circumcision is okay cuz... reasons!

[dsayers]

I was having a conversation with a family member who is connected to my father and cares about me in a "your father loves you; he just doesn't know how to show it" kind of way. We got on the topic of circumcision by way of me saying "my parents mutilated my genitals." This was her reply:

 

 

Who says stuff like this?  It just sounds off to me.  Circumcision is a standard practice in this country.  Your statement makes it sound like they were intentionally trying to cause you harm.

This was very troubling for me to read. I wanted to address it diplomatically while not leaving any room for thinking that it is okay to be so cavalier about sexually assaulting infants. What follows was my reply, shared with y'all for the sake of garnering feedback. Thanks for reading!

 

 

First of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to double back to this email. Both of your emails were well-received. I am quite lonely out here and it's nice knowing that I'm still in your thoughts and worthy of your time. That said, this part here has been on my mind all night long. So while I don't have the time for a full reply, I wanted to address this much because it was painful for me to read.

 

The first thing I noticed is that there's no attempt to validate my experience. No curiosity whatsoever. In fact, the part where you say "Your statement makes it sound like they were intentionally trying to cause you harm" seems emotionally charged. I said "my parents mutilated my genitals." This is an objective claim whose truth value is true. There is no indication of intent. I wonder if you're in touch with why you'd have such a reaction.

 

Do you have any proof that they were not causing me harm? How do you know that intent is relevant? To not cut into the flesh of a living creature is the passive default. You and I are both doing that right now. To cut into the flesh of a living creature is an active decision. The onus is on the people making that decision and/or carrying out that action. Without reason to do so, I don't see how intent would even be relevant.

 

"Who says stuff like this?" Can you explain what difference that would make? If Hitler said 2+2=4, would that make it false? If Einstein said 2+2=5, would that make it true? What is meant by "stuff like this"? Again, I spoke a true statement. Are you asking who speaks the truth? It's unclear as to what the purpose of your inquiry was other than possibly to deflect.

 

"It just sounds off to me." In what way? Are you saying that I was NOT disfigured? That my parents had no control over it happening to me? Can you think of anything you've ever heard that sounded off, but was true anyways? The first step to wisdom is calling things by their proper names. When I started studying philosophy and pursuing self-knowledge, the most valuable lesson I received--indeed, the basis for all reason--was the ability to accept my own capacity for error. Meaning I accept that something might sound off to me, but as I am fallible, this is insufficient as a form of disproof.

 

dictionary.com defines mutilate as "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts." I was injured by way of elective removal of part of my body, which has left me disfigured. Whether it sounds right to you or me, "my parents mutilated my genitals" is an objectively verifiable true statement. One that is traumatic to any person, but particularly to an infant, who is already on sensory overload due to not yet developing filters for all the information they're taking in. It directly effects the early release of cortisol while the brain is still forming, providing a (perhaps not so) false indication that the child's environment is more hostile than nurturing.

 

Why does that matter? Because when a child is born, their brain is scanning their environment. If it's perceived to be hostile, the brain develops down a more primitive path. If it's perceived to be nurturing, the upper brain develops with greater complexity. This is not a process that is reversible and has physiological effects that last a lifetime. And for what? This is why I wanted to point out a lack of curiosity. The information is out there if you're interested. Saying it sounds off to you is saying that you're interested enough to offer an opinion, even if that opinion isn't based on anything. It would also suggest that you're uninterested in the validity of my experience, which saddens me.

 

"Circumcision is a standard practice in this country." If by standard you mean that it's performed only where requested, I guess so. But what does that mean? There was a time where it was standard practice for a man to beat his wife. If you came to me and told me that your spouse had assaulted you, how would you feel if my only feedback was that that was considered normal by other people who don't know you and have no investment in your well-being? If everybody likes apples or everybody hates apples, this does not fundamentally alter the identity of the apple. I really don't see what your statement is meant to convey. Could you explain it to me please?

 

I know this topic arose from a conversation about Jane. But just to be clear, I'm sharing with you MY experience. Jane only entered into it in so far as she was sympathetic as to why I'd rather not wear a condom. She was empathetic to the point of voluntarily exposing herself to elective hormones so that I wouldn't have to feel her even less than my parents had already relegated me to. I just didn't want you to mistake my rational push back in this email as some misguided defense of Jane just because she understood this also. I knew the harm in circumcision before meeting her. It just wasn't until I fell in love with her specifically that I became emotionally connected to the reality that it was done to me.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

dictionary.com defines mutilate as "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts." I was injured by way of elective removal of part of my body, which has left me disfigured. Whether it sounds right to you or me, "my parents mutilated my genitals" is an objectively verifiable true statement.

Wrong. Injury and damage are not objective. If everyone in the country got a tattoo of the US flag on their forehead at birth, you could easily argue that it would be much more damaging to deprive them of the tattoo than have them be a social pariah and outcast for most their childhood until they decided for themselves to get the tattoo. Saying genital mutilation or infant ear mutilation "sound off" just like SJWs calling sex rape if there is no explicit consent made throughout sex or libertarians calling taxation slavery. It defies both social norms in practice and traditional vernacular. You have no excuse for not understanding why people think you're "off".

 

"Circumcision is a standard practice in this country." If by standard you mean that it's performed only where requested, I guess so. But what does that mean? There was a time where it was standard practice for a man to beat his wife. If you came to me and told me that your spouse had assaulted you, how would you feel if my only feedback was that that was considered normal by other people who don't know you and have no investment in your well-being? If everybody likes apples or everybody hates apples, this does not fundamentally alter the identity of the apple. I really don't see what your statement is meant to convey. Could you explain it to me please?

This means it was not malicious. If it was a social standard to beat your wife, then it's expected of both parties to either beat or be beaten. If you think there is something inherently wrong with beating someone, then it would make sense to say that social factors don't change the nature of the act. But I would say moral value are directly linked to social norms. If everyone hated apples, you can bet it would change the message if you gifted your spouse a bunch of apples, regardless of the "identity of the apple".

[Torero]

I think your reply is very well worded and to the point.

 

I however think I understand the rather shocked reaction from your friends. If they don't have a bad relationship with their parents or still believe in God or so, it is just incomprehensible for them that you do not have that. They simply don't understand. And that can have so many causes, but I wouldn't interpret them having problems with your mutilation remark as problems with you. They cannot empathize because they -luckily- lack the experience.

 

If they still don't understand you after your well written reply it would be a different thing...

[WontStandForIt]

What is so wrong with circumcision?  I was circumcised and I am fine, my mother said without being circumcised that some nasty infections could happen. I don't think that they did me wrong with that decision, they were listening to doctor recommendations.

[neeeel]

What is so wrong with circumcision?  I was circumcised and I am fine, my mother said without being circumcised that some nasty infections could happen. I don't think that they did me wrong with that decision, they were listening to doctor recommendations.

 

without removing all your teeth, there are some nasty problems and infections that could happen, so as soon as your teeth come in, we are going to remove them all.

[csekavec]

Imagine the various touch sensation that your fingertips allow you. 

 

Circumcision is amputating the tip of the penis. And in terms of the nervous system is is akin to amputating the tips of your fingers.  That is how many nerves are severed. That is how much sense experience is lost. 

 

The only downside to being non circumcised that has a strong correlation is prevalence of urinary tract infections. When the data is corrected for hygiene there is no greater chance. So as long as young boys are taught to wash their penis properly there is no risk.  Other studies loudly proclaim higher risk of prostate cancer and the like. They are bunk once you look at their data.  There is huge incentive to protect the idea of moral circumcision because accepting the alternative is a horrifying thing to deal with, particularly for a practictioner who performed perhaps 10,000 of these mutilations. If it were me I couldn't sleep at night. But unlike me many of those doctors minds rebel against reality and seek to justify their acts after the fact. Also there is the body image thing. The researchers defending circumcision are circumcised and have a large incentive to affirm their own body image by defending the practice -- all at the cost of a massive mind blank. 

 

I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm saddened for anyone who isn't as fortunate as I am. I can't imagine it. 

[Jaeger]

Me and my brother were circumcised my dad was not.  Unfortunately my parents chose the to follow the status quo when asked at our births.  I'm sure without any thought about it.  If my firstborn wasn't born three months premature most likely we would have followed the status quo and had him circumcised.  luckily for him I was so shocked that two days after he was ripped out of his mothers womb by emergency c-section they wanted to do it, even though he was only 2 lb and 3 oz.  I remember I looking at my wife  and she at me and we said hell no.  He's already fighting for his life and to add one more trauma would just be cruel.  After him we had 4 girls in a row so we didn't face it again until my second son was born.  By then we already decided we wouldn't circumcise, so we also didn't circumcise our third and last son.

 

I would think their would be far more of a downside to being circumcised than not.  

 

http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

[ThomasTheIdealist]

without removing all your teeth, there are some nasty problems and infections that could happen, so as soon as your teeth come in, we are going to remove them all.

And if everyone did it, there would be no social embarrassment, just like circumcision. Everyone having false teeth would be fairly convenient for most people besides dentists.

 

Imagine the various touch sensation that your fingertips allow you. 

 

Circumcision is amputating the tip of the penis. And in terms of the nervous system is is akin to amputating the tips of your fingers.  That is how many nerves are severed. That is how much sense experience is lost.

I think everyone already knows about the nerve loss. That point doesn't convince anyone of anything. It only serves as a disingenuous comparison, as if the nerves in your penis are just as important as the nerves in your fingers.

 

You should just stick to dispelling the false notions that it's necessary to prevent infection, because basic hygiene is a perfectly fine alternative for that. Doctors could stop merely because it's unnecessary, there's no reason to think they were moral monsters. There are plenty of contemporary medical practices that will eventually be determined to be improper or unnecessary, that has always been the history of medicine.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

What is disingenuous about it? Assigning comparative "importance" on healthy functional tissue seems disingenuous to me.

Some limbs and body tissue is more important than others. I certainly hope you're not trying to deny that.

 

People with their fingertips cut off are much more handicapped than people with their foreskin cut off. Would you also think it fair for me to imply that cutting off he foreskin was like cutting off the eyelids of babies because the nerve loss is comparable?

 

Violating their genital autonomy sends very specific messages about the disposability of their sexuality, and this is very damaging psychologically. To further dismiss that, when a circumcised man has gone through the difficult process of recognizing it, is especially cruel and brings to mind the term gaslighting. You're essentially accusing him of being crazy for recognizing the cruelty that was done to him. Shame on you. Seriously.

This is the SJW mindset, one of extreme victimhood where everything becomes traumatic and stress-inducing, a state where offense is given and not merely taken. Next you'll be buying into the idea that giving your daughter a barbie is infringing on the autonomy of their gender identity and psychologically damaging them and inevitably assaulting their self-esteem.

 

I now it's very convenient for the anti-circumcision narrative to attribute all this additional psychological harm, but it's unnecessary and largely unfounded. You can oppose circumcision on the known merits alone (or lack thereof).

 

It took decades, if not centuries, to convince doctors that babies could feel pain, despite the fact they would scream and eventually dissociate when operated on without anesthesia. Does this mean we should dismiss any consequent psychological or physiological trauma that would result? Does this mean the doctors were not morally culpable for such cruelty? I think not. Excusing it is monstrous. "It's just history" reminds me of all the parents who want to claim they didn't know hitting their children was wrong. I won't excuse them any more than I'll excuse cutting parents, physicians, and mohels.

I don't think anyone is morally culpable for doing that they think is moral (or amoral).

 

 

By the way, the women who "circumcise" young girls in African countries are not doctors--does that make them more culpable than the "civilized" medical practitioners of the west?

No, just makes them more ignorant perhaps. If someone believes their doing the right thing, I'm not sure how you can consider them morally culpable, whether it be a medically "right" things or socially "right" things. Doctors weren't morally culpable for attempting to use leeches to cure illnesses centuries ago, not unless they knew the leeches were pointless as they do today. And if it was widely considered good parenting to spank your children, in the absence of opposing evidence, I'm not sure why it would be considered good/moral parenting to abstain from spanking. If you think something will benefit your child, and you intentionally abstain, is that good parenting?

[dsayers]

Thomas, you continue to dispense with consent. I think monstrous was a fair characterization.

[neeeel]

And if everyone did it, there would be no social embarrassment, just like circumcision. Everyone having false teeth would be fairly convenient for most people besides dentists.

 

 

by this argument, we should cut off any and all body parts , at birth, that have any chance of infection or medical problems later on.

[ThomasTheIdealist]

by this argument, we should cut off any and all body parts , at birth, that have any chance of infection or medical problems later on.

Yeah. Assuming there are no significant disabilities as a result that aren't properly offset by the benefits. For instance, replacing limbs with artificial ones will eventually be preferred, I imagine, so most that damage can be offset with many more benefits.

 

Claiming that the risk of infection is worth having more nerves is not compelling to a lot of people, and I wouldn't give them any moral blame.

[csekavec]

Claiming that the risk of infection is worth having more nerves is not compelling to a lot of people, and I wouldn't give them any moral blame.

 

Who is them? 

 

Big difference between adult and infant body alteration.

 

UTI risk is a consequence of having the uethra not exposed. Do you support female uethra exposure? Or is good hygiene good enough? Uncircumcised men still have lower risk than females after all. 

 

It's not for you to decide whether female sensation or infection risk is the more important. Neither is it the parents to decide for an infant. 

[ThomasTheIdealist]

Who is them?

The people who don't find the said argument compelling.

 

UTI risk is a consequence of having the uethra not exposed. Do you support female uethra exposure? Or is good hygiene good enough? Uncircumcised men still have lower risk than females after all.

I think hygiene is enough for most males and females. But if someone doesn't agree, I'm not sure why it would be moral for them to not circumcise their children while they're convinced it would be the best for them.

 

It's not for you to decide whether female sensation or infection risk is the more important. Neither is it the parents to decide for an infant.

So it's not a parent's job to make decisions on their children's healthcare?

[neeeel]

 

I think hygiene is enough for most males and females. But if someone doesn't agree, I'm not sure why it would be moral for them to not circumcise their children while they're convinced it would be the best for them.

 

 

 

So as long as I believe it would be best, its not immoral for me to kill someone?

[Torero]

If I believe or "am convinced" my child goes to hell if I don't tattoo him/her the full leg, according to Thomas the "Idealist" that would be perfectly ok to do.

 

Hmmm....

[AncapFTW]

If I believe or "am convinced" my child goes to hell if I don't tattoo him/her the full leg, according to Thomas the "Idealist" that would be perfectly ok to do.

 

Hmmm....

Well, they'll go to Hell if you don't beat a fear of Hell into them, accompanied by indoctrination.  And if you're jewish, you need to remove the foreskin too, so...

 

/sarcasm

[Mister Mister]

This is the SJW mindset, one of extreme victimhood where everything becomes traumatic and stress-inducing, a state where offense is given and not merely taken. Next you'll be buying into the idea that giving your daughter a barbie is infringing on the autonomy of their gender identity and psychologically damaging them and inevitably assaulting their self-esteem.

 

 

Not an argument, just poisoning the well.  Because SJWs complain about some things as "traumatic" which may be hysterical and exaggerated, then nothing is traumatic, or everyone who talks about trauma is being equally hysterical...Giving someone a barbie is not a violation of the NAP.  Cutting off their foreskin or labia or clitoris or ear or pinky toe IS.

 

 

I now it's very convenient for the anti-circumcision narrative to attribute all this additional psychological harm, but it's unnecessary and largely unfounded. You can oppose circumcision on the known merits alone (or lack thereof).

Convenient is not an argument, it's an implication that your opponent is being manipulative.  Source?  Also, have you ever watched a video of a circumcision?  Just curious.  I myself couldn't get through it.  If you were satisfied there was no permanent psychological harm to baby rape (as was and still is believed by many people in the world throughout history), would you be okay with it?

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is morally culpable for doing that they think is moral (or amoral).

 

  This is perhaps the most substantial or interesting thing you've said, worth breaking down.  To some extent, I get where you are coming from.  It is true that morality is an evolving science, and the less knowledge about morality a person has, the harder it is to hold them accountable.  Is someone who inherited slaves in the 1600s an immoral person?  It's hard to say.  Like you pointed out, we wouldn't consider a doctor who used leeches, when it was commonly accepted, as bad as a doctor who uses them now (though I think there are still some legitimate uses of leeches...).  However, it's not that simple.  First of all, we have a tradition in Law of "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse for illegal behavior".  The obvious reason for this, is that if we did allow this excuse, it would be very easy for many people to claim ignorance as a defense, and nearly impossible to prove.  But in this case, we can disprove that ignorance.  Most of the Western World does not practice circumcision.  Also, people instruct children based on principles like "keep your hands to yourself", and chant political slogans like "my body, my choice", implying that they do understand this basic principle from which they exempt baby boys.  It is this fundamental moral hypocrisy that is so frustrating and contemptible.  I hope that makes some sense to you.

 

 

Claiming that the risk of infection is worth having more nerves is not compelling to a lot of people, and I wouldn't give them any moral blame.

  Yet very few intact adult males opt to get circumcised except in cases of medical emergency, where they might otherwise lose the whole penis.  So actually this case is compelling to most men.  As opposed to something like vaccines, or brushing your teeth, which babies and children don't like, but many adults choose to do.  Either way it's not your decision to make, that's the point.

[Jaeger]

The hospitals and doctors who promote circumcision do not tell us the whole story.  While they tell you that an uncircumcised man has a greater chance of penile cancer or higher risk of urinary track infection.  They never tell you the actual odds of getting these conditions.  Here is the statistic from provided link on penile cancer.

 

 

 

What are the key statistics about penile cancer?

The American Cancer Society estimates for penile cancer in the United States for 2016 are:

• About 2,030 new cases of penile cancer diagnosed
• About 340 deaths from penile cancer

For statistics related to survival, see Survival rates for penile cancer.

Penile cancer is rare in North America and Europe. It occurs in less than 1 man in 100,000 and accounts for less than 1% of cancers in men in the United States. Penile cancer is, however, much more common in some parts of Asia, Africa, and South America. Visit the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Statistics Center for more key statistics.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-key-statistics 

 

By comparison the odds of dying in a car accident during your lifetime is 1 in 470

 

http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/mortality-risk

 

Now what is the odd of a circumcised man having decreases penile sensitivity.  Oh that would be 1 in 1.

 

I couldn't find any actual number on the chance of a man getting a urinary tract infection, but found this a good read.  Age is the number one factor of getting one.

 

http://www.everydayhealth.com/urinary-tract-infections/can-men-get-urinary-tract-infections.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

Men and women aren't created equal when it comes to getting urinary tract infections.

Though one out of five women will develop a urinary tract infection (UTI) at some point in her life, most men will never have a UTI. In fact, only 20 percent of diagnosed urinary tract infections occur in men. Urinary tract infections are extremely rare in young men, but their risk does increase as a man ages; UTIs are more common in men after the age of 50.

Factors That Put Men at Risk for UTIs

Besides age, there are additional factors that put you at a greater risk for getting UTIs if you're a man, including:

• An enlarged prostate gland
• Kidney stones
• Diabetes
• Bladder catheter insertion
• Any health condition that affects the immune system

 

I'll take my chances on not circumcising my boys.  

[Jaeger]

I also found this.  This post may actually post first since my other post is awaiting approval.

 

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/urinary-tract-infections-in-children-beyond-the-basics

 

 

URINARY TRACT INFECTION CAUSES

In healthy children, most urinary tract infections (UTI) are caused by Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, which are normally found in stool. These bacteria can move from the anus to the urethra and into the bladder (and sometimes up into the kidney) causing infection.

Risk factors — Some children have a higher chance of developing a UTI. The following are some risk factors for UTI:

●Young age; boys younger than one year old, and girls younger than four years of age are at highest risk.

●Being uncircumcised; there is a four to 10 times higher risk of UTIs in uncircumcised boys. Still, most uncircumcised boys do NOT develop UTIs. (See "Patient information: Circumcision in baby boys (Beyond the Basics)".)

●Having a bladder catheter for a prolonged period of time.

●Having parts of the urinary tract that did not form correctly before birth.

●Having a bladder that does not work properly.

●Having one UTI slightly increases the chance of getting another UTI.

While it is true an uncircumcised baby boy has a higher risk of getting a UTI than a circumcised baby boy, they never actually give you the odds of actually getting one.  All they can do is say that most will not get it.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say it is a very low chance.

[Jaeger]

The odds of getting a UTI is extremely low, and the risk in girls is much higher than boys. The UTI study that everyone sites for that statistic is extremely problematic. It was done in a military hospital, and all the intact boys had their foreskins forcibly retracted...this is known to cause infections as the foreskin is adhered to the head of the penis at birth as your fingernail is to your finger. AND ANYWAY, infections are cleared with antibiotics. Preemptive amputation is a ridiculous "treatment" just looking for a problem to cure. The problems it supposedly cures skip around every few years as the earlier ones are debunked. That's why we have to go back to the fundamental violation of bodily autonomy and the fact that no one has the right to selectively chop off whichever parts are out of fashion.

yep just found this.  I retract my statement "While it is true an uncircumcised baby boy has a higher risk of getting a UTI than a circumcised baby boy"

 

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/

[john cena]

without removing all your teeth, there are some nasty problems and infections that could happen, so as soon as your teeth come in, we are going to remove them all.

Well actually here in america having your wisdom teeth taken out is done routinely for that reason. No not all of them, and they don't cut all of your cock off either. 

 

Sure I could have chosen to not get my wisdom teeth removed. Sure I pondered what would have happened and how well I would have chewed if I kept them, but I listened to what the doctor said anyway. I think we need to place the blame here on the crony statist doctors.. Qualified medical professionals should not be giving out incorrect information or willing to do unnecessary procedures. 

 

What do we really miss from getting circumcised besides moldy dick cheese?

[castus]

Mmhm. So circumcision doesn't have any utility.....:

 

 

http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/why-circumcision-lowers-risk-of-hiv/

 

/shrug

[castus]

That's already been debunked a million times - check out our presentation on the subject.

 

Eh, I apologize: I should have checked a bit more thoroughly before posting; ignorance exposed on my part perhaps. I'm not exactly familiar with the topic all that well.

 

To be honest, some of the comments I glanced through may have brought me to be a bit cynical - hence the snarkiness.

 

I may check out the video later. Thanks.

[Spenc]

From what i can gather from sources, the prevalence rate for UTIs in boys is 1%, incidence rate is unknown, but substantially fewer than 20% of men will ever experience a UTI, and it would seem that incidence spikes in your 20s.

 

This is based on cobbling a bunch of different statistics and dissemination together.

 

And one important factor to remember, circumcision is elective, so it's not a zero-sum game at infancy, an adult male can go get a UTI anytime he wants in order to decrease his risk of developing a UTI.  And again, if prevalence is highest in a man's 20s, this means an adult male has a lot of control over his own risk factors and it isn't imperative that a parent make the decision on his behalf in infancy.  Again, only a 1% prevalence rate in boys!  (3% for girls)

 

 

But to me, this isn't even the issue at hand.  I think the issue for me, as a prospective father, is that to circumcise my son would be to take ownership over his body in a way that would make me very uncomfortable and probably unable to rationalize it.  I was not circumcised so I cannot really talk about it from the side of being the son who has lost fundamental ownership over my own body from birth, but I suspect that this is the root of dsayer's negative experience of the issue.