"circumcision not mutilation"

[mango monkey]

There are plenty of articles that show the opposite too... You can find anything to support an argument in a scientific journal, eg.
Female Genital Cutting and HIV/AIDS among Kenyan Women

Kathryn M. Yount and Bisrat K. Abraham
Studies in Family Planning
Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jun., 2007), pp. 73-88

This one suggests that women are MORE likely to be affected by HIV/AIDS...

[VicPark]

If male circmcision has sooooooooo many health benefits they why does NO medical authority in any western nation recommend mass circumcision? Hmmmmm? Because the 'benefits' are as big as a bees weiner and are not enough to justify the circmcision of healthy boys!!

[Father]

If male circmcision has sooooooooo many health benefits they why does NO medical authority in any western nation recommend mass circumcision? Hmmmmm? Because the 'benefits' are as big as a bees weiner and are not enough to justify the circmcision of healthy boys!!

Again, the appeal to authority. Parents don't have to blindly follow what others say. Some parents actually have the ability to weigh up the pros and cons themselves!

You may be interested in having a look at what the RACP says regarding circumcision.

Here is a link.
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?obj...657544BA419672

[JohnC]

There are many health benefits of male circumcision.

The claims of potential (not actual) health benefits are at best debatable in a developed world context. Extensive population-based studies in the US, the UK and Australia have failed to find any significant difference in health outcomes between circumcised and intact men. And comparing between countries, the US has higher rates of STIs and penile pathologies than comparable European countries where routine circumcision has never been practised.

But all this is really missing the point. Routine circumcision of infants is a social/cultural/aesthetic decision, whatever rationalisations might be made after the event. It is so in Indonesia, and no less so for the small percentage of parents who still opt for the procedure in Australia.

This is why we can be confident that the incidence of circumcision will continue to fall -- as in the UK, Canada and New Zealand -- as the percentage of fathers who are themselves intact increases.

[Father]

But all this is really missing the point. Routine circumcision of infants is a social/cultural/aesthetic decision, whatever rationalisations might be made after the event.

Excuse me John. You are ignoring my primary reason for circumcising my two boys....again. You might choose to ignore the health benefits, that is your call. But I don't.

Please do not tell me the reasons that I made this decision. You have absolutely no idea of our circumstances, and how this decision was made.

[goldtoe]

Excuse me John. You are ignoring my primary reason for circumcising my two boys....

No he is not. You are mistaking your rationalisation for a cause. Which is generally how rationalisations work. We also tend to ignore flaws in evidence that support our past decisions.

[JohnC]

You are ignoring my primary reason for circumcising my two boys....again.

That's because your rationalisations about "medical benefits" are irrelevant to the point of this thread, which is that attitudes towards routine and ritual circumcision (of boys or girls) are culturally determined. Would you really be spouting this Brian Morris-inspired nonsense if you were, say, an uncircumcised Swedish man? Indeed it would be unlikely that the thought of routine circumcision would even cross your mind.

In the case of Anglophone countries the cultural context arose from a medical response to masturbation hysteria. In the case of Islam, we are dealing with an ancient tribal Bedouin practice that was absorbed by the new religion and exported with it.

Health and hygiene rationalisations are commonly heard but are profoundly unconvincing to anyone not already acculturated to these practices. The fact a Zimbabwe senator only yesterday seemed to suggest that female circ could help curb HIV is met with outrage (as was the Indonesian story about "medically responsible" female circ I reported in the OP).

In Australia in the 1950s, male circumcision was not debated, it was just done. But things have changed, leaving a minority of parents with essentially an aesthetic preference no longer condoned by contemporary cultural standards, and therefore in search of a justification. This is the difficult space through which the RACP statement tries to navigate. But that space continues to close, and as it does, the temperature of the debate will continue to rise.

[Father]

Would you really be spouting this Brian Morris-inspired nonsense if you were, say, an uncircumcised Swedish man? Indeed it would be unlikely that the thought of routine circumcision would even cross your mind.

Why did you not call it the "RACP inspired nonsense"? I haven't once quoted Morris in this thread. I'm not sure what your obsession with him is.

I'll say again. You do not know anything about the circumstances behind our decisions.

I would suggest that an uncircumcised Swedish man more than likely would consider routine circumcision if he had spent the majority of his younger years in pain due to foreskin related problems, only to end up circumcised and being much happier for it.

Interesting link. I think it was the shaving heads, not bathing, and looking ugly comments that drew outrage. Not his "moisture" comment.

[~Bec~]

I would suggest that an uncircumcised Swedish man more than likely would consider routine circumcision if he had spent the majority of his younger years in pain due to foreskin related problems, only to end up circumcised and being much happier for it.

Yes he probably would be happier if he was circ'd - in that instance there is a medical need for it. But that's not the issue so it is irrelevent to the thread and topic. In the same vein I wouldn't routinely remove either my tonsils or my children's tonsils unless there was a present medical need.

[JohnC]

I haven't once quoted Morris in this thread.

No, but I have often seen you refer people to his discredited web site, which is no surprise given the remarkable convergence of views on imagined "health benefits" justifying irreversible prophylactic surgery on unconsenting minors.

And routine circumcision is illegal in Sweden; ritual circumcision is permitted under a religious exemption; and medical circumcision is performed when medically justified.