tisonlyi

Circumstances.

Without good medical cause or adult consent of the affected individual, it most certainly is mutilation.

(and lets be clear, the medical causes out there are dodgy at best and complete lies at worst)

And anyone trying the social or functional arguments should start a thread on the aesthetic, social and religious benefits of female genital cutting on the under-aged.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Craven Morehead

Being that I am and have had to make the decision twice for my two sons, I've never looked at it as mutilation. Maybe that is rationalization at work. The intent was never to mutilate the human body. Since I am not Jewish, the intent was not driven by religious requirements. But its sort of a social norm, at least where I came from. While it technically may be mutilation, since the intent was not, I give it a pass. Again I say this may be rationalization.

ASU2003

Not this again... Condoms work much, much better, and the whole 'scientific experiment' was a sham. It only lasted a few months and they guessed that the number of HIV infected partners both groups slept with were equal. And seeing how it was like 12 vs. 8 out of 2500 when they stopped the study instead of letting it go on for a few years (because saying a 50% drop is more impressive, and the newly circumcised group was starting to have more sex), well let's just say I hope not all medical research is done this way.

---------- Post added at 12:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:30 PM ----------

My experience is that it has more to do with my blood pressure and the number of days since my last orgasm. If my blood pressure is over 140/90, it doesn't work as well as when it is 100/70. But that is just me, though it may be the same for others.

tisonlyi

May?

Go on, be honest.

GENUINEGIRLY:

Circumcision has absolutely, 110%, NOTHING to do with sexual function. In fact, one of its main pro-arguments of yesteryear was its function of restricting the ease of masturbation... which is pretty true.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

World's King

Mine is cut. As most of you have seen.


I've never put too much thought into it. It's a dick. It's used for peeing and spreading out seed. If you look at a penis as anything else above and beyond that, you've crossed a line.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

tisonlyi

You gonna let someone needlessly hack chunks out of that bad boy?

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Lucifer

When has that ever stopped you before?

__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321

biznatch

Yes, or perhaps some regions have bad imams or a bad mix of spiritual beliefs with their islam. Either way I don't think Islam as a whole has a problem with the way they circumcise.
I wouldn't do it to my child, my wife's (she's american) only opinion on the matter is that his future girlfriend might get freaked out by it, or make fun of it. So the fuck what?
I grew up in america, have shared locker rooms with cut boys, I don't have a complex about my extra bit of skin, and if my wife (then gf) got used to it, who's to say my future son's SO won't?

I don't like that cutting off part of your penis is the norm, at least in America, but I don't think I'd call it genital mutilation, because, if carried out well, your genitals work fine. This is more of a cosmetic surgery at birth than anything else, which to me is almost as bad. Still, I wouldn't want anyone taking a blade close to my child's penis. That's just too big a risk.
Your boy might get made fun of for a flap of skin, but what about if he had half a head? Or a diagonally cut one? Or some other weird scar?

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

ring

I am female, and I vote that circumcision is a sad taking away of nature's plan.

I am also curious why the poll is set up so, that we females,
are only allowed to be curious as to what the guys are saying.

I am also wondering if men would like to hear about the different
sensations a partner experiences during intercourse, between cut and uncut?

I say partner, but I can only relay my own vaginal experience.

The way the foreskin slides back and forth, inside my vagina- (especially during a slow succulent, intercourse session) was a real wake-up whoa moment for me.

Men that are okay with the sensations they feel after being cut is fine,
I mean, what other choice do they have really?

But please think about it.
There are many nerve endings that are cut away when you toss out the foreskin.
As much pleasure as you get from your circumcized penis,
wouldn't you want your sons to experience the full pleasure of nature's plan?

Lucifer

For the same reason that other polls on this board, which directly affect women are set up so that men can only vote "I'm a man and I'm curious"

__________________
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
- Job 30:29

1123, 6536, 5321

Xerxys

Well,

I was born in Africa, Kenya. They circumcise at various stages of adolescense as some sort of symoblic gesture of intitiation into adulthood. What's funny is, even the stupid adults don't regard you as an adult anyway. Thus begun my hatred for old assholes. I degress..

I was actually looking forward to the process. It was a) the in thing, kinda like a fad that's been running for the last couple hundred years and b) made you anticipate the manly feeling that is ~uncut~!! Really my parents only let me go through the process because I asked them to and it had little or no risk. You see, we have hospitals and clinics .

Initiation is done mainly when your through with class 8. (mostly at 14 but sometimes later days of 13) By the time you get to Form 1 (after class 8) your regarded a non infant and capable of taking care of yourself. (How I started listening to Dido I don't know!!!)

Up to today I still don;t have a good reason for circumcision and levite summed it up well. Modification and not mutilation is the difference.

The horror stories related to circumcision in Africa crompsin speaks of happen to what? 5 people yearly? All these people are nomads and traditional herders who have lived like that since their oldest alive person can remember. Even female genital mutilation (FGM) is frouned upon. It no longer happens unless of course you're in the back of the backwards countries in Somalia or Sudan. The act in Kenya is illegal.

As far as this being mutilation, nope, not really.

tisonlyi

One person's modification is another's mutilation. That's all in the societal norms and subjective opinions.

The circumcision that i get myself into trouble condemning is the needless hacking at the genitals of a NEWBORN child for no other reason than social fancies, or a religion that should be soundly condemned for such hideous teachings.

Wife beating was once a religious/social norm.
Execution for theft was once a religious/social norm.

The two, along with a very long list of others, have been removed from society to a greater or lesser degree in the western world.

Taking a scalpel to a newborn baby, needlessly, is or should be abhorrent to anyone who thinks about it objectively for more than a second or two, whether you think the result is modification or mutilation. Taking even tiny risks with their lives, genitals, future sexual well-being at the costs of obvious pain, etc...

I will never understand the dissonance of a mind that rationalises it.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 PM ----------

(Oh, and I'm not voting on this poll as there's no division between the proxy circumcision of minors and elective circumcision of adults.)

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Slims

Dude, I said SOME muslim circumcision practices can be horrifying. Not all, or even most.

I don't think this is an irrational statement at all considering how many of the bedouin tribes handle the issue:


"In Bedouin tribes circumcision is a puberty rite, or test of manhood, enacted on boys between the ages of ten and fifteen. The rite is called es-selkh (the flaying). As the name implies,not merely the prepuce, but the entire sheath of the penis is longitudinally slit and sliced off, leaving the "rod" like a skinned eel. As a rule, youths look forward to the ordeal with masochistic or fatalistic abandon. They pull each other's drawers down and stand proudly naked, not daring to move a muscle or cry out

Jacabus observed that in Arab circumcision the skin of the sheath of the penis and the mucous membrane are cut at the same level, and after the operation is completed there is absolutely no prepuce. This is the desired result. The penis is literally strained to stiffness when erect, for the skin is stretched tight, and the entire glans, including the corona, and the neck of the corona are fully exposed by the retraction."

Traditional Moslem circumcision rites
And a bit dated, but I doubt the practice has changed much in the rural areas:

"Circumcision, although nowhere mentioned in the Koran, is generally regarded as obligatory for Moslems following the example of the prophet Mohammed himself, who was circumcised in accordance with Arab custom. No uncircumcised person may lawfully make the pilgrimage to Mecca. Among the tribes in southern Iraq … the operation was often deferred until manhood … and was seldom performed before puberty. It was done by specialists who travelled round from village to village in the summer. Their traditional fee was a cock [!], but more often they charged five shillings. The examples of their work which I saw were terrifying. They used a dirty razor, a piece of string and no antiseptics. Having finished, they sprinkled the wound with a special powder, made from the dried foreskins of their previous victims, and then bound it up with a tight rag. People living under these conditions acquire a remarkable resistance to infection, but they could not resist this, and boys sometimes took two months to recover, suffering great pain in the meanwhile.

One young man came to me for treatment ten days after his circumcision, and although I am fairly inured to unpleasant sights and smells, the stench made me retch. His entire penis, his scrotum and the inside of his thighs were a suppurating mess from which the skin was sloughing away, the pus trickling down his legs. I cured him eventually with antibiotics.

In spite of the social stigma of being uncircumcised, some boys not unnaturally refused. In other cases the fathers would not allow their sons to be operated on because there was no one else to look after the buffaloes. A few maintained that they had been circumcised by an angel at birth, a superstition that is also current in Egypt. Later I visited villages … where I heard that hardly anyone was circumcised."

Wilfred Thesiger, The marsh Arabs, London 1964, pp. 101-2


And, from a paper on circumcisions in Turkey and their potential complications (Last I checked Turkey was a muslim nation):

"Unfortunately, most circumcisions throughout the world are performed by traditional circumcisers rather than by medically-trained professionals. In those patients with complications, only 5% of the circumcisions were performed by doctors, 10% by health technicians and the remaining 85% by traditional circumcisers. The traditional circumcisers in Turkey are commonly devoid of any medical training and belong to other professions such as barbers, traditional drummers and male servants of health institutions. They usually perform circumcision with self-made devices similar to the Mogen clamp.

The present analysis emphasizes that the most serious complications are caused by traditional circumcisers this potentially dangerous traditional practice should be prevented. Furthermore, mass circumcisions become widespread and used by many sociopolitical relief organizations in Turkey as a method of advertisement. The present results suggest that even when performed at medical institutions, it is difficult to; provide enough sterile equipment and conditions for a safe mass circumcision. Moreover, mass circumcisions performed outside medical institutions are also becoming widespread and are mostly performed by health technicians or traditional circumcisers.

In conclusion, circumcision is an important surgical procedure which has life-long effects and should be performed singly at medical institutions by trained medical staff. Mass circumcisions commonly organized for self-advertisement or for propaganda cause significant risk and should be stopped as soon as possible."
Significantly increased complication risk with mass circumcisions


I had two Afghan interpreters on my last deployment, they told me how they were circumcised, not at a hospital as an infant, but as young boys, at home, by some 'dude' with a knife.


I know the Muslim world is not the source of all evil, but I hardly think it is irrational to point out that it is the source of many of the more disturbing circumcision practices, which often result in complications due to incompetence. And I haven't even begun to touch on Female Circumcision, which the muslim world seems to at least tolerate (I have not noticed any outrage on Al-Jazeera regarding the issue, even though in some muslim countries nearly every single female is 'circumcised.' By circumcised I mean the entire clitoris is removed as well as the majority of the Labia with the two ragged remnants of the inner labia sewn together (with thorns in some places) to prevent the woman from having sex before marriage. The husband gets the pleasure of cutting her open (with a knife) on her wedding day. In the more 'conservative' tribes the wife gets sewn up again each time the husband leaves on a trip.

Cheers!

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

JStrider

I'm circumcised.

not upset about it... I work just fine...

That said i think its an unnecessary procedure and am inclined to not have any sons I may have cut.

__________________
-=JStrider=-

~Clatto Verata Nicto

spindles

I'm cut, my two boys aren't. I think is mutilation - why the hell would I make my children go through a completely unnecessary medical procedure.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Halanna

Mutilation implies to me doing damage or harm with the intent to injure or maim.

I don't believe circumcision would fall under the term mutilation.

It could be termed by some as "unnecessary surgery", but I don't think genital mutilation applies to this particular procedure.

tisonlyi

Mutilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the only reason why circumcision isn't considered mutilation by some/most is "because I was done and I am fine*, it's great! Yeah!".

*The argument applies to a huge range of opinions:

I voted for the right guy, even though he's fucking everyone! (I don't want to admit I was wrong)
I bought the right car, even though it was clearly the wrong choice! (Same thing)
I believe circumcision is fine, because I was mutilated without my consent before I can remember, have no frame of reference over the choice and therefore it is A Great Thing To Keep Inflicting On Our Babies (tm)

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Xerxys

Cm'on tisonlyi, I mustv'e read somewhere you pierced your penis. Was that mutilation or modification? What about tattoos? They really hurt and actually leave a mark that wasn't there before.

Mutilation is extreme. Mutilation is abuse. Besides take it from someone who had it done a bit later in life. To circumcise an adult or one with a fully developed penis is harder than an infant. I takes 2 weeks to recover and you must NOT have a full bladder when going to bed because morning wood is a motherf***er.

Kind of like this. Let's say 99.8% of earths population don't get appendicitis, only the 0.2% do. To remove the appendix at birth in order to prevent appendicitis would be unnecessary but I would be totally fine with it if it means not giving birth at the same time my wife does.

Shaindra

+1

Never sore with an uncirc'd penis...even after marathon sessions.

As for opinion, I'm against cosmetic surgery on infants.

__________________
"Never regret something that once made you smile."

spindles

If he has these things that is a choice he made, like cosmetic surgery - cutting off bits of someone's flesh for (mostly) cosmetic reasons when they don't have a choice is not the same thing.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

dlish

dude...slims..sigh

do you know what year we actually live in? you're quoting a book written by Wilfred Thesiger who is quite a popular personailty here in this part of the world. i never who who he was until i came here. but Wilfred spent many years travelling the Empty Quarter and met many Bedouins. The Empty Quarter is an empty vast arid land and is one of the biggest desert in the world. its covers a large percentage of the UAE, and saudi as well as parts of yemen and oman. his travels were in the 1940s mainly and he came across tribespeople and nomads of whom most were muslims.

using his quote to justify your point is irrational. you quoting stories from Thesiger on bedoiuns who happen to be largely uneducated, neglected people living in unhygenic desert conditions. these people have no access to anything. they are neglected by the countries they live in, and even till today are stateless and admonished by most. circumcisions are done by uneducated, illiterate people fromw ithin the tribes...no wonder they have problems when they do minor procedures such as this!

so you can understand their lifestyle. so when you say SOME muslim customs, you are talking about a large minority here ( less than 1% of the muslims population).


as far as turkey goes..have you been to turkey? yeah turkey's a muslim country...pfffft! muslim by name...cultural practices remain, but religion plays no part of turkish life except when they want to sell you a prayer rug or something.

as for afghans..its petty much the same as the bedoiuns..uneducted illiterate nomads. i'm no expecting santised utinsels to be used.

as for female cirsumcision, i have NEVER EVER heard of instances of women being sewed up. its not a part of islamic beliefs of customs. IF it is indeed true, its a cultural thing and has nothing to do with islam. Hadith and islamic jursipudence contain nothing on the matter. but once again, you speak about minorities here.

i'm late for work now, so ive got to run. buti can expand on a few other things

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

tisonlyi

False Equivalence.

The adult choice to modify/mutilate (purely subjective in an ADULT context) my own body, in full knowledge of the facts and with sufficient control of my faculties, is in no way near the topic of neonatal or infant circumcision.

If I had a child, would I have the right to drive a slug of metal through the penis of my newborn son? Even if it's my religion? Even if all of my male friends have it done?

Would I have the right to cut the vaginal lips or stubs thereof from my infant newborn daughter?

Didn't think so.

Why?

It's an extremely invasive procedure undergone for entirely cosmetic or non-critical reasons. It's unethical in the extreme to inflict unnecessary agony, change and risk upon a helpless individual.

A newborn is an individual. They have rights.

Tell me how is infant male circumcision different from those two cases above?

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

biznatch

Even if he did pierce it, that just means putting a hole through it, which is usually temporary. Removing a entire foreskin is not temporary, nor would it have been his choice (unless he got it as an adult).

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Slims

Dlish:

I know how old my Thesiger quote is. But considering the lifestyle of the peoples he was observing....it is still as current as the morning's news.

the Minority I spoke of (and which you emphasized) are responsible for the vast majority of complications following circumcision.

Also, I was not trying to typecast Islam, but state that some circumcision practices deeply disturbed me. The ones I was aware of took place in the Muslim world and so I referenced that.

Yes I have been to Turkey as well as other Muslim countries, and don't disagree with your assessment, but it is still part of the Muslim world...I didn't say the world of fervent muslim believers.

I never made a case for the practices I quoted being integral to the religion, though they are tied to the local beliefs/religion...whether you think they are valid or not.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Ourcrazymodern?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Anormalguy

I'm with those who say that mutilation is too strong of a term. I was a baby when I got snipped under the belief that it would reduce/prevent future medical problems. I have no idea if there is any medical justification for circumcision.

On a related (well, sort of) side note, my wife says that she's curious to know how a foreskin feels during intercourse. I would guess that many women have the same thought.

__________________
In a society where the individual is not free to pursue the truth...there is neither progress, stability nor security.--Edward R. Murrow

biznatch

So awesome to have a woman's opinion here, and that's because you guys are the ones who either benefit out of the penis' surgery, or don't.

To me, it feels like that extra flap could produce some nice feelings, for both parties involved, and there's no hygienic reason (when you look at uncircumcised people like me without problems) to make a change.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Hyacinthe

hey Lucifer where's the "I'm female but still have an opinion" button???

Personally I will admit I do lean towards the mutilation side of the fence in this one, I simply don't see any need to have it done from a scientific viewpoint (yes I know about hygiene issues - that's coming) and would strongly object to having it done to any male child I might have.


There seems to be 3 main reasons people use for having circumcisions - hygienic, religious or cultural

In regards to hygiene issues I think most of the reasons for having it done can be combatted by effective personal hygiene, ofcourse if you don't clean under your foreskin you're going to get dirt and then some kind of infection - that's common sense same if you were a woman and decided to go days without cleaning your genitalia. It's just a bad idea. Going back to the days of WW2 most definitely get it done, simply because if you're involved in any form of trench warfare it's almost impossible for you to bathe sometimes for weeks at a time and numerous infection did spring up for exactly that reason. in fact the British government during WW2 subsidised the costs to have an adult circumcision done for it's troops.

Religious reasons are a different issue and something that not being religious myself I don't feel qualified to discuss, you either get it or you don't ( kinda the same way I view the whole sub / Dom thing - odd hmmm?)

Cultural reasons are kindof a combination of the two. Much as I dislike the idea I have to accept that there are cultures out there today that still believe you are not a man until you have had an adult circumcision performed. Take parts of Kenya where during a boys mid to late teens he has the foreskin removed with the sterilised lid of a ring pull can and is allowed to make no noise during the procedure. Yet you ask boys or men if they would have it done or do it again and they will say yes because you are not a man until it has been done. You'll have problems marrying, buying property or holding a position of authority while still being viewed as a child.

Attraction wise I have to go with uncircumcised for preference but that's only personal opinion - I find it easier to give oral to an uncircumcised man as opposed to a circumcised one.


have to agree with GG on this one - I know I find them pretty attractive

__________________
"I want to be remembered as the girl who always smiles even when her heart is broken... and the one that could brighten up your day even if she couldnt brighten her own"

"Her emotions were clear waters. You could see the scarring and pockmarks at the bottom of the pool, but it was just a part of her landscape – the consequences of others’ actions in which she claimed no part."

Aladdin Sane

Looks like the experts disagree with you:

Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk
By RONI CARYN RABIN
Published: August 23, 2009

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection.
Recently, studies showed that in African countries hit hard by AIDS, men who were circumcised reduced their infection risk by half. But the clinical trials in Africa focused on heterosexual men who are at risk of getting H.I.V. from infected female partners.
For now, the focus of public health officials in this country appears to be on making recommendations for newborns, a prevention strategy that would only pay off many years from now.
But Dr. Peter Kilmarx, chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/he...cision.html?hp

__________________
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

inBOIL

Did those studies involve people having sex with or without condoms? I'd suspect that condom use would eliminate any differences due to circumcision.

__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.

biznatch

I think the HIV thing is as stupid an argument as the hygiene. Have good hygiene, have safe sex, and you're just as safe whether cut or not.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Xerxys

^^ The hygene argumant isn't stupid. It's just like hair. If you can't be bothered to wash your hair properly everytime you take a shower you will get lice. Same goes for foreskin.

Halx

That shows how much you know about HIV. Very little.

The forced circumcision idea is cultural bullshit. Not substantiated at all.

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

Xerxys

biznatch said the hygene is as stupid as HIV. I'm not discounting the HIV argument is baseless at all, the hygene one, on the other hand isn't.

Should I be questioning your comprehension skills?

ring

levite

I would like to reiterate, I personally don't think that the health/safety justification for circumcision is particularly persuasive, unless you happen to be singularly phobic about sanitation and infection.

I also don't think that the mere fact of it being popular or unpopular aesthetically is necessarily a persuasive justification to circumcise if you are opposed to doing so, or to not circumcise if you are inclined to do so.

What the difference of opinion in this thread seems to boil down to is that there are some individuals who believe that cultural and religious requirements are adequate justifications to circumcise baby boys, and some individuals who believe that they are not. Thus far, I have no problem.

Where I am beginning to have a problem is that those individuals who do not believe cultural and religious requirements present adequate justifications for circumcision do not seem content merely to resolve that such a position means that they should not circumcise their baby sons, but also entitles them to criticize (nearly but not quite to the point, I feel compelled to point out, of disrespect) those individuals who do feel so justified.

Nobody, IMO, has yet been overtly or directly disrespectful to anyone's religion, nor mostly to anyone's culture; nor am I accusing, confronting, or calling anyone out. But I can't help noticing that there is a pronounced negative bent that is beginning to appear that, to my eye at least, is beginning to go from disagreement with circumcision to disagreement with religion.

Now, don't get me wrong! I am in now way trying to suggest that people who don't care for religion ought to change their minds, nor am I suggesting that they should pretend to do so. Nor am I attempting to shut down this topic, or shame anyone into silence or anything. I am merely concerned because every so often, online in general, and very occasionally on this forum that I love, I see people who do not care for religion cross the line from merely disagreeing to disrespecting.

As I have said before I feel quite strongly that nobody ought to be compelled when it comes to religion, and atheism is, IMO, just as respectable as theism (or vice-versa, if you prefer to phrase it that way). And I have no quarrel with disagreements of philosophy, or outright rejections ("that's just not for me,") or even critiques ("I don't understand it, and I don't get people who claim to understand it."), or sometimes even criticism ("that seems wrong to me.") My problem begins with "I don't agree with this, it IS wrong, and you shouldn't agree with it either, and if you do, YOU'RE wrong." Which, to be fair, no one in this thread has said (as far as I can recall). But I feel things drifting in that direction.

I would like to re-state what I said before, that, as far as I know, none of the religions that require circumcision require it for those who are not adherents of their faith. Therefore, it seems to me that the easiest way to solve the problem of not agreeing with religion as a justification for circumcision is simply not to practice such a religion. But if the adherents thereof do circumcise, and find it meaningful and spiritually satisfying, and do not (for the most part) object to it or find it regrettable or debilitating, then what is your cause for criticizing them? (And I feel compelled to add, labelling it "genital mutilation" which is inevitably pejorative, is, to my mind, an attack criticism).

Now, I would certainly agree that there have been some cases cited in this thread of the procedure being done with improper care, in deeply unsanitary conditions, leading to horrific results, and those sorts of thing should certainly be avoided. And if one wished to critique such cultures by saying that, if one will require circumcision, one must ensure it is done safely and properly, and all due precautions are taken to assure no harmful side effects...well, that is a critique I would leap to agree with. But to indicate that a handful of problem cases, easily remedied by proper sanitation, technique, and followup, indicates that religions and cultures should have no right to practice circumcision is, to my mind, an ill-conceived conclusion deeply colored by disdain for religion and/or foreign cultures.

I'm sorry to come in like this with a heavy hand: usually I refrain from saying anything when stuff like this develops. But I really love this forum, and I really respect the people in here, and I can't say it doesn't bother me.

To make it personal for a moment, nobody's saying that if you don't believe in circumcision you should have to circumcise your son. You like foreskin? OK, so you should live and be well, and have fine, healthy sons with yards of foreskin. But it hurts to see something disrespected that I am grateful for every day, that I truly feel brings me closer to God, and which fills my heart with joy when I consider the prospect of being able to one day help my son join the covenant of his people, and draw closer to God himself. If you don't get that, and don't understand it, and don't like the concept, OK, great. Don't be Jewish. Nobody's saying you should be. Unless you actually are Jewish, in which case, yeah, I guess that would pose something of a problem for you. But I presume that any Jews who are so vociferously against circumcision probably are not feeling particularly connected to their Jewish identities, so I suppose it all works out, in any case.

My point is, just a little more care taken to separate between criticism of an action and criticism of those who take the action would be appreciated. But in any case, I say it with love and respect, and I hope it is taken that way. I am not trying to attack anyone, and I hold each and every one of you in high regard.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

ring

How can a baby be adherent to a 'faith'?

I'm confused when you say that, " nobody ought be compelled when it comes to religion." I might be missing the context here, but then you go on to say,

"any Jew who is against circumcision, is not 'connected' to their jewish 'identity'.

All I am hearing, then...is failure, bad bad Jew.

Your post is very strange. It apologizes yet it doesn't.

Would you consider it disrespectful, if I claimed that genital mutilation,
done under the guise of any religion, I find abhorrent and cruel?

levite

One of the fundamental ways membership in a society is generally understood is that parents are responsible for raising their children according to the rules of that society, with the presumption that those children, when grown, will wish to be fully participating members of that society also, and will as adults retroactively appreciate the efforts their parents have made on their behalf, even if they didn't necessarily appreciate them in the childhood moment. This is hardly a novel notion, and since Judaism and, if I understand correctly, Islam also, consider themselves not only religions but cultures, it is entirely applicable. What other religions in the world demand circumcision I don't know, but I would be surprised if there was not a strong cultural component to them.

In other words, just as nobody ought to come round to my door and demand that I not be a Jew, but be a Christian, or an atheist, instead, even so, nobody ought to go to the doors of Christians and atheists and demand that they be Jews. My point is, if you don't believe that you are religiously required to circumcize your son, nobody should compel you otherwise.

Judaism requires male circumcision at eight days. That is not a negotiable part of traditional Jewish identity. The only Jews I am aware of who do not circumcize their sons, or have any problem with doing so, are secular Jews who-- usually due to lack of Jewish education-- have little connection to the Jewish tradition. This doesn't make them bad people, but it does make them disconnected from Jewish society. An uncircumcized Jewish man, just as much as a child whose father is Jewish but whose mother is not, may feel like a Jew, but they are not, until they have (respectively) been circumcized and been through the form of conversion. That's simply how Jewish law works. Now, by the same token, if two secular Jews decide not to circumcize their son, nobody's going to come to their door and compel them to circumcize the baby. They will suffer no direct consequences of their actions, unless we include the dismay of their more traditional family members and friends. And I am in no way suggesting that they should be compelled, or should suffer other consequences. But there are consequences, none the less: by refusing to circumcize their son, they have ensured that should he desire to participate in Jewish society as an adult-- have a bar mitzvah, lead prayers, read publicly from the Torah, be a formal witness under Jewish law, marry a Jewish girl, etc.-- he will have to suffer adult circumcision. I assume that something of the same would be true in Muslim society, although I don't know the nuances of Shari'a well enough to be certain. Perhaps Dlish knows.

But at least with Judaism, it's an ethnoreligious culture, and as such, it has laws and rules and boundaries governing membership, association, and behavior. To be born into that tradition means that either you adhere to some accepted version of those laws and rules and boundaries, or you effectively are choosing not to participate in Jewish society. There is no compulsion: nobody will force you to follow Jewish law or the Jewish tradition if you don't want to. But like any society, disconnecting oneself from the way the rest of society operates is a choice that has consequences in one's life, and the life of one's family. If one considers those consequences outweighed by the temptations of belonging to a different society, or attempting to live with no society at all, then they should live and be well, but there are things in Judaism that will be closed to them. Not out of malice. Just because that's the way this society works. And if that's not to your taste, then perhaps this isn't the society for you to be part of.

It would depend on what you mean by genital mutilation. I said before and I say it again, that to my mind, calling it genital mutilation implies that either it is done haphazardly and without reason, or it is something done that causes crippling and/or consistently painful and/or notably impaired lack of genital function. It may have been done unsafely. It would also probably be significant to me if a majority, or a sizable minority at least, of those persons to whom the procedure was done objected later in life, and regretted that it had been done to them.

With female genital mutilation, you have all of those things: it is often done unsafely; it is not consistently done the same way in all societies that do it; it is done for varying reasons, none of which are mandated by, or even suggested by Shari'a, but rather stem from local, often pre-Islamic, cultural aesthetics. It causes severe impairment and often permanent pain associated with the impeded proper functioning and use of the genitals. And there are, unsurprisingly, a large number of women to whom it has been done that object later in life, and admit that they wish it had not been done to them.

Whereas, at least as far as I have been able to discover, circumcision among Jews and Muslims (and probably some others also) in Western Countries, and in most urbanized and/or developed portions of the Muslim world, is done safely; it is done for reasons of fundamental spiritual import to the religion; it causes no notable impairment to the sexual function of the penis, and no impairment to the urinary function at all; the vast majority of men to whom it has been done have no problem with it, do not regret it, and are for the most part quite happy with it. The majority of those I have encountered who do have a problem with it seem to object out of philosophical ideals about body integrity or holism, or sometimes a great zeal for free choice: it is seldom, if ever, objected to because of crippling or traumatic after-effects, and at least IMO, never credibly so.

That being the case, it seems to me that circumcision falls into the category of culturally-based body modification. Generally speaking, no permanent damage is done, no ill effects are suffered, and parents are not compelled by force to do it to their children. Which leaves me back at, if it doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. And if your conclusion is, "I don't like circumcision. I don't get why it would be OK. I will never do it to my son," OK, great. You should never have to. But to stand back and call it abhorrent when others do it for their own reasons, because it doesn't appeal to you, is essentially to say, "Your experience of bonding with God is yucky. You suck." Which I feel is counterproductive to discussion, and ultimately, is not a critique I will accept.

I apologized because I don't want to come off as "religious judgmental guy," and, as I said, because I really do love the board and respect you all. But I just felt I had to stand up for what I believe in, without intending disrespect to others, or wishing to quash the whole conversation.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

cellophanedeity

If I have a baby boy, he won't be circumcised. I don't see the need for it.

Also, as a female, I (kind of) prefer the bits I play with to be uncut. Just a matter of personal preference, though.

__________________
who am I to refuse the universe?
-Leonard Cohen, Beautiful Losers

highthief

Go ahead, rail against the CDC, WHO, and everyone else, then:

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

Summary

Male circumcision has been associated with a lower risk for HIV infection in international observational studies and in three randomized controlled clinical trials. It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission. Male circumcision has also been associated with a number of other health benefits. Although there are risks to male circumcision, serious complications are rare. Accordingly, male circumcision, together with other prevention interventions, could play an important role in HIV prevention in settings similar to those of the clinical trials [41, 42].

Male circumcision may also have a role in the prevention of HIV transmission in the United States. CDC consulted with external experts in April 2007 to receive input on the potential value, risks, and feasibility of circumcision as an HIV prevention intervention in the United States and to discuss considerations for the possible development of guidelines.

As CDC proceeds with the development of public health recommendations for the United States, individual men may wish to consider circumcision as an additional HIV prevention measure, but they must recognize that circumcision 1) does carry risks and costs that must be considered in addition to potential benefits; 2) has only proven effective in reducing the risk of infection through insertive vaginal sex; and 3) confers only partial protection and should be considered only in conjunction with other proven prevention measures (abstinence, mutual monogamy, reduced number of sex partners, and correct and consistent condom use).

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.