Gibberish
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,339
- Reaction score
- 1,269
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
All I know is, I'm cut and I wouldn't have it any other way...
As infant circumcisions decrease I imagine it would only make sense that adult circumcisions increase.
You can always go get it done if you want to, but you can't get it undone. Seems simple enough for me.
Why call it "mutilated by doctors" when it was purely your parent's choice?
.
It's probably because most Hispanic boys don't get circumcised and has nothing to do with anything else.
In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated that the medical benefits of male circumcision were not enough for the group to recommend that the procedure be made routine at all hospitals. As a result, some states began withdrawing Medicaid coverage for circumcision.
Advisory groups
in the United States need to carefully consider how recent
data on the preventive efficacy of adult male circumcision
might change current recommendations for care of newborns
and adolescents in the United States.
In addition to this:
It appears the AAP has changed its stance in this 2010 report:
Male Circumcision for Prevention of HIV and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases -- Flynn et al. 119 (4): 821 -- Pediatrics
Appeal to emotion. Its a surgical procedure, not a "mutilation".
My sister did not have genital mutilation performed on her son, and I would never do it to mine if I had one.
"Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death."
That is what non-medical circumcision is. It's for asthetic appeal and not much else. This definition is provable as it applies to circumcision, even if it's not in vogue or socially acceptable to say so.
Nine out of ten circumcized males elect to have their sons circumcised. Interestingly, only 75% of uncircumcised males choose NOT to have their sons circumcised. Uncircumcised men are twice as likely to become infected with HPV. Transmission of HPV to one's female partner is a known cervical cancer risk in women. Recent studies have shown that circumcision drastically reduces one's chances of contracting HIV (female to male). Also protects against chlymidia and syphllis. Discovery Health "Why Circumcise?"
Those facts would belie it's being referred to as sexual mutiliation.
An amputation of an arm is mutilation when it's not under the patient's consent and it's not done for medical reasons. When it's done for medical reasons (i.e. life saving) with the patient's full knowledge, it's not mutilation. Saying it's not mutilation just because it's a surgical procedure is disingenuous. There are plenty of instances of torture in human history that involve surgical procedures, and we would indeed call them mutilations.
Second... saying that most males don't regret being circumcised is also disingenuous, given that they never had the chance to grow up with an alternative. Most are circumcised at birth so they grow up relating to their scarred penises as normal (hence the asthetic rejection of uncircumcised penises). All this means is that we have several generations that not only are unaccustomed to what a natural penis looks like, they actually reject natural looking penises.
The populism argument does not fly.
Makes no difference to me if you want to call it genital mutiliation. It certainly denigrates the term, though. I didn't mention the aesthetics. You did. Oh, and apparently 15% of circumcised males may possibly have felt that way. Also never said that males regret having had it done. And certainly never used the populism argument. Are you just kinda' throwin' stuff against the wall and seein' if it sticks?
I listed some sound medical justifications for the procedure. I don't really care. I don't have one.
I mentioned the asthetics because it's important as a cultural consideration. People are hiding behind medical justifications when they are minority causes for the procedure. Most people want it done because it's socially acceptable, it's an asthetic norm, and they don't want their children to be ostracized. Also, because the father had it done at birth, he relates to his circumcised penis as normal, which is why he would want to convey the same normalcy to his baby boy.
Circumcision was popularized because of Catholicism, Islam, and Judaism. It's the same reason why the UN endorses it, because it's a cultural norm, and it reduces the risk of contracting HIV by an miniscule percentage. This doesn't change the scientific fact that it's an unnecessary procedure the vast majority of the time.
I am not glossing over the real medical situations where it is needed. I'm talking about the vast majority of the time where it is not needed and falls under the category of an elective procedure.
I can certainly understand a parent making the "tie-breaker" reason "to conform to cultural norms." There's nothin' meaner than kids in locker rooms unless it's a snake. ;-)
And my whole point is that we would consider it a mutilation if it weren't a cultural norm that came into fashion due to religion. In Europe circumcision only happens where medically necessary, same as in Asia, South and Central America, and most parts of Africa (where UN policy hasn't pushed the cultural norming process of circumcision). It's on the decline in North America but still fairly accepted here.
I think in a couple of generations it won't be a cultural norm here anymore.
...geesh is it odd looking to see an uncut wiener.
You could be right about it becoming less and less popular. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics has apparently backtracked from their 1999 report. See my post above. As to calling it genital mutiliation, yeah, I suppose if it weren't considered a cultural norm, we'd call it that. But today it is a cultural norm. Calling it genital mutiliation is over the top.
"Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death."
That is what non-medical circumcision is. It's for asthetic appeal and not much else. This definition is provable as it applies to circumcision, even if it's not in vogue or socially acceptable to say so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?