15,658
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Legal and ethical issues: typo
An [[intact]] [[penis]] enables many men to reach orgasm just by manipulation of the [[foreskin]]. During [[masturbation]], the man can choose whether he wants to stimulate the [[Glans penis|glans]] directly or indirectly through the movement of the [[foreskin]]. Since he has the full, naturally given potential of sensitivity at his disposal, he can use it to according to his own preferences. The [[circumcised ]]man, however, does not have that freedom of choice. He has neither the opportunity to include the [[foreskin]] into the stimulation, nor can he utilize its nerves and touch receptors. He also only has access to 15-50% of the potential sensitivity of an intact man, depending on the amount and kind of tissue that was removed, and the degree of [[keratinization]] of the [[Glans penis|glans]]. In some cases, the limitation can be even more severe. On a heavily desensitized [[penis]], condoms can limit the sexual stimulation to the point where not enough arousal can be built up to reach an orgasm — which means that fulfilling safer sex is not possible.
In particular, the tight styles of circumcision bear the risk, that the loss of the friction-reducing [[Glidinc Gliding action| gliding effect]] leads to unpleasant feelings or even pain for both partners during intercourse. The ability to masturbate without aid — for example, from lubricants — can be significantly reduced or even be lost in such a case. In a study<ref>{{KimDS PangMG 2007}}</ref>, 63% of the men interviewed reported problems with [[masturbation]] after being circumcised. If a boy or man is circumcised, without him making that decision for himself after thorough consideration and in full knowledge and understanding of all possible consequences, he is denied his constitutionally guaranteed freedom to experience his sexuality according to his own preferences. This is much like parental interference to promote a prohibition of [[masturbation]], or to inhibit a homosexual relationship - with the key difference that the parental intervention in form of a circumcision, unlike prohibitions during childhood, will have an irreversible, lifelong effect. Both do not comply with modern views of children's well-being and accepting the child as an autonomous individual, and are, therefore, not ethically justifiable.
The basic right to equal treatment of the sexes is also breached, since girls are legally protected from violations of their [[genital integrity]], while boys are not. This not only contradicts the constitution, but also is contrary to all efforts of equal treatment. Because in this case, decisions are made during childhood that will affect the entire later life, it equals the attempt to have certain educational grades open to one gender unconditionally, while giving parents the right to deny them to the other gender for life. That such an unequal treatment of genders is not justifiable, neither legally nor morally, is obvious.
Last not least, religious freedom is impaired. If a boy is circumcised for religious reasons as a child before he reaches the age of competence, he will carry the sign of that religion on his body for his entire life - — even if he decides to abjure that religion in the course of his life.
While his condition will not keep him from changing his religion, or to renounce it entirely, he has no way to discard the symbol of his old religion. This could be compared to a tattoo in the form of a religious symbol, with the difference that such a tattoo could still be removed by laser or covered with a new tattoo, if need be.
Therefore a circumcision does not impair the ability to change religion, but it makes it impossible to discard one's old religion entirely. This is not only a violation of the basic law, it is also ethically unjustifiable to force someone to carry a religious symbol for his entire life - especially in his most private body area.
So why is circumcision tolerated as a means of upbringing, and even explicitly legalized? In Germany, this stems from - — although it is not stated in the law for legal reasons - — the belief that a ban would impair the religious freedom of the parents. Even though it is stated in Art.140 GG (German basic law):
<blockquote>