Why is the foreskin being labeled as pathological? (New ICGI article)

[MoonJelly]

Why is the foreskin being labeled as pathological?
December 19th, 2008 by Jeremy Proctor


The arguments on both sides go something like this. If female circumcision is worse than male circumcision, then male circumcision must be OK. If baby girls are not circumcised at birth, should boys? Why then only baby boys?

The bigger question seems to be getting lost in the arguments on both sides: Is the foreskin any more prone to disease that any other body part? It would seem considerably more robust than many.

Consider breast tissue, for example. Simply having a set of breasts leaves a woman with a 1-in-8 chance for developing cancer at some point in her life. For men, the possibility of developing breast cancer is three times more than for penile cancer. Moreover, unlike foreskin, mammary tissue is susceptible to morbidity and mortality that are not preventable through easy prophylactic measures such as abstinence and condoms. For instance, you can be as celibate as a nun or as profligate as a prostitute and your breasts are still many dozens of times more likely to make you sick or kill you than all of the pathologies attributed to the foreskin combined.

So, all things being equal, shouldn’t medicine be focusing on developing radial mastectomy into a quick, accessible, inexpensive out-patient procedure, and rolling out mass campaigns for all women to have the surgery once they have passed child-bearing age? It would, after all, save thousands of lives every year. Why do they squander resources studying the intricacies of UTIs and comparatively esoteric HPV studies, unless it’s simply to bolster and market the “brand” called Circumcision?

[tammyswanson]

The whole idea about circumcision being 'therapeutic' is illogical, therefore those who follow that idea are also illogical.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by MoonJelly

Why is the foreskin being labeled as pathological?
December 19th, 2008 by Jeremy Proctor


The arguments on both sides go something like this. If female circumcision is worse than male circumcision, then male circumcision must be OK. If baby girls are not circumcised at birth, should boys? Why then only baby boys?

The bigger question seems to be getting lost in the arguments on both sides: Is the foreskin any more prone to disease that any other body part? It would seem considerably more robust than many.

Consider breast tissue, for example. Simply having a set of breasts leaves a woman with a 1-in-8 chance for developing cancer at some point in her life. For men, the possibility of developing breast cancer is three times more than for penile cancer. Moreover, unlike foreskin, mammary tissue is susceptible to morbidity and mortality that are not preventable through easy prophylactic measures such as abstinence and condoms. For instance, you can be as celibate as a nun or as profligate as a prostitute and your breasts are still many dozens of times more likely to make you sick or kill you than all of the pathologies attributed to the foreskin combined.

So, all things being equal, shouldn’t medicine be focusing on developing radial mastectomy into a quick, accessible, inexpensive out-patient procedure, and rolling out mass campaigns for all women to have the surgery once they have passed child-bearing age? It would, after all, save thousands of lives every year. Why do they squander resources studying the intricacies of UTIs and comparatively esoteric HPV studies, unless it’s simply to bolster and market the “brand” called Circumcision?

Well their logic works out because "they" see the foreskin as being worthless. To some they see it as nothing more then an ugly mass of tissue thats blocking the penis, leaving it more prone to disease and less able to be sexually stimulated.

But the breasts, and other body parts have a purpose. At the very least, their removal will leave someone disfigured. But there are a lot of boys, men and even girls and women in the US that think males are born circumcised, or at the very least that cut is the "normal" body image.

We have a long way to go for American culture to accept men as they naturally are. Its sexist, and devaluing to american males.

[MoonJelly]

It's a procedure continually in search of a reason and never finding one.

[LavenderMae]

People promoting circumcision DO NOT like logic, if people actually looked at circumcision logically it would not happen anymore. The whole premise of circumcision is illogical and just absurd. And isn't it funny (not haha) that circumcision pushers (and the ones doing the stupid studies can only be that imo) keep having to find new reasons why baby boys should immediately have part of their penises amputated as the numbers of parents buying keep dropping.

[Frankly Speaking]

The problem is that there is no perceived victim in infant circumcision while there would be a perceived victim in routine mastectomy. Routine mastectomy would be blamed on an over zealous medical profession. Routine circumcision is exactly an over zealous medical profession. It is treating a disease before it happens and a disease that can be appropriately treated with far less invasive means in virtually all cases. It is also a treatment that is highly unlikely to ever be actually needed.

The victimization of the infant is denied. "He won't remember it" is a rationalization. If he won't remember it he is not a victim. "Women prefer circumcised penises" asserts it is a better penis so he can't possibly be a victim. "I've never heard of a man who was unhappy he was circumcised" implies universal agreement so no victim.

On the other hand, women have no absolute need for breasts after the baby feeding function passes, only a psychological need but all women who have had mastectomies are regarded as victims.



Frank