The Joys Of Genital Mutilation
Of course, the joys of female genital mutilation, if they can be called that, are solely for the barbarian men and brainwashed barbarian women forcing clitoridectomies on little girls. From NPR.org:
"Supporters of female genital mutilation say it dampens a girl's sexuality and protects her honor."..."...She is only left to be a baby-maker," Weil-Curiel says.
For the record, I think penisectomies, also known as circumcisions, are barbaric, too. Parents have no business getting surgery done on their children unless it's a medical necessity. And no, I don't think preventing masturbation, dumbing down a guy's sex drive, or going along with primitive religious practices that have now become routine for all counts as a medical necessity.
Yes, but what of the research that shows circumcisions may prevent HIV? Well, so does wearing a condom. And the studies were done in Africa. As an article (posted on an anti-circ site) noting the problems with the studies said:
The conditions in Africa are very different from those in the developed world. It would be wrong to apply findings from Africa to the developed nations.
Using these studies to argue for male circumcision is like arguing that people should get their heads cut off so they won't get their hair wet when it rains. Okay. Or a person could carry an umbrella.
More arguing against male circumcision here.
NPR link via Kate Coe
Except that male circumcision doesn't actually do any of those things. In fact, it seems mostly harmless. Whereas the female practice does (intentional) permanent irreversible damage.
I'd always thought that male circumcision was purely aesthetic.
brian at January 27, 2008 6:02 AM
Sorry, Brian - the guy who was circumcised at birth may not know what he's missing, but that doesn't mean that he isn't missing anything.
There's a reason the practice broadened in order to try to prevent masturbation - circumcision removes the most sensitive area of the penis..
jenl1625 at January 27, 2008 6:11 AM
I'd always thought that male circumcision was purely aesthetic
Would you support giving little boys chin implants at birth?
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 6:17 AM
What I find interesting is the assertion that those doing the circumcisions are "doing God's will" but if God wanted his creations circumcised wouldn't God just update the model? If Ford wanted to remove a side-view mirror would they keep making the same model and then hire people to break-off the offending mirror or would they make a model without the mirror? Did "God will" automakers to be smarter than God?
Curly Smith at January 27, 2008 6:30 AM
I'm incredibly angry that I was circumcised at birth, but there's not much I can do about it now.
A. Cornwell at January 27, 2008 6:31 AM
Great point, Curly.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 6:31 AM
Bullshit. Circumcision is done to keep your hand from flying off the end if you go too fast.
brian at January 27, 2008 7:18 AM
I know you're joking, but it was seen as a masturbation preventative.
Oddly, people who complain about docking dogs' tails will get their boy babies circumcized.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 7:32 AM
I think your NPR link is slightly malformed. Oddly enough, it needs a little bit trimmed from the end. It looks like it's wearing a hat that it doesn't need.
jerry at January 27, 2008 8:24 AM
Funny. Thanks. Should be fixed now.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 8:32 AM
Ah, that was the Sylvia Poggioli series you were referring to. Her whole series is well worth listening to.
jerry at January 27, 2008 8:48 AM
I highly disagree with your statement that circumcision does not provide medical benefits.
Someone very close to me recently suffered a blood infection that developed from a urinary tract infection leading the doctor to say that in males the small chance of this problem could be greatly reduced by circumcision, and that within the medical community it is seen as beneficial. The only reason it is not widely instituted is because the problems it could prevent are already so rare in males that they do not feel justified to encourage this measure to the degree to which they might.
Etel at January 27, 2008 9:52 AM
Well exactly, its a very small percentage of guys who medically benefit from circumcision. That doesn't justify doing it to every baby boy. We might get appendicitis or tonsilitis, but they don't automatically take those things out when we're born! And if a man chooses to do it for esthetic reasons (no judgement here...I like them either way), then he can make an informed, consented choice.
moreta at January 27, 2008 10:18 AM
I know you're joking, but it was seen as a masturbation preventative.
We eat Kellogg's cereal to prevent girls from masturbating.
Wow, Kellogg was a real nutcase, literally. And the yoghurt enemas! And carbolic acid flushes of the clitoris! (Not to mention sewing up the end of the penis, or the eugenics.)
And yes, he was an M.D.
jerry at January 27, 2008 10:21 AM
My husband is circumcised and is very bitter about it. His reason? "They chopped off part of my dick, and never gave me any say in the matter." Needless to say, had he been given the option, he would have kept himself intact. I have three brothers, none of whom are circumcised, and not one of them has ever had a medical or psychological issue with this. When changing diapers, an uncircumcised penis is not any more difficult to keep clean than a circumcised one (or, for that matter, any more difficult than cleaning female genitals).
My husband and I don't have any kids yet, but if/when we do, we're not going to circumcise; if our sons want themselves snipped badly enough, they can pay a doctor to do it when they are adults. For the record, I can't say I've ever met a man who was so hung up on the idea of "looking like everyone else down there" (a common argument parents make when they put their sons under the knife) that they would willingly pay to get their own foreskin sliced off once they're old enough to remember the proceedings.
And Amy's right about the condom--if you're worried about HIV, there's no excuse for barebacking, cut or uncut.
Eva at January 27, 2008 10:29 AM
My ex was uncircumcised and he hated it. He said he was constantly made fun of as a child and teenager, and he had a total complex about it. Just to add an ancedote.
I'm not for circumcision, but I think comparing FGM to male circumcision is quite a bit of a reach. The actual comparison would probably be chopping off the head entirely and then sewing the hole almost completely shut. Oh, and it would have to be performed with a broken piece of glass or rusty old razor blade in conditions quite different from a relatively sterile hospital.
Yes, circumcision should probably be the choice of the adult male, but it's rather different than FGM.
Christina at January 27, 2008 10:56 AM
> it's rather different than FGM
Yes.
Crid at January 27, 2008 11:04 AM
Etel! Hi...was just asking your mom about you. And yes, there can be medical benefits to circumcision, but you say urinary tract infections are rare (I'm assuming this is correct - on deadline, no time to check, and but I vaguely remember it being the case). UTI's are treatable. And if there's a "small chance" of them, why hack away at a vast populations' genitals. PS There are also cases of the hacking going awry, and damage being caused during the circumcisions.
Christina, both male and female circumcision are unnecessary surgery on an unconsenting person. Therein lies the comparison.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 11:12 AM
Amy,
Thanks for bringing attention to BOTH sides of the genital mutilation issue. I regret having been circumcised, and now that I have come to learn how circumcision became "fashionable" among non-Jewish parents, I am angry as well. I am also deeply ashamed that I allowed my own sons to be circumcised. I hope they won't hold it against me, but I wouldn't blame them.
Jay R at January 27, 2008 11:27 AM
I don't why religion of all things should be used as a justification for circumcision. If the Almighty is so bothered by the presence of a foreskin, shouldn't He have just arranged for men to be born without them, rather than forcing primitives to do surgery?
Patrick at January 27, 2008 11:32 AM
Yes, circumcision should probably be the choice of the adult male, but it's rather different than FGM.
To which I would've said:
...both male and female circumcision are unnecessary surgery on an unconsenting person. Therein lies the comparison.
Exactly correct. We're dealing in ethics, not anatomy. Ethically, each person - not each female - has the right to bodily integrity that includes being free from medically unnecessary surgery imposed by parents. We have a federal law, and most states have their own law, against FGM that specifically lists and prohibits the exact same reasons parents use to cut their sons. Gender is the only basis of distinction in the Western world, and that's permitted based on tradition and medical excuses, as well as religious "freedom".
As for the specific harm, there are four types of FGM according to the WHO. Most are worse than male genital cutting, and unfortunately those are the most frequent. But Type I without excision is undeniably less severe than any male circumcision. Wherever Type I occurs, we still properly denounce it as a barbaric violation because we understand that the female is violated. We don't care about why it was done nor do we require an identifiable long-term harm to deem it wrong.
So, yes, there is a difference in harm caused, but it is a matter of degree, not kind.
To use a different example, should we allow assault because murder is worse?
Also, obviously the intact male who is unhappy is in a significantly better position than the circumcised male who is unhappy. The former still has his choice.
Tony at January 27, 2008 11:41 AM
>> male and female circumcision
>> are unnecessary surgery on
>> an unconsenting person...
> Exactly correct. We're dealing
> in ethics, not anatomy.
Sometimes ethics is anatomy. This gets back to the thing a few weeks ago, where you can say anything you want if you preface your comment: "In a sense, ...(etc.)"
Context is always, always where the action is. For a male baby to obliviously undergo the procedure called "circumcision" in a clean, modern hospital at the direction of his parents is a minor matter, almost like grooming. He can't consent to which side you part his hair either, but who cares? There are trivial health benefits (no risk of stenosis or whatnot), but even then, it's like, whatever. You should be much more concerned about whether parents teach their boys to read.
To compare this to clitoridectomy, and all the poverty and illness and violence and insanity implied by that procedure, is just not proportionate.
Sometimes both things are called circumcision, but it just ain't the same.
Crid at January 27, 2008 12:16 PM
He can't consent to which side you part his hair either, but who cares?
He can choose to part it whichever way he likes when he's of age, or even grow it into a 'fro.
Foreskin replacement is a bit dicier.
The issue here is simply this: unnecessary surgery forced on children.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 12:39 PM
I never said we should allow it. I said it's different, and I found the comparison a bit offensive. If you'd like to continue in that vein, wouldn't you be offended if the loss of your loved one was held up next to an assault and given the same weight? The loss experienced in most female "circumcision" is, in my eyes, incomparable to the male version. A man comparing his experience to it sounds completely whiny, and frankly, it turns my stomach.
I get where you were going, Amy. Consent was the issue and I agree with the point.
Christina at January 27, 2008 12:39 PM
If you'd like to continue in that vein, wouldn't you be offended if the loss of your loved one was held up next to an assault and given the same weight?
I'm offended by Valentine's day. If somebody I care about ends up dead, I'm not going to be running around the Internet looking for reasons to be offended.
Again, the point: Unnecessary surgery forced upon children.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 12:41 PM
Yes, circumcision should probably be the choice of the adult male, but it's rather different than FGM.
Not disputing that in the least, nor did I mean to imply that was the case. However, that doesn't mean male circumcision, no matter how common, is necessary or of no consequence. I think Tony said it best: "Ethically, each person - not each female - has the right to bodily integrity that includes being free from medically unnecessary surgery imposed by parents."
Also, as has been mentioned, it's the permanent aspect of the procedure--the uncircumcised man can always go get the chop when he's of age if it really bothers him that much to have a foreskin. Not so much the other way around. And the comparison to grooming is rather moot, as circumcision lasts a lifetime. An adult man shouldn't have to happily accept the penis his parents "chose" for him before he was old enough to know what his penis was.
Eva at January 27, 2008 12:53 PM
Well put, Eva (and Tony).
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 12:57 PM
Crid,
I disagree that male circumcision is a minor matter. But if I momentarily concede that it's minor, it's also a "matter". You're focusing on the wrong word. Again, we're speaking degrees of difference from FGM, not a difference in kind. Light cutting and extreme cutting are both still cutting.
There are trivial potential health benefits. But there are also inherent surgical risks that are not eliminated just because it's performed in a clean, modern hospital. All boys experience some harm, even if it's just the loss of nerves and scarring. But some boys lose more than that, up to and including death. We do not impose any other surgery without medical need precisely because the inherent risks, however minor, outweigh the absence of need. Without medical need, surgery is an elective decision based on purely subjective criteria, with only the patient is competent to decide. When he or she isn't competent to decide, assuming he or she would object is the only reasonable stance.
To compare this to which side parents part their son's hair is absurd. Removing some of his hair follicles is the accurate comparison. Would we permit that? He'd have a reduced chance of catching lice, and he'll probably experience some form of balding eventually, anyway. No harm, no foul, right?
Again, I haven't compared the harm as proportionate. But harm exists in both cases. You're willing to permit harm based solely on gender because your opinion is that it's minor for males. You also conveniently use only the extremes on each side that make your case appear reasonable. Not all cases of FGM involve clitoridectomy. We still don't permit those. Not all cases of MGM involve minor, routine outcomes. We brush those aside as a statistical "oops", ignoring that there's an equal human being who must deal with that damage for the rest of his life.
More to the point that ethics is not anatomy, I don't consider the harm done to me from circumcision to be minor. My body, my opinion. That's all that counts. Obviously yours doesn't count about my body, but neither should my parents' opinion have counted. Or the doctor who circumcised me. Unless he was able to indicate specifically why I needed surgery at that point, his opinion beyond that was irrelevant. Cutting without need on a person who doesn't consent is assault.
Specifically, sure, in the crude manner indicated early in this comment thread, my circumcised genitals work. But there is the unavoidable scar. I consider it hideously ugly. That scar is also uneven because my doctor was either indifferent or incapable of cutting symmetrically*. My frenulum is gone, too, despite that being the penile structure most densely packed with nerves. Also, the foreskin tissue stolen served a biological function that is permanently denied.
Yes, I suppose I'm glad that my circumcision was minor relative to what most females (and some males) experience. But it was still a violation. The act of cutting the healthy genitals of a non-consenting person is all that matters. How, where, who, and why it's done are entirely extraneous to the violation present in every instance of that forced act.
* This is very common since infant circumcision requires a guess as to how much skin to leave or remove. Not that any improvement in these issues through today's circumcision devices changes the ethical equation.
Tony at January 27, 2008 1:08 PM
Well, I think I can speak to both sides of this issue. Mr. Happy lost his knit cap when I was 26 years old. That sucked, I needed to have it done and it was recommended by a urologist. I have very dry skin and when dry skin streches, it cracks and splits. That causes real problems with infections and cleanliness and had a very negative impact on my sex life. It required a Lot of maintainence and I hated it. I tried everything but the cleaner you try to be, the drier skin you get and that's even worse. I also didn't like being uncircumcised as a child because I was one of the few who wasn't and that was a stigma. But it did cause me much medical grief until the trim job. I actually went under to have it done, I remember coming out of surgery and telling the doc, "Hey, I said a little off the sides, not the top!" But when you get it done at that age, you have to keep from getting aroused for a while. My god, do you have any idea how hard it is when you don't want it to be. I had to avert my eyes from so many women, I actually locked myself up in my room for over a week, but then I'd see some beautiful woman on tv. I had to stop watching Three's Company for a couple weeks till it healed up.
I'm glad I had it done, wished I'd done it sooner and would definitely have it done to a son. It doesn't really make a difference in size or sensitivity, that's a myth. Most of the women I knew, preferred circumcised guys. I actually had a couple tell me that before I had it done but that wasn't enough to run them off screaming. I never met a woman that had that much of a problem with it.
As far as FGM, pure barbarism. It all falls into line with the Arab and Islamic hatred of women. A lot of people don't realize this, but the Arab and Islamic cultures are very much like the ancient greeks, "women for children, boys and young men for pleasure." In Afghanistan, when British troops went into the local towns, they we're swamped with all kinds of old men trying to get them into bed. Most older men in that society have a young boy, usually around 14 or 15, which they have 'hired' as a driver or an aide who is essentially their sex toy. They actually kinda 'buy' these boys from their parents. They are common and a statues symbol. You see them everywhere. But homosexuality, "Doesn't exist". They turn the blindest of eyes to it, As the idiot leader of Iran proved in his speech at Columbia. It is an extremely male orientated, female hating culture. This is why they mutilate the women. They don't want women with a heightened sexuality, frankly, because they don't want to do it. Sick. Just for the record, I don't think there's anything wrong with homosexuality as long as it is between two consenting adults. Forcing it on children is whats wrong.
I have a very close friend here who has a son who is a real handsome kid. He's 15 and looks like that Leif Garrett when he was a teen, big eyelashes, tanned surfer, shoulder length curly hair blond hair, I mean he looks fairly girlish. His father wants to take him to Tanzania, a very muslim country, to surf for a couple of weeks. I am trying to convince her not to let him do it because that kid would be in serious danger of kidnap and rape in a country like that. Those old muslim pervs would see that kid and go absolutely batshit! His father won't hear any of it. He's a pothead who thinks the whole world is like California.
Bikerken at January 27, 2008 2:59 PM
Everyone likes to compare the most brutal forms of FGM to the most civilized forms of MGM in order to prove that they're not the same.
It is worse to remove a girls labia in a ditch with a dirty blade than to remove a boy's foreskin with surgical tools in a New York hospital. That doesn't make the latter OK.
It is worse to remove a boy's foreskin in a ditch and slice open the ventral side of his penis with a dirty blade than to remove a girl's clitoral hood with surgical tools in an Indonesian hospital(routine medical procedure). That doesn't make the latter OK.
I thank God every day that my parents had respect for my most basic human right to physical integrity. Furthermore I'd much rather be unhappy with an intact penis which I can change than unhappy with a mutilated penis which I'd be stuck with. For the record I'm very happy with my penis and wouldn't change a thing. My parents considered the surgery since it was almost universal when I was born. I'm thankful that todays children are being born into a 50/50 world and hopeful that that ratio gets closer to sane.
Go to a foreskin restoration website and read the testimonials. It's very sad.
GreenwichConnecticut at January 27, 2008 3:30 PM
BAH HAH HAH! At those who balk at equating male and female genital mutilation.
I keep reading the same beck and call to "quit comparing male and female circumcision."
It sounds more like an egotistic "don't steal our spotlight!!!"
Here. Let's take a look at some.
"I'm not for circumcision, but I think comparing FGM to male circumcision is quite a bit of a reach. The actual comparison would probably be chopping off the head entirely and then sewing the hole almost completely shut.
"Yes, circumcision should probably be the choice of the adult male, but it's rather different than FGM."
"For a male baby to obliviously undergo the procedure called "circumcision" in a clean, modern hospital at the direction of his parents is a minor matter,..."
"I never said we should allow it. I said it's different,..."
"The loss experienced in most female "circumcision" is, in my eyes, incomparable to the male version."
incomparable? HAH!!!
My dears. Exactly HOW many of you have been present for a male circumcision? Let alone a FEMALE one? Can you actually SIT there and tell me I can't make a comparison YOU don't even have the capacity, experience, objectivity to do so yourselves?
Unless you are Jewish, a nurse, or a quasi-concerned parent, most people haven't seen a MALE circumcision, much LESS a female comparison.
Most people simply buy into the slogan "Female circumcision is NOTHING like male circumcision" and don't give it too much thought. That's because you've been brainwashed to make a big deal out of women having their genitals cut, while men are supposed to be big boys and handle it.
The sexes might be different, and perhaps even the long term consequences, but still, the principle of taking a healthy individual and forcefully cutting into his or her genitals is EXACTLY the same.
Let's take a look at the reasons behind asserting this fictitious comparison. WHY do people minimize male circumcision? Here's the first question: do you happen to be AMERICAN or Jewish? Says it all. America is a country that has been practicing infant male circumcision for over a century or so now, and unlike other countries that started out adopting the practice, it's the only one that still has the majority of its males circumcised at birth. Jews have been practicing this for millenia already. These people have an incentive, an axe-to-grind, to want to minimize the damage that male circumcision does.
HOW is male circumcision minimized? Ignorance. People that minimize male circumcision compare it to the worst case scenario of female circumcision possible; infibulation. Actually, there are 4 variations, the least invasive one being a mere pin-prick on the hood of the clitoris, and/or the clitoris itself. In America , ALL female genital cutting or piercing is illegal.
http://circumstitions.com/FGM-defined.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
People that defend male circumcision grasp at every string and straw. Let's look at the "medical benefits."
Are children born sick? How are they a medical patient in need of the "cure" of circumcision? Just think how many other parts of the baby should be removed at birth to "prevent problems." Tonsils. Appendix. Toes.
Yes toes. The spaces between them can harbor bacteria that cause them to SMELL. My god, the smell. And athletes foot? A big problem. Furthermore, toe-nails offer the perfect conditions that harbor more fungus. What's more, they can become ingrown and cause the need for medical surgery later on.
Sound Familiar?
But of course, we always hear of that one case where a friend of a friend's daughter's son had that problem where he couldn't retract his foreskin, and he had to be circumcised anyway.
Ever hear of "inperforate hymen?" A rare condition where a girl's hymen is completely closed, and a doctor has to physically make a hole so that she could menstruate? Better make a hole and put a stint in every little girl so that this never happens!!!
VERY few conditions require the actual amputation of the foreskin. Even phimosis can be taken care of without its removal. Only people that want to justify infant male circumcision at birth advocate the radical procedure, so that they can say, "See? If only he would have been circumcised at birth..."
Let's look at some more blindly accepted comparisons between male and female circumcision:
"[Female circumcision] is performed with a broken piece of glass or rusty old razor blade in conditions quite different from a relatively sterile hospital."
Oh? Surely it would be more justifiable if it were done with sterile utensils, in a sterile hospital and by a trained professional? At birth?
And hear oh perfectly SURE the speaker is that this NEVER happens to boys.
CAUTION: The following link is graphic...
http://noharmm.org/CAafrican.htm
Someone said: "I never said we should allow it. I said it's different, and I found the comparison a bit offensive."
And yet another: "The loss experienced in most female "circumcision" is, in my eyes, incomparable to the male version. A man comparing his experience to it sounds completely whiny, and frankly, it turns my stomach."
Talk about offensive. You know what I find offensive? The assertion that a man's sexuality is less important than a woman's sexuality. A woman? Oh no. Too fragile. (I'm a woman, hear me roar!) A man? Oh, he can take it.
"You have a dick, right? It works, right? Quit complaining. There's women all over the world that will NEVER have an orgasm. You don't have that limitation."
How can this person be sure? It's true that women that have been infibulated can lose the ability to have an orgasm. But that's infibulation, the rarest form of female genital mutilation. Again, comparing circumcision to the worst possible scenario. Women that only get the clitoral hood and/or the labia removed, and this happens, follow the link on indonesia above, do not lose this ability.
And then... "You have a dick, right? It works, right?" ?
That's the same as me saying that even an infibulated woman can churn out babies. How offensive is THAT.
"A man comparing his experience to it sounds completely whiny, and frankly, it turns my stomach."
You know what sounds "whiny?" A drama queen being the pot calling the kettle black. The same people call men that decry their loss as "whiny" turn around and whine about something they have never experienced before. Why is it it's only OK for WOMEN to be victims?
You know what turns my stomach? Having the same people that decry female genital mutilation turn around and advocate male genital mutilation.
Genital mutilation is one and the same.
Let it be known.
Circumcision of infants is forced cosmetic surgery. (The same merit as a tattoo, piercing or rhinoplasty.)
The foreskin is not a genetic anomaly analogous to a tag tail or 6th finger. Nor is it a congenital deformity. The foreskin is a normal, healthy piece of tissue found in all newborn males at birth. The foreskin is not "extra skin," but standard equipment.
There not being any medical indication present, infant circumcision is the forced amputation of normal, healthy tissue. It is deliberate pain and injury inflicted on the genitals of a healthy individual male.
It is by definition, Genital Mutilation. There is no FGM or MGM. There is only GM.
That there are other, more severe forms of genital mutilation is irrelevant.
The principle of taking a non-concenting individual, forcing him/her down and cutting up their genitals to conform to a social norm is one and the same.
VERY few people can actually make a comparison between FGM and MGM. (To me, they are both just GM.) Unless you are one of those few people, I encourage you to research. I have created two visual comparisons. Be warned, the second is a bit more graphic than the first:
Visual Comparison I
Visual Comparison II
I have also written a couple of blogs on it:
Don't You DARE Compare!!!.
"Female Genital Mutilation is Worse!"
Is rape ever justified because murder is worse? The flaw in this reasoning should be painfully obvious.
In closing, many people argue that FGM is worse because its sole purpose is to subjugate a woman and to dull her sexuality.
Let's take a brief look at history, and let us realize that male circumcision in this country (I am American) began specifically FOR THOSE REASONS.
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement. " -- Dr. John Harvey Kellogg
http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/10/graham.htm
And a recent study shows us that circumcision does just that:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/sorrells_2007.pdf
I'd like to see an actual study that shows the degree of desensitation and/or loss of orgazm in a female before people can make that claim. IS there one? I'd like to know.
Male and female circumcision NOT comparable?
Please.
Joe in CA at January 27, 2008 3:34 PM
Is rape ever justified because murder is worse? The flaw in this reasoning should be painfully obvious.
Joe in CA at January 27, 2008 3:39 PM
Joe, put down the bag of pork rinds and calm down. We are just giving opinions here, nobody is going to come and whack your wee wee.
Bikerken at January 27, 2008 4:10 PM
Joe in CA: Perhaps I haven't read the comments carefully enough; however, I don't recall seeing it being made as a justification, but rather they they are in fact different. Reverse your thought a second... "Is murder ever justified because of rape?" I think that makes for a more interesting discussion.
With respect to male circumcision, while it is true one can have this done later in life if they choose, it is my understanding that it is safer, far less painful and generally easier to recover from when performed on an infant. Those factors need to be considered as well.
Parents get to make a lot of tough decisions that can greatly effect the future of their children. Circumcision is just one. Breast feeding .vs. bottle feeding is another. Caring for your own children vs. a nanny or daycare is yet another. We can make excuses for each of them and the child ultimately gets to live with them without having a say.
Such is life.
mishigas at January 27, 2008 4:18 PM
Joe in CA writes
Joe, I try and respect the opinions of others and often remind myself of what Aristotle once said -- "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Two things you said specifically bothered me, and I must say it makes it difficult for me to respect any of your argument.
1. Can't one be American and Jewish?
2. What pushed me over the edge was your remark "These people have an incentive...." at which point the racism in your comment outweighed any good arguments you brought forth.
I personally see male circumcision and FGM as being different. As one begins pulling back the layers (pun not intended), they become more and more alike. Of course, as you remove the specifics from either of them, eventually you can compare it to almost anything.
mishigas at January 27, 2008 4:34 PM
The murder vs. rape comparison was made to show how ridiculous it is to say that male circumcision is OK because female circumcision is "worse."
Notice how "parental choice" only serves to camouflage circumcision in infant BOYS; a parent CAN'T decide to circumcise his or her daughter.
But then, of course, advocates of male circumcision are quick to muster up a list of potential "medical benefits," in an attetmpt to blur the matter; but "parental choice" and "potential medical benefits" are quite "different" things now, aren't they. ;-)
Joe in CA at January 27, 2008 4:40 PM
1. Can't one be American and Jewish?
It is possible. However, Jewish people are more likely to have witnessed a circumcision because the bris is a more open ritual where people attend and actually get to see what happens, as opposed to the secular circumcision, which usually takes place in a sound-proofed room where no-one but the doctor and nurse are present. As a result of this reality, as I say, only Jewish people who have witnessed a bris, or parents with enough concern to be present at their child's circumcision ever know what a circumcision entails. The rest of the American population doesn't even have a clue, yet most accept the statement that "female circumcision is worse" as self-evident, having never witnessed ANY of these rituals. My question stands: HOW can people make such a comparison? CAN they even make this comparison? How many people have actually witnessed a male circumcision, let alone a female one?
2. What pushed me over the edge was your remark "These people have an incentive...." at which point the racism in your comment outweighed any good arguments you brought forth.
Please spare me the race card. I mention the fact that only Jews and Americans make it a custom to circumcise their children, and all of a sudden this is all about race. You DO know that there are Jewish groups calling to end the practice of infant circumcision, right?
I personally see male circumcision and FGM as being different. As one begins pulling back the layers (pun not intended), they become more and more alike. Of course, as you remove the specifics from either of them, eventually you can compare it to almost anything.
And I ask YOU. Do you automatically take the statement that FGM and MGM are "different" at face-value? May I ask, HAVE you seen either of these? CAN you actually make this statement because are able to make this comparison? There really is no need to "pull back any layers" here. Like I say. Unless you are a pro-circumcisionist with an axe to grind, it really is plain to see that taking an individual and forcefully cutting his or her genitals is exactly the same. Advocating the genital mutilation of one sex, but condemning the genital mutilation of another is pure double-think. How one can take the exact same principle and say "it's worse" for one sex is beyond me...
Joe in CA at January 27, 2008 4:59 PM
Reminder: this is a forum for discussion, not monologues.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 5:01 PM
> He can choose to part it
> whichever way he likes
> when he's of age
I like 'em busty,* and thanks for asking, But after almost five decades on this planet, I've never actually heard a man say "I'd have married her, but her rack was too small." I've certainly never heard a woman say "He was good with kids, and he had an 822 Experian score and a good future as a finance executive, but I need a guy with a foreskin."
Parents make all kinds of decisions about what their kids lives will be like. A lid on the wanker is the least of it.
---
* Or otherwise gorgeous.
Crid at January 27, 2008 5:19 PM
What you all seem to be forgetting is that male circumcision isn't just performed on perfectly cared for babies in hospitals. Are you honestly naive enough to believe that in Africa and Asia, all little boys are swaddled up to the breast of a loving nurse, numbed up to the eyeballs while a doctor cleanly and expertly trims away a little skin? No, it's as barbaric and bloody and dangerous as the way female circumcision is performed. Even in the US anaesthetic isn't always used and when it is it is rarely enough because the amount that would be needed could easily prove fatal.
Let's look at pain too. It's actually probably more painful for it to be done to a baby than a man. For the first few years of any boy's life, his foreskin is attached to the glans by a membrane similar to what attaches your nail to your finger. They have to force metal probes underneath the foreskin and rip it away from the glans (fancy that done to your fingernail with just numbing agents or a little nerve block?). He then has to wear a nappy while urinating over the healing wound for however long it may take. A man who makes the choice gets to go to sleep and wake up after it's done and can be nice and careful whenver it stings.
Also, only in extreme forms of FGM is the ability to orgasm removed completely. For one thing, the clitoris is not the only way to orgasm but secondly, often only a piece the size of a grain of rice is removed or only the hood. It's still disgusting and barbaric but people don't seem to really understand much more than the hype about it. It is very often performed in nice sanitary conditions, that makes it no better so why should it make the male form better?
attismum at January 27, 2008 5:52 PM
Who exactly is advocating? You lose credibility when you take people's statements and make them into something else that suits your purpose. Calling someone a drama queen also undermines your argument.
And yes, I think it's whining when you bitch about lack of sensation (Really? Do you get off? Does it feel good? Can you function well and often?) and your "violation" when women are having their genitals hacked away and sewn shut expressly so they can get no pleasure, because they are viewed as broodmares whose sole purpose in life is to breed.
Compare away. Sorry, I missed the part where anyone told you not to. I also missed the part where anyone asserted that female sexuality is more important than male sexuality. Hmmmm. I do seem to be missing a lot of what you're ranting about entirely.
I do, however, recall saying to that to me, they're incomparable. You say that the version of FGM that causes women to lose the ability to orgasm is rare. How rare? It can't be more rare than the male version. Oh, wait. There actually isn't a male version whose very purpose is to make sexual sensation impossible.
You missed the part where I agree with the PRINCIPLE, which you are so rabidly salivating over. Yes, unnecessary surgery, proven to be minimally beneficial, on non-consenting infants is stupid and needs to be seriously examined and perhaps banned if you can drum up the support. Without minimizing that statement, is there enough support for it? How many men are actually out there that hate their circumcisions? Seriously, not to be snotty. I'd like to know.
What I said, what I intended to express, is that comparing a procedure which is intended to preserve health, however misguidedly, which doesn't impair function or pleasure (yes, arguably, but come on), with the intent, execution and result of FGM is pissing into the wind.
A more productive stance might be advocating against both, and supporting healthy sexual freedom for all rather than the way you're going about it, which really seems to say, "Yes, yes, sucks for you, but what about MEEEEEEE?!"
Christina at January 27, 2008 5:58 PM
Christina, both male and female circumcision are unnecessary surgery on an unconsenting person. Therein lies the comparison.
It doesn't mean that it is a legitimate or valid comparison.
I haven't ever regretted being circumcised or having had my son done either. The hype and hysteria that some people have generated over circumcision is just nonsense.
Men don't walk around with latent anger from a procedure they had when they were just days old.
Jack at January 27, 2008 6:05 PM
Parents have no business getting surgery done on their children unless it's a medical necessity.
Amy, do you think state governments should pass laws against male circumcision? Also, have you ever met a man who complained about having been circumcised as a child?
Jamie B. at January 27, 2008 6:07 PM
I'd wager that the majority of men who look down at their dick and say "I wish you looked different" have deep-seated psychological issues.
I could see complaining about this if, for instance, it caused sexual dysfunction, as female "circumcision" is intended to.
And that's all the difference in the world. Amy's straw-man about lack of consent for surgery is largely irrelevant, because minors and infants don't get a say anyhow. If a 7 year old gets tonsilitis, they don't get to say "I don't want my tonsils out". If mom and dad say they go, they go - and no amount of whining and crying is going to change it.
What matters here is intent. Prior to today, I'd never heard anyone argue that the purpose of circumcision was to combat the evil of masturbation. I have no idea where that started. I'd always read that it was done to make dicks look bigger, but I suspect that's a lie too.
The vast majority of "purity" laws handed down from the ancient Jews had to do with hygiene before anyone knew anything about germs. I suspect that urinary tract infections in males were common, and by snipping the foreskin they eliminated the problem without significantly impairing the function of the johnson.
Is circumcision strictly necessary? Not since the advent of hygiene. But then again avoiding pork and shellfish isn't really a health issue either.
I see it this way - if your life is so fucking good that you can whine about how you don't feel complete, and you've got the time to advocate on behalf of the yet-to-be born to not have their little schmeckels snipped, you're doing better than me.
Quite frankly, you could redirect that energy towards any number of other things that will have a much greater immediate impact - like ending the Arab and African tribal rituals designed to cripple girls and strip them of any possibility of a normal human existence, for one.
brian at January 27, 2008 6:16 PM
"have you ever met a man who complained about having been circumcised as a child?"
Actually, I've spoken to very many and read statements from a great many more. There are literally thousands of members of sites like NORM, all men who are deeply angry that this was done to them. There are many devices on the market, bought by thousands of men, which stretch the remaining foreskin so that it can cover the glans like it was meant to. The men who use them keep using them because the results are almost immediate and incredible. Huge increase in sensation (there are hundres of testimonies available and I have a friend who's doing it now and can't believe the increase in sensation and pleasure).
"do you think state governments should pass laws against male circumcision?"
Several countries do have laws against the way it's performed in the US. It is considered barbaric by many countries in Europe. The US is simply extremely behind the times.
attismum at January 27, 2008 6:18 PM
Of course Joe in CA's passionate advocacy lends credence to a pet theory of mine - Americans are becoming more like the Chinese - obsessed with their cocks.
I mean, we've got ads for any number of pills to make dicks bigger, make them work better, work longer, etc. Fully one third of all e-mail traffic is dedicated to getting gullible men to buy accessories for their cocks.
What ever happened to being happy with what the Lord saw fit to give you?
brian at January 27, 2008 6:20 PM
attis - I'd argue that anyone claiming greater pleasure from that is experiencing it all in their minds.
Unless some of the other posts above were full of it and there's no nerve damage during circumcision. Because stretching skin is not going to regrow those nerves.
brian at January 27, 2008 6:21 PM
"Amy's straw-man about lack of consent for surgery is largely irrelevant, because minors and infants don't get a say anyhow."
They don't get a say in medically needed surgery. Circumcision isn't anything more than cosmetic. And yes, look into the history of it, it's main purpose was to prevent masturbation because it reduces sensitivity and pleasure and the pain caused by the procedure was meant to make you psychologically less inclined to touch your penis.
In fact, it was also advocated and performed on girls in the US for the exact same reason. Female circumcision became unfashionable again and was eventually outlawed, unlike the male counterpart. Luckily for the rest of the western world's boys, they all cottoned onto the fact that it had no medical benefits and is unecessarily cruel.
attismum at January 27, 2008 6:23 PM
"What ever happened to being happy with what the Lord saw fit to give you?"
He saw fit to give you a foreskin.
"attis - I'd argue that anyone claiming greater pleasure from that is experiencing it all in their minds.
Unless some of the other posts above were full of it and there's no nerve damage during circumcision. Because stretching skin is not going to regrow those nerves."
Depending on the man an average of 10-20,000 nerves are removed when the foreskin is removed. The frenuluum is removed (one of the most erogenous parts of the penis). The glans is left uncovered and dries and hardens, reducing the sensitivity just as any exposed soft nerve structure would. Stretching the foreskin covers the glans back up allowing the hard, unnatural, dry skin to slough of leaving the sexually pleasurable soft and sensitive skin exposed only during sex. The scarline, which is all you have left of your foreskin, is teased forward and begins to cover the entire shaft so that sensation if felt to that degree along the entire length instead of just at the scar. The now loose skin, moves back and forward over the glans during masturbation and sex, creating extra stimulation for both partners and eliminating the need for artificial lubrication.
attismum at January 27, 2008 6:30 PM
I suspect that attismum and Joe in CA are just kidding. I find it hard to believe that there are men out there who are grieving over the foreskins they never knew.
Do you think somewhere out there on the world wide web there are men mourning the loss of their umbilical cords?
Jamie B. at January 27, 2008 6:39 PM
Attis -
Are you seriously saying that someone is going to remember the pain of a circumcision that happened when they were only a few days old?
You do realize that infants don't actually achieve self-awareness until about 5 months of age, right?
I'd like some kind of documentation that points to circumcision being specified as a masturbatory deterrent. I just can't find a way to believe that. It's easier to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
brian at January 27, 2008 6:39 PM
Jack-
Yeah, that was my point. That I don't think it's a legitimate or valid comparison.
Christina at January 27, 2008 6:48 PM
Ok, I never said that infants remembered pain. I said
"And yes, look into the history of it, it's main purpose was to prevent masturbation because it reduces sensitivity and pleasure and the pain caused by the procedure was meant to make you psychologically less inclined to touch your penis." It was performed on children of all ages and on adults with mental problems. I didn't ever say anything close to *infants remember pain*.
US site for men who are unhappy (one of many)
http://www.norm.org/
UK site for men who are unhappy they were circumcised without consent
http://www.norm-uk.org/index.html
List of support groups and restoration sites
http://www.norm-uk.org/links.html
Doctors against circumcision
http://www.icgi.org/
History of circ in the west (the masturbation quotes from John Harvey Kellogg)
http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html
attismum at January 27, 2008 6:53 PM
Joe isn't kidding. Anybody whose post length rivals that of a certain work by Tolstoy isn't kidding.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 6:56 PM
But then again avoiding pork and shellfish isn't really a health issue either.
Actually, it may be. Behavioral ecologist Marlene Zuk presented at the Human Behavior And Evolution Society Conference at Penn on how we coevolved with parasites and get rid of them at our peril. She talked about how Crohn's disease is more common in Jews than non-Jews. Zuk mentioned that a researcher named JV Weinstock found remission in, I believe, 75% of the patients tested using a solution of pig whipworm in Gatorade.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 7:06 PM
Amy - you misparsed. Perhaps I could have been clearer.
All available evidence points to the Jewish laws forbidding pork being because people were too stupid to realize that eating spoiled pork (which had to be trekked over land with no refrigeration) was killing them. The elders (the rare non-stupids) simply told them "God said don't eat pork", and they stopped.
Now that we have refrigeration and hygiene, pork can be safely transported. Avoiding pork is no longer done for health reasons. It's done simply because "it's always been like that".
brian at January 27, 2008 7:09 PM
Some of these comparisons seem invalid. The umbilical cord serves no purpose outside the womb, and dries up and falls off on its own; it is not surgically removed. Infected tonsils, if left untreated, can lead to much more serious health issues. The optional removal of a healthy foreskin is not logically comparable to either of these.
And, as long as we're on the subject of increased risks of infection, I can't help but think a newborn infant whose immune system is not fully developed stands a much higher chance of his freshly cut penis becoming infected in a dirty diaper than a penis left to its own devices over a lifetime.
As far as the masturbation-related history goes, if you Google "circumcision as masturbation deterrent," you'll find any number of links tp sites that discuss it. Whether you consider any of those sites to be neutral on the subject is a personal call, but in any case, according to the Mayo Clinic, "The American Academy of Pediatrics says the benefits (of circumcision) aren't strong enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns." In the majority of cases, from a medical standpoint, it's not necessary on males or females, regardless of the method used. As far as the religious rite aspect of it is concerned, I don't think that the action becomes justified just because there's a spiritual tradition of it. I don't think I'm alone in the opinion that the go-ahead from the church makes slicing someone's skin off an A-OK practice.
Eva at January 27, 2008 7:14 PM
"I haven't ever regretted being circumcised or having had my son done either. The hype and hysteria that some people have generated over circumcision is just nonsense."
Consider this. Women in Africa have obviously gotten over their mutilations enough to want to pass it on to the next generation. They all "get over it" and wonder what's OUR problem for "creating hype and hysteria." Maybe WE'RE wrong?
"Men don't walk around with latent anger from a procedure they had when they were just days old."
Oh? Really? Want to bet?
Amy, do you think state governments should pass laws against male circumcision?
I surely think so; why is there a law against female circumcision? Isn't that sexist? Not to mention "disrespectful" of people who's culture circumcises women? Or is the cloak of cultural relativism only extended to Jewish families?
Also, have you ever met a man who complained about having been circumcised as a child?
I could post links to many groups. However, one, they'd take up more text on this post, and two, I'm not so sure you would visit them.
"I'd wager that the majority of men who look down at their dick and say "I wish you looked different" have deep-seated psychological issues."
Maybe women who have lost their breasts due to cancer have "psychological issues" for wanting their breasts back... Maybe the women in Africa who were forcebly circumcised should just "get over it" and live their lives.
I could see complaining about this if, for instance, it caused sexual dysfunction, as female "circumcision" is intended to.
It's possible to trace the origins of circumcision in the United States. Indeed, circumcision was "intended" to do just that. An intentional sexual numbing to reduce masturbation.
"If a 7 year old gets tonsilitis, they don't get to say "I don't want my tonsils out"."
Would you mind enlightening me as to how having a foreskin is comparable to having tonsilitis? You DO know that tonsilitis doesn't always indicate a tonsilectomy right?
Prior to today, I'd never heard anyone argue that the purpose of circumcision was to combat the evil of masturbation."
It just shows how in-the-dark this nation is about a procedure that happens over 3,000 times a day. Thank goodness there are blogs like these! :-D
"The vast majority of "purity" laws handed down from the ancient Jews had to do with hygiene before anyone knew anything about germs."
Really? I thought circumcision was this magical "covenant" first before any hygiene laws were written. (You don't read the Bible very much, do you...)
"I see it this way - if your life is so fucking good that you can whine about how you don't feel complete, and you've got the time to advocate on behalf of the yet-to-be born to not have their little schmeckels snipped, you're doing better than me."
It should be the responsibility of those bigger and stronger to protect the weaker and defenseless. Don't you think? ;-)
Quite frankly, you could redirect that energy towards any number of other things that will have a much greater immediate impact - like ending the Arab and African tribal rituals designed to cripple girls and strip them of any possibility of a normal human existence, for one."
I think this issue is important enough to give attention to, if not AS important. Sorry if this bothers you...
"I find it hard to believe that there are men out there who are grieving over the foreskins they never knew."
That's really too bad. It's really no different than women mourning the loss of their labia or clitoris. It's the same principle; someone forcefully cut off something that is YOURS.
"Do you think somewhere out there on the world wide web there are men mourning the loss of their umbilical cords?
You're comparing a normal, healthy, permanent piece of tissue to the umbilical cord, which eventually shrivels up and falls off on its own.
The foreskin of a newborn has to be forcebly pried away from the glans of the penis, clamped shut to cut off circulation, cut length-wise to be stuffed through another clamp to have it cut off. The foreskin is not anymore comparable to the umbilical cord anymore than eyelids, lips and labia are; it's normal healthy tissue.
Yes, I realize that many men in America could care less about having been circumcised. But could they really "care either way?" If this is the case, why the stark defense of something they could "care less about one way or the other?" If circumcision is really that "trivial," then there should be no problem with the idea of elliminating it.
No one is trying to send anyone to jail here. I don't think you can blame parents for agreeing with what doctors advised was "best for the child" in the past. But we now live in the information age, where people realize it's not that much of an indispensable procedure. It's unnecessary pain and trauma on a perfectly healthy baby, not to mention forcefully amputating healthy tissue from non-concenting individuals is a violation of human rights.
Doctors no longer have business performing circumcisions, much less accede to parents' wishes to have it done. Reaping profit for a non-medical procedure on a non-concenting individual is called "medical fraud," and doctors are guilty of reaping profit at the expense of defenseless and unwitting patients.
Joe it CA at January 27, 2008 7:43 PM
@Bikerken
As far as FGM, pure barbarism. It all falls into line with the Arab and Islamic hatred of women.
FGM is neither an Arab nor an Islamic custom. It is an African custom, practiced most widely on the Horn of Africa and along the Nile. To a lesser degree it is also found south of the Sahara.
In Saudi Arabia, it is practiced mainly by foreign workers from region where it's common, and unlike Sudan or Somalia, it's not practiced openly.
In Egypt, it predates Islam by at least eight centuries, the oldest mummy yet found that was subjected to it dates from 186BC. Where it's practiced, it's practiced independent of religion.
Islam has mostly just gone along with local practice. In Egypt, it is generally considered a good Islamic thing to do, while the Shiites condemn it as un-Islamic.
Theodor at January 27, 2008 7:44 PM
Joe - you've got issues that no amount of therapy is ever going to fix.
Comparing circumcision to mastectomy? Please. There is no way in hell any child is going to have memories of seeing a penis with a foreskin attached. Period. A woman who has undergone the trauma associated with losing a breast? Not even in the same universe, my friend. To have a part of your body removed from you, a piece that is immediately visible, a piece that has been with you and you CAN remember it -- a piece of your body that has betrayed you and tried to kill you.
How you can compare that to circumcision is beyond me.
If you don't agree with it, then don't get your kids circumcised. It's really a terribly simple thing to do. Wasting even a single hour of your life agonizing over this terrible wrong you've been subjected to just seems kinda childish.
See, there's gotta be perspective here. And in the pantheon of all evils, circumcision is way the hell down on the list. I'd even put FGM down there a ways. After all, what good is stopping the barbaric practice of FGM when you tolerate nations that allow women to be killed for showing too much ankle.
Priorities. How about fighting against things that are causing large numbers of people to die prematurely instead of something that causes them to take a little longer to get off.
I guess it's awfully hard for me to get all riled up over something that makes sex less than optimally pleasurable for you when the first thing you choose to compare it to makes sex unbearable for women. Your rights to not be subjected to an "unnecessary procedure" notwithstanding.
brian at January 27, 2008 8:54 PM
> someone forcefully cut off
> something that is YOURS
My mother used to trim my finger- and toe-nails without consent.
My rage boils; there can be no forgiveness!
Crid at January 27, 2008 9:05 PM
Well, again, I'll tell you I had it done when I was 26, and as far as it being a deterrent to masturbation, well, for a few weeks anyway.
Theo, thanks for the history lesson, doesn't change my feeling that it is barbaric. Also, it falls right in with a score of shitty practices muslims have with women.
Joe, I'm sensing something Fruedian in your long postings. I used to be a fairly long poster on this site, now I think I'm getting post envy.
Bikerken at January 27, 2008 9:18 PM
After removing all the huge HTML breaks in Joe's last comments novel above -- the second one I've had to do that to tonight, and the second time I've warned him not to do it again -- I told him that I will ban him if he posts a vast document like this again. This is a discussion forum, not a stage for a monologue. And I'm still working, and the last thing I need to do is go through people's diatribes circumcizing out the newbie HTML. Grrr.
Amy Alkon at January 27, 2008 9:56 PM
Brian, I'm not comparing a mastectomy to circumcision, just the feeling of loss from losing something that belongs to you. Perhaps a foreskin and a breast are worlds apart, but one's body is one's body, and men have the right to mourn the loss of part of it as well as women do. I'm sure mastectomizing or circumcising girls when they're babies and they can't remember makes doing it to them all the better. You can't miss what you've never had, right? ;-)
"If you don't agree with it, then don't get your kids circumcised." Kind of like, if you don't agree with female circumcision, don't get your daughters circumcised? Right.
"Wasting even a single hour of your life agonizing over this terrible wrong you've been subjected to just seems kinda childish." ~Sorry... Why don't you worry about better things instead of worrying about me?
"Priorities." Genital mutilation is one and the same. One sex is not more important than the other. I hope people don't forget about equality...
"My mother used to trim my finger- and toe-nails without consent." ~ I have to trim my foreskin every 2 days. It gets SO long...
Bikerken, that circumcision prevents masturbation has long been disproven. That's why it prevents AIDS now. ;-) I've no qualm with circumcision if it's actually needed, or if it's chosen by men old enough to make this decision.
Alright everyone, I realize my posts are pretty long, but I've pretty much made my case and I'm just reading more of the same, so this will be my last post. Everyone has something that bothers them to the very core, and for me, it happens to be taking a defenseless newborn who has just come into this world, tying him down and deliberately wounding him in his most sensitive, most intimate organs. I'm no Christian or Jew, but I do believe in "Do unto others...," and, I wouldn't want anyone to forcefully tie me down and forcefully cut off part of any of me. Sorry Amy, sorry everyone. ~Peace
Joe in CA at January 27, 2008 10:35 PM
Willie, Willie filled with gore
Nailed the baby to the floor
He stomped the eyeballs to make them pop
and Mother cried, now William stop!
Bikerken at January 27, 2008 10:47 PM
> deliberately wounding him
> in his most sensitive, most
> intimate organs.
Don't be a drama queen. It's not a "wounding", it's a minor hygienic procedure. A child too young to track his mother with his own eyes ought not be imagined to have prissy "sensitivities"'; an organism that screams to high heaven at the slightest pang of hunger ought not be credited for "intimacy."
Crid at January 27, 2008 10:59 PM
It seems we are quibbling over Joe's right to be just as much a victim as a woman is, and an altogether obsession over something that actually doesn't interfere with his life at all.
If he can't see that a procedure that makes a minimal difference in sensitivity is not the same as severe forms of FGM, or now mastectomies, we've obviously got bigger fish to fry.
Will someone please just get him a foreskin?
Christina at January 28, 2008 12:13 AM
Christina I like you
Crid at January 28, 2008 12:25 AM
Brian -
Several Sci-bloggers (scienceblogs.com) wrote about a study that came out a few months ago, that concluded the foreskin being removed in circumcision is indeed, the most sensitive part of the penis (apologies, but my 'puter crashed between now and then, so I don't have the links handy). While I tend to take more of a; "it was done to me, everything still works, don't really care what I'm missing" attitude, I sure as hell haven't approved of it for either of my sons.
That said, if there was a elevated risk of problems that would require it be done to them later in life (such as Bikerken with the dry skin issues, which could easily be passed along) then it would have been done in infancy. Infants have far less sensitivity to pain, especially in the groin. My adoptive dad wasn't circumcised until he had a nasty infection when he was twelve. It turns out this is the single most memorable experience of his childhood, it was so incredibly painful and difficult to manage (he was laid up for almost a week and had to wear very loose, lightweight clothes for several weeks after that). Given the choice between being circumcised as an infant or as an adult, I would much rather it be done in infancy.
On the whole, it makes it harder to get AIDS front, right there with ya Amy, it is much safer to use adequate precautions. (but then, I am one of those nuts that actually carries condoms with them, in case I get an opportunity to give them away)
DuWayne at January 28, 2008 12:39 AM
i saw a baby boy get circumcised once. they put his feet in holders to hold them out of the way, and that's when he started crying. they did their circumcision business and unstrapped his feet, and the baby went immediately back to sleep. it was the restraining part that bothered him, because babies don't like to have their legs pulled away from their bodies. don't know why. the doctor then put a little bandage on it which could come off in 24 hours and that was it. the baby slept the rest of the day.
there have been studies, however, that show that if the doctor didn't use any kind of anesthetic while circumcising the boy, and most don't, those children end up with lower pain tolerances than the boys who did get anesthetic. just an interesting point there.
i have no real solid opinion on it whatsoever. i am a girl. i have no sons. i do have two brothers though, one circumcised and the other not, and neither one of them care one way or the other about it.
kt at January 28, 2008 12:48 AM
from what I understand, its not going to work if westerners just keep shouting about how wrong it is without empowering the women who are affected and letting them do what they need to do about it. The Dinah Project is a great resource on these issues:
http://dinahproject.com/articles_view.asp?category=096_
bridget at January 28, 2008 6:19 AM
I'm surprised that it is legal for parents or guardians to authorize cosmetic surgery on the minors in their care. Would a surgeon be permitted to remove a child's ears, or slit their noses, if the parents were into that sort of thing? If it is not permitted, is there a specific exception made for genital cosmetic surgery? In that case, the law needs changed. A few surgeons (or parents) sued by the grown-up children would bring this to a quick stop. Adults could still get it done if they wanted. Heck, they could even use their own piece of broken glass to make it authentic.
I'd hate to hear that genital cosmetic surgery was allowed on purely religious grounds. I'd really hate that. Who can tells us what the law says?
Norman at January 28, 2008 6:32 AM
mmm... I think circs on males shouldn't be compared at all to the mutilations done to women. It's inherently a different thing. For the record I lost that fight with my ex-wife. She wouldn't allow anything to be done to her baby-boy because of some 'barbaric tradition'. He has had several infections and so forth, because it's harder to keep everything clean, but I don't know how much that matters in the long run, ut's just extra work to be done. What happens once he starts looking for a mate? Whole different story... A friend who isn't cut has mentioned knowing a few women turned off by the extra skin. :shrug: It's kinda unmeasurable if that is an issue. I'm sure there are a lot of anecdotes either way on what is preferred.
The question for argument is does it CAUSE harm? I think the sensitivity issue may be a cipher, because pleasure is a complex issue. What gets most people I think is that, the decision has to be made so early, and it's kinda irrevocable. You could have it done as an adult, but it's insanely painful and difficult to heal then. As a baby, there is not that much of a downside.
Because there is such little downside when they are babies, I don't think it's worth arguing aesthetics, babarity, and such. You should see how many times a baby gets poked with sharp needles when they are young. There are things we do to the young that may actually BE detrimental, like giving too many antibiotics for ear infections. Why don't we look at those? Well, sure, we can't see them, and the only religious imperative is following the dictates of science.
If you do the circ for religious reasons, you have to explain what it means to the kid eventually. If not, then don't bother. It isn't that big a deal. The religious reasons were never about making yourself feel good anyway, that was made up later. This was purely identification. Just make sure you teach the kid well how to clean if you don't have the circ done. They don't learn that on their own, and generally they won't do it unless you nag them all the time. Once they hit puberty, you would hope they start taking care, but you have to remember: they are GUYS. They don't take care as you might wish.
In my opinion the ease of cleaning and care, is worth it, all on it's own, if all the tiny little arguments are weighed.
The reason I havn't mentioned the female circ is because I think it's wrong all the time everytime, and serves no positive purpose to anyone. If we need to outlaw circs to both genders in order to take the female version away, that would be acceptable. The thing is, where this is practiced, isn't a place where indignation and abhorrence will have any effect. The practices aren't equivalent, and I think it's a bad idea to think of them so. The female version stands on it's own as abuse. I think it would be more powerful to think of it that way, and easier to justify legally.
From what I have read, female mutilation is NOT primarily a religious tradition [as it predates most current religions], but a cultural one, and it applies to a much smaller group of people.
SwissArmyD at January 28, 2008 6:47 AM
Bikerken:
Infants get erections during the healing time after circumcision. But they can just not watch "Three's Company" for a few weeks?
Christina:
As I wrote earlier, I hate my circumcision. When the topic comes up, many of my male friends have expressed that they would rather be intact. It is not uncommon. And the overwhelming majority of intact adult males neither need nor choose circumcision.
I get that you agree in principle. That's helpful, but the problem is asking whether there's enough support to legally prohibit circumcision. Individual rights must not be open to majority approval. In that case, it's asking for little more than mob rule. When a majority of Americans thought slavery was acceptable, slavery was still fundamentally wrong. Opinion polls were irrelevant to the underlying principle.
Brian:
By your logic (i.e. he won't remember it), any healthy body part removed from a child can be defensible. He won't remember seeing his left arm attached, so removing it is won't cause him any issues. Sure he'll see others with a left arm and will understand how it might've affected his life, but really, who is he to question his parents?
My example is extreme, but that's the strain of thought you're suggesting. Ignoring principles permits such abuse. It's the same as saying that circumcision is wrong if parents do it to prevent masturbation but the same act is acceptable if parents do it with "noble" intentions. Why does the act itself get lost? That's relativism.
Also, please understand that not all cases of FGM "make sex unbearable for women". Most do, yet we correctly refuse to permit parents to subject their daughters to any cutting, even a symbolic pinprick of blood that leaves no lasting damage. We get riled up over their right to not be subjected to an unnecessary procedure. (No mocking quotes are appropriate around unnecessary procedure because it is an unnecessary procedure.)
Tony at January 28, 2008 8:42 AM
What I find most interesting here is how those of us advocating against forced genital cutting have no problem with adults choosing it for themselves, nor do we need to convince men who were circumcised as children being indifferent or happy about it that they should believe differently about their genitals. Those who advocate for genital cutting (or at least parental choice) remind those of us who are unhappy that we're actually dealing with psychological issues because we're upset about what you deem a trivial, irrelevant action.
I accept that the desirability of elective cosmetic surgery is subjective; that's why I oppose it. But you demand that I understand that its desirability is objectively identifiable, which is a fill-in for your subjective tastes and preferences as the only valid tastes and preferences. I'm entitled to my opinion, as long as it's yours. Or more precisely, I'm entitled to my opinion as long as it's my parents' opinion. If I disagree about my body, I'm wrong. That isn't a sane stance.
It's also not Constitutional.
Tony at January 28, 2008 8:51 AM
I did a paper on gender identity in College and there were several stories of botched circumcisions being surgically turned into girls as infants. These children often grew up with severe issues and eventually transitioned back to their original gender. (There were similar stories of hermaphrodites who were assigned one gender or the other depending on which form of genitalia was most prominent.)
These children were often forced to have many surgeries and had many health complications as a result of their forced gender transition. (Not to mention the mental issues involved with being transgendered due to something your parents did. )I think it was a really interesting example of how unnecessary surgeries done to young children cause serious health and mental issues as children and adults.
Also, I am surprised to hear the assertion that circumcision reduced masturbation, my understanding from a friend of mine who was circumstanced was that the foreskin more often gave him the option not to masturbate whenever he was erect because it protected the sensitive bits of his penis from continually being stimulated. (Though I guess increased pleasure would balance that out.)
Shinobi at January 28, 2008 8:58 AM
Sexologist John Money was responsible for at least one of those (castrating the boy and advising his parents to raise him as a girl as if gender is social, not biological). I don't know how a guy does that and sleeps at night afterward. Whoops! Guessed wrong. Think about the misery those kids went through.
Amy Alkon at January 28, 2008 9:01 AM
I find it amazing that if someone makes an incision on a girl's genitals without removing any tissue, they are breaking the law, yet boy's routinely have the most sensitive part of their penis ripped away from the glans and then cut off.
The more people know about male and female genital cutting, the more they will be against them.
Mark Lyndon at January 28, 2008 9:57 AM
>>>Infants get erections during the healing time after circumcision. But they can just not watch "Three's Company" for a few weeks?
Really Tony? I didn't realize that. I didn't think they got them in the first few days of life. But I guess they do start breastfeeding right away, so I guess I could see it. I had three little brothers and did a lot of diaper changing as a kid. I just don't remember ever thinking, "Is that a rattle in your diaper or are you just glad to see me?" Of course, you have to admit theres a difference in scale here, however so slight.
Bikerken at January 28, 2008 10:00 AM
Bikerken:
Of course there's a difference in scale. It doesn't matter. Post-circumcision erections in adult males are harsh, I'm sure. But the same no doubt applies to infants, with the added caveat that we have no idea how he will perceive or feel that. (How many times here has someone said some form of infants feel less pain? How do we know? How much pain relief can/should we provide to him while he heals?)
Also, when discussing difference in scale, the difference in adult and infant circumcision matters, too. When you were circumcised at 26, undoubtedly your foreskin had separated from your glans. The doctor did not need to forcibly break the bond of the synechia adhering the two structures, an additional injury that infants must endure. The doctor was also able to ask your opinion for how much or how little skin you wanted taken. The doctor could ask you whether or not you wanted to keep your frenulum.
The difference of the presence of an actual need in your case sort of counts, too. Certainly that's a difference in scope that isn't slight.
Tony at January 28, 2008 10:37 AM
Tony -
How do we know?
Two ways. First, the central nervous system is still in early development, outside the womb. (in contrast with vital organs, which are fully developed in the womb, merely growing with the child thereafter) The connections have yet to be fully formed so to speak. While infants can feel pain, it is not nearly what it is to an adult. The more sensitive nerves develop slowest.
The second way, is through observation. Have you ever watched a toddler play with his penis? They will stretch it, pull it, my older son even managed to twist his around his finger not one loop but two. You try stretching your penis, while flaccid, to nearly twice it's normal length. This was actually why I know about the nervous system. We were kind of freaked out by his behavior and asked the doctor about it. Which is when she gave us the lesson in the nervous system development of infants and children.
DuWayne at January 28, 2008 4:03 PM
The latest studies into how much pain newborns and infants feel has been very contradictory to the long held belief that children feel less or no pain. There were some studies released two weeks ago which have led to an urgent review of the procedures that are done to babies with little or no anasthesia.
But when we come right down to it, forced, unconsented, body modification of any human being, let alone a baby, is just wrong no matter whether it is agony or no more painful than a butterfly kiss. If this was being done to women, if it was being done to prisoners, there would be people on the news and all over Oprah screaming about the injustice of it.
attismum at January 28, 2008 4:28 PM
as i've said, i don't have a real opinion on the matter, just useless facts. babies heal a heck of a lot quicker after circumcision, like a day or two, as opposed to a few weeks. and baby boys not only have erections as infants but in the womb as well.
kt at January 28, 2008 9:43 PM
I'm a nurse. I've seen male circumcisions (fortunately I've never seen a female one).
There are differences but the end result is that a person is cut without any sound medical reason. I don't have time to read all the comments, I'm sure it's already been stated.
I can't speak to the religious aspect but medically speaking, doctors perform circumcisions because the parents request it - right or wrong. Doctors enjoy making profit so they continue to honor the parental requests but the American Academy of Pediatrics does not endorse routine circumcision.
How anyone who loved their newborn could intentionally subject their child to any non-essential surgery is beyond me.
I've seen it too many times and have seen when it goes wrong. If I ever have a son, I will not circumcise him.
Lorri at January 28, 2008 10:16 PM
Thanks so much, Lorri...really appreciate your thoughts on this from experience.
Amy Alkon at January 28, 2008 10:43 PM
Crid-
Thanks.
Tony-
We can all give anecdotal evidence. See my comment on my ex. I was asking for facts. How many adult men feel as you do about your circumcision?
Hate to break it to you, but support is the way you get laws passed. Asking about support is a totally relevant question. Or did you just want to bitch about it?
Christina at January 28, 2008 10:46 PM
So, given the extreme animus for anyone who would dare snip the end off their baby boy's little pecker, can I assume that the anti circumcision crowd here can at least muster a similar amount of indignation about abortion?
After all, you're killing someone without their consent. And if that's not a violation of their body, I don't know what is.
brian at January 29, 2008 5:44 AM
DuWayne,
If I accept that the connections aren't fully formed at birth, why would it be acceptable to possibly interfere with this through unnecessary medical intervention? I need a little more than a claim that infants don't feel pain comparable to adults. Even if that's true, and the recent medical research I've seen does not hold that as the conclusion (for example), it is also true that we can't give them the same pain management and relief that we can offer adults.
As for the second observation, any search of Google for "foreskin restoration" will demonstrate that this is largely irrelevant. The adult penis can stretch, as well.
To kt's point, this journalist's experience doesn't conform to the notion that adult circumcision requires weeks. I'm sure that some people heal that way, but it's not a blanket fact. And every circumcised infant I've encountered has taken more than a day or two to heal. Ultimately, anecdotal data doesn't help much in this front.
Brian,
That's not really as much of a gotcha as it seems. The abortion debate is about conflicting rights and the woman's right to her body. Science can inform us about the development status of a fetus and what the fetus understands as a developing human, but legally, a fetus doesn't have rights, while the woman clearly does.
I, personally, think that's far from perfect. However, there is no valid debate of conflicting rights within circumcision because the child is already born, with all the inherent human rights associated with that. There is zero shade of gray in circumcision when it's not medically necessary.
Tony at January 29, 2008 9:45 AM
Christina,
My anecdotal evidence is sufficient, in this case. I oppose circumcision. It violated my rights. My rights are not subject to majority vote, no matter how much others think that's perfectly acceptable. Nothing can be done about what was done to me, of course, but other males will have their rights violated.
That said, I am not impractical. As flawed as our current system is, it is what we have. There is a push aimed at every state legislature and the U.S. Congress. This is necessary and good. But I personally do not trust politicians. They're stupid. They're vain. They're interested only in what is popular. To them, popular equals constitutional.
I prefer the courts, because that's where I think this will ultimately be decided. Somewhere, some time, a judge is going to stop making excuses and interpret the Constitution correctly. The judge in Chicago last year who ruled that a child couldn't be circumcised until he turns 18 is a start. The ruling last week in Oregon is far weaker because the justices fell over themselves to say "yes, this could be considered problematic, but because it's tradition, we see no reason to display any guts and rule for equal rights or common sense." The courts will stop pretending that age, gender, and relationship matters in unnecessary genital cutting long before politicians will.
So, your point is valid about mob rule. But here, in this forum, it's more useful to point out that circumcision is a rights violation in order to help people who haven't really thought about it. Maybe they'll remove themselves from the mob.
As an aside, there is an argument among anti-circumcision advocates that single-payer healthcare would be an effective tool for ending circumcision because the government wouldn't pay for an unnecessary procedure. I think this reasoning is blind to reality. The politicians who would run such a system aren't interested in facts. If parents demanded circumcision, it would continue based on popular demand.
We see this in evidence today with parents without insurance who can't afford circumcision themselves, yet they scrape money together to have it done anyway. They complain about the cost but they don't think that lack of money should prevent needless surgery.
Tony at January 29, 2008 9:50 AM
Tony - of course you prefer the courts. Your type always does. It's so much easier to get the court to impose something by fiat than it is to actually convince 51% of the voting public that it ought to be changed.
That fiat mentality got us 35 years of fighting about abortion.
brian at January 29, 2008 3:34 PM
The only reason it's hard to get 51% of the population to speak out against circumcision is because they still believe the same lies and misinformation and ridiculous old wives' tales that you do. The only people who support circumcision after doing the research are the ones who profit from it and the ones who can't admit they're wrong.
attismum at January 29, 2008 4:05 PM
Brian,
If by "my type", you mean the type who believes that the inherent individual rights protected by the United States Constitution are still valid and worth guaranteeing, yes, I'm that type. I'll consider that a compliment in spite of your intent.
If someone can convince 51% of the population that you deserve no First Amendment rights and that you don't need thumbs, is it legitimate for me to stand idly by while you're silenced and your thumbs are hacked off? Should I avoid challenging the will of the people? Would it be "fiat" if the courts stepped in and correctly interpreted the Constitution's guarantees of liberty as pertaining equally to you, in spite of the good opinion of a majority of the nation? What if the majority really, really wants your First Amendment rights taken away? Really, really, really wants it?
Populism is the Pandora's Box of American politics. Forgive for me being smart enough to realize that mob rule has no place in the land of the free.
Tony at January 29, 2008 5:58 PM
Tony:
See: McCain-Feingold Campain Finance Reform Act of 2002.
You lose.
attismum - Thanks for telling me what I believe. Actually, you're nowhere near the truth. Most people simply don't give a flying fuck because more kids are killed by vaccines than are harmed by circumcision. And many of those vaccines are required by law. So much for your vaunted freedom to not poke a defenseless child without its consent.
You lose too.
brian at January 29, 2008 9:49 PM
Brian,
See: First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In case you're not familiar with it, it states:
I already stated earlier why I detest politicians and have no faith in their ability or willingness to recognize constitutional rights. "Congress shall make no law..." is simple to understand. McCain-Feingold is flagrantly unconstitutional because it made a law abridging the freedom of speech. Some things really are true, despite significant popular support to the contrary among citizens and/or politicians.
Where the courts haven't struck unconstitutional laws down, the courts are wrong. I stated that courts lack guts far too often. The judiciary is not a perfect solution. It is a better solution than politicians. Principles stand a better chance in front of judges than in front of politicians.
Also, if I've lost, why did you fail to challenge the theoretical 51% support someone might try to garner for removing your thumbs? You're saying that's equally acceptable based on majority opinion, regardless of how clearly it violates the constitution. Do you actually believe that, because your victory rests on it being true?
To your response to attismum, please support your statement that more kids are killed by vaccines than are harmed by circumcision. More than one million male children are harmed every year by circumcision in the U.S. (The scarring is a big clue.) I doubt seriously that more than one million children are killed by vaccines. I'm open to whatever proof you may have, though.
Tony at January 30, 2008 11:08 AM
Brian,
Every single child who is circumcised is left scarred for life, 1 in 10 circumcised men suffer from meatal stenosis as a direct result of being cut, something which requires surgery to fix it. Circumcision greatly increases your child's chances of picking up an infection like MRSA because you are opening a wound that would not be there if you left them normal. The death rate from circumcision is estimated to be about the same as the death rate from penile cancer. Other complications arising from slicing into a baby's penis for no reason include severe damage being done to the penis itself. Ranging from part or all of the glans being removed to parts of the shaft being removed also. There are a great many more risks. Remember, this is completely unnecesary surgery, performed on someone whose immune system hasn't even developed, all those risks for no benefit.
Vaccinations save millions of lives and have eradicted diseases which previously left our children severly disabled and brain-damaged. When you vaccinate a child you are protecting them from hideous diseaes with a very minimal risk to the child. When you circumsise them you are putting them at risk for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's about risk versus benefit. Minimal risk - huge benefit from vaccination, huge risk (including scarring and tissue loss in 100% of cases) - no accepted benefit from circumcision.
Like I said, like you proved, most people don't have a clue about the facts about circumcision and that's why it still happens in North America. Seriously, more people are killed by vaccination than are harmed by circumcision? Who did you think was idiotic enough to believe that?
attismum at January 30, 2008 7:20 PM
A current court case on circumcision: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hauz0PI_3kYdqBNezvr9DhlBbwLwD8UD4N1O0
Norman at February 3, 2008 5:10 AM
... the father of a 12 year old boy converted to Judaism in 2004 (and had himself circumcised). He wants his son circumcised too. The mother is not Jewish, and objects.
What exactly is the father's logic here? I'm Jewish so you must be circumcised?
Norman at February 3, 2008 5:14 AM
Clearly, this is about "the covenant" between the Jewish people and "god"...the guy wants to have his kid undergo surgery because he believes, without evidence, that there's a big man in the sky...or, to borrow from Dennett, believes in the belief in the big man in the sky, Jewish brand, in this case. Outrageous in 2008.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2008 5:20 AM
I've been watching this case for a few months now and, although I'm glad the boy's opinion is now going to be taken into consideration, I don't think a 12 year old's opinion can be the deciding factor. We wouldn't consider a 12 year old is able to decide on a tattoo or lip implants, we wouldn't think a 12 year old was capable of deciding that he should have any other part of his body removed, so why should we put this burden on him?
You already know that I feel this procedure should never be performed on a child but with this level of parental dispute it certainly shouldn't be done. Why can't they just wait 6 years? If he wants to do this to himself he can do so then.
And the 2-3 days of dicomfort? I've spoken to a lot of guys who got it done in later childhood or in their teenage years, even the pro-circ ones would tell you that 2-3 days of disocmfort is absolute nonsense.
attismum at February 3, 2008 8:40 AM
Very encouraging ruling in Germany. A court has ruled that a man who had his 11 year old son circumcised, without his son's consent, commited unlwful personal injury on the son. He's now free to sue his father.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104271.html
attismum at February 3, 2008 10:36 AM
You might be interested to know that there are female circumcision advocates out there who insist that the procedure makes sex more pleasurable for the woman. There has been an editing war on Wikipedia between those who keep changing it to insist that it increases pleasure, and me and a few other women, who keep deleting that. Sort of highlights the weaknesses of Wikipedia.
As for male circumcision. I agree there's no real reason for it in most cases, but it pisses me off that it's so frequently being linked with female circumcision as equally barbaric, mutilating, or cruel. Check out this article about studies, unofficial and official, that ask adult males who've had sex snipped and unsnipped, about the differences: http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/14/the-snip-series-reprised-for-valentine-s-day.aspx
Quizzical1 at February 15, 2008 8:05 AM
You can't use that article as an example, that guy is incredibly biased. And there are no facts involved. The vast majority of men who are cut as adults, do so because they had severe medical problems. If a man has physical problems with his penis and they are treatable with circumcision, of course sex feels better after. You'd be better placed to read the accounts of men who had the procedure because a girlfriend asked them to or because a doctor recommended the procedure when in fact, sex wasn't a problem, their stories are actually heart-breaking.
This guy didn't bother to report on the huge number of studies which show a great reduction in sensitivity and pleasure, he didn't mention the various problems which arrise from circumcision.
I never claimed thst it's just as barbaric, there are cases where it has had a much more damaging effect than some forms of FGM but FGM is much more ususally severe. Unless there's an urgent medical situation, there's no reason for it in ANY case. The only comparison that should ever be made, however, is that holding down a human being and stripping them of genital tissue without their consent, is never ethical.
attismum at February 15, 2008 8:21 AM
I have two intact sons. After my second was born, I watched a newborn boy's circumcision on Google Video. Well, I watched part of it. I couldn't finish it. No mother can bear to hear a baby cry like that, even if it isn't her own baby. Then I thought, "What if that was one of my own little boys?" I got sick to my stomach. Anyone who sees no harm in male circ. should look that up and watch it.
Amanda Hornbeck at February 15, 2008 8:20 PM
Amanda: In my social circle, I know of one nonJewish mother and one father who each told me that they were happy to have witnessed the circ of at least one of their sons. Such is the American disgust with the foreskin.
Ms. Alkon: Kudos to you for being a New York Jew (at least by ancestry) who is outspoken against religious and secular male circumcision. Atheist, agnostic, humanist, and reconstructionist Jews should abandon bris immediately. I submit that many Reform Jews, and some Conservative ones, should follow suit. One of the leaders of Doctors against Circumcision is a self-identified conservative Jew. Finally, I want you to know that many Europeans of Jewish ancestry have ceased circumcising over the past 150 years.
Here is one angry Jewish mother breathing fire on the subject of circumcision:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnqN3YgTd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAQdM2CxY5c
Bris is radically incompatible with progressive Jewish values, and with Jewish medical and sexual sophistication.
Uri Minkowitz at June 7, 2009 11:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/01/27/the_joys_of_fem.html#comment-1652420">comment from Uri MinkowitzActually, I'm a former Jew, and current atheist, born and raised in Michigan, but thank you. Will check out the video. This is a subject that needs to be brought up again and again for discussion until the practice is changed.
Amy Alkon at June 7, 2009 12:47 PM
Leave a comment