# Circumcision debate - why the obsession? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 28, 2004, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619 "2004-06-28T22:45:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/301 "2004-07-04T00:41:09Z")
I meant “did not suffer as a resut” in my previous post, obviously… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/302 "2004-07-04T00:43:17Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > Well, not unconstitutional…but > [illegal](http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm) > > Oh wait, that’s just for girls. They are still looking at the one bill to protect little boys in the same way. Well, since you’re clearly up-to-date on the whole thread, perhaps you would kindly explain your reasons for equating FGM with circumcision. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/303 "2004-07-04T00:47:19Z")
> [@theckhd](#): > > Bull. Shit. > > If you think that belief is contained in a scar, or in a circumcision, or in a tatoo, then you’re sadly mistaken. No wonder you’re not so hot on religion, you don’t seem to understand it. > > A belief is contained in your head, in your mind, in your consciousness […]. I probably poorly explained myself, especially since I already tried to explain it again once. Of course, the belief isn’t included in the scar, etc…Still, the scar does symbolically express it, or express the belonging to the group in the flesh. That’s what these people are doing. Engraving in the flesh of children the (assumed) belonging of these children to this particular group. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/304 "2004-07-04T01:07:16Z")
You know, clair, despite your hysterical rantings on how you don’t like religion and have no problems banning ones whose practices displease you (don’t argue: that _is_ the result of what you’re trying to do), this debate had nothing to do with religion until catsix’s batshit insane rantings on how even Jewish folks shouldn’t get to circumcise their kids. I had taken it as a given that a harmless practice (though somewhat associated with religion), if outlawed, would be given an exception for the case of a religious belief. It was catsix’s rantings on how Jews don’t “really” need to circumcise their kids that led to all that explanation. As I’ve said, you make yourself clear. You don’t care about the right of others to practice a religion, so it’s fine to you if the central ritual of the religion is banned. Even though you yourself admit that there’s no reason to think it’s harmful (at least that’s what I get out of the tortured syntax herein: “For the umpteenth time, either the practice is harmful, either it isn’t”). You only seem to think it’s bad _because_ it’s the practice of a religion, and it ‘marks’ the kid in some way. And the kid doesn’t consent to that marking. Fine. It seems your goal is to make it harder for parents to pass their religious beliefs to their children. Lost in this is the fact that circumcision hasn’t been shown to effect the pleasure of sex in any way. (Your reply confused “pleasure” and “sensation” - what I pointed out was that there’s no way to compare sensation, while the pleasure of the sex act depends on a lot more than whatever sensations are being sent from a single erogenous zone.) Even if sensation is affected - for which there is no evidence (in the case of the vast majority of circumcisions that are done properly) - the effect is obviously minor, since cut guys, beyond a very, very small number, report no loss in pleasure. Even that very small number is self-selected: the fact that a group of guys blames a bad sex life on circumcision doesn’t really prove that it’s the cause. The numbers are far too small to draw a correlation. But I summarize to no avail, because you don’t really care if circumcision hurts a kid or not. It’s enough (as far as I can tell from your postings) that it’s a permanent mark left by a religion. You make no argument as to why that’s bad - it’s not like the kid’s dick is booby-trapped to explode if he ever skips going to synagogue. I’d imagine that, if the kid chooses to leave the religion, the permanent mark it necessarily leaves on his mind is a much bigger deal. > [@clairobscur](#): > > I wasn’t refering to the law, but to morals. Your religious beliefs don’t give you a right to harm another person. Hence if circumcision is harmful, it shouldn’t be practised. No problem, as it’s not! That was easy. (catsix, before you start your batshit insane rantings, provide some evidence.) > [@clairobscur](#): > > Besides, I’m not convinced that it’s authorized by law because it’s not harmful rather than because it’s an accepted custom. It’s authorized by law because it doesn’t hurt anyone. We make laws when there’s a problem that a law could fix. This isn’t a problem, so there isn’t a law. Easy, huh? > [@clairobscur](#): > > If circumcision , instead of being a Jewish practice, was a practice of, say, the Haoussas, , I’m absolutely not convinced that it wouldn’t be banned in western countries and that immigrants having it done wouldn’t be reviled. Cathode has already pointed out that rather unusual practices on the part of Santería practitioners are permitted. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Do you notice that these two points are in contradiction with each other? If no one really knows, how could _you_ know if it interferes or not. Anyway, I’m circumcized, so I don’t need any explanation. Sensation and pleasure aren’t the same. Sensation may be lessened (the mucosal tissue does change in texture, although that’s not exactly proof) but the brain has a marvelous capacity to feel any sensation exactly as much as it needs to. There are some people who have less sense of taste than most folks, and there are supertasters, who have far more. They do seem to have some differences in the foods they consume, but that doesn’t mean that the enjoyment of food is less in one group than in another. > [@clairobscur](#): > > That would be a totally different topic. From my point of view, these religions are as well-founded and useful as say, tarot reading. :: looks over at the tarot cards on his bookshelf :: That’s very nice. Fortunately, no one gives a crap whether you think their religion is well-founded or useful. > [@clairobscur](#): > > With the added bonus of making some people pushing for various laws on the basis of their superstitions, or in extreme cases, planting bombs for the same reason. So, yes, for me, getting rid of religions would certainly be a good thing. What’s the “for me” stuff? Do you favor banning religion, or not? Do you think that it’s appropriate to ban anything that upsets you, personally? Or are you responding to the immense numbers of extremist Jews in the USA, chasing little children around with knifes (“Come here, you little pisher! There’s a part of your penis, Hashem wants it cut off already!”) Or those clay statues they keep bringing to life by writing the tetragrammaton? Do older Jewish women keep harassing you to settle down with a nice Jewish girl, one who keeps kosher, and give your poor old mother some grandchildren already? I mean, seriously, what have the Jews done to you? (And I’m talking about the USA. If you think Israel-Palestine is really a religious issue, I’ve got a kosher bacon cheeseburger to sell you.) So what if you’re not religious? I’m not either. That doesn’t mean that religious folks are wrong. My views aren’t everyone’s, and I know my perspective isn’t sufficient to declare something like this wrong on the basis of morals alone. Sure, I don’t think circumcision’s the greatest thing in the world. But it doesn’t seem to do much harm, and eliminating it _would_. It’s the perspective that you have the moral authority to make other people’s decisions that leads to the extremism you’re so pissed off about in the first place. > [@clairobscur](#): > > What kind of religious opression do I indulge in (apart if you consider stating that religions are superstitions which can be harmful is a form of “oppression”)? Where did I say I want to screw the people who are religious? You’re trying to convince the rest of us to ban the central practice of a religion. That’s oppressive. > [@clairobscur](#): > > I merely state that their beliefs don’t give them special rights. Hence that in the example we’re are discussing, parent’s religious beliefs shouldn’t be taken into consideration. That’s the _child_ who is circumcized, not the parents. And he has _no_ religious belief that would be trampled on by not circumcizing him. I’m not sure you’re aware, but circumcision is permitted for non-religious reasons as well. In fact, before the batshit insane catsix started demanding we stop the Jews from doing it, we were discussing it in a secular context. > [@clairobscur](#): > > the parents thinking, on the basis of _their_ religion, that the baby should be circumcized is exactly as valid an argument as other parents thinking, still on the basis of their religion, that their son shouldn’t get a blood transfusion. Interesting example. I certainly don’t support a parent’s right to deny a kid real medical care (since that actually _does_ hurt children) but Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their ban on blood transfusion, have actually apparently come up with some pretty innovative surgical techniques. You know, through their superstitious tarot card reading. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And it doesn’t occur to you that what we dislike is presicely that people (the parents) are making someone else’s (the child) decision for him??? Yeah, I heard you plenty of times. I don’t care because it’s a completely insignificant decision from a nonreligious standpoint, and it’s a pretty big one to Jewish people. So what’s the big deal? Like I said, he’s free to leave the religion. His dick won’t explode as a result. > [@clairobscur](#): > > And not a decision about education, table manners, or somesuch, but a _medical_ decision which usually isn’t left up to the parents to do freely. Yeah, cause preventing a kid from going to a normal school, or teaching them that gay people (or black people, or whoever) are evil - why, that doesn’t matter! The kid’s dick is paramount! > [@clairobscur](#): > > If I were a parent asking a surgeon to, say, cut the left little toe of my baby, there’s no way it would be done, depite me being the father, even if I argued about my deep religious feelings. Yeah, because the amputation of a digit is totally comparable to cutting off a small piece of skin! What you guys are missing is that the reason this isn’t a problem to the rest of us is that it’s such a minor, minor change! Losing a toe is a hell of a lot more likely to cause problems to a person. > [@clairobscur](#): > > Saying _you_ should prove it’s harmful to cut the left little toe wouldn’t cut it as an argument. So, yes, I do believe it’s up to people favoring this apparently unuseful and possibly harmful surgery to prove that it has beneficial consequences, or at the very least, no harmful ones. If you want to make a law banning something, you have to prove why. You want to change the status quo. As it is, parents can circumcise their kids. If you want to justify a change to that, you have to prove why. Sure, on the basis of an individual child, the decision is different. If I were to have a child, I would leave him intact, since there’s not a good reason, not being religious, to do it. However, if you want to change society - by banning something - yes, you are expected to prove why. And it goes beyond your own feelings. Logic’s a bitch, eh? > [@clairobscur](#): > > That’s the main point we’re disagreeing about. I don’t think that the fact it’s a religious practice as any bearing on the matter Me neither. I think parents should be able to make the decision regardless of religious beliefs. Plenty of parents who aren’t Jewish or Muslim get their kids clipped, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to. > [@clairobscur](#): > > If I _do_ found a religion including toe-cutting as a basic tenet, who could tell that my belief is any less valid that the Jewish one? No one would. But the fact that cutting off a toe is _quite likely_ to hurt you, you still wouldn’t be allowed to practice it. No judgment based on the legitimacy of the religion, just on the harm caused by the practice. > [@clairobscur](#): > > If the law is sound and serves its purpose (for instance in this case, protecting thehealth of the child) then I wouldn’t care about religion-grounded objections. Only about objections based on objective facts (in this case, medical datas, for instance). No proof that circumcision, beyond one case in a hundred thousand or so, causes harm to a child’s health. Formula feeding a kid isn’t good for it either. You wanna be the booby police as well as the penis police? > [@clairobscur](#): > > And I must say it irritates me that people doesn’t seem to think that in this case, the baby is a third party in relation to his parents. If any religious belief should be taken into consideration, it should be _his_, not _theirs_. Babies do not have the full compliment of rights that adults do. They can’t, for example, purchase alcohol. And they don’t have religious beliefs. If you’re so concerned about a baby’s religious beliefs being violated, you better stop a parent from exposing it to religion at all. Because no one would tolerate anyone forcing an adult to attend a church they didn’t believe in, for example. > [@clairobscur](#): > > There has been X post stating that a ban on child circumcision would result in the destruction of Judaism, but still not a single shred of evidence showing that such would be the case. And you know…I don’t believe for an instant that it would have such a result. You acknowledged before that we had sufficiently argued that. There has been a citation from the Torah, there have been multiple attempts by Jewish folks to explain why, exactly, a ban on child circumcision _does_ amount to a ban on Judaism. Would it end the religion in this country? Probably not. It would just mean the mohels would have to operate underground. I’m not really that comfortable with that notion. > [@clairobscur](#): > > So, once again, yes, it’s up to you to bring evidences that this operation involves no risk, has no harmful consequences, or that at the contrary it has beneficial consequences. Lacking this evidences, it’s exactly as justified as left little toe cutting. Are you the only one knowing what a foot should be like? No, dear, when you want a new law, it’s up to you to explain why it’s needed. New to debate? > [@clairobscur](#): > > Finally, I’m irritated to discuss endlessly about the consequences of circumcision, since my point in entering this debate wasn’t to discuss its merits or lack thereof, I should hope it wasn’t. > [@clairobscur](#): > > but to argue that the religious beliefs of the parents were not genuine to the question at hand and that the fact some people believe they are mandated by god to cut off a little bit of their sons is irrelevant. A medical decision should be taken only with the well-being of the patient in mind. Not other people religious concerns. I’ll assume you meant to say “germaine”. And no, the religious beliefs of the parents aren’t germaine to the discussion, since we were arguing over the merits of circumcision in a completely secular context. It’s only when catsix began her batshit insane rantings on why Jews shouldn’t clip their kids either that the religious element entered the discussion. But you’re right, there’s no reason non-Jewish, non-Muslim parents shouldn’t have every right to clip their kids. And, fortunately, they do! ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/305 "2004-07-04T01:15:56Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > Well, not unconstitutional…but > [illegal](http://www.mgmbill.org/usfgmlaw.htm) > > Oh wait, that’s just for girls. They are still looking at the one bill to protect little boys in the same way. I’m sorry, but comparing FGM with circumcision is idiotic. They are very different in purpose, and they are **drastically** different in result. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/306 "2004-07-04T01:26:00Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Engraving in the flesh of children the (assumed) belonging of these children to this particular group. There’s no assumed about it. Any child born to a Jewish mother, is Jewish. As the boychik is already a Jew as soon as he finishes emerging from the birth canal, he gets circumcised. > [@PhalPhoto](#): > > Oh wait, that’s just for girls. They are still looking at the one bill to protect little boys in the same way. Not according to your link. The Government Response page contains only two responses that are not form letters. Brown says that he’d support the bill only if doctors decided circumcision was unsafe and recommended against it. Woolsey says that she supports male circumcision as a religious ritual. The Jews against circumcision website is full of debunked arguments from the Dr Laura letter, and errors of all kinds. Maimonides wasn’t just a revered sage. He was a doctor. This gave him a tendency to try and explain the commandments in medical terms(He concluded pork was prohibited because it was somehow ‘injurious to the body’). He gave his opinion (the quote on the site even contains the words “in my opinion”). To claim that his explanation is the real reason behind the command to circumcise is misleading, and baseless. More, it doesn’t matter _why_ G-d commanded us to do a thing. Some Jews have decided the ban on pork is really there to protect us from trichynosis, and that if they eliminate the risk of trichynosis , they can eat all the pork they want. Wrong. Regardless of the reason, the law still applies. I ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/307 "2004-07-04T01:32:40Z")
Just to clear up this point. One of the things our society turns on is respect for physical integrity of the person. Every breach of that integrity is a crime unless: The person is subject to legal restraint, or - The person gives informed consent or - If the person is unable to give that consent, the procedure is in the best interests of the child. - To be in the best interests of the child there must be a sound medical reason for the procedure. There isn’t in the case of circumcision. That it is permitted is simply an anomaly of selective non-prosecution for cultural reasons. To clarify, children are not property. Parents do not have the right to do as they please with children. ---
**Author:** ![PhalPhoto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PhalPhoto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhalPhoto)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/308 "2004-07-04T01:32:41Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > I’m sorry, but comparing FGM with circumcision is idiotic. They are very different in purpose, and they are **drastically** different in result. Hrm. They are both circumcision. They are both genital mutilation. Note the law is specific that you can’t legally circumcise a female child in the U.S. But, currently, you can legally circumcise a male. I see little significant difference between removing a small piece of skin from the female genitals and doing same to the male? Speaking of religious exemptions and such is all just ear-tugging and solution speculation. The heart of the matter is whether it is harmful. If it is harmful to the female, why not the male? It is a useless procedure yet babies [die](http://www.cirp.org/library/death/) from it. It is a useless procedure that causes them great [pain](http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/) . Yet we continue to argue here about whether it is harmless? I just can’t wrap my head around the idea of a harmless procedure that causes pain and the risk of death to no purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/309 "2004-07-04T01:35:05Z")
Learn to respect children. They are people! The test isn’t _“is it harmful?”_ The test is _“is it medically beneficial?”_ ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/310 "2004-07-04T01:38:18Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > Hrm. They are both circumcision. They are both genital mutilation. Note the law is specific that you can’t legally circumcise a female child in the U.S. But, currently, you can legally circumcise a male. I see little significant difference between removing a small piece of skin from the female genitals and doing same to the male? > > . You see little difference between removing a small fold of skin of the penis and the partial or total removal of the clitoris??? Are you serious??? :eek: :eek: :eek: ---
**Author:** ![PhalPhoto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PhalPhoto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhalPhoto)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/311 "2004-07-04T01:50:58Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > You see little difference between removing a small fold of skin of the penis and the partial or total removal of the clitoris??? > > Are you serious??? :eek: :eek: :eek: Actually, what you are referring to is a clitorectomy and not what I was talking about at all. I was referring to circumcision of the clitoral hood, a “small piece of skin”. Doing so, in the U.S., is illegal. But only if you do it to a girl. ---
**Author:** ![theckhd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cdc98d/32.png) [@theckhd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/theckhd)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/312 "2004-07-04T02:08:26Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Of course, the belief isn’t included in the scar, etc…Still, the scar does symbolically express it, or express the belonging to the group in the flesh. That’s what these people are doing. Engraving in the flesh of children the (assumed) belonging of these children to this particular group. I guess my point is this: I agree with you that it’s a symbolic expression of their beliefs, and i agree that it’s done under the assumption that they will grow up with those beliefs. However, since it’s common for non-Jews to get circumcised, the person is not physically any different than a Catholic, Protestant, or Atheist who happened to be circumcised as a child. The \*\*\*only \* \*\* difference is in the fact that they view it as a covenant with G-d, and that view is entirely mental – They can decide to deny or keep that covenant at will, regardless of what the Jewish community feels on the matter. Last time i checked, the Jewish community didn’t get a say in free will. Certainly the ‘mark’ is still there. But the ‘mark’ is also on millions of other people of a variety of other religions. So of course while it was intended to represent a belonging to a particular religious group, if someone rejects their participation in that group it ends up just being another meaningless facet of that person, just like the millions of other people who are circumcised. I don’t sit up at night thinking about what my penis **means** , it just **is** , and i’m fine with that. And **Dave** , the reason i try to focus on Judaism as a religion rather than an ethnicity is that i like to allow for the possibility that someone of any ethnic group can be Jewish. The argument actually becomes easier if you treat this from an ethnicity standpoint – “engraving” them as part of a certain ethnicity without asking them seems easier to swallow, since you’re not going to be changing ethnicities any time soon. And they don’t have to be consulted about it – their ethnicity is already chosen at conception! Of course, it’s still a medical procedure done without their consent, so the same objections will probably still apply. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/313 "2004-07-04T02:13:38Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > It is a useless procedure yet babies > [die](http://www.cirp.org/library/death/) from it . A quick scan of the footnotes reveals 3 cites which report deaths due to mohel circumcision. 2 occured before the 1920’s. The third has no hyperlink and doesn’t appear in to be in English. Considering the other distortions and misrepresentations on the cite, I see no reason to trust a footnote with no link. A bunch of deaths due to anastesia. Which mohels don’t use. A few deaths due to African groups in which the person performing the circumcision has no training. I think we can all agree that untrained folks shouldn’t be circumcising anybody. Re Pain I laugh in your general direction. We’ve been circumcising without anasthetics or analgesics for a few thousand years now. If the babies’ reactions were really that severe, I’d think we’d have noticed by now. Does it hurt? I honestly can’t remember, but I’m goin with yes. Is this pain some severe, lifethreatening, neurochemistry altering experience? I’m going with no. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/314 "2004-07-04T02:14:10Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a940128.html) [http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2\_197.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_197.html) > [@](#): > > _from Cecil_ > > _Female circumcision often destroys the woman’s capacity for sexual pleasure_; male circumcision does not. Parents routinely consent to operations on behalf of their minor children. Post-infancy circumcision is far more traumatic and expensive. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/315 "2004-07-04T02:17:44Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > I’m not sure why it’s adressed to me, actually. I felt that if I didn’t start picking out specific names, my question would have been blown off indefinitely. 😉 > [@](#): > > No, he wasn’t. Nor in intent, since he didn’t mean any harm, at the contrary, nor in fact, since I assume your father [did not] suffer as a result. Okay, fair enough. And I thank you for your response. The thing I don’t get is, why is it that my grandfather wasn’t an ogre for “cutting off some skin” off of my dad, but others who do it to their children are in the wrong? My grandfather was convinced that he was doing the right thing. He had personal experience to back up his reasoning (didn’t like being uncirumcised), but he still had someone cut something off of his son. A helpless baby! The poor kid had no say in the matter! Now, bear in mind I have no real stake in this debate (cut, uncut, don’t care), but I don’t get it. If my grandfather wasn’t an ogre—doing something to his son because he (grandfather) believed it was best—why are other parents who have their sons circumcised so out of line? I have to assume that they are having their sons circumcised because they honestly believe it’s a good thing for their children. They have their children’s best interests at heart. They don’t believe that they are harming their children. So what makes them so different from my grandfather? And just so CATSIX won’t think I’ve forgotten her, I still await her answer to my question as well. Thank you! ---
**Author:** ![PhalPhoto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PhalPhoto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhalPhoto)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/316 "2004-07-04T02:33:34Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > A bunch of deaths due to anastesia. Which mohels don’t use. > > A few deaths due to African groups in which the person performing the circumcision has no training. I think we can all agree that untrained folks shouldn’t be circumcising anybody. > Re Pain > > I laugh in your general direction. We’ve been circumcising without anasthetics or analgesics for a few thousand years now. If the babies’ reactions were really that severe, I’d think we’d have noticed by now. Does it hurt? I honestly can’t remember, but I’m goin with yes. Is this pain some severe, lifethreatening, neurochemistry altering experience? I’m going with no. To be completely honest, my personal jury is still out on the religious exemption idea so I can’t comment on the procedures as performed by a mohel. Here in Kansas, there weren’t a bunch of mohels offering their services to me when I gave birth last year. But, again, I can’t wrap my head around a harmelss procedure that is medically useless but pain and holds a risk of death. Is the pain a “evere, lifethreatening, neurochemistry altering experience?” I don’t know either. Unfortunately, the little tikes don’t speak English well at that age (nor yet, in my case) so I can’t question them about it. But, it’s a given that it hurts… a lot. **Spooje** , I went back and read what Cecil had to say on the matter as well. I guess the point I was trying to make to you is even the slightest nick to the genitals of a female is illegal. But not if it’s a boy. Seems strange to me that all of the men arguing this point don’t see the unfairness in that. If there were legislation protecting the male genitals from surgery without consent but no such legislation for females…well, I know a bunch of us girls would be picketing the White House lawn. But you guys don’t seem to mind it much. ---
**Author:** ![GingerOfTheNorth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/cdc98d/32.png) [@GingerOfTheNorth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GingerOfTheNorth)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/317 "2004-07-04T02:39:07Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > Actually, what you are referring to is a clitorectomy and not what I was talking about at all. I was referring to circumcision of the clitoral hood, a “small piece of skin”. Doing so, in the U.S., is illegal. But only if you do it to a girl. I’d like to see you try to remove the clitoral hood from a male. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/318 "2004-07-04T02:48:28Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > **Spooje** , I went back and read what Cecil had to say on the matter as well. I guess the point I was trying to make to you is even the slightest nick to the genitals of a female is illegal. But not if it’s a boy. Seems strange to me that all of the men arguing this point don’t see the unfairness in that. If there were legislation protecting the male genitals from surgery without consent but no such legislation for females…well, I know a bunch of us girls would be picketing the White House lawn. But you guys don’t seem to mind it much. Well, the purpose of female circumcision is to inhibit the enjoyment of sex. If I felt that had happened to me, I _would_ be picketing the White House lawn, I assure you. If it’s purpose was to deter me from masturbation, it failed miserably. Of course, It was done to me at a time when it was pretty much automatic. It was just something the parents did and I don’t think much questioning went on. I think questioning is a good thing. And as I said before, if it’s not necessary, maybe we should consider not doing it, except as a religious rite. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/319 "2004-07-04T03:02:19Z")
> [@PhalPhoto](#): > > To be completely honest, my personal jury is still out on the religious exemption idea so I can’t comment on the procedures as performed by a mohel. Here in Kansas, there weren’t a bunch of mohels offering their services to me when I gave birth last year. But, again, I can’t wrap my head around a harmelss procedure that is medically useless but pain and holds a risk of death. > . Mohels generally don’t lurk around maternity wards, waiting. They advertise. Though I was genuinely surprised that they are no mohel ads in the yellow pages (Philadelphia has Jews like Mom’s soup has matzoh balls), you can easily find mohel ads in the many local Jewish publications, or you can simply call the nearest synagogue. As I said, there are important differences in how a mohel performs a circumcision- no anasthesia, no electrocauterization, etc. Additionally, the mohel is a specialist. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Do older Jewish women keep harassing you to settle down with a nice Jewish girl, one who keeps kosher, and give your poor old mother some grandchildren already? Yes. Yes, they do. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2004, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619/320 "2004-07-04T04:11:22Z")
Hey Doc, I got a question, and was wondering if you knew the answer, or maybe Zev will. How much do the services of a mohel cost? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/circumcision-debate-why-the-obsession/252619.md?page=17)