much worse FGM is, they are quick to downplay female genital mutilation and make it seem like the extreme forms of it almost never happen and it's almost always a mild procedure. While the MOST extreme forms (removal of labia, clitoris, and sewing the vaginal opening shut) are perhaps more rare, removal of the clitoris is type 2 (type 2 also can include partial or total removal of the labia), which Darat even said is one of the most common types. Yet he doesn't describe it. The only thing he describes is type 1 as very comparable to male circumcision. You conveniently leave out the description of the OTHER most common kind. I guess because it hurts your argument, doesn't it?

So these people try and make things seem as bad as possible for men, but then consistantly downplay how bad it is for women. Darat even goes so far as to list the two most common types of circumcision but only describes the more MILD kind specifically in order to downplay the suffering of women. This is an inherently mysogenistic tactic.

Also, the idea that the reasoning between the two is just completely wrong. The point of removing a woman's clitoris is mainly to make a woman incapable of enjoying sex. Are you honestly suggesting most parents who have their male chidlren circumcized are doing so to prevent their sons from enjoying sex so they won't have sex outside of marriage?

Also, another big reasoning is the unscientific one that a woman's clitoris will grow out of control if it is not cut off, or that the clitoris holds special powers which, if left in tact, will make the woman more promiscuous.

I have never heard an argument that an uncircumsized man's penis will grow out of control or make him promiscuous.

The POINT of female circumcision is to control a woman's sexuality. The point of a male circumcision is for health reasons and cultural traditions. And these health reasons are legit. It IS easier to clean, and it IS more unlikely to spread STDs.

Just because both these procedures originated with religion and culture does make the reasons for them the same. That's like saying that your parents forcing you to go to church is the same as your parents forcing you into plural marriage at age 15 - after all, they're both based on religion and culture!

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this to justify male circumcision. After all, it's not like the penis still can't be kept clean, or that the man can't just practice safe sex (which, of course, is far more likely than circumcision to prevent STDs). But it's not like the reasons are completely made up and have no basis in reality like with FGM.


Science blogs had an article about this some time ago:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/11/why_male_circumcision_and_fema.php

I have never, ever understood why people WANT to make themselves more victims than they are. I feel a great deal of contempt for men who try and make it seem like their circumcision is comparable to a woman who has her clitoris removed. While it's certainly understandable to think what happened to you is wrong and to be against the practice...for pity's sakes, have some perspective.

I had an unnecessary medical procedure which permanently altered my body against my will in which I almost DIED, and I don't go around comparing myself to kids whose parents actually abused them. Nor do I compare myself to women who have had their bodies modified in a way that will cause them to suffer for the rest of their lives. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EVEN REMOTELY THE SAME THING.

 

[wasapi]

There was a 1 yo girl at my son's daycare with pierced ears.

I have to say, aside from the questions of whether such things should be done from a health/welfare pov, there was another issue that I thought was far more serious: it was bloody ugly.

I can't envision how the parent(s) thought that is "cute" in any way. I kept thinking, if that were my kid, I would conclude that was a failed experiment, pull the earrings out, and let her be.

I believe there is an exception to this, and that is cultural. My d-i-l is Ecuadorian and both of her girls had their ears pierced at a very young age. I live in an area with a large hispanic population and I have noticed most of their daughters have pierced ears before they are old enough to walk.

I'm not passing judgement, just making a statement.

Julia

 

[Darat]

Yes but that's simply not the kind of circumcision people are talking about when they talk about the horrors of FGM, and I think it's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I would have said that if what you state is true then it is very important to inform people of the facts!

If all FGM had EVER consisted was was something as simple as a pinprick as with the most mild cases, I think it's pretty certain that it would be treated on the same level as Male circumcision and we would not have worldwide outrage against it.
...snip...

But it is and has been for centuries (at least) treated as the same level of male genital mutilation in many, many cultures and societies. The widespread view of female genital mutilation in countries like the UK and the USA is a very recent development. Again the fact that many people are misinformed about the majority of female genital mutilation is something that should be corrected.

And remember what I was replying to i.e the contention that it isn't a "fair comparison" to compare male genital mutilation to female genital mutilation however the facts are against that claim. Reasons given for genital mutilation range from hygiene, to controlling sexual desire to simply tradition and that doesn't matter whether you are talking about male or female genital mutilation.

...snip...

When people talk about FGM that sparks global outrage, they are talking about the procedure in which a woman's clitoris is cut off, or in some cases, in which her clitoris is cut off, and her labia, and her vaginal opening is sewn shut.

...snip..

Some genital mutilation does include the above but as I said not all and in fact that represents the minority of such mutilations.

This is what sparks the outrage. And this procedure is not comparable to male circumcision.

...snip..

But nobody (and that includes myself) have made that claim in this thread.

I also have a problem with this argument because of this:

When people compare female to male circumcision, they almost always do it in this matter:

They make male circumcision seem as barbaric and horrible as possible.

But then when they try and compare it to female circumcision, and someone points out how much worse FGM can be, they are quick to downplay female genital mutilation and make it seem like the extreme forms of it almost never happen and it's almost always a mild procedure.

...snip...

Well I certainly would never downplay female genital mutilation so nothing of what you say applies to any argument or comments I have made, what you are embarking on is an extended strawman since it has nothing to do with what I have said or argued.

I also do not like to downplay male genital mutilation like many people by using a culturally sanitised name i.e. "circumcision".

So these people try and make things seem as bad as possible for men, but then consistantly downplay how bad it is for women. These is an inherently mysogenistic tactic. It's saying that men are so much more important that women than even slightly diminishing their ability to enjoy sex by foreskin removal is the equivilant of making a woman INCAPABLE of enjoying sex.

When I come across "these people" I shall be sure to let you know.

You also do not seem aware of the history of male genital mutilation in countries like the UK and the USA - it has been at times promoted as a way of preventing masturbation, in other words one of the reasons for it was to control male sexual activity.

The reason for pointing out the appropriate comparisons between male and female genital mutilation practices is to try and remove the cultural sanitation that has happened in regards to male genital mutilation. (Which was one of the reasons why the term "female circumcision" was dropped by the early "western" activist against the practice.)

Furthermore, the POINT of female cicrumcision is to control a woman's sexuality. The point of a male circumcision is for health reasons and cultural traditions.

You may be surprised to learn that the proponents of female genital mutilation give the same reasons as you do for male genital mutilation but in their case it is for why female genital mutilation is practised.

Do you start to see what I mean about appropriate comparisons?

Keep in mind, I'm not saying this to justify male circumcision. I just think that comparing it to FGM and trying to make it seem as if the world is "hypocritical" by being against FGM while there isn't nearly so much of an outcry against MC is a patently dishonest tactic.

That you view a female's genitalia as being of more intrinsic importance than a male's genitalia is not a view I share. I believe it is wrong to mutilate anyone's genitalia regardless of their sex or gender.

 

[Darat]

I believe there is an exception to this, and that is cultural. My d-i-l is Ecuadorian and both of her girls had their ears pierced at a very young age. I live in an area with a large hispanic population and I have noticed most of their daughters have pierced ears before they are old enough to walk.

I'm not passing judgement, just making a statement.

Julia

I think that illustrates how what is "acceptable" varies from culture to culture, and how it changes.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Well, I've seen infants (usually female) in the US with pierced ears. While I'm fairly sure no M.D.s were involved, AFAIK, there are no criminal penalties for doing so.

While I don't really approve of piercing infants' ears, I don't know if ear piercing qualifies as permanent body modification.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

You may be surprised to learn that the proponents of female genital mutilation give the same reasons as you do for male genital mutilation but in their case it is for why female genital mutilation is practised

Did you not read my post? Yes, these are the reasons given for both, but the most common reaons for women are NOT true (the clitoris growing out of control, for instance, or the clitoris having an effect on the woman's overall health). Whereas the male circumcision DOES lessen the chance of STDs and DOES make it easier to clean. Now again, this isn't justification, because circumcision is certainly not NECESSARY to get these benefits (cleanliness or STD prevention- infact, relying on circumcision alone for STD prevention would certainly be a horrible idea). But they do have a basis in reality.


You also ignored my point that one of the most (if not the MOST common) point of female circumcision is to control a woman's sexuality by making her not WANT to have sex and that this is not the point of male circumsicion.

That you view a female's genitalia as being of more intrinsic importance than a male's genitalia is not a view I share. I believe it is wrong to mutilate anyone's genitalia regardless of their sex or gender.

This is a completely dishonest interpretation of what I said, and I think you know that, Darat.

Of course a woman's genitalia is no more special than a man's. I am talking about the EFFECT of mutilation.

I specificaly stated that I agree that type 1 is comparable to male circumcision. And I certainly don't view this COMPARABLE type of circumcision as being any worse than a man's.

But having your clitoris cut off IS worse than having the foreskin of the penis cut off (just as it is also worse than Type 1 female genital mutilation) because the effects of this procedure are completely different. Removal of the clitoris (and labia at times as well) in type two PREVENTS a woman from being able to enjoy sex. The more extreme types even make sex extremely painful, and can create lifelong complications and dangers from things like urination, menstration, sex, and child birth. Type 1 Female genital mutilation does not do this, nor does male circumcision. Thus Type II genital mutilation is worse that both male circumcision and Type I female circumcision.

Things are not black and white. Two things can both be bad while one thing is worse. Slapping your kid is bad. Burning your kid in the fact with a hot poker is worse. If I say that burning a girl with a hot poker is worse than slapping a boy in the face, this is not me saying that girls faces have more inherent value than boy's faces. It is saying that the hot poker is worse simply because it causes more physical damage.

But it is and has been for centuries (at least) treated as the same level of male genital mutilation in many, many cultures and societies. The widespread view of female genital mutilation in countries like the UK and the USA is a very recent development. Again the fact that many people are misinformed about the majority of female genital mutilation is something that should be corrected

Okay, that one I'll give you, in a historical context. But I'm talking about today. I mean if Type 1 had been the only type of circumcision which has ever existed and still exists, it would probably not have the outcry it does today (in that it is much greater than the outcry against male circumcision).

Some genital mutilation does include the above but as I said not all and in fact that represents the minority of such mutilations.

I said myself, in my own post, that the most EXTREME version yes is rare.

However, YOU yourself said that Type II is one of the most common kinds. Type II is the removal of clitoris (and in some cases, labia). Yet again, when you pointed out Types I or Type II, you only described Type I while leaving out a description of Type II. This, again, is a mysogenistic tactic used to downplay the suffering of women- all while you are making an argument trying to emphasize the suffering of men. Why do you downplay the suffering of women? Why did you only describe type I and try and fail to described type 2?


Ultimately, the only thing male circumcision is a fair comparison to is type one female circumcision. It is not comparable to all other types of female circumcision because, even when done correctly, male circumcision does not prevent the enjoyment of sex while non type I female circumcision does.


All I am looking for from you is this admission:

Male circumcision is comparable to type I female circumcision, which is amongst the most common type

However, it is not comparable (and neither is type I female circumcision for that matter) to the kinds of female circumcisions which is what people get so enraged about - those which are designed specifically to prevent the woman from enjoying sex, and in some cases, even cause sex (and other basic bodily functions) to be extremely painful or even dangerous. This is because the effects of Type II and beyond of female circumcision simply DO NOT OCCUR with type I female circumcision, nor with male circumcision (assuming the procedure is done correctly without complications).

Are they both mutilations? Yes. But you can't just ignore the degree of suffering and the permanent effects. Would you think it would be appropriate for a woman who had her butt grabbed in the subway to compare herself to a rape victim because they are both sexual assaults?

 

[Darat]

Did you not read my post? ..snip...

Your first question is "Did you not read my post?" - can i suggest you go back and actually read mine and respond to what I posted not to what you have imagined I have posted? I think that is only polite.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Your first question is "Did you not read my post?" - can i suggest you go back and actually read mine and respond to what I posted not to what you have imagined I have posted? I think that is only polite.

You didn't say much at all. What you said is that male circumcision is a fair comparison to female circumcision. My argument is that they are not comparable unless you are only talking about Type I.

Do you agree with me that it is only comparable to Type 1 circumcision, and that neither male circumcision nor type 1 female circumcisions are comparable to to all other types of female circumcisions in terms of the devastating physical effects (i.e. the types that cause worldwide outrage and condemnation)? If that is what you were saying, then we do agree with eachother and I misunderstood you.


You post just seems very contradictory to me, which is the source of my confusion. Iknownothing said that female circumcision (speaking generally of all types) is not a fair comparison to male circumcision. You then said "it is a very fair comparison" but then went on to say that "type I is very comparable to male circumcision." But then you made a point of saying that type 2 is also one of the most common (though again, you negelcted to define it, while making sure to define the less severe type). So given that fact, where you seem to acknowledge that type 1 is the only type that is comparable to male circumcision...I don't know why you state that comparing FGM *as a whole* (as I knownothing was doing in his post) was a "very fair comparison" to male circumcision.


Though I still do not understand why you said that type I and type II are most common and only defined type I. To me, that still seems like you are trying to downplay the suffering of women by only defining the lesser of these two practices. Did you do to this in order specify that you ONLY thought type I is the one that's comparable to male circumcision...as opposed to trying to make it seem like women who undergo FGM rarely have their clitoris excized? If this is the case, than certainly my classification of this statement as mysogenistic was wrong and I do apologize.

This is a completely dishonest interpretation of what I said, and I think you know that, Darat.

Of course a woman's genitalia is no more special than a man's. I am talking about the EFFECT of mutilation.

I specificaly stated that I agree that type 1 is comparable to male circumcision. And I certainly don't view this COMPARABLE type of circumcision as being any worse than a man's.

But having your clitoris cut off IS worse than having the foreskin of the penis cut off (just as it is also worse than Type 1 female genital mutilation) because the effects of this procedure are completely different. Removal of the clitoris (and labia at times as well) in type two PREVENTS a woman from being able to enjoy sex. The more extreme types even make sex extremely painful, and can create lifelong complications and dangers from things like urination, menstration, sex, and child birth. Type 1 Female genital mutilation does not do this, nor does male circumcision. Thus Type II genital mutilation is worse that both male circumcision and Type I female circumcision.

Things are not black and white. Two things can both be bad while one thing is worse. Slapping your kid is bad. Burning your kid in the fact with a hot poker is worse. If I say that burning a girl with a hot poker is worse than slapping a boy in the face, this is not me saying that girls faces have more inherent value than boy's faces. It is saying that the hot poker is worse simply because it causes more physical damage.

Can you at least admit that I never stated that women's genitalia is more inherently special than a man and that your saying so was a dishonest interpretation (or at least a misinterpretation) to what I said?