Print
Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?
by Science Daily
Thanks to Ian Griffiths for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207120817.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2007) — Circumcision is one of the commonest surgical procedures performed on males. Opponents argue that infant circumcision can cause both physical and psychological harm, while recent evidence shows that circumcision is medically beneficial. Two doctors debate the issue in an article in the British Medical Journal.
There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision, yet ritual (non-therapeutic) male circumcision continues unchecked throughout the world, long after female circumcision, facial scarification, and other ritual forms of infant abuse have been made illegal, writes Geoff Hinchley, a consultant at Barnet & Chase Farm NHS Trust.
The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practise? he asks.
In addition to religious justification, there have been many spurious and now unsupported claims for circumcision including the prevention of penile cancer, masturbation, blindness, and insanity, most of which relate to adult sexual behaviour and not to the genital anatomy or best interest of a child, he adds.
There may be a case that male circumcision reduces HIV risk in sexually active adults, however the decision on whether an individual wishes to have this procedure should be left until they are old enough to make their own informed health care choices.
Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.
And in terms of legal protection, he argues that both the US and the UK legal systems discriminate between the sexes when it comes to protecting boys and girls from damaging ritual genital mutilation.
The unpalatable truth is that logic and the rights of the child play little part in determining the acceptability of male genital mutilation in our society, he writes. The profession needs to recognise this and champion the argument on behalf of boys that was so successful for girls.
But Kirsten Patrick of the BMJ argues that, if competently performed, circumcision carries little risk and cannot be compared with female circumcision.
Although any surgical operation can be painful and do harm, the pain of circumcision, if done under local anaesthesia, is comparable to that from an injection for immunisation, she writes.
In terms of evidence of benefit, male circumcision has been associated with a reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis. Robust research has also shown that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV.
And although the complication rate for infant circumcision is essentially unknown (because most operations are unregistered) data suggest that it is between 0.2% and 3%, with most complications being minor. Furthermore, she says, no robust research exists examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision.
Despite the fact that no medical body advocates routine male infant circumcision, most agree that it is safe and acceptable and recommend that the procedure is carried out by a competent operator using adequate anaesthesia.
Male circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world. It is a choice that parents will make on behalf of their male children, for cultural or other reasons, and regulating its provision is the wisest course of action, she concludes.
An accompanying clinical review concludes that medical indications for male circumcision in both childhood and adulthood are rare, but that complications can be drastic.
Adapted from materials provided by BMJ-British Medical Journal.
Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071207120817.htm
ScienceDaily (Dec. 8, 2007) — Circumcision is one of the commonest surgical procedures performed on males. Opponents argue that infant circumcision can cause both physical and psychological harm, while recent evidence shows that circumcision is medically beneficial. Two doctors debate the issue in an article in the British Medical Journal.
There is now rarely a therapeutic indication for infant circumcision, yet ritual (non-therapeutic) male circumcision continues unchecked throughout the world, long after female circumcision, facial scarification, and other ritual forms of infant abuse have been made illegal, writes Geoff Hinchley, a consultant at Barnet & Chase Farm NHS Trust.
The law and principles pertaining to child protection should apply equally to both sexes, so why do society and the medical profession collude with this unnecessary mutilating practise? he asks.
In addition to religious justification, there have been many spurious and now unsupported claims for circumcision including the prevention of penile cancer, masturbation, blindness, and insanity, most of which relate to adult sexual behaviour and not to the genital anatomy or best interest of a child, he adds.
There may be a case that male circumcision reduces HIV risk in sexually active adults, however the decision on whether an individual wishes to have this procedure should be left until they are old enough to make their own informed health care choices.
Male genital mutilation is not a risk-free procedure, he adds. Far from being a harmless traditional practice, circumcision damages young boys.
And in terms of legal protection, he argues that both the US and the UK legal systems discriminate between the sexes when it comes to protecting boys and girls from damaging ritual genital mutilation.
The unpalatable truth is that logic and the rights of the child play little part in determining the acceptability of male genital mutilation in our society, he writes. The profession needs to recognise this and champion the argument on behalf of boys that was so successful for girls.
But Kirsten Patrick of the BMJ argues that, if competently performed, circumcision carries little risk and cannot be compared with female circumcision.
Although any surgical operation can be painful and do harm, the pain of circumcision, if done under local anaesthesia, is comparable to that from an injection for immunisation, she writes.
In terms of evidence of benefit, male circumcision has been associated with a reduced risk of sexually transmitted infections, such as human papilloma virus, chancroid and syphilis. Robust research has also shown that circumcision can reduce the spread of HIV.
And although the complication rate for infant circumcision is essentially unknown (because most operations are unregistered) data suggest that it is between 0.2% and 3%, with most complications being minor. Furthermore, she says, no robust research exists examining the long term psychological effects of male infant circumcision.
Despite the fact that no medical body advocates routine male infant circumcision, most agree that it is safe and acceptable and recommend that the procedure is carried out by a competent operator using adequate anaesthesia.
Male circumcision is not illegal anywhere in the world. It is a choice that parents will make on behalf of their male children, for cultural or other reasons, and regulating its provision is the wisest course of action, she concludes.
An accompanying clinical review concludes that medical indications for male circumcision in both childhood and adulthood are rare, but that complications can be drastic.
Adapted from materials provided by BMJ-British Medical Journal.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, December 9, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 119 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #96038 by rgpratt on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 pm
A few months ago the (Toronto) Globe and Mail published my letter to the editor, in response to a particularly galling defense of male circumcision:
Ken Finkelstein (Letters, May 23rd) reports his wife's justification for male circumcision is "to give the boys a permanent happy face". As frivolous as this is, it is infinitely more rationale than the traditional faith-based claim (the unanswerable "because God says so"). Neither argument does much to convince me that it was a good idea when my own foreskin was sliced off 50 years ago.
All I can say is that the less frivolous but equally galling defense given by Kirsten Patrick is atrocious. How on earth can any physician defend a purposeless, painful surgical procedure by stating that it carries little risk, and that there is no research on the long term psychological effects?
I don't suppose Dr. Patrick has a clue as to how an uncircumcised penis might feel when competing in a long distance cycling event, eh? Lets not get into the question of sexual satisfaction.
OK, bring on the jokes about going off "half-cocked" ...
Other Comments by rgpratt
3. Comment #96046 by Diacanu on December 9, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?
Yep.
And it's laughable that religion came up with it.
The designer of the universe just couldn't manage penises.
They need to be tinkered with a bit afterward.
Other Comments by Diacanu
4. Comment #96047 by GSP on December 9, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Ha! I was just thinking about this today on my drive home from work... wishing I still had my foreskin. I don't see justification for it. I see superficial justifications, supposed health justifications, religious justifications. But none of them hold water. As for the health justifications, why not just cut the whole thing off? Then you are guaranteed no ill health effects (barring infection).It is a painful process being born. In the womb we are probably at our most comfortable, more so than at any other time in our lives. And then birth, under bright artificial lights, switched from one person's hands to another, and then being taken from your mother, and then pumped full of immunizations, and then getting sick because of it, and then, to top it all off, then chop part of your penis off. I mean, come on!
Sexually also, circumcised men have been shafted (no pun intended). How many nerve endings do we lose because of the Jewish faith. I'm pissed!
Other Comments by GSP
5. Comment #96049 by Spinoza on December 9, 2007 at 9:47 pm
GSP, your last statement is not really based on any evidence.The original motivations for circumcision are crazy, yes... (it has always been amusing to think of how it must have come about...)
However, to say that it's automatically a negative is a bit odd...
Seems to me that the data says that circumcised orgasms are just as intense as non-circumcised...
Not only that, but one could make the case that circumcision allows one to last longer in bed...
It's a tough question, certainly...
I probably won't circumcise my kid(s)...
Other Comments by Spinoza
6. Comment #96051 by tacitus on December 9, 2007 at 9:55 pm
The silliest argument here in the US is the one where parents say that they don't want their sons laughed at for looking different when showering or in the changing room after sports.First, nearly half the boys born today in the USA are uncircumcised, so they are hardly likely to be alone, and anyway, from what I remember from those days, boys only obsessed about two things -- length and the amount of hair!
Other Comments by tacitus
7. Comment #96053 by Quine on December 9, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Just let them decide for themselves when they get old enough for piercings and tattoos and other ritual scarification. Other Comments by Quine
8. Comment #96055 by GSP on December 9, 2007 at 10:22 pm
SpinozaGSP, your last statement is not really based on any evidence.
I thought you were talking about my "I'm pissed." I got confused there for a second. :)
But...
Seems to me that the data says that circumcised orgasms are just as intense as non-circumcised...
I don't disagree here. I am sure they probably are. It's the "getting there" part that I think is affected (although I could be wrong). I imagine if we found a way to give a woman whom has had her clitoris removed an orgasm, it would be just as intense as a woman who hadn't had it removed. It's the getting there part that is the problem...
Other Comments by GSP
9. Comment #96057 by kevin_2050 on December 9, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Yes. Optional surgery is for those who have attained years of sufficient discretion to decide for themselves whether they want it or not, and without undue parental or other social pressures at that. All these other, cultural considerations are so much chaff and twaddle.How many males of adolescent age or older, given the choice, and without societal pressures brought to bear upon them, would freely choose circumcision?
How many parents would happily accede to their children choosing to, say, have their tongues slit or their earlobes severed? Damn few, I'll bet. Parents generally don't allow their kids that kind of discretion over their own bodies. They might consider, rightly, that that sort of thing is not likely to age well, and that their child may in time come to regret it. Even children getting ears or noses pierced is doubtless an issue for many parents.
Yet the same parents gladly inflict upon their sons a genital alteration that can never be adequately reversed by any subsequent decision by the boy. What is the difference between these two forms of bodily mutilation, one by choice, and therefore not a violation of the child's will, the other an irreversible change in which the child is seldom or never consulted? How much doubt is there, really, that the essential difference is religiously-based tradition?
I gather there are some instances in which legitimate medical reasons require circumcision. I'm not talking about those cases. With relatively few exceptions, baby boys' prepuces are snipped only and exclusively because Abraham and the various one-and-only ruler[s] of the universe that he services want them snipped.
Other Comments by kevin_2050
10. Comment #96062 by Spinoza on December 9, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Is it just me, or are those guys who use weights and stuff to try and create a new foreskin FUCKING INSANE?That shit is even weirder than circumcision is in the first place!
... oh, and as for the "getting there"... that was my point, it can be seen as beneficial, in that uncircumcised men might "get there" too quickly.
Other Comments by Spinoza
11. Comment #96063 by MuNky82 on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 pm
Didn't Hitch mention something like "hacking at the genitals of a male baby with a sharp stone" ?Cutting off the center three toes of your foot will decrease your chances of an Athlete's Foot infection, but one still maintains balance.
This is what the arguments for circumcision sounds like to me. A bit ridiculous, no? Don't want HIV? Wear a condom when you are having an one-night-stand!
Other Comments by MuNky82
12. Comment #96064 by dlitt on December 9, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I pitty the skinless wanker. Historically, we told boys of all the evil that would befall them if they masturbated. Then we'd lop off their skin to make it more difficult.Few adult men choose the operation. Far fewer than have it chosen for them as infants.
Kirsten Patrick, I assume is female, and should have no say in the matter of male mutilation. If she prefers a skinless willy she should buy one at a sex shop.
Other Comments by dlitt
13. Comment #96065 by Ohnhai on December 9, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Ok, if 'acceptable is that the procedure is relatively 'harmless' if carried out properly and doesn't overly inconvenience the child in later life, let's start a religion where we demand it is our right and God's command that we remove the little finger on the left hand of our children...The reason all genital mutilation of infants is not covered by a flat out ban isthat no one wants to face the demented honking cries of anti-Semitism from the politically correct and the Jewish lobby.
You are not allowed to criticise this religion and god forbid (quite literally) that you should try and interfere with their divinely mandated practices.
Other Comments by Ohnhai
14. Comment #96067 by Marie-Louise on December 9, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Spinoza,what you consider an advantage could also be a drawback that a mutilated man "get there" too slowly. Aspecially when you are not a teenager any longer.I much prefer having sex with a man who is not mutilated !
Other Comments by Marie-Louise
15. Comment #96069 by Diacanu on December 9, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Well, I'm snipped, and I gotta deal with the cards I was dealt.*Shrug*
I run into a chick shallow enough to dump me over my pecker size or shape, well, piss off, bitch.
Life's too short to trifle with such infantile biases.
Maybe all you dames out there who this stuff is a dealbreaker for could wear a bracelet or something so I can avoid you?
Other Comments by Diacanu
16. Comment #96072 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Why is this even a question?Other Comments by BMMcArdle
17. Comment #96073 by kraut on December 9, 2007 at 11:41 pm
"But Kirsten Patrick of the BMJ argues that, if competently performed, circumcision carries little risk and cannot be compared with female circumcision."What the fuck does she know? Just let a male make such a stupid assumption about their clit and the feminazis are all over him - ready for castration.
My pecker stays intact. And my son's too. I have gotten enough parts cut off already...
Other Comments by kraut
18. Comment #96075 by Theocrapcy on December 9, 2007 at 11:56 pm
The crux of the issue is that either way men don't complain because although harmless cirumcision is abuse but men who grow up that way don;t know any different, and uncircumcised men don;t care, and both wouldn't have it any other way. I personally think it must cause some kind of loss of sensation after a while, and I'm glad I have my full birth quota, and I have friends who went through it at a young age who had it done by some "expert" in the community and end up with bending and scars.
At the end of the day it is a cultural thing, steeped in religion, and the child simply has no say in it. In my opinion, the law needs to step in and demand that parents can no longer make this decision, and if a fella wants it done after the age of consent, then that's their problem.
If we were to cut off our babies earlobes (which is less dangerous) we'd be arrested, but if you want to chop the end off of the most sensitive and delicate part of your child's body, sure go right ahead, after all it's a religious tradition! Knock yourself out.
I mean it literally, knock yourself out and wake up with a freaking clue.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
19. Comment #96076 by RickM on December 9, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Not only that, but one could make the case that circumcision allows one to last longer in bed...Quite the opposite. Just think about the mechanics of copulation. On the withdrawal stroke the foreskin moves forward partially or fully (depending), somewhat reducing the friction and stimulation required to reach orgasm. I strongly suspect premature ejaculation occurs more frequently with circumcision. How could a raw penis head (where all the nerves are) not be over stimulated relative to a natural one?
I'm 63 yo and was not circumcised. I have always been single and had more then my share of relations with our wonderful opposites and have never had any problems with being uncircumcised. (It's not an important point here, but with respect to oral sex, it is certainly more beneficial being uncircumcised.)
Hope I haven't grossed out the ladies.
Anyway, being circumcised, to me, would be like landing with your gear up. (Pilot humor.)
If we are ever to achieve civil rights for little children (religious brainwashing, etc.), then perhaps this business about circumcision may be the place to start.
PS – Just one more reason to loathe the priest class (IMHO).
Other Comments by RickM
20. Comment #96077 by roach on December 10, 2007 at 12:00 am
I guess it is. I mean, the child doesn't choose to have this done to him and there really are no benefits. But this act is not even in the same ballpark s female genital mutilation. In order to be equally monstrous, they'd have to chop off the entire head of the penis.I'm snipped. I really don't care.
Other Comments by roach
21. Comment #96078 by Theocrapcy on December 10, 2007 at 12:03 am
Oh, and I think a PROPER, govt funded scientific study needs to be done, using a large sample of the population, and get the FACTS about the effects of circumcision, and bring raise consciousness about it. Not just the kind of conjecture and platitudes we seem to get from so called experts.If (as I suspect) it comes down to a basic choice depending on which cultural heritage you were brought up in, then that could lead the way to regulation, as there are precedents.
And why someone hasn't sued there parents over this yet is amazing.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
22. Comment #96079 by kraut on December 10, 2007 at 12:06 am
"chop off the entire head of the penis"excuse me - what does the clitoris have to do with an actually functioning part of a womans anatomy? The foreskin clearly protects the tip of your penis, has some role during intercourse and cutting it off removes that protection. What does the clitoris protect? It is just a penis leftover, completely non functional - except good for stimulation.
Other Comments by kraut
23. Comment #96082 by Marie-Louise on December 10, 2007 at 12:11 am
Diacanu,I did not mean I was going to dump someone I was in love with because he was mutilated.
I just wanted to point to the drawbacks of male mutilation and by doing so contribute to this habit beeing abolished.
Sorry if you were hurt.
Other Comments by Marie-Louise
24. Comment #96084 by Theocrapcy on December 10, 2007 at 12:14 am
'Not only that, but one could make the case that circumcision allows one to last longer in bed...'How the heck do you know that? What do you take uncircumcised men for, that we walk around ejaculating all over the shop with no control over it? Talk about contributing to the myths.
I certainly stand (pardon the pun) as proof this is just nonsense. In fact, it is quite possible that sex for uncircumcised men is far more enjoyable (longevity has many other factors to consider). Without getting too personal (don't read on if you're peevish), sometimes it hasn't retreated fully after zipping up, for whatever reason, and it is the most uncomfortable feeling - until promptly adjusted - and I certainly couldn't imagine having the end exposed on a full time basis, getting clattered about with all that friction.
Circumcision is not common in Europe (my background) and maybe it's no coincidence they have a reputation as better lovers. That's just as reasonable a conclusion as the opposite arguments anyway.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
25. Comment #96085 by Theocrapcy on December 10, 2007 at 12:15 am
@kraut : "except good for stimulation"wow, you must know very little about women.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
26. Comment #96087 by kraut on December 10, 2007 at 12:26 am
wow, you must know very little about women.ok wise guy - you go ahead and point out to me the anatomical and functional importance of a clit.
But why do some folks fall into this trap again of comparing two evils? It is like - who was worse, adolph or josef(ph). Both circumcisions are just an outrage, and to belittle one in order to stress the claimed worse instance is just wrong.
Keep in mind that female circumcision usually happens shortly before puberty, while male circumcision happens in the newborn stage.
Just hear the scream of prepubescent boys being circumcised under the same circumstances.
What makes me cackle with delight that, in the jewish persuasion the foreskin removal is sort of
handshake between the jewish idol and its deluded followers to agree to their "sacred" covenant. What a riot...
Other Comments by kraut
27. Comment #96088 by Theocrapcy on December 10, 2007 at 12:37 am
"ok wise guy - you go ahead and point out to me the anatomical and functional importance of a clit."as you said, stimulation, leading to orgasm. but you seem to think this is of little importance and is optional. scary.
Erm, a great number of circumcisions occur well after birth (sometimes at or near puberty), check your facts. Ive seen the video of my friend's moslem circumcision (with disgust), I think he was about 8 or 9 - I can assure you he knew exactly what was going on, the screams were proof enough of that. This is in Australia!
Some people really need to check their facts.
Other Comments by Theocrapcy
28. Comment #96090 by stereoroid on December 10, 2007 at 1:05 am
I didn't realize how endemic the practice was in the USA until that Sex & the City episode, in which one character was shocked to find her new boyfriend had a foreskin. She's never had a "Shar Pei" before, and ... couldn't handle it! The guy in question is also shocked by this, and decides to get circumcised then, weeks later, decides he shouldn't "waste" his new penis on just one woman... So what if it gives you a percent or two lowered risk of STD infection?
- That's a finding based on recent research, but where is that in the Torah or the Bible? Nowhere: it's no justification for the ancient practice.
- However, it plays right in to the hands of the Catholic anti-condom lobby. Condoms also prevent pregnancy, and we can't have that, can we? Be fruitful and multiply, and if you catch a fatal disease in the process, that's less important than procreation, isn't it?
- I can just see the happy parents now, as the Mohel bites down, thinking "when he grows up, unsafe sex will be a tiny bit less unsafe, maybe!" Oy...
Other Comments by stereoroid
29. Comment #96094 by will young on December 10, 2007 at 1:40 am
22. Comment #96079 by kraut on December 10, 2007 at 12:06 am - excuse me - what does the clitoris have to do with an actually functioning part of a womans anatomy?Part of my brain just dissolved!
Other Comments by will young
30. Comment #96102 by IanG on December 10, 2007 at 2:04 am
Of course cutting pieces off the penises of days-old boy babies for ritual purposes is child abuse.No ifs, buts or maybes.
It's reflective of the continuing power of taboo that religion holds in our society. In the absence of such a taboo this wouldn't even be a subject requiring any discussion.
Although anaesthetising the infant first would lessen the immediate pain, it would not lessen the moral and physical criminality.
Arguments about any possible, recently discovered, incidental health benefits are irrelevant when we are looking at rituals that have nothing to do with health arguments.
And yet, if we say so, it is we who are being outrageous; we who are being provocative; we who are acting inappropriately; we who should stop what we are doing.
Linking this to the Romney thread, would we challenge a Jewish Prime Minister or President to condemn the practice?
Interestingly, this article, which deals with both the medical and ritual motivations, raises some questions even about the medical procedure which is, overall, not risk–free and may have doubtful benefit. Given that, as far as I am aware, boy babies rarely have sex, it seems to me that any adult should be able to make an informed decision for himself when the time comes.
On this basis, even medically-suggested circumcision is probably child abuse unless the medical reason is specific and immediate, (for example, obstruction of urinary flow), rather than based upon some hypothetical future risk.
Other Comments by IanG
31. Comment #96104 by jonjermey on December 10, 2007 at 2:12 am
So the complication rate is between "0.2% and 3%" per year, is it? There must be well over a million circumcisions in the US per year so that means somewhere between two thousand and thirty thousand babies suffering and at risk -- totally unnecessarily! And the risks include coma and death - see http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror99.shtml, for instance.Other Comments by jonjermey
32. Comment #96105 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 2:26 am
Don't know what is the % of men who are "snip" in the Western world but I suspect it is much bigger than the Jewish population. If that is true all the rants about religious ritual are off the mark. There would have to be a lot of non Jews who are actually circumcised.I am from Asia, I was circumcised at around 10 years old but I have never heard of the Jewish commandment until I moved to Canada in my late teens. The doctor told my parents it was for health and hygienic reasons. He might have been wrong but religion got nothing to do with it.
Other Comments by Bonzai
33. Comment #96106 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 2:28 am
I hope Kirsten Patrick is being misrepresented, because she appears not to understand the point being made at all.Whether or not there are potential complications with male circumcision is a medical question.
Whether or not it is right to mutilate a child who cannot possibly consent to it is a moral question.
You cannot answer the second question simply by getting the right answer to the first.
On a not entirely unrelated point, every so often the BMA demands that boxing be banned. Why? Because the participants may suffer a brain injury. So, why don't they call for the banning of motor racing and rugby, which can also result in brain and other serious injuries? Because - and I quote - it is not the aim of the latter to inflict damage. The medical relevance of that point was not apparent.
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
34. Comment #96107 by PJG on December 10, 2007 at 2:29 am
Of course it is child abuse, we just need a test case. One of you circumcised chaps needs to sue your parents and church for actual bodily harm and child abuse(physical and sexual)- or whatever the equivalent is in your part of the world.So far a suggesting that the clitoris has no anatomical and functional importance, I suggest that most women would disagree rather vehemently and, personally, given the choice, I would rather lose an arm or leg!
Other Comments by PJG
35. Comment #96108 by Tycho the Dog on December 10, 2007 at 2:31 am
It's good that the balance of comments here is strongly against circumcision. A similar discussion as Pharyngula some months ago provoked a very large number of comments, and what was disturbing was how many sought to justify male genital mutilation on the grounds of cultural normality - a kind of unthinking 'well I had it done, so I'd get my son done' attitude. And drawing comparisons to female genital mutilation is entirely irrelevant to this topic - other than that they should both be regarded as totally unacceptable cultural/religious practices.
It's also disturbing that a female medical practitioner should be putting arguments in favour of male circumcision. It smacks of a sexist attitude that condones short-term domestic violence against males (in this case baby boys) as something that'll be good for them in the long run. And if anyone can explain why this isn't an act of violence I be interested to hear.
Other Comments by Tycho the Dog
36. Comment #96112 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 2:42 am
PJG - So far a suggesting that the clitoris has no anatomical and functional importance, I suggest that most women would disagree rather vehemently and, personally, given the choice, would rather lose an arm or leg!
If I may be so vulgar as to quote a former girlfriend:
"People say how great an Irish Catholic education is. It's rubbish. I was 17 before anyone told me I had a clitoris."
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
37. Comment #96113 by AdrianB on December 10, 2007 at 2:43 am
The last time this subject appeared, I was quite surprised to see that many people were quite unimpressed that it was a subject worth discussing at all. It soon became apparent that most of these people, Richard Dawkins himself included, turned out to be circumcised.Isn't this just a form of Stockholm syndrome at work? Sort of like the women who are coerced to wear a birqa, and then appear in front of the media to announce that it is their own choice?
It's a barbaric religious procedure that has continued with the help of memes. A circumcised father is likely to have his sons circumcised for religious reasons, because everybody else is doing the same, or to do otherwise could just sow the seeds of doubt about his own manhood.
Other Comments by AdrianB
38. Comment #96114 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 2:46 am
It's a barbaric religious procedure that has continued with the help of memes. A circumcised father is likely to have his sons circumcised for religious reasons, because everybody else is doing the same, or to do otherwise could just sow the seeds of doubt about his own manhood.
Then how do you explain the vast number of circumcised men who are not Jewish? I know quite a few circumcised non Jewish men and I can tell you this is utter nonsense.
BTW, I know it is not going to be popular in Rd.net here but "memes" is not even a scientific concept. It is only a notch better than magic spells and the holy spirit.
Other Comments by Bonzai
39. Comment #96118 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 3:03 am
Marie-Loise-Meh, s'alright, was just ranting out loud about some other bimbos I've overheard in discussions like this.
Nothing personal.
Other Comments by Diacanu
40. Comment #96122 by stereoroid on December 10, 2007 at 3:13 am
Then how do you explain the vast number of circumcised men who are not Jewish? I know quite a few circumcised non Jewish men and I can tell you this is utter nonsense.
Why is it our job to explain this? We already have plenty of non-Jewish fathers talking about "cultural norms", misplaced "hygiene" concerns - see the Pharyngula thread mentioned above. The parents who do this to their sons can speak for themselves, as they do. We also have the unspoken anti-masturbation ideas - also Biblical in origin - which I honestly would not have thought of by myself. Whatever they say, it doesn't make it right: millions of people CAN be wrong.
Other Comments by stereoroid
41. Comment #96125 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 3:18 am
Why is it our job to explain this?
Where did I say it is? But Adrain B offered an explanation voluntarily and I don't think it makes a lot of sense. If you don't want to explain that's cool, but if you present an explanation you should expect some questions.
Other Comments by Bonzai
42. Comment #96127 by Sam Slater on December 10, 2007 at 3:20 am
Isn't it weird how parents will happily consent to a baby having his foreskin hacked off, without thinking of the child, and yet, would be horrified of giving consent for that child to have a tattoo -even if it was what the child wanted- at a much older age?In the UK, it is illegal for any person under 18 to have a tattoo, but it's perfectly legal to hack away at a 6 month old baby's penis.
That child has to physically live with it's parents decision on circumcision for the rest of it's life. Surely, then, it should be the child's right to decide.
Other Comments by Sam Slater
43. Comment #96128 by AdrianB on December 10, 2007 at 3:21 am
Then how do you explain the vast number of circumcised men who are not Jewish? I know quite a few circumcised non Jewish men and I can tell you this is utter nonsense.
BTW, I know it is not going to be popular in Rd.net here but "memes" is not even a scientific concept. It is only a notch better than magic spells and the holy spirit.
Circumcision is a religious concept, however it has spread beyond the boundaries of religion as religion has retreated in the west. Up until relatively recently EVERY circumcised father had his sons circumcised as well for the reasons mentioned, and in the past EVERY father was religious.
In recent times more and more fathers have become non-religious, but the practice of circumcision has continued. You might know somebody that is circumcised that is not religious, but look back into his family history and you will find religion lurking as the cause.
The fact that circumcision continues amongst the non-religious is memes pure and simple, whether you like the concept or not this is probably one of the best examples.
If not memes, then what is your explanation?
Other Comments by AdrianB
44. Comment #96131 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 3:28 am
Up until relatively recently EVERY father had his son circumcised for the reasons mentioned, and in the past EVERY father was religious.
Yes, maybe almost all fathers were religious but certainly only relatively few were Jewish.You should have said almost all fathers were Christians.
I could be wrong but I am fairly sure that it is not a Christian practice to circumcise newborn males. There were stories about Jews being identified because of their circumcised penises in Nazi occupied Europe (BTW: this also indicates that circumcision was less common, not more when "fathers were more religious")
I think it would be a stretch to say that Judaic rituals and practices were very powerful "memes" in predominately Christian societies.
EDIT
So I don't think religion was an important reason why circumcision became popular after the war.
Other Comments by Bonzai
45. Comment #96137 by PJG on December 10, 2007 at 3:43 am
Hungarianelephant : If I may be so vulgar as to quote a former girlfriend:
"People say how great an Irish Catholic education is. It's rubbish. I was 17 before anyone told me I had a clitoris."
Heh heh!! I don't consider this vulgar. It just says a lot about Catholic education and upbringing. She may have found it but not have known its name... or she may have been warned she would burn in eternal flame if she touched "down there". Also, lots of 17 year olds might not know they have a temporal lobe, at least, might not be able to tell you where it is, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a function :) !
Other Comments by PJG
46. Comment #96138 by AdrianB on December 10, 2007 at 3:49 am
Bonzai, you don't get it do you? While ever EVERY circumcised father does the same to his sons then the practice will spread whatever the cause. Most certainly beyond the boundaries of the cause. It takes a lot of rational thought to break away from the cultural ritual, and thankfully we are starting to see the practice decrease in the US as it has already done so in Europe.In the US the cause was not Jewish as you seem to think I claim, but it was still religious. A certain cornflake pioneer had a lot of influence.
.
Other Comments by AdrianB
47. Comment #96139 by Peacebeuponme on December 10, 2007 at 3:50 am
SpinozaI probably won't circumcise my kid(s)...I really hope you reconsider the word probably. Surgical procedures on infants too young to decide for themselves should be on the basis of necessity.
Diacanu
Well, I'm snipped, and I gotta deal with the cards I was dealt.Of course. In adult life it shouldn't be a big deal either way. I don't think anyone should be suggesting that circumsised males should be treated differently, or indeed that there are any significant lasting psychological or physical effects (in the absence of evidence to the contrary). That's not the point. It's all about the right to choose for yourself. If I had a kid and decided I didn't like its earlobes, I doubt I would be able to find a surgeon willing to remove them for me.
*Shrug*
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
48. Comment #96141 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 3:56 am
While ever EVERY circumcised father does the same to his sons then the practice will spread whatever the cause
Whatever the cause, but it was not religion.
You try to reduce everything to the evil "meme" of religion I just prove to you that your model cannot be right. The facts don't support it.
In the US the cause was not Jewish as you seem to think I claim, but it is still religious
How so? Considering
1)America has always been predominately Christian and it is not a Christian concept to circumcise infants.
2) Circumcision apparently didn't become widespread until after WWII. Why? Americans were even more religious before.
P.S. I am not arguing for circumcision in case there is any misunderstanding,--even though personally I don't think that is that big a deal, I am cut. I just find your explanation unconvincing.
Other Comments by Bonzai
49. Comment #96142 by hungarianelephant on December 10, 2007 at 3:59 am
PJG - Actually I was concerned about the vulgarity of quoting a former girlfriend, rather than what she had to say. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me.But you are right - the whole thing says a lot about Catholic upbringing. It's always been something of a mystery why God would care that people masturbate. Doesn't he have more important things to worry about?
Other Comments by hungarianelephant
50. Comment #96143 by HereticChick on December 10, 2007 at 4:02 am
"Although any surgical operation can be painful and do harm, the pain of circumcision, if done under local anaesthesia, is comparable to that from an injection for immunisation, she writes."I don't know of any doctor that uses anaesthesia during circumcision. And to compare an injection of xilocain to an immunisation is totally off. Xilocain burns like HELL when it's first injected. It doesn't go away for a good 30-45 seconds.
Anyway, I've been married to the same guy for 25 years. He's cut and I wish he wasn't. He's in his mid 40's now, and I'm sure his level of sensitivity is decreased. If he notices, I don't know. I say, let the kid reach adulthood before he goes chopping at his naughty bits.
Other Comments by HereticChick
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"I think it is not helpful to apply Darwinian language too widely. Conquest of nation by nation is too distant for Darwinian explanations to be helpful."
Richard Dawkins
"There's this thing called being so open-minded your brains drop out."
Richard Dawkins
"No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth."
Richard Dawkins
"Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"I don't want to sound callous. I mean, even if I have nothing to offer, that doesn't matter, because that still doesn't mean that what anybody else has to offer therefore has to be true."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
God: The Failed Hypothesis
Victor J Stenger
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
The Future of Life
Edward O. Wilson
Genome
Matt Ridley
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #96035 by Jenin on December 9, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Although I have not formed an opinion as to whether or not male circumcision is "right," comparing it to female circumcision seems to be a false analogy. Female circumcision, which usually involves the removal of the clitoris and labia, is extremely painful, and ensures that throughout life a woman will never feel any pleasure and intercourse will always be painful. This is analogous to removal of the entire penis, not the removal of the foreskin, which is what male circumcision involves.Other Comments by Jenin