It's time to grab a cup of coffee and settle in as we start the conversation with this week's issue:
Back in 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a statement declaring that, based on years of research, the pros of circumcision were not great enough for them to recommend it as a routine medical procedure.
The debate as to whether male infants should be circumcised at birth is still very much alive today. At least one U.S. city, San Francisco, is considering a proposal to ban circumcisions.
Figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that the number of circumcisions in the U.S. is declining. Data used in a presentation by a CDC researcher in August of 2010 include a 2009 statistic: 32.5 percent of U.S.-born males were circumcised that year, a drop from 56 percent in 2006. Others argue the figure is inaccurately low and estimate the number to be closer to 50 or 60 percent. Either way, parents choosing circumcision often cite religious and cultural reasons, as well as medical benefits, such as lower risk of contracting certain sexually-transmitted diseases and better hygiene.
The question: As a parent, do you believe in circumcision? Do you think this is a one-answer issue, or do different beliefs dictate different actions?
Now take a look at what our Moms Council has to say. Here they are:
Beth Blanck is a Brewster mom whose son is 2 and a half years old. She writes a weekly column called for Southeast-Brewster Patch and she is the head of the council.
Noreen Mahoney is Brewster mother of two boys, ages 10 and 16. Aside from being active in the community, Noreen is a former improv troupe member. She is looking to start a local troupe for adults.
Tracy Dunne-Derrell is a Brewster mother of one. She is a middle school teacher and she is currently fighting a battle familiar to many parents: trying to get her 4-year-old daughter to sleep!
Suzanne Perucci has lived in the area for 20 years. She works for The Pampered Chef and is the mother of two teenagers.
If you would like to join the council, or if you have a suggestion for a topic, email Ashley.Tarr@patch.com.
"The removal of the ridged band of nerves by male circumcision is not a "trivial detail". [...] I am very confident that most me who have restored their foreskin would prefer to have their "original equipment", including the ridged band of nerves." -- so you must be arguing on the basis of what you *imagine* the ridged band to be, then? "The fact that they went through the effort to restore, and you know it takes years, demonstrates that they probably would have preferred to have been kept intact." -- no argument from me there. Similarly, that adult men go to the trouble, discomfort, expense, and inconvenience of getting circumcised demonstrates that they'd have preferred to have been circumcised as infants. Unfortunately it's not possible to tell, in advance, what a man would have wanted, and sometimes parents make a decision that turns out to be the opposite. We just have to make the best of our circumstances.
From: "CIRCLIST" <circlist@xxxxxx.com> CIRCLIST. "There is a small group of us who have formed a private listing (CIRCLIST) and we share stories and pictures of circumcision. Most all of us grew up Uncut, but sometimes fantasize about being circumcised. About half of us are US and the rest European. We find stories of teen boys and men getting circ'd very hot! We also share our own personal experiences growing up uncut and admiring the circ'd dicks along with accounts of our own personal circumcision, medical information, etc. ... we do have adult only circ fantasy material and stories of our own personal sexual experiences ... we have accumulated a variety of circumcision jpegs. Most are clinical pieces showing the man or boy before, during and after his circ. They were produced as educational pieces for medical students, etc. ... I also have some images of ritual or coming of age circumcisions such as those done in Africa, Egypt and Turkey (male & female) ... We are currently working on a web site to house the archives." For more information and application form: XXXXXXXXX.com. Thanks! Hope to see you!
I'm pleased to announce that the second meeting of the CIRCLIST California Chapter is planned for Saturday, November 13th in Los Angeles. If you are interested in attending, please contact me and I'll give you all of the particulars. At our last meeting in Oakland (January), about 10 folks attended. Many pictures, devices and live "show & tell" sessions occurred. This meeting will be similar, but we will also try to arrange to show some adult circumcision videos. There is the possibility that a live adult circumcision may also be scheduled. In route to California, I will be making a stop in Phoenix, AZ on Monday evening, November 8. If you live in that area and would like to meet and discuss our mutual interest, please let me know as well. Thanks! Hope to see you! >David >CIRCLIST Moderator
Technically this is true, they are sister sites--one with pictures, the other without.
You are calling Circlist.com just a circumcision information site, correct? That's not what I get from Emma's story above or from their other posting, above - promoting the removal of clitoral hoods - which I believe Jakew argued is not circumcision, correct? It's clearly not just a circumcision information site. How do you justify this discrepancy in your assertion?
Do you know why Google forced the closure of the circlist group last year? I'm genuinely interested.
"Do you know why Google forced the closure of the circlist group last year? I'm genuinely interested." -- I've no idea, I'm afraid.
Jake: "so you must be arguing on the basis of what you *imagine* the ridged band to be, then?" No, I base my argument on the fact that the ridged band has a high concentration of nerves. It is a normal part of a male's penis. Since there is NO compelling medical reason to cut the ridged band off a healthy boy's penis, the decision should be left for the boy to make for himself when he becomes an adult. Jake: "Similarly, that adult men go to the trouble, discomfort, expense, and inconvenience of getting circumcised demonstrates that they'd have preferred to have been circumcised as infants." An adult who wants to pierce his penis also has to go to the trouble, discomfort, expense, and inconvenience of getting his penis pierced. The fact that some men prefer to have been pierced as an infant does not justify piercing the genitals of children. The decision to get a permanent body modification like genital piercing, scarification, male or female genital cutting, etc. is a decision that an adult should make for his or her own body.
And that is exactly why the decision to cut off a normal, healthy part of a boy's penis should be left for him to make for himself once he becomes an adult! When will you start to respect the feeling of other men regarding whether or not they want to have a normal part of their penis cut off when there is NO compelling medical reason for the surgery?
"And that is exactly why the decision to cut off a normal, healthy part of a boy's penis should be left for him to make for himself once he becomes an adult!" -- Applying the same reasoning, one would have to conclude that parents couldn't make any decisions at all for their child, for fear that he might not have wanted them. That's absurd: you can't avoid making a decision just because there's a *chance* that it might be resented. It's especially absurd when you consider the fact that the decision *not* to do something might just as easily be resented.
You are validating the quote from Gollaher that advocates of male circumcision trivialize the part of a man's penis that is cut off by male circumcision. Jake: "Applying the same reasoning, one would have to conclude that parents couldn't make any decisions at all for their child, for fear that he might not have wanted them." This is an excellent example of the slippery slope fallacy. With the exception of piecing a child's ears, there is no other form of permanent body modification that parents can do to their child. If a doctor pierced a boy's penis because the parents requested it, the doctor would go to jail. Male circumcision is a more severe from of permanent body modification that genital piercing. It is important to remember that there is NO compelling medical reason to cut off a normal part of a healthy boy's penis.
"This is an excellent example of the slippery slope fallacy." -- actually, it's an application of reductio ad absurdum. "With the exception of piecing a child's ears, there is no other form of permanent body modification that parents can do to their child." -- vaccinations spring to mind: a permanent change to the immune system. (And before you list differences between circumcision and vaccination once again, I'm not saying that they are the same, just that both are forms of permanent body modification that parents choose for their children.) But in any case, it's questionable whether one should apply a different standard just because something is a body modification (as opposed to, say, a mental change such as education).
In this context, this is a straw man. A more reasonable comparison would be: "To reference your earlier KKK analogy, is it reasonable to say that a website is racist because it posts racist stories."
'A more reasonable comparison would be: "To reference your earlier KKK analogy, is it reasonable to say that a website is racist because it posts racist stories."' -- an interesting question indeed. Let's take Patch.com, for example, for no better reason than that we're here. If I can find a racist comment somewhere on this website, does it mean that Patch is a racist site?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_modification As I said, most people understand that "permanent body modification" means tattoos, piercing, branding, scarification, genital cutting, etc.