Infant Contracts Herpes Through Orthodox Jewish Circumcision Ritual

[Sleepy]

In addition to what Art said, if the medical benefits like lower HIV and cervical cancer risk were proven 100% true, those are benefits that occur in adulthood. The person would then have the choice of being circumcised, and he'd still receive those benefits.

[Art Vandelay]

Wait, wait, full stop. What do you mean "look like his father"? Parents want the dicks of fathers and sons to look alike?

Yep. It's a depressingly common justification for circumcision. I'm sure the internet will back me up on this, assuming you're feeling masochistic enough to check.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

Wait, wait, full stop. What do you mean "look like his father"? Parents want the dicks of fathers and sons to look alike?

Yep. It's a depressingly common justification for circumcision.

I'm sure the internet will back me up on this, assuming you're feeling masochistic enough to check.

Of all the things I've ever wanted to search the Internet for, that is not one of them. Consider this a very rare case of me taking someone at their word.

[clockworkgirl21]

A medical association in Canada recently revised their circumcision stance to be more neutral (which many European medical associations also disagree with, of course), and one of their reasons was actually that the father should have the option to make his son look like him.

I had a chart somewhere comparing the AAP's position on the benefits and risks to a European country's, I think Sweden. The European country claimed risks were much more dangerous and the benefits less substantial than the AAP were claiming. I'll post that as soon as I can dig it up.

I also wanted to include how little American doctors seem to know about the foreskin. They even have a habit of retracting infants during check-ups, which is a big no-no. This tends to cause the infections people think the foreskin itself causes. They also tend to push circumcision for any little issue with the foreskin, something other countries leave as a last resort.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/why-continue-harm-boys-ignorance-male-anatomy
(Link detailing the forced retraction by doctors issue)

[Sleepy]

I just want to emphasize my previous point, because I think it's extremely important. And if the medical benefits of circumcision are so hotly contested right now, then it's not fair to have a guy cut for potential benefits. Let him decide.

[clockworkgirl21]

Of course. There's also the fact that a man can be given adequate pain medication. Infants often aren't given enough because of the danger, and local anesthetics don't numb the frenulum much. Local is usually the only type infants are given, if they're given any at all.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I just want to emphasize my previous point, because I think it's extremely important. And if the medical benefits of circumcision are so hotly contested right now, then it's not fair to have a guy cut for potential benefits. Let him decide.

I still feel that the parents should be allowed to decide, and personally don't view circumcision as something that's that horrible. For the people who are against it, I understand where you're coming from but I just disagree.

[Yaezakura]

Honestly, the issue is "should parents be allowed to force their children into having purely cosmetic surgeries done for no real medical reason?"

Would anyone here support breast implants for 10-year-old girls? How about the parents of a dwarf child being able to force them into those horrific leg-lengthening procedures? How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?

Circumcision itself doesn't have to be a terrible thing. I'm all for people having the choice to do it to themselves. But when you do it to a child, that choice is gone. Forever. A child can't magically regrow his foreskin if he decides he wants it as an adult--but one who has it can make an informed choice to have to it removed.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?

No, just no. It is NOT the same thing. It's not even in the same ballpark. Comparing something with that (apparently arguably) has medical benefits and that is done for health reasons is not the same as mutilating the genitalia of girls--a process that unquestionably has no medical benefits and is done in order to stop women from feeling sexual pleasure of any sort--is a disgusting trivialization of FGM. If people want to debate the benefits and drawbacks of male circumcision, fine. But let's not start comparing it to a barbaric practice done to women out of spite.

[clockworkgirl21]

How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?

And before anyone says FGM is different can't be compared, it isn't, and yes it can.

Many people think FGM is the removal of the clitoris with a piece of glass and sewing up the vagina. That may be done in some African countries, but worldwide, most FGM isn't that extreme. In Egypt and Indonesia, the common form of FGM is removing the clitoral hood (which is pretty much exactly what MGM is) and it's done by a doctor in a hospital.

http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
This is a blog by an Indonesian woman who had her daughter circumcised. Only the clitoral hood was removed, as she specified in the comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I&feature=youtu.be
A Youtube video of women defending female circumcision in Egypt.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-ignores-un-ban-on-female-circumcision-denies-mutilation/581699
And this shows something doesn't even have to be removed to be considered FGM, and illegal in the USA. This type of circumcision is just scraping some skin from the clitoris in Indonesia. Nothing removed, still considered mutilation.

IMO, there is no good reason to be against FGM but think male circumcision is okay.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

How can anyone sit here and condemn female genital mutilation overseas, while approving of the exact same thing being done to males here?

And before anyone says FGM is different can't be compared, it isn't, and yes it can.

Many people think FGM is the removal of the clitoris with a piece of glass and sewing up the vagina. That may be done in some African countries, but worldwide, most FGM isn't that extreme. In Egypt and Indonesia, the common form of FGM is removing the clitoral hood (which is pretty much exactly what MGM is) and it's done by a doctor in a hospital.

http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
This is a blog by an Indonesian woman who had her daughter circumcised. Only the clitoral hood was removed, as she specified in the comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcJNAtn-c6I&feature=youtu.be
A Youtube video of women defending female circumcision in Egypt.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/indonesia-ignores-un-ban-on-female-circumcision-denies-mutilation/581699
And this shows something doesn't even have to be removed to be considered FGM, and illegal in the USA. This type of circumcision is just scraping some skin from the clitoris in Indonesia. Nothing removed, still considered mutilation.

IMO, there is no good reason to be against FGM but think male circumcision is okay.

It's completely different. I was not circumsized to stunt my sexual pleasure, and at least male circumcision has some legitimate reasons behind it. If you want to debate the medical benefits of it, feel free to post that. I can't even wrap my head around this, because you have one practice with evidence of medical benefits and one with zero. This is fucking baffling and borderline sexist.

I think this sums it up nicely. I could still be convinced that the problems of male circumcision outweigh the benefits, but comparing the two...I apologize for being so angry but it REALLY rubs me the wrong way.

[clockworkgirl21]

The type of circumcision I was talking about was not done to curb sexual pleasure. If you read/watch them, you'll see they use the same reasons many people do to justify MGM. They think it's cleaner, healthier, and many women want it done to their daughters because it's tradition.

And if you're going to say there are no benefits to FGM, remember that many European countries say the same about MGM, but we ignore it because we think there are benefits. That's pretty much what these countries with FGM are doing.

And remember, I'm not talking about cutting the clitoris off and sewing up the vagina, but the more common clitoral hood circumcision, which is almost the exact same thing as MGM. In fact, it's probably worse for men, since their foreskins are bigger and cover a lot more skin.

I have to say I don't agree with that article at all, besides the general idea that FGM is wrong, which I agree with.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

The type of circumcision I was talking about was not done to curb sexual pleasure. If you read/watch them, you'll see they use the same reasons many people do to justify MGM. They think it's cleaner, healthier, and many women want it done to their daughters because it's tradition.

And there's not even remotely any proof of this. Besides, even if they say that's the reason these are Muslim nations that tend to be extremely patriarchal, so I'm not surprised that even women would try and justify the practice. It's a cultural thing.

And if you're going to say there are no benefits to FGM, remember that many European countries say the same about MGM, but we ignore it because we think there are benefits. That's pretty much what these countries with FGM are doing.

Fine, then let the people in European countries do more research about male circumcision. The CDC, the WHO and other organizations who have studied it have said otherwise--it isn't about just ignoring things because they don't like it. But I think you'd be hardpressed to find ANY reputable health organizations agreeing that there is ANY scientific evidence that FGM has medical benefits.

And remember, I'm not talking about cutting the clitoris off and sewing up the vagina, but the more common clitoral hood circumcision, which is almost the exact same thing as MGM.

How is it almost the exact thing? Even with that there is long-lasting damage--something one rarely finds with male circumcision.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

In other words, you can't just say, "Well, they're both procedures done to genetalia that involve removing something so they're totally the same." We're talking about one procedure (FGM) that is done to stop women from experiencing sexual pleasure and that, even if some people in Islamic countries believe there are health benefits, there is no evidence of them; and a second procedure (MGM) which is not done as a way to control men's sexuality and actually has scientific research from prominent groups saying it carries benefits, even if those benefits are doubted by the medical doctors that were linked to earlier. If you want to disprove what the CDC or WHO does, then by all means do it, but I feel you're making a false equivalency.

[clockworkgirl21]

MGM does cause long lasting damage. Thousands of nerve endings essential for sexual stimulation are lost, along with the protection of the glans. It's been connected with erectile dysfunction, for one.

And that's just if there are no complications to the procedure. If there are complications, it's even worse.

And here's another thing I find troubling: Why is it that you can say FGM isn't the same as MGM because it would be like cutting off the entire penis, then why can't the retort be, "Yes, but then what's wrong with removing the foreskin, then? We already do that with men."

It's like FGM can only be compared to MGM to explain how damaging it is, but not to highlight how similar they can be.

Oh, and MGM did gain popularity as a way to curb masturbation in the USA in the late 1800s. It has been done to stop sexual feelings before.