Let's all agree that the world is simple, and that you and I, on an individual level, have FINALLY FIGURED OUT what humans have to do to live decently. Because we're the newest, and also the most kindest and the most, y'know, modern. We know more about human life than anyone who ever lived, so there's that.

This'll be great.

I'm surprised the religious in Norway that the Centre Party is the fifth column for Odin worshippers.

Because we're the newest, and also the most kindest and the most, y'know, modern. We know more about human life than anyone who ever lived, so there's that.

So then wise and powerful Oz, tell us the thereputic secrets derived from a neolithic, sadomasochistic, surgical procedure prefomed n helpless infants for no defined medical purpse whatsoever

I've heard that one-third of the nerve endings are removed along with the foreskin, so it diminishes the sexual pleasure.

Apparently, the Almighty still wants men to enjoy sex, just not enjoy it that much.

I have a question that's unrelated to the topic. Do the spam controls on this page actually work? It seems like a such a simplistic approach to eliminating spam, merely having two questions that are answered with either "wet" or "cars." And this actually works?

Hey Amy! Once we've demonstrated our throughly-modern-Millitude regarding circumcision, here's another bold new frontier of intrusion by which we can demonstrate our superior rationality!!

Because, hygiene! Amirite? You love that shit! You said so right in the blog post:

"[H]ealthy sexual organ!"

"[A]n individual's future health."

This is gonna be great. We are so thoughtful and comprehensively up-to-date not only in our thinking, but also in our rationality. So we have special gifts to give to this planet in these years.

From Crid's link:

"For men who might refuse to comply, party representatives suggested a separate set of toilets clearly labeled for stand-up urination only."

We already have these. They're called urinals.

You mean I would have enjoyed sex more if I had not been snipped? A man could lose his mind pondering that question.

A few months ago everyone on my parenting forums were up in arms that the AAP was set to start recommending routine circumcision again and linked tons of recent articles on it.

> For men who might refuse to comply

NO!!!!

You will NOT be allowed to refuse!!

People, can't you understand? We've been through this before! Amy knows what's best... Resistance to her all-knowing magnificence CANNOT be tolerated.

> You mean I would have enjoyed sex more if
> I had not been snipped? A man could lose
> his mind pondering that question.

It's become apparent that many already have... And the madness is contagious.

'Member Mesmer?

I followed the other recent circumcision thread. I really don't understand the fuss about foreskins. I'm American born and raised, but moved to Germany as a young adult, and the first men I had sex with were neither American nor circumcised. I honestly didn't notice the latter until the second guy. And yes, I had seen circumcised penises up and close and in person before, but I didn't register the difference. I also never noticed any weird smell, and the guys were never coming straight from the shower to bed.

Some years later, having had circumcised partners too, I can say that generally I've had better sex with the intact guys. I'm not saying that foreskin = better sex, but I believe there is a lot of speculation and even research saying it might. I can understand worrying that a child will feel like an outsider if his penis looks different--in fact, one of my German partners had been circumcised for apparently therapeutic reasons as a baby, and he said he'd felt embarrassed growing up having the only cut penis! He also said he somewhat resented his parents having made that decision for him, and wondered sometimes how it had affected his sexual sensation.

I would never circumcise my son unless it was the only way to resolve a serious health problem. The prophylactic benefits are extremely debatable, and the aesthetic and hygienic benefits are negligible in my personal experience. I think it's great that it's becoming less prevalent in the states, so that visual conformity can no longer be a reason. Forget the issue of altering a child's genitals without their consent--to me, only a serious medical condition could possibly justify inflicting intense pain in the most sensitive area of a baby's body, period.

Amy said "Freedom of religion? Your right to exercise it ends where the unnecessary surgical removal of a part of a child's body begins."

Is it really just a religious thing? No. Did it start, and do people continue to do it, because of religion? I don't know. I do know my parents did not do it for religious reasons.

If it "should" not continue, it is my opinion that it "should" be discussed solely on its' merits, or lack thereof. Religion should be left out of it other than a historical note.

Well, the people who do it for religious reasons won't (and I think shouldn't) accept that exclusion to the discussion.

Is it really just a religious thing? No.

Give on non religious, scientific reason for cicumcising an infant then

Did it start, and do people continue to do it, because of religion? I don't know.

Dit it start - fair point that there is no way to know, aside from the biblical accounts ofcourse. Outside of abrahmaic monotheistic reliougos majority cultures though this extent of circumcision is nearly unheard of. And yes people do continue it out of religious tradition.

I do know my parents did not do it for religious reasons.

Why did they do it then?

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think that circumcision is a messed-up barbaric tribal ritual. Not belonging to any ethnic groups required to practice it, I would never impose it upon my son.

And in theory, I understand why someone would want a ban.

...but

...but

...but

given the history of Jews in Europe and the persecution against them over millenia, a total ban makes me feel a bit uneasy.

What about FGM, you ask? The people who practice FGM haven't been living in Norway or Europe for hundreds of years, being persecuted every couple centuries or so. It's easier to say, "If you want in, you can't do X" than to say it to people who have been living there, albeit as a very small subculture, for centuries.

NicoleK:

What about FGM, you ask?

Not comparable to male circumcision - FGM removes the entire clitoris, which would be like cutting off the entire glans of the penis.

My shmutz filter locks me out of these threads after a while, so allow me to front-load (and follow up on the previous thread):

1. There is no good health reason for circumcision.

2. Jewish ritual circumcision does not remove erogenous tissue. It is physically a different procedure from what is done in hospitals.

Basically: foreskin is like the lined sleeve of a suit jacket, with two layers. Inner layer = erogenous tissue. Outer layer = regular skin. Hospital circumcision removes both layers of skin.

Jewish circumcision removes just the tip of the outer skin. The inner layer remains as a cuff of "extra" skin that accommodates erection - almost indistinguishable from the majority of uncut men whose foreskins retract upon erection.

Israel has absorbed 2 million uncircumcised Soviet Jews - and a significant number underwent adult circumcision. There's been no backlash, and medical followup surveys indicate that most of these men experience little to no difference in sexual function. That's as close as we can get to clinical truth about the most, uh, sensitive aspect of the debate.

3. Jewish ritual circumcision is less painful and has far fewer complications than medical circ - because hospital circ uses clamps that crush the foreskin, and are often performed by nurses or interns with no instruction or guidance. In contrast, Jews require extensive training before letting anyone near a live baby, and the procedure goes more quickly (and as I said above, is less invasive in the first place).

4. Mainstream Jewish communities have quickly adopted hygienic procedures, and also have been quick to adopt anesthesia. The Orthodox rabbis of at least one community (Toronto) have made local anesthesia a halachic obligation.

5. Most of this is true of traditional Muslim circumcision - at least in Western countries where modern clinical medicine is available.

Bottom Line:
1. There is no good reason for non-Jews (or non-Muslims) to circumcise their sons. I certainly would not subject my sons to what is done in hospital.
2. There is equally good reason not to make an issue of traditional circumcision.

NicoleK:
What about FGM, you ask?
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Not comparable to male circ - the entire clitoris is usually ablated. This would be like cutting off the entire glans.

NicoleK:
What about FGM, you ask?
- - - - - - -
Not comparable - FGM ablates the whole cl#t. It would be like cutting off the entire head of the p@nis.

I do think religious people should discuss snipping the penis. I do not think one will get very far just trying to stop people from doing it on religious grounds since some to do it for religious reasons. I think, but don't know, that it is a cultural issue and not a religious one today.

Luj, my parents said it was just the thing to do at the time and had nothing to do with religion. Like, everyone was doing it in the 40's.

I was against snipping my son, but, sadly, like most things other than my making money, my ex won the argument. Since we both are non-believers, I can't say it was for religious reasons. I am not sure but it could simply have been that why wife wanted to because I didn't.

At this point though, it is left to God to sort out.

"Not comparable to male circumcision - FGM removes the entire clitoris, which would be like cutting off the entire glans of the penis."

Be david, a couple of things.

First, FGM does not remove the entire clitoris. the majority of the cliotris is internal, so it is easy, but uninformed, to say that FGM removes it.

Second, MGM removes the foreskins, which has around 20,000 nerve endings. There is no female equivalent structure.

Third, so that that is why comaprisons between FGM and MGM need to be made with caution.

Fourth, your point about the differences between Jewish and medical circumcision are well-taken, pertinent, material and for to seldom made. You also appear to eb distinguishing, at least in your comment about Soviet Jews, between infant and adult circumcision, and that is a crucial distinction.

What happens if you write CLIT or PENIS? Does god smite you?

I don't know about Ben David, but my workplace computers do have keystroke monitors. If I spelled out certain words, and somebody was paying attention, I could be smited by some more earthly power.

Amy:

If you're a grown man and you want to have a piece of your winky chopped off because you believe there's a big man in the sky who likes it that way, or for any other reason, have at it. You're able to consent and make decisions for yourself -- the essential thing here.

And for believers the whole point is that you are part of an existing covenant, which is not optional. You can live in a way that affirms the covenant, or throw it over, but you remain part of the Jewish people and its destiny.

(Which also seems to be the position of most antisemites over history.)

The gap between believers and absolutist rationalists isn't really resolvable - but my point is that after all the hyperventilating, this still remains within the realm of decisions (often irreversible) that parents make for their children.

For those of you who aren't sure if this is still a religious issue...

It is for those whose religion requires it.

My opinion of this is it has been done for thousands of years (and in far less sterile conditions than now available). If it really caused problems, Jews would probably have died off.

My opinion of this is it has been done for thousands of years (and in far less sterile conditions than now available).

And is that yur opinion on FGM as well?

Amy,

Your point is taken. However, I was less than clear (that will teach me to try and write with small children clamoring for my attention!).

I was thinking that if there were serious sexual side effects from it. Now, I'm NOT saying they can't happen, just that if it caused pain upon arousal or a sever drop in pleasure or sex drive (uniformly, as opposed to the risks you mention), we'd probably know about that by now (given how long this has been done).

lujlp,

The opinion part was the second sentence ;) The part you cite is fact (it's been done for thousands of years in Jewish communities and in less sterile conditions than currently available).

My opinion was that if it caused problems (and I wasn't clear here, but I meant if it routinely caused major sexual problems, as I said in reply to Amy), the Jews would likely have died off.

Since Jews don't practice FGM, I doubt it would have caused them to die off.

I know, that's not what you meant.

I just don't see how FGM relates to my comments. I wasn't arguing pro or con - just stating that I doubt there are routine negative (or at least noticeably negative) sexual side effects (albeit, I said it rather poorly).

Does my thought apply to FGM? I don't know. I'm not versed in it's history or practice (which is a good part of why I didn't comment on it).

However, assuming it has been done for thousands of years, I would guess that it does NOT apply. Since women do not need to be aroused to get pregnant (but a man must in order to get a woman pregnant), sexual side effects (as differentiated from fertility side effects) wouldn't be as likely to hamper a population's reproductive rate. So, I don't readily see parity with circumcision as far as my line of thinking is concerned.

Amy,

True, there very well could be an evolutionary reason. I'd actually argue that there is. Given how very painful childbirth is (trust me on this - I had a 10+ # baby), a "compensatory" mechanism (i.e. a reason to keep doing the thing that causes that pain) would probably be good, evolutionarily speaking.

I did state that I was making a guess at the answer to lujlp's question. That was my reasoning. Certainly not fact, but the thinking behind my guess.

That said, women do not, strictly speaking do not need to be aroused to get pregnant (unfortunately, we can see this with rape). That doesn't imply that arousal couldn't increase fertility (or correlate with increased fertility). That would make your point, Amy.

On an entirely different note, how do y'all get the text to appear in italics??

text

Remove the spaces inside the brackets

Well that didnt work,

Use the angle brackets, shift-, and shift-.

For italics place an i, between them for bold place a b. Theoretically using a u should give you undrline, but that doesnt seem to wrk on Amy's site

At the end of the text use the angle bracket again, but this time place a / infront of the i or b to close the text editing

Thanks. I'll try that at some point, but I'll put a warning in, in case I mess it up and it makes the text go wonky.

Ben Davis said: "Not comparable - FGM ablates the whole cl#t. It would be like cutting off the entire head of the p@nis."

I'll have to go ahead and disagree with you here. As Jim followed up, parallels can be drawn. We have to remember that FGM is an umbrella term for a range of procedures. Some of those procedures are more damaging than MGM others are less. FGM has also survived thousands of years and and strongly tied to the culture and (to a lesser degree) religious practices of many people.