In one of his increasingly predictable rhetorical broadsides, Andrew Sullivan labels male circumcision “child abuse” — a claim that he should, by all rights, follow up with a call for the aggressive prosecution of mohels, surgeons, and the parents of those children who are being butchered either out of fidelity to religious ritual, habit, feints toward “normalization,” or controversial claims about hygiene and health.
Sullivan’s point that ritual circumcision should be a choice has some merit, of course — after all, it is a form of elective surgery (though some studies certainly do support the medical benefits of the procedure — but his language, equating a long-standing religious and medical tradition whose respective benefits and drawbacks remain disputable, with “child abuse” is obscene and hyperbolic, and does little, I’d argue to help his “cause.”
Similarly, referring to a procedure that does not curb male sex drive as “male genital mutilation” in a transparent attempt to tie the practice of circumcision to the (quite different and far more barbaric) practice of female genital mutilation, which is intended precisely to destroy the female sex drive, is so dishonest that it should become the bath house equivalent of Godwin’s Law.
If, as the new study Sullivan sites seems to clearly indicate, circumcision is responsible for taking away the most sensitive regions of the penis, then there is merit to argument that the decision should belong to the male undergoing the procedure.
Of course, the counter to this is that that decision should be made, perhaps, before the male becomes sexually active — or as a pre-adult.
So what is the proper age? Thirteen? Fifteen? And should the fitness of the procedure be determined geographically, given that the result of the practice can show a demonstrable reduction in the transmission of HIV in certain cultures / countries ravaged by the disease?
These are difficult questions — ones that are not served well by Sullivan’s brand of hyperbole.
Not to mention that a dramatic statistical uptick in “intact” penises — coupled with the relative cheapness of today’s silk underpants — could drastically reduce workforce productivity.
And I’m not one for tinkering with a strong US economy just so that I can have a heightened funny feel.
I’m a patriot that way, I guess.
…so dishonest that it should become the bath house equivalent of Godwin’s Law.
Ouch. That one’s gonna leave a mark.
Sullivan has raged about this before, back in 2001 or 2002, I think. Then I thought he was being a little over-the top about the whole thing. What I didn’t know is that he was only getting warmed up for when GWB came out against gay marriage.
I just figured that St. Andy of the Smacked Gob was casting about for excuses for his, um, ‘performance issues.’ Given the circumcisstances, you can hardly blame him for getting a little worked up.
Blame it on the Jooooooos.
He would likely take the pro-choice position that this is a surgical procedure that should not require parental consent or notification, and could electively be entered into whenever they choose. Of course, teenage boys will be flocking to a procedure that reduces their enjoyment of sex.
Maybe while Andrew is smacking his gobs, he forgot to mention that he simply prefers his partner to be uncircumcized, and this dastardly procedure is reducing the numbers of preferable partners?
Just more proof that, for Andrew, the little head does the thinking.
Smegma. ‘Nuff said.
My grandfather, who was a surgeon, performed the snip job on the infant me. Years later — MANY years later — I received more than a few compliments on the aesthetics of his work. Apparently, the man was an artist.
Don’t think I would have wanted him to wave the scalpel around down there if I’d been 14 or 15, though.
I don’t know what it is with Brits and foreskin. They cling to it like some life raft.
Think addlepated Andy will feature this story prominently on The Daily Dish? Oops, that’s right, it’s not torture to Andy if Americans don’t do it. (in case my coding screws up like it normally does, link is here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,489898,00.html )
He’s just jealous.
Further proof that God exists: he mandates a ritual that tones down the male sex drive, if only by a little, to help men become more godly instead of more carnal.
That’s the way I see it, anyway.
Further proof that God exists: he mandates a ritual that tones down the male sex drive, if only by a little, to help men become more godly instead of more carnal.
That’s the way I see it, anyway.
Oops, sorry for the double post.
Here’s an experiment: Italics, bold, underline, strikethrough.
I clicked the third button from the right on the top row: Toggle HTML Source. Maybe this time it will accept the tags and the hard returns.
It took the bold and italics tags but rejected underline and strikethrough.
And it respected my hard returns. OK, now I’ve got it.
I bet the convalescence from the procedure at the age of 14 or 15 is probably several notches below root canal work on the excitement scale. How do you reduce post operative (random) tumescence in a 14 year old? At that age the magnificent seven stayed harder than Japanese arithmetic. Maybe naked pictures of Bell Abzug or Yassir Arafat. Yeah, that’d do it.
First of all, is there any guy out there that would’ve voluntarily let someone take a knife to their dick when they were 14?
Aside from those that are freaky-deaky that way, I think I can vouch for the majority that there is NO FUCKING WAY you are cutting my penis when I was fourteen with my consent, regardless of the "health issues", so this is kind of a non-starter.
Those of us who did get hacked as infants most likely don’t remember it (thank god). I don’t think Sully thought this one through all the way.
Wouldn’t more sensitivity lead to the things going off, um, half-cocked?
So, he’s saying I’d like sex even more if Mr. Penis had a hoodie? I don’t think that’s possible.
Good lord. There are a number of studies showing circumcision significantly reduces the chance to contract HIV and other verneral diseases. I’d think an acknowledged ass pirate like Andy would know that and encourage his gay brothers to be as safe as humanly possible.
Those of us who did get hacked as infants most likely don’t remember it (thank god).
That’s why the mohel gives the boy wine, although margaritas in a sippy cup are a possible backup.
Test
So what Andrew as-Sullivan is saying is that Jewish ritual circumcision (done at eight days) is almost as evil as voting Republican, but Muslim ritual circumcision (done at thirteen years) is really cool?
I just attribute his stance against circumcision to the fact that his head looks like a circumcised penis and he resents it.
Perhaps I should be more circumspect. About his circumstances. Or his circumpolar circumlocution. Or circumsomething like that.
kelly;
Cymbalta works real well for those sudden attacks of alliteritis. Either that or a wiffle ball bat upside the head… :-)
The effects of female genital mutilation include:
"a buildup of sweat and urine in the closed off space beneath this closure can lead to local or urinary infection, septicemia, hemorrhaging and cyst formation"
My "cut" friends tell me circumcision makes your willy look bigger.
There’s a tough choice…..
Thanks for the advice, BJ.
For the record, I fought off the first attack right after mojo brought up "smegma." My system was weakened.
I have no memories of the experience, though I was circumsized before I left the hospital when I was born. I know someone who underwent circumsion well after puberty. His experience is was notably unpleasant and is seared, seared into his memory.
Of course, to circumsize or not is a legitimate discussion for adults to have. Alas, Andrew doesn’t appear to be interested in discussing it legitimately, only emotionally. Should children also be consulted for their opinions concerning the various vaccinations and other medical procedures that are routinely performed on them before the age of consent? After all, they might become Jehovah’s Witnesses or loony chiropractors some day. Note, I’m not inferring that all chiropractors are loony. Only the ones who believe they can cure all diseases via musculo-skeletal manipulation. But I digress.
Personally, an obsession with so many other people’s willies isn’t my cup of tea.
Circumcision = child abuse?
To paraphrase Jeff in another context:
Torture Advocates! All of you!
Good lord. There are a number of studies showing circumcision significantly reduces the chance to contract HIV and other verneral diseases
Not sure that’s a consideration for Andy.
I do know somebody who was circumcised as an adult. His hoody kept tearing. He said that when he had kids, he’d have any sons circumcised just to prevent that.
I have absolutly no recollection of getting "cut" so to speak, being as I was circumsized at the hospital probably no later than a few hours after being born. My sons will be circumsized as well.
I suppose this doesn’t matter to Sullivan, but most women, me included, say that an uncircumcised male is a major turnoff sexually. I suppose that young man would need to balance a teeny tiny loss of stimulation with the loss of foreskin against the loss of any sex because the uncircumcised turns off the prospective partner. A friend of mine did a survey of about 200 men and women she worked with on this subject during her pregnancy with twin boys. The majority of the women said it was a turn off and that, although they would consider intercourse with an uncircumcised man, they would never consent to oral sex with him. The men were less sure. Those who were circumcised said they thought it was a good thing and cited medical, those who weren’t took the macho attitude and defended their own uncut state. My son was circumcised at 1 day old (in the hospital new born nursery) and I watched the procedure. He was given a local anesthetic and slept through the entire procedure which only took a minute to perform.
My mother ran a circumcision room for years. So for me, it’s like Dick Cheney talking about the value of Halliburton. Though I will say that I wonder whether Andrew is suffering from the effects of advanced syphilis.
I’m not saying that he is, mind you, I’m just airing out the thought.
I know a guy who got circumsized in his 30’s for medical reasons, i.e., less chance of VD, infection, whatever.
He thought it would be a minor proceedure.
He thought wrong.
His surgury took place with him under considerable sedation.
The side effects included:
* Approximately 1 week recovery at home, doped out of his mind on pain killers.
* Approximately 1 month of limited duty due to recovery and waiting for stitches to be removed.
* Approximately 2 months of no sex allowed to allow his "member" to heal.
* He complained of lots of scar tissue that he hadn’t expected.
* He complained that it did significantly reduce the pleasure he got from sex.
In the end, he said he wished he hadn’t decided to get circumsized as an adult. Huge mistake.
So in my non-medical opinion, it seems like circumcizing an infant is a very simple, quick recovery sort of surgury.
But circumcizing an adult male? Much more complicated, with more complications and side effects.
To #32 – that’s because infants and children heal much faster for adults for a lot of reasons, most of them being related to residual activity of stem cells (gasp, stem cells!) as well as the rest of their somatic cells being a lot further from the Hayflick limit. Basically, young somatic cells = more rapid divisions and easier transition between different cell types = far less scarring and damage. So, uh–can we call post-pubertal circumcision a form of adult abuse, by Andy’s criteria? (Granted, I’m a woman, so I can’t really comment on the subject from an internal POV.)
Can we like, bury this subject for a while maybe?
Talking about knifing my johnson in the context of a Sullivan essay is about as unenjoyable a thought as I’ve had in a long time.
Blegh.
Tman put that very well.
Of course, you can say that about ANY subject.
Wow. You know John Kerry??
So, what? Sullivan likes his meat wrapped?
I have a young relative in his mid-teens who was not cut. As I understand it, he is acutely embarrassed about that, and it is (to his mother’s relief) preventing him from going all the way. The impression I have is that he really wishes he’d had it done as an infant, though I don’t know if he’d get it done now (given the chance).
Not, uh, biblically or anything.
Yeah, that really say sit all.
Jeff, is Sullivan getting even lazier than usual in his attempts to draw moral equalency? Is it time for a month in the hammock with the beagle and the boyfriend while the suckers…er, supporters hit his pledge drive Pay Pal to pay $100,000 a year for "bandwidth" and "fact checkers"? Or was that 2004? Whatever.
Well, normally I’d agree with a post by Jeff, but not on this one. Occam’s Razor would suggest that we humans are not born with unnecessary parts, apendix be damned. Just because nobody knows what it does doesn’t mean it does nothing: it does, after all, malfunction and threaten death as a result.
I will not read Andrew Sullivan’s post on the topic, because he’s a shrill nitwit, but if his thrust is that male circumcision is little more than a way religious people control the sex drives of the populace, he’s wrong. Male circumcision didn’t become popular in America until the mid-late 1800s, when a "snake oil salesman" began popularizing the procedure as a way to cure lameness in the legs and other such maladies. The studies I presume Jeff links to that show male circumcision to be potentially beneficial to the prevention of HIV/AIDS are, as I have read the summaries, to be taken with a large block of salt. Who knows why an adult who undergoes a circumcision doesn’t subsequently get HIV? Maybe having your foreskin cut off serves as a visceral reminder that you shouldn’t just stick your penis into any old vagina that comes a calling?
Circumcision of any kind is wrong if the person upon whom the procedure is performed hasn’t agreed to it. And, as in Europe and elsewhere in the world, the practice is declining where it’s not mandatory. I’d provide links to all this information, but I’m busy working on a single malt varietal called Originale, which is quite tasty, and I can type all this in the space of wanting a second.
Why can’t he just say, "I like prepuce?"
Why can’t he just say, "I like prepuce?"* Because somebody might mistake that as praise for Jim Treacher, and Treacher’s a conservative, and we can’t have that now, can we? * If you weren’t on the intertrons in 2003, you can be forgiven for reading this and going, "WTF are you talking about, Al… WTF?"
so much depends upon …
um, if you’re playing the home game please do NOT leave any discarded foreskin beside the white chickens. That would just be gross.
I can’t believe I read through this whole thread without seeing one single, solitary mention of the 8" CUT GAY PORN COCK OF LIES! You people are falling asleep on the job again.
You yanks have got this hopelessly wrong. The circumcision fetish is a hangover from more prudish days when it was done with the idea of preventing masturbation. It failed of course and remains a major source of child abuse in Northern Americas.
As for health reasons – this again is nonsense, please explain how more cut men have died of AIDS in the US than their uncircumcised counterparts throughout Europe. Lopping of the foreskin for "cleanliness" reasons is equivalent to having all your teeth pulled so as to prevent mouth infections. Its utter nonsense.
As for ignorant American women who think it is somehow more aesthetic, they should consider that similar arguments are voiced by Muslim men to mutilate women.
The only reason for circumcision is in the relatively rare cases of phimosis, and even then should not be performed on a minor who is unable to give informed consent. Ask any uncut European male if they wish to undergo this surgery, even if painless, and you will find no takers for those wishing to have a vital part of their sexual anatomy removed!
If anyone is interested, I know of a circumcision doctor who is very reasonable.
He only takes tips.
I am a cock model. You may have seen some of my work on hugeboners.com and funwithdickanddick.com.
I will tell you that I would get much less work if the ol’ banana weren’t peeled, if you know what I mean. The prep time alone for a shoot takes 45 minutes, what with buffing the helmet and powdering the corona. I can’t imagine what it would be like if the makeup artist had to pin back the foreskin and spoon out the dorkcheese. I would starve.
re: Comment by englishman on 6/22 @ 1:07 am #Remarkable. You english I suppose thought that circumcision would reduce masturbation. All right, but we’re the stupid ones?As for mouth infections, I should think Englishmen ought to grasp at any straw to improve dental hygiene. Not sure it would be a bad idea to pull all your teeth. Although this would seem more similar to total removal of the penis – circumcision perhaps better being analogized to the removal of wisdom teeth (which aren’t always a problem, but when they are, Zowie!).In the meantime consider that these statistics are not overborne by your own unfounded opinions.As for asking "any European male," we have already been over the part about how doing it to adults is terribly painful, complicated, etc. Happily I underwent the procedure as a newborn infant and only enjoy the benefits today. Let’s ask European newborn infants how they feel, shall we? All right, that’s 1256 "Ga-ga," 814 "Waaaah!" What a finely tuned response to the demands of public policy. Meanwhile…vital? Define vital. I know you’re english but as I believe Inigo Montoya said in The Pricess Bride,
Excuse me: "Princess." BTW, anyone else having trouble with carriage returns?
I’ve never been less impressed with Jeff than I am at this moment. All this talk about "when the decision should be made"… When should the decision be made to gouge your eyes out Jeff (surgically of course)? I’m sure it’s much less traumatic if a child never has eyes, than if they’re taken out at 14.
That’s what reasonable people call a false dichotomy. While I suppose you could find surgeons who would equate both as elective surgeries, I’d challenge you to find any competent surgeon who would gouge out your eyes, much less one who would suggest that there were any medical advantages that such a procedure would provide.
Missed it by that much.
Head cheese. See it your deli.
So, if I sold ad space on my cock, would I be circumscribed?
If I had a map of the world printed on my cock, I could be circumnavigated!
I kill me.
‘CAUSE I’M A DIABETIC CITIZEN JOURNALIST AND I DEMAND LOW-FAT SUGAR-FREE FROZEN YOGURT!
God, think of all those ways I was tortured. Circumsized AND wisdom teeth taken out. Do I qualify for some sort of victim group now?
I can assure all those worried about males that are circumcised when they are babes that those of use who are circumcised masturbate quite frequently. We even enjoy sex with other people occasionally. I’m sure sex with a foreskin is fantastic, though, in all honesty, all us circumsiced guys need to do to replicate the feeling is smoke some weed and eat a few peyote buttons and we’re there. Same feelings… I think. Anyway, It can be tough on the old helmet after a weekend of internet porn and mexican swag but we get by. thanks for your concern but its my body and I shall abuse it as I wish.
re: the alleged reduction of sensitivity.
If I were any MORE sensitive down there, I would have to wear a maxipad or depends to be able to deal with the …er..result.
When you’re an asshole like Sully and everything looks like a penis, what are you going to do, bend over or something? Does he have eyes in the back of his head?
Didn’t Matt and Trey do a movie about this?
When excised foreskins are outlawed, only outlaws will have excised foreskins.
I don’t particularly understand the pro-cutting arguments, if not mandated religiously. Taking religious law out of it, here’s the pro-cut arguments: 1) It looks better. –Come on, seriously, like women really care about what your willy looks like. They all think it’s kind of funny looking. They really prefer a big, thick…wallet, and if you have one, it doesn’t really matter what it looks like. And, if your wallet is thick enough, you’re going to get some oral. If all else fails, find a Brit or Euro or Latina woman. They’re plentiful.2) I’m cut, so my sons will be cut. Um, I’m also a drunk, so I want my kids to be alcoholics. I’m also 6’2" so I want my kids to be 6’2". Newsflash: Your boys aren’t gonna look exactly like you, even if you chop their willies.3) Locker room insults. Well, since maybe 1/2 of newborns today are cut, I don’t think your boys are really going to stand out that much. And if they do, tell them to say, "yo Sully, stop looking at my thingie"4) Disease transmission. If your boy is engaging in high risk activities, you should be telling him to cover his willy at all times. Getting your foreskin chopped off isn’t gonna help you if you’re Sullivaning everything that moves.Now, if you’re Jewish or Muslim, by all means, it’s a religious law. It’s the Christians/others that I wonder about. Then it’s just subjecting your baby boy to a lot of pain and future penile insensitivity. There’s going to be enough pain in his life, I don’t need to add to it for no good/Godly reason.
nichevo @ 1:38PM You really haven’t addressed my arguments. I stated that "Ask any uncut European male if they wish to undergo this surgery, EVEN IF PAINLESS, and you will find no takers….". You then state "Happily I underwent the procedure as a newborn infant and only enjoy the benefits today. " So the question I ask as an uncut European male is "What are these benefits? Why should I consider having my genitalia mutilated?"
Removal of an integral part of my sensitive skin?
Drying out of the prepuce resulting in a lack of sensitivity?
Ability to be less concerned about sexual hygene?
Looking like everyone else in America?
Reduced to ability to masturbate without jars of messy lube?
You really haven’t made any sort of case for this mindless ritual – European men are no less healthly than their cut American counterparts. By the same logic I could probably have one of my testicles removed without noticeable loss of sexual functioning – but I wouldn’t recommend it on the grounds that I’d have less to carry around or for the possibility that there is less likelihood of my developing testicular cancer.
Genital integrity is going to become more of an issue as progressively Americans stop sleepwalking into the circumcision clinic and realise not only the futility of this mutilation but also the assault on human rights to the neonate. Your children may one day turn around on you for this violation. And witness also the number of foreskin "restoration" sites where disgruntled cut men try desperately to achieve normal sexual response.
Oh, and incidentally, it was the Americans, not the British, who in the early part of the 20th Century advocated circumcision as a means of curbing masturbation. We have sensibly never taken up this absurd procedure wholesale thank goodness!
How come no one is just *kind of* against circumcision? Everyone’s either got no problem with it, or it’s the same as sawing off a baby’s legs or something.
#71. I’m just "kind of" against it–If you’re a Jew or Muslim, by all means, go right ahead. I don’t understand other people doing it to their boys, i.e. absent a religious requirement. I certainly wouldn’t ban the procedure or anything. As to #70, Brit dude…The British CERTAINLY took up the procedure wholesale. From your own BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/malecircumcision/social_1.shtml The American custom has its roots in Victorian Britain. At the turn
of the 20th century, doctors began to promote circumcision as a way to
prevent masturbation.By 1940, up to 50 per cent of British men
were circumcised. The practice lost ground in the 1950s after
circumcision was declared "medically untenable." Today less than three
per cent of British men are circumcised.Maybe you don’t consider 50% "wholesale" but it certainly ain’t no "tiny" minority.
David – Curious coincidence you point out for our superior Brit. As circumcision declined, so did the Empire.
" is so dishonest that it should become the bath house equivalent of Godwin’s Law." Shrug. How so? You don’t provide any actual argument against the usage, just the amazingly hypocritical emotionalized Sully bashing. By the plain meaning of the words mutilation and abuse, it fits. You’re the one arguing for making a special exception in those words, based on, it seems to me, cultural laziness (i.e., you’ve never really thought about it that way before and don’t want to start).
No, englishman, I’m pretty sure it is not a great idea for adult European males to go out for mass prick-trimmings. It is too late for them. I do think their sons would be better off having it done in their first few days of life, though. Please keep in mind that generally speaking, adult American males are not having it done either – they also had it done as infants. I’m quite sure the costs go up and the benefits down with age – the classic plasticity of neonatal tissue and all that. Was anyone even really suggesting mass adult circumcisions, or is this a red herring? If you’re not converting to a religion which requires it, perhaps it is just better for you to wash more often, date cleaner girls, etc. I would certainly hate for Euros to seize circumcision as yet another excuse not to bathe. Aside from which, Europe is not really the issue, in terms of circumcision as a mass public health technique. Europe nor America are under threat of depopulation by AIDS; and after all we have condoms, lube, doctors, Internet porn, etc. If this can save a million lives in sub-Saharan Africa, however, where by and large there are no condoms, lube, doctors, Internet porn, etc., perhaps it is better to consider the greater good than to worry if Andrew Sullivan will be well taken care of when he arrives. Even then, no doubt, ’twere better to circumcise infant Africans. But considering the ritual mutilations one can see in any issue of National Geographic – I’m thinking they will bear up nobly. As for your no doubt kindly concern over the normality of my sexual response, well, how could I convince you otherwise than you believe? You want to give me your sister’s or your gf’s digits and have them report back on how I did? Otherwise, I can only assure you that my response is just fine. As for the usual "who started it…" I’m sorry, do remind me: the "Prince Albert" was named after which famous American? (Because, just as you say, Brits would never take up such a stupid idea!)
I wonder how long he sat at the keyboard with his fingers in his ears yelling "Lalalalalalalala" before someone explained we couldn’t hear him?
Nichevo: Regardless of whether it was a myth or not the Prince Albert was certainly not a form of circumcision. It’s a type of piercing and while certainly a variety of genital modification I don’t really see what relevence it has to the topic at hand beyond that, especially considering that {if he even did} Albert got it as an adult for his own, fashionable, reasons rather than having it forced upon him as a baby."David – Curious coincidence you point out for our superior Brit. As circumcision declined, so did the Empire. "Yes well, the Empire depended upon us being callous twats who tried too hard and I suppose once all that preputial pleasure kicked in we just sat at home and wanked instead of playing "Hunt the Filthy Darkie". Personally I consider the former highly preferable. How about you?
Well, I have a feeling the ancient Romans never circumcised much and yet their empire lasted awhile. Same with the Byzantines, or Spanish. Or Russians. Or Chinese. Or French. Heck or even the Dutch or Germans.No, the British empire declined because the Germans bankrupted you. Of course, you (with your American friends supplying your efforts) helped defeat the Germans in the actual war, but the victory cost you the Empire. But at least you remained independent…well, until you let all the Asians in for the reverse colonization movement of the past 40 years. Now you’ve just committed suicide. Check out how the Ozzies countered the Iranians compared to the formerly great Royal Navy. Your guys just offered themselves up to be buggered by a bunch of Mohammedans. If you had one ounce of patriotism… But anyway, back to the issue in your hand. it’s really not a big deal. You Brits started it. Americans picked it up. You Brits gave it up. Americans are giving it up. Who cares?
‘Course, both sides are using emotional rhetoric when it comes to the possible pain and suffering of infants who get the procedure done, because adults don’t remember that kind of trauma. And, as has been repeatedly said, attempting to compare adult circumcision horror stories to infant circumcision is a flawed comparison–no matter what the surgical injury, adults heal poorly and with more mess and pain than infants will. Basic biology. As for diminished sensation, I should think that the same plasticity that makes for better healing in infants should also mean that there’s an accompanying proliferation of nervous tissue to make up for the lost foreskin, if sensation "down there" is such a huge issue that the loss of the foreskin would imperil … something or other. But, natch, this kind of study will not get done if people instead insist on making it out to be some kind of child abuse or quaint American torture. Shaken baby syndrome and failure-to-thrive are child abuse. A minuscule wound that will heal cleanly with proper treatment ain’t so much, in my mind. Granted, I’m in the group that thinks it’s probably not something that should be done unless there’s a religious conviction behind it (because then it’s part of a covenant), but hey. There is a distinct difference between something that ruins someone’s quality of life (FGM), and something that apparently has very little impact at all.
James, unlike you superior Brits, America has never had an empire to lose, so I’m afraid I don’t know which one I’d prefer. Can’t I do both?
NOOOOO THEY’S A TAKIN MY EMPIRE
"‘Course, both sides are using emotional rhetoric when it comes to the
possible pain and suffering of infants who get the procedure done,
because adults don’t remember that kind of trauma." If that’s so, then there really isn’t any good reason to avoid causing infants pain in general. They won’t remember it. If your position is consistent, then you should also not have any real objection to cutting off an infant’s earlobe: another useless piece of flesh.
Do you think Clenis’s penis could have gotten its reported left hook as a result of a careless circumcision? Sully’s research may yield the answer.
This post is based on the weakest argument and worst assumptions of any Jeff has ever made, and that’s why, for once, he hasn’t answered any critical points in the comments.
you’re just mean
Note to trolls: That is a weak argument is not a counter-argument. You have to actually explain why you consider it a weak argument if you hope to establish a dialog.
Jeff hasn’t answered because Jeff hadn’t revisited the thread until just now.
Now that he has, Jeff will answer.
Equating a ritualized elective surgery that many researchers argue still has health benefits to "child abuse" is not only absurd — given that it would effectively legally imperil those who favor the procedure out of religious conviction (and no, this is NOT the same as Christian Science, where you are denying a child medicine) — but it, in grand Sullivan fashion (cf. "torture"), defines down "child abuse," the practical semantic effect of which is to lessen the impact of the charge.
Secondly, while the term "mutilation" might be technically correct, it is seldom used with respect to, say, ear piercing or tattooing. Which is why, as my post notes, Sullivan is using it as a rhetorical ploy to equate it to female genital mutilation, which has a completely different effect, and is indeed a constraint on the sex drive.
Circumcision is not (as those who’ve lost their helmets here will tell you).
The argument in this post is not really for or against circumcision. The argument, "plunge," englishman, Cafe Alpha, et al., is precisely that Sullivan is resorting to hyperbolic, emotional rhetoric to attempt to demonize that with which he disagrees — and in his rush to do so, cheapening the semantic impact, if he gets his way, of actual child abuse, and actual mutilation.
Which is why that’s what I focused on in the post.
The relative merits of circumcision or sensitivity mapping of the penis, etc., are not my concern here — other than to say that a failure to fall one way on the issue does not mark one an advocate of child abuse or "mutilation."
Hope that clears up my position for you — though I don’t really think this reiteration of what I essentially already said in my post was at all necessary.
Just don’t want you all to think I’m ducking your LASER-LIKE critiques.
You guys [Jeff, John, and Andrew] just happened to run into each other at some bar and said, "Let’s post stories on circumcision to drum up some blog traffic. Andrew decided to defend the foreskin. Jeff and John decided to defend the cut."
25 Plus Tips–Part 2 [John Podhoretz]
See, I told you if I posted something about Andrew Sullivan’s psychotic ranting against circumcision, he would have a conniption fit. The only solace I have is that his circumcision posts are not yet as long as the Talmud, which was the case with the endless perorations about his Holy Writ of a book, The Conservative Solipsist Mind. But listen, Andrew is only just getting started. I look forward to the unearthing of a long quote from Michael Oakeshott against circumcision, coupled with some old essay by Ron Paul (he’s a doctor!), not to mention a picture of Dick Cheney looking deeply sinister under the headline, "What Do You Expect? He Was Circumcised."
?p=9294
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/06/scarred-for-lif.html
If circumcision might lead to health benefits in males, why not surgically remove female breasts at birth to reduce the incidence of breast cancer later on?
Or cut out the heart, to avoid instances of heart attack.
The breasts function as milk pumps, no? The foreskin functions as a flap for collecting Hanes lint and, if you aren’t careful, shelled sunflower seeds.
Don’t ask.
If circumcision might lead to health benefits in males, why not surgically remove female breasts at birth to reduce the incidence of breast cancer later on?
Have you ever seen the tits on a newborn?
If foreskins are just useless flaps, why did God create them? Jeff rightly points out the usefulness of breasts in later life. Andrew Sullivan rightly pointed out the usefulness of foreskins. To deny either usefulness is willful physiological ignorance, or impiety, or both.
Come on, Jeff. I’ve never seen you fail to address the thrust of an argument before. I think I’m detecting unusual weakness.In my own case, I implied that at no point in time does a parent have the right to make this decision, and that the claim that it’s best to do it at birth to minimize trauma is fatuous because that in no argument you have the right to do so at that time. After all, as I pointed out, cutting out a child’s eyes would be less traumatic at birth than at 14, so what?And all of this crap about "medical usefulness" is nonsense because that has never been and will never be the reason. This is done as religious ritual, but even as a pure "medical procedure" it’s entirely an infringement of the child’s rights.
Typo, it should read "that is no argument you have the right to do so at that time. "
Plunge — that’s correct. But it also forces opponents on the ground of "oh it is child abuse!" to rephrase their positions as well, because cosmetic mutilation per se to an infant does not cause the same kind of harm it would to an adult. Note again that I’m not condoning either position, just remarking on the fact that the comparison here is shoddy. Removing a kid’s earlobes probably would not result in a lot of long-term emotional or physical torment either, unless you count the fact s/he would never be able to get (that portion of) their ears pierced and they’d probably get made fun of throughout elementary school because children are cruel. I am not saying in the absence of other factors that it would be a good or moral choice for parents to make to have such a procedure done, but "child abuse" seems too strong a term to apply to it. (Similarly for people who pierce the ears of their infant girls.) Note also I’m not talking about things like the amputation of digits, whole limbs, castration, etc., etc.. Those we know cause positive harms to children in the short and long term. Circumcision is just made a much more difficult topic to approach bioethically because people who want to call it child abuse are always going to look at any potential hint of negativity that comes out of studies of circumsized vs. uncircumsized males, while proponents will always look at any potential hint of positivity, and so on. Bringing emotionality to the table will help win arguments with the laity, but it makes it damn hard to come to any kind of reasoned conclusion on the issue. So, basically, yes, I am willing to look at the ugly ramifications of the positions I hold without shying away or pretending I didn’t say that. I just ask that other people meet me on the same ground.
Cafe Alpha, … hm. Where to start with this. Okay. What’s your stance on what rights parents have over the medical treatment of their children? I want to be clear before we discuss this so I don’t make a bunch of silly assumptions on the grounds of what you’ve said about circumcision.
I think all we can rule out for sure is Mr. Sullivan with the Knife in the Nursery. Everyone else is morally suspect.
[…] update: Typically, Sullivan quotes a commenter from my earlier post in an attempt to suggest taht those who disagree with his argument are quaintly […]
Cafe Alpha —
So your argument is that you find the motives of those who elect circumcision quaintly religious, which nullifies medical evidence supporting the decision.
Or, to put it another way, you suspect their motives aren’t pure enough, and because of that, you are free to ignore the medical benefits that they might allude to as a peripheral consideration.
Talk about arrogance.
And if it is true that the thrust of YOUR argument (pardon me, I though we were talking about mine) is that " at no point in time does a parent have the right to make this decision," then — as Pellegri notes — at what point does a parent have a right to make medical decisions for a child? Surgery to correct a cleft palate? To remove an extra set of sex organs? To remove extra fingers or toes?
Parents are responsible for their children. And just because it irks you that some parents make different decisions than you’d make is no cause to try to criminalize their decisions — particular when a recent study upcoming in Pediatrics suggests that routine neonatal circumcision can reduce the risk of STD and AID by up to 50%.
I react to your argument the same way I would to those who insist that I not have my child inoculated. You make the decision for your kid, I’ll make the decision form mine.
Erik —
I’m religiously agnostic as to first causes, and I don’t believe in the kind of intelligent design that says "God created foreskin, so there must be a reason" — though if I DID believe that, I might counter with, "He did so to give surgeons and mohels practice cutting it off."
But, to follow your lead, God also created the appendix, wisdom teeth, cysts, etc. So what’s your point?
Penis mapping studies show that the foreskin contains areas of extra stimulus. Other studies show that uncircumcised men are 50% more likely to contract certain types of STDs, including with HIV.
Your son is born. You have to make a choice. Go ahead and do what you gotta do.