Ugh! People are gross and I'll leave it at that.

Stacy December 28th, 2008 10:26:30 AM

In my view, my culture’s approach is little different than that of the Jewish briss, despite the health benefits dubiously conferred by circumcision and the religious significance of the act.

But the health benefits of circumcision aren't dubious at all, at least not in developed countries where it can be done aseptically. This has, shockingly enough, actually been studied, and there is a definite net health benefit to men in being circumcised. There is also a health benefit to their partners. It's not a strong enough benefit to say that people who don't circumcise their infant sons are irresponsible or neglectful, but it's more than strong enough to stop dumping on people who do do it. The only change from traditional practice that's recommended is to use local anesthetic. I don't have easy access to all the databases I used to when I was in a different kind of library, but here's a Public Library of Science paper that might interest you:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17848992

Ear piercing is purely cosmetic, with neither religious significance nor health benefits, and an infant can't understand the need to keep little fingers away from the wound, which cannot really be bandaged because you need to keep studs in to keep the hole you've made open. This is so different in so many ways from circumcision that I'm not sure how anyone could confuse them.

Lis December 28th, 2008 10:45:03 AM

The pictures of the kittens tell it all....insanity of humans! Great blog...I have enjoyed reading many of your posts!!

Juri December 28th, 2008 10:59:21 AM

BARBARIC.. That word comes to mind... Even though I am Jewish,  have studied Jewish laws, customs, etc..  I find the act of circumcision without anesthetic barbaric..  The circumcision has to do with  the covenant with Abraham, but it doesn't mention anywhere that it's supposed to inflict pain.. This is where I have  issues..  As for the tail docking.. That doesn't make much sense either.. All my dogs have had docked tails.. My attitude about ear piercing is that when the child asks for it.. it's the right time..

barri December 28th, 2008 11:35:03 AM

Being a wet blanket here, but don't hooray for Ebay too strongly.  Ebay owns the classified add site Kijiji and selling animals is perfectly ok there just like on Craigslist.

cheshire December 28th, 2008 11:50:42 AM

Almost worse--because at least this one had to be under some sort of sedation--is a dog that came into my the pet store where a friend of mine works, just dumped at the back door one day with a note that said "her belly's all sore."

This puppy was MAYBE 6 months old, a Lab mix--and COMPLETELY tattooed from the vulva to the ribs--most of them fresh enough that they were still scabbed over. And nothing useful like identifying numbers--it looks like some enterprising young tattoo artist figured this was an excellent canvas to use for practice rather than, I don't know, go through a real tattooing apprenticeship?? They were all roses and silly flash art bits, including a few of the ubiquitous Chinese pictograms.

My friend was horrified, but luckily she was saved: one of her best clients, a big biker dude with tons of tattoos of his own, stopped by. He adopted the dog instantly and took her straight to the vet, where she was pronounced healthy if neglected and severely abused.

That's a happy ending, but I feel terrible for these poor kittens. My own ears hurt like hell after piercing, and that's something I CHOSE to do...I can't imagine their confusion at why they're in so much pain.

Orli December 28th, 2008 12:12:29 PM

Barri, remember that historically, safe, useful anesthetic was simply not available, and that was true for any surgery for any reason. Therefore its lack would not have struck anyone as "barbaric." Granted it's been available for a while now, but it also takes a while to change traditional practices.

But it's in the use of local anesthetic that the push needs to be made, not stopping a practice which has real health benefits, and which can now be done more safely and with less pain than ever before.

Tail docking? No apparent purpose except cosmetic--and it's not the dogs who choose the cosmetic change. Ear cropping, the same, only even worse. And both alterations limit a dog's clarity of communication with other dogs.

The ear, neck, and tail piercings on those poor cats? No purpose except someone's very sick idea of fashion!

Lis December 28th, 2008 12:42:30 PM

I had contacted Ebay way back in '96, when I discovered a live puppy on as auction. Shortly after, I contacted NH Public TV, for the same reason, that it is inappropriate to auction live animals.

Regardless, this is someone's idea of a barbaric "gimmick" to add novelty in selling kittens.

Barbara Albright/New Hampshire

Pocket's Story from NH December 28th, 2008 01:23:40 PM

I understand ear docking if it is a breed that is prone to various ear problems if the ears are left undocked - there is a tangible health benefit there.  Having had many ear infections over the years, if the docking procedure would keep my dog from going through that discomfort, I would do it.

Beyond that?  I have no idea why you'd do it.

Piercing kitty ears?  WHY??????  Granted, I still think the cruelest thing I did "for looks "to my cats was putting them in bandanas, so I'm probably overly biased.  But those had velcro and they figured out how to remove them in short order anyway - and weren't permanent or painful (other than to their dignity.)

At first I thought (HOPED!) it was a joke, having not seen the pics until now, and hoped that they had used the little magnetic "earrings" and not real ones and perhaps folks were just getting a giggle out of the *idea* of kittens with earrings.

I wish I'd been right about that. :(

Cindy December 28th, 2008 01:40:12 PM

Lis: My understanding is that the science is still real shaky on the health benefits of circumcision. According to the literatire the health benefits relate more to female urogenital infections than to those in males themselves. And it's still a questionable finding, per my read. Sure, any more fleshy object is more likely to harbor bacteria in the face of poor hygiene. But is that a reason to lop a baby's foreskin off? I'm just not convinced.

Dr. Patty Khuly December 28th, 2008 01:53:28 PM

It's wrong. But then how can you justify wildlife tags in all sorts of animals as well as tags in livestock, rings in bull noses, and the list goes on.

on the ear piercing side of things...my daughter's ears were pierced when she was a newborn and she's never had a problem with those holes. WHen she was 16 she wanted 2 more and they have been nothing but trouble.

didn't the ancient egyptians pierce their cat's ears?

LorriM December 28th, 2008 01:58:00 PM

Barri,

Perhaps you should continue researching this subject.  I am an orthodox jew and my son had a traditional circumcision done by a mohel, and topical anesthetic is a STANDARD for brissim.  My son squealed for 1.5 minutes and then went happily back to feeding with no later discomfort.  The practice is certainly not "barbaric" from a pain standpoint and causes about as much observed discomfort as pricking a newborn's foot for blood.

Shavy December 28th, 2008 04:45:26 PM

Dr.  K,

Circumcision has become drastically less popular in recent years, with people feeling as you do - dubious health benefits don't justify removing the foreskin, despite the relative lack of pain and complications.  It is still a natural part of that infant, and just as one doesn't proactively go in and remove the tonsils, people are shying away from circumcision.

However, for those who are orthodox jews, there is absolutely no choice in the matter, regardless of personal feelings.  It is a commandment and as such must be followed, and the best we can do is make sure it is done by a properly trained individual (mohel), with sterile equipment and a topical anesthetic to minimize pain.  My experience, having attended plenty of brissim, is that the vast, vast majority are mostly pain-free and with a very low rate of complication (usually a result of having not taken enough, but again, it's uncommon as far as surgical complications go).  I don't honestly see why someone not jewish would circumcize their infant, but for those of us who feel commanded to do so, there is nothing to argue.

I would say your kitty piercings are more akin to piercing a baby girl's ears than they are circumcizing a child, as both are done for purely cosmetic reasons.

Shavy December 28th, 2008 04:55:01 PM

Really really weird how the second I saw your post I thought of baby ear piercings and circumcision. I thought I was going to be sooo cool and come and talk about them until you did so already and there's already a hot discussion going.

(1) Baby ear piercing creeps me out. But only a 1 on a scale of 10... "Oh really, look at that. Hrm. Not for me." It's cute and the potential for harm is really low, especially considering all the other things we do to our kids. At least it's reversible and there are many teens and adults who make the choice to do so.

That's not at all the case with...

(2) Circumcision is has become a monster in the United States. It has grown so far outside of any cultural practices, and the reasons are pretty messed up. I did a 20 page paper on the subject in college, and I don't have it in front of me, but this is what I remember:

* It is the most popular surgery done in the United States. More than 99% of cases are not done to cure or prevent any disease.

* Billions of dollars per year are made from the selling of harvested foreskins, the hospital makes money on harvesting the organ, but parents still pay for the surgery. Foreskins are used to make skin grafts.

* The big push for the practice in the US was not cultural (Jews are only ~2% of the population and many of them don't have the practice done in the hospital). The push grew out of the "sex and masturbation is bad for the mind and body" health movement a la "Road to Wellville."

* Specifically, the motivation to remove the foreskin is to inhibit masturbation and create sexual dysfunction by keratinizing the glans penis.

* Even culturally, the practice has become more severe that the one suggest in the bible. The bible actually suggests a conservative practice where only the "overhang" is removed, not the radical procedure we have today where the foreskin is entirely removed and ripped from the glans.

* It is a surgery looking for a cause. The movement which made the surgery popular never had a justification other than sexual dysfunction and there is no other prophylactic procedure done to supposedly prevent disease. For instance, we don't remove the external parts of the ear to prevent wax build up.

* There are NO REAL health benefits. Certainly none that would justify the practice. We can prophylactically remove female baby's breast tissue and prevent breast cancer. And cancer kills many more people than anything dealing with the foreskin.

* Any anecdotal evidence you might point to (STD transfer rates) have nothing to do with children or the need to perform a surgery on them without their consent. A surgery that is significant, dangerous,  disfiguring, and irreversible.

* The "benefits" to STD transfer were not better than wearing a condom, and not better than simply washing the organ before and after sex. And the worst idea is that circumcision somehow prevents transferance. It doesn't, it simply changes the one-time transition rates.

If Little Johnny doesn't want to wear a condom to garner much greater protective benefits than circumcision can ever provide, then Little Johnny is old enough to see the doctor himself and make an informed decision.

The other aspect that is really troubling is the degree to which MOTHERS continue to push for the surgery. The most common motivation is AESTHETICS. That just creeps me out. Mommy wants sonny to have a more attractive penis. Second reason was "to look like dad." Well gosh, I know I'd be scared for life if my penis wasn't just like dad's!

Really, if you're holding on to "healh benefits" as the reason to continue mutilating your child, you should really consider having their breasts removed too. And you should remove the labia and clitoral hood in girls just to be non-sexist.

Christopher December 28th, 2008 05:17:13 PM

Shavy

I beg to differ with you.. I called around to friends, and none of them were aware of any topical that was given to our sons.. They were given wine, and were not very comfortable after.. Is this something new that they are doing? The last of the kids was fifteen years ago.. Some were done by the same mohel, but there were a couple of them.. will check further.. I guess  this is the next topic of discussion when we meet up..  Thanks

barri December 28th, 2008 05:44:11 PM

I understand ear docking if it is a breed that is prone to various ear problems if the ears are left undocked - there is a tangible health benefit there.

Breeds prone to ear infections if the ears are left uncropped? Like cocker spaniels?

Ear infections aren't the reason that ear cropping is customary in certain breeds; it's aesthetics, purely.

Lis December 28th, 2008 06:11:21 PM

I personally support docking and cropping procedures to tradition, so long as they are done skillfully, quickly, with proper pain management and allowing them to heal properly. IMO the procedure is not detrimental to the animal. In fact it lowers chances of injury once everything is healed. Because I'm pretty sure one of my dogs will go through several tail fractures in his life due to his extreme wagging - he smacks sharp corners of furniture unphased, and he has very smooth hair on the tail so there is no cushioning or protection. He doesn't come from a docked breed, so i wouldn't rather that he be docked (I'd rather he had a little more brains ;) but it makes me appreciate docking, especially for the breeds where it is functional. But anyway I'd just like to say that cropping/docking doesn't quite compare to piercing. Where piercing is a pretty much guaranteed injury, cropping/docking is more likely to prevent it. It doesn't always, but it can. Its the same argument as spaying to prevent pyometras and mammary cancer, or neutering to prevent prostate issues or testicular cancer - it can't be harmed cause its not there. Also I'm very concerned with technique. I'm pretty sure its not veterinarians doing the piercing, but idiots with piercing guns. No anasthesia, probably questionable disinfecting techniques and maintenance. I'm totally against amateurs cropping in their own homes as well. Docking/dewclaw removal is a maybe, as long as the breeder really knows what they're doing.

Tatyana December 28th, 2008 07:04:54 PM

Hi Barri,

I can't speak for the standard 15-30 years ago, but topical anesthetic is the standard now.  I've been to dozens of brissim and know hundreds of beautiful, healthy k"ah boys from friends/neighbors/acquaintances (we tend to have big families LOL) and while many times a little drop of alcohol is given as well (usually to calm the infant during the time it's away from Mommy, not as pain relief) they are given a topical analgesic/anesthetic as well.  Nobody wants their children ch"v to suffer any kind of pain, regardless of how brief it may be.  I don't think this needs to degenerate into an off-topic discussion of the rights and wrongs of circumcision (I winced when I saw Dr. K. mention it, as I knew we'd get a slew of "circumcision is bad", "no it isn't" responses) but I wanted to set the record straight that most brissim done by an orthodox mohel, IME, are done with pain relief and are quick, relatively painless procedures - far from the "barbaric" that was claimed.  If you don't agree with circumcision for religious reasons, it's pointless to debate, as no one is going to change their mind about THAT.

Back to the pets!  :)  We brought up the case of docking/cropping in another post, and hashed it out there.  What makes people want to mutilate their pets, their children, themselves?  Fashion, of course.  As long as it is perceived as "cute" to have a little girl with pierced ears (I'm so not a fan, but I know it's common), or sexy to sport a tattoo in the small of one's back, or rebellious to have a spike growing through your eyebrow, people will do it.  The same way someone may really like the way a Doberman's ears look when cropped, they like dying their hair or dressing their children in designer fashions.  We, as a society, have become nearly obsessed with appearances, and as long as that is so, we will continue to burn, pierce, ink, slice, enlarge, plump, primp, dye, and clothe ourselves in a way that heightens our perceived attractiveness. 

In essence, we do it because we are shallow.

Shavy December 28th, 2008 07:49:32 PM

Shavy said: "My son squealed for 1.5 minutes and then went happily back to feeding with no later discomfort.  The practice is certainly not "barbaric" from a pain standpoint and causes about as much observed discomfort as pricking a newborn's foot for blood."

I agree that the above does not describe a "barbaric" procedure... and it is EXACTLY the same reaction you see in newborn puppies after dewclaw removal and/or tail docking.  If it's not cruel for a human infant, how can it be cruel for a dog??

And I'm sorry, but you can't compare inserting jewelry into a kitten's ears/neck/tail to having a puppy's ears cropped.  Yes, they're both cosmetic procedures but the piercings are virtually guaranteed to cause pain and problems sooner if not later - whereas a properly done ear crop that receives modern aftercare techniques (and I'm not talking tampons here!!  We have come a LONG way since those days)  is virtually guaranteed to cause NO discomfort or problems down the line.  None.  At All.  If you've seen problems in a puppy post crop, then I assure you that either the surgical technique, or (more likely) the aftercare were lacking.  Maybe both - but it's not fair to demonize a procedure just because it's sometimes done incompetently.  No more than it would be to ban spays and neuters because they are sometimes done incompetently, or receive incompetant aftercare from the owners.

Sure, ear cropping is a cosmetic procedure - but cosmetic procedures are performed on pets every day.  Removal of benign tumors and skin tags; anti-drooling surgeries; even castration has become a cosmetic surgery in many circles because some pet owners are offended by the sight of their dog's testicles.

And I can think of one true health benefit for ear cropping: in this age of anti-pitbull hysteria, many communities have banned not only "pitbulls" but any dog who looks like he even MIGHT be part Pit.  For all too many Animal Control officers, that means any medium to large sized dog with short hair and a big head.  Boxers are often mis-identified as pits, so if I had a Boxer in such a community, I damn sure would want to have his tail docked and his ears correctly cropped to help identify him as a "Boxer" and not a pit bull.  The "health benefit" here would be saving my dog from being confiscated and executed. 

As animal welfarists I think the biggest concerns nowadays are not legal "cosmetic" surgeries performed by licensed vets with appropriate pain control, but things that really threaten our pets' lives and/or  their longterm health like breed bans, and mandatory spay/neuter laws that require owners to surgically sterilize dogs while they are still just puppies.

Barb December 28th, 2008 07:55:46 PM

LorriM - you asked about the ancient Egyptians piercing cats ears...yes, some temple cats probably had pierced ears (statues and paintings show this occasionally), but the ears were pierced at the base, rather close to the cat's neck, so although it had to have hurt, I'd guess that spot would be the easiest on the cat - except of course when they're scratching/washing, and we have no historical info on how the cats reacted.

The "goth' cats have their ears pierced at the tips, which will lead to more problems because of weight/pulling on the pinna and being a constant annoyance to the cat. They would be even more easily torn out from scratching and/or getting caught on things (which was mentioned when Dr. K.'s son thought about piercing instead of 'tipping' a feral cat's ears)

KateH December 28th, 2008 09:01:56 PM

I agree that the above does not describe a "barbaric" procedure... and it is EXACTLY the same reaction you see in newborn puppies after dewclaw removal and/or tail docking.  If it's not cruel for a human infant, how can it be cruel for a dog??

Foreskins and unpierced earlobes are not an important part of our body language communication with others of our species. For dogs, tails and ear flaps are. Removing them impairs a dog's communication with other dogs. Doing that ought to have some better reason than "It looks tough/cool/cute/whatever."

Dewclaws, of course, also aren't a part of a dog's body language signaling, and I think that dewclaw removal is a more arguable case, especially since the dewclaw serves no actual purpose at all. But for that very reason, I think it's a mistake to equate dewclaw removal with ear cropping and tail docking. Or circumcision and ear piercing in humans.

Sure, ear cropping is a cosmetic procedure - but cosmetic procedures are performed on pets every day.  Removal of benign tumors and skin tags; anti-drooling surgeries; even castration has become a cosmetic surgery in many circles because some pet owners are offended by the sight of their dog's testicles.

Except the testicles, none one of those things is an important functional part of the dog's body. Ears and tails are. Benign tumors are removed from human beings all the time, not for cosmetic reasons, but for "better safe than sorry" reasons.

As for castration being performed because pet owners are "offended by the sight of their dog's testicles"--sorry, cites, please. And please understand what I'm asking for: I'm sure you can come up with one or two anecdotal instances, even maybe an article "reporting" on Those Crazy Pet People. That will not impress me. I''d like evidence that this is really a significant phenomenon repesenting more than invisibly small numbers of the neuters being performed. Given that another foolish cosmetic procedure really is being performed at least occasionally, the insertion of Neuticles so that the animal will still APEAR to have testicles, I must confess to being a bit skeptical.

Lis December 29th, 2008 12:24:27 AM

Circumcision is associated with a lower risk of HIV transmission. Good enough reason right there. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Sheri December 29th, 2008 01:51:04 AM

Lis - Foreskins are a very important part of our body language communication with others. Sex is the epitome of body language communication and foreskins play an important and wonderful part in that.

Sheri - Removal of the breasts lowers risk of cancer. Same with your cervix, uterus, ovaries, etc. I'm sure we'd find a lower risk of HIV transmission in women if we removed your labia and scarred the entirety of your vagina with lasers. Oh wait, we don't have to do any of that, the simple condom is the most effective mitigation factor for HIV treatment, right next to not sticking the penis in the anus. And you can do the latter with abandon if you do the former. Not true with wacking off the foreskin in babies.

And let's say that instead of a slight decrease in transmission... we had 100% prevention. Why the hell do you think a parent should have the proceedure performed on their son without his consent? Isn't a disfiguring proceedure that does cause pain and can lead to serious problems like ablation of the penis, skin tags, curvature, decreased sensitivity, etc. something that should be left up to the person it most effects?

If the only slight and incomplete benefit you can find has to do with a sexually mature person, don't you feel that said sexually mature person can make up their own mind if they think it's worth it?

Even those "barbaric" Africans in the study you linked to wait until their children are mature before they lop off parts of their external genitalia. Considerably more progressive than permanently scarring your children at birth, even if it is your culture.

Christopher December 29th, 2008 04:05:25 AM

Lis,

Maybe by "ear cropping" you are thinking of totally removing the dog's pinna?  Because I respectfully disagree (and that's all we can do, you and I are probably never going to agree on this) that a cropped (i.e. an erect) ear "impairs a dog's communication with other dogs".  Wild canines all have erect ears, the floppy ear is the result of human intervention.  Or rather, humans taking advantage of a naturally occuring mutation.  So I simply can't believe that canines can "read" the position of a floppy ear more accurately than that of an erect ear.

As for citations supporting my opinion that some castrations are performed at least partly because of aesthetic concerns, of course I don't have them.  You know there is no research on something like that.  You'll dismiss the anecdotal evidence, but I can't even count the number of times people have commented that my male Danes need to wear pants!! :-)

Barb December 29th, 2008 04:35:01 AM

"Foreskins are a very important part of our body language communication with others. Sex is the epitome of body language communication and foreskins play an important and wonderful part in that."

Christopher. I will NOT ask. I think I can handle Shavy's religious compulsion argument better than this point of yours. ;-)

Dr. Patty Khuly December 29th, 2008 07:56:36 AM

Christopher, it isn't preferrable for one to undergo foreskin removal as an adult, rather than as a newborn.  Ask any of the converts who have had to have it done.  At that age, it is traumatic, painful, prone to complications, and slower to heal.  Hell, ask Dr. K how easy dewclaws are to remove at a few days old versus a few years old.  Then you'll understand.  If you don't want to make that choice for your child, don't.  However, don't criticize my right to do so with my children. 

Dr. K, it cuts both ways (ha! pun!) because I know a LOT of women who are grossed out by foreskin and would not want a partner that had who was au naturale (and this is outside of the jewish demographic, too, where one is more likely to encounter such things).  You can't really communicate with the little bugger if it sends the ladies screaming from the room.  ;)

Shavy December 29th, 2008 12:08:10 PM

"Dewclaws, of course, also aren't a part of a dog's body language signaling, and I think that dewclaw removal is a more arguable case, especially since the dewclaw serves no actual purpose at all. But for that very reason, I think it's a mistake to equate dewclaw removal with ear cropping and tail docking. Or circumcision and ear piercing in humans."

Sorry this is not true. Many dogs actually use dewclaws to grip something they're chewing on, like a raw bone. There is also evidence that they're used in digging and in quick stops and turns when the dogs runs at full speed. Usually owners whose dogs have dewclaws will at least remark on their advantage to holding whatever they're chewing while dogs that have dewclaws removed will have a harder time trying to get a bone/stick/bully stick to stay still as they chew. I imagine that this gives dogs an evolutionary advantage in nature, being able to eat quicker at least. I'm not sure if there are any advantages to rear dewclaws, but the breeds that have two (briard, beauceron, lundenhund) supposedly use them for traction while working.
Dewclaw removal might prevent later injury/harm (well just like cropping, docking, and to an extent neutering and tumor removal). But they are not vestigial like commonly thought. And it IS usually done for aesthetics, especially for the show ring. Most pet dogs that come from puppy mill lines never have it done.

Tatyana December 29th, 2008 12:35:28 PM

"And it IS usually done for aesthetics, especially for the show ring. Most pet dogs that come from puppy mill lines never have it done."

Nope, LOTS of puppy mill bred dogs have it done. And in cropped breeds the ears are done at only a few weeks so that those little ears will be up for the pet buyer at the pet shop. The crops in fact are much more severe to make sure they stand.

Same for tails and dew claws. In fact, we have pet shop bulldogs (which are not supposed to have dew claws removed) come in to rescue with dew claws gone.

I have not noticed my terriers having any difficulty holding or manipulating objects. And whether you agree with dew claw removal or not, the fact is that in more cat footed breeds with more upright pasterns, the dew claw is probably to high off the ground to do much good in turning. Longer footed breeds I could see the fifth toe perhaps doing some good in this area.

I have had two serous dew claw injuries on my dogs, including a traumatic amputation, and one incident of a dog injuring another dogs eye with the claw during rough play. Not advocating for all dogs to have it done but injuries do happen, possibly because some domestic dog breeds have been bred to have a much tighter foot and upright short pastern than their wolf ancestors.

JenniferJ December 29th, 2008 01:41:59 PM

Shavy, I have every right to criticize how shallow you are, especially when it comes to your children, which, if they're lucky, will become independent of you some day. It is shallow to put your child through a purely cosmetic procedure that is unnecessary and irreversible simply because you and your book club have issues with how foreskin looks. It's even more troubling that you are a woman making a decision about an organ that you don't have.

And you're not doing it for your child, you're doing it for the unnamed future women who just might have to look at your son's penis, at an age where your son is conversant and able to make a decision for himself.

And your notion that there are fewer complications and less pain in babies is just wrong. Almost all of the really nasty complications are avoided in the adult proceedure.

And while you're at it, why don't you have your daughter's labia cut off as a child, because really, no one thinks those dangly bits look good. And get her some early and often laser treatments for the bush, as it will save her the pain later of getting waxed. And really, cut out that breast tissue and give her implants. You'll totally prevent breast cancer and I guarantee that her future sex partners will appreciate her having boobs in middle school and before. You know, artificial boobs are such a big part of the culture now, that the natural ones just don't look good. They'll send men screaming out of the room, in fact. I know A LOT of men who agree. Trimmed bush, removed labia, and big fake boobs look so much better. So don't give your daughter a choice in the matter, do it for us!

Really, I seriously doubt that there's a single man or woman who, having decided to have sex, would run from the room if she even noticed his foreskin or he noticed her labia. Most studies of married couples demonstrate that a high percentage of women don't even know their husband's status as they've never seen the thing in the light.

Christopher December 29th, 2008 04:33:36 PM

Christopher,

Next time, actually read what I have written before flaming me.  I never said I had my son circumcized for aesthetic reasons (and even mentioned that I don't understand why people do so, though I personally would not prefer an uncircumcized partner from an aesthetic standpoint), so your entire offensive and inappropriately flaming post does not apply to me. The fact that you say "most studies demonstrate...[wives have] never seen the thing in light" is so ridiculously absurd as to be laughable.  Maybe you should get in touch with 21st century sexuality.

You know nothing about me and how "shallow" I am, so kindly keep rude, off-topic remarks about my supposed character to yourself.  This is the first truly rude and nasty response I've seen on Dolittler.  Hopefully it will be the last.

Have a beer, reread the responses, and try to post your opinions in a mentshlich way.  Cheers.

Shavy December 29th, 2008 09:27:03 PM

Shavy, you said: "I know a LOT of women who are grossed out by foreskin and would not want a partner that had who was au naturale." How is that not shallow? And aesthetic?

And you made a point of mentioning that these women are outside the Jewish community. Thus, we're not talking about your thoughts on having a kid snipped for religious reasons. That's an entirely different issue. Although there are more options for Jews and the practice than you might think.  

And it's my understanding that some mohel's don't actually detach the foreskin from the glans, they simply remove the overhang. This is a significantly different proceedure than ripping the foreskin off of the glans (as it is physically attached at birth unlike in adulthood) and removing all the foreskin back to behind the corona of the glans and often taking the frenulum with the foreskin.

But again, if every point of faith could be rationalized, there would be no people of faith. It's not my interest too argue that your children be given a choice about their faith let alone their bodies.

But you're just flat out wrong about "it isn't preferrable for one to undergo foreskin removal as an adult, rather than as a newborn...At that age, it is traumatic, painful, prone to complications, and slower to heal."

There's no reason to believe that infant circumcision isn't traumatic. The idea that babies (and puppies) don't feal pain is archaic. Pain management in children and in animals is one area undergoing huge changes in "best practices."

As for "more painful" I doubt this highly. One, adults can rationalize pain, infants can't. Two, adults can medicate with precision to alleviate most pain. And adult proceedures are not pront to complications. For one, the forskin has detached from the glans so there's no risk in damage to the highly sensitive tissue. Many men have scarred glans from having chunks taken out during infant circumcision. They also have skin tags, which don't form during the adult proceedure. And they also are highly at risk for taking too much skin. This can be avoided in the adult proceedure. And the biggest issue is that adult men don't piss and crap in their pants like babies do. They can keep themselves clean post proceedure.

I believe that infants do heal faster, but why is this a selling point? Do you really think it's worth it to trade a permanent loss of a perfectly good body part without your consent and without any ability to restore it with a day or two difference in healing?

Why don't we take out their tonsils and appendix at birth too? They'll heal faster and we'll avoid minor problems down the road.

Christopher December 29th, 2008 11:09:43 PM

Back to the animals... I had my litter's dew claws removed because they're Border Collies and the homes I was seeking (and found) for them were active sport and working homes so the odds of having a dewclaw incident are higher than normal. I don't believe there's any benefit in the show ring for BCs as I've never heard such for Border Collies...not a factor for me any way. I had seen a dewclaw accident at an agility trial and it wasn't pretty.

The second reason is that I hate to trim my dog's dewclaws. They keep active enough to require a nail trim only rarely, usually a little filing down is enough. The dewclaws do not get ground down though and both of my dogs hate for me to trim them. It's not a joy to trim them for either of us.  I might try one of those dremmel grinders, but the position makes it awkward... you have to pull the claw out a bit to get access and distance from the leg, unlike the toes which are easier to grind.

I read all about the removal process and how some breeders just do it themselves with a clamp and some glue. I figured that a lifetime of trimming them outweighted the pain from the procedure.

After seeing the procedure in person, I don't really know. While 2 minutes of pain probably does outweigh the frustration of trimming dew claws, the puppies obviously feel pain. Here's the video from the first puppy getting his dewclaws removed:

Maximus Dewclaw Removal

While I don't think this is abuse or should be outlawed, I think it's worth weighing the options. Pain is not the worst thing in the world, and I am not one to avoid it at all costs. The dewclaws are similar to the circumcision in that there are things to weigh on both sides, but the dogs will never be able to tell you if they want it done, boys will.

I don't think any dog will ever gain as much joy out of their dewclaw as a man can his foreskin, but in other ways the arguments are very similar. Aesthetics, convenience, possible health benefits, convenience of a youthful proceedure vs. one as an adult.

I don't think the benefits are great enough to have a dewclaw done as an adult, so I trim and I tape them up at competitions. Not a huge price to pay, really. Similarly, men can bathe and wear a condom. Small price to pay, really.

Christopher December 30th, 2008 12:55:15 AM

"Nope, LOTS of puppy mill bred dogs have it done. And in cropped breeds the ears are done at only a few weeks so that those little ears will be up for the pet buyer at the pet shop. The crops in fact are much more severe to make sure they stand. " Might be regional. I'm a groomer and 99% of the purebreds I work with are from puppy mills and BYBs. Since I do nails on each dog, I notice the dewclaws because i often have to feel for them under the coat to see if the dog has them or not. Most do and they need trimming. I don't disagree on the cropping and docking - mills do it right there on premises, and they're often done sloppily.

I'm not against dewclaw removal. My own dogs have had it done and if i ever bred a litter I'd probably remove them too. I do fear injury risks, and I've seen some dogs with very very loosely attached dewclaws that nearly got pulled off because they snagged on a brush or comb.

I'm just saying, they are NOT vestigial and they do serve a purpose. Or at least they did, its an interesting point you bring up about the cat foot.

Tatyana December 30th, 2008 01:19:55 AM

Sorry, should have stepped in here sooner to calm the crowds. No personal insults/accusations please. It's not cool and it's not conducive to the excellent conversation this seemingly inflammatory topic deserves. Thanks for keeping it civil from now on...

Dr. Patty Khuly December 30th, 2008 08:53:54 AM

The argument about topical anaesthetic during bris is really missing the point - we know from hospital studies that topical anaesthetic is ineffective in dealing with the severe pain of circumcision. How would any of you ladies like to have a deep episiotomy with nothing more than a superficial smear of numbing cream? And as for 'no later discomfort' - has anyone had an episiotomy that DIDN'T hurt during the healing period? And baby had it much worse than mums - his raw glans and circumcision scar are soaked in acidic urine and faeces every day during the week or so it takes for his flesh to heal. Adults are never circumcised in the US without proper anaesthetic and they're never circumcised without consent. We'd consider it torture otherwise. Babies' pain during circ (even with topical anaesthetic) has been measured and it has been found that even when they withdraw into themselves they suffer in a way comparable to an adult experiencing torture - eg huge increase in heart rate, stress hormone and oxygen saturation. The memory of the pain alters their behaviour months later in an 'infant analogue of post traumatic stress syndrome'. Studies in Saudi Arabia and Israel (places with a cultural vested interest in proving the opposite) have also found infant circ associated with serious complications including infant UTI requiring hospitalisation. Here's another point - one third of male migrants to Israel from the former Soviet Union have chosen to keep their foreskin. My guess is that's because the foreskin is a wonderful sensuous body part, and once you've experienced that, even the intense pressure of religious conformity may not persuade you to give it up. If a dog deserves his whole tail to wag, then how much more so does a man deserve his whole penis to play with? No woman has a right to deny her son this joy and to say she may do it because she finds a whole penis 'ugly' or 'dirty' adds insult to injury. May a man slice off his baby daughter's labia if he thinks her future partners won't like them or would be disgusted by the smegma they could find there?

vikinggirl December 30th, 2008 02:02:39 PM

Vikinggirl,

I personally did not have any pain whatsoever after my episiotomy (I was actually, delightfully and surprisingly, pain-free after the birth).  My experience with healthy infants and young children, though, is that if they are in pain and discomfort, they will let you know.  In fact, that's often the ONLY way we know if they are hungry, tired, need changed, bumped their head, etc.  I don't think we need to continue debating the merits or not of circumcision - you and others feel very strongly one way, and there are people who feel very strongly in the opposite.  This isn't a blog about human surgical procedures or circumcision - it's a veterinary blog about animal concerns.  Why don't we keep it on topic?  Especially considering that your impassioned arguments aren't going to change my mind, nor will my opinions change yours.  Live and let live, shall we?  :)

Shavy December 30th, 2008 02:36:34 PM

I think that, if politely discussed, it is on topic. It is true that we are (finally) moving towards restricting even traditional/customary cosmetic surgeries on animals. Will human procedures be far behind? I would note that outside of religious communities circumcision is rare in most western nations outside the US, as is dog ear cropping and increasingly tail docking. As is breeding for traits linked to disorders (e.g. blue eyed dalmatians).

emily December 30th, 2008 02:59:08 PM

Emily,

I don't see it happening, as people tend to fight very hard for their rights.  I also don't know in the case of religious circumcision that such a ban would be lawful.  I certainly do NOT anticipate that circumcision will be outlawed in the US at any point, given the large percentage of the population who opts to go that route.  Sort of like the abortion debate; we may move towards banning certain procedures, but the likelihood of a nation-wide ban of all non-medically-indicated abortions is pretty nil. 

It's one thing to make a determination about what one can do with their dog.  It's another to make that determination about someone's kid.  Besides, we live in a country that boasts plastic surgeons in every sizeable city.  Can you really see them banning boob-jobs?  LOL

As far as breeding for genetically-unstable traits, we live in a consumerist society.  Everyone wants something "different" or "special" - so we have white dobermans, double pie-bald doxies, teacup yorkies, "mini" boxers, 150 lb German shepherds.  Who cares about health when "rare" sells puppies?  And most owners are woefully, woefully ignorant about the repurcussions.  They're not told that their "rare" puppy is rare for a reason; because dogs like this have neurological problems, deafness, light sensitivity, or other maladies.  As long as people choose to be uneducated consumers, there will always be a market for unscrupulous breeders and sickly dogs.  (This kind of ties in with the pet shop posts!)

Shavy December 30th, 2008 04:39:03 PM

These things don't tend to happen by ban, but by attrition or indirect action. For example, veterinarians are no longer trained to carry out ear cropping and most (IMHO) don't wish to, outside of medical necessity. Eventually it may come to fall outside of 'good veterinary practice'--first in one state and then others. It is widely held to be illegal when not conducted by a veterinarian. Ergo at that point it would be impossible to do--but not technically 'banned'. In other countries cropped dogs and extreme types like blue-eyed dalmation became unacceptable to the Kennel Club (requests for AKC to follow this lead date back at least as far as 1895 when the ASPCA made a formal request to remove it from breed standards). At that point these practices dropped precitptously--and the rate of deafness in dalmations dropped 10% within a rather short space of time. I think that what was possible in other countries, including large, multi-state/province countries, will eventually be possible here. Likewise, cosmetic procedures on children could drop from public acceptance just as smoking around babies, physical punishment that leaves a mark or giving them alcohol-based soothing potions has. Less than a decade ago surgeons would perform open-chest surgery on young babies without anesthetic--now doing this would get them struck off. Just a few years ago premature babies would have blood drawn many times a day by heal lance, now that is considered unacceptable by most nurses. So changes in attitude can come quite quickly in a profession or organisation, greatly restricting access to a procedure without impacting the literal right to have it done.

emily December 31st, 2008 10:53:45 AM

You all may be interested to know that debates about these elective, neonatal surgeries among veterinarians ALWAYS become linked to the circumcision issue.

Geoffrey January 3rd, 2009 11:42:10 AM

For the person who wanted a citation regarding people not wanting to look at dog testicles (the best proof being of course walking around with an intact dog) just flip through some pet related catalogues. Petco and Petsmart both have very strict rules regarding their canine models.  All penises, testicles (if applicable) and vulvas are airbrushed out if they are visible in the photo.  Why? Because people in general (at least here in the US) are uncomfortable with looking at "private parts" even if only canine or feline.  This is also the case in movie posters that feature dogs (Good Boy & Hotel for Dogs are two that come to mind).

As to the other issues, I agree with the piercing being cruel because it can inhibit the animal in it's day to day life. It's totally ridiculous and should never have been done. As it stands, it was illegal, and the person should be punished, whether it be ignorance or intended cruelty. The other procedures that have been addressed, I am more ambivalent about. My current dogs all have had their dewclaws removed and if given the choice would prefer it that way in the future as well. My best friend's golden retriever is the only dog I am aware of that still has dewclaws and it has been nothing but bad experience after bad experience with them. The poor dog has torn the same dewclaw three times. I can't tell you how many times my friend has wished they were chosen to be removed by the breeder at a few days old. I also see nothing wrong with having a hunting breed or herding breed tail's docked by a veterinarian. I have seen a hunting dog's tail split open and it is not pretty. The excuse that a dog cannot live a full life without a tail is kind of silly as there are breeds that have the bob-tail gene and they get along just fine. I am less certain about ear cropping as I have never owned a breed that traditionally had the option, so I am less familiar with the reasoning behind it.  

Jessica P. January 6th, 2009 05:00:50 PM

I have certainly observed a lot of people esp. in the urban US being uncomfortabke about animal genitals and general 'Disneyfication' of animal depiction. To the extent of undergraduate level science students not knowing how livestock testicles look--and even not understanding that cows need to be pregnant to lactate because, um, milk is milk.

emily January 7th, 2009 10:24:05 AM

    I am a tattooist and piercer and I just wanted to mention how appalling those photos of those poor kittens are. This is why I yearn for more professional teaching, licensing and regulation in the body modification industries, to keep the tools of the trade out of the hands of people who think it's cool to pierce a cat or tattoo a dog. Absolutely enraging!

tattooheathen January 20th, 2009 03:34:36 AM

<A href="http://iedfhdhk.net/">ladfhdfhdgraver</A>

cvncnc May 6th, 2009 10:24:31 PM

[url=http://www.drDFHDFHan.com]JDFHDFHr[/url]

DFHFDH May 6th, 2009 10:25:13 PM

VHS to DVD Converter          VHS Converter

natti June 10th, 2009 05:35:52 AM

Thanks for sharing this with us.I enjoyed well while reading...

----------------

Life insurance

Thanks August 20th, 2009 08:41:36 AM

What is the best way to protect animal rights?

Thanks,

SEO

Thanks August 20th, 2009 08:43:25 AM

Noody is commenting on the topic.. all are doing spamming

<a href="http://www.logoinn.com">custom logo design</a>

Alice September 2nd, 2009 06:02:46 AM

Noody is commenting on the topic.. all are doing spamming

custom logo design

Alice September 2nd, 2009 06:04:11 AM

Thanks for your sharing.Maybe you are interested in Abercrombie and Fitch.

AF September 20th, 2009 01:07:40 AM

Persian Cats

Thanks for sharing this with us.I enjoyed well while reading...Thanks again...

==========================================================

Persian Cats

Persian Cats December 28th, 2009 10:25:19 AM

Thanks for this useful information that you have been shared to us readers.

SEO Services

goood work February 3rd, 2010 10:51:38 PM

Great post I must say.. Simple but yet entertaining and engaging.. Keep up the awesome work!

<a href="http://www.seoservicesindia.mobi ">SEO Services India</a>

SEO Services India February 5th, 2010 02:21:11 AM