Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
How many people have seen it done in person, or have been involved in one?

Nope. I did a dead spider's guts off my dash after I squished it this morning.

You know whats gross? When your wiener dog tries to lick said guts off your hand, and then kiss you. Gross.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

It can be performed with anesthetic, so it really shouldn't be considered abuse.

By this logic, you can ritually scar a child so long as it's done under anesthetic and doesn't interfere with bodily functions? I'm just clarifying because this sort of logic seems really odd to me .

Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.

There's some allowances that can be made for social custom. Tons of guys are circumcised in modern society - we know it doesn't have any serious negative impact beyond the small chance for infection. It's not worth making ILLEGAL

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.

I dunno man. While it's not as egregious as female genital mutilation, it definitely seems like the same ballpark: a medically unnecessary surgery done for religious or cultural reasons.

No there is no comparison.

1. There is a religious component to male circumcision only.

2. Female circumcision is intended to make sex more painful for females, and to limit sexual pleasure in females as a control mechanism.

3. Female circumcision is dangerous, victims bleed to death often.

4. Female circumcision is not standardised, different practitioners remove more or less of the female sexual anatomy. But nearly all remove the surface area of the clitoris.


Its as different as having a tattoo is from being branded, in fact likely more so.

 Orlanth wrote:
1. There is a religious component to male circumcision only.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote but I think you're wrong about this; I am pretty sure the adherents of FGM do so for religious reasons.

 John Prins wrote:
Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.

One is preventing a collection of cells from growing further inside another independent living being. One is intentional damage directly to an independent living being. In the first, the independent living being is giving consent. In the second, the independent living being is not.

 Ouze wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
1. There is a religious component to male circumcision only.

I agree with the rest of what you wrote but I think you're wrong about this; I am pretty sure the adherents of FGM do so for religious reasons.

They might claim such but there is no verse in the Koran or Bible to back this up. Its a social/tribal convention in a community that also has religious conventions, it's not religion per se. Other nations with the same faiths, even in the developing world might have no culture of female circumcision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 John Prins wrote:
Yes, let's jump straight to hyperbole. Society permits the termination of a fetus, but snipping off a bit of skin is abusive? Or let's not.

One is preventing a collection of cells from growing further inside another independent living being. One is intentional damage directly to an independent living being. In the first, the independent living being is giving consent. In the second, the independent living being is not.

Everyone is a collection of cells. Aborted fetus beyond a certain point are recognisably human. Collections of cells don't have recognisable body parts like hands and feet, aborted fetus often have those.

While I can understand the womans 'right to choose' I can also understand that right should be used to cover parent that don't want to kill their kids because they are inconvenient but want to mark them as a sign of their covenant. They surely have a right to choose too.

Please remember that even non practicing Jews usually practice circumcision as it is a ethnic and ancestral bond. Though admittedly some do not. So it is no longer entirely religious.

Anyone know how the Jewish community of Iceland is reacting to this? I bet he's thinking pretty hard of moving back to Jersey.

 Frazzled wrote:
And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.

I'd counter that the real problem is people chopping up children's penis's.

Parents can believe they are acting in the interest of the child whilst in actuality being abusive. There's no contradiction there and it's reasonable to call it out when it is seen. Neither misplaced nor fethed up.

Tribal religions are absolutely religions, just because they have relatively few adherents compared Christianity or Islam doesn't make them any less relevant (or irrelevant)

as to the story in question I can see how it has the potential to be a major issue for those that want to circumcise for reasons of faith I think it's something that should not be allowed for non-medical reasons in new borns

keeping things clean is no excuse in a developed modern country where the ability to wash isn't going to be in question,

and potential for reduced chance or contracting HIV or HPV is something that's only really going to come up at an age where a child could be expected to have a reasonable degree of input

(perhaps allow it at 12 or so if the child also agrees, plenty of time to indoctrinate them in the faith, old enough to have a fair degree on autonomous though)

Why is circumcision a problem? I know plenty of people who are circumcised, and none of them views it as a problem.
Besides religious reasons, it is an operation that sometimes is also needed for medical reasons (my cousin for example had it done when he was 6 for medical reasons).
This reeks very strongly of the religious discrimination and the borderline racist anti-Islamic fearmongering that is so popular in Europe these days.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


Second, we don't ask children before we vaccinate them, baptise them, educate them, etc..

Vaccinations have a scientifically well established medical benefit and public health concern, baptisms ultimately do not alter a child physicallly, and education... you can’t seriously compare the need for educating a child with circumcising them. WTF?!

I agree with your point, however BobtheInquisitor's point does emphasise that religious adherence is not an informed choice on the part of the child.

FGM is not required by the Koran. However the Talmud and Koran do as I understand it, specifically require circumcision of males as part of religious adherence.

This is the cross-junction where liberal human rights and liberal human rights smash into each other. Parents have rights over their children. Religions have a right to be practised freely. Children have a right not to be mutilated by their parents.

How can the dilemma be resolved?

I don't think there is any way that won't take generations to come about. Jews and Muslims have been circumcising their boys for hundreds of years. I don't think a law giving the boy the right of refusal would be of any use, since 13-year-olds are still highly dependant on their parents for a moral and social framework to life.

Any way, what proportion of Jews and Muslims who get circumcised later regret it and would like to reverse the process? Without a strong showing in this area, the law would seem to have little practical point.

 Henry wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.

I'd counter that the real problem is people chopping up children's penis's.

Parents can believe they are acting in the interest of the child whilst in actuality being abusive. There's no contradiction there and it's reasonable to call it out when it is seen. Neither misplaced nor fethed up.

You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.

You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Tribal religions are absolutely religions,

Actually most countries this occurs in are in Africa. The cultural and tribal traditions occur regardless of which religion is being practiced in the region. The spread of Christianity and colonialism was'nt able to fully stop it. Though attempts were made. It is not also inherently Islamic either.

 Henry wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And there's the problem. You think the parents are being abusive. Thats at best a misplaced viewpoint, at worst a pretty fethed up one.

I'd counter that the real problem is people chopping up children's penis's.

Parents can believe they are acting in the interest of the child whilst in actuality being abusive. There's no contradiction there and it's reasonable to call it out when it is seen. Neither misplaced nor fethed up.

Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?

Careful Bob, your position on the facts and challenging line of questioning might be taken as psychological abuse, or even mental torment.

 Orlanth wrote:
Careful Bob, your position on the facts and challenging line of questioning might be taken as psychological abuse, or even mental torment.

I can handle that. But please, let's be careful how we respond so as not to veer into a broader culture war topic.

1. Is it your body? If yes, go ahead and do whatever you feel like, if no proceed to step two.

2. Is there a pressing medical need for a procedure that you are the one to authorize? If yes, do the procedure, if not feth off, it's not your body. Whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, it's a question of bodily autonomy.

It's analogous to buying a CD and throwing away the jewel case. It'll still play, but not as nice for the owner.

 feeder wrote:
It's analogous to buying a CD and throwing away the jewel case. It'll still play, but not as nice for the owner.

But where will you store your liner notes?

You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.

You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a friend who was beaten with coat hanger until she passed out.

I mean I know the Off-tpoic can be tumultuous but never thought I'd see child abuse apologism.

Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?

Isn't it interesting how the only counter-arguments are just tug of war over what words are permitted in the thread? Not you know, discussions about consent or human rights, or anything like that. Just 'omg you're not allowed to say that, by my decree"

I mean the mods may as well lock the thread now, it's not like anything productive will come out of it.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
1. Is it your body? If yes, go ahead and do whatever you feel like, if no proceed to step two.

2. Is there a pressing medical need for a procedure that you are the one to authorize? If yes, do the procedure, if not feth off, it's not your body. Whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, it's a question of bodily autonomy.

Except of course, abortion is not killing your body, but another's.

 Frazzled wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
1. Is it your body? If yes, go ahead and do whatever you feel like, if no proceed to step two.

2. Is there a pressing medical need for a procedure that you are the one to authorize? If yes, do the procedure, if not feth off, it's not your body. Whether it is harmful or not is beside the point, it's a question of bodily autonomy.

Except of course, abortion is not killing your body, but another's.

For some values of "body". That line of argument is going to get the thread locked post-haste.

 ScarletRose wrote:

You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.

You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a friend who was beaten with coat hanger until she passed out.

I mean I know the Off-tpoic can be tumultuous but never thought I'd see child abuse apologism.

Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?

Isn't it interesting how the only counter-arguments are just tug of war over what words are permitted in the thread? Not you know, discussions about consent or human rights, or anything like that. Just 'omg you're not allowed to say that, by my decree"

I mean the mods may as well lock the thread now, it's not like anything productive will come out of it.

Have you read nothing else in the thread? Using polite discourse is the fundamental requirement for any discussion on Dakka. Deviation results in locking. If you want to discuss consent or human rights, then by necessity you need to find words that are permitted by the rules of the site.

Also, if you go back and read my earlier points, I believe you will find that I was discussing the most efficacious methods one might use to affect the change you wish to see. As someone else pointed out in the thread, this topic contains an inherent human rights dilemma for each position. Perhaps the conversation you want to read is already taking place if you just look for it.

feeder wrote:It's analogous to buying a CD and throwing away the jewel case. It'll still play, but not as nice for the owner.

Some people actually prefer circumcised penises. Or don't care.

ScarletRose wrote:

You are sounding just like the sort who considers a smack to a naughty child as 'torture'.

You are not calling out what is seen, not this that choice of description.

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a friend who was beaten with coat hanger until she passed out.

I mean I know the Off-tpoic can be tumultuous but never thought I'd see child abuse apologism.

There is a huge difference between a soft corrective tap and smashing a kid until he/she passes out though. I would argue that a good parent never needs to hit his/her child, but a soft hit every now and then (soft enough to not really hurt the child) hardly is child abuse. My dad used to hit me, but he never hurt me. It most certainly wasn't abuse. Qualifying every hit as abuse is just being over-hysterical.

ScarletRose wrote:

Chopping up? Seriously? Take a breath and walk back from the void, there. We're talking about an ivasive surgical procedure, yes, but hardly a life-altering one let alone a maiming. Circumcised penises still enjoy sex. They still feel and respond. So, please elucidate for me all of the things circumcised men lose out on? What kinds of lifelong trauma justify your rhetoric, describing perfectly functional genitals as if they were gruesome crime scenes?

Isn't it interesting how the only counter-arguments are just tug of war over what words are permitted in the thread? Not you know, discussions about consent or human rights, or anything like that. Just 'omg you're not allowed to say that, by my decree"

I mean the mods may as well lock the thread now, it's not like anything productive will come out of it.

What about you actually read the thread? The strongest argument for circumcision is religious freedom, which is one of they key values of Western society. Just reducing all opposing arguments to something nonsensical is not very productive no, but that fault lies with you. The thread will only be productive if people actually choose to have a productive discussion, rather than just throw in straw men, red herrings and non-sequiturs.

This is a tough one because it's hard to justify a double standard for female and male circumcision, even though male circumcision is obviously much less harmful. On the other hand, I don't know of any males who have been circumcised who are really complaining about it. Also, if there's one thread I've seen on Dakka where it's impossible to talk about personal experience without getting into TMI territory, this one is it!

 Iron_Captain wrote:

feeder wrote:It's analogous to buying a CD and throwing away the jewel case. It'll still play, but not as nice for the owner.

Some people actually prefer circumcised penises. Or don't care.

I said "for the owner". It's plainly obvious that it decreases sensation.

You are right that some people prefer to play with cut vs uncut.

"We should let parents cut their penis because some girls will like to feth them more once they grow up" may be one of the weirder arguments I've seen.

My wife was weirded out by the only uncut one she came across, but I know women who prefer uncut. Its good to keep options open, ya know?

I am circumcised, my 8 year old is (not my choice). The wife and I decided if we have kid, and its a boy, he won't be getting the snip. If he wants to late, for religious reasons, that's on him. But I still function normally, so I don't see the issue in it.

Lets wait another 10 years and come back when you can genetically engineer a baby, and see how everyone feel then.

I'd ban it for religious reasons (pretty much the definition of "no reason at all") but reserve the need for surgical procedures (and by this, I mean a sterile OR with doctors and specialists in residence. Not just any mook with a scalpel.)

I don't support a wholesale ban on the procedure though. It IS sometimes necessary to perform the procedure on male children because of medical necessity (I was one of them. I'm not jewish nor muslim, nor any other variety of religion followed by humanity in the last eleventy thousand years) though and a ban would unnecessarily affect those children.

 d-usa wrote:
"We should let parents cut their penis because some girls will like to feth them more once they grow up" may be one of the weirder arguments I've seen.

You can denigrate any argument by finding the most outrageous defenders of it and placing their argument as a standard position.

Some girls might prefer a circumcised man, its a matter of personal preference like idea breast size. But it's nothing to be counted on. It could be hypothesizes that someone might be culturally conditioned to reject uncircumsized men as undesirable, but that is a continuation of the cultural mark of circumcision.

 feeder wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

feeder wrote:It's analogous to buying a CD and throwing away the jewel case. It'll still play, but not as nice for the owner.

Some people actually prefer circumcised penises. Or don't care.

I said "for the owner". It's plainly obvious that it decreases sensation.

Without getting into TMi territory, it's not obvious to me.