The foreskin VS other body parts comparison

[frontierpsych]

In arguing against circ, if you compare removing the foreskin to another body part (other than the prepuce on a girl), what comparison do you usually use?

I compare it to the pinky toe (ask if someone would cut off their baby's pinky toes) because:

1. It's "just a little snip" and "they won't remember it."
2. It's a functional body part, though you can live without it
3. The degrees to which it affects an individual can vary, and can not be determined until later.
4. It will remain hidden most of the time anyway.

but, of course:

1. A sock is not quite as horrible an environment for healing as a diaper that will be consistently filled with waste.
2. Most people don't cut off their kids toes, (though it can be posed as a "what if")
3. Pinky toes have little bearing on your sex life.

Just wondering what others use for comparison, and why.

[Juvysen]

Eyelids are comparable parts.

they're both "flaps of skin" they both protect what's underneith... and the keritinization of the tip of the penis (and resulting loss of feeling) is similar to what would happen to the eyes with a similar loss of vision.

[dancindoula]

It depends on the person I'm discussing it with and what point they think they are making in saying it's just a little snip. Sometimes I use the pinky toe analogy for the reasons listed above. Sometimes I use the eyeball analogy (but since removing the eyelid would technically cause actual blindness I usually use eyelids when discussing the "need" to forcibly retract and clean beneath a warm moist flap of skin). Sometimes I use the fingernail analogy because the foreskin is fused to the shaft of the penis in precisely the same manner as the fingernails are to the fingertips. Sometimes I use the lips as an example of what would happen to the tongue (in terms of loss of sensitivity) if the lips were cut off - a person could survive it and still have a more or less functioning mouth, but would experience a definite loss of sensitivity and protection and even function without those two flaps of skin. Sometimes (and generally with less success) I go ahead and use the labia analogy since the exact same excuses have been used for cutting up a girl's genitals as are used for cutting up a boy's. And if they bring up the cancer issue (surprising people still think of that one) I compare penile cancer to male breast cancer - men are something like 30 times more likely to get breast cancer than penile cancer, much less have penile cancer specifically and solely in the foreskin - and ask if we shouldn't also be carving out their useless breastbuds. Maybe even push it just one step further and ask about routinely mastectomizing baby girls since they are far more likely to battle this life-threatening disease and can certainly survive without breasts.

Basically I try to tailor the analogy to fit the argument. So it's not uncommon to take a tour of the human body in the course of a simple lesson on foreskin function.

[eepster]

I use the toe comparison, especially when discussing a person who is no longer an infant "needing" a medical circ.

A lot of the ailments that are treated with circ, are somewhat comparable to things that happen to toes. However, Drs veiw amputating toes as a last resort after trying other less drastic treatment, where circ is viewed by many as a benign treatment so less drastic measures are ignored.

Toes also have cleaning issues, so when you talk about hygiene toes are also a good comparison.

[blackapple]

I use fingernails. The foreskin connects like fingernails, and it is a similar process if they were to remove them like the foreskin, and you can get hang-nails or fungal infections with them. Sometimes I say pinky too as well.

[Frootloop]

Well, like other PPs mentioned, it depends on the conversation at hand - as in, comparing the issue of separating the natural adhesions to the glans prior to the circ itself to ripping off a fingernail.. or lopping off the breasts to prevent the possibility of cancer. But for the most part, I compare it to the tonsils or the appendix since they are considered "unnecessary" for survival by the medical community even though they both have true functions. Both can cause serious issues if problems arise..

Allow me to explain..

True story #1 - I had to have my tonsils removed when I was 5 yrs old because I had had chronic infections for a couple years.. high fevers, severe pain, they would swell to the point where I could barely swallow liquid, in turn causing me to extremely dehydrated because of it, etc. I still remember how horrible my throat felt after having them removed, BUT I am thankful to not have to deal with that pain anymore (sound familiar?). Since tonsillectomies are so common (even though many removals aren't truly necessary at all) and the tonsils aren't vital to function in everyday life, perhaps all children should have them removed at birth? It would completely eliminate the chance of tonsillitis (infections), and tonsil stones (ew, what an odor they can cause!! ) and the EXCRUCIATING pain that a tonsillectomy will cause later on in life (you can remember the pain), because we all KNOW it's much worse to have them removed as an adult (general anesthesia and the enormous pain that lasts for weeks), which is actually true, but I'm sure you know where I'm going with this. Removing them at birth would eliminate all of the above.

True story #2 - My brother had an appendectomy around the age of 14 yrs old. He was sort of sick for a couple days with a mild stomach ache and had no fever whatsoever. His pain increased tremendously for a few hours on the 3rd day (still no fever), so he went to bed, yet swore he was just fine. On the 4th day, he was actually feeling much better and was back up and being a typical teenage boy.. yet, he still had a mild (his words) stomach ache.. this went on for a couple more days. Then he suddently developed a raging fever.. it was over 105. My mother took him to the ER. His bloodwork showed severe infection. The doctor decided to do exploratory surgery immediately. When they opened him up, it was an ugly mess. His appendix had ruptured.. and not just that. Actually it had ruptured in the evening on the 3rd day without our knowledge. Apparently, the increase of pain that he had felt was just before it ruptured. His decrease in pain was the relief of pressure from the inflamed appendix. My brother actually had gangrene in his stomach. He was septic. Had another day gone by, possibly even mere hours, he would have died from the infection. His appendix literally almost killed him.
Moral of the story?? Those darn evil appendix(es?)..they should all be removed at birth. They're just ticking time bombs! I mean, seriously.. they can KILL you! Dead!! All gone!!


To clarify, let me just say that I don't really believe that both should be removed at birth. I simply wanted to explain why I use those two examples to why I compare them to RIC.