Penn & Teller on Circumcision (NSFW)

[Broomstick]

What I find bleakly amusing are the rednecks I know who won't get their male dogs neutered due to too much empathy (and projection) with their dogs' testicles, but insist on getting their sons' foreskins lopped off. When you step back and look at it you go WTF?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Ehhh that's completely different. I've been cut and I have a son. Bam, easy. I still function as a male. If my balls were cut off I would lose the functional ability to reproduce, a massive amount of horomones that aid in muscle recovery, growth, and sexual development as a male. Circumcision deprives me of none of those things. I just lack a foreskin and a bunch of glands and what not that would make sex possibly a bit more pleasurable. Since it's pretty fucking good now I think anymore would make me an addict. But I can (ie have) reproduced and am unlikely to experience any of the myriad of possible negative long term effects of circumcision if my family history is taken into account (I'll have a sister in about a month).

That being said I personally would have preferred not having my son or any future sons circumcised and intend to advocate to my kids not to do it to my grand kids, should I be alive to see them.

EDIT: For grammar.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, but those same assholes are terrified of vasectomies, too, even if that doesn't impair sexual functioning, yet see circumcision as somehow natural and correct.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe they perceive a difference between removing a small external sheath of skin, and an invasive procedure that involves a surgeon rooting about inside your pelvis.

[Kanastrous]

..this isn't a direct response to anything, but the reaction to the all-male panel lecturing us about womens' health care (with no detectable sense of irony) does remind me just a little bit of the section of women stridently hectoring us, over a uniquely male-health-related procedure.

[SCRawl]

Yes, but a pretty good percentage of mothers are also women. Since mothers will be part (or all) of the infant vasectomy decision-making process teams, their input seems more relevant than the Men's Geriatric Ward opining about women's reproductive rights.

[Akhlut]

Maybe they perceive a difference between removing a small external sheath of skin, and an invasive procedure that involves a surgeon rooting about inside your pelvis.

Wait, men are getting fallopian tube ligations instead of vasectomies these days? Oh, science, you so cray-zee.

Seriously, though, most vasectomies these days can be done with a simple hemostat and be done as an outpatient procedure rather than as a major surgery, as required for a tubal ligation (hint: which one requires local anesthesia, which requires general anesthesia?).

..this isn't a direct response to anything, but the reaction to the all-male panel lecturing us about womens' health care (with no detectable sense of irony) does remind me just a little bit of the section of women stridently hectoring us, over a uniquely male-health-related procedure.

What? Circumcision or vasectomies? Either way, I'd hector the shit out of idiot men who favor the former and are terrified the latter.

[Kanastrous]

Yes, but a pretty good percentage of mothers are also women. Since mothers will be part (or all) of the infant vasectomy decision-making process teams, their input seems more relevant than the Men's Geriatric Ward opining about women's reproductive rights.

If enough of the men on that panel were fathers, would that make their empanelment and conclusions any more valid?

[Kanastrous]

Maybe they perceive a difference between removing a small external sheath of skin, and an invasive procedure that involves a surgeon rooting about inside your pelvis.

Wait, men are getting fallopian tube ligations instead of vasectomies these days? Oh, science, you so cray-zee.

Seriously, though, most vasectomies these days can be done with a simple hemostat and be done as an outpatient procedure rather than as a major surgery, as required for a tubal ligation (hint: which one requires local anesthesia, which requires general anesthesia?).

Invasive is invasive. A 'minor' invasive procedure is still in a different category than something like removal of a small external piece of skin, no matter how venerated said small external piece of skin may be.

..this isn't a direct response to anything, but the reaction to the all-male panel lecturing us about womens' health care (with no detectable sense of irony) does remind me just a little bit of the section of women stridently hectoring us, over a uniquely male-health-related procedure.

What? Circumcision or vasectomies? Either way, I'd hector the shit out of idiot men who favor the former and are terrified the latter.

Circumcision, of course. Although come to think of it, for the same reason women going on about vasectomies (in general; an individual woman night have reason to complain if her man got one) seems reminiscent of men going on about womens' health-care matters.

[SCRawl]

Yes, but a pretty good percentage of mothers are also women. Since mothers will be part (or all) of the infant vasectomy decision-making process teams, their input seems more relevant than the Men's Geriatric Ward opining about women's reproductive rights.

If enough of the men on that panel were fathers, would that make their empanelment and conclusions any more valid?

If fathers tended to make reproductive decisions for their adult daughters, then yeah, sure. But the infant vasectomy decisions are exclusively made by their parents (or their proxies).

[Kanastrous]

(1) I was talking about circumcision, not vasectomies. Isn't this thread about circumcision? But, I missed that you had for whatever reason brought up the v-word.

(2) Fathers don't make reproductive decisions, for their daughters? Like, exerting parental influence as to whom the daughter dates, or marries?

[SCRawl]

(2) Fathers don't make reproductive decisions, for their daughters? Like, exerting parental influence as to whom the daughter dates, or marries?

In my experience, no, not so much. Even if they do (which I do not grant), such influence is far, far less than the total influence parents have over the decision about whether or not to subject their sons to circumcision.

[Spoonist]

I've read through it thrice now but I don't get Kanastrous angle nor point?
Is this something personal relating to "uniquely male-health-related procedure" or am I missing some cultural reference here?

Why shouldn't someone in a relationship have the right to be upset if their partner opted for a 'permanent' contraceptive procedure?

[Kanastrous]

SCRawl - As you like. Does any of this really relate to the seemingly-obvious parallel, between men working themselves up and making demands over matters of female-related procedures, and women doing the same over exclusively male-related procedures? If we have the right to tell men to STFU about matters pertaining to womens' reproductive and sexual health, it seems to me that someone so inclined could legitimately say that, in general, women should STFU when it comes to procedures males-only sexual health. Like, men shrieking over practices pertaining solely to women are making fools of themselves, and that cuts both ways.

That's all.

- Spoonist: I have been talking about -circumcision- (the topic of the thread...) not permanent contraceptive procedures. The only place tubal ligation etc come into it is where I pointed out that circumcision differs from that kind of procedure in being non-invasive. 'Exclusively male related' comes up simply because it occurred to me that the shrillness of a good many womens' objections to circumcision to me mirrors the shrillness of men who go on about procedures that -they- will never, ever undergo in their lifetimes.

[Spoonist]

Are you saying that only fathers should get to decide over their son's surgical procedures? or vice versa for mothers and daughters. That sounds very strange to me. Also why do you put in value added language without opting to take sides on the issue? I don't get it. To me it sounds like you are echoing some of the sentiment from DudeMamGuy from the last page.

[Kanastrous]

I can't state it any more simply or clearly; if you want to chalk that up to me being stupid, that's fine. Carry on.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Why shouldn't women be able to decry infant circumcision? If the practice involved removing your son's arms instead, would women still not be allowed to say it shouldn't be done because it will never happen to them? Are straight people not allowed to speak up about gay rights? They'll probably never have to deal with the discrimination personally, after all!

You compare this to the all-male panel talking about women's reproductive rights, but they're totally different. One is men discussing withholding rights from women; the other is women discussing ending a harmful procedure done to men without their consent. One is taking away the rights of another group while the other is helping another group.

[SCRawl]

Kanastrous, I get that there's the obvious symmetry: men are holding court over a subset of exclusively feminine health issues, and women wring their hands over an exclusively masculine health issue.

My problem is where the symmetry breaks down.

First: No one, male or female, should bat an eye over an adult man, of sound mind, choosing to have a circumcision. Most of these procedures are not performed on adults, though.

Second: Similarly, I don't think that anyone is saying that no man should voice or have an opinion about women's reproductive health, especially if those men are physicians. That day in Washington, though, saw only men testifying before the hearing, with not a woman to be heard from (despite efforts to have a feminine perspective introduced).

To sum up: yes, there's a prima facie case for symmetry here, but it doesn't bear very much scrutiny.

[Kanastrous]

^ I see that you're right.

[Spoonist]

As a sidenote on why its silly. Over here we have an issue with 2nd gen Somali refugees doing really bad things to their daughters genitals.
When the gov looked into things it turned out this was usually at the insistance of the MOTHER while the FATHER usually was more reluctant.
I'd bet its the same thing with circumsition in the US, its usually women who perpetuate cultural traditions like that.