Baby Blowjobs During Circumcision Cause Herpes
It isn't disgusting enough to mutilate boys for no medical reason -- the Orthodox Jewish practice involves having the man doing the baby mutilating suck off the infant's penis afterward. In New York City, 11 newborns contracted herpes that way. Alexandra Sifferlin writes for TIME:
The report is sure to reignite a long-simmering debate over public health and religious liberties: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported on Thursday that 11 baby boys in New York City were infected with herpes between Nov. 2000 and Dec. 2011 following an ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual called metzitzah b'peh -- or oral suction -- in which the mohel puts his mouth directly on the newborn's circumcised penis and sucks away the blood.Ten of the babies were hospitalized, at least two developed brain damage and two died, according to the New York City health department. In 2005, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg asked rabbis throughout the city to move away from performing metzitzah b'peh -- and also issued an open letter [PDF] to the Jewish community warning of the health risks -- but they refused claiming the practice was safe.
According to the CDC report, the investigation into circumcision-related herpes infections in newborns began in 2004 when New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) was notified of twin boys who had contracted herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1, the type that causes cold sores and is usually transmitted orally) following circumcision with metzitzah b'peh; one twin died. Both twins were circumcised by the same mohel, whom the CDC report refers to as "mohel A."
During the investigation, the DOHMH learned of another 2003 case of neonatal HSV-1 infection after circumcision, also involving mohel A. In all three cases, the babies' mothers and the hospital staff who cared for the infants had no history of herpes infection. When mohel A was tested about three months after the 2004 circumcisions, he showed antibodies to HSV in his blood, but was not found to be actively shedding the virus.
In all three cases, the babies developed lesions or vesicles in their genital areas about 8 to 10 days after their ritual circumcision; the timing and location of the babies' symptoms suggest that the infections were introduced during circumcision, the CDC reports. The health officials' investigation further uncovered eight other similar cases through Dec. 2011 in New York City, bringing the total to 11.
I'm very much for religious liberty -- to a point: to the point where babies, who cannot consent, undergo unnecessary and mutilating surgical procedures (all of which come with some risk).
"unnecessary and mutilating surgical procedures" - Deemed unnecessary by yourself.
Michael at June 12, 2012 4:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3229551">comment from MichaelUm, if the foreskin were unnecessary, it would have been removed by evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brit_milah -- "because god says so!" is not a medical necessity, but a primitive religious one.
Brilliantly modern!
Teach a boy to wash his penis and you won't have to hack a bit of it off. Barbaric, non-medically necessary (per many doctors) surgery on a person who can't speak to deny his or her consent.
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 5:18 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3229564">comment from Amy AlkonWebMD:
Barbaric to hack away at your child because "god" said so, per the men who wrote the bible, or so his penis can look like his unfortunate Daddy's mutilated penis.
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 5:49 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3229565">comment from Amy AlkonMore from the WebMD link:
And then there are the few medical accidents where the penis is seriously damaged. Yes, they're rare, but what kind of parent puts their child at risk without medical necessity?
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 5:51 AM
Circumcision of either gender is barbaric enough, but to do so in such an incredibly unsanitary manner? Sorry, your right to religion (and I am religious) ends where it causes the death of others.
My nephew had to be rehospitalized after his circumcision for heavy bleeding. He was a preemie, he didn't even weigh 4 1/2 lbs. And they put him through that. And then, after all that, they did it to their next son too. Makes me sick. I let them know that, too.
All other arguments aside, what dad wants to make his son's penis smaller? Circumcision removes some girth. You'd think that alone would put a stop to it. Fortunately it seems to be fading our on it's own. Less than half of baby boys are cut now. I'd like to see that number down as close to zero as actual medical need would make it.
momof4 at June 12, 2012 6:14 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3229588">comment from momof4So sorry to hear about your nephew momof4 -- just awful, and great that he apparently made it. Amazing that they didn't learn, and put the next one through it, too. Parents should be protecting infants from pain, not asking to put them through it -- at medical risk to the infant.
And I am with you on seeing the number of boys circumcized "as close to zero as actual medical need would make it."
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 6:20 AM
@amy:
> Um, if the foreskin were unnecessary, it would have been removed by evolution.
Not remotely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
@momof4:
> Circumcision of either gender is barbaric enough
I am neutral on male circumcision, but let's not lump female genital mutilation (which is utterly horrible) in the same bin with a MOSTLY innocuous procedure done on males.
Circumcised men live normal lives (I'm not debating the final 0.1% at the margin). Mutilated women can have tons of problems and can not experience sexual pleasure.
Two radically different things.
Let's debate male circumcision fairly:
* it's a cultural / religious matter
* there can be side effects, but most of the time they're minor
* it results in a decrease in nerve endings, but not catastrophically so.
It's more akin to piercing a girl's ears when she's an infant (a practice I dislike) than it is to cutting off a clitoris.
TJIC at June 12, 2012 6:26 AM
My point is very simple, and I don't believe you have addressed it. Apart from when there is reason to suspect that that a specific circumcision will result in death, it is considered necessary by those who ascribe to Jewish orthodoxy.
I don't know that is not necessary to everyone in the country that I circumcise I child of mine. It is a necessity of mine. People have been martyred for their faiths including circumcision (although not for a long time) - and I think that is a pretty good barometer of necessity.
michael at June 12, 2012 6:33 AM
> Um, if the foreskin were unnecessary, it
> would have been removed by evolution.
Tell it to your appendix on the day that it bursts. If you survive, I mean.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at June 12, 2012 6:35 AM
Omitted from this rant:
1. This is a small group of nutty holdouts - the rest of Jewry, including the Orthodox, have moved to sterile procedures and the suction is performed using a glass tube.
2. The original intent was therapeutic - since in eras without disinfectants and biocides, insuring blood circulation to the wound was a good way to help healing.
Ben David at June 12, 2012 7:26 AM
Non-therapeutic appendectomies on infants!
Males only, of course. Any equivalent cutting on females is beyond cruel in a way it can never be for males. And, eventually, we'll have generations of males who share an appendectomy scar. They'll look alike! Family bonding! It's brilliant!
Tony at June 12, 2012 7:27 AM
"Female circumcision" is nothing of the sort and not close to being comparable to male circumcision. "Female circumcision" is a euphemism for a clitoridectomy; it is the removal of the clitoris (in practice, the external portions.) The male equivalent would be cutting off his penis.
Um, if the foreskin were unnecessary, it
would have been removed by evolution.
That's a pretty dramatic, though common, misunderstanding of the evolutionary process.
Joe at June 12, 2012 7:39 AM
People are so indignant when circumcision is compared to FGM.
It's incredulous (I'll stay off the cue of sexist) considering that there are varying degrees of FGM, some of which are quite comparable to male circumcision (or MGM) - i.e., cutting and removal of the hood of the clitoris while leaving the shaft intact.
This is quite stark in contrast to the undisputably inhumane removal of the clitoris that would correspond to male penile castration. The fact that women with a less severe form of FGM don't suffer significant reduction in sexual enjoyment is no more relevant than the fact that circumcised men theoretically don't.
That said: Crid is thoroughly dependable for an intellectual chuckle.
ValiantBlue at June 12, 2012 7:50 AM
I hate when people get mouthy about evolution.
To understand evolution at all is to know that the work is never done, the work is never obvious, and the work never purposefully leads to some greater condition of perfection (or safety or kindness or dignity or intelligence).
A brilliant passage (cited previously) describes Darwin horror as his daughter was taken:
The natural world is not concerned with making us strong, and it regards our outcomes as does the fern overlooking those on the roulette wheel in Monte Carlo.Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at June 12, 2012 8:29 AM
Another view of Casino Square (parlour at right, opera hall center/right, cafe center/left).
Crid at June 12, 2012 8:43 AM
Amirite?
Yes... Yes, I am.
> Brilliantly modern!
How come the people most eager to pounce on the religious for being irrational are so quick to detail their own imaginary & comforting insights from science?
Crid at June 12, 2012 8:49 AM
Joe wrote:
Female genital cutting (i.e. mutilation) is broader than just clitoridectomy. It can be that and worse. It usually is, unfortunately. But it can also be less. The male equivalent would be a broad range of cutting, some less severe than a typical circumcision and some more severe. It could be a nick of the foreskin to draw blood or it could be removal of the penis.
Since we rarely see anything (intentional) beyond a narrow range of cutting with male circumcision, the analogous cutting on females is removal of the clitoral hood. That, and all cutting less severe, is illegal in the laws that criminalize all forms of FGC/M, regardless of parental preferences. The only thing justifying cutting on female minors in Western societies is medical need. The same standard should apply to males. The comparison is non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual.
That gets to Michael's mistaken point. The test is medical necessity, not the religious (or aesthetic) necessity as deemed by the child's parents. Children have rights, too. This is a non-therapeutic surgical procedure with harms and risks to the patient. Self-ownership isn't distinguished by genders or subjective, non-medical justifications one's parents may hold.
Tony at June 12, 2012 9:44 AM
"It's more akin to piercing a girl's ears when she's an infant (a practice I dislike) than it is to cutting off a clitoris."
Not really. Piercing removes nothing. Cutting off the earlobe would be more accurate. We don't NEED earlobes, it would be relatively minor as there is no cartilage or bone in there. But....why do it? Especially on someone who can't say "sure, let's do it!".
Also, a girl can decide she doens't want her ears pierced and the hole will heal up, leaving her ear intact. I've yet to hear of a procedure to reverse a circumcision. So, not analogous at all.
momof4 at June 12, 2012 10:14 AM
momof4: not disagreeing with your point, just wanted to note that if you browse the internet, there are accounts of adult men who have undergone surgery to construct a foreskin. Obviously this is not a reversal of the circumcision, but thought it was interesting and would point it out.
Meloni at June 12, 2012 10:48 AM
"Mouth on penis" is a gross and unsanitary practice, but it's pretty rare, part of an old-world religious ritual. That's not an argument against the procedure in general. Most people circumcise for cultural and "cleanliness" reasons, not religious ones, and no one puts his mouth on the baby.
Yes, some babies scream when it happens. Babies scream over lots of things, including vaccinations and baths. Some babies barely react. Is there ANY reliable evidence that this practice scars people for life? Parents make all kinds of irreversible decisions for their babies that will affect them far more profoundly than circumcision.
"Yes, they're rare, but what kind of parent puts their child at risk without medical necessity?"
Aren't you a fan of Lenore Skenazy?? How about people who understand statistics and want their kid to grow up feeling normal? You may as well ask what kind of parent puts her child in a car and gets on the highway.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/31/health/he-asadults31
Cut is the norm in our hygiene-oriented culture. (And an uncut member has a distinctive odor that many American women don't like. I don't care how fastidious the guy is.) Men who are circumcised later in life find that sexual satisfaction remains constant or even improves.
The medical risks of circumcising are very minimal. The social risks of not circumcising are considerable. Therefore, I think I would call this "parents' prerogative" and not "human rights violation."
Insufficient Poison at June 12, 2012 12:57 PM
"How about people who understand statistics and want their kid to grow up feeling normal?"
Then they would not cut, as about 51% of parents now choose not to. The hygeine and smell issue is nonsense too. I've been with both. Several, of both. None of the uncut guys smelled. None of the cut guys did either-I don't date dudes that can't shower appropriately.
Balls tend to smell on some dudes, should we chop them off?
"The social risks of not circumcising are considerable."
What would those be? Getting made fun of in gym? Those born today will have over half the class that looks just like them, IF they even have gym. Women not dating them? Again-girls growing up now won't care and most women don't anyway in my experience. Yours may differ if you live in some backwater. Some girls will always prefer one or the other just like some girls prefer blond hair or a certain height. So what?
There are social risks to being flatchested, having a big nose, wearing glasses....would you be cool with parents doing something surgical about any of those, before the kid could even comprehend the problem?
I hate when parents pierce baby girls ears, too, FWIW. Kids should get to choose that or not.
momof4 at June 12, 2012 1:55 PM
Getting back to the subject of herpes, mothers who have it and are about to give birth are tested and if they are actively shedding the virus are sent for a C-section rather than a vaginal birth as their babies could be infected and many problems, including blindness, brain damage and death could occur.
From the March of Dimes Website:
What risks does herpes pose during pregnancy?
About 1 in 4 pregnant women is infected with genital herpes, although most do not know it (3). Fortunately, only a small number pass the infection on to their babies.
Women who acquire genital herpes for the first time near the time of delivery have a 30 to 50 percent chance of passing the infection on to their babies during a vaginal delivery, whether or not they have symptoms (4). The risk is so high because a newly infected pregnant woman has not yet produced disease-fighting antibodies that could help protect her baby during delivery. Studies suggest that about 2 percent of pregnant women acquire herpes for the first time during pregnancy (3).
Women who have had herpes before pregnancy and have a flare-up or silent infection at the time of vaginal delivery have only about a 3 percent chance of infecting their babies (3). Sometimes, what appears to be a first, severe episode of herpes during pregnancy actually can be a flare-up of an old silent infection. These women have a low risk of infecting their babies. Blood tests sometimes can help determine whether a woman has a new infection or a recurrence of an old one.
Are there other ways in which a baby can become infected?
While most babies get herpes from their mothers at delivery, on rare occasions, a baby can become infected before birth (3). A small number of babies acquire herpes after birth (for example, if someone with a cold sore kisses them). A person with a cold sore should not kiss a baby or touch a baby after touching the cold sore.
What are the symptoms of herpes infection in the newborn?
Some infected newborns develop skin or mouth sores or eye infections. When the infection remains limited to these organs, most infected babies develop normally, although serious permanent damage to nerves or the eyes can occur.
However, herpes infections in newborns often spread to the brain and many internal organs. Infected babies may appear irritable, eat poorly and have seizures. Even with treatment, about 30 percent of infants with widespread infections involving the internal organs die, as do about 4 percent of those with brain infections (3). Many babies who survive widespread infections and brain infections develop lasting disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, seizures, and vision or hearing loss.
So, it absolutely is the Rabbi's responsibility to *not* put the child's health at risk by performing this ritual, they are the adult, and should know better.
Kat at June 12, 2012 2:14 PM
Insufficient Poison:
Physically, yes, in 100% of circumcisions.
Nor is the rest of your comment a valid argument for circumcision. Other irreversible decisions affect them more profoundly? Possibly, but so? A knife to the gut is worse than a punch to the face. Do we thus dismiss the violation of the latter? Circumcision inflicts objective harm on a healthy person for the subjective preference of another. We can judge and reject this action on its lack of merits while still accepting that parents should make many valid, necessary decisions for their children.
As for people who understand statistics, the risks from the normal foreskin are generally small. Even the most ardent pro-circumcision advocate I've encountered, Prof. Brian Morris, only claims that 1 in 3 intact males will require any medical intervention for their intact foreskin in their lifetime. Most of those can be resolved without circumcision. The need for circumcision is only a (small) subset of that 1/3.
Bathing is no less an application of science to the normal human body than circumcision. Teaching it is a parental responsibility. It has the added bonus of being ethical.
Beyond that, self-ownership matters. Normal is distinct from common. You use the former when you mean the latter. A foreskin is normal. Circumcision is common.
Tony at June 12, 2012 2:52 PM
Show me a source for 51 percent in the U.S., please. The rates are declining, mostly in states where Medicaid no longer covers the procedure (there's your backwater, and there's a big reason), but uncut is not at 51 percent.
You've had "several of both"? Were they all from the Niagara Falls area? Smegma has a strong, distinctive smell. If you say you've never noticed it, then you are overstating the "several," or you didn't get that close. Uncut men fresh out of the shower have it. Hygiene-related problems and sexual rejection are the most common reasons adult men (our age) seek circumcision.
"Social risks" are to be determined by the baby's parents, not you. At some point laser eye correction will become available for children. They'll be able to map defects in your toddler's vision and fix them before they even grow. Some parents will go for it, some won't. Some parents would have an unsightly mole removed from their kid's face, others wouldn't. Circumcision is akin to having braces. The number of people who want it undone is negligible, and so are the risks.
Insufficient Poison at June 12, 2012 3:22 PM
Insufficient Poison:
Isn't it possible that momof4 never noticed it because the men had bathed properly, not because she "didn't get that close"? It's a little too convenient for you to assume away the challenges her stated (and believable) experiences present to your theory that all intact males have a "distinctive odor". Females produce smegma. Do all females have a "distinctive odor", no matter how fastidious they are? If so, is that a reason to cut?
First, in your "social risks" examples, you focus on defects. Doctors wouldn't cooperate with parents imposing Lasik on a kid with 20/20 vision or putting braces on a kid with straight teeth. You're mixing justifications. The foreskin is not a defect. Circumcision is not therapeutic. The mole example is a little trickier, but barely. Unsightly according to whom? With what risks associated?
Second, apply your logic to momof4's other scenarios of social risks. Are breast implants forced on a flat-chested daughter a valid parental choice? What about cosmetic rhinoplasty?
Finally: "The number of people who want it undone is negligible, and so are the risks."
The number is not zero. I suspect it's much larger than you think, but I'll leave it at non-zero. Those males have self-ownership. Their foreskin is (was) their property. This right is not negated simply because their parents like circumcision or because circumcision is common. Whether it's good or bad, and whether the risks are acceptable or not, are subjective decisions for the individual to decide for himself as long as there is no medical necessity.
Tony at June 12, 2012 4:14 PM
> Those males have self-ownership.
Then they should fucking well find their own nutrition, dispose of their own wastes, and defend themselves from predators.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 12, 2012 5:10 PM
I've smelled plenty of smegma-I used to own a male horse and I'm working on my RN degree now. I've also sucked some uncut dicks. They did NOT smell. Not the russian exchange student, not the one from Puerto Rico, not the dude at UT. A guy right out of the shower who has washed his dick does NOT have smegma or an odor. Some dudes can't be bothered to wash their dick well- that's not a body issue, that's a lazy issue.
Women can build a smegma-like substance (actually the same thing, just like our lubrication is largely the same as male cum, and snot from a nose, but hey, I'll try to keep this simple) up under their clit hood, too. Let's chop off clits!!
I've been to Niagara Falls. Never picked a guy up there, why do you ask?
If I can stick a hose in a horse's penile covering and clean him (yes, it's accepted procedure and does not hurt the horse or cause problems) then a man can wash himself if he so desires.
"Circumcision is akin to having braces"
You're either stupid or having fun being ridiculous here. Braces come off. They don't take part of your body with them. And while parents may not let kids decide to get them or not, they're old enough to have a say. I rather doubt an ortho would tie an 11 year old down and install them against the kids will, either.
Medicaid should not pay for any unnecessary procedure. At all. Good for them. Neither should health insurance.
momof4 at June 12, 2012 5:58 PM
Tony,
Mx4 went in the other direction, implying that my experience might be with men who didn't bathe. (So did you.) I spent several years as an expat and was part of a large community of American girls like me, and we weren't blowing homeless guys. There is a scent particular to uncircumcised males. It's commonly understood. It's not a "theory."
http://goaskalice.columbia.edu/scent-uncircumcised-penis
Google "uncut smell" if you want to read more. I don't care whether anyone thinks that alone is a good reason to cut; I am restating that it's a real thing. A lot of guys end up paying through the nose for elective circumcision when they're adults. When they're babies, it's inexpensive and uncomplicated.
Parents put braces on kids for cosmetic reasons, even if their bite is adequate for chewing. Straight, aligned teeth have social value. The mole is a great example, because it's subjective and also binary (keep/remove). Is it a disfigurement, or does it give her character? It's absolutely a parent's place to make that decision.
I didn't respond to the rhinoplasty or breast augmentation examples because they're not reasonable comparisons. By the time these physical characteristics can be established, the child is close to being an adult. The corresponding treatment is not simple and not binary. There are a million variations on a cosmetically improved nose. They are both major surgeries with significant risk and recovery time.
The number of people who wish they had their wisdom teeth back is probably "non zero." The number of people who wish their parents had done some things differently is well above zero. I am not saying parents "should cut." I'm saying parents can legitimately make this decision for their child.
Insufficient Poison at June 12, 2012 6:07 PM
Orthodontics are subjective and permanent. The orthodontist decides which permanent teeth to pull, and how the bite will be corrected, making decisions about aesthetics vs function. It can change the proportions of a person's face and alter his smile. It can't be undone.
A doctor wouldn't force a nose job or breast implants on anyone either, but those were your comparisons.
Insufficient Poison at June 12, 2012 6:24 PM
crid:
Would you like to address what I wrote rather than the ridiculous thing you think I wrote? I'm not advocating that children be emancipated upon departing their mother's womb. I think that was clear by my use of the correct term. Self-ownership is a property right in one's person. It is bodily autonomy, not personal autonomy. It's the right to be free from (unnecessary, unwanted) harm. I'm saying all people possess this basic human right. It's not a right that belongs only to adults and female minors.
Tony at June 12, 2012 6:30 PM
This smells to me like an urban legend created as a joke on the hearer. I would be very surprised if a boy that young were even capable of an erection.
John David Galt at June 12, 2012 7:01 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3230083">comment from John David GaltIt's not an urban legend. It's a barbaric practice by Orthodox Jews. When you decide something's an urban legend, you might actually, you know, Google to see if you're correct. Or read at the linked story. It's all there.
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 7:07 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3230085">comment from Amy AlkonHere's a photo: http://neorevivalist.com/2012/02/12/taboo-or-not-taboo-metzitzah-bpeh/
Took me about 10 seconds to find on Google.
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 7:09 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3230088">comment from Amy AlkonAnother photo: http://www.google.com/imgres?q=metzitzah+b%27peh&start=81&hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&biw=1294&bih=921&tbm=isch&tbnid=15reBCDAomqKNM:&imgrefurl=http://blog.chosun.com/blog.log.view.screen%3FblogId%3D22677%26menuId%3D-1%26listType%3D2%26from%3D%26to%3D%26curPage%3D9%26logId%3D5421525&docid=DOydRbKhjKquoM&imgurl=http://blog.chosun.com/web_file/blog/177/22677/5/20110329_231712_e9b5e855fef428dac513f2eb0d317c95.jpg&w=400&h=417&ei=VfbXT-GAK7C16AHM04yYAw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=476&sig=109640049368173936090&page=4&tbnh=165&tbnw=155&ndsp=25&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:81,i:8&tx=90&ty=75
Amy Alkon at June 12, 2012 7:12 PM
Insufficient Poison:
I stated that you dismissed momof4's experience. You rejected her statement as incorrect, that it couldn't be true because her experience differs from your declaration. Except it doesn't. You said "many American women don't like" that smell. (I suspect we all lost that point a bit in the back-and-forth.) Can't momof4 be in the remaining group who either don't care or like it? The question-writer in the Go Ask Alice link likes it. Still, on that, you didn't disprove her experience.
But I'll play along. All males have smegma and an "uncut smell", no matter how fastidious they clean. So what? Your statement implied that, because "many American women don't like" that smell, that is a justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision. That's flawed. Again, some women aren't turned off by it. More importantly, the male's opinion about his healthy body is the only opinion that matters here. The parental responsibility is to teach the child hygiene, not to cut off body parts that might not be liked by others. And to teach him to seek sexual partners who value him rather than some idealized view of him. The possible, imagined opinion of his future sexual partners is irrelevant to what they may legitimately force on him.
This perceived value against the natural smell and the cost and assumed difficulty of adult circumcision are not defenses for proxy consent for non-therapeutic infant circumcision. The action is surgery. The criterion for proxy consent to surgery is the patient's (lack of) medical need, not the proxy's subjective preferences. (All individual tastes and preferences are unique.) No need exists. Therefore, proxy consent for non-therapeutic circumcision is invalid. Anything else to justify it is an excuse. This is not a valid parental right. To be a parental right, it would have to apply to the healthy genitals of female minors, as well. It doesn't, by law. Equal rights require boys to be protected.
That criterion is also why the comparisons momof4 offered, which I defended, are valid comparisons. They're non-therapeutic, permanent changes to a child. Their justifications would be to meet perceived social values rather than to treat each person as an individual with specific need or lack of need. "Uncomplicated" is a tricky word, too. Even if we ignore the complications of child circumcision, it is not a free lunch. There are trade-offs with circumcision. Why is someone else a better judge for the normal, healthy foreskin as an optional part of a male's body than the male himself?
You know what else has social value? Not being a male in America with red hair. Poor me, I'm out of luck. Should my parents have dyed my hair throughout childhood so I wouldn't get picked on? And since circumcision is permanent, shouldn't they still have the decision now to dye my hair a color with better social value if they want to? Heaven forbid I learn self-worth for who I am and the ability to ignore shallow stupidity. It's more important that I have the approval of everyone around me, right? I mean, that's why I never, ever dare listen to any music not popular among whoever I'm around at any given time.
Tony at June 12, 2012 7:48 PM
You guys are spazzing like six-year-olds after a swingset rumble, and with the froth of a Bloomberg-sized serving of root beer foaming out of your ears. You start with a hideous, ludicrous, nails-on-blackboard screech ("Baby Blowjobs!!!"), and you just keep piling on the assaults until you've badgered everyone into the path of your howling, blind tornado of self-righteousness.
After which.... What? Do you think you're convincing anyone to worry more about this? Is yours a team you'd expect anyone to join on the basis of these comments?
(I hate rhetorical questions, even my own:) No, you aren't really expecting anyone to join a team... And you probably wouldn't admire anyone who claimed your position too readily. Yours aren't the arguments of someone trying to attract articulate, stable footsoldiers to a cause. These are expressions of pain and condescension, not persuasion, and the sorrow has an existential odor. Maybe the deepest root of the distress is circumcision, or maybe not. But if someone gets too close, they'll interrupt the view that others might take of your suffering, and your best clucking requires fresh breezes and unobstructed acoustics. Right?
So now, let's all take a leisurely gambol through Cridmo's sunny garden of textual review, shall we? Sandal and floppy-hat time, people! Someone grab the picnic basket!
Those babies aren't being blown. Saying they are is more silly than outré. It's an ancient religious ritual. In the United States and the modern world, some minor synagogues double down on the primitive aspects. And in a some tiny subset of those temples, a few individuals are completely wackazoid.
Different religions do that with different things. Most religions do things with their kids that I don't like. Bigger patterns in broader practices are more worrying to me than botched circumcision. (E.g., as a lesser example, the practice of Scientology isn't taxed in the United States. I can't imagine why not. Catholics do charities, Baptists do charities, and many if not most Jews are fastidiously generous. But given the interpersonally carnivorous nature of Scientology's beliefs in the most typical practice, I can't imagine why the taxpayer is expected to provide room and board.)
This threat from religion offends you, others threats offend me: Doesn't matter. We don't have the practical tools to force people who practice infrequent extremes of bad religion to stop, and we never will. If we did, we probably wouldn't have the moral authority to use them. (Gruesome videos and photographs offer no license in this regard.) And meantime, adding the allure of the forbidden to society's view of these people isn't likely to be helpful.
Nor is there any point in imagining that we, by whom I mean specifically you, can or should have increased say in how families work: Parents forge their children. Real soulcraft is done by genuine souls in close proximity. Sometime they use scalpels, along with religion and other things. In the vast majority of cases, it's not a problem. I'm not interested in undermining this pattern (which comes much more from nature than from policy) in order to soothe your distress.
> Would you like to address what I wrote
> rather than the ridiculous thing you
> think I wrote?
Well now, feller, I quoted you quickly, precisely and verifiably, and it was only five words. You seem like you're trying to express yourself clearly (though I don't know what you mean about "correct term"; term for what?). So if you need another blue book to make your case, not a problem:
> Self-ownership is a property right
> in one's person. It is bodily autonomy,
> not personal autonomy. It's the right
> to be free from (unnecessary, unwanted)
> harm. I'm saying all people possess
> this basic human right.
The parenthetical is tellingly malformed: Without it, we get "the right to be free from harm", which no sane human will guarantee for anyone, whether a descendent or merely a fellow citizen. Now, it's a lot of fun to walk around inventing new rights, especially for young people, but these new rights almost never hold up. (I haven't actually done the math, but I'd bet a smallish airport parking bus could transport all the people in human history who, with genuine originality and fortitude, identified a "basic human right." And buddy, you ain't got a ticket.)
Circumcision obsessives turn up here a few times a year, or whenever Amy throws some out red meat (so to speak), as with this blog post. They're earnest as Hell, but it's the only topic they care enough to fight over. And when they can't find traction, out come the links to disgusting videos, with an implicit cry of How can you not agree with me now? (As if the rest of us were enthused about spook religion and cruel parenting.) And then poof: The obsessives are gone. All they ever wanted was to slink away muttering that people just don't understand.
They're correct.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 13, 2012 2:04 AM
Maybe this is momof4's experience. She called mine "nonsense," and I think hers is "unusual." I was stupid to take her on, because she's going to keep fleshing out her anecdote to match her argument, and there's no way for me to disprove it. I've provided links demonstrating that many people have observed it, and that it has led some men to circumcise later in life. Sorry to be crude, but terms like "cock cheese" exist for a reason. Many sex columns and forums are filled with discussions about how to handle related problems.
It's up the parents to decide what is normal for their culture and community. Usually Dad is pleased he's circumcised and wants the same for his son. You make it sound like a typical guy can wait it out and make the choice to circumcise when he's 21, which is not realistic. It becomes a much more expensive and complicated procedure. Still, the number of men who elect for it later in life vastly outnumbers the guys undergoing "reconstruction." Studies of these men, which I referred to, show that 98 percent of them reported sustained or improved satisfaction.
You guys are making comparisons that are crazy because they involve unquestionably functional body parts, or they would have unquestionably serious implications. Dyeing a kid's red hair is not comparable because it's an ongoing process the kid has to endure. You're getting increasingly bizarre and swatting at straw men.
I don't buy the assertion that the foreskin is a treasured body part that is mourned. There is zero loss of function. There are no negative side effects, except as reported by the zealots in this corner of the Internet who believe that evolution is never wrong and that every fucking thing is a slight to masculinity. And there ARE health benefits that are basically a backup if your kid isn't meticulously clean or does have sex without a condom.
The parents are the right ones to make this decision, not the state. Same goes for fluoride, diet, drugs for mental illness, etc.
Insufficient Poison at June 13, 2012 4:13 AM
Insufficient Poison said: "I was stupid to take her on, because she's going to keep fleshing out her anecdote to match her argument, and there's no way for me to disprove it....."
And I'll quote Tony, "All males have smegma and an "uncut smell", no matter how fastidious they clean. So what? Your statement implied that, because "many American women don't like" that smell, that is a justification for non-therapeutic infant circumcision. That's flawed."
All males can get 'smegma' no matter how fastidious they are, and all females get smegma no matter how fastidious they are. Should we suggest cutting parts of women because they will develop potentially unpleasant female odors? Of course not, that's just as flawed.
Insufficient Poison said: "It's up the parents to decide what is normal for their culture and community."
Would you make the same statement for cultures that practice female genital cutting? Or are you one of the hypocrites?
Insufficient Poison said: "You make it sound like a typical guy can wait it out and make the choice to circumcise when he's 21, which is not realistic."
Of course it's realistic, and it is not meaningfully more difficult to do it in adulthood.
Insufficient Poison said: "There is zero loss of function. There are no negative side effects, except as reported by the zealots in this corner of the Internet who believe that evolution is never wrong and that every fucking thing is a slight to masculinity."
Who decides whether there is loss of function? You make a pretty strong statement suggesting there is zero loss of function, what if one provides you with simply one function of the foreskin? Who decides there are no negative side effects? What about (for example) those whose penis is damaged by circumcision more than expected?
Insufficient Poison said: "And there ARE health benefits that are basically a backup if your kid isn't meticulously clean or does have sex without a condom."
Any health benefits there may be are trivial in the context of most western countries. Circumcision is not (and should never be described as) a backup for condoms. Making such a statement or even implying such an idea is at best naive but more typically very dangerous.
Joe at June 13, 2012 5:10 AM
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm personally glad I haven't had the decision made for me to have any body parts cut off that my parents deemed unnecessary.
Far as the hygiene argument goes, I know plenty of people (male and female) who should evidently have had their arms cut off at birth because their parents were too taxed to introduce them to deodorant.
I just think it's goofy and archaic that we're still clinging to a practice originally designed to discourage masturbation.
Carry on.
ValiantBlue at June 13, 2012 5:25 AM
Not to be crude, but there ARE terms men have come up with for the female equivalent of "cock cheese". We're all still waiting to hear what you think should be done to baby girls to eliminate men having to smell an odor when they go down on those girls later in life. Chop off their clit hoods and inner labia, so there's nowhere for smegma to accumulate? After all, a woman could still have sex and presumably orgasm if she still had the glans. Of course, an exposed glans seems uncomfortable to me, but hey! if it's good enough for baby boys....
momof4 at June 13, 2012 6:11 AM
I don't plan on having children, but if I had a boy, there's no way I'd have him snipped.
Even if it is a religious requirement, why can't they wait until adulthood and then let the guy decide for himself? There are some other societies that perform circumcision on males when they're older, as a sort of rite-of-passage thing.
Choika at June 13, 2012 6:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3230485">comment from momof4Exactly, momof4 and Joe. The notion that you'd amputate a part of someone's body for this reason is just amazing to me.
And Joe is exactly right about this:
Many of you grow up without running water?
Amy Alkon at June 13, 2012 7:00 AM
"The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States."
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
So I was wrong, it's way fewer than half. Sorry about that. You are right, parents should certainly take social consequences into account when contemplating making the kid look different from over 2/3 of his peers.
momof4 at June 13, 2012 7:40 AM
The CDC stats for 2010 are cited as much higher in numerous other sources--basically the top 10 returned by Google:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/02/us-male-circumcision-idUSTRE78141H20110902
http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20110901/circumcision-rates-are-dropping-in-the-us
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-checkup/post/circumcision-rates-falling-cdc-says/2011/09/01/gIQAvqVNuJ_blog.html
See also Wikipedia.
I think this is the original report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6034a4.htm?s_cid=mm6034a4_w
And it has dropped the most in states where Medicaid no longer covers it--i.e., because people can't afford it.
Insufficient Poison at June 13, 2012 8:13 AM
crid:
I think you should join my "team". I'll discuss this with you as long as it takes, if you're willing. I'm not sure you are. It's apparently easier to lump me into a caricature (i.e. "circumcision obsessive") that doesn't fit me or my behavior. It's quite easy to tell yourself a story that leaves your own faulty worldview intact. You're doing it here. Just make the necessary assumptions and "success".
All children possess the right to be free from unnecessary genital surgery, not just females. This particular battery from religion (and/or culture) is offensive because it's a violation of individual rights. It's the stupid notion that one person's right to practice religion extends physically into the body of another person based on DNA contribution. It's religion on the blade of a scalpel, whether or not the recipient wants it. That's force, not "soulcraft". The individual bears the costs, not his parents. If this use of force to inflict the mystical is justified, we need to revise our laws to allow anything that any religious text proscribes. I prefer reason and civil law.
Individual rights are individual, not grouped. Those outside your acceptable vast majority for whom it's not a problem are also individuals with their own rights. "Screw up some lives unnecessarily because crid says it's okay" isn't a standard I'm interested in adopting into human rights. Even if we agreed on the correct standard, how to stop violations like this is a discussion involving a nuanced mix of law and culture. I don't assume we can rid the world of unnecessary circumcision. If you want guarantee to mean "protect and provide consequences when it's violated", it's fine. I'm not sure you mean that with "guarantee". I think you mean "prevent 100%" of rights violations. I'd be a fool to imply that's possible. It's reasonable to aim for it. No one here has engaged the detailed discussion of how. A police state is one way to achieve that. (It wouldn't be 100% successful.) You don't know that anyone is advocating that approach.
You quoted me quickly, precisely, and verifiably on self-ownership, and it was only five words. But your rebuttal showed you didn't grasp my meaning. Self-ownership (i.e. the "correct term") is not personal autonomy. It is not the right to be emancipated upon exiting the womb, as you implied I'd argued. You apparently still treat the two as if they're the same. But you moved on to address the idea of self-ownership by itself.
I formed my parenthetical to indicate specifically non-therapeutic surgery in this context. All surgery involves harm. A child's right to be free from objective, non-therapeutic harm does not invalidate proxy consent for therapeutic interventions. Proxy consent for therapeutic interventions does not invalidate a child's self-ownership. But, sure, I'll drop the parenthetical and speak in broader terms instead. Self-ownership is the right to be free from harm. I haven't invented this right. It's a property right in one's own body. It is basic political philosophy that's been around for a long time. My only "invention" is the idea that children are people with rights, and that we should stop violating them. Very radical stuff.
This right to self-ownership exists unless we're willing to invalidate all laws against battery and murder, for example. Maybe just for children because I'm apparently supposed to understand they're parental property without this right to be free from harm. And, lacking this right to be free from harm, parents should be free to use a scalpel in whatever soulcraft interests them. Or something. No limits, because religion.
Tony at June 13, 2012 8:37 AM
I don't have a strong opinion except to say that I wouldn't circumcise my son if I had one, but about this:
I would be very surprised if a boy that young were even capable of an erection.
Any kind of stimulation can cause baby boys to get erections, even if they just have to urinate. It can even happen inside the womb.
MonicaP at June 13, 2012 8:44 AM
Insufficient Poison:
Why is it not realistic for a guy to wait it out and make the choice to circumcise - or not - after he reaches the age of majority (i.e. 18, not 21)? I think Joe hit the reasons on that, so I'll only add. As an adult, the individual can decide for himself if the trade-offs justify circumcision to him. They may not. But you seem to imply there are no trade-offs from circumcision. Do you believe that, even though surgery involves harms and costs?
Sure, there are possible health benefits. I don't value them, personally. I'd rather have my foreskin. I prefer condoms and bathing to surgery. You're saying that what the individual wants and needs are irrelevant. Someone else's opinion about his body is a perfect substitute for his own opinion, forever. Frankly, I don't care what my father thought of his own penis. He didn't have to live with mine. I do.
Each male's penis belongs to him, including his foreskin. It doesn't have to be treasured, or he can treasure it for reasons others don't share. It's his body, not his parents'. You argue that the social value of aesthetics is enough to justify parental imposition of circumcision, but even if we incorrectly assume the foreskin has no objective functions, a man can value his foreskin as aesthetically pleasing to himself. Individuals can ignore and/or reject externally imposed social values about their bodies.
As for my hair color, it's an ongoing process I have to endure. Of course. I've been mocked for it as recently as a few years ago when I was in my mid-thirties because adults are equally willing to embarrass themselves with shallow nonsense. The lifelong process taught me to ignore these people. Why is that a process I have to endure, but the (allegedly) socially unacceptable presence of a normal foreskin isn't an ongoing process a child has to endure? It's not a bizarre straw man. Your words show the comparison, so I'm not sure why you draw arbitrarily different conclusions on acceptable parental interventions. This is especially true when the intervention you defend is the one that is not noticed in every situation and is permanent.
Tony at June 13, 2012 9:40 AM
>I'll discuss this with you as long as it takes
You're monomaniacal, but...
> if you're willing. I'm not sure you are.
...I'm not.
> It's apparently easier to lump me into
> a caricature
Yes. Crazy easy. Freaky easy. You're the most recent of so many, and your adherence to the pattern is spotless.
> All children possess the right to be
> free from unnecessary genital surgery,
> not just females.
We have names for this:
If it were true, the other 587 words in your comment wouldn't be necessary. But yes, that's what we're talking about... Whether liberty means families have latitude to raise children in faiths and traditions which have strengthened people for thousands of years, traditions which have nourished humanity's best understanding of decency and responsibility, and which on the whole are pursued with cleanliness and safety. Or whether, in this Obamanian era of metastatic government and indefatigable busybodies, we're going to slam in through the door of every infant's home to make sure the parents are doing it right.But you don't wanna get into any of that. You're stuck at the introduction, where it's all real personal. I-Poison identifies some of the weirdness at work here, and then eagerly dives in:
> she's going to keep fleshing out her anecdote
> to match her argument, and there's no way for
> me to disprove it. I've provided links....
There's a childishness to the topic: 'Dick, man!' But it's not just cussing on the playground or farting in church... It's a vibe of personal development, or failures thereof, and woundedness, and resentment. It's essentially somatic preoccupation. It's about inwardness:
> My only "invention" is the idea that
> children are people with rights
Grandiosity of that scale is not about reaching out to others. (And for the record, "invention" shouldn't be in quotes unless you're quoting someone, and you aren't. Satiric intent doesn't count: Nobody here loves you enough to track your moods that closely.)
The statistics are dicey, and that's off-putting, too. More to the point, this topic has no champions in the greater political sphere. No successful businessmen accept circumcision as their great private cause, as many do with the Special Olympics or Jerry's Kids or ten thousand other charities. Doctors are bright guys, but they don't get too distressed about it, and didn't even in the decades of my youth, when presumably they weren't so concerned with matters of billing.
If circumcision is the horrific scourge you describe it to be, it's unlikely that men of achievement would be untouched by it, or at least not haunted by the sadness it brings to the lives of those nearby. I think I know why they aren't: They get over it. If they weren't the kind of men to get over things, they wouldn't have achievement. And this is, on the whole, just not that big a deal for men who've resolved to grow up anyway.
For the undercooked remainder, we graft explanations from discussion other issues.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 13, 2012 11:43 AM
crid:
Yep. You have me pegged perfectly. No need to think further. The caricature is awesome. Just paint away, since my adherence is "spotless". There's no evidence anywhere that I care about and fight over other topics. There's lots of evidence that I post links to disgusting videos... somewhere. And obviously I'll mutter to myself that you just don't understand.
I won't bother you with a request to prove anything. You don't need to. Your words are enough.
I am amused that you think I'm begging the question. Okay, fine, I'll play along. I've assumed to be true everything I want and need to be true. Your rebuttal engages in logical fallacies to defend your dismissal.
...for thousands of years
traditions...
...no champions in the greater political sphere.
No successful businessmen accept circumcision as their great private cause...
Doctors are bright guys, but they don't get too distressed about it,...
..., it's unlikely that men of achievement would be untouched by it,...
That's okay, I suppose. You're correct. Logical fallacies are only bad when you think people who disagree with you have done it. You, you're just shining your acerbic genius on everyone. If you need to appeal to tradition and authority, well, you're just enlightening me. You don't care about this, so you're awesome. I care about this, so I probably haven't achieved anything in my life. I mean, I just need to grow the fuck up already, amirite?
Yet, you managed to figure out my intent. That must mean you love me enough and track my moods that closely. Thanks for caring.
Burn! Wait, what's your insult here? I "think about cocks a lot"? Circumcision something something homophobia? Help me out. I fear I'm not quite bright enough to capture the true magnitude of my defeat presented in that link.
Tony at June 13, 2012 1:15 PM
> Your rebuttal engages in logical fallacies
Logical fallacies are my favorite fallacies!
Every sentence at June 12, 2012 7:27 AM was sarcastic, as was every sentence at June 12, 2012 7:27 AM. In each comment in the interval rested on the presumption that everyone concurs with you about self-ownership, as if our failure to consider it as paramount in this matter is an oversight, as if that darling phrase was the granite core of everyone's understanding of rights. It's ain't.
In early days and well beyond, children (especially the sketchier ones) like to snap at their parents: You're not the boss of me!... But of course they are. And the deformations of circumcision are trivial compared to the way parents forge a soul.
So whaddya want, other than to be seen saying "self-ownership" a lot? What will you complain about next?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 13, 2012 4:01 PM
I'm not to blame if the application of your ideas to other scenarios of parenting would lead to ridiculous results. But, okay, tell me the standard since you summarily reject mine without debate. What distinguishes acceptable parental actions from unacceptable parental actions? Are there valid limits on parental authority, on forging souls?
Tony at June 13, 2012 4:37 PM
> I'm not to blame if the application of your
> ideas to other scenarios of parenting would
> lead to ridiculous results.
What "ideas"? I've got no quarrel with the status quo. You're the petitioner... Except that you haven't asked for anything, beyond patience with sarcasm and disk space into which you can type "self-ownership":
> tell me the standard since you summarily
> reject mine without debate.
Debate? How many responses to you need? People answered you as they saw fit. Is there a particular script people have to read from before you're convinced there's been enough talk?
This is decided. The modern world has pretty much decided how adults are to be punished for parking too long downtown, and how children are to be punished for stealing Snickers bars from the drug store, and all the other sins. We don't want to have to revisit these standards promiscuously. Prattle about self-ownership doesn't enthuse.
> What distinguishes acceptable parental actions
> from unacceptable parental actions?
You phrase that like a teenager preparing to transgress.... So, go ahead and try some shit, and your surrounding community will pass judgment later. I'll probably be cool with the decision they make; or at least no more annoyed than any with any other case of justice.
> Are there valid limits on parental authority,
> on forging souls?
Yes. And a thoughtful society will balance the privacy and liberty interests for the virtuous many against the heartbreaking intrusions into ALL lives that would be required to identify and preemptively contain a few demented rascals... Monsters who would likely find some other way to torment their children if this went away.
Pilgrim, if you had a bad experience, you have our sincere sympathies. But you don't get to lash out at the rest of us as consolation. At this point, you're not arguing on the side of "human rights," you're arguing on the side of the ninnies... The know-what's-best fuckballs who are running this culture into the ground.
Even though it doesn't work out sometimes, we have to trust parents to love their children, and we have to trust that we won't always recognize that love from outside the family.
If you can't do that, learn to drink and read old books. Stay indoors. Don't talk to people. Soon enough and maybe too soon, it will be over. OK?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 13, 2012 5:31 PM
All other arguments aside, we give parents of boys carte blanche to chop as they see fit, and deny the ability to do it to girls. Several decades of legal and cultural precedent say that you can not discriminate between genders. Not in school sports, not in hiring, not in the courtroom. Why should genital surgery be different? If anyone can rationally tell me why (please stop with the "it removes all the clit and outer vulva" nonsense-it doesn't always yet we legislate against even the least invasive clit pricking to draw blood) then I might decide to live and let live with people who remove part of their newborns anatomy for no medical reason. When it can be done to all newborns.
"it's the way it's always been done" doesn't fly as rationale, either.
momof4 at June 13, 2012 7:18 PM
crid:
Indeed, I am the petitioner. When I began, you exhibited poor reading comprehension and blamed it on me. IP offered half-truths and contradictions. It's odd to ask how many responses I need. Volume is not a substitute for quality.
I am asking for a new, better standard. That differs from what you want. I'm not asking to revisit standards promiscuously. Just on this. You're not willing to revisit them at all. We have reached the parenting pinnacle, apparently. We mustn't judge or reevaluate. Because.
You also continue to assume how I would respond to the problem I've identified. You don't know because you don't ask. I reject the status quo, so I simply must be a "know-what's-best fuckball" who sides with the ninnies. There's just no way my viewpoint could involve liberty or be on the side of human rights. Liberty is soulcraft with a scalpel, not keeping one's normal body parts. No need to question or consider further.
Instead, I get advice. If I had a bad experience, sympathies should be enough to quell that concern. The problem is with me. It's a character flaw. Maybe one day I'll learn to better interpret my experience through my parents' eyes. It's not relevant that bad experiences will continue happening to others. Those individuals should learn, too. Parents care. That's all that matters. Genital mutilation is love, if only I'd learn to trust what I don't recognize.
No, thanks.
Tony at June 13, 2012 7:31 PM
> we give parents of boys carte blanche to
> chop as they see fit
This topic attracts over-the-top rhetoric. "Chop as they see fit."
Also, "baby blowjobs". "Carte blanche!"> I'm not asking to revisit standards
> promiscuously. Just on this.
Right. I think families have bigger problems than this. There's a limited amount of attention that our culture is going to give to these things, and I think we should start elsewhere... That a decent society very well might start elsewhere. Did you follow the Auslander link? The burdens in that guy's life had nothing to do with his Johnson; but you can hear them in his voice. And in truth, they're hardly atypical of the resentments children carry from childhood. Parents, man.
All we know of you is your focus on this topic. We don't know you to have cpncern for other issues of our day, such as the banking crisis, drone attacks, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, or the revision of engines specs for Formula One in the 2014 season. Circumcision is a topic which for which naive, distressed, or perhaps just tender men can squander a fantastic amount of energy. (See above, "somatic preoccupation.") From what we've seen from other, um, enthusiasts here, it's something guys obsess over when they ought to be concentrating on other weaknesses in their lives.
> If I had a bad experience, sympathies
> should be enough to quell that concern.
> The problem is with me.
Dude, we're anonymous blog commenters. The strangers in your life were not put on the planet to soothe your deepest hurts in any case. We got our own stuff to worry about. Even if we were, an introductory pummeling of sarcasm isn't gonna attract the warmth you seek... OR the policy support. WE didn't hack yer schvantz, m'kay? Even those of us with circumcised sons... We had nuthin' to do with it.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 13, 2012 9:05 PM
On my initial comment, the evolution approach to talking about the foreskin isn't compelling on its own, but neither is a fly-by talking about appendicitis and death as a counter-argument. I opened with sarcasm because I'm familiar with your approach on this topic from before. I assumed you would continue that in this thread. I assumed too much too early. I regret that. It was a mistake. Even with your past interaction on this, I shouldn't have assumed that. I also mimicked your approach later to try it out and demonstrate that it's weak. I obviously failed and should not have strayed from my approach. I'm unconvinced it would've changed much here, but all it did was antagonize you and distract from the topic. That's my fault. I apologize.
Still, I'm not sure why you continue assuming anything you don't know, and in the way most convenient to you. What would make you think I'm not familiar with Shalom Auslander, for example, if I'm a "circumcision obsessive"? He wrote a book called Foreskin's Lament. Assume I'm familiar with it and make a point. On the off-chance I'm not, I know how to use Google.
Or consider your assumption that I'm engaged in no other topics. I put a hyperlink with my name. I don't expect you to click it, but if you're going to make negative assumptions about me that could be verified or rejected with minimal effort, I do.
I've written on many topics. Of course I've written a lot about circumcision, too. The number of words I've written on this is not a mark against me. The content of those words might be, but seeing how you've misunderstood at least part of my argument, it's premature for you to assume yourself into a conclusion.
You care about all of these other things (that maybe I care about, too). Good for you. If I disagree with you on something, that isn't a reason for me to assume you're naive, distressed, or tender and squandering a fantastic amount of energy. Yet, you do that about me. And you suggest I'd be better served spending my time on other implied weaknesses. And that I assign blame for all possible weakness I might have to circumcision. I'm aware of who is responsible for my circumcision, and the extent to which it affects - or is irrelevant to - various aspects of my life.
On the merits of circumcision, the approach you're taking is similar to the old standby. You may share the sentiment. "If I don't like circumcision, I shouldn't do it to my kids (sons only)." You're clearly a smart guy. I trust you to recognize the giant flaw in that, at least from my perspective.
Tony at June 14, 2012 8:22 AM
> the evolution approach to talking about
> the foreskin isn't compelling on its own,
> but neither is a fly-by talking about
> appendicitis and death as a counter-argument.
Ben-David doesn't do fly-by's... He's got history with us here. On a number of occasions, he's parked it in the hangar long enough to be beaten like a barnyard animal by other commenters. He's got a very particular perspective on these matters, and I was kind of hoping he might make some splashy comment, so I could [A] agree completely or [B] get rude with him again. But he lost interest; oh well.
> That's my fault. I apologize.
Never let it happen again.
> What would make you think I'm not familiar
> with Shalom Auslander
What made me think that is that you wouldn't take the point, made repeatedly and here yet again, that parents by nature do much to forge the lives of their children in ways we might find individually unacceptable, and a typical circumcision isn't the worst.
> Or consider your assumption that I'm
> engaged in no other topics.
No, I said "All we know of you is your focus on this topic." Maybe you've made dozens of comments on dozens of things; but none come to mind.
> I trust you to recognize the giant flaw in
> that, at least from my perspective.
Your faith is misplaced and your perspective is perhaps obscurred: This is, for most families, just not that big a deal, and it shouldn't be.
Crid [CridComent at Gmail] at June 14, 2012 10:26 AM
I don't take the point because it's superficial in a way that makes it wrong. Parents make many decisions. They should. Some will be good, and some will be bad. Of course. But that treats circumcision as just another subjective decision to be made. We assume it's done with love for the child, which we should. That must be divorced from the act. A loving act can be harmful. Non-therapeutic circumcision is objectively harmful. We can make judgments on that and put those judgments into the law. It's a legitimate function of government, not some nanny-state assault on liberty. Being able to reject circumcision for one's self involves an individual liberty interest.
I get the idea that each of us values circumcision differently for ourselves. We each can evaluate the objective harms against the subjective elements that might tip it to a net good (or, at least, neutral) for any of us. I don't say that anyone should share my opinion of circumcision for his own body. If we had a society where all males keep their healthy foreskins, and we then had a wave of adult circumcisions, that would be fine. Each of us has to live our own lives. Parents don't live their child's life. We can all reject, or generally overcome, most bad decisions our parents make. Circumcision can't be overcome. Surgery on any other healthy body part of a child would be a battery. The defense of male circumcision as the valid exception is indefensible.
The flaw in "If I don't like circumcision, I shouldn't do it to my kids (sons only)" is that it's anti-liberty. It gives parents the possibility to control this decision forever. It treats a male child's (healthy) foreskin as his parents' property to dispose of as they fit.
As a parental decision, this is also arbitrary. Parents can remove the prepuce of their children for any reason, but only the prepuce of their male children. Any reason is deemed acceptable. This parental decision does not apply to their daughters. Parents can't remove the prepuce of their female children for any reason other than need. If medical need doesn't exist, proxy consent is invalid. Maybe you believe that parents should have the choice to cut the genitals of their daughters. Maybe not. I don't recall any statement on this by you in the past. Regardless, the point I'm supposed to take is wrong. We recognize limits on parents. I care about liberty. We should eliminate discriminatory inconsistencies, and in the way that promotes individual liberty rather than reduces it.
Tony at June 14, 2012 2:14 PM
Before continuing (or perhaps concluding), let's publicly establish something which many readers have probably suspected for quite some time; That for these endless call-and-response threads with a stubborn commenter, Amy pays me a substantial stipend for each volley*. My integrity is indisputable; She can see I'm being as thorough and punishing as possible during each exchange, which is what makes them entertaining for her international internet audience.
So we can go back and forth like this as many times as you want... Not a problem for me.
> that treats circumcision as just another
> subjective decision to be made.
And you want to pretend it's the worst thing that could ever happen... As if all the warpages and cripplings that weak or cruel parents routinely render upon their children's immortal souls somehow can't compare.
Well, I think they can compare. Most circumcised men just aren't bothered by this. A few will be, and a few will suffer terribly from incompetent execution. But not so terribly many, and not so many that wouldn't suffer some similar cruelty in the same home if circumcision went away. In any case, the free practice of religion means more to me than a world (your imaginary world) of pristine peter safety and observance of comically exaggerated "self-ownership".
And still, you haven't actually said you want it outlawed. You haven't said much of anything except that SOMEBODY, perhaps yourself, has been made really unhappy by this. (Maybe it's sympathy play, or maybe it's goofy power grab, or maybe both.)
Outlawing circumcision would be yet another repellent intrusion of the state into personal conduct. Yes, Tony, parents do "live their children's lives" in many important and decisive respects, most especially in early days. (You'll have noticed that children actually emerge from one parent as if placed there by the other.)
We don't want to have to worry about the "rights" of people who can't even shit for themselves... Even in the most generous legal settings, extracting testimony from them would be preposterous. So we've given their parents latitude to defend children's rights in early times. This system works best. No one said it's perfect. It works best.
> Being able to reject circumcision for
> one's self involves an individual
> liberty interest.
So might any number of choices of faith, sexuality, nutrition, association, healthcare, travel, pastimes, and education... But no, children can't reject their parent's choices about those things, either. And any of them might be far more consequential than a circumcision. (And I would submit —and golly, I hope I'm not repeating myself here– that almost all of them are.) Einstein's is a universe of irrevocably branching outcomes: Through each of these, a parent will "control the decision forever."
> This parental decision does not
> apply to their daughters.
Correct. Boys and girls aren't the same. I want and expect that parents might treat them differently from birth. The liberal ninnies I hate most in the world (and that's a howling hatred indeed) are those who think everyone has to have the same experience at all times no matter what, otherwise someone's being cheated. This is just not so.
And I bet that if women were still reading this thread (which seems almost metaphysically impossible at this point) and you said there was no corresponding burden borne by girls, they could think of a few.
But even if they couldn't, I'm pretty much cool with circumcision policy in the United States of America, the best damn country the world has ever seen... With respect to dick policy and most everything else.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 14, 2012 10:47 PM
Also, please remember: No quotation marks unless you're quoting. You wuddenwanna mischaracterize, wouldja?
(I seriously believe lefties confuse themselves this way all the time... In their heads, they run these robot-narrative loops built from their own imaginations, and they get more and more upset....)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 14, 2012 11:03 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3231599">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Amy pays me a substantial stipend for each volley*.
That's what the Advice Goddess sports visors are for.
Amy Alkon at June 14, 2012 11:18 PM
Crid said: "In any case, the free practice of religion means more to me than a world (your imaginary world) of pristine peter safety and observance of comically exaggerated "self-ownership"."
I am with you here, the free practice of religion is paramount, this is why I think we should over turn the laws against FGM in the US and stop trying to interfere in other societies by forcing them to proscribe a treasured cultural and religious practice.
Crid said: "Correct. Boys and girls aren't the same. I want and expect that parents might treat them differently from birth."
It's like you're reading my mind. When will people learn that boys and girls (men and women) aren't the same. That's why all this liberal nonsense about letting women work, have equal pay, have equal access to education, and more have completly ruined this country. Women have to learn their place is in the home cooking, cleaning, and raising their family. Equal rights for women, equal treatment for women, it's been dragging us down for decades. I really can see where you're coming from Crid.
Joe at June 15, 2012 5:10 AM
> I think we should over turn the laws against FGM
When the cultures that practice FGM do as much for civilization as Judaism does, and the bad effects from FGM are as trivial and infrequent as those for male circumcision, I'll be will do discuss it.
Joe's attempted snark dovetails nicely with Tony's resentment of girls; these juvenile forces are precisely the sources of FGM and its horrors.
(Also, sarcasm is both more entertaining and more effective when presented with good punctuation.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2012 10:35 AM
Another fun story of parental concern: http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/06/calvin_sneed_compton_pimp_murdered_by_parents_san_francisco.php
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2012 11:15 AM
Crid said: "When the cultures that practice FGM do as much for civilization as Judaism does, and the bad effects from FGM are as trivial and infrequent as those for male circumcision, I'll be will do discuss it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe
and the effects are of course subjective to the individual and the kind of FGM performed.
I think we should add polygamy to the list of religious practices that should not be outlawed too. What do you think hypocrite Crid?
Crid complained: (Also, sarcasm is both more entertaining and more effective when presented with good punctuation.)
I'll be will do discuss it.
Right back at you with proper word use.
Joe at June 15, 2012 11:39 AM
Wiki:
Right. And where is Europe now, and where is Islamic civilization now?> Right back at you with proper word use.
I'm gonna have to forgive myself.
The resentment of sisters simmers across this argument, and always has. FGM is just not rhetorically comparable to Western male circumcision.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2012 12:42 PM
crid:
I thought we'd started to play nice. Your pattern of imagining facts and insults convenient to your case is strong, but this is impressive, even for this thread.
What evidence are you using as the basis for my alleged pretending? Where I said "I get the idea that each of us values circumcision differently for ourselves. We each can evaluate the objective harms against the subjective elements that might tip it to a net good (or, at least, neutral) for any of us. I don't say that anyone should share my opinion of circumcision for his own body."? Somewhere else, maybe? If my case is so weak, use my words rather than whatever source you're using.
The state already intrudes into the personal conduct of parents where there is harm. Doing so is a legitimate function of the state. The issue is which intrusions are valid. Circumcision inflicts harm on a healthy child. That's the topic you keep avoiding. As if the harm is no big deal because other things are worse or because the number of those harmed more than the typical circumcision is "not so terribly many". In your view, children are parental projects undergoing soulcraft. Boys who are harmed worse than expected are basically statistics. And then you mock my understanding of rights. Fascinating.
You seem to want the standard to be whatever is popular today is acceptable. Because the state intrudes in places where it shouldn't, any intrusion is bad. Or that other harms are worse, so circumcision is something we shouldn't worry about. It's all so simplistic.
They don't live their children's lives forever. On this they get to because why? They know their son will want it? They know their son's future partner(s) will prefer it, as if that's relevant? The invisible man in the sky tells them to cut off a healthy body part?
This system works better than others. No disagreement. You've only assumed it works best. You haven't proven it. You talk about liberty and rights as if children are property. Children have "rights", apparently. We can do better than that.
That's convenient for you. You can infer your statement from what I wrote, I suppose, but not within a reasonable reading in the context I wrote it. I argue that boys have the same basic human rights girls have. Boys and girls are the same because they are (healthy) human beings. That was clear. I did not make the argument similar to something like each child, boy and girl, should receive presents costing exactly the same amount for every birthday or some other equality of outcome nonsense.
Tony at June 15, 2012 1:28 PM
> I thought we'd started to play nice.
Would it make any difference? Are you here to be flattered, or are you here to figure it out?
> What evidence are you using as the
> basis for my alleged pretending?
Your prattle about self-ownership and human rights. Most adults, including those most deeply concerned with liberty, aren't so concerned about self-ownership of infants... It's pretty much where it needs to be in modern life.
> The issue is which intrusions
> are valid.
So, this IS about law enforcement for you, not "a nuanced mix of law and culture". Well, I don't want cops to fuck with people's families too much.
> Circumcision inflicts harm on a
> healthy child.
[A.] Only rarely. [B.] Even then, not very much, but for the freakiest minority of cases. [C.] No more so than many other formative experiences for which I am similarly loathe to intrude and set precedent.
[D.] Circumcision is a frequent, wide-orbit comet in the magnificent constellation of Judeo-Christian traditions that form the modern Western man into such a handsome, courageous, disciplined and compassionate citizen. Many customs in that intricate cosmos are bashful and tantalizing in their relevance, but I don't think we should fuck with them too much until we know how they got there, and can say so without flattering ourselves too clumsily. I believe in religious freedom.
Gotta gota work, more later. You're still wrong.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2012 2:15 PM
Oh so I see we've moved the goal post from "do as much for civilization as Judaism" to more of a 'what have you done for me lately?' as if providing much of the foundation for western civilization wasn't quite good enough.
Crid said: "The resentment of sisters simmers across this argument, and always has. FGM is just not rhetorically comparable to Western male circumcision."
I disagree. It's important to many culturally, it's important to many religiously. And we have to keep in mind that there are a range of FGM practices and a range in how they are implemented. Some do admittedly cause more injury than MGM some cause less injury than MGM. So how about, not to be quite the hypocrite that I think you are, we agree that FGM is permissible for cultural or religious reasons but it should be performed in a hygienic setting and only remove enough to meet the subjective whim of the parents, who are doing it with the child's best interest in mind of course.
And you are forgiven for your little writing faux pas, I would have never pointed it out if you weren't such an ass.
Joe at June 15, 2012 6:18 PM
> as if providing much of the foundation for
> western civilization wasn't quite good enough.
It ain't. Would you want your daughter to live that way?
> Some do admittedly cause more injury than MGM
Ma;e circumcision in the modern West is not "mutilation," and it's silly to say it is. Go up to the average guy on the street, ask if he's circumcised, then ask if he feels "mutilated."
You and Tony won't take this point: Several generations circumcised American men have been been raised in the broth of resentment and self-centeredness that should spark participation in your "civil rights[!!{!}]" approach to this issue... But essentially none of them think it's worthwhile. What does that mean to you? Do you sincerely believe they just haven't heard the word? Really?
> And you are forgiven for your little writing
> faux pas, I would have never pointed it out
> if you weren't such an ass.
Period there, not a comma. Jus' sayin'.
More later! Are people still reading?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2012 10:17 PM
> What evidence are you using as the
> basis for my alleged pretending?
Your invocation of "civil rights." Gays marry nowadays, fat people get courtesy, and saying "retard" in unfamiliar company can get you a black eye, even if you're speaking of someone who's indisputably developmentally disabled... The sanctimony you seek to conjure has long since found better targets. Babies are not the bold new frontier of liberation. What's best for babies, and how much interest people outside the family are supposed to take in them, has been at the forefront of social consciousness for thousands of years. You are not the Rosa Parks of the dork-trimming bus.
> You seem to want the standard to be whatever
> is popular today is acceptable.
What I want is for those who ask for new "standards" for family responsibility to have proportionate, impersonal, defensible rhetoric for their demand. "Circumcision inflicts harm on a healthy child" isn't even close. You're preparing to send the ham-handed State into the most delicate hours of life to sniff around and fuck with people... And once it gets there, it'll probably have things to say about Baby's nutrition, reading habits, and all the rest. To sustain this argument, you better have something more going for you than the bitterness from your own petty disappointments with family (or circumcision). I'm not convinced you do.
> Or that other harms are worse, so
> circumcision is something we shouldn't
> worry about.
No, as has been specifically noted here a number of times, I don't think you ('we'!) can diminish more suffering from circumcision than is created in anticipating it. Yeah: A freakishly tiny number of males are meaningfully deformed by this... But Minority Report was just a movie. You will not know which children are at risk, whether for happenstance botched jobs or the cruelty of fanatics, without causing more pain than the circumcision. THAT's why it happens as often as it does today. There's no check, from the State or anyone else, that's preventing genital mutilation from happening to girls... And it's not fear of the State that makes circumcision so unimportant to modern men, either.
> You can infer your statement from what
> I wrote, I suppose, but not within
> a reasonable reading in the context
> context I wrote it.
Yeahyeah blahblah, you're a terribly persuasive guy, and I'm a filthy liar and not-nice man. The first five hundred internet comments from every high school dropout have the aggrieved posture of a Doctor of Philosophy from Sorbonne, only without the learnedness.
I wish someone loved me for my dark side, y'know? My insults are GOOD for the cause of decency and kindness!
It's become obvious to me through computer communications (and a few other contexts) that the average fuckball sitting next to you on the bus imagines himself to be a thundering intellectual power, a roaring, righteous genius in all matters public and private, a guy who thinks the only thing stopping him from unleashing these commanding Hell-furies is that the people who know him for what he is aren't actually too impressed with his ideas... So humility would not be a factor in his life if he could just get an anonymous hearing....
Well, there it is. Thanks for the disk space, Amy.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 15, 2012 11:47 PM
Crid said: "It ain't. Would you want your daughter to live that way?"
I am surprised at you. According to your standards it should be fine, it sounds like paradise. Women are different from men and should be expected to be treated as such. Sounds like your kind of place Crid. Also, I don't hear much complaining from the women there except where it comes from fringe groups usually connected to silly liberal western agitators.
Of course, I wouldn't want my daughter to live that way because I would respect her as a person who should have the same rights as her brothers. And for the same reason I wouldn't circumcise her brothers, because I respect them as persons who should have the same rights and be protected like his sisters. Get it?
Crid said: "Ma;e circumcision in the modern West is not "mutilation," and it's silly to say it is."
I disagree. If I cut the earlobes off a child, would you consider that mutilation or not? And you should have addressed what I wrote. There are forms of FGM which are less severe than MGM and vice-a-versa.
Crid said: "Go up to the average guy on the street, ask if he's circumcised, then ask if he feels "mutilated.""
I have asked and found that it is more common than you think.
Crid complained: "Period there, not a comma. Jus' sayin'."
Ma;e circumcision in the
And if you weren't such an ass, I wouldn't point these thing out. Jus' sayin'.
Joe at June 16, 2012 5:05 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3232375">comment from Joe"Go up to the average guy on the street, ask if he's circumcised, then ask if he feels "mutilated.
Some may not; some may. The fact that some may not should not be the standard for performing risky and unnecessary surgery to hack off a piece of a male's body when he is not old enough to give or deny consent.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2012 5:49 AM
And if they feel grateful? Is there any brake on your intrusion whatsoever?
This is precisely the busybodydom you so often decry in other contexts. You, too, want to improve the deportment of other people's genitalia.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2012 8:45 AM
> I have asked and found that it is
> more common than you think.
Right, hence the explosion of support you've received in these comments.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2012 8:51 AM
Crid said: " You, too, want to improve the deportment of other people's genitalia."
Actually those that circumcise their children are he ones doing that.
Joe at June 16, 2012 9:17 AM
crid:
And:
"Circumcision inflicts harm on a healthy child" is proportionate, impersonal, defensible rhetoric for my demand. It is a factual statement. There is harm in every circumcision. The normal, healthy foreskin is removed. Nerve endings are removed. The penis is altered. A scar remains. Don't imply that the risk of harm beyond this predictable amount is the only harm possible. Don't confuse your subjective evaluation on net harm with the silly, untrue idea of harm "only rarely".
All surgery is harm. Legally, it's battery. The legal defense is consent. In this case, that's proxy consent. Circumcision inflicts objective harm without medical need. Soulcraft is not medical need. This absence of medical need invalidates the validity of proxy consent for non-therapeutic circumcision.
This standard isn't new. As a society we fail to apply it here, even though it applies. The facts of non-therapeutic circumcision do not support a continued defense based on tradition or hypothetical man-on-the-street interviews.
Tony at June 16, 2012 10:56 AM
> All surgery is harm. Legally, it's battery.
You're a thinker, buddy!
(Man, the AMA is going to be sooooo embarrassed when they hear about this.)
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2012 12:45 PM
Mockery doesn't alter or negate facts. But it's an amusing refuge when you have nothing else.
Tony at June 16, 2012 6:45 PM
Surgery isn't "legally battery." Saying so isn't 'factual,' proportionate, or persuasive.... These sarcastic weepings aren't getting any more interesting.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 16, 2012 7:00 PM
Wishing it away does not make the truth disappear. What I wrote is factual. If you'd like to reconsider in the full context of what I wrote rather than just two of the sentences, you might figure it out. Instead, you're just exhibiting a sad bravery in the face of your own ignorance. I've won. You just don't know it.
Tony at June 17, 2012 3:29 AM
> If you'd like to reconsider in the full context
> of what I wrote rather than just two
> of the sentences, you might figure it out.
Nope, it's simply not true. There's a reason you can't resist these petulant exaggerations: "Baby Blowjobs" / "Carte Blanche" / "All surgery is harm. Legally, it's battery." It's like Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth"... Being snarky is more important than the issue at hand. And...
> I've won. You just don't know it.
A fitting goodbye, but if it were true, you wouldn't have written anything at all.
Crid [CridComent at Gmail] at June 17, 2012 3:57 AM
To the untruncated point: All surgery is harm. Harmful. Inflicting harm. Etc. Not net harm. Legally, it constitutes battery. Do you have to sign consent forms any time you undergo an invasive medical procedure? I bet you do. Why might that be?
The part you omitted that could help you understand is what followed. The defense is consent. And so on to its conclusion.
Tony at June 17, 2012 7:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/12/baby_blowjobs_d.html#comment-3234278">comment from TonyTony is correct. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
Amy Alkon at June 17, 2012 7:57 AM
Cocksuckingly preposterous... On it's face. As if lawsuits and imprisonments are at hand, rather than large
> Inflicting harm. Etc. Not net harm.
Ah, wordplay! Trap doors, sneaky secret details, etc. So you didn't really mean it when you said "All surgery is harm. Legally, it's battery."
That's just infantile. It's pathetic. For fuck's sake, children.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2012 8:57 AM
And don't complain the we've missed the "untruncated points" when YOU'RE the one who so viciously defended the weakness of your own argument. It was transparently obvious and kind of embarrassing for you anyway, but whining now about "untruncated points" is like an alcoholic who begs tearfully for forgiveness 40 seconds after laughingly assaulting intimates.
"Untruncated points": "All surgery is harm. Legally, it's battery." We have to wonder how many other of your offerings are corroded by the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I cleverness of an effete schoolboy. It's EXACTLY what I was getting at about people pretending to have degrees in logic: Most internet commenters have never had a serious discussion about any kind of policy in a adult life... And they've wallowed in the fantasy that others will be be convinced to agree with them on the basis of tricks from summer camp in 8th grade, just before sex knocked everything else off the table of their interaction with peers.
Note also that Hippocrates doesn't permit harm for the patient who happens to sign a waiver.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2012 9:15 AM
Sorry... That earlier one should have said "large checks and gratitude."
Ever notice how surgeons live pretty well for 'illegally harming' people?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2012 9:16 AM
No, I meant it when I wrote "All surgery is harm. Legally, it's battery." I meant it, but with all the stuff I wrote after it included. You left the rest out and pretended my point was dumb and untrue as a result. I repeated myself with clarification because of your obvious misunderstanding.
Those two sentences also fit with what I wrote earlier in that comment: "Don't confuse your subjective evaluation on net harm with the silly, untrue idea of harm 'only rarely'." The necessary words were there. You missed the meaning, which is amusingly my fault, somehow. Rant all you want.
Tony at June 17, 2012 10:03 AM
> No, I meant it when I wrote "All surgery is
> harm. Legally, it's battery."
Sherrrrrrrrrrr your did. It's just that there's so much more CONTEXT... It's just pathetic. Why quibble with someone who, at at moment, can retreat by saying 'I didn't mean x, I meant NET x.' Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.....
I'm guessing you came of age, or failed to come of age, during Clinton's second term, when it depended on what your definition of "is" is.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 17, 2012 11:42 AM
If you'd get out of your own way, you could see how ridiculous you're being. I'm saying the word harm should be read to mean harm. If I write net harm, I want you to infer an evaluation. There is no Clintonian machination here. And now that I've explicitly made clear what was previously implicit, how can I retreat into "I didn't mean X, I meant NET X"?
I've given you all the words you need to understand my meaning. You keep omitting some of them. Don't assume I want you to consider only the words that would make my position "cocksuckingly preposterous".
Consider your rhetorical question about doctors making a good living by "illegally harming" people. Take a close look at those two words. One of them doesn't belong. I've already written the necessary words - twice - for you to figure out why that's a ridiculous rhetorical attack on my position. You keep ignoring them. Don't. They can help you see your mistake.
Maybe then we could discuss my position rather than the straw man you've assigned to me?
Tony at June 18, 2012 4:40 AM
Your position, or your 'net' position?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 18, 2012 8:22 AM
The position I've stated throughout, but specifically from Saturday at 10:56 am. That includes the portion of my comment you omitted that fueled your ranting. I stated facts about circumcision as a surgical intervention that go into an individual's evaluation. Those facts disprove statements you made earlier about a general lack of any harm (i.e. "only rarely"). You made it clear that your support for non-therapeutic child circumcision rests, at least in part, on the incorrect statements you made about harm.
I have an opinion on net harm, for me and my body, which is clear. I have not stated or implied that anyone else must share my opinion on net harm for me about his own body. The personal evaluation of net harm is a discussion worth having, especially because the surgical intervention is non-therapeutic and imposed via proxy consent. But my misrepresented comment did not discuss net harm.
Tony at June 18, 2012 10:15 AM
Oh.
Crid [CridComent at Gmail] at June 18, 2012 3:05 PM
"I've provided links demonstrating that many people have observed it, and that it has led some men to circumcise later in life. Sorry to be crude, but terms like "cock cheese" exist for a reason."
ME. If an intact male gives off an unpleasant smell, or has "cheese" under his foreskin, he should be directed to the nearest bath. Don't grit your teeth and suffer the indignity of a dirty dick, then resolve to spend the rest of your life defending the rights of parents and religions to demand that the foreskin be amputated.
"Many sex columns and forums are filled with discussions about how to handle related problems."
ME. Cite a few. Especially where the commenters and complainers are not American.
"It's up the parents to decide what is normal for their culture and community."
ME. Adults are not necessarily authorities on what is common and/or normal. Especially about a part of the body that is carefully hidden and seldom talked about.
"Usually Dad is pleased he's circumcised and wants the same for his son."
ME. This reportedly explains a lot of RICs in the USA, but it is an explanation that will not stand up under rational scrutiny. I don't have my father's nerdy intellect, Aspie personality. Why should I want his circumcised penis? He wanted me circumcised, but I am very glad my mother blocked that.
"You make it sound like a typical guy can wait it out and make the choice to circumcise when he's 21, which is not realistic. It becomes a much more expensive and complicated procedure."
ME. It is more complicated and expensive only in that in an adult, you can't cut corners on anesthesia. In all other respects, adult circ is easier.
"Still, the number of men who elect for it later in life vastly outnumbers the guys undergoing "reconstruction."
ME. How would you possibly know that, given that there are no stats on foreskin reconstruction??
"Studies of these men, which I referred to, show that 98% reported sustained or improved satisfaction."
ME. I doubt that. And the real test of circumcision satisfaction occurs 20-50 years after the circumcision was performed.
"You guys are making comparisons that are crazy because they involve unquestionably functional body parts..."
ME. A relevant comparison is trimming the inner lips of a woman. There is some demand for this, but it is illegal to subject a female minor to it.
"I don't buy the assertion that the foreskin is a treasured body part that is mourned. There is zero loss of function."
ME. If you are either a woman or a cut male, how would you know this? The vast majority of circumcised men do not mourn their foreskins, because they were deprived of them before they became sexually active. That does not mean that the foreskin serves no sexual purpose. As for loss of function, talk to women who've been with both.
"There are no negative side effects, except as reported by the zealots in this corner of the Internet who believe that evolution is never wrong and that every fucking thing is a slight to masculinity."
ME. The men's rights movement is anti-circ. But most anti-circ people have nothing to do with the men's rights movement. And what's wrong with preferring that Mother Nature enjoy the benefit of the doubt?
"And there ARE health benefits that are basically a backup if your kid isn't meticulously clean or does have sex without a condom."
ME. Should we cut off some of the most sexual bits in the male body, because some men are dirty slobs and/or manwhores in the bedroom? If a man insists on casual sex without a condom, he will acquire problems that are more than circumcision can handle.
"The parents are the right ones to make this decision, not the state."
ME. I don't think that RIC should be outlawed. But I also deny that parents have the sexual and urological sophistication required to make an informed decision about how a son's penis should look and function.
30-50 years ago, there was almost zero unhappiness with circumcision, because there was almost zero understanding of what a moving foreskin contributes to sexual pleasure and functionality. As that understanding has emerged in recent decades, some circumcised men have come to see themselves as hard done by. For starters, being intact greatly facilitates masturbation and hand jobs, so much so that fellatio is less necessary when men are intact. The moving foreskin makes penetrative sex run smoother and more slowly; intact men tend not to thrust as hard and as fast.
roger desmoulins at October 7, 2012 4:13 AM
Leave a comment