I just re-read the OP, and it doesn’t explicitly describe a technique. I am (is it even needful to say this?) strongly opposed to techniques (not yet described) that are not full cliterectomy (clitorecomy? clitoridectomy?) For instance, excision of labia would bother me quite a lot.
So, no, don’t read too much into my acceptance of the most minor forms, and my explicit opposition to the most extreme forms. It doesn’t mean I’m “okay” with everything in between.
Asking a question to people supporting circumcision :
Let’s assume that it would never have been practiced in the western world. Let’s assume now that immigrants from some region of the world traditionally practice it. Do you honestly believe it would be allowed in our countries?
He did :
So, do you want to legalize the removal of the clitoral hood?
I am sorry if I expressed myself wrong concerning Jews and circumcision. I did not for one second mean to imply that they are part of a conspiracy to impose or keep male genital mutilation in our society.
I merely observed, from what I have read from Jewish contributors in discussion groups like this one, that many Jews regard anti-circumcision movements and proposed legal bans on circumcision as forms of Jew-baiting. And I do not blame them one bit, when you look at people like Matthew Hess and his anti-semitic Issue no. 2 of the Foreskin Man comics he publishes.
(Warning: Hess’ site is not work place safe, and in keeping with the rules of this board to protect people who might be reading this at work: You can see his hateful comics if you google "Foreskin Man Comic and then click on the first site, mgmbill. All seven of his comics are there.)
I asked if Jews could ever consider dropping circumcision one day (or at least turning it into a harmless symbolic thing) NOT because I consider Jews the only supporters of circumcision, but because I see Jews and Jewish culture as a force for compassion and human rights, a religion with a demonstrated ability to constantly adapt to modern realities.
I do not believe I wil ever live to see all forms of child genital mutilation, male and female banned nor see the entire human race accept the principle that nobody may cut into the body of an innocent child (incapable of consent) for non-medical reasons.
But we have to start somewhere.
Jews have a tradition of compassion and humanitarian thought, and good solid common sense. In their long history they have lain aside even direct commandments from G*d when such commandments proved inappropriate in the modern world.
As I stated in an earlier post, I expect the struggle for the genital and biomedical integrity rights of ALL children, male and female, will be a very slow and difficult, and will perhaps last for centuries.
In support of my prediction, have you noticed how many of the worst faults and horrors of humanity have an ability to put down deep roots to the point where they are almost impossible to eradicate?
For example:
War : Everyone wants peace but as every century passes all that happens is the multiplication of terror weapons each more horrible than the last.
Slavery: Enslavement of Africans was happily accepted by most of Europe and America for centuries. And anti-slavery societies tell us that today there are MORE (not fewer) slaves on Earth than ever before in history.
Ignorance: Scientists were persecuted in the early centuries of the Christian era. Today, ignorance is triumphing over scientific facts almost daily. The President of the US claims global warming is a hoax. Anti-vaccination movements are strong. Creationists are forcing their way into schools.
-Child genital mutilation: Millions of boys in the west and the eastern world are subjected to the horrors of circumcision, and millions of girls in Asia and Africa are subjected to even worse pain and multilation than boys.
Sometimes I wonder if there is any hope at all.
Why not just accept that parents have the ultimate authority over what happens to their baby’s bodies?
If they choose to lop off a foreskin or a clitoris, why is it your place to be outraged about it?
If people are pissed off as adults that their parents chopped off parts of their body, they can take it up with their parents, it’s really not a society level concern.
[quote=“Delicious, post:66, topic:791838”]
Really? Including whipping, malnourishing, physical assault, not getting them vaccinated, getting 5-year-olds tatooed head to toe if they feel like it?
That was the answer of slave owners who were criticised for holding anf exploiting their fellow humans, btw.
What will they take up with their parents? Will they take the guy’s foreskin out of a drawer and sew it back on?
Frankly, yes. As I noted, this was a voluntary fad in the 1970s, and did no one any harm.
There need to be limits. A foreskin is pretty unimportant in the physiological sense, but a clitoris is the focus of female sexuality, and deserves protection. We don’t let parents lop off an ear or a hand, either.
I think you might be able to convince Jews to adopt a less severe form of male circumcision, and indeed an adult convert who has already been circumcised merely suffers a symbolic nick upon their penis, but I don’t think you’re going to convince them to give it up entirely.
How are any of these (unless by “whipping” you mean typical corporal punishment) anywhere near the equivalent of a normal and typical health procedure that has been practiced for centuries?
I see no sign “anti-circ” is growing. It still seems to be in the same weird pocket that it was always in. About half the U.S. is circumcised, and we thus know it’s no big deal. So it’s really hard for this to gain any actual traction.
We can fight against FGM because it actually is not harmless. It causes actual sexual problems. The two procedures aren’t equivalent. It’s not just leftover extra skin from the womb for women, like it is for men.
This situation, being factual, still has not changed in any way, and will not change. I’m not sure why people keep on trying.
I know that I actually did wonder if it was just a useless procedure before I started encountering this opposition. Now I’m 100% sure I will circumcise, because I don’t want to support woo.
That isn’t true, though. People dock newborn animals’ tails and crop their ears too.
circumcision is the woo, you dolt.
According to Dr. Crap the circumcised penis retains a foreskin memory that keeps the member fresh and supple.
I may be wrong, but isn’t “health and sanitary reasons” in the context of non-religious circumcision largely 19th century code for “preventing masturbation”? Which, by the way, of course it doesn’t; but I guess generations of American males grew up honestly believing they were the only one who had discovered the use of lubricants…
[quote=“BigT, post:72, topic:791838”]
First of all I am sure you mean half the US MALE population, not half the US population. Half the population circumcised would mean 100% of US men.
Secondly you have just indicated with your own stats that half of all US males (75 million) are walking around with foreskins, happy as a clam. Surely there should be a major health or hygene problem among these 75 million American males if they suffered from all the mythological health problems that the enlightened :dubious: practice of cutting off the foreskin is designed to correct.
Two practices can be objectionable without being equivalent. Calling a black man the N word is a horrible act, but lynching that man for wanting to vote is infinitely worse. Just because the racial slur is less severe than the lynching does not mean we should ignore the slur.
You say the prepuce is “just leftover extra skin from the womb”. WTF??? So intact, uncircumcised men (of which there are only a few billion in the world) are just guys with a bit of skin “from the womb” that needed to be cleaned off with a scalpel?
What the hell are you talking about?
The pro-intact movement is growing. But it never ceases to amaze me how similar this movement is to the early Abolitionists in the US. Anti-slavery activists were frequently lynched in so-called free states up North, since they were seen as “trouble makers”.
I have already been told that it is none of my business what parents want to do to their children’s bodies. This is exactly the sort of riposte used by slave owners in answering their critics.
Take your above quote and tweak it slightly: “The justification for slavery, being factual, still has not changed in any way, and will not change. I’m not sure why people keep on trying.”
The urge to cut into healthy organs of male and female infants to please an invisible diety or a social custom is so old that it probably predates Judaism. It certainly predates Islam.
The belief that we must take a knife to the genital organs of an infant as if they had a birth defect, and the pain involved comes from a very deep and dark part of the human psyche. Just like our urges to war, slavery, domination greed and all the other faults of humankind, it may take centuries before this horror imposed on babies becomes, like witchcraft trials, nothing more than a sorrowful memory of our long night in barbarism.
You are taking my comment out of context. The poster had just said: “Why not just accept that parents have the ultimate authority over what happens to their baby’s bodies?”
I was asking what “ultimate authority” over their baby’s bodies would mean. Remember, ultimate means the final authority. It means their decision is the last word.
I did not say whipping a child or breaking its bones is equivalent to a circumcision. I merely gave examples of things that people with alleged ultimate authority over what happens to their baby’s bodies could (and have) done.
There are parents that belong to cults that tell them they must “expell the demons” from their children with frequent beatings. There are parents who believe that castration combats the alleged dangers of masturbation. There were actual cases of doctors in the 19th century recommending castration to parents of children who insisted on masturbating. I would like to think that no parents ever went through with it. But you will note that castration to cure masturbation was firmly advocated by some authoritative medical authorities, just like circumcision today.
Indeed, Female Genital Mutilation is based on the belief that the cutting will make the girl “good”. And I am sure there is no lack of Muslim and African doctors who are willing to say that the loss of sexual pleasure is really not bad and is outweighed by the “benefits” of the cutting and sewing. Just as with doctors in the west who tell you that circumcision has only benefits and pooh-pooh any statement to the contrary, even when men report loss of pleasure and of sensitivity.
Your post contains several flaws:
Considered world wide, no, male circumcision is NOT “normal and typical”. For the vast majority of history most men were NOT circumcised. Currently, MOST men in the world are not circumcised. In the western hemisphere it is currently routine in only one nation, the United States. In the rest of the world, it’s seen in the Middle East, parts of Africa (particularly where there are Muslims) and some Australian Aborigine tribes.
The justification “health procedure” is a latecomer. For most of its history, male circumcision has been a religious thing. In the 19th Century in the US it was explicitly to discourage masturbation. It’s only in the late 19th and 20th Century that its supporters started using the excuse “health benefits”. Frankly, a man with access to soap and water who isn’t so screwed up he won’t touch his own dick for fear of going to hell can deal with the hygiene issues. We don’t amputate any other body part in lieu of washing it, why should the foreskin be different?
The practice is THOUSANDS of years old, not “centuries”.
Please strive for greater accuracy in the future.
From my POV and from what I understand, FGM is simply an appalling, cruel and barbaric act. On the other hand, male circumcision (though probably painful - I don’t remember, and I don’t remember ever remembering if that makes sense) is pointless and unnecessary and, as such, should be discontinued - but presumably no more or less necessarily than some piercings.
As I said upthread, I prefer my modified tool. I asked my wife about it, however, and she has no preference.
But I do not believe that it should be compared to FGM. And I am also coming to the conclusion that religious belief should not be a justification for anything.