On infant circumcision.

[conuly]

Here's the thing. Parents do not own their children. Parents do not own their children's bodies.

Parents can't refuse lifesaving medical intervention for their children, even if their own religions forbid it, and they can't, ethically (screw the law, the law sucks) cause unnecessary damage to their children.

Circumcisions are unnecessary for the vast majority of boys. A small minority have diseases that do require the removal of an unhealthy foreskin.

An boy who will not be circumcised is not at risk of having part or all of the penis lopped off. This has happened, and not so long ago. A boy who will not be circumcised is at less of a risk of having infections during infancy, because the foreskin protects the penis from all the nasties in the diaper. A boy who is uncircumcised can grow up and change this. One who is circumcised can't. This is irreversible.

There is some evidence that removing the foreskin, even when it's done correctly, permanently impairs the ability to enjoy sex. Oh, not that guys still don't, but that it'd be easier if they were, y'know, intact. Like God made them. There is significant evidence that this sort of pain in infancy (and most circumcisions are still done without anesthesia) permanently rewires the pain receptors.

There are, of course, a number of good, perfectly valid reasons to circumcise.

1. Religion.

I'm not tackling this.

2. "He won't feel weird taking showers with other boys"

Does anybody still take showers like that anymore? No offense, but that seems like a way to encourage homosexuality, and I'm amazed the fundies still allow this.

At any rate, some 35% of infant males aren't circumcised. That's nearing half. These kids won't feel that weird.

3. "He should look like his daddy"

Is he a clone? No? Then he's not going to look like his daddy anyway. He'll live. And while I'm thrilled if you're actually comfortable with your own nudity, a lot of families who use this argument aren't. I don't know why they think their son will care.

4. "There are health benefits"

Actually, there really aren't, except that it helps you avoid cancer of the foreskin. And lopping off my breasts would help me avoid breast cancer, and performing routine appendectomies at birth would help people avoid appendecitis.

5. "It looks better"

Only if you're used to it. And dude? You're not fucking your son. If you are, you need to get serious help.

Well. Guess I didn't think these arguments were so valid after all.

Let's say I did. Let's say I really thought that circumcised guys look better, inherantly, and should all fit some obscure standard of conformity.

I still would be against routine infant circumcision.

In China, for many years they thought that small feet looked better, and bound girls feet, without their consent. This permanently damaged them. This is unacceptable.

If we thought that brands looked pretty, we still wouldn't find it acceptable to brand infants just because "it looks good" and "they won't remember it". We reject the concept of FGM, even though all these arguments have been used to justify it. Why is our custom different?

To be fair, I completely support the right of consenting adults to do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. If you really want to cut off your labia, that's your own business. And if you really wish you'd been circumcised, and hate that foreskin, go ahead, get it chopped off. I support you.

But don't fuck with babies' private parts. You don't own them.

Comments

[spitefairy.livejournal.com]

Well actually, in most states parents Do own them. That's why someone under 18 has to have parental permission to get piercings/tattoos and such. It's also why a parent can make medical decisions with or without the child's consent. It's also why a parent is the only person allowed to give alcohol to a minor (religious functions not withstanding). Not to mention the states with parental concent requirements for abortion.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but in the US a parent pretty much own's their child, which is why circumcision is no exception.

I don't think you can compare FGM to Circumcision because with FGM most of the time sex and even normal bathroom functions are impossible or can cause severe, permanent damage. Or in cases where the clitoris is removed the girl will most likely never have an orgasm. I do agree that circumcision is rather barbaric and should be decided by the individual, but I do not think it is the same thing as FGM because the penis is fully functioning afterwards. Of course there are cases of botched circumcisions, but I'm talking about the 99.9% that go without a hitch, whereas it's almost the opposite with the FGM.

To clarify, I think a circumcised penis "looks better", but that's probably because it's the only kind I've had experience with and what I've grown up seeing (on tv, in health classes and stuff, obviously I didn't just wander around looking at dicks). However I do think it is a cruel thing to do and think that it should be left up to the individual, like you said, if they want to get it removed on their own later in life that's perfectly fine with me.

[conuly]

1. Ethically, you don't own your children. Legally, it's inching towards best-interests-of-the-child. Slowly, yes, but it's getting there.

2. It's exactly the same as FGM, the only difference is in degree. And the fact that it's usually done in much more sanitary conditions.

[spitefairy.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, ethically I agree.

I don't think it's the same at all because the male genitalia is fully functioning after removal, whereas the female genitalia really isn't. Also, the foreskin isn't necessary for sexual pleasure, sexual acts, reproductive acts, or waste removal; in the case of FGM what is removed Is necessary for all/most of those.

[conuly]

Actually, what is covered under FGM varies greatly from region to region. In many areas, it's not quite that... extreme.

Furthermore, as I said, the difference is in degree, not in kind.