To cut, or not to cut.

[Pearly Di]

I pointed this out before. One procedure is statistically disease reducing. In other words there is an objective benefit to it.

The other is statistically disease inducing. There is an objective detriment to it.

The point that circumsized men seem on the whole to be neutral in their attitude to it and that women who have undergone FGM loathe it seems to have been buried in distractive cultural relativism.

This.

Al, I understand the logic of your argument but I just don't see male circumcision as being on the same level as FGM ... for all the reasons that Tosh said. It's not because what I think what happens to women's bodies is more important than what happens to men's.

It's because ... well, Tosh said it all.

[nerdanel]

So far, here's where I'm at:

(1) I'm persuaded - both by this discussion and by the fact that I just spent the entire weekend reading judicial decisions on FGM asylum claims* - that there is no equivalence between FGM, as performed in real life throughout Africa and in parts of the Middle East, and male circumcision, as performed in the West, of the sort that San Francisco may choose to ban. The purposes of FGM are far more malignant and the effects on the victims are devastatingly different. The proponents of male circumcision bans will only alienate me by attempting to establish an equivalence between the two procedures.

(2) The fact that male circumcision is nowhere near as egregious as FGM says nothing about whether it, too, is "right" or "wrong". Obviously, it could be less egregious but still wrong. On one hand, I find the right to personal autonomy argument quite persuasive. On the other hand, I appreciated Prim's point about the need for parents to make medical decisions for underage children. I also appreciated the links that Jewel provided, which demonstrate that a reasonable parent could decide that it was to the child's lifelong medical benefit to be circumcised in infancy. Finally, the procedure does not seem to impair men's desire or enthusiasm for sex, nor does it make sex painful for men (contrast FGM).

(3) At this point, given that the medical evidence is inconclusive (but that some of it continues to favor circumcision); that the procedure can now be performed near-painlessly with anesthetic; and that the resounding majority of men in my Western patriarchal society either favor the procedure or do not oppose it, I think I would vote against any absolute ban at this point. This is not the same thing as "supporting" circumcision; I still don't believe that I have any right or need to do so. However, if called upon to decide as a voter, I would vote to leave the decision to the parents, I think.

* Almost done with reading every US judicial decision on FGM asylum (something I would not recommend doing) - and then I get to do it all over again with the UK body of caselaw.

[Alatar]

Al, I understand the logic of your argument but I just don't see male circumcision as being on the same level as FGM ... for all the reasons that Tosh said. It's not because what I think what happens to women's bodies is more important than what happens to men's.

It's because ... well, Tosh said it all.

Ignore the FGM issue. Its unrelated. I asked about appendectomies and tonsil removal. Would you support those? Thuis is about removing healthy tissue on the very minimal off chance that it might cause problems later. Lets be clear about this. Its not being done for medical reasons, but for cultural ones.

[Pearly Di]

Ignore the FGM issue. Its unrelated. I asked about appendectomies and tonsil removal. Would you support those?

No.

Thuis is about removing healthy tissue on the very minimal off chance that it might cause problems later. Lets be clear about this. Its not being done for medical reasons, but for cultural ones.

You're right. It is.

And I don't see it as equivalent to FGM because one is a lot more horrific than the other. For all the reasons that Tosh -- and Nel -- have said.

[Alatar]

And I agree with you on that.


I still don't think circumcision is justified in todays society. Its an outmoded solution to a problem from centuries past.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I feel sorry for men who have had their genitalia mutilated through the removal of their foreskin. I admire their stoicism in not complaining about the reduction in sensation during coitus, but then I realise that, like Alatar's inability to hear in stereo, they simply cannot appreciate what they are missing. Exactly like those women who have had FGM; they can only understand what they are missing via the anecdotal stories of others.

I am rather attached to my foreskin, and I am eternally grateful it is still attached to me!

On a medical issue...

It is a fact that dental problems can produce severe, even life threatening, secondary physical ailments. Not that long ago (within the last hundred years or so), poor people would routinely have all their teeth removed in their late teens/early twenties (usually before marriage) as a preventative medical measure. No teeth equalled no possibility of dental related ailments later for which they were too impoverished to afford treatment. Of course, not everyone would have experienced such future ailments, but prevention is better than cure, even on the off chance.

Nowadays, the precedure is not performed. The need has gone. And the same is true of male genital mutilation (circumcision). Possible health issues (and the jury is out) can be treated. There is no need for the drastic preventative action of removing a part of the body that results in impaired sexual pleasure. It seems that one of the only reasons it is still performed is, like FGM, because of ancient cultural imperatives that should rightfully be treated as anachronistic, and abusive.

[axordil]

I admire their stoicism in not complaining about the reduction in sensation during coitus, but then I realise that, like Alatar's inability to hear in stereo, they simply cannot appreciate what they are missing. Exactly like those women who have had FGM; they can only understand what they are missing via the anecdotal stories of others.

This is pretty damn condescending. Good day.

[nerdanel]

In addition to Ax's point, with which I agree, it's almost laughable to announce that women who have FGM "can only understand what they are missing through the anecdotal stories of others." Many of the women who have either escaped the procedure, or undergone it whilst being forcefully restrained ... are more worried about things like being able to use the bathroom without excruciating pain. Or, nonconsensual sex in which their crudely-sewn-together (infibulated) labia are ripped open by their partners' genitalia. Sure, they may ALSO be missing out of the joys of consensual sex with fully functioning clitoris and labia ... but seriously, that usually doesn't come first, second, third, or tenth on the list of Major Medical Issues they're trying to address. Your comment shows how utterly ill-informed your inaccurate analogy is.

[JewelSong]

I asked about appendectomies and tonsil removal. Would you support those? Thuis is about removing healthy tissue on the very minimal off chance that it might cause problems later.

To answer Alatar's question: Appendectomies involve general anesthesia, an operating time of at least an hour, an incision that can be 3 inches long, cutting into the body cavity, cutting away internal tissue and organs , several layers of stitches and a week in the hospital. (They don't remove tonsils so much anymore.)

A circumcision is done in minutes, using a local anesthetic and a small scalpel.

If the appendix was conveniently located on the outside of the body and could be snipped off using a local and surgical scissors, they probably would do it at birth.

That's why.

[Alatar]

And given the fact that they've just realised "Hey, this appendix actually is still useful, and not a leftover from evolution as we thought", is a good reason why surgeons shouldn't go lopping healthy bits of body off willy nilly!

(If you'll pardon the pun )

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I admire their stoicism in not complaining about the reduction in sensation during coitus, but then I realise that, like Alatar's inability to hear in stereo, they simply cannot appreciate what they are missing. Exactly like those women who have had FGM; they can only understand what they are missing via the anecdotal stories of others.

This is pretty damn condescending. Good day.

Actually, it was a direct response to the condescension being freely meted out by those who treat male genital mutilation as "no big thing". And a good day to you...

And nerdanel, you confuse so many issues, especially of procedure, with the surgical act itself. The irony is that I oppose, wholeheartedly, FGM, but I also oppose, wholeheartedly, MGM. It seems that there is a need for those who at least equivocate over MGM to find excuses why it is trivial, and should be allowed, whilst invoking the most blood-curdling examples of AGM to support their belief in the horror and necessity for this practice to be abolished.

I think there is a gender political agenda involved, and it is a sign of the desperation of the sensationalists that they need recourse to accuse me of having a "lack of understanding". Perhaps if they removed the plank from their eyes...

The argument seems to be "Male circumcision is OK because we do it. Female circumcision isn't Ok because we don't do it."

The rest is just window dressing.

In my opinion...

[Nin]

Just a small question: as far as I know, circumcision never was widespread in Europe, as it was (or is?) in the US? Is there any statistical evidence of European men being more often infected than North-American men? Since 1950, in the UK circumcision is no longer paid by the NHS, so the numbers have decreased to less than 1%. Has it changed the number of infections? Finally, sometimes complications happen - and Sweden has legified on the question after the death of a baby after a circumcision. How many of the babies do actually suffer from complications?

Last, but not least, I don't think of male circumsion as the equivalent of female genitale mutilation. There is no possible benefit for women and it usually makes inevitable gestures of every day life (such as going to the bathroom...) painful and can make birth life-threatening. I don't think it's only a question of cultural acceptance. I really believe that FGM is more painful and far more dangerous.

None of my boys are circumcised, and I have never even seen a circumcised man in all my life. But my jewish cousins must be - never asked, though.

I don't know about forbiding it completely, but I think the operation should only be possible under anaesthesia and not an obligation or the norm - and not be paid by any health insurance, if it is done for anything else but health complications!

I never understood the idea of generalised circumcision like in the US. And despite having a son who has suffered from a severa renal infection in the first days of his life and urological problems, not a single doctor has ever proposed a circumcision.

[JewelSong]

The argument seems to be "Male circumcision is OK because we do it. Female circumcision isn't Ok because we don't do it."

If that's what you've gotten from this discussion, may I submit that you haven't been reading very carefully.

You have been trying to equate male and female "circumcision" and seem to be saying that they are the same in scope, complications, disability, etc. That having the male foreskin removed is just as horrific as having the labia and clitoris scraped off and the opening sewed together.

Much evidence has been produced to show you that the two things are not equal or even comparable. But you keep going on that point.

If you are opposed to male circumcision, it might be more helpful for your point if you stopped trying to "compare" it to other procedures. Saying, "Well, you are against THAT so it logically follows that you must be against THIS" is a kind of reasoning that isn't going to work.

[Alatar]

Which is what I was doing, and largely being ignored...

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

The argument seems to be "Male circumcision is OK because we do it. Female circumcision isn't Ok because we don't do it."

If that's what you've gotten from this discussion, may I submit that you haven't been reading very carefully.

You have been trying to equate male and female "circumcision" and seem to be saying that they are the same in scope, complications, disability, etc. That having the male foreskin removed is just as horrific as having the labia and clitoris scraped off and the opening sewed together.

Much evidence has been produced to show you that the two things are not equal or even comparable. But you keep going on that point.

If you are opposed to male circumcision, it might be more helpful for your point if you stopped trying to "compare" it to other procedures. Saying, "Well, you are against THAT so it logically follows that you must be against THIS" is a kind of reasoning that isn't going to work.

JewelSong, I have both condemned male genital mutilation independently, and absolutely, as well as condemning it relatively, and absolutely. I began with the former, and continued with the latter.

You are again guilty of invoking the blood curdling procedures as an absolute. To guide you to an understanding of the difference between procedure and outcome, I would present an alternative approach to FGM.

Rather than "having the labia and clitoris scraped off and the opening sewed together." how about a nice, confortable, sterile hospital, with anaesthetic and kindly, twinkle-eyed surgeon with team of kindly, twinkle-eyed nurses, gently and carefully removing labia and clitoris, carefully cauterizing the wound, and then providing A1 aftercare. Would this make the procedure OK? I'd hazard a guess that, like me, you'd say no. Which makes me think that the blood-curdling imagery that you and others routinely employ when describing FGM are purely for effect.

Well, that effect doesn't work on me. It is political argument, and I find it worthless.

I oppose AGM. And I oppose MGM. I find they are equivalently abusive, and should be banned absent informed consent from the recipient. It's that simple.

[vison]

I think when you get a speeding ticket on an empty road in the middle of nowhere the law should be as hard on you as when you run down pedestrians in a drunken stupor.

Both are reckless uses of the autombile, are they not?

[Alatar]

It would be really nice if people dropped the whole FGM issue and discussed Circumcision, since thats what the proposed law covers. The rest is distraction.

[JewelSong]

I think when you get a speeding ticket on an empty road in the middle of nowhere the law should be as hard on you as when you run down pedestrians in a drunken stupor.

Both are reckless uses of the autombile, are they not?

vison, I tried that analogy with the loaded gun in the hands of a high-school student and the 5-year old with a water pistol. Both are weapons, are they not? Both should result in immediate expulsion from school.

But Mr. Ghân did not seem to get it...or, at least, he said he didn't understand.

[elfshadow]

I feel sorry for men who have had their genitalia mutilated through the removal of their foreskin. I admire their stoicism in not complaining about the reduction in sensation during coitus, but then I realise that, like Alatar's inability to hear in stereo, they simply cannot appreciate what they are missing. Exactly like those women who have had FGM; they can only understand what they are missing via the anecdotal stories of others.

How would you know what sex feels like to circumcised males?

I agree that because of modern medical advancements, there is no longer any reason for most male babies to be circumcised. So, as Alatar argued, it is in this way similar to preemptive tonsil removal or appendectomy. However, I don't see this as an argument that circumcision is wrong. Kids used to get their tonsils removed all the time, back when antibiotics were less effective and a lot more people got serious tonsillitis. It was a logical thing to do considering the medical technology of the time. Eventually, it was no longer necessary to remove everyone's tonsils, because we know more now than we did then. Same with circumcision. Its main reasons for becoming popular are becoming obsolete. (Note that I do not think religion is the main reason why most parents in the West get their children circumcised.) This doesn't mean that parents who circumcised their children are somehow "mutilators". It means that parents made what was a sensible medical decision for their children years ago, but that such a decision no longer has as much support.

Still, I don't understand how you can absolutely equate circumcision with FGM, simply because of the reasons for the development of the two. If circumcision was only performed in this country and others for religious reasons, and there was no medical reason for the procedure, I would agree that the two would be akin. This is not the case. The vast majority of parents, I would bet, got their male children circumcised for medical reasons, just as many parents years ago would allow their child's tonsils to be removed preemptively--because of the medical arguments supporting it at the time. This is far different from FGM. The removal of the clitoris and labia has no medical benefits or even purported medical benefits, and is done solely to decrease sexual desire in females. Thus, it is a targeted attempt to decrease the quality of life of females. The same cannot be said of circumcision.

[vison]

It doesn't decrease sexual desire except, perhaps, in a psychological way. It makes intercourse so painful that a woman will probably not act on her desire, she is only a utility for a man to act on his.