Snip-snip! Circumcision and you.

[Bella]

I found out a few weeks ago that my insurance company will not automatically pay for the circumcision of a newborn male - in order to have it covered under the policy, you must submit a request for the procedure to be done and state why you would like it done. I confess I had never given it much thought up until this point. I talked to my OB/GYN who said the main reasons people have it done these days is for A) religious reasons, B) because it's the social norm, and C) because it's 'easier' to keep a circumcised penis clean. He said that medically there is no real reason to circumcise a newborn as long as you commit to teaching your child proper hygiene...which I thought was a given, but okay, sure.

I thought about this and decided OK, no circumcision. I wouldn't want someone shaving parts off my pussy two days after I was born, regardless if whether or not I would remember it when I got older. I talked to my fiance and he was HORRIFIED. Did I want our son to be made fun of by his sexual partners? Be stared at by people in locker rooms? O.M.G. My best friend confided in me that her husband is not circumcised and has never been the victim of any such trauma in his entire life (and he's 25 years old). She said she read somewhere that circumcision takes away as much as 60% of nerve endings in the penis. Back to my fiance...who said he didn't care if he was getting 60% less feeling in his dick: hooded penises = icky.

(Which, of course, brought us to the discussion of, are penises really that much more aesthetically pleasing/nice to look at if they are circumcised, anyway? When I'm watching a porno I am most certainly not sitting there thinking about how shapely the man's penis is. But that's besides the point.)

What is the opinion of the educated classes? Snip, or no snip?

[Qingdai]

Few insurance companies do cover circumcision anymore because (generally) they are not medically necessary.
When my son was born I was told not to circumcise him because he had a condition called hypospadia and they might need bits for reconstructive surgery.
There is some research saying circumcised men are more likely to contract HIV, but the risk is small. Here is a link from the government.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002998.htm#Indications

We didn't snip.

[Bella]

...uh. I should have used Google before posting.

I just saw a step-by-step "this is how a baby is circumcised" photo doohickey and um, yeah. No. No, no, no.

Oh, dear God. Ick.

[erimir]

Did I want our son to be made fun of by his sexual partners? Be stared at by people in locker rooms? O.M.G. My best friend confided in me that her husband is not circumcised and has never been the victim of any such trauma in his entire life (and he's 25 years old).That has not happened to me, and I'm 22 and uncircumcised. Only one person I ever, uh, fooled around with personally has had a problem with that, and he expressed that problem a while before we did anything. When it actually happened, he didn't complain.

And on the other hand, other guys I've been with have liked it and been quite interested in it, rather than being disgusted by it. It's also not that uncommon anymore. In older generations, yeah, it's pretty uncommon, but the circumcision rate has been dropping, so for your son's generation, he probably won't be that much in the minority (maybe not at all? I dunno).

I don't know how the experience would compare for a straight guy tho.
Which, of course, brought us to the discussion of, are penises really that much more aesthetically pleasing/nice to look at if they are circumcised, anyway?They mostly look about the same when they're hard anyway - it pulls back when I'm erect.
When I'm watching a porno I am most certainly not sitting there thinking about how shapely the man's penis is.I am. :lecher:

I would say not to snip. If he has a real health reason to need it done, you can get it done when that arises. If HIV is that big of a concern, he can choose to get circumcised. Also consider the fact that I'm not sure there's any benefit at all in that regard if you, you know, actually use condoms.

Me personally, I don't intend to get mine altered.

[seebs]

Uncut, never had a complaint. It's not so uncommon as all that these days. In my case, though, I was born in Switzerland, where they apparently wouldn't have dreamed of suggesting it.

I would say, no, don't bother. It's really not a very useful procedure in our current context.

[roastelk]

Me and my girlfreind have been arguing about this a bit. in my own experience, I didnt know anything was missing untill I was a teenager, so I see nothing wrong with it. Also, I just want the kid to look like me if its a boy.

But apparently this not a strong enough argument for her, she cant fathom possibly cutting her baby on purpose.....

.... I think Im loosing this argument

[Deadlokd]

Foreskins aren't evil. They don't need to be exorcised. Ask any guy with an uncircumcised penis how it feels when the uncovered head rubs against his clothes. He'll tell you it hurts like fuck so imagine how desensitised a circumcised man must be.

The argument that "I want my boy to look like me" is one of the oddest I have ever come across. How much attention are you going to be paying to your son's penis? And why? It's even worse when the mothers say it, "I want him to look like his father". WTF? If your boy has different hair and eye colour to you are you going to surgically change that too?

Cleanliness. A circumcised penis is cleaner than an uncircumcised one. Puh-lease. Keep your dick clean and you won't have a problem. Boys spend inordinate amounts of time playing with their bits, especially in the bath. They will be cleaned, don't stress it.

As far as I'm concerned genital mutilation is genital mutilation. If it doesn't need to be done, don't do it.

Circumcision is one of the areas that make me see red. Too many people have the fucked up attitude that mutilating babies is okay. Get fucked it is. [/rant]

:guilty:

[Dingfod]

Foreskins aren't evil. They don't need to be exorcised. Ask any guy with an uncircumcised penis how it feels when the uncovered head rubs against his clothes. He'll tell you it hurts like fuck so imagine how desensitised a circumcised man must be. I don't know what the hell you're going on about. I cannot imagine my penis being any more sensitive. If it was, I'd probably have a raging erection constantly. As it is now, a stiff breeze is enough stimulation to get it going.

Then again, I repeat myself despite previously stating I wasn't getting into this argument again. Have at it folks, this isn't the first thread on the subject here.

[Deadlokd]

Foreskins aren't evil. They don't need to be exorcised. Ask any guy with an uncircumcised penis how it feels when the uncovered head rubs against his clothes. He'll tell you it hurts like fuck so imagine how desensitised a circumcised man must be. I don't know what the hell you're going on about. I cannot imagine my penis being any more sensitive. If it was, I'd probably have a raging erection constantly. As it is now, a stiff breeze is enough stimulation to get it going.

Then again, I repeat myself despite previously stating I wasn't getting into this argument again. Have at it folks, this isn't the first thread on the subject here.

Now imagine being able to unsheathe the monster and have a raging hard-on on demand.:D Unfortunately it is very subjective, because we could sit here to comet-come arguing who has the more sensitive penis. BUT.....I am uncut and when the foreskin is pulled back the friction on the head is damn close to unbearable (TMI? Sorry, look away now). So I surmise that the only way to get by with that much friction is to have a severely desensitised penis. Either that or I'm a freak, and I don't think I am.

[Dingfod]

Your penis is a pussy. It needs to toughen up and take it like a man.

[ceptimus]

Why do you think evolution has produced foreskins in animals and humans? If they made the owner more likely to disease or injury, wouldn't evolution have selected them out of existence?

Seems to me that foreskins are there for protection - much the same as eyelids protecting eyes.

I vote against snipping.

[Deadlokd]

And off to the Quote Generator you go.

I now have an image of my penis in Army Fatigues doing five mile runs with full webbing and pack.

[Doctor X]

So this turns you on?

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/uploads/fmj.jpg

Not . . . that there is anything wrong with it. . . .

--J.D.

[Deadlokd]

So this turns you on?

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/uploads/fmj.jpg

Not . . . that there is anything wrong with it. . . .

--J.D.

Er, no. My wife does. And he does look like my mother in law, but she definitely doesn't turn me on.

[Doctor X]

Remember, we are not here to judge you . . .

. . .

. . . we only want you to be happy with whatever lifestyle choices you have made. . . .

--J.D.

P.S. Circumcision is one of those things males just do not remember. It is also one of those things where those who have and have not had it cannot compare unless they get it as an adult--say convert to Judaism or have a girl friend with broken teeth who [RIGHT! STOP THAT!--Ed.].

Anyways, after much wrangling back and forth--with much emotion--there does not seem to be a significant benefit to having it done for medical purposes.

[Watser?]

I guess this is another one of those cultural things. I have never heard of anyone here but Jews or Muslims being circumcised.

[Shelli]

If I were to have a kid, which I most definitely will NOT be, but if I were to and it was a male, I would NOT have him snipped. I just don't see the need. :nuhuh:

[LadyShea]

Fewer boys are being circumcised these days (partially due to Medicaid and most private insurances no longer covering it, partly due to changing social norms), down to about 50/50 nationwide so the whole "he'll be a freak" argument isn't as valid as it was in the past. Even here in the Deep South, where 80% are cut, most of my friends (5 boys under 8) didn't circumcise.

Aside from religious reasons, the only argument for circumcisions is basically "foreskins are icky (to whomever is speaking)". Argument from ick isn't that strong.

All that being said, I personally prefer cut, because that's all I have been exposed to. Had I lived elsewhere where circumcision wasn't the norm I wouldn't care.

Our son was circumcised because that's what his bio parents wanted and they had not yet relinquished their rights. When they asked our opinion I deferred to the people with penises. I intellectually agree that there is no reason at all to cut, but emotionally I had a personal "don't want to deal with an alien foreskin on top of all this other new parent stuff" thing going on in my head. I was relieved to have the decision out of my hands :( And yes, I feel like shit about it too sometimes. It sucks when your intellect and emotions are at odds.

[Bella]

... I think Im loosing this argument
I think I owe you some Doritos.

Then again, I repeat myself despite previously stating I wasn't getting into this argument again. Have at it folks, this isn't the first thread on the subject here.
I did a quick search before posting but I mostly found stuff about the prevention of HIV (and a derailment thanks to someone confusing vasectomy with circumcision and deciding to make a joke about it?). Sorry if this is just re-hashing an old argument.

[Veritas]

This has never occurred to me. Not that I plan on having kids but if I ever had a son, the last thing on my mind would be helping him keep his penis clean by having part of it cut off. I mean - what? I'll help myself keep my hair clean by shaving my head too, by the same logic...

How hard is it to wash your penis anyway? Your son will learn to keep it clean and if he doesn't, well...he'll smell of cockcheese.

It just boggles my mind that anyone would consider circumcision to prevent their son being bullied...how many people are gonna see his penis anyway? And do we really want to tell our kids to change based on the fact they might get the piss taken?

People get bullied for being gay or black. Do we want to tell them to be not gay, or to bleach their skin, too?

[Qingdai]

I think this argument shows up a lot on all sorts of boards. It's usually contentious.
Circumcision costs around $200. I can think of better things to do with that money. Especially when on maternity leave.
It hasn't been any trouble cleaning the boy. As a parent much of baby care is daunting, but the learning curve is steep.

[Veritas]

Sounds like a cultural thing to me. It's simply not an issue in this country.

Guys: just wash your cocks, mmmkay?

[erimir]

I was cleaning it and it went off :soak:

:(

[Freddy]

I think I have heard of circumcised men having their foreskins surgically restored? Yep, I did. Foreskin restoration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration)

[Caligulette]

Well, Caligukid is circumsized, and he seems just fine. I watched it going on, which, no, I do not recommend, but the rabbi made me. He was circumsized, by the way, on a dining room table in a house whose electricity had been knocked out by hurricane Isabel. By flashlight. (Lots of flashlights, really.) He did not seem to mind it- slept through it.

I did not do it because I hated him, or men, or any of the other weird reasons people have suggested to me over the years. Nor because I think forskins are "icky". It's just something Jews do. And, really, unless you are Jewish or Muslim, (I think those are the only ones who require it), there's no real reason to do it. Had I been atheistic when he was born, it might not have happened. Or it might have, as the cultural imperative is still oddly there even sans god. Maybe more so in some ways. Whatever.

Oh, and it is also not comparable to female circumcision, before *that* argument gets started.

[Deadlokd]

Well, Caligukid is circumsized, and he seems just fine. I watched it going on, which, no, I do not recommend, but the rabbi made me. He was circumsized, by the way, on a dining room table in a house whose electricity had been knocked out by hurricane Isabel. By flashlight. (Lots of flashlights, really.) He did not seem to mind it- slept through it.

So you didn't like seeing it, but even without the religious imperative you would do it again. I have to ask why? Why didn't you like seeing it? Why would you do it again? It sounds like you know it's yucky but as long as you don't have to offend your eyes you're okay with the procedure. I could waffle on about all the other religious practices that have been phased out but I don't need to. Circumcision is just one more barbaric religious practice that needs to be exterminated.

I did not do it because I hated him, or men, or any of the other weird reasons people have suggested to me over the years. Nor because I think forskins are "icky". It's just something Jews do. And, really, unless you are Jewish or Muslim, (I think those are the only ones who require it), there's no real reason to do it. Had I been atheistic when he was born, it might not have happened. Or it might have, as the cultural imperative is still oddly there even sans god. Maybe more so in some ways. Whatever.

Oh, and it is also not comparable to female circumcision, before *that* argument gets started.

They are both done for aesthetics or cultural reasons. Type one female genital mutilation is the same as common male genital mutilation. So yes, genital mutilation for shallow reasons is still genital mutilation. I think Ceptimus said it best. Foreskins evolved for a reason.

[Count]

Oh, and it is also not comparable to female circumcision, before *that* argument gets started.

Why not? you can't just make a blanket statement like that without backing it up.

It is completely comparable to type I female genital mutilation. Removing the clitoral hood is totally comparable anatomically to removing the male foreskin.

[Deadlokd]

And it isn't that babies sleep through it, cortisol testing on pre- and post- circumcised babies show that they are undergoing such severe trauma that they go into shock.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/gunnar/

Sorry if this sounds like a totally personal attack Caligulette. It's just that the whole culture surrounding male mutilation shits me. It's statements like yours "he slept right through it", "I did it for religious reasons" and "it's not like FGM at all" just show the level of ignorance surrounding it, not just in the US, but around the world.

[Caligulette]

Well, being as he was in the middle of his nap when it happened, didn't flinch, and did not wake up or otherwise alter his breathing, I disagree with that diagnosis.

I did not like watching because I am generally squeemish. I also don't like watching a splinter being removed.

I was not aware of the degrees of female circ, so thanks for enlightening me on that one. What I have too often seen it compared to is the more extreme version, which is hooey.

And, I did not say I would do it again, but that I might. I doubt it, but as it is nowhere on the horizon, I make no promises in this. It would also not be my decision alone (which Caligukid's circ was). Also- I was rather more Jewey at the time than I am now. It was not taken lightly, as seems to be assumed, it was something which I thought about *a lot* beforehand. Ultimately, it was very important to me that he be "official". I did a lot of studying on the subject of male circumcision, pro and con, and talked to a number of men (pro and con) about it. I did not just blindly leap into it.

Mr Lokd - I knew the subject would be contentious when I entered, and as you have not actually called me a baby mutilatress, I am not taking it personally. I do think that "level of ignorance" is a rather broad statement, when what it seems (to me) is meant is "does not agree with me". I also do not mean that to sound as untoward as it might. Please, though, do not assume ignorance where a lot of thought has actually gone into a decision.

[ChuckF]

I have to :lol: at "baby mutilatress," but I'm trying to do it in a :rainy: kind of way.

I made my comments via PM (because there's only so much the general public needs to know about my dick); I'm kind of surprised that this has so far managed to avoid the usual trainwreck that circumcision threads end in.

[Ensign Steve]

We're only on page 2.

[ChuckF]

I said "so far," dammit!

[Doctor X]

Female "circumcision" primarily involves removing the clitoris.

So, for the analogy that is generating the caterwauling to hold, one would have to remove the head of the penis. This can be avoided by not allowing the Rabbi to drink before the ceremony. . . .

Carry on. . . .

--J.D.

[Naruto]

Female "circumcision" primarily involves removing the clitoris.

So, for the analogy that is generating the caterwauling to hold, one would have to remove the head of the penis. This can be avoided by not allowing the Rabbi to drink before the ceremony. . . .

Carry on. . . .

--J.D.

But you agree that it is comparable to Type I FGM, right?

[Deadlokd]

Female "circumcision" primarily involves removing the clitoris.

So, for the analogy that is generating the caterwauling to hold, one would have to remove the head of the penis. This can be avoided by not allowing the Rabbi to drink before the ceremony. . . .

Carry on. . . .

--J.D.

No, I am afraid I must correct my dear friend the Doctor here. There are several degrees of FGM, your description is around the middle somewhere. It can range from removing the clitoral hood to removing clitoris and labia.

[Count]

Caligulette, going ahead with circumcising a minor does come across as ignorant because any amount of research would indicate that there is no justifiable reason to remove a piece of a newborn baby's anatomy.
Routine Infant Circumcision is not recommended by those in the know, such as the World Health Organisation.

It can only be assumed that the decision has been made ignorantly because a truly informed parent could not go ahead with the procedure. I can and will happily debate all the usual given reasons. Religion, health, hygiene, aesthetics - none of these are suitable reasons to mutilate a child.

[Caligulette]

Assume all you want.

[Count]

Assume all you want.

Last word. :D

[Caligulette]

Well, I guess that means you're right, then. You should be right pleased.

[Doctor X]

No, I am afraid I must correct my dear friend the Doctor here. There are several degrees of FGM, . . .

The castigation of Caligulette resulted from the erroneous comparison between the more severe and male circumcision.

--J.D.

[Naruto]

The castigation of Caligulette resulted from the erroneous comparison between the more severe and male circumcision.

--J.D.

I admit, I only skimmed the thread, but I only saw it compared to Type I...

[Deadlokd]

They are both done for aesthetics or cultural reasons. Type one female genital mutilation is the same as common male genital mutilation. So yes, genital mutilation for shallow reasons is still genital mutilation. I think Ceptimus said it best. Foreskins evolved for a reason.

No, I am afraid I must correct my dear friend the Doctor here. There are several degrees of FGM, . . .

The castigation of Caligulette resulted from the erroneous comparison between the more severe and male circumcision.

--J.D.

That is what I said. I equated it with type 1. Not type three. As for castigation, a sweeping generalisation like "*don't* even compare male and female circumcision, because they aren't the same" is bound to get a bite. Especially when it is not backed up by evidence. Castigation is a strong word for a discussion.

ETA: Any 'castigation' arose because Caligulette professed that she had studied male circumcision and found it to be acceptable. There is a wealth of information proving otherwise, including findings from the WHO. These are not fringe groups. They are not studies by pro-circ doctors who get a few hundred dollars for every boy they cut up. Empirical evidence suggests that circumcision is an unnecessary and barbaric (because it traumatises the child) practice.

None of what was said can even be vaguely described as castigation. It is a discussion.

[Count]

Well, I guess that means you're right, then. You should be right pleased.

If you are implying that I am right that nobody has the right to remove a healthy functioning body part from a newborn child, I am glad we can agree. :yup:

[Caligulette]

It reminds me of Castile soap. Or Castilian Spanish.

Anyhoo- I was thinking type 3, not even knowing there was a type scale of female circ, not having studied it much at all, but having had the circumcision of Caligukid compared - elsewhere - to female circumcision type-not-one. So my comment, given the information I did not have, needed qualification, which it has since had.

I think that should catch us all up.

[Count]

It reminds me of Castile soap. Or Castilian Spanish.

Anyhoo- I was thinking type 3, not even knowing there was a type scale of female circ, not having studied it much at all, but having had the circumcision of Caligukid compared - elsewhere - to female circumcision type-not-one. So my comment, given the information I did not have, needed qualification, which it has since had.

I think that should catch us all up.

No worries. Now that you know that there are three types of female genital mutilation, you can see why it is safe to compare it to male circumcision, yes? So if you had/have a daughter, would you go ahead with type I FGM? If no, why not?

[Julie]

Well I am a baby mutilatress myself...I had my son cir'd when he was born. I had been given no info about it. I was young and ignorant and through that I have caused major harm to my son.....And I didn't even realize it until 23 months later when his sister was born and someone asked me when I was getting her ears pierced and I was appalled at the thought of making such a major decision for my child...putting two tiny holes into her ears! How could I make such a decision about her body?

And then it hit me what I had done to my son. And that is when I finally did some research into cir'cing. If I could go back in time and change anything in my life, that would be a t the top of my list. How arrogant I was to think that I had any right to make such a decision about another persons body.

[Caligulette]

Type one, yes, possibly, with the caveat that I have not yet read enough about it to say for certain.

I am not going to engage in any "would you" questions since, one, I plan no further children, and two, it seems more a case of wanting some kind of argument that I do not care to have.

[Doctor X]

That is what I said. I equated it with type 1. Not type three. As for castigation, a sweeping generalisation like "*don't* even compare male and female circumcision, because they aren't the same" is bound to get a bite.

I am unaware where Caligulette stated she referred to "Type I" rather than the more severe forms that garner the attention.

There is a wealth of information proving otherwise, including findings from the WHO. These are not fringe groups.

Really?

Nevertheless, as one cannot show a benefit one cannot show a clear significant detriment. You are left with fallacious statements:

They are not studies by pro-circ doctors who get a few hundred dollars for every boy they cut up.

Poisoning the Well--those who perform it can get far more for the time spend doing other things, actually. Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated the detriment other than to conjure this hyperbolic ipse dixit:

Empirical evidence suggests that circumcision is an unnecessary and barbaric (because it traumatises the child) practice.

I am unaware of any empirical evidence of "barbaric" or "traumatization" beyond the rhetorical flourishes of the zealot: I suppose you can cite the long history of psychiatric treatment necessary for men who have suffered this "trauma." They are probably lined up with the men and women trying to come to terms with having had their umbilical cord cut and their bottoms spanked. Given that at the time of this Great Torture, neonates are essentially brain stem preparations--and given Caligulette's rather apt counter-example--must have been a most traumatic nap--such hyperbole cannot be sustained by . . . what is that word? Oh yes, "evidence."

None of what was said can even be vaguely described as castigation. It is a discussion.

Your rhetoric and that of the Count demonstrated otherwise.

And now . . . I must drum.

--J.D.

[Deadlokd]

{{{{{Julie}}}}}

It's a fucked up thing that more information isn't given to parents before the decision is made. I'm glad you did research it though, and now know what it really does do to babies.

[Bella]

Sorry to 'derail' but I had to interject: I found this article, written in 1915 (http://www.noharmm.org/CircintheFemale.htm), on the subject of female circumcision. It's an interesting historical read, if nothing else.
It's a fucked up thing that more information isn't given to parents before the decision is made.
I am actually quite happy that my insurance company did not automatically pay for this procedure - it forced me to actually think about it. Truth be told, it wasn't something that even registered on my radar :(. I'm under the assumption that they don't automatically circumcise newborns without parental permission, either - is this correct?

[Deadlokd]

And it isn't that babies sleep through it, cortisol testing on pre- and post- circumcised babies show that they are undergoing such severe trauma that they go into shock.

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/gunnar/

Sorry if this sounds like a totally personal attack Caligulette. It's just that the whole culture surrounding male mutilation shits me. It's statements like yours "he slept right through it", "I did it for religious reasons" and "it's not like FGM at all" just show the level of ignorance surrounding it, not just in the US, but around the world.

That is what I said. I equated it with type 1. Not type three. As for castigation, a sweeping generalisation like "*don't* even compare male and female circumcision, because they aren't the same" is bound to get a bite.

I am unaware where Caligulette stated she referred to "Type I" rather than the more severe forms that garner the attention.

There is a wealth of information proving otherwise, including findings from the WHO. These are not fringe groups.Really?

Nevertheless, as one cannot show a benefit one cannot show a clear significant detriment. You are left with fallacious statements:

They are not studies by pro-circ doctors who get a few hundred dollars for every boy they cut up.Poisoning the Well--those who perform it can get far more for the time spend doing other things, actually. Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated the detriment other than to conjure this hyperbolic ipse dixit:

Empirical evidence suggests that circumcision is an unnecessary and barbaric (because it traumatises the child) practice.I am unaware of any empirical evidence of "barbaric" or "traumatization" beyond the rhetorical flourishes of the zealot: I suppose you can cite the long history of psychiatric treatment necessary for men who have suffered this "trauma." They are probably lined up with the men and women trying to come to terms with having had their umbilical cord cut and their bottoms spanked. Given that at the time of this Great Torture, neonates are essentially brain stem preparations--and given Caligulette's rather apt counter-example--must have been a most traumatic nap--such hyperbole cannot be sustained by . . . what is that word? Oh yes, "evidence."

None of what was said can even be vaguely described as castigation. It is a discussion.Your rhetoric and that of the Count demonstrated otherwise.

And now . . . I must drum.

--J.D.

And once again Doctor X. I must quote one of my own posts to provide you with the evidence you....seek? Could it be that you have not actually read the thread? Do you, in fact, argue from "not readus threadus".

I would say the lack of a body part is pretty detrimental wouldn't you?

I would also point out that the plural of anecdote (Caligulette's story) is not evidence.

[Count]

Well I am a baby mutilatress myself...I had my son cir'd when he was born. I had been given no info about it. I was young and ignorant and through that I have caused major harm to my son.....And I didn't even realize it until 23 months later when his sister was born and someone asked me when I was getting her ears pierced and I was appalled at the thought of making such a major decision for my child...putting two tiny holes into her ears! How could I make such a decision about her body?

And then it hit me what I had done to my son. And that is when I finally did some research into cir'cing. If I could go back in time and change anything in my life, that would be a t the top of my list. How arrogant I was to think that I had any right to make such a decision about another persons body.

Julie, you are sooo not alone with that! I have spoken to many women in the same position as you and I have the utmost empathy for you. But when you know better, you do better
(Maya Angelou). I have made many mistakes as a parent, it's part of the deal. There is stuff that I wish I could take back too. But there is no point beating yourself up about it. As long as you are learning, you can't do any better than that.
Type one, yes, possibly, with the caveat that I have not yet read enough about it to say for certain.

I am not going to engage in any "would you" questions since, one, I plan no further children, and two, it seems more a case of wanting some kind of argument that I do not care to have.No no, not at all. It's not about wanting an argument, it's about wanting to see if you can see a difference between subjecting a girl child to the same procedure as a male child. That's all.



Really?

Nevertheless, as one cannot show a benefit one cannot show a clear significant detriment. You are left with fallacious statements: The fuck?! That logic is...illogical! Genital mutilation is clearly detrimental. The foreskin serves a purpose. It protects the glans from keritinization, chaffing, potential injury and becoming desensitised. It is filled with nerve endings that heighten sexual pleasure. Losing this protection is detrimental.


They are not studies by pro-circ doctors who get a few hundred dollars for every boy they cut up.

Poisoning the Well--those who perform it can get far more for the time spend doing other things, actually. Nevertheless, you have not demonstrated the detriment other than to conjure this hyperbolic ipse dixit:
Could you perhaps back this up?
Empirical evidence suggests that circumcision is an unnecessary and barbaric (because it traumatises the child) practice.

I am unaware of any empirical evidence of "barbaric" or "traumatization" beyond the rhetorical flourishes of the zealot: I suppose you can cite the long history of psychiatric treatment necessary for men who have suffered this "trauma." They are probably lined up with the men and women trying to come to terms with having had their umbilical cord cut and their bottoms spanked. Given that at the time of this Great Torture, neonates are essentially brain stem preparations--and given Caligulette's rather apt counter-example--must have been a most traumatic nap--such hyperbole cannot be sustained by . . . what is that word? Oh yes, "evidence."


Are you attempting to imply that circumcision is not a painful procedure? Does this child look like he is napping? He is suffering extreme pain. Why is this ok? I can assure you that this is the norm, not "napping".

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
None of what was said can even be vaguely described as castigation. It is a discussion.

Your rhetoric and that of the Count demonstrated otherwise.

And now . . . I must drum.

--J.D.



How so?

[Caligulette]

Lack of appendix can be ok. Just saying, really, in case someone else wanted to start bringing it up.

Also- I think my words spoke for what I wanted to say, so am at a loss as to what the frewferaw is all about. To be clear- though we disagree, Deadlokd has a solid grasp of what I said.

Adding: Count- as I said, as this is the first I have heard of the 'types' of fem circ, I am not committing myself to either camp until I do more research. My accepting the word of someone on an internet forum would be the same as Deadlokd or anyone else accepting my experience as typical without further research. Also, as I am not planning and future babies, and it is not an area of extreme interest (circumcision), I have little impetus to do the research, since I knwo there will be pictures I do not want to see.

IF it turned out to be sufficiently comparable, AND I were also religiously compelled, then I might do it. SINCE I do not know, and I am no longer feeling the compunction of religion, I seriously doubt it. Again, though, all this is without research on my part into what type one entails. It is very easy to type in hypotheticals, so please do not take any of this as anything other than hypothetical.

[Deadlokd]

Lack of appendix can be ok. Just saying, really, in case someone else wanted to start bringing it up.

Except that we don't remove the appendix until it has a problem. Shouldn't the foreskin receive the same courtesy as the humble appendix?

Also- I think my words spoke for what I wanted to say, so am at a loss as to what the frewferaw is all about. To be clear- though we disagree, Deadlokd has a solid grasp of what I said.

I know what you are saying, I just can't fathom the logic behind it.

Adding: Count- as I said, as this is the first I have heard of the 'types' of fem circ, I am not committing myself to either camp until I do more research. My accepting the word of someone on an internet forum would be the same as Deadlokd or anyone else accepting my experience as typical without further research. Also, as I am not planning and future babies, and it is not an area of extreme interest (circumcision), I have little impetus to do the research, since I knwo there will be pictures I do not want to see.

IF it turned out to be sufficiently comparable, AND I were also religiously compelled, then I might do it. SINCE I do not know, and I am no longer feeling the compunction of religion, I seriously doubt it. Again, though, all this is without research on my part into what type one entails. It is very easy to type in hypotheticals, so please do not take any of this as anything other than hypothetical.

And again, not fathoming your reasoning here. You might get a daughter circumcised. Would you be willing to do it at the same time? Mother-daughter solidarity perhaps? Hypothetically?

I still maintain that children do not "sleep through it". Their bodies go into shock, and then they pass out. Remember we are dealing with very immature nervous systems here, it doesn't take much to overload them.

[Caligulette]

I feel we have come full circle in this. I know what I saw, what I have seen at a number of circumcisions. You know what you have read and the extreme examples posted to youtube. We are at an impasse.

I appreciate that you have actually read the words, I understand that you don't understand them, and there we are.

[erimir]

My general thought about it is that you shouldn't make such a decision for your child, since there isn't a compelling medical reason to do so. And I think that applies to Jews and Muslims too. Just because you're Jewish or Muslim doesn't give you the right to alter your child's body, imo.

The HIV thing isn't compelling, because as I understand it, it doesn't make a difference when condoms are used. The situation in South Africa, where that study was conducted, is a bit different in that condom usage is lower and the HIV rate is much higher. There is a much stronger reason to go for it there than in the US.
because there's only so much the general public needs to know about my dickLies! :mob:

I We demand to know more about your penis!

[Doctor X]

And once again Doctor X. I must quote one of my own posts to provide you with the evidence you....seek?

Should you actually cite evidence rather than irrelevant suppositions from a scare site, sure.

The neonates do not go into "shock."

Have you measured "cortisol" before, during, and after, say, everything else that happens to a neonate?

Shock is a separate entity. I would recommend reviewing the literature on shock and neonates to discover what it actually is rather than from a hyperbolic uncritical and ultimately incorrect reference. If it was the case as your pseudoscience suggested, the infant mortality rate would have skyrocketed. There would be no Jews left.

I rather felt it kindness not to tear apart that pseudoscience. In fact, I found it hard to type secondary to the laughter.

I would say the lack of a body part is pretty detrimental wouldn't you?

Argmentum ad veritatem obfuscandam for I have not made that arguemnt. Methinks you should concentrate on reading the thread yourself. Nevertheless, people do well without a number of body parts as you have, it seemed, done without a brain [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . right . . . sorry, such as the loss the appendix. And, yes, healthy appendices are removed if a person proves to not have appendicitis--it is not always clear-cut. This is to prevent the belief you have already had it removed it, years later, you are unconscious from shock--as opposed to your make-believed "shock."

I would also point out that the plural of anecdote (Caligulette's story) is not evidence.

Only took one to sink your global belief.

"Shocking" is it not?

--J.D.

[Count]

And once again Doctor X. I must quote one of my own posts to provide you with the evidence you....seek?

Should you actually cite evidence rather than irrelevant suppositions from a scare site, sure.

The neonates do not go into "shock."

Have you measured "cortisol" before, during, and after, say, everything else that happens to a neonate?

Shock is a separate entity. I would recommend reviewing the literature on shock and neonates to discover what it actually is rather than from a hyperbolic uncritical and ultimately incorrect reference. If it was the case as your pseudoscience suggested, the infant mortality rate would have skyrocketed. There would be no Jews left.

I rather felt it kindness not to tear apart that pseudoscience. In fact, I found it hard to type secondary to the laughter.

I would say the lack of a body part is pretty detrimental wouldn't you?

Argmentum ad veritatem obfuscandam for I have not made that arguemnt. Methinks you should concentrate on reading the thread yourself. Nevertheless, people do well without a number of body parts as you have, it seemed, done without a brain [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . right . . . sorry, such as the loss the appendix. And, yes, healthy appendices are removed if a person proves to not have appendicitis--it is not always clear-cut. This is to prevent the belief you have already had it removed it, years later, you are unconscious from shock--as opposed to your make-believed "shock."

I would also point out that the plural of anecdote (Caligulette's story) is not evidence.

Only took one to sink your global belief.

"Shocking" is it not?

--J.D.

:jerkoff:


Isn't it amazing how you can say so much with only one smiley?!

[Deadlokd]

A scare site you say? Scary as in it uses bigger words than you do, or scary as in it presents facts that refute your.....should I call it an argument?

You may be surprised to know that my daughter is part of an Australian wide study on children. Part of the study is stress and it's effect on children. We were all involved in some pretty intensive cortisol testing. So yes, there has been testing on other children. That aside though, are you suggesting that cortisol in infants just peaks for no reason? With no external stimulus? Or are you suggesting that all children react the same to all external stimuli, whether it be their mothers voice or a body part being lopped off without anaesthetic.

I'll tell you what Doctor. Let's hold you down and cut a nerve rich part of your body off and see what your cortisol does.

I must confess that your sentence structure fails at this point:

And, yes, healthy appendices are removed if a person proves to not have appendicitis--it is not always clear-cut. This is to prevent the belief you have already had it removed it, years later, you are unconscious from shock--as opposed to your make-believed "shock."

What are you saying?

[Doctor X]

The fuck?! That logic is...illogical!

Ipse dixit but incorrect.

Genital mutilation is clearly detrimental.

Yet you cite no evidence other than to call it "mutilation."

Shall I identify that fallacy?

Lists a bunch of things that are not actually a problem for those who have been circumcis'd.

Clinical significance, my son, clinical significance. You are committing the same error as those who claimed that retention of the foreskin leads to disease secondary to lack of hygiene. It is, in fact, "harder" to keep clean, but "harder" needs to be defined. Proponents for unquestioned circumcision could not show a significant risk of diseases. In other words . . . it is NOT that much harder to clean! Similarly the claims that a foreskin raises/lowers the risk of HIV. Not significant, and wear a condom, Timmy!

Could you perhaps back this up?

Your absence of any evidence of clinical significance compounded with Death's pseudoscience--"SHOCK!!!"--writes reams.

Again, sauce for the goose son, just as the pro-side was unjustified to conjure up horrible risks, the con-side cannot conjure up horrible sequelli without evidence.

But . . . by all means, where in the DSM-IVR is "post-circumcision trauma?" Where are the scores of "traumatized" men?

Where is the horrible morbidity and mortality rate--excluding that secondary to unsterile technique?

Similar questions were asked of the pro-side: where is the evidence that the morbidity and mortality of being uncircumcised is higher than that of the circumcised? Answer: nowhere.

Play fair.

Are you attempting to imply that circumcision is not a painful procedure?

Again, if you read rather than masturbate you would not commit more argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, for I never made that claim. However, you apparently do not realize that neonates are basically brain stem preparations. Let me help you out: what needs to be functioning to experience pain and, more appropriately, suffering? When you discover that, then ask yourself why it takes months to diagnose hydranencephally.

Posts a video which demonstrates the stereotypical neonatal reaction to any noxious stimuli which includes hunger.

We need to ban birth.

Again, you do not want your kid circumcised? Fine. Do not try to justify it or castigate others who choose to do so based on your bad logic, emotion, and lack of evidence, good intentioned or not.

Disagree with Jewish traditions? Fine! The Jews disagree with yo. Until you can show a significant detriment, they will probably STILL disagree with you.

Take heart though, Jews have been known to change their minds--they substituted child sacrifice for redemption payment of the first-born--pidyôn habbēn--a ritual that persists to this day. So . . . who knows? You might need some evidence though.
Good luck with that; get back to me when you succeed.

How so?

Regarding rhetoric, see above.

Regarding drumming, merely required two Vinnie signature sticks.

--J. "One-Two-Three-FOUR-One-Two-THREE-One-TWO" D.

[Edited for to redact to the Textus Receptus.--Ed.]

[Doctor X]

A scare site you say? Scary as in it just drove me to use the rhetoric I denied using? Scary in that it does not provide the evidence I wanted? Scary in that "shock" is, apparently, too big of a word for me to understand.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

:jerkoff:


Isn't it amazing how you can say so much with only one smiley?!

Yeah, rather summed up the extent of your knowledge and ability to argue rationally.

Here . . .

http://www.nantucketlite.com/img/gift/decorative/hydr-kleenix.jpg

make sure you clean up after yourself if you ever produce anything fertile. It is a mitzvah!

As for rhetoric? Quod erat demonstrandum.

--J.D.

[Count]

Hey dude, I'm a chick :wink:

[Deadlokd]

A scare site you say? Scary as in it just drove me to use the rhetoric I denied using? Scary in that it does not provide the evidence I wanted? Scary in that "shock" is, apparently, too big of a word for me to understand.

--J.D.

:sarclap:

Honestly Doctor X., what is wrong with you? If you are arguing that circumcision is okay, all hunky-dory, then perhaps you need to stick to that. Provide some facts. Latin isn't facts. Sorry. I provided you with a study that showed that cortisol peaked after circumcision. You "refute" this by suggesting that cortisol could jump all over the place in infants, but you provide no evidence for this. This is important.

You appear to have a passing familiarity with debating and discussion. You certainly know the lingo. What you are lacking though are facts, backed up with sources.

My source came from the Institute of Child Development of the University of Minnesota. Your source appears to be your ass.

[Count]

Yet you cite no evidence other than to call it "mutilation."

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that circumcision is detrimental. Ther eis a good list of possible side effects here http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

-Why- take that risk for no good reason?

Shall I identify that fallacy?

Lists a bunch of things that are not actually a problem for those who have been circumcis'd.


A man that had his leg amputated at birth probably doesn't miss it. Should we then amputate his future son's leg too?


Clinical significance, my son, clinical significance. You are committing the same error as those who claimed that retention of the foreskin leads to disease secondary to lack of hygiene. It is, in fact, "harder" to keep clean, but "harder" needs to be defined. Proponents for unquestioned circumcision could not show a significant risk of diseases. In other words . . . it is NOT that much harder to clean! Similarly the claims that a foreskin raises/lowers the risk of HIV. Not significant, and wear a condom, Timmy!Wha'? Dude, you need to lay off the happy t'baccy. I have no idea what you are attempting to get at here.

Could you perhaps back this up?

Your absence of any evidence of clinical significance compounded with Death's pseudoscience--"SHOCK!!!"--writes reams.

See, the thing I have noticed is that if we were to post links etc to back up our claims, you would most likely just attempt to ridicule them. I am familiar with that particularly "debating style" as I have come across it a few times before...


But . . . by all means, where in the DSM-IVR is "post-circumcision trauma?" Where are the scores of "traumatized" men?Do a quick google of "foreskin restoration". Tell me what you come up with...and these men that you will undoubtedly find that do feel violated and ripped off (excuse the pun) by their parent's decision to inflict their chosen genital mutilation upon their unconsenting child are the very small minority that have the ability to rise above the egotistical belief that "there ain't nuthin' wrong with my cock" mentality.
Men find it extremely difficult to acknowledge that their genitals just may be imperfect. This is why we see the perpetuation of the abhorrent practice. It is too hard for men to admit even to themselves that they are missing something.

Where is the horrible morbidity and mortality rate--excluding that secondary to unsterile technique?


Deaths can and do occur. It is rare but certainly not unheard of.


Are you attempting to imply that circumcision is not a painful procedure?

Again, if you read rather than masturbate you would not commit more argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, for I never made that claim.
This is why I asked a question, rather than stated as fact. :wink:

However, you apparently do not realize that neonates are basically brain stem preparations. Let me help you out: what needs to be functioning to experience pain and, more appropriately, suffering? When you discover that, then ask yourself why it takes months to diagnose hydranencephally.

Posts a video which demonstrates the stereotypical neonatal reaction to any noxious stimuli which includes hunger.

Good god! Are you trying to say that a baby would scream like that because of hunger? Do you have kids? I do. I have five of them. I know a pain scream from a hunger scream. Babies are most certainly capable of feeling and discerning pain.

I got bored and deleted the rest of your incoherent rantings. I honestly can't be arsed.

But I will finish with this.

There there little man. It's ok, your wang is nearly perfectly fine. There is no need to be defensive, you are almost perfectly whole!

[Doctor X]

Honestly Doctor X., what is wrong with you?

Your inability to read responsibility and follow a discussion has caused a slight loss of appetite, but nothing a good salad will not cure.

If you are arguing that circumcision is okay, . . .

Case in point: I have not argued that.

When you have evidence--such as all of these neonates in actual shock--I am sure you will provide it. Wonder how much the needle and heel sticks contributed to the cortisol jumps. Nurseries must be full with ventilators what with neonates plunging into "shock" every time they get hungry. . . .

Do get back to me when you do, otherwise you merely waste time.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

My hand is sticky, and you make me cry.

Sorry the evidence makes you cry.

Let me know how you make out with the Rabbis and with finding actual evidence.

Until then, you are merely a childish waste of time.

--J.D.

[Deadlokd]

Sorry, the evidence makes me cry.

I'll let you know how I make out with the Rabbis and with finding actual evidence.

Until then, I am merely a childish waste of time.

--J.D.

True. Every word.

I looked into "shock" and found this. http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/risks/It's a different kind of shock, but it's still shock. That's pretty fucked up, that you risk your kid bleeding out, just so he can look like his daddy.

Neonatal Circumcision Reconsidered (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/rhinehart1/) I do present this for your perusal. Not that I care whether you peruse or not.

I have to know. If you don't care about circumcision, why are you arguing like an ass?

[Doctor X]

True. Every word.

But then you admit:

I looked into "shock" and found this. 404 Not Found (http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/risks/It's) a different kind of shock, . . .

Oh gee whillickers!! It is not shock! So every word you wrote was a Lie then?

. . . .but it's still shock.

No it is not, son.

If you don't care about circumcision, why are you arguing like an ass?

Apparently, being accurate with the evidence and terminology--quick! The neonates are hungry! get the crash cart!!!--is "assinine." Explains your inability to have a rational discussion. Nevertheless, you are arguing like a Cunt and wasting my time.

However, it I feel it my obligation . . . nay duty . . . correct hyperbolic propagandist, no matter what they are spewing.

Noblesse oblige and all. . . .

--J.D.

[Deadlokd]

Nevertheless, you are arguing like a Cunt and wasting my time.

However, it I feel it my obligation . . . nay duty . . . correct hyperbolic propagandist, no matter what they are spewing.

Noblesse oblige and all. . . .

--J.D.

The only Cunt here is the Cunt that inserted himself into a thread that he didn't actually give a shit about and then swan around "teaching" people about arguments from his ass. If you feel like your time is being wasted I invite you to get fucked, like the Cunt you have shown yourself to be. You are a pompous ass, a twat, a blight on intelligent discourse. If you feel like you have some real points to make, rather than half-assed sermons to spout, feel free to rejoin the discussion. Until then Doctor X, J.D., me old mate, get fucked.

ETA: It makes me wonder how much you are actually defending the rights of children in the Paedophile thread, and how much you just like listening to the sound of your own voice. I suspect you don't care about anyone but yourself.

[Count]

My hand is sticky, and you make me cry.

Sorry the evidence makes you cry.

Let me know how you make out with the Rabbis and with finding actual evidence.

Until then, you are merely a childish waste of time.

--J.D.

No no, the waste of time would be the dude with the complete inability to read, debate or post anything rather than an arrogant and transparent attempt at ad hominem attacks.

You are seriously coming across as though you have no argument but argument itself.

[Count]

And, just to be helpful-like, I even ran it through a dodgy online english-latin translator 'cos i thought you might like it better.

Haud haud , attero of vicis would exsisto dude per universa inability ut lego , disputatio vel stipes quisquam quinymo quam an tumidus quod perspicuus rudimentum procul ad hominem tentatio. Vos es serio coming trans ut sententia vos have haud argument tamen argument ipsum.

No really, don't thank me. You are most welcome. :didi:

[Deadlokd]

:rofl:

[Doctor X]

HOWDAREYOUDEMONSTRATEIAMSPEWINGPROPAGANDFROMMYASS!!!

Sorry to make you cry.

Oh look! A neonate is hungry! Get the epinephrine!!!

Quick! A Rabbi! ARREST HIM!!

I am sure if you ever regain continence and find evidence for the devastating effects you claim--like, um, "shock," which is, apparently, not actually "shock" but is "shock" which means it must be bad since it is "shock" though it is not "shock"--or address the rebuttals given to you, I will be informed of this miracle.

--J.D.

[Edited for the Codes . . . the Codes. . . .--Ed.]

[Deadlokd]

EPIC F-L-AIL
--J.D.

:foocl:

[Doctor X]

I am sure the children will be happy masturbating propaganda together.

Hope they do not go into "shock" over it, though.

--J.D.

[Bella]

Wow, I stopped understanding what was going on in this thread a long time ago XD.

[erimir]

People, please just ignore Doctor X. Even when he has a point, he argues as if he's nothing but a troll.

[Adam]

Wow, I stopped understanding what was going on in this thread a long time ago XD.

FAIL! SCIENCE!!1TWELVE!MINUS!!ONE! [I'm ridiculous... -Ed.]

In your ass, a pain.

-JD Emulator (TM and patent pending)

[Naruto]

I am a huge cunt wahhhh

[Constant ad-hominems totally pwnz0r t3h actual arguments!!1-Ed]

[/Doctor X]

[Listener]

Born 1940 in the English midlands I had to look up "Circumcize" in the dictionary as I grew up and it just became one of the "smutty" bits of the Bible.

Eventually the penny dropped that it was "something to do with Jews" and all I knew about jews was that they sent some people into "nudge nudge, wink wink" mode.

It would never have occurred to me in a million years to have anyone Circumcize my sons.

O.K. it's a while since I was that ignorant and I like to think I take people as they come over to me, Jews, Christians (Even Americans Doc) one at a time.

I've read most of this thread and it occurs to me that there are lots of arguments against circumcision, there are lots of arguments against arguments against circumcision but very few arguments for circumcision.

[Count]

Ahhhh! I'm glad you guys explained about Doctor X. As a relative n00b and absent poster, I was wondering if I had missed something. Like, for example, Dr X's point. I think he missed something too. Firing neurons, for starters. :P


Signed,

Cunt
.:
.:
.:
o


Damn, my "o" must have slipped!

[Deadlokd]

....Doctor X....troll.

Wow, I stopped understanding what was going on in this thread a long time ago XD.

FAIL! SCIENCE!!1TWELVE!MINUS!!ONE! [I'm ridiculous... -Ed.]

In your ass, a pain.

-JD Emulator (TM and patent pending)

I am a huge cunt wahhhh

[Constant ad-hominems totally pwnz0r t3h actual arguments!!1-Ed]

[/Doctor X]

Right. Thanks for clearing that up. I've read his posts in the paedophile thread and thought that they were a bit odd, but have never interacted with him directly. I thought it was going on "nicely" until he said I was arguing like a cunt. I thought he was arguing the argument rather than a point, and generally being a pretentious twat.

[Doctor X]

Wow, I stopped understanding what was going on in this thread a long time ago XD.

Zealots like to tilt at windmills, and if they cannot find them, they will build a sand castle.

I've read most of this thread and it occurs to me that there are lots of arguments against circumcision, there are lots of arguments against arguments against circumcision but very few arguments for circumcision.

Because no one has proposed any other than it is a part of some cultures, such as the Jewish culture. The "arguments against the arguments against" are merely corrections of emotionally driven hyperbole. "Sauce for the goose"--propaganda and misinformation is propaganda and misinformation no matter what the ends nor how much the Children smear it in their feces on an internet board.

--J.D.

[Deadlokd]

Do you actually have anything intelligent to contribute? Some kind of stance on the issue perhaps? I'll make it easy for you. You tell me why circumcision is good, and I'll show you a fact that counteracts that. You know, facts, those things your posts in this thread have been bereft of.

[Watser?]

I won't say male circumcision is good or recommend it, but compared to some things people do in the name of their god it seems pretty harmless (compared to say refusing medical care for their kids or refusing to have them vaccinated, not to mention mass murder). I just don't see why anybody would do it for non-religious reasons.

[Mendeh]

One more vote against from me.

I'm not circumcised. I would never have my foreskin cut off. It's very sensitive, it feels great, and it looks great. I like my foreskin. I'm glad I've got it.

But more than that, your son's body does not belong to you. He is not your property, and you do not have the right to cut bits off his body, bits of his genitals for chrissake, bits of his genitals packed with nerve endings, in order to please you, in order to conform to your opinions and beliefs.

Given that circumcision is removing erogenous tissue from his penis, don't you think the decision to circumcise should rest with your son, and your son alone? Let him decide when he's an adult, because it's his cock, not yours.

[Bella]

But more than that, your son's body does not belong to you. He is not your property, and you do not have the right to cut bits off his body, bits of his genitals for chrissake, bits of his genitals packed with nerve endings, in order to please you, in order to conform to your opinions and beliefs.
You know, when you put it that way... I'm surprised there is even an argument.

[Deadlokd]

But more than that, your son's body does not belong to you. He is not your property, and you do not have the right to cut bits off his body, bits of his genitals for chrissake, bits of his genitals packed with nerve endings, in order to please you, in order to conform to your opinions and beliefs.



And that sums it all up.

[Deadlokd]

Ha, jinx Bella.:D

[Doctor X]

So, will you prevent Jews from having it performed?

Not saying you are making that argument, Mendeh, but extend it to its conclusion. By what right do you have to dictate to a population what to do?

Well we do that all of the times, of course. We force parents to obtain medical care, feed their kids, et cetera. However, there are parents who have their tots' ears pierced. "So cute!" Did anyone ask the kid?

So where do you draw the line? There are more practical lines--or maybe large amorphous boarders--where one compares the harm against the paternalism. In the case of circumcision, the virulent antis have failed to show the catastrophic harm they claim--"shock! Shock, I tell you! But it is not actually shock! You're MEAN!"--just as years ago that knee-jerk proponents could not show the catastrophic harm from not doing it.

"Sauce for the goose"--all must have evidence.

Now piercing your tot's ears is, perhaps, vanity. Or maybe the parent finds it legitimately "cute." Are there risks? Sure, but compare it to other things like driving with your tot.

Do we ["We?"--Ed.] stop that? Make it illegal? Perhaps, but by what criteria that does not excuse other intrusions?

Now, back to the Jews and other cultures who undergo the practice. Vanity? Not sure that applies other than "it is this thing we do." The practice is, actually, quite ancient.

By what criteria does one suppress it?

Now, as I suggested earlier, one can modified cherished religious practices; however, I must confess I find child sacrifice just a smidge more egregious than circumcision. There are clear risks not only to the tot but to fellow tots is, say, a child is not vaccinated for "religious" or other reasons. Certainly, withholding of care, et cetera often leads to things like . . . well . . . death. That is certainly a criteria for a bit of paternalism.

Finally [ZZzzZzzzZzzZZZzz--Ed.], if one wishes to suppress the cultural practice, one needs to be honest with the reasons and not making up evidence. Such may be driven by sincere belief, but it does not justify the dishonesty.

--J.D.

[Shelli]

(because there's only so much the general public needs to know about my dick)erm.. Isn't there a bumpersticker at the :ff: store about your dick? :chin:

[Mendeh]

Thanks Bella and Dedlokd!

Hey Doctor X!

I think you raise some really good problems with my view in your post.

So, will you prevent Jews from having it performed?

I'm fine with circumcision as long as the foreskin's owner is an adult who gives consent.

I think it should be illegal to circumcise minors.

It would be an unpopular move, and political suicide for any politician who tried it, so I doubt such a law will be passed for a couple of hundred years. But it seems likely to me that such a law will eventually be passed.



Not saying you are making that argument, Mendeh, but extend it to its conclusion. By what right do you have to dictate to a population what to do?

Oh, no right whatsoever to dictate to a population, or even a single individual, what to do! Nor does anybody. That's rather why I don't believe a mother has the right to dictate to her son how much of his penis he gets to keep.



Well we do that all of the times, of course. We force parents to obtain medical care, feed their kids, et cetera.

And I agree with you absolutely here, that parents have a duty of care over their children.


However, there are parents who have their tots' ears pierced. "So cute!" Did anyone ask the kid?

Well personally, it's the kid's ears, you should leave it to her to decide when she's capable of making the choice.


So where do you draw the line?
Well, I think there's a difference between piercing and circumcision. A piercing is a small hole that will heal up over time, leaving a small scar at most. Circumcision is the permanent removal of part of the penis. You can get back to an unpierced ear. You can't get back your foreskin*.


There are more practical lines--or maybe large amorphous boarders--where one compares the harm against the paternalism.

I don't think it's a question of paternalism so much as individual liberty. A baby is an individual with absolutely no ability to protect his or her interests. I would say that to label a ban on circumcision as creeping paternalism is in fact a failure to see children as individuals.


In the case of circumcision, the virulent antis have failed to show the catastrophic harm they claim--"shock! Shock, I tell you! But it is not actually shock! You're MEAN!"--just as years ago that knee-jerk proponents could not show the catastrophic harm from not doing it.

Oh, I'm not arguing from pain or harm, I'm arguing from ownership. A kid would do just fine without her pinky fingers. That doesn't mean you get to snap them off her when she's born. You do not have the right to needlessly remove bits of your baby because you think it's necessary. It's her body. She has the right to decide what bits of it are necessary to her.


Now piercing your tot's ears is, perhaps, vanity. Or maybe the parent finds it legitimately "cute." Are there risks? Sure, but compare it to other things like driving with your tot.

I'm not arguing from risk, I'm arguing from ownership.


Do we ["We?"--Ed.] stop that? Make it illegal? Perhaps, but by what criteria that does not excuse other intrusions?

Surely by giving every individual the right of self-ownership, you in fact exclude other intrusions on individual liberty.


Now, back to the Jews and other cultures who undergo the practice. Vanity? Not sure that applies other than "it is this thing we do." The practice is, actually, quite ancient.
Argumentum ad antiquitatum, my fellow Latin-lover.



By what criteria does one suppress it?
The right of every individual to self-ownership.


Now, as I suggested earlier, one can modified cherished religious practices; however, I must confess I find child sacrifice just a smidge more egregious than circumcision. There are clear risks not only to the tot but to fellow tots is, say, a child is not vaccinated for "religious" or other reasons. Certainly, withholding of care, et cetera often leads to things like . . . well . . . death. That is certainly a criteria for a bit of paternalism.
Oh, actually killing your child through inaction is cold-blooded murder. That's got to be worse than cutting some of his dick off. But that doesn't make either tolerable.


Finally [ZZzzZzzzZzzZZZzz--Ed.], if one wishes to suppress the cultural practice, one needs to be honest with the reasons and not making up evidence. Such may be driven by sincere belief, but it does not justify the dishonesty.

I totally agree with you. I don't think you need any evidence beyond the self-evident right of the individual to self-ownership of his body.

*Sure, you can stretch tissue on your shaft to cover your glans. But you can't replace all the nerve endings you lost.

[yguy]

...circumcised babies show that they are undergoing such severe trauma that they go into shock.As a circumcised male I cannot help but ask: so what?

[Doctor X]

I'm fine with circumcision as long as the foreskin's owner is an adult who gives consent.

Unfortunately, that is not allowed by Jewish tradition--unless you are converting.

It would be an unpopular move, and political suicide for any politician who tried it, so I doubt such a law will be passed for a couple of hundred years. But it seems likely to me that such a law will eventually be passed.

Last I looked, the practice is about 3,000 years old give or take a few depending on how you date this or that. I do not have much "faith" in that happening given one is not able to show significant harm that would mandate paternalistic interference.

Oh, no right whatsoever to dictate to a population, or even a single individual, what to do! Nor does anybody. That's rather why I don't believe a mother has the right to dictate to her son how much of his penis he gets to keep.

Then who are you to dictate how much choice a parent has in raising his children? See where this leads to?

Well personally, it's the kid's ears, you should leave it to her to decide when she's capable of making the choice.

I would too, but would I want "da guv'ment" or the Eternally Vigilantly Offended to dictate such?

A piercing is a small hole that will heal up over time, leaving a small scar at most. Circumcision is the permanent removal of part of the penis.

Insignificant part, to be honest. People do quite well with and without one, actually, though propagandists make up all sorts of claims to make one way better than the other. Nature, in Her Infinite Wisdom, has ways of dealing with that.

I'm not sure where paternalism fits in here, sorry.

It is "da guv'ment" or someone else stepping in to dictate how you are your child should be cared for, what you need to do, et cetera. It is "amorphous." For example, what right do I have to make you wear a seatbelt? It is your life. Leave aside the "all life is sacred" arguments, there are effects that effect other people that justify "da guv'ment" telling you to wear a seatbelt. That sort of back and forth.

Oh, I'm not arguing from pain or harm, I'm arguing from ownership. A kid would do just fine without her pinky fingers.

WHAT?!! Have you EVER tried to execute a proper double to triple-stroke withOUT your pinkies?!!!!1111!!! [!--Ed.].

More seriously, your pinkies have use. The foreskin . . . well . . . not really. "But! But! But! What about _________?!" You have to show a significant use. Just like it is, technically, easier to keep Mr. Happy clean without a foreskin, it is not exactly a difficult task that justifies removing it.

What you have to show is that the detriment from circumcision is sufficiently significant to mandate a paternalistic intervention.

Now, that does not mean you, or anyone else, cannot lobby, persuade, whathaveyou people to not have it done. However, it does not justify hyperbolic propaganda.

I'm not arguing from risk, I'm arguing from ownership.

It is not a bad point from a theoretical standpoint--forbid all alterations until age-of-majority that are not medically necessary. Granted, those who do it for religious/social reasons will disagree. However, if one wants to take this that far, I would agree with those who feel the Bible causes far more harm to children . . . the CHILDREN!!! . . .than circumcision, ear piercing, or even Barney the Dinosaur.

Do I want the government to take away the Bibles?

There, to quote a pastry, is the rub.

Argumentum ad antiquitatum, my fellow Latin-lover.

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

:D

More seriously, "they" would argue, methinks, for something more than that, however, I have contacts with "the Secular Community" so let me see what their opinion is on the matter rather than make it up for them.

The various religious? "TRADITION!!!"

The right of every individual to self-ownership.

Again, not totally disagreeing with you, but to play Advocatus Diaboli a bit, what about the rights of parents? What if a Jewish kid tells you, "thanks, schmuck, you ruined my life?!"

Oh, actually killing your child through inaction is cold-blooded murder. That's got to be worse than cutting some of his dick off. But that doesn't make either tolerable.

Again, it is rather useless skin.

It is also DANGEROUS!!!!!!111!!1 [!--Ed.]

It is a well-known fact--here, let me squat first . . . ah! There!--that young boys who masturbate--ask Deathlokd [Stop that!--Ed.]--can roll the foreskin back and have it strangle their glans!!

WHY WON'T YOU THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

Well . . . actually, no, it is easily "fixed" and, frankly, the "risk" of that happening is far, far, far too small to justify forcing parents to have their tykes circumcised.

One has to be careful throwing about terms.

I totally agree with you. I don't think you need any evidence beyond the self-evident right of the individual to self-ownership of his body.

May not convince those who have a religious/cultural reason.

*Sure, you can stretch tissue on your shaft to cover your glans. But you can't replace all the nerve endings you lost.

As above, Nature in Her Infinite Wisdom solved that. Why do you think the practice arose in the first place? To expose the glands--usually as a sign to prepare you for . . . "your duty!" A lot of "pseudoscience" on both sides, frankly, since obviously those snipped and unsnipped did just fine throughout the millenia.

We all have far more taxing problems which were cured with the invention of money, alcohol, and viagra. . . .

--J.D.

[Mendeh]

Hey, Doctor X!

On paternalism:

I don't agree that banning infant circumcision would be paternalistic intervention. I think that for parents to decide for their son that he is better off without a foreskin is paternalistic intervention!

"It is paternalistic to force me to wear a seat-belt, because it's my life."
"It is paternalistic to force me to get circumcised, because it's my foreskin."

In the first case, it's the government doing the paternalistic forcing, in the second, it's the parents, and the government would be standing up for the rights of the individual by banning the practice!





Oh, no right whatsoever to dictate to a population, or even a single individual, what to do! Nor does anybody. That's rather why I don't believe a mother has the right to dictate to her son how much of his penis he gets to keep.

Then who are you to dictate how much choice a parent has in raising his children? See where this leads to?

I see where you're coming from. However, I do think that it must be down to an individual to consent to unnecessary surgery. A baby can't show he gives consent, therefore I think it's immoral to perform the operation on him.

Piercings - I'm not that bothered, really. Ear piercings are not permanent - they will heal shut if you remove the piercing. A circumcision is an operation that permanently changes the child's genitals.


I'm not arguing from risk, I'm arguing from ownership.

It is not a bad point from a theoretical standpoint--forbid all alterations until age-of-majority that are not medically necessary. Granted, those who do it for religious/social reasons will disagree. However, if one wants to take this that far, I would agree with those who feel the Bible causes far more harm to children . . . the CHILDREN!!! . . .than circumcision, ear piercing, or even Barney the Dinosaur.

IMO, Barney the Dinosaur is surely the Beast whose number is 666. :D

You can walk away from Christianity any time you like. You can't get your foreskin back.


Argumentum ad antiquitatum, my fellow Latin-lover.

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.
latex sum, gluten es. :yup:


The right of every individual to self-ownership.

Again, not totally disagreeing with you, but to play Advocatus Diaboli a bit, what about the rights of parents? What if a Jewish kid tells you, "thanks, schmuck, you ruined my life?!"
I'm with the libertarians on this one: everyone should be free to live as they wish, as long as they don't impinge on the freedoms of others. That's why a parent doesn't have the right to cut off their son's foreskin. It's not theirs to cut. That Jewish kid could just get circumcised when he's an adult. You really think God's going to cause trouble for him if he's legally not allowed to get cut beforehand? I don't think so.

[Doctor X]

I don't agree that banning infant circumcision would be paternalistic intervention. I think that for parents to decide for their son that he is better off without a foreskin is paternalistic intervention!

Understood . . . but . . . then . . . they are the parents.

In the first case, it's the government doing the paternalistic forcing, in the second, it's the parents, and the government would be standing up for the rights of the individual by banning the practice!

How does the government know what is best for you? The point I was making was that in the case of seatbelt wearing there are significant risks to not only yourself but to others. That gives the "guv'ment" the right/moral obligation to intervene.

I see where you're coming from. However, I do think that it must be down to an individual to consent to unnecessary surgery. A baby can't show he gives consent, therefore I think it's immoral to perform the operation on him.

And I do not totally disagree with that, however, I do not see the difference here:

Piercings - I'm not that bothered, really. Ear piercings are not permanent - they will heal shut if you remove the piercing. A circumcision is an operation that permanently changes the child's genitals.

Less significantly than a piercing changes an ear. See what I mean? It is rather a matter of perspective.

IMO, Barney the Dinosaur is surely the Beast whose number is 666. :D

Would . . . explain a lot . . . :chin:

You can walk away from Christianity any time you like. You can't get your foreskin back.

Judaism, Judaism!

latex sum, gluten es. :yup:

Coitu erg[Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

I'm with the libertarians on this one: everyone should be free to live as they wish, as long as they don't impinge on the freedoms of others. That's why a parent doesn't have the right to cut off their son's foreskin. It's not theirs to cut. That Jewish kid could just get circumcised when he's an adult. You really think God's going to cause trouble for him if he's legally not allowed to get cut beforehand? I don't think so.

I do not either but according to the religion, and many adherents, he does. It would be seen as an attack on a religion. Now, "those of you who so well know the nature of my soul," will know I am not exactly partial to religions; however, I am not partial to others telling people whether or not they should engage in them. IF circumcision was "t3h dangerous" you could make a better case for banning the practice.

FYI: there are "alternatives" to the standard Brit(s) Milah--"brit shalom/brit b'li milah/brit chayim"--though how acceptable they are in the larger Jewish community I do not know.

--J.D.

[erimir]

From what I've heard, the majority of Jewish males in Sweden are not circumcised, and instead doing something else that doesn't involve removing the whole foreskin.

But there aren't that many Jews in Sweden anyway. And it's Sweden. We know how wonky they are.

[ChuckF]

(because there's only so much the general public needs to know about my dick)erm.. Isn't there a bumpersticker at the :ff: store about your dick? :chin:
You stfu! I can't drive down the damn street since those things went on sale :shakeliv:

[Doctor X]

Thought it was just a decal. . . .

I am sure it is a "big" decal, though. . . .

--J.D.

[Watser?]

So, will you prevent Jews from having it performed?

I'm fine with circumcision as long as the foreskin's owner is an adult who gives consent.

I think it should be illegal to circumcise minors.

It would be an unpopular move, and political suicide for any politician who tried it, so I doubt such a law will be passed for a couple of hundred years. But it seems likely to me that such a law will eventually be passed.

There was one politician here who raised the issue, but of course he was not trying to prevent Jews from doing it, he was trying to prevent Muslims from doing it. Of course it was the same extreme-rightist who wanted the Koran banned and is now making a movie to 'tell the truth about Islam'. He forgot about the Jews having circumcisions too though and the whole thing was a non-starter. Sadly, it was not political suicide for him and if there hadn't been any Jews in the country I am not so sure he wouldn't have succeeded.

[Chris Porter]

Seems to me that "the right of self-ownership" is a relatively new concept in human society. It's quite obvious that at least the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious set strongly believes the parents own their children and may do with them pretty much as they like. It may not be spelled out specifically that way in the bible, but mentions of selling one's children, the issue of acceptance of slavery and the like, give very strong indications that this religious set believes self-ownership is a stupid idea. Further, the issue of selling women to their husband is another indication that the "right of self-ownership" is not totally obvious to many societies. Thus, making an argument that one does not "mutilate" one's child because they have the right to make that decision and the parent does not, does not make immediate sense to people who do perceive humans as lacking obvious self-ownership.

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

Not saying it is "right," but as I suggested to another "Good Luck with That" regarding convincing large groups of people brought up in a culture that their culture is "wrong" particularly over what appears to them to be something that only bothers the complainer.

--J.D.

[Mendeh]

Hey Doctor X!

I started a reply to your post, but found I was just repeating my last post. To be honest, I'm not sure how to move my argument on to counter your objections.

I share your concern with governments telling you what's good for you - I don't think it's any of their business. On the other hand, it just seems obvious to me that removing parts of a person's body without their consent is just plain wrong.

It seems to me you're saying that in the first case, the lives saved by mandating seatbelt-wearing outweigh the law's encroachment on individual liberty, whereas in the second the psychological harm caused to parents by forbidding them to circumcise their baby outweighs the baby's right to his foreskin.

I'd tried to avoid a discussion about how valuable a foreskin is by making it into a question of property ownership - it doesn't matter how much you'd like Aunt Dotty's pewter candlestick or how inexpensive it is - it's hers and you don't have the right to take it without her permission.

I do think you may be slightly off your head if you think that putting a hole in an earlobe changes the ear less significantly than entirely removing a foreskin changes the foreskin!


You can walk away from Christianity any time you like. You can't get your foreskin back.

Judaism, Judaism!

Brain fart. I apologise for the stink.

[banning circumcision] would be seen as an attack on a religion. Now, "those of you who so well know the nature of my soul," will know I am not exactly partial to religions; however, I am not partial to others telling people whether or not they should engage in them. IF circumcision was "t3h dangerous" you could make a better case for banning the practice.

I agree that it would be seen that way, and that's why I doubt the law will be changed until a significant majority of Jews and Muslims reach the stance on circumcision that some of the most liberal Jews have already reached (you mention the alternatives to Brit Milah).

I do think there's something rather ugly about being allowed to cut pieces off your child because according to your view of the world, God says you must. Really, what it is, as Chris Porter brings up, is considering the child as the parent's property. I don't think that's a tenable view these days, but it's clearly still implied, if not made explicit, in the view that parents have the right to circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

[Suds]

I've not managed to read the whole thread so I might repeat some points.

I've had the snip and I hate it. Mainly because it was my bastard dad's decision. I still remember being put under for the operation and then waking up after screaming. I was maybe 7 or 8.. Now I see that it was pointless and removes length from the penis.

There was a great episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit about circumcision. Some experts said it was good some said it was pointless. According to the show and other things I've heard, circumcision is a bit of a fad thing. I think it was promoted by that idiot Kellogg in the 19C possibly to stop boys playing with themselves.

There was a good programme about it on BBC Radio4 Beyond Belief. There was a Jew, a Muslim and someone else. The Religio's were basically saying it has to be done because that's what we do. 'It's our religious belief.' 'Lalalalala, I'm not listening.' The other guy was arguing against it. He mentioned the 'children as property' view and that that should be seen as wrong. He made good points, the religio's as usual thought they were right and wonderful and so didn't listen to the poor unbeliever.One thing they did agree with is that girls shouldn't be circumcised. The muslim said that 'Islam' tries to stop the practice, even though some muslims to it to be muslim. It shows they're okay to try and affect cultures but no-one is allowed to influence them.(I guess most cultures are like that).

[Mendeh]

I'm really sorry to hear that, Suds.

I hope you don't mind me asking this: do you think in your case, where you were eight and clearly didn't want the operation, the doctor should have paid attention to your wishes or your fathers, and do you think the law should have protected you?

Edited to add:
Here's a link to all the programs of Beyond Belief (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/beyond_belief/) that you were talking about.

[Bella]

I don't agree that banning infant circumcision would be paternalistic intervention. I think that for parents to decide for their son that he is better off without a foreskin is paternalistic intervention!

Understood . . . but . . . then . . . they are the parents.
That could be extended to mean almost anything though, and that's the danger. One of my employee's best friends has a mother who controls everything the daughter eats. The girl is whip-thin (a dancer and a runner) and in 'healthy' shape, but is completely restricted in her eating to whatever her mother says is acceptable. My employee took her out for ice cream and the girl was shivering in fear at the thought of eating it.

Granted - she was not being starved. She was just being taught that eating without permission was bad.

[Doctor X]

To be honest, I'm not sure how to move my argument on to counter your objections.

You are dazzl'd by my humbly magNIfIcent erudition [Stop that.--Ed.] . . . er . . . probably because we are not that "far off."

On the other hand, it just seems obvious to me that removing parts of a person's body without their consent is just plain wrong.

Depends on what part . . . :D

It seems to me you're saying that in the first case, the lives saved by mandating seatbelt-wearing outweigh the law's encroachment on individual liberty, whereas in the second the psychological harm caused to parents by forbidding them to circumcise their baby outweighs the baby's right to his foreskin.

Eh . . . not quite . . . the right to determine the upbringing that does not constitute a significant risk to the child. Japanese are allowed to raise their children Japanese. Jews as Jews. New Yorkers as slimy Yankee-fan Motherfuc[Get on with it!--Ed.].

Actually the comparison to female genital mutilation is apt in this point: the practice is intended to be mutilating, intended to rob the girl of sexual pleasure, et cetera. It causes clearly more material harm than snipping a foreskin. Even if done "safely," the harm outweighs whatever "cultural rights" the parent has.

That and setting your kid on fire . . . unless he talks with his mouth full of food and does not finish his vegetables. I mean, we need discipline, people!

I'd tried to avoid a discussion about how valuable a foreskin is by making it into a question of property ownership . . .
I do think you may be slightly off your head. . .

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/images/smiles/meananim.gif

. . . if you think that putting a hole in an earlobe changes the ear less significantly than entirely removing a foreskin changes the foreskin!

I do not think it changes it less--I see quite the comparison. In fact, that ugly earing you had put in when you were a Wee Spud . . . it is PUBLIC!! All of the other babies laugh at you! They will not let you join in their . . . their . . . "babie games."

Then one foggy Christmas Eve, your kindergarten teacher comes to say, "we need to recognize that Mendah has an 'alternative lifestyle.' Do we have a copy of Sissy has Two Mommies and a Slave in Leather?"

Then you start wearing sandals. . . .

Whereas, the circumcision is private. No one sees it unless . . . put that AWAY Timmy! I told you it is NOT A TOY!!!!

I agree that it would be seen that way, and that's why I doubt the law will be changed until a significant majority of Jews and Muslims reach the stance on circumcision that some of the most liberal Jews have already reached (you mention the alternatives to Brit Milah).

If "my people" get back to me, I will let you know what the "Secular Humanist Jews" [Pat. Pend.--Ed.] feel about the practice--if they have a "stance" on it.

I do think there's something rather ugly about being allowed to cut pieces off your child because according to your view of the world, God says you must.

No argument there. To be fair, much of the Levitical laws [Here comes the lecture. He will use henotheism and theophoric at least twice, after he confirms the definition.--Ed.] QUIET! much of those laws seem to have originated to create a "difference" between "us" and "them"--much like sports fans. Not to tangent it, but it seems the practice amongst what we would call the Jews was not a maturity rite but a confirmation of being part of a rather artificial ethnic group. [ZZZzzzZZZzzzzZZ--Ed.] I am not sure how many people know how universal the rite was in the early stages when, frankly, the religion way a polyreligion, more of a henotheism rather than a mono[See?--Ed.] Look, consider that "Israel" is an "El" theoph[Right. Enough.--Ed.]

Anyways, one could very well argue that the practice is artificial--to believers, not to critical thinkers. Critical thinking and religion leads to atheism and a denouncement of Celine Dion.

However, changing how a culture thinks takes a long time without government intervention.

Really, what it is, as Chris Porter brings up, is considering the child as the parent's property. I don't think that's a tenable view these days, but it's clearly still implied, if not made explicit, in the view that parents have the right to circumcise their sons for religious reasons.

He brings up an interesting issue I will address next. One can make the argument that a neonate--who is utterly dependent on others for care, has no non-reflexive reactions, is smelly and gross--has less rights in comparison to a parent--when discussing things like care. Big topic, obviously. Anyways, next. . . .

I've had the snip and I hate it. Mainly because it was my bastard dad's decision. I still remember being put under for the operation and then waking up after screaming. I was maybe 7 or 8.. Now I see that it was pointless and removes length from the penis.

You did not mention the reason for your father demanding it, but it strikes me as battery. By the age of 7 to 8, children have enough competence to decide to not have a medically unnecessary practice--which, frankly, circumcision and ear piercings are. Granted, that stage of understanding may not have been in play when you were young.

Even if your father had a "religious reason," your obvious desire against it, your knowledge of it, combined critically with the medical unnecessity ["Unnecessity?"--Ed.] Perfectly cromulent word. Combined critically with the medical unnecessity pushes this to unethical and "if not it should be" illegal.

--J.D.

[Freddy]

I've had the snip and I hate it. Mainly because it was my bastard dad's decision. I still remember being put under for the operation and then waking up after screaming. I was maybe 7 or 8.. Now I see that it was pointless and removes length from the penis.
Like I stated in Post # 24 you can restore a foreskin. For the record I would not have my child circumcised unless it was medically necessary. Having it done for religious reasons is nonsense.

[Deadlokd]

You don't have children do you X?

Chris Porter is a lady, Suds is a man. Suds was mutilated. Not Chris.

[ShottleBop]

There is an interesting reconsideration of circumcision as part of Jewish tradition in an article from the Jewish Spectator availablehere. (http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm)

Conclusion: Those considering circumcision for their child may want to consider the following points:

1. Your child's welfare is the primary consideration.

2. The fact that a father is not aware of any negative effects from circumcision does not necessarily mean there are none or that there will be none for his son.53 Long-term sexual and psychological harm from circumcision has been reported by hundreds of men in a national survey.54

3. Circumcision is irrevocable, while an uncircumcised male still has options. If in doubt, the conservative choice is not to circumcise.

4. Would you circumcise your son if most Jews did not?

5. Attend a circumcision and empathize with the infant. Stand up close so that you can see the procedure. If you feel averse to doing this, what does that tell you?

It is a strength of Judaism that some of the ideas and approaches used to question circumcision are associated with traditional Jewish values. Recognizing and sharing these values can give us the connection to others and to the past that we seek. For some Jews, this connection may well be more meaningful than the connection sought from circumcision, because it is genuinely felt and freely experienced, rather than forced by conformity.

Questioning circumcision is not threatening to Judaism; it is threatening to the defenses surrounding circumcision pain. Honest questioning about circumcision will strengthen Judaism and provide opportunities for deeper communication.

[Chris Porter]

(snip)
I've had the snip and I hate it. Mainly because it was my bastard dad's decision. I still remember being put under for the operation and then waking up after screaming. I was maybe 7 or 8.. Now I see that it was pointless and removes length from the penis.
(snip)

:nelson:

[Doctor X]

You snipped me without permission!!!!

[Some would say he improved your prose.--Ed.]

--J.D.

[Suds]

I'm sorry but you've misunderstood my post a little.
I didn't know I was getting the snip. I was just taken to hospital and later came out sans foreskin. I'm angry now for what happened then. It didn't bother me then. I maybe should get over it and read post 24. I've seen you can stretch it back to length on Penn and Teller. I should do it seriously sometime, see if it works.

[Doctor X]

No problemo, I was not sure. I do not want to pry, but I wonder why he wanted to do it to you when you were so old.

Anyways, I would have a major problem if a religion demanded the procedure after you were, say, old enough to know what is going on--as in . . . like older than an infant. [At this point he pontificates extensively on religious freedoms, the freedom over your body, and, we are not sure, something about the "designated hitter rule."--Ed.]

What I unsuccessfully tried to consider is what if a religion mandated the practice at, say, the age of 5 or above--randomly chosen year for when you are old enough to know what the fuck is happening to you. I think in that case a society that values personal freedom has to step in. I, personally, do not agree with the practice, but I do not like things--such as how you should believe/behave--mandated.

Since I am doing such a bang up job putting my thoughts into words, I will stop.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

And now I just, finally, realized I miss-attributed your post to Chris.

I will just . . . see myself out. . . .

--J.D.

[1Samuel8]

:sarclap:

Honestly Doctor X., what is wrong with you? Why do you think he needs to wear bionic coke-bottle glasses?


Genital mutilation is clearly detrimental. The foreskin serves a purpose. It protects the glans from keritinization, chaffing, potential injury and becoming desensitised. It is filled with nerve endings that heighten sexual pleasure. Losing this protection is detrimental. Wrong! Wrong!
You certainly do not want young boys to go blind!



Oh, and it is also not comparable to female circumcision, before *that* argument gets started. I think the purpose is (or at least was for the religious folk) generally the same: they want to stop kids from masturbating. With regards to the female mutilation, I am sure there is also the desire to control women in every way possible too.



I was cleaning it and it went off :soak:

:(Precisely. A kid with a foreskin has to start cleaning his dick sooner. Ergo, he automatically learns to masturbate younger.



I think it was promoted by that idiot Kellogg in the 19C possibly to stop boys playing with themselves. Whether the old-school religious-folk want to admit it or not, I would bet that the reason they first developed circumcision was to stop masturbation too. The cleanliness argument was just an excuse to hide their prudishness -- that is my guess.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Whether the old-school religious-folk want to admit it or not, I would bet that the reason they first developed circumcision was to stop masturbation too. The cleanliness argument was just an excuse to hide their prudishness -- that is my guess.

I'm happy to have contributed to their epic failure.

[Doctor X]

Whether the old-school religious-folk want to admit it or not, I would bet that the reason they first developed circumcision was to stop masturbation too. The cleanliness argument was just an excuse to hide their prudishness -- that is my guess.

Does not really apply to Jewish tradition.

Sorry, thought you had a serious contribution.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

'm happy to have contributed to their epic failure.

I think you are making too big of a thing about it.

Et cetera. . . .

--J.D.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Whenever possible, though there's been a disappointing decline since I was 18.

[Doctor X]

:chuckle:

--J.D.

[1Samuel8]

Does not really apply to Jewish tradition. My mistake. It says somewhere in the Old Testament that God told them to circumcise their kids. Right, you are!

[Mendeh]

Actually the comparison to female genital mutilation is apt in this point: the practice is intended to be mutilating, intended to rob the girl of sexual pleasure, et cetera. It causes clearly more material harm than snipping a foreskin. Even if done "safely," the harm outweighs whatever "cultural rights" the parent has.
But good girls don't have immodest thoughts, so they don't need their clits anyway. The intention is simply to help your daughter to avoid falling into sin, not to rob the girl of sexual pleasure she shouldn't be having anyway.


"we need to recognize that Mendah has an 'alternative lifestyle.' Do we have a copy of Sissy has Two Mommies and a Slave in Leather?"

How did you know I have that book?

I would be really interested in hearing some secular Jewish points of view on this, thanks Doctor X!

In the meantime, though, I'm interested in your response to Suds. What happens to the foreskin by the age of 7 that makes it valuable enough that permission from the owner must be granted prior to its removal? It's still that same bit of flesh that's less important than an earlobe, after all. And the operation is much less traumatic age 7 - you can use anaesthetic, which you can't on a baby