Circumcision in San Francisco

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't think that female and male circumcision equate.
It is as human rights violations that they equate.

I am not an anatomist but it seems that when a female is circumcised there is a much greater reduction in pleasure potential than when removing a foreskin. Isn't the primary way for a female to experience orgasm with the clitoris? I've heard of vaginal orgasms, but being gay, I know very little about female sexual function.
Female genital cutting does not necessarily remove the clitoris - yet all female genital cutting is outlawed in the USA and most of the developed world.

Circumcised males can still experience very powerful orgasms. Trust me on this.
I do, I've seen circumcised males say that again and again. This seems to be because, with so many fewer nerve endings, the goal of orgasm becomes the be-all and end-all of the sexual journey for them.

Every woman that I have ever discussed this with prefers a circumcised partner, with a single exception, who said she was indifferent. And some of these women responded to the idea of an uncircumcised penis very negatively.
Women are very good at telling men what we want to hear.

And when it comes right down to it, I think that uncircumsized penises in general are just downright ugly and/or stupid looking. If I had a son I wouldn't want him walking around with one.
But you don't know what HE would want.
What other parts of the male outer body can switch from unexposed to exposed and return again to being unexposed?
The eyes.
Kind of like a jack-in-the-box.
Or a Transformer. Contrary to (fictional, male-scripted) Elaine in Seinfeld, they have much more personality.

It seems to me that anti-circ people in general are a bunch of emotionally childish self-absorbed "wounded" whining cry babies who need to find something really important to be concerned about in their lives.
Ad hominem.

It's just another fringe issue for places and populations like San Francisco, which is truly an open mental ward.
I guess this is some kind of wider ad hominem, an argumentum ad civitatem, but it's still a fallacy.
 

Dave NoCal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Posts
2,719
Media
1
Likes
2,572
Points
333
Location
Sacramento (California, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Regardless of whether this ballot initiative passes or looses, regardless of whether it is overturned by the courts, and regardless if parents choose to take boys (not girls) to the next county to get them cut on, getting this measure onto the ballot is a victory because it forces discussion, consideration, and debate of a still largely unchallenged barbaric practice. This is true not just for San Francisco but for the state and the nation. I applaud those who worked to get this measure on the ballot.
Dave
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Hands down, the most articulate and coherent post I have ever read on LPSG. Makes me wonder why I ever posted in this thread in the first place.

It's not cohesive, logical, or sensible.
It's just what you want to hear.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
I would probably vote Yes on this law if I lived in San Francisco. I have pretty strong ambivalence about it. I think infant circumcision is an ethically unjustifiable practice and should gently die out. I doubt any cases would actually be prosecuted; it would probably just be a disincentive to hospitals. Still, though, I have some trepidation about prosecuting well-intentioned folks for making a bad call on a complex issue.

So, I'd probably vote Yes, even though mostly as a symbolic gesture. I'm a little irritated/disappointed by the folks who get up in arms about parental license, but don't tolerate the idea they have an ethical responsibility as their kid's guardian that goes beyond "hey, if it doesn't kill him, who cares." It's wrong, don't do it. That should be enough. The only reason this law stands a chance of being "imposed" on anyone is because so many people are thoughtless about what they've imposed on their children.

Whether you agree with religious obligations or not, it will be in violation of the First Amendment of the United States of America. The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Even IF it does pass, it will be tied up in court with legal challenges for years. Whatever your opinion, no one has the right to tell me how to observe my faith. Circumcision has been a practice in Judaism for 3,500 years and will not cease.

If San Francisco and Santa Monica enforce such laws, then it is very simple to just go to the next city and have it done. It isn't going to change anything. These people have way too much time on their hands. Here's an idea... if we want to better the lives of our children, then how about making education a priority istead of this useless crap?

See, there's an interesting hitch here. Currently, female circumcision of any sort is prohibited by federal law. If a male circumcision ban is ruled unconstitutional, the existing federal ban on female genital cutting would likely be too. It is possible that they could recreate it to cover extreme female genital mutilation. Then again, if the free practice clause is absolute, you'd have to allow FGM for religious reasons. Personally, I'm glad courts have found that it's not absolute.

I think this points out that you're ultimately begging the question: We do impede free practice of religion, if there is a compelling social reason to do so. Human sacrifice is part of religion. But it's a practice that society sees as having an excessively deleterious effect on an (unconsenting) third party. Potentially like, to a much lesser degree, infant circumcision. You can't end the conversation where you're ending it without toppling down much of our system of law.
 
Last edited:
S

SirConcis

Guest
Female circumcision is a very vague term that include removal of clitoris. This is akin to cutting off your penis (aka Lorenna Bobbit). Removal of the foreksin/clitoral hood is certaintly not the same thing as removing the penis/clitoris.

I personally do not think it is right for governments to dictate such a thing on parents. The precedent it sets would be akin to telling parents they cannot impose dental correction that forces young teenagers to wear braces for months at a time. This too is cosmetic and done before the person is 18.


If a city bans it, parents will just go elsewhere to get it done. It would be more effective if the city simply had better information campaign to give parents the arguments about it.

To me, as long as parents are perfectly comfortable with their decision and are willing to give their son the real reasons they had him snipped at birth, I am OK with it. But I am not OK if they "just" get it done and invent some excuse later on when the son asks about it.

Ifa parent leaves son intact to let him choose, and when he is 12, he decided he really wants to be cut, why should the city forbit him from getting cut ? Remember that males become sexually active between 10 and 12.
 

karldergrosse

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Posts
1,865
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
208
Location
Near the Great Smoky Mountains
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Just posted in another thread a few minutes ago - I am SO glad I was circumcised as an infant; and am pretty sure I would have been upset to find later that while I had that extra skin there, others did not. I have nothing against seeing uncut guys (in person, or in media!), but prefer cut - I guess because I can relate better. Speaking for myself, the "sensitivity" issue MUST be overrated, because I can't imagine being any more sensitive than I am. At 60, still, all it takes is a breeze or a slight rubbing and ... off to the races! (Yay!)
There is nothing in my religion advocating circumcision; it was just the thing back then. Judging from all I see, to a large degree it still is. I'm so glad.

I'm glad that you're glad that you were "circumcised as an infant." But I can't at all be glad that you're glad that the atrocity of circumcision is still being practiced on so many helpless, unconsenting infant boys.

However, these days you would not be "upset to find...that while [you] had that extra skin there, others did not"--because the circumutilation rate in this country has now plummeted to 32-33%! In a few years you would be upset to find that others have that very desirable skin; i.e., you would then be in the have-not minority.

"Extra skin"?!? That is one of the hoariest, most ignorant excuses for cutting babies. The foreskin is anything but "extra." It is invested with by far the greatest degree of the penis' sexual sensation. It's a fact that the foreskin has five areas that are more sensitive than the most sensitive part of a circumcised penis. It is an egregious misconception that the glans is the most sensitive--it is not; and after losing its protective sheath, it is still less sensitive. If you can be absolutely certain that over the years you haven't lost some of the sensitivity that remained to your altered penis, you can consider yourself a very lucky exception indeed.

And of course you "can't imagine being any more sensitive than [you are]." I can't imagine the sensation of having wings and flying, either. Nor can either of us imagine having the keen sensitivity of smell that a dog has. What one never had, one can never effectively imagine. I am pretty well convinced that your internal orgasm per se is as powerful as that of intact men of corresponding age (all the evidence indicates that its force does diminish with aging)--but the real difference lies in the exquisite, multilayered sensations before climax. To borrow Cunard Lines' old slogan, "Getting there is half the fun." It has often been my experience that circumcised men generally are driven to rush past foreplay to orgasm because they do not feel a great deal of sensation before it.

No, "from all you see," circumutilation is no longer "just the [majority] thing" in this progressively more foreskin-friendly country--though heaven knows we still have a long road of education ahead of us. Hopefully someday soon we will catch up with civilized nations in which the medieval barbarism of RIC (routine infant circumcision) is not only abhorrent, but, in some of them, even illegal.
 
Last edited:

karldergrosse

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Posts
1,865
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
208
Location
Near the Great Smoky Mountains
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Female circumcision is a very vague term that include removal of clitoris. This is akin to cutting off your penis (aka Lorenna Bobbit). Removal of the foreksin/clitoral hood is certaintly not the same thing as removing the penis/clitoris.

I personally do not think it is right for governments to dictate such a thing on parents. The precedent it sets would be akin to telling parents they cannot impose dental correction that forces young teenagers to wear braces for months at a time. This too is cosmetic and done before the person is 18.


If a city bans it, parents will just go elsewhere to get it done. It would be more effective if the city simply had better information campaign to give parents the arguments about it.

To me, as long as parents are perfectly comfortable with their decision and are willing to give their son the real reasons they had him snipped at birth, I am OK with it. But I am not OK if they "just" get it done and invent some excuse later on when the son asks about it.

Ifa parent leaves son intact to let him choose, and when he is 12, he decided he really wants to be cut, why should the city forbit him from getting cut ? Remember that males become sexually active between 10 and 12.

True: removal of the clitoral hood is the female equivalent of male circumcision. Both of them are inhuman genital mutilation, an outrageous violation of human rights (remember: infants are human beings with inalienable rights, too).

Still the abjectly ridiculous, completely false comparison of male circumutilation with dental braces...?!? Absolutely preposterous. Braces are indeed "cosmetic--circumcision is anything but--it's a barbarous marring and mutilation of nature's perfect design. Circumcision removes one half, often more, of the penis' skin (in an adult, roughly 15 square inches, an area about the size of a postcard!). With it go the glans' protective and sexually important sheath, which contains the ridged band, the frenular delta, and something like 20,000 or more pleasure-specific nerve endings; in most cases all or most of the highly sensitive frenulum is removed. (Question: why do you suppose that the so-called sweet spot, that which remains when the frenulum is removed, is often the most sensitive location on a circumcised penis?)

Government dictating to parents? Would you repeal the government ban on female circumcision, perhaps? Parents have no right to make irrevocable, irrelevant decisions about their son's body. That is his prerogative alone--but not when he is ten or twelve. At those ages he is still a child without the capacity to grasp the full implications of circumcision and its obliteration of a major part of his sexual enjoyment as an adult. He is also too young to become sexually active, even if circumcised/intact status had any relevance--which it doesn't.

But you are, to be sure, entirely correct that this country is sadly in need of widespread and thorough information campaigns to educate everyone about the destructive nature of circumutilation. Most parents know nothing about the subject, and therefore rely on their doctors to make the decision for them. Sadly, too often those very doctors are ignorant on the subject themselves and simply follow tradition--or have a greedy profit interest in cutting children.

'Parents perfectly comfortable with their decision'?!? How about the comfort and preference of the boy himself?!? ~ 'Willing to give their son the real reasons'?!? What would those real reasons be? Health and hygiene are bogus pretexts for cutting--nothing more. And how in the world could parental "real reasons" compensate a boy for lifelong, irreversible mutilation and loss of more than half of his sexual sensation?!?

"Snipped" is an appalling euphemism, a word to soften and diminish the enormity of a major physical amputation--an operation that often results in serious complications and, about 100+ times a year in the United States, death of an infant. Hair can be snipped--the foreskin is brutally torn loose from the glans and cut or clamped off.

You are also correct that if only cities criminalized circumcision, idiot parents would take their children (their victims, actually) elsewhere to be mutilated. And that clearly points up the need for a nationwide Federal ban also on the atrocity of male infant circumcision.....
 
Last edited:

Snozzle

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 16, 2006
Posts
1,422
Media
6
Likes
318
Points
403
Location
South Pacific
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Actual statistics and source, please.
The 100+ death claim is probably from Bollinger, which has been criticised. The scandal is we just don't know how many babies die of circumision every year. They keep better statistics in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa (55 last year, 91 in 2009). Neither doctors or parents want to admit that their decision or their operation caused death, so it gets blamed on something else - sometimes even blaming the baby for having an abnormal penis!

As for complications, a Richmond VA pediatrician reports re-doing 1600 circcumcisions in three years, the local birth and circumcision rates suggesting a botch rate of greater than 13%. And that's only the botches bad enough to need more surgery to fix - and that CAN be fixed by more surgery.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Then it looks like what the anti-circ people need to do is something that nobody can rightly object to: Truthfully educate the public about the dangers.

Has anyone set up a non-profit to do this?

Also, if the error rate is this high, I'm surprised more doctors aren't getting sued for malpractice, especially if they're not warning parents of the risks beforehand. And as risk averse as doctors have become it seems that there would be a growing number of those unwilling to perform the procedure.

The 100+ death claim is probably from Bollinger, which has been criticised. The scandal is we just don't know how many babies die of circumision every year. They keep better statistics in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa (55 last year, 91 in 2009). Neither doctors or parents want to admit that their decision or their operation caused death, so it gets blamed on something else - sometimes even blaming the baby for having an abnormal penis!

As for complications, a Richmond VA pediatrician reports re-doing 1600 circcumcisions in three years, the local birth and circumcision rates suggesting a botch rate of greater than 13%. And that's only the botches bad enough to need more surgery to fix - and that CAN be fixed by more surgery.
 
Last edited:

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Female circumcision is a very vague term that include removal of clitoris. This is akin to cutting off your penis (aka Lorenna Bobbit). Removal of the foreksin/clitoral hood is certaintly not the same thing as removing the penis/clitoris.

Wait, are you saying that they couldn't have distinguished clitorectomies from lesser female circumcision when they were writing the federal bill that banned FGM? Of course they could.

I personally do not think it is right for governments to dictate such a thing on parents. The precedent it sets would be akin to telling parents they cannot impose dental correction that forces young teenagers to wear braces for months at a time. This too is cosmetic and done before the person is 18.

To me, as long as parents are perfectly comfortable with their decision and are willing to give their son the real reasons they had him snipped at birth, I am OK with it. But I am not OK if they "just" get it done and invent some excuse later on when the son asks about it.

Having a good-sounding reason is not enough; the reason should actually be good, too. And it's simply not. We've gone through this discussion before. There are a number of distinctions your analogy is ignoring -- higher reversibility with dental corrections; they're not prophylactic treatments; informed consent is possible at a younger age; patient dissatisfaction rate is substantially lower.

It's grating that you make these inexact analogies all while complaining that FGM is an inexact analogy. If we're concerned about analogy fuzziness, it's important to identify the distinctions and how they affect the analogy. I think the effect is significant in both FGM vs. RIC, but also in braces vs. RIC. If we're going to be precise, that's awesome, but it can't be selective.

Ifa parent leaves son intact to let him choose, and when he is 12, he decided he really wants to be cut, why should the city forbit him from getting cut ? Remember that males become sexually active between 10 and 12.

Does California not have statute about teens being able to privately deal with their own developmental health decisions? Washington does. But, if California doesn't, I can see how writing a bill that would allow this would be difficult.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Then it looks like what the anti-circ people need to do is something that nobody can rightly object to: Truthfully educate the public about the dangers.

Has anyone set up a non-profit to do this?

No idea how effective they are, but they exist:

Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Circumcision is Medically Unnecessary, Painful, Risky, and Unethical: Intact America

There must also be at least some muscle behind the San Francisco ban campaign. They had to collect quite a few signatures, and San Francisco is hardly the oldschool hippie paradise it's stereotyped as.

Also, if the error rate is this high, I'm surprised more doctors aren't getting sued for malpractice, especially if they're not warning parents of the risks beforehand. And as risk averse as doctors have become it seems that there would be a growing number of those unwilling to perform the procedure.

"Botch" has excessively strong connotations. Most circumcision complications probably either require a second surgery, or people just live with them. There are obviously a lot of men who have undesirably tight circumcisions, but (rightly) think reporting it to a doctor would be useless. It's a surgical complication (unlubricated masturbation should not cause chaffing) but not exactly one that would result in a malpractice lawsuit. It also isn't evident until puberty, so the doctor isn't at much risk.

I don't subscribe to the conspiracy that most doctors only do circumcisions because they're profitable, but especially considering how low their short-term liability is, it's certainly not a disincentive.
 

D_Ben Twilly

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
97
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
51
Here's an idea. Suppose routine infant circumcision is permitted, with parents choosing to have it done required by law to purchase an insurance policy on the circumcision which would provide full monetary coverage of foreskin restoration surgery at any time after the child's eighteenth birthday, should he choose to file a claim for it. It seems a reasonable compromise to me that parents could be afforded their "right" to circumcise minor children on the condition that they have provided for its reversal if the child so wishes as an adult. Everyone's interests are protected.

And if the claim is true that most circumcised men are happy with their status, extremely nominal, one-time premiums would easily be adequate to cover all claims. If it turns out that more men than expected are filing those claims, that information could be used to re-examine, with solid evidence, whether RIC should be permitted in the first place. I kind of suspect that if everyone knew they could have theirs reversed surgically without paying thousands out of pocket, more would do so. Because of course circumcised men are deciding to be okay with it at this point... many of them don't even know it can be reversed, and those who do aren't financially able.
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Since I raised the question of what is happening in San Francisco, I am sorry that I drew attention to it. It is not possible to have an honest discussion. I am sick and tired of the response of a small minority group with its distortions and wrong facts ad nauseam. The 90% of us have long ago and now won the battle. In our democracy we stand firm with our rights. Latinos as a very large group refuse to circumcise out of their culture, religion, and society. I affirm their rights. And I like those Latinos that I know as friends and those who love their families. But as for you just look at the photographs of the penises of the members here. I am sorry that so many of you anticircs grew up with useless and ignorant parents. I am glad that mine had me circumcised and more importantly did what parents need to do out of love. Circumcised or not they never told me. Why should they? It is really not important. Life with its ups and downs is.

You're ignoring one important, tiny fact.
The penis in question belongs to someone else.
They may or may not want it done. By the time they get to make that decision, it is often too late.
His penis, his choice.
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Actual statistics and source, please.

Nobody knows. There is an unwritten agreement among medical professionals, to record the death as something else. Very rarely, and almost exclusively outside of the US, is it recorded as death due to circumcision.

From a British report:
Williams & Kapila state: "the literature abounds with reports of morbidity and even death as a result of circumcision.
Complications of circumcision - Williams - 2005 - British Journal of Surgery - Wiley Online Library

You can download the PDF at the bottom.

New Study Estimates Neonatal Circumcision Death Rate Higher Than Suffocation and Auto Accidents:
New Study Estimates Neonatal Circumcision Death Rate Higher Than Suffocation and Auto Accidents - Washington DC family health | Examiner.com

Why they are under-reported.
peaceful parenting: Death From Circumcision

Here are some that escaped into the news.
Death of toddler after circumcision probed | Reuters

Circumcision | $230,000 Circumcision Wrongful Death Lawsuit Settles | ICGI - Genital Integrity & Intactivism

YouTube - ‪Circumcision Gone Wrong‬‏
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
How effective is this reversal surgery though?

Here's an idea. Suppose routine infant circumcision is permitted, with parents choosing to have it done required by law to purchase an insurance policy on the circumcision which would provide full monetary coverage of foreskin restoration surgery at any time after the child's eighteenth birthday, should he choose to file a claim for it. It seems a reasonable compromise to me that parents could be afforded their "right" to circumcise minor children on the condition that they have provided for its reversal if the child so wishes as an adult. Everyone's interests are protected.

And if the claim is true that most circumcised men are happy with their status, extremely nominal, one-time premiums would easily be adequate to cover all claims. If it turns out that more men than expected are filing those claims, that information could be used to re-examine, with solid evidence, whether RIC should be permitted in the first place. I kind of suspect that if everyone knew they could have theirs reversed surgically without paying thousands out of pocket, more would do so. Because of course circumcised men are deciding to be okay with it at this point... many of them don't even know it can be reversed, and those who do aren't financially able.
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Here's an idea. Suppose routine infant circumcision is permitted, with parents choosing to have it done required by law to purchase an insurance policy on the circumcision which would provide full monetary coverage of foreskin restoration surgery at any time after the child's eighteenth birthday, should he choose to file a claim for it. It seems a reasonable compromise to me that parents could be afforded their "right" to circumcise minor children on the condition that they have provided for its reversal if the child so wishes as an adult. Everyone's interests are protected.

And if the claim is true that most circumcised men are happy with their status, extremely nominal, one-time premiums would easily be adequate to cover all claims. If it turns out that more men than expected are filing those claims, that information could be used to re-examine, with solid evidence, whether RIC should be permitted in the first place. I kind of suspect that if everyone knew they could have theirs reversed surgically without paying thousands out of pocket, more would do so. Because of course circumcised men are deciding to be okay with it at this point... many of them don't even know it can be reversed, and those who do aren't financially able.

Here's an idea.
Instead of cutting off part of their body without their consent, and then trying to grow a foreskin to fix some of the damage, why not leave it alone in the first place? Then, if someone is unhappy with it, they can save up their money, and have it done. Doesn't this make more sense than your proposal?
 

mandoman

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Posts
3,454
Media
0
Likes
324
Points
148
Location
MA
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Then it looks like what the anti-circ people need to do is something that nobody can rightly object to: Truthfully educate the public about the dangers.

Has anyone set up a non-profit to do this?

Also, if the error rate is this high, I'm surprised more doctors aren't getting sued for malpractice, especially if they're not warning parents of the risks beforehand. And as risk averse as doctors have become it seems that there would be a growing number of those unwilling to perform the procedure.


Uh, why does the burden to educate, fall on those you call 'the anti-circ people'?
By the codes of the AMA and AAP, they are supposed to be presenting the unbiased, balanced pros and cons. Yet, it is not being done. Strangely, there are no provisions for this to take place, and no monitoring.

Then, when someone else tries to share their knowledge, they are often treated like radical nut cases, and assigned every mean motive in the book. When Massachusetts tried to pass an anti-circ law, I was called everything you can imagine, and a lot more, just for saying I had one kid of each style, and there's nothing wrong with being uncut. When you question something someone believes in 'just because', things can get really ugly, really fast.
 

B_RedDude

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Posts
1,929
Media
0
Likes
82
Points
183
Location
California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
You answered your own question. Because the doctors aren't doing their job as you see it. You obviously think it's a racket.

If people feel this strongly about it, they need to at least provide advocacy, either directly or with their dollars. Nothing will be accomplished without greater awareness.


Uh, why does the burden to educate, fall on those you call 'the anti-circ people'?
By the codes of the AMA and AAP, they are supposed to be presenting the unbiased, balanced pros and cons. Yet, it is not being done.
 
Last edited: