Man loses circumcision case, yet another circumcision thread

[Dakini]

There's no benefit for female circumcision, and it has a shet load of complications and risks associated.

There are similar benefits to the removal of the clitoral hood as there are for male removal of the foreskin. Easier to keep clean, lower risk of UTI.

I'm definitely going to need a source for that. My urethra is not very close to my clitoris so I do not see at all how removing my clitoral hood would lower my risk of a UTI.

[Korhal IVV]

Circumsision should be completely voluntary.

[Wolfmanne2]

I'm supportive of this. Both parents should be in agreement if there is a desire to circumcise.

[The Alma Mater]

I'm supportive of this. Both parents should be in agreement if there is a desire to circumcise.

Yessss, mark your child forever to appease your chosen deity !

[Ifreann]

I'm supportive of this. Both parents should be in agreement if there is a desire to circumcise.

Yessss, mark your child forever to appease your chosen deity !

My children were named in the light of the Seven, and it's my right as a parent to carve a septagram into their foreheads!

[The Princes of the Universe]

Circumcision, for the purpose of preventing disease, is something that should be voluntarily done by a man when he's older. It's not something for a newborn.

If anything it is the opposite, a male is worse off the longer they wait to get a circumcision if they want one. The skin of adults does not heal anywhere near as fast as the skin of infants. When they're grown it is effectively too late to have it done without downsides. Notice how almost no men actually get a circumcision if they're already uncircumcised? If the procedure for infants was abolished, I guarantee that male circumcision in general would collapse in appeal overnight. That is what the pro-circumcision lobby is really afraid of. They know it would be the beginning of the end for them.

This is the one truth bomb I've seen out of you. Good job.

[The Alexanderians]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36074482

A Muslim father has failed to persuade a judge to rule his sons should be circumcised.

The man argued that circumcision would be in accordance with his religious beliefs.

But the boys' mother, who is separated from their father, disagreed.

At a Family Court hearing in Exeter, Mrs Justice Roberts said the boys, who are six and four, should first reach an age where they can make the decision for themselves.

'Individual choices'

The man had argued that it would be "in the children's best interests to allow them to be circumcised" in accordance with his "Muslim practice and religious beliefs".

His former partner "opposes that course until such time as the children have reached an age where they are competent to give consent to such a procedure," the judge added.

"There is no guarantee that these boys will wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith with the devotion demonstrated by their father, although that may very well be their choice.

"They are still very young and there is no way of anticipating at this stage how the different influences in their respective parental homes will shape and guide their development over the coming years."

Mrs Justice Roberts said she was deferring that decision "to the point where each of the boys themselves will make their individual choices once they have the maturity and insight to appreciate the consequences and longer-term effects of the decisions which they reach."

Half of you probably already know this, but I think this is great news. There is no reason to allow circumcision for children outside of medical necessity. It is a cultural practice that is only considered acceptable due to inertia, there's no way that if we would let people start cutting off other parts of their children's skin, and I imagine that if circumcision had never existed and someone suggested it today the would be laughed out of the room/investigated by the authorities.

It's also good to see courts may no longer be accepting religion as an excuse to do things that would otherwise be illegal.

Yes yes it's all nice and good when someone says it's wrong to circumcise someone. But really it's just beginning to seems like courts just want to oppose parents decisions. This is a bit of a personal thing for me as my mother did not want me to undergo it as an infant and my father was indifferent but went with her decision. The doctors did it anyway. On a related note I wonder if people would be so quick to say no if this wasn't a religious issue.
I get the feeling that if both parents were on board with this then there wouldn't be a case at all. IT comes across that it's done for the mother's concern.

[Scarlet Tides]

The HIV argument is always baffling to me for regions like the US. If you're making a habit of fucking people without condoms you got way more issues coming your way than just possible exposure to HIV.

[USS Monitor]

Judge made the right call on that case.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36074482



Half of you probably already know this, but I think this is great news. There is no reason to allow circumcision for children outside of medical necessity. It is a cultural practice that is only considered acceptable due to inertia, there's no way that if we would let people start cutting off other parts of their children's skin, and I imagine that if circumcision had never existed and someone suggested it today the would be laughed out of the room/investigated by the authorities.

It's also good to see courts may no longer be accepting religion as an excuse to do things that would otherwise be illegal.

Yes yes it's all nice and good when someone says it's wrong to circumcise someone. But really it's just beginning to seems like courts just want to oppose parents decisions. This is a bit of a personal thing for me as my mother did not want me to undergo it as an infant and my father was indifferent but went with her decision. The doctors did it anyway. On a related note I wonder if people would be so quick to say no if this wasn't a religious issue.
I get the feeling that if both parents were on board with this then there wouldn't be a case at all. IT comes across that it's done for the mother's concern.

Honestly, this whole obsession with circumcision reaks of anti-religious sentiment.

There is no measurable effect penis. Circumcision does not destroy sensitivity, nor does it provide any greater health benefits or defects. While the origin of circumcision in the west is a dubious one that betrays intellectual honesty, the effects of circumcision are by and large, purely cosmetic in regards to function and sensitivity.

So why the obsession with it? Piss poor information, and counter culturalists who are obsessed with their junk.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2007/08/ ... sensation/

[The Nihilistic view]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36074482



Half of you probably already know this, but I think this is great news. There is no reason to allow circumcision for children outside of medical necessity. It is a cultural practice that is only considered acceptable due to inertia, there's no way that if we would let people start cutting off other parts of their children's skin, and I imagine that if circumcision had never existed and someone suggested it today the would be laughed out of the room/investigated by the authorities.

It's also good to see courts may no longer be accepting religion as an excuse to do things that would otherwise be illegal.

Yes yes it's all nice and good when someone says it's wrong to circumcise someone. But really it's just beginning to seems like courts just want to oppose parents decisions. This is a bit of a personal thing for me as my mother did not want me to undergo it as an infant and my father was indifferent but went with her decision. The doctors did it anyway. On a related note I wonder if people would be so quick to say no if this wasn't a religious issue.
I get the feeling that if both parents were on board with this then there wouldn't be a case at all. IT comes across that it's done for the mother's concern.

You did not read past the title did you.

[The Alexanderians]

Yes yes it's all nice and good when someone says it's wrong to circumcise someone. But really it's just beginning to seems like courts just want to oppose parents decisions. This is a bit of a personal thing for me as my mother did not want me to undergo it as an infant and my father was indifferent but went with her decision. The doctors did it anyway. On a related note I wonder if people would be so quick to say no if this wasn't a religious issue.
I get the feeling that if both parents were on board with this then there wouldn't be a case at all. IT comes across that it's done for the mother's concern.

You did not read past the title did you.

No? I read the whole thing?

[The Nihilistic view]

You did not read past the title did you.

No? I read the whole thing?

So what part of the mother not wanting it done did you fail to grasp?

[Saiwania]

There is no measurable effect penis. Circumcision does not destroy sensitivity, nor does it provide any greater health benefits or defects.

The glans of a circumcised penis is keratinized from constant exposure, how in the world would it not be less sensitive? This is like saying having a callus won't make your skin less sensitive at that spot. Plenty of men who've gotten circumcised when they were older report that they notice some loss of sensitivity. What I am willing to believe is that perhaps people circumcised as infants have just as much sensitivity simply because they heal better than adults and their body has time to develop where as an adult has reached close to or past their prime and are now going downhill towards old age.

[The Alexanderians]

No? I read the whole thing?

So what part of the mother not wanting it done did you fail to grasp?

I fail to grasp nothing. What are you on about?

[AiliailiA]

There is no measurable effect penis. Circumcision does not destroy sensitivity, nor does it provide any greater health benefits or defects.

The glans of a circumcised penis is keratinized from constant exposure, how in the world would it not be less sensitive? This is like saying having a callus won't make your skin less sensitive at that spot. Plenty of men who've gotten circumcised when they were older report that they notice some loss of sensitivity. What I am willing to believe is that perhaps people circumcised as infants have just as much sensitivity simply because they heal better than adults and their body has time to develop where as an adult has reached close to or past their prime and are now going downhill towards old age.

There's a source. The standard of "sensitivity" is simply whether the subject notices parts of their penis being touched when they're aroused. I'm hoping they used some kind of mechanical actuator to test that ...

You're probably right about there being a difference between childhood and adult circumcision, and "healing better" is close but not quite the reason. Nerve endings don't regrow, even in babies, so there's no "healing" of those. But the nerve endings there are in the penis (circumcised or not) will get mapped to the sensory homunculus in the brain as that develops, and there will still be plenty in the penis compared say to the middle of the back. If some were missing from before the brain "mapped" the whole body, it won't be noticeable, it won't feel like a lack.

In adulthood (and particularly after the mid-20's when brain plasticity goes way down) losing all those nerve endings would be experienced as a lack, or loss of sensation.

Actually I wonder: if men have a circumcision in full adulthood, do they experience "phantom foreskin" like people sometimes experience phantom limbs when they lose a limb?

[Old Stephania]

Being British I don't really understand the obsession with male genital mutilation, the issue comes up so rarely here unless you're Jewish or Muslim.

Shockingly our male population are not all keeling over and dying from HIV or whatever people are claiming.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

There is no measurable effect penis. Circumcision does not destroy sensitivity, nor does it provide any greater health benefits or defects.

The glans of a circumcised penis is keratinized from constant exposure, how in the world would it not be less sensitive? This is like saying having a callus won't make your skin less sensitive at that spot. Plenty of men who've gotten circumcised when they were older report that they notice some loss of sensitivity. What I am willing to believe is that perhaps people circumcised as infants have just as much sensitivity simply because they heal better than adults and their body has time to develop where as an adult has reached close to or past their prime and are now going downhill towards old age.

And that matters at all how? We're talking about circumcision of infants, before the infant grows into man and has the make the choice. You've literally just demonstrated why the debate is nonsense, because as a child it has no measurable effect. Adult's who undergo may undergo some loss in sensitivity, but again that has to do with an adult making a choice to undergo the process and has no relevancy here.

[AiliailiA]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-36074482



Half of you probably already know this, but I think this is great news. There is no reason to allow circumcision for children outside of medical necessity. It is a cultural practice that is only considered acceptable due to inertia, there's no way that if we would let people start cutting off other parts of their children's skin, and I imagine that if circumcision had never existed and someone suggested it today the would be laughed out of the room/investigated by the authorities.

It's also good to see courts may no longer be accepting religion as an excuse to do things that would otherwise be illegal.

Yes yes it's all nice and good when someone says it's wrong to circumcise someone. But really it's just beginning to seems like courts just want to oppose parents decisions. This is a bit of a personal thing for me as my mother did not want me to undergo it as an infant and my father was indifferent but went with her decision. The doctors did it anyway. On a related note I wonder if people would be so quick to say no if this wasn't a religious issue.
I get the feeling that if both parents were on board with this then there wouldn't be a case at all. IT comes across that it's done for the mother's concern.

It's been pointed out also that the mother has custody of the boys. It's really quite easy for a court to arbitrate conflicting wishes of two parents, when one parent is more directly involved with the child than the other. The court simply follows the ruling of a previous court (that the custodial parent is the "better" parent) or, amounting to the same thing, an agreement between the parents giving custody of the child(ren) to one parent rather than the other.

There's no "seems like courts just want to oppose parents decisions" in this. The court was asked to rule on something that the parents couldn't decide between themselves. I think the judge took the easiest (and probably best) course of (a) ruling for no action, and (b) ruling in favor of the parent who was already legally favored to make decisions for the boys.

As I said earlier, the decision probably would have gone the other way if the custodial parent had wanted circumcision, and the other parent had opposed. It's not a strong precedent against circumcision, in fact it's a routine family law case we never would have even heard about if it didn't involve a Muslim and a foreskin.

[Saiwania]

And that matters at all how? We're talking about circumcision of infants, before the infant grows into man and has the make the choice. You've literally just demonstrated why the debate is nonsense, because as a child it has no measurable effect. Adult's who undergo may undergo some loss in sensitivity, but again that has to do with an adult making a choice to undergo the process and has no relevancy here.

The argument I was responding to was the statement that "male circumcision does not result in any loss of sensitivity" and if it clearly does in adults, then the statement is false. The glans of the penis doesn't magically not keratinize just because the procedure was done as an infant, it is still exposed to the elements and thus has to harden to withstand that. I think that the desensitization of the glans clearly still happens, it is just that perhaps the shaft or other portions of the penis apart from the head becomes more sensitive in order to compensate.

[The Princes of the Universe]

On a related note I wonder if people would be so quick to say no if this wasn't a religious issue.

I can speak only for myself, but I absolutely would. If it's not your body and it's not an emergency, it ought not be your decision. We really need to stop conflating custody with ownership.

[AiliailiA]

The glans of a circumcised penis is keratinized from constant exposure, how in the world would it not be less sensitive? This is like saying having a callus won't make your skin less sensitive at that spot. Plenty of men who've gotten circumcised when they were older report that they notice some loss of sensitivity. What I am willing to believe is that perhaps people circumcised as infants have just as much sensitivity simply because they heal better than adults and their body has time to develop where as an adult has reached close to or past their prime and are now going downhill towards old age.

And that matters at all how? We're talking about circumcision of infants, before the infant grows into man and has the make the choice. You've literally just demonstrated why the debate is nonsense, because as a child it has no measurable effect. Adult's who undergo may undergo some loss in sensitivity, but again that has to do with an adult making a choice to undergo the process and has no relevancy here.

I respect that you brought a source (second hand source though it may be) and I think Saiwania failed to read it. I'm inclined to take your side!

However I must point out that the case of these two boys is not a routine infant circumcision. They are four and six years old, so they're not in the infant realm of "stuff happens, most of it hurts or is confusing, but I won't remember it later so meh". But nor are they adults, capable of giving informed consent to the operation of circumcision.

Neither of those very different circumstances applies precisely in this case. Finer judgement is required and I think you're capable of it.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

And again, people seem to completely deny and ignore the medically circumsized and continue screaming out "GENITAL MUTILATION!" and "DEM FUNDIES".

[Saiwania]

Nerve endings don't regrow, even in babies, so there's no "healing" of those. But the nerve endings there are in the penis (circumcised or not) will get mapped to the sensory homunculus in the brain as that develops, and there will still be plenty in the penis compared say to the middle of the back. If some were missing from before the brain "mapped" the whole body, it won't be noticeable, it won't feel like a lack.

So you admit that the process of male circumcision inherently causes a loss of some nerve endings and thus it is marginally less sensitive than an uncircumcised penis?

It matters not in my view, if a circumcised male asserts that they are just as sensitive down there, but rather if physically speaking; they're capable of more sensation or not. If we do a side by side comparison of cut vs. uncut, it is clear to me that the uncircumcised male will have more nerve endings than the circumcised male which proves that uncircumcised is better in terms of sensation.

It proves to me that the men who were circumcised as infants but still grow up being dissatisfied about it aren't crazy. Many of them go to incredible lengths to complete the long process of "foreskin restoration" if that is what they opt for. Doesn't restore the nerve endings, but can dekeratinize their glans. A way of "taking back what they lost" for some.

[Braecland]

And again, people seem to completely deny and ignore the medically circumsized and continue screaming out "GENITAL MUTILATION!" and "DEM FUNDIES".

Uhhm no, I don't see anyone doing that here so get off it. I've even seen a few posts mention that they'd support it if there was a genuine medical need.