Circumcision: A Social Status in the UK ?

[Amazonia]

Curiously in the UK, circumcision is now a matter of social class. While the "ordinary" folks rarely circumcise, circumcision is prevalent in the upper class as well as in the Royal family.

I haven't used the word mutilation about ear piercing. I repeat. I do not think that anyone has the right to permanently change somebody else's body without medical need if that person is unable to consent. In my opinion, the earliest informed consent could be given is about 12.

Presumably people who do not agree with vaccination do not vaccinate their children. I, and most other people who understand the issues, believe that vaccination is medically necessary for the overwhelming majority of children. Because it is medically necessary, I can make that decision on behalf of my as yet unable to consent child.

Martorana,

Your concept of consent is not as clear as you would like however moving on, I would suggest that even you would agree that the consent issue is argued more forcefully when it comes to circumcision than any other topic.

I get that you do not like circumcision and accept your right to that opinion as long as the consequences of circumcision are discussed honestly. With the amount of disinformation being plastered on the internet by radical (American) anti-circumcision activists this is rarely the case and these lies and gross exaggerations seem to be accepted as fact by so many who don't look into the facts before they start lecturing parents: they just regurgitate the same old lies. That is the problem, not your personal and arbitrary age of consent.

Willson - loved your post. LOL
Never heard of that I have to say...

"Your concept of consent is not as clear as you would like however moving on"

Which bit of "you shouldn't permanently alter the body of another human being in any way which is not medically necessary if that person is unable to consent and a person is not capable of informed consent til around the age of 12" is unclear?

I will argue this point on any thread about any such issue- it so happens that circumcision is the most commonly argued example. I have also argued against ear piercing on similar grounds.

And it doesn't matter what "lies and misinformation" is spread about the internet, and some of the intactivist weds it's are seriously bonkers.

The bottom line is consent. You are permanently altering somebody else's body for no good reason. You just can't do that.

Motorana: The bit where a parent is just as able to persuade their 12year old child that something is in their interest, as Muslim parrnts do with their sons when they are circumcised at 12. The bit where a 12 year old can consent to a tattoo by your definition. The bit where a parent mustn't have their child's ears pinned back until they are 12 if they look like Dumbo the elephant etc, etc.

If a parent is able to persuade their 12 year old that something is in their best inerests, then maybe it is. But most 12 year olds I know are certainly able to look at the facts and make their own minds up. Any any 12 year old is better able to do this than a baby.

And we have laws about tattoos. Do you think a parent should be allowed to tattoo their baby if they want to? And I take your point about ears. But because ears are not meant to stick out, it would be possible to argue that it was necessary. Penises are meant to have foreskins.

Motorana said: "If a parent is able to persuade their 12 year old that something is in their best inerests, then maybe it is. But most 12 year olds I know are certainly able to look at the facts and make their own minds up. Any any 12 year old is better able to do this than a baby.

And we have laws about tattoos. Do you think a parent should be allowed to tattoo their baby if they want to? And I take your point about ears. But because ears are not meant to stick out, it would be possible to argue that it was necessary. Penises are meant to have foreskins."

Sticking with your definition of consent (as we seem to be), why do you think the law does not allow a 12 year old to decide to get a tattoo?

Did you mean to say that the circumcision of 12 year old Muslim boys is in their interest?

As I said, not entirely clear cut.

And I think I must challenge your assertion that penises are meant to have foreskins too. This is meaningless: the foreskin was certainly necessary for the protection of the sensitive glans... but this role is no longer necessary since the invention of clothing. Had the penis evolved in current conditions (ie clothed) there is no reason to expect it would have a foreskin.

I don't know why you're quibbling about my idea of consent when you appear to think that parents have complete autonomy over their children's bodies.....

Martorana said: "I don't know why you're quibbling about my idea of consent when you appear to think that parents have complete autonomy over their children's bodies....."

Quibbling? This is your main argument against circumcision of children and I was showing that it is, at best, arbitrary (and at worst nothing more than a convenient excuse for those who don't like circumcision to attack parents who choose circumcision for their children.)

And I don't think parents have complete autonomy over their children's bodies, not at all. I do, however, believe that parents have a responsibility to do what they feel is in their child's best long term interests.

baggins is not willing to clarify what he means, but it looks now as if he considers a small mutilation, such as slitting ears or cutting off a toe, to be a mutilation; but a small mutilation, such as cutting off a foreskin, not to be a mutilation.

I don't know if we will find out how he decides which mutilations he is willing to use the term for. His criteria do not appear to be related to size or utility of the mutilated part.

Arbitrary? Well, you have to pick an age when a child can give informed consent. I reckon 12 is about the youngest you can go. I do think it's quite shocking that you talked your 5 year old into circumcision- if you didn't do it as a baby, why on earth not wait until he could decide for himself?

And as I have said, I don't just apply this to circumcision, but to all non medically indicated, permanent surgical changes to a normal healthy body.

Finally the interpretation of circumcision is fairly "elastic"

What I am reading here sounds like this:

• If the boy consents, it is not "mutilation, otherwise it is.

• If the doctor say it is needed, it is not mutilation, if the parents ask for it, it is mutilation.

At the end of the day, when you meet a circumcised man, you cannot tell if he has been mutilated by solely checking the state of his penis. In some cases, the circumcised guy will be stamped as mutilated, in other cases, he will not be stamped as mutilated.

What a rational way to look at it !!

PigletJohn: (demonstrated his inability to comprehend even his own posts.)

Martorana said: "Arbitrary? Well, you have to pick an age when a child can give informed consent. I reckon 12 is about the youngest you can go. I do think it's quite shocking that you talked your 5 year old into circumcision- if you didn't do it as a baby, why on earth not wait until he could decide for himself?"

I have covered this before but to save you time, before the age of 8 circumcision can be done with the plastibell or circumplast method. This method doesn't create any open wound which makes bleeding very unlikely and infection very rare. It also creates a very neat circumcision with a perfectly straight line and no scar. As there are no stitches it avoids the pain which comes from drying stitches catching on clothing. It also heals within days rather than weeks.

The benefits in terms of health from having circumcision in childhood have already been discussed in detail, including an almost zero chance of penile cancer which is not the case with adult circumcision.

And as I have said, I don't just apply this to circumcision, but to all non medically indicated, permanent surgical changes to a normal healthy body.

Indeed. And although I have no reason to doubt your word I have pointed out the inconsistencies and arbitrary nature of such a policy. Even accepting that you would genuinely apply this policy to all situations, most parents do not so the consent issue applied, as it usually is, exclusively to procedures the individual doesn't agree with, fails as an argument against circumcision.

What would you say if your child turned round to you as an adult and said that he wished he was't circumcised?

And what did your child's mother have to say about it?

Martorana Interestingly, most circumcised men don't have regrets and I suspect the small proportion that do are blaming their circumcision for problems that have nothing to do with circumcision. The evidence for this comes not just from internet surveys (which can be biased) but from the fact that circumcised men happily circumcise their children. What father would circumcise his son if he was so unhappy about his own circumcision? (Religious reasons excepted.)

If my son did happen to be unhappy that he was circumcised I would discuss the reasons why his mother and I decided it was a good thing to do, just as we would discuss the reasons why we chose the school we did if he came back later and said the school failed him or any other decision we have made with his best interests at heart.

My wife much prefers me circumcised, mainly for cleanliness reasons. She didn't think about it before I was circumcised but later said touching a damp penis head, knowing that it was stale urine that made it so, would be a major turn off now. However her main reason for wanting our son circumcised was the fact that a relative contracted penile cancer and she knew that although it is rare, it is a devastating disease. Knowing that my circumcision hadn't affected my pleasure at all reassured her, and we then talked to a clinic. The clinic reassured both of us that the procedure would be pain free and free of any serious risk (small risk of infection which could be treated with antibiotics if it occurred was about it) which finalised our decision.

As they said, the procedure and the few days it took to heal were entirely pain free (other than the initial local anesthetic injection - which was no worse than an inoculation injection, less so in fact as the anesthetic numbed the injection site within a second or two.

A few days later the ring fell off in the bath and the non-event was over.

Martorana: I know I could shower before having sexual contact but that does put an end to any chance of spontaneity, doesn't it! And the best sex is spontaneous, not the routine night-time fumble!

baggins

Jeez, I am getting deja vu on this thread

Martorana, just because you don't believe circumcision is medically necessary doesn't mean studies indicating that it can make a difference to a man's health are balloon juice. You keep on insisting there is no good reason to circumcise. Maybe you have never met anyone who had penile cancer.

Many parents who hold 'non-mainstream' views on vaccination choose to ignore studies on vaccination and statistics on vaccine injury. They also choose to ignore studies that show how their decision not to vaccinate can have ramifications for vulnerable populations should their child contract a disease and spread it.

Oh, I don't know- I certainly prefer having sex with somebody who's recently showered- but it's generally feet and armpits that are the issue.........! And, once again, even if you are squeaky clean because of your circumcision (your balls could still be a bit sweaty and smelly, though) your partner is still (what was it?) "soaked in stale urine".

I don't understand the connection with vaccination, sorry.