Circumcision anathema?

[JimG]

For decades and decades circumcision was routinely recommended and performed by physicians in the U.S. for medical reasons already noted by thistle. No one ever made much of an issue of it. For Catholics, it was never done for religious reasons. Never in my life have I heard it made into a major issue except on CAF, where it can be mentioned only at the risk of being as contentious as gay marriage or women’s clothing.

 

[Rau]

There are varying degrees of male genital cutting and female genital cutting. I have pasted a list below from most severe to least severe. The most common male genital cutting, MGC Type II, would be comparable to a similar prepuce removal in the female, FGC Type I. There would be outrage if any doctor attempted FGC Type I on any newborn females. Yet somehow this is perfectly acceptable for newborn males? As you noted above, you’re certainly free to respond dismissively if you wish. However, I applaud those who are speaking out on this as a human rights issue.

MGC Type III Removal of all Tissues - Including Scrotum
FGC Type III(a) Infibulation and Partial Clitoris Removal
FGC Type III Infibulation
FGC Type II(c) Partial Clitoris Removal and Labiaplasty - Minora and Majora
FGC Type II(b) Partial Clitoris Removal and Labiaplasty - Minora
FGC Type I(b) Partial Clitoris Removal
MGC Type IV Subincision
FGC Type IV Cauterization
MGC Type II Complete Prepuce Removal (Most common form of RC in the US)
MGC Type I Prepuce Removal Beyond Glands
FGC Type I(a) Prepuce Removal (aka “Hoodectomy”)
FGC Type II(a) Labiaplasty - Minora
FGC Type IV Scraping
FGC Type IV Incising
FGC Type IV Piercing
FGC Type IV Pricking (referred to as a “ritual nick” in the US)

Is there a medical reason offered by physicians for any type of female circumcision? I’ve only ever hear of cosmetic procedures and ritualistic procedures, the former the choice of the patient and the latter with nil medical basis.

 

[Blacksword]

Is there a medical reason offered by physicians for any type of female circumcision? I’ve only ever hear of cosmetic procedures and ritualistic procedures, the former the choice of the patient and the latter with nil medical basis.

Yes, actually there have been medical justifications offered. There are studies for instance that show that females who are “circumcised” have lower rates of STD and HIV transmission. There was a study done in Italy on immigrant women from Africa who had been cut as children who reported far higher rates of orgasm and sexual satisfaction, oddly, than the general population.

What does this show to you? To me, it shows that “studies” can be drummed up to support practically any foolishness, and also it highlights that searching for “medical benefits” to forcibly amputating healthy, normal parts from children’s genitals is beside the point: it’s still morally wrong to alter other people’s bodies when they can’t validly consent themselves and there is no actual immediate medical need to do so.

We cannot, thankfully, do any serious studious to search for “benefits” to female genital cutting in the U.S. as it is illegal and such studies would be seen for the unethical sham that they are. But female genital cutting was not always viewed so here in the good 'ol US of A. Dr. Harvey Kellogg (the inventor of cornflakes and a Victorian sadist), who we have largely to thank for the introduction of male genital cutting in America among the overwhelmingly Protestant Christian poplace of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, also advocated burning off the clitoris of girls with carbolic acid to stop them masturbating, the same as circumcision was meant to do to boys: to stunt sexual response and feeling. Clitoredectomy was LISTED by Blue Cross Blue Shield as a medical procedure for purposes of benefits coverage until 1977, and Playboy magazine once ran an issue touting the benefits of female cutting as much as male cutting. Have a read at historyofcircumcision.net/ for some enlightenment on the issue. And for a more intimate look at the tragic history of female genital cutting in America, try reading Patricia Robinett’s “Rape of Innocence” about her own story of growing up a white, mid-western American Christian who was circumcised as a very young girl: rapeofinnocence.com/.

 

[Blacksword]

For decades and decades circumcision was routinely recommended and performed by physicians in the U.S. for medical reasons already noted by thistle. No one ever made much of an issue of it. For Catholics, it was never done for religious reasons. Never in my life have I heard it made into a major issue except on CAF, where it can be mentioned only at the risk of being as contentious as gay marriage or women’s clothing.

Small correction: for Catholics it was never done period, anywhere in the world, except for in America starting somewhere in the 1950’s when it had become so prevalent a social/cultural aspect of American society that American Catholics began to wholesale conform in many respects. It still is never done by Catholics anywhere else in the world but here.

And again, I find it strange that you say you’ve never heard of this being an issue anywhere but on CAF. It is literally ALL over the internet, it’s in public, picketing at hospitals, at AAP “Task Force” members’ houses, on news stations…I’m amazed you’ve missed it. Please look at intaction.org, Intact America, the Foreskin Restoration Network, theWholeNetwork.org, Foregen.org…I mean, this issue as a matter of social consciousness is large, and growing all the time.

 

[JimG]

Small correction: for Catholics it was never done period, anywhere in the world, except for in America starting somewhere in the 1950’s when it had become so prevalent a social/cultural aspect of American society that American Catholics began to wholesale conform in many respects. It still is never done by Catholics anywhere else in the world but here.

And again, I find it strange that you say you’ve never heard of this being an issue anywhere but on CAF. It is literally ALL over the internet, it’s in public, picketing at hospitals, at AAP “Task Force” members’ houses, on news stations…I’m amazed you’ve missed it. Please look at intaction.org, Intact America, the Foreskin Restoration Network, theWholeNetwork.org, Foregen.org…I mean, this issue as a matter of social consciousness is large, and growing all the time.

Well, it certainly does sound like an Internet phenomenon, from your description.
As you say, it was a common practice. Catholics didn’t just follow the culture; they followed their physicians recommendations. All my life, among family, relatives, friends, I’ve never seen anything like the current uproar except when the subject is brought up on CAF. I don’t follow much of the rest of the Internet.

And since medical standards undergo a lot of change over the course of the years, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a turnaround in the recommendations physicians start making.

 

[Havard]

Well, it certainly does sound like an Internet phenomenon, from your description.
As you say, it was a common practice. Catholics didn’t just follow the culture; they followed their physicians recommendations. All my life, among family, relatives, friends, I’ve never seen anything like the current uproar except when the subject is brought up on CAF. I don’t follow much of the rest of the Internet.

And since medical standards undergo a lot of change over the course of the years, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a turnaround in the recommendations physicians start making.

I really don’t get this chasing of windmills. People do the same thing with vaccines, spanking, home births, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, etc. There are enough actual tribulations to worry about. If parents are really hurting their kids, we’ll act on it, but let’s not interject ourselves into every little debated detail.

@Mulligan2, firstly, your earlier comment about saying “your son will thank you” is biased conjecture. On another thread, an uncircumcised man is pursuing the circumcision procedure, simply seeking testimonials, and you just linked to a site that is formally anti-circumcision, which linked to part of one study that came out anti-circumcision.

One doesn’t have to look far - or at biased/activist web sites - to see that many studies suggest that adult circumcision has positive levels of satisfaction.

In the end, I really don’t care what other people do. If circumcision fades away as a practice, so be it. But let it be because it is their choice, armed with all the information, pro and con. Not because activists show people the limited information that serves their agenda.

 

[Mulligan2]

I really don’t get this chasing of windmills. People do the same thing with vaccines, spanking, home births, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, etc. There are enough actual tribulations to worry about. If parents are really hurting their kids, we’ll act on it, but let’s not interject ourselves into every little debated detail.

@Mulligan2, firstly, your earlier comment about saying “your son will thank you” is biased conjecture. On another thread, an uncircumcised man is pursuing the circumcision procedure, simply seeking testimonials, and you just linked to a site that is formally anti-circumcision, which linked to part of one study that came out anti-circumcision.

One doesn’t have to look far - or at biased/activist web sites - to see that many studies suggest that adult circumcision has positive levels of satisfaction.

In the end, I really don’t care what other people do. If circumcision fades away as a practice, so be it. But let it be because it is their choice, armed with all the information, pro and con. Not because activists show people the limited information that serves their agenda.

The sentence of your above post that you bolded is really the crux of the matter - “But let it be because it is their choice…”

Newborn babies obviously cannot give their consent.

If genital cutting was a practice that people only underwent voluntarily, it would be an almost completely unheard of practice.

 

[Blacksword]

The sentence of your above post that you bolded is really the crux of the matter - “But let it be because it is their choice…”

Newborn babies obviously cannot give their consent.

If genital cutting was a practice that people only underwent voluntarily, it would be an almost completely unheard of practice.

Bingo!!

And to add to that: if it really is so neutral, or even beneficial, then why is it that NO OTHER first world country on Earth practices it? Why is it that the rest of the civilized world looks on this uniquely American obsession with horror, when they find out about how wide spread it’s been here anyway? People from the U.K., Japan, China, Italy, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, every Latin country on the planet, even for the most part Canada and Australia as well, are frequently shocked and horrified when they first learn of this practice. It is extremely, extremely odd that no one else in the civilized world seems to have gotten on board with this, and in fact medical professionals all over the rest of the planet strongly discourage it, in the face of such “harmlessness” or even positive benefit.

 

[Rau]

Bingo!!

And to add to that: if it really is so neutral, or even beneficial, then why is it that NO OTHER first world country on Earth practices it? Why is it that the rest of the civilized world looks on this uniquely American obsession with horror, when they find out about how wide spread it’s been here anyway? People from the U.K., Japan, China, Italy, Germany, Finland, France, Ireland, every Latin country on the planet, even for the most part Canada and Australia as well, are frequently shocked and horrified when they first learn of this practice. It is extremely, extremely odd that no one else in the civilized world seems to have gotten on board with this, and in fact medical professionals all over the rest of the planet strongly discourage it, in the face of such “harmlessness” or even positive benefit.

Factually questionable. It is not unique to USA. 50 years ago, it was commonplace, far less so now. It was conventional medical wisdom at the time.

 

[thinkandmull]

Circumcision was prescribed by God and performed by St. Paul, so it is NOT mutilation. It is like getting a piercing for aesthetics. The Council of Florence in one paragraph taught first doctrinally then disciplinary. There is nothing wrong with being circumcised as part of a religious commitment to God. How could there possibly be? Come on

 

[Rau]

Yes, actually there have been medical justifications offered. There are studies for instance that show that females who are “circumcised” have lower rates of STD and HIV transmission. There was a study done in Italy on immigrant women from Africa who had been cut as children who reported far higher rates of orgasm and sexual satisfaction, oddly, than the general population.

What does this show to you? To me, it shows that “studies” can be drummed up to support practically any foolishness, and also it highlights that searching for “medical benefits” to forcibly amputating healthy, normal parts from children’s genitals is beside the point: it’s still morally wrong to alter other people’s bodies when they can’t validly consent themselves and there is no actual immediate medical need to do so.

We cannot, thankfully, do any serious studious to search for “benefits” to female genital cutting in the U.S. as it is illegal and such studies would be seen for the unethical sham that they are. But female genital cutting was not always viewed so here in the good 'ol US of A. Dr. Harvey Kellogg (the inventor of cornflakes and a Victorian sadist), who we have largely to thank for the introduction of male genital cutting in America among the overwhelmingly Protestant Christian poplace of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, also advocated burning off the clitoris of girls with carbolic acid to stop them masturbating, the same as circumcision was meant to do to boys: to stunt sexual response and feeling. Clitoredectomy was LISTED by Blue Cross Blue Shield as a medical procedure for purposes of benefits coverage until 1977, and Playboy magazine once ran an issue touting the benefits of female cutting as much as male cutting. Have a read at historyofcircumcision.net/ for some enlightenment on the issue. And for a more intimate look at the tragic history of female genital cutting in America, try reading Patricia Robinett’s “Rape of Innocence” about her own story of growing up a white, mid-western American Christian who was circumcised as a very young girl: rapeofinnocence.com/.

I think I am right in saying that female circumcision has never been conventional medical wisdom as has been the case with males.

 

[Rau]

What % of pediatricians recommend male circumcision these days? Fairly small I suspect?

 

[Mulligan2]

Circumcision was prescribed by God and performed by St. Paul, so it is NOT mutilation. It is like getting a piercing for aesthetics. The Council of Florence in one paragraph taught first doctrinally then disciplinary. There is nothing wrong with being circumcised as part of a religious commitment to God. How could there possibly be? Come on

One definition of ‘mutilation’ is ‘to cut off or destroy the use of a limb or body part’, so genital cutting most certainly fits the definition. And the notion that God (who created the human body) would want his followers to mutilate his own creation is the height of absurdity.

 

[thinkandmull]

So you are not even Christian? God did just that in the Old Testament. The foreskin is a part of the body that can be tossed away, as ordained by God. It’s somewhat similar but not really (still helpful comparison) to saying that part of the nose through which the nose ring goes can be tossed away. It says in the Bible “I will put a ring thru your nose”

 

[thinkandmull]

Who is to say that it is better to leave circumcision up to a person when they are older. They may be afraid of change. Circumcision is way better aesthetically, even for a woman. I would bet my salvation on the fact that Mary no longer has a clitoris

 

[thinkandmull]

I don’t think you should circumcision someone over 3 years old without there consent. But am for circumcision for both male and females. Let the gross thing go. Clitori are carnal

 

[Rau]

Who is to say that it is better to leave circumcision up to a person when they are older. They may be afraid of change. Circumcision is way better aesthetically, even for a woman. I would bet my salvation on the fact that Mary no longer has a clitoris

I would have thought adult circumcision was rare, until I stumbled on this site:
circinfo.net/men_circumcised_as_adults_tell_it_as_it_is.html

Your suggestion (implied) that the Jews practiced female circumcision for aesthetic reason 2000 years ago is absurd. Evidence?

 

[Rau]

I don’t think you should circumcision someone over 3 years old without there consent. But am for circumcision for both male and females. Let the gross thing go. Clitori are carnal

Do you have a serious reason to hold these views? Are you married?

 

[Blacksword]

I don’t think you should circumcision someone over 3 years old without there consent. But am for circumcision for both male and females. Let the gross thing go. Clitori are carnal

An equal opportunist pro-mutilator…WOW, just wow…at least no one can say you’re hypocritical or inconsistent in your ideas of application of involuntary body modification surgery. But I must say I find your views scary, very scary. Tell me, for you, what is it about a three year old boy or girl that you think they should have the basic right to bodily integrity, but a girl or boy, say two years old, does not?

 

[Blacksword]

I would have thought adult circumcision was rare, until I stumbled on this site:
circinfo.net/men_circumcised_as_adults_tell_it_as_it_is.html

Your suggestion (implied) that the Jews practiced female circumcision for aesthetic reason 2000 years ago is absurd. Evidence?

That site is run by Brian Morris, a circumfetishist (yes, there are sick people who find the idea of children being circumcised sexually exciting), it’s not a reliable source of information.