I FB'd that the day it happened. I had 2 people I would have thought otherwise of, tell me it was a gross infringement on religious freedom. I've said it before and I'll say it again- religious freedom stops at harming another person's body.

These same 2 people had no response to why it's not okay to cut girls for religion.

Amy, that's recockulous.

See Mead.

Your expression of fascist impulses in these matters is a tremendous disappointment... You want control of people's lives no less than the petty preacher in the Appalachian holler or the bearded warlord in the desert mountains of Afghanistan.

@Crid, I followed your link and left with the question: cock a maimy?

Makes me glad I got no roosters in this ongoing cock-fight.

However: from what I read this used to be a rite of passage for young men, not babies. I don't know what started it, and I don't care if it continues or not, but I'll go for the consensual argument. Wait til he's a teen and can make a big macho-guy ceremony out of either cutting it off, or maybe getting it tattooed or pierced or hanging a bell on it or some other goddam thing.

Parents make much more intrusive and determinant decisions than this for their kids all the time.

While I don't doubt your libertarian credentials, in this case I say "tell me who your friends are..." The people wanting to "protect boys" from circumcision are the same left-wing control freaks who've been undermining individual and family autonomy for decades - much of it under the cover-slogan of "it's for the children."

This blog has documented a lot of that folderol.

"You want control of people's lives no less than the petty preacher in the Appalachian holler or the bearded warlord in the desert mountains of Afghanistan."

Boy, have you got that analogy EXACTLY backwards.

In Africa NGOs are paying for Adult men to be circumcised. It turns out that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of STDs, particularly HIV. Perhaps the Patriarchs (and the Patriarch's God) knew more than you think.

It is also ironic given the above that San Francisco, of all places has banned circumcision.

"The people wanting to "protect boys" from circumcision are the same left-wing control freaks who've been undermining individual and family autonomy for decades - much of it under the cover-slogan of "it's for the children.""

Many of them being your co-religionists Ben David.

The truly sick thing is that in America, beginning around the turn of the last century, baby boys have routinely been circumcised -- intentionally without anaesthetic to ensure maximum agony -- not for reasons of culture or religion. In fact, it was because that sick f*ck Kellog (of cornflakes fame) knew that it would lead to a decrease in sexual pleasure, and so he promoted it to curb masturbation.

Later, it was used to prevent baby boys from having a penis that would later be considered "ugly" by a potential lover.

If you look at the location and number of nerve endings in the penis, the glans is not the equivalent of the clitoris. The foreskin is.

The history of circumcision in this country says a lot about how we view males in general, doesn't it? Nice reminder to all the cut boys that their body is not their own, and that soon they may be compelled to sacrifice the rest of themselves for the "common good" -- and for the benefit all those other "equal" people who cannot be compelled to make any personal sacrifice, but need to be protected from ugly penises.

Amy, thanks for standing up on this issue, and for stating the truth about the horrific African circumcision HIV debacle.

So full of shit... So fascist... So full of shit... So fascist...

...Nothing left to admire.

In Africa NGOs are paying for Adult men to be circumcised. It turns out that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of STDs, particularly HIV. Perhaps the Patriarchs (and the Patriarch's God) knew more than you think.

It is also ironic given the above that San Francisco, of all places has banned circumcision.

Posted by: Bill Reeves

Aside from all the stuff AMy pointed ut, I'd like to point out that a simmilliar study in africa showed a decrease in STD's amoung women who had gential cutting done to them. So tell me Bill, as its will prevent your daughter frong getting Aids are you goin to take down to have somone cut off her clit any time soon?

So full of shit... So fascist... So full of shit... So fascist...

...Nothing left to admire.

Posted by: Crid

1. No one is making you stay, as you are so fond of saying to thse who point out your glaring fallices 'Feel free not to read'

2. Facism - is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology seeking elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics
2a Facist (epithet) the word fascist is intended to mean "oppressive", "intolerant", "chauvinist", "genocidal", "dictatorial", "racist", or "aggressive" – all concepts that are allegedly inspired by the ideology of actual fascism, and pervasive through fascist states.

So tell us crid, how is preventing a sexually based assult on an infant, "oppressive", "intolerant", "chauvinist", "genocidal", "dictatorial", "racist", or "aggressive"

Some people, such as Amy and others, don't want the foreskin cut from a boy's penis. They believe it's mutilation and serves no purpose whatsoever. They believe any individual unable to make their own decision -- for example an infant -- should by default not have any elective surgical procedure done until that individual can choose for themselves. Governments should make laws criminalizing such a procedure (maybe even all elective surgical procedures). Parents having the procedure performed on their infant should be considered acting illegally. While I think WAY too much importance is being given to a ring of skin..... never mind the scary slippery slope of allowing government another venue of control (Pelosi to the rescue. Scary!), I accept the argument's motivation is well intended. However, a flap of skin tightly pressed against the skin of the body creating an elevated growth medium, in an area prone to perspiration, prone to exposure to several of your own fluids, prone to exposure from multiple fluids from others, an area prone to passing on to others......so there is no benefit whatsoever to removing that tenuously located growth medium? The studies are mistaken? Even a lie! Pardon the pun but that is a boner in naked form. That's taking easily seen and easily connected dots and pretending you don't see them (dots? I don't see no stinkin dots!).
Argue all you want on the ethical issue and legality issue. Argue that the benefit in today's lofty hygienic world is unworthy of the procedure (there's a point to argue there). But it does not take a PhD or Doctorate to recognize that hygiene is elevated when a foreskin is not present. Trust me, that point is not up for debate.

TW:

While I think WAY too much importance is being given to a ring of skin.....

The importance is being given to the individual's choice, not his foreskin specifically. If the male himself deems his foreskin an unimportant "ring of skin", he should be free to have it removed. His ability to choose or reject non-therapeutic circumcision is the issue.

However, a flap of skin tightly pressed against the skin of the body creating an elevated growth medium, in an area prone to perspiration, prone to exposure to several of your own fluids, prone to exposure from multiple fluids from others, an area prone to passing on to others...

You've essentially described female genitalia, too. Well done. What implications should we draw?

But it does not take a PhD or Doctorate to recognize that hygiene is elevated when a foreskin is not present. Trust me, that point is not up for debate.

Elevated? If you mean easier, I suppose. But that's not much of an argument. Surgery because parents assume an extra 5 seconds during a shower is just too much work to expect their son to do is silly, at best.

If you mean improved, that's assuming too much. Is hygiene improved by circumcision enough if the male doesn't bathe regularly? Is that male cleaner than an intact male who bathes regularly (and properly)?

TW, the removal of forskin's heath benifts are a 30% reduction in instances 0f penile cancer usually only experiacned in the 80th decade of life or beyond, and a reported 12% reduction in the instances of UTI's.

As far as the STD heath aspects some studies suggest a mild reduction in bacterial STIs like gonerreah and clamdia, but ther show an increase in certain viral infections as the drier more calloed glanes develops friction mirco fissure and cause simmilar fissure in a femals vaginal walls.

Factor in the number of kids who die frm blood loss, the occasional amputation, and the myriad of number complications. Is it really worth such small gains given the risks?

Finally two last things to consider, the size of a full erect adult penis is not evident until after puberty. It certainly isnt evident in the frst few hours/weeks of life when the procedure is formed. How is anyone to accuratly gauge how much skin is the proper amount to cut off. Ever seen a penis that had too much skin removed? The pics are horrible

Second. Less that 5% of males are reported gettting UTI's, less than 10% get penilce cancer in the 2 or 3 yrs before they die of extreme old age. Nearly 15% of women get breast cnacer befre they are 40.

If such small non life threatening risks are reasn enugh to preform circumscison, why has no one suggested infant masectomies for baby girls?

When reading Ben-David's comment, it is important to note that as a conservative Jew he most likely supports a briss in which the mohel sucks the infant's bleeding, newly circumcised penis, sometimes tramsmittng infections such as herpes in the process. The sacred ritual of infant fellatio, yup.

People above are certainly correct, nothing is more fascist than allowing people the choice of what to do with their bodies. what's truly draconian is expecting society to move beyond the superstitious rituals of desert nomads thousands of years ago.

"Must we really resort to such utterly ridiculousness?"

Ridiculous? Then how do you and other proponents of a ban on this infant procedure expect that it will stop? It's axiomatic that circumcision at birth (or thereabouts) will continue in VERY large numbers unless laws are passed outlawing it. And while your belief that it is as extremely simple as X (and presumably ridiculous to think otherwise?), I do not share your view that government will be so precise and effective. On the contrary, I expect government to be ineffective and part of the problem when they start passing laws to 'save us from ourselves'. And in stark reality, the question of elective surgery being banned until you can "decide for yourself" is nowhere near simple. And if government is involved, wow. Again, the chance for succinct, effective, focused legislation is going to happen because of their stellar track record? I can definitely live with my lack of faith in government being challenged without it having a chance in hell it wavering.

To your other point, yes, Boys can be taught to wash....obviously. As I mentioned, I see the argument of the hygienic benefits of circumcision being diluted due to today's loftier hygienic standards. However that wasn't the point. I was calling out (for lack of a better phrase) you and the other ban proponents fervor to show the African study must! be wrong.....when the common sense behind it is very solid. "Hey man, just take a shower!", friendly advice in Japan, a cruel taunt in the Sudan.

Lujlp, I think you will find that I am not making a 'you are all wrong, I am utterly right' statement on the issue. I see some of the reasons behind ban proponents argument, I see why there is debate on it. But let me say it more succinct than my original post (as imprecise as it was); ban proponents make some points that have validity (not that my validation is needed, I'm just clarifying). However, one of the points I think you are far off base on:

"If such small non life threatening risks are reasn enugh to preform circumscison, why has no one suggested infant masectomies for baby girls?"

A very small ring of skin that is largely useless (understood! it is removing functioning skin that provides sensation) is not equivalent to removing a breast. It is not equivalent to the appalling intention behind removing the clitoris. A surgical procedure is not equivalent to every other surgical procedure.

I expect government to be ineffective and part of the problem when they start passing laws to 'save us from ourselves'. And in stark reality, the question of elective surgery being banned until you can "decide for yourself" is nowhere near simple.

Fair point, however this isnt a 'save us from ourselves' type law, its a 'save us from the actions of others becuase we arent able to advocate for ourselves at the moment and waiting causes less harm than proceeding' type law.

Would you allow a parent to get their daughter breast implants at the age of 8? A nose job at 3

It is not equivalent to the appalling intention behind removing the clitoris.

Acctually it is, outside of the jewish tradition hosptial based surgical circumscision was introduced by a man looking to quell masterbation and sexual pleasure in men

Anything else?

Amy's essentially conceded that her only interest is in quashing free practice of religion. It's hard to see her hatred as any less vicious than that of a fanatical believer.

Weird how she wants to live in a culture where she has a choice, though. Knowuddimean?

Free exercise of religion is one value. The right of bodily integrity is another. When the two conflict, the latter should prevail. There is nothing preventing circumcision at an age in which the recipient can consent to it. Fuck a god who can't understand that. And any person too.

Is ridiculous defined by expecting something narrow and simple to not be legislated narrowly and simply by the federal government?
Is ridiculous defined by expecting a hygienic benefit from an unhygienic growth medium being removed (from an area that is exposed to many, maybe the most, bodily fluids)? I guess I am confused by the word ridiculous. Is there a study that speaks to a lack of foreskin and impaired mental process? Well no but there is a different study. The study you reference. That study is golden. And of course sontradictory studies are bogus. So there it is. It is absurd to believe removing one of the most potentially unhygienic growth mediums will have any positive effect on hygiene. Ahem.....

It is ridiculous to remove non-diseased flesh from a person without his consent.

"Would you allow a parent to get their daughter breast implants at the age of 8? A nose job at 3"\

Lujlp, it isn't that simple. I agree that your examples are clearly not right. But what if the nose is perfectly functioning but malformed (or choose anywhere of many places that are perfectly functioning but malformed)? Ok that's simple too. We'll just have the law say parents get to choose if they want to have an elective procedure for their child for cosmetic issues like this. Ok that was simple. Now let's have government define malformed and the threshold for malformed.
That's simple. We just have the law say X, Y and Z." Simple. Now we will have our Congress and our POTUS come up with a simple X, Y and Z. I'm sure we can expect their PC ways, their dysfunctional ways, their 'we favor people A/groups B/types C' ways, their overreaching ways.... none of them to get in the way of the simple stuff like this. And we definitely do not have to worry that Group D will bring something in front of SCOTUS and SCOTUS will turn the law into E F and G too.

Listen, I appreciate having passion on an issue (for example your circumcision ban belief). It's a good thing. Obviously you see this issue as having an anti-male bias along with other aspects. Nothing wrong at all with having a belief and being passionate about it (when the passion can be well placed). But you, Amy and others are going to have to win this issue by argument and attrition. No! way! in! hell! is it a good thing or would I be in favor of government getting involved. And I hope that some of those opposed to circumcision will bristle at government getting involved. Government needs to not be involved in .

But, unfortunately imho, I think the tide is with you on this. Which is to say in the general sense, the population seems to be getting more and more ok with government passing laws for every human problem (urrgghh, I just quoted Gov. Jerry Brown). A circumcision ban won't happen tomorrow but eventually I expect government will have a circumcision ban in place (admittedly it will be a while on it because it crosses words with religions). The tide continues to flow toward government making laws to make sure everything has a paragraph to speak to its legality. It pisses me off to the Nth degree (sorry to go off on that tangent, that issue is a particular passion of mine).

> It is ridiculous to remove non-diseased flesh
> from a person without his consent.

That's the extremity of argument you guys have to offer for this... You don't even know what you sound like. It's not even HUMAN, let alone adult, and a cosmos away from convincing.

Breast implants! Dictionaries! RELIGION...!

If your lives were so exemplary that you could be trusted despite such loathsome rhetoric, we'd know by now. As it happens, these desperate arguments are getting the traction they deserve.

Ah, more magical social science for Amy.

Be rigorous! Right?

(Without a degree, I mean....)

Studies!

We are winning these arguments, your complaints notwithstanding. Circumcision except among Jews and Muslims is becoming the exception and not the rule. It takes time to overcome thousands of years is superstitious nonsense. Pretty soon you'll be one of the last folks not in those groups who thinks that routinely chopping of parts of boys' dicks is a good plan.

Is ridiculous defined by expecting a hygienic benefit from an unhygienic growth medium being removed (from an area that is exposed to many, maybe the most, bodily fluids)? - TW

Yes, because there are no signifigant hygenic benifits.

Is a reduction in a 4% chance of UTI's really worth risking death?