Yes, it is, and I honestly believe that with very few medical exceptions and the request of the patient that he himself be circumcised it should be banned for everyone.
Apparently ad hominem is an acceptable part of this thread, or those who call me ‘batshit insane’ wouldn’t be getting away with it.
And how would it have the ability to give Jews an exception if circumcision were banned except for serious medical circumstances or the patient’s own request regarding his own penis?
Way to put words in my mouth that I never said.
I get that it’s important. I still think it’s really fucked up to find cutting off part of someone’s penis that important.
That’s a hell of an ‘if’ to be using as justification for removing part of an unconsenting baby’s body.
I’m with Miller and WierdDave on this one.
I’m circumcised, and i’m really, really glad that my parents made the decision they did. If i hadn’t been circumcised as a child, i probably never would have been. The concept of having someone slice off part of my penis makes me shudder to the bone, and as a sentient adult (or even as a kid) i probably never would have been able to work up the courage to have it done. Luckily, i had it done right after i was born, when i wasn’t capable of remembering (or worse yet having to anticipate) what was happening. I can also see how it’s easier to clean, and faster to boot. I’m all about increasing efficiency in cleaning, so’s to have more time to do other stuff. Like masturbating, which i can confidently say my circumcision hasn’t prevented in any way, shape, or form. I don’t see how being circumcised makes it that much more difficult to masturbate anyway, perhaps it just requires a different strokin’ style.
Also, i think if i had to get circumcised later in life, i’d be more likely to associate the pain of the operation with sex, and develop an unconcious connection between the two. Much more likely, in fact, than when i’m in a complete and utter daze, incapable of arranging or retaining thoughts, and extremely unlikely to be having sex in the near future.
So let’s see, what benefits do i enjoy from having been circumcised at birth?
-Easier to clean
-Not having to work up the courage to have it done later in life
-I don’t remember it being painful
-I don’t develop a negative attitude about sex
I could add “i think it looks better” to the mix, but since that’s a purely aesthetic argument, it doesn’t really count, since ymmv. However, i really can’t think of any negative things. It doesn’t hurt, i don’t feel mutliated or “funny-lookin”, and i don’t worry about women looking at it and fleeing in terror. I don’t really have to worry about getting something lost in it, like my car keys or last week’s issue of Time. Honestly, i can’t think of a single thing that i dislike about being circumcised. If i hadn’t been, i’d probably want to be, but as i said earlier, i’m a giant wuss. Admittedly, i’ll never know what i might be missing by not having a foreskin, but so far i can’t really complain.
So basically, i’d have to thank my mom for having it done, I don’t know what i would’ve done without her!
**Thanks Mom! It’s still workin great! **
Also, i’d like to give a sincere fuck you to catsix not only for trying to tell me that what my mother chose to have done to my nether regions as a child was wrong and trying to force her morality on me, but for being an ignorant, obnoxious fuck to all of the pro-cutters in this thread. Listen carefully:
My mother could have ABORTED me in the womb! Who the FUCK am I, or you for that matter, to tell her that cutting off a bit of flesh is wrong. Jeezus Christ! If abortion doesn’t count as a case where something is done to the kid without their being consulted, then i don’t know what does. She was kind enough to keep me around rather than dump my ass in the garbage from the get-go; i feel like i owe her. If she thought that snipping the tip would be to my benefit, well, i’m gonna go with her on that one.
For kindly bringing me into this world in the first place, i’m willing to let her do some of the important decision making for me during the years when i’m not sentient enough to do it myself. It may seem unfair to you, but i’d much prefer that she gets to make those sorts of decisions than letting the state make them for me, which is what outlawing circumcision amounts to. At least i can count on her loving me, i can’t make any similar claim for the state.
And for Og’s sake, even if you don’t know a damn thing about Judaism, your open intolerance for their beliefs makes you even less sympathetic. Why don’t you ride your fucking pony over to a synagogue and learn something before you spew more bile in this thread. Your head is stuck so far up your twat that you can’t see the forest for the labia.
On the other extreme, i’d like to thank Mangetout, among others, for being able to discuss the subject without being pricks about it. Pun intended, of course.
I admit there are moral questions about operations on a person without their explicit consent, but hopefully i’ve given you an example of a case where someone would feel they were better served by allowing their parents to make that decision for them.
Interestingly, there’s currently an OT thread on misc.kids.breastfeeding about ear piercing. One mother has written in, asking the opinions of those on the group about ear piercing for baby girls. So far, every response has been "cosmetic body alterations are best left to the individual to choose because they are irreversible.’
Okay, you may argue, ear piercing is so minor as to be irrelevent (but I bet an accupuncturist might disagree, what with the spots on the ear used for needle insertion). But it is still irreversible, and it is still the girl’s body, and the girl’s pain, and not that of the parents.
I, personally, will offer my four girls the option of piercing their ears if they wish, as a rite of passage when they get their first periods. Until then, it is a matter of vanity, and I think little girls look just fine without bits of metal in their ears.
Please permit me some pensive rambling while I wait for some bread dough to rise:
Now, while I do not deny that parents have the freedom to choose circumcision for any reason whatsoever, including ‘didn’t even bother to think about it’, ‘father wanted kid to look like himself’, ‘mother thinks cut cocks are prettier’, ‘father had to be cut for medical reasons at an age old enough to remember the pain, and wanted to spare his sons the memory’, ‘grandmother/grandfather pitched a hissy fit and insisted’, ‘religious duty’ and ‘genuinely concerned about future health reasons’…I think I do have the right to think some of these reasons are stupid, selfish, and shallow, and yes to judge the parents’ decisions as such even while I must accept them). Some decisions I may consider misguided but well-meant. And then there is that ‘religious duty’ one…well, pretty hard for me to argue with that one, I understand it too well. After all, I used to block abortion clinics out of the fear of God (13 years ago, don’t yell at me now, I don’t do it anymore.)
I do not deny that people can make these choices. But I do reserve the right to think some choices are stupid, bad, selfish, and thoughtless, and that the price of those choices will be paid by the innocent child. I also think parents should minimise making those choices as much as possible.
I guess I still come back to the whole benefits vs harm thing. See, I have this idea that for every man who is unhappy with the state of his penis and SAYS so (I don’t mean size, I mean cut status) there are probably many more who are unhappy or dissatisfied, and will never say a thing. We’ll never hear of them, we’ll never know. They certainly won’t be involved in any studies and their voices will never be heard. And they won’t restore, either - either they won’t see the value vs long term effort, or they won’t ever even hear of it. Or maybe they’ll bring it up with their doctors and be told it’s stupid…kind of like some of the posters here have said. Why do I think this? Because that’s the way people are about all kinds of things. For every one that complains, there are another 10 or 100 or 1000 who don’t. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy - only that they don’t complain.
Now, I’d like to try to address the whole “fine with it” thing.
Absolutely, I imagine most circ’ed men are ‘fine’ with it. They’ve never known anything else, they don’t know any different. And this is true of almost anything anyone is brought up with. If you were born without a hand, or blind, or deaf (as some people are) you would learn to adapt and of course you’d be fine, but nobody would try to tell you you weren’t missing something compared to other people not lacking in those organs. Conditioning to accept a situation is not the same thing as choosing it for yourself, knowing what the alternative is like.
I bet there are some cut men out there who might indeed feel a pang over their absent foreskin if they heard intact men, or restored men, talk about the pleasure of orgasming simply from rubbing the ‘lips’ of the foreskin together above the glans, about being able to consistently experience multiple small orgasms before the big one, about being able to orgasm through slow, leisurely strokes (which is a style that works very well for many women in lovemaking) rather than having to shift into jackhammer mode to get enough stimulus to reach orgasm (which can be unpleasant to be on the receiving end of).
You know maybe I’m overgeneralising: I’ve only had one sexual partner in my life, and he’s not intact. But when I asked the guys on the restore list about …ah, shall we say, the general style of lovemaking I have come to know, they said this was typical of a cut man, and that they used to do like that too, but after they restored, their style changed because they began to be able to experience, and enjoy, different kinds of stimulation.
I think the ONLY people who can talk about being circumcision making no difference, and have any authority on the subject at all, are the people who were intact and then were cut as sexually active adults - or the people who were cut and then restored. Everyone else is talking about his single experience which he is bound to think is normal and fine. There really aren’t any long-term studies out there to tell us what these two groups of men say (but plenty of anecdotes - even on the circlist, some of the men report considerable unhappiness with loss of sensation - and this in a circumcision promotion-and-support group where I would think that reporting unhappiness would be frowned on). But the lack of studies is no proof that there is no difference. In fact, it tells us precisely nothing, and we’re left muddling through our preconceptions based on our own experiences again.
And let’s face it: men like their penises. I can’t imagine most men admitting (even to themselves, if it’s true) to getting less pleasure than they want, or having the skin be so taut it hurts, or not liking how erection pulls the hairy skin from the scrotum halfway up the shaft because so much shaft skin has been removed. They’ve never known anything else, and they do still orgasm, so it must be Good. And the very suggestion that it might have been Different, or even Better, is offensive - because to admit there’s a point of dissatisfaction or imperfection is to strike a blow to that part of the ego/self-image that is tied up in the penis. Even the idea that it there might be circumstances under which sex could be, or could have been, better appears to threaten some men. I have no idea why. Gee, I’d think men would absolutely leap at the chance to experience better sex. With all the men out there who seem to be popping Viagra and penis-enlargement pills, I’d think ‘this can improve your sex life’ would be a really big appeal. But…there you go, the studies don’t exist, it’s not an instant fix like a pill, and they’re “fine”…
To throw another golem into the gears, I believe that any parent who chooses to have his son circumcised also owes it to the child to educate himself or herself about the idea of, and methodology of, foreskin restoration. Because perhaps someday the son may ask about it, and the parent can say “We made the best decision we could for you at the time, using the information we had. These were our reasons. Now, it’s your body. If you like it, cool. If you don’t, you can do this and this, and reverse some of what was done.” And an apology might even be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. If the kid is happy, great. But if he’s not…well, the parent made the choice, it falls upon the parent to help the child unmake it.
As you mention, some of it was totally worthless. So, for that matter, was mine - years of braces, destroyed when my wisdom teeth came in.
However, there is a point to orthodontia, at least some of the time, that goes beyond mere appearances: sometimes teeth don’t fit together right, and braces help make for a correct biting and chewing ‘fit’. One of my daughters has so small a lower jaw that even now there is clearly no room for all of her teeth. I mean, simply no room. We may have to resort to orthodontia. However, please note, this is in response to a known, diagnosed problem, not a 'this might be a problem someday, so let’s pull a couple of adult teeth to make room just in case (as, by the way, was done to me).
I am not against circumcision for diagnosed medical problems for which no other reasonable medical alternatives exist. I am not against orthodontia for children whose bite is so unsound as to create a problem. I do not believe all children need braces so as to have perfect teeth. I think adults who want to wear braces to have straighter teeth should be able to have them.
That’s a good point, and one could argue that’s the reason i feel the way i do about it. As i said, i’ll never know what i’m missing. Admittedly, i haven’t talked to a lot of people about this subject, but i’ve heard good and bad things about having a foreskin, so i don’t know that it’s as obviously superior as some make it out to be. The fact that the process of restoration is available means that i’d have the opportunity to find out, if i was so inclined. I doubt i will be though.
I have no idea what i’d do if i were going to have a son though. Obviously i’d want to do whatever i felt was best for the kid. I agree that “looking like daddy”, as well as many of the other reasons you mentioned, are pretty stupid reasonings. But some also have merit. To ban the practice totally not only seems to be discriminatory to certain religions, but also seems to assume that the parents don’t have a say in what they feel is best for their children. That’s something that i doubt many people feel comfortable with.
this might possibly be the most rational thing posted in this entire thread.
I’m with you all the way up to here. Then the logic train goes completely off of the tracks
Don’t show me a tree and say it proves there is a forest. There have been studies done(and if you want a cite, go read all the JDT threads I linked to earlier, it’s in there, I’m not going to spend the next 3 days looking for it) showing that there are very, very small minority of men who feel this way. Unfortunately, with the mass com world we live in nowadays, one person can make a huge ammount of noise, witness JDT on these boards.
The problem is that this entire sentence starts with the assumption that circ’d men are somehow missing out on some aspects of sex, or are inferior sexual partners. It’s a steaming pile of bovine fecal effluvia. There have been multitudes of studies done about the penis, and none of them have consistantly demonstrated anything of the sort.
I am sorry that your lover is not very good in bed, I can think of no other way to read this. You have admitted that you are not very experienced WRT sexual variety and techniques, please work with him to help him become a better lover, and I guarantee it has nothing to do with his foreskin or lack thereof. Reading that bravado of a bunch of men bragging about how they “restored” themselves and using that as a realistic account of what happens…sure. There was this one time in high school too. I was away at camp, and I met these two twins. Really, they were about 24. Anyway…
Guess what? These men aren’t stepping forward in droves screaming “What have I done???” either. What does that tell you? Think!
No such thing. Sorry, but unless someone is circ’d and immediately changes his mind and asked for it to be grafted back on, there is no way to “restore” what is lost. What is being done is simply streaching other skin across the head of the penis. Guess what? an uncut man could do the same thing. It still wouldn’t be a foreskin.
Anecdotal horror stories, blah, blah, blah. If this type of botched circumcision is so common, how about a medical cite for it, huh?
Look, it’s obvious that you have based most if not all of your opinions on this issue upon the utterings of a very vocal extreme minority of men who have focused upon their penises and circumisions as the source of many of the problems in their lives. Why do you take the word of this tiny number of men as gospel over the contradictory testiomny of many, many more men who say that there is no problem? Think about it. You’ve bought into the circ equivelent of the flat earth society. You might want to consider that, no?
I have NOT said my husband is bad in bed, and it’s a nasty thing for you to suggest it of someone who isn’t involved in this conversation, nor wants to be. What I as much as said, is that what his body requires for satisfaction is something that, by itself, doesn’t do it for me. We’ve worked around that to our mutual satisfaction. We do things that work for me, and we do things that work for him. It’s satisfying. I can imagine other scenarios however which would not have required a ‘his’ and ‘hers’ differentiation to what works, because they would have been more similar. I know these exist because I have read about them and heard them described. That’s all. And even I cannot miss what I’ve never experienced, except to say “You know, all other things being equal, I think I would like thatat least as much as I like this and maybe more.”
I have based my opinions about these mens’ experiences based on what they say. You are the one claiming they are focused on their circumcisions as the source of problems in their lives. I have not claimed that. THEY do not claim that, as a general rule. What they do claim, however, is that their circumcisions have been a source of problems. Yet you’re perfectly willing to claim that this is not so, or that they’re only imagining it, or maybe that they’re all just batshit crazy. And naturally you would never consider going and lurking on their mailing list to see what they say for themselves, I’m sure, because what can they possibly have to say that has any value at all?
I suspect your idea of ‘obvious’ differs substantially from mine.
Does Goodwin’s Law still apply when somebody admits that they’d like to do the same thing a tyrant (Antiochus) did in an attempt to destroy the Jews?
Either you still don’t understand what circumcision means in Judaism, and think Judaism can be practiced without it.
Or you do understand that Judaism cannot exist without circumcision, and want to destroy the Jewish people.
Actually, I may have misused the term. However, you suggested all people who strongly supported circumcision were mentally ill.
This comment would apply to Jews worldwide.
Various posters have called you ‘guano loco’ based soley on the posts you have made in this thread. This is indeed a personal attack. This thread is in the Pit. Personal attacks are allowed in this forum.
It would prove that circumcision is an established and central practice of Judaism, and protected by the first ammendment.
I should have been clearer. If you’re going to argue that Jews should stop with penis pruning, there are three questions- First, does the Torah really say that?
Some practices can be argued against by citing different passages or arguing that a passage has been mistranslated. With circumcision, there are no passages which can be used to argue against it. There is no error of translation. The Torah really says that.
The two remaining questions- Is there a G-d? Is the Torah His word?
For me, and I suspect for Zev as well, there is no if. The answer is an emphatic yes to both questions. I don’t use an ‘if’ to justify circumcision. I use a ‘yes’ I feel each day.
Here’s a couple of questions about circumcision and Judaism for you, Doc?
I know a family where the husband is a non-practicing Jew - a cultural Jew, let’s say. He certainly doesn’t observe. His wife is not Jewish.
They have a son. The son is not being raised as a Jew. The son was cut in-hospital, not at a Bris. This is the child I mentioned before who was cut crooked, then re-cut so tightly that his erections hurt him every time. What the child clearly needs, for his own comfort, is to increase the amount of skin he has, and this is where stretching techniques might be useful to him. But the father, reportedly, was threatened by the very idea that his son might grow back any of this skin because he’s a Jew.
Okay, here’s the question:
If the mother is not Jewish, is the child Jewish? (I’d always heard this is a matrilinear thing.)
If the circumcision was done as a matter of routine in hospital, does it carry the same weight of covenant as a ritual circumcision performed by a Mohel at a Bris? Does it carry any meaning at all?
If the child is damaged by the circumcision and must re-grow skin to alleviate pain, does it amount to a rejection of the covenant? Is there such a thing?
I can almost see the whistful smile on your face when you mention “other techniques that you think you might enjoy” and hear the disapointment as you report that your husband has to “pound away at you like a jackhammer” in order to cum. I am telling you that nothing you listed in your previous post except orgasming from rubbing the foreskin against itself above the glans, is the exclusive province of uncut men. I can, have and do experience all of them. I prefer to reach orgasm from long, slow strokes. This has nothing to do with circiumcision, and everythig to do with the sexual experience of the man and his willingness to experiment with different techniques and expand his repertoire of sack time gymnastics.
You assume that I know nothing of the other side. You assume wrong. I have spent time on cirp.org, surfed anti-circ messageboards and read tons of their literature. What is lacking in all of them, and from you too, is proof (there’s that word again!) It’s all built upon hearsay and allegation, anecdotes and rumors. While that may be a fine reason for an individual to adopt a philosophy, there’s no law against going off half cocked that I am aware of, it’s a piss poor “reason” to assume that everyone HAS to believe the same way. You want to believe that circumcision is the devil’s scar around your penis, God bless you, go right ahead, just leave me and all of the other people who prefer a rational, reasoned aproach to the issue alone, and for fuck’s sake stop thinking that you have some devine right to force your opinions upon the rest of us.
Nope, I certainly don’t think infant ear-piercing is good, if for no other reason than the fact that the earlobes don’t necessarily grow as might be expected, and infant ear-piercing can result in badly-placed earrings.
Eminently reasonable and a lovely idea as well.
That’s pretty much precisely how I feel. I hold no truck with the concept that I shouldn’t judge others - I do so all the time, on both major and minor issues. I mentally judge people’s hairstyles in the elevator, I judge the motivations of our Supreme Court justices, hell, I judge constantly, which I think is pretty much part and parcel with being a person.
But the fact that I judge a person’s reasons for circumcision to be stupid (and except in the case of religious requirement, I think they are) doesn’t mean I have any right to try and stop them. I judge, but I keep those judgments in my head.
I don’t think it’s a tragedy if a kid’s wang gets clipped, but I agree that the reasons to do it are limited at best. And I think most of the time those choices fit into these categories.
I’m sure it happens, but I can’t imagine that a huge portion of circumcisees really are unhappy. I need evidence before I come to any conclusions.
I don’t disagree, but here’s where we see the difference between circumcision and, as an example, the barbarities inflicted upon young women in some African countries. They never become conditioned to accept it, because rather than having parts that work just fine (if perhaps with slightly sub-optimal functioning) they have parts that don’t serve their intended purpose at all.
You lost me here. I don’t know much about sex with women (being as I’m not into women) but the rest of that? Yes, uncut guys masturbate by rubbing the foreskin on the head of the penis, which does indeed eliminate the need for lubricant. And I actually don’t know how cut guys do it - but they seem to enjoy it. The multiple small orgasms? Slow leisurely strokes? You lost me there . . . maybe my foreskin doesn’t work.
The restoration crowd may be exaggerating the wonder and might that is the foreskin just a tad for their own political ends, because unless my wang is seriously sub-par, and the wangs of guys I’ve been with too, this is just not accurate.
Straight people seem to enjoy one particular sex act above all others; I can’t claim any expertise on it. But cut or uncut, there are lots of different kinds of stimulation.
But if they feel their experience is “normal and fine”, then what’s the problem? Their deadened tissue dampens sensation; my brain is so used to all that sensation that it responds less to it. There’s no evidence that there’s any difference in enjoyment of sex between cut and uncut guys, so the argument seems to be revolving around matters of exactly what’s going through the nerve cells connecting the penis to the brain.
Perhaps, but what about the guys whose self-conception is so tied up into their penises that they project free-floating resentment of authority onto their missing foreskins? You can look at either group as pathological, but since we can’t get into their brains, I don’t think this is a helpful tack.
It amazes me that there are men who aren’t too embarrassed to by penis enlargers. But like you said, men are willing to try to make their sexual experience better. It seems to me that a lot of guys try to the exclusion of all else. Some guys at least don’t necessarily seem to be strangers to the notion that there could be something more out there.
[batshit insane mode] YOUR PENIS DOES NOT MEET OUR STANDARDS! YOUR PARENTS COMMITTED A CRIME AGAINST SOCIETY! EVERY PROBLEM IN YOUR LIFE IS CAUSED BY CIRCUMCISION, AND IF YOU CAN’T ADMIT THAT IT’S BECAUSE YOU ARE SO TRAUMATIZED! YOUR PENIS IS NOT OK, AND IF YOU WERE HONEST YOU WOULD ADMIT THAT YOU HATE SEX, HATE YOUR PARENTS, AND HATE EVERY INTACT MAN IN THE WORLD BECAUSE YOUR PENIS IS BROKEN!
[/batshit insane mode]
(note that no offense is intended to Mangetout, Chotii, and the others who have been arguing in a rational, reasonable manner - you haven’t been saying things like this. I only mean to offend the truly batshit insane.)
Yes, this is the pit, which is the place for ad hominem attacks. So I get to call you batshit insane if I like! You may call me names as well, but frankly, I doubt any of them will fit quite so well.
However, insulting an entire religion is not quite so nice. I don’t know if saying bigoted, hateful things about Jews is permitted in the pit; it probably should be since most things are. But it still illustrates that you are willing to put feelings about a body part you don’t even have above all other concerns in the world, and that you’re not just batshit insane, you’re a batshit insane asshat.
So catsix doesn’t care about these guys’ sexual pleasure at all. She admits that cutting hasn’t been shown to impact on it, but that’s apparently not what’s got her so batshit insane in the first place.
Attention all Jewish people: catsix wishes you to stop practicing your religion, since it’s wrong anyhow.
Seriously, catsix, what is up with you?
That wasn’t nice. And Chotii has been eminently reasonable in this thread, even if her opinion’s different from hers. She didn’t deserve that.
I can’t answer the other questions, but given how heavily-discussed Jewish law has always been, no doubt someone has. This one has an easier answer though. (IANAJew, no doubt Zev or DocC will give a more complete answer later.)
According to tradition, being a Jew means being born to a Jewish mother or converting to Judaism. A Jewish man who marries a Gentile (who doesn’t convert) will have Gentile children. This is still the practice of Orthodox Jews, and at least most Conservatives as well. Reform and Reconstructionist Jews usually accept that the children of a Jewish father, if raised as Jews, are Jewish. But that isn’t really accurate with regard to the Jewish scripture.
So the guy’s father is being a real hardass about one particular aspect of Jewish law, and ignoring another. Nice. Tell your friend to get his penis fixed if he can, and his father will probably get over it eventually.
To Orthodox and Conservative Jews, he is not. For these groups it is matrilineal. For Reform Jews, he is Jewish. I have no idea what Reconstructionist Jews would conclude.
Not unless the proper blessings etc were performed.
It means that upon converting to Judaism, the kid does not need to be circumcised. You still have to get a rabbi to say the appropriate blessings.
AFAIK, there is officially no way to renounce Judaism. If a botched circumcision (and this is why you can’t trust Gentiles to do these things ) is painful, by all means go get it fixed. OTTOMH, I’d say the ideal solution in this situation would be for the boy to stretch the skin sufficiently to be nice and comfortable, but not so much that he appears to be uncircumcised.
Again OTTOMH
Cosmetic surgery is generally prohibited as it serves no end other than vanity. However, reconstructive surgery is permitted. ‘Erections are painful’ would seem to move this into constructive surgery
We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply. If erections are painful, it’s gonna interfere with this.
We are also told that intentional castration or emasculation, is a bad thing. G-d wants Jews to have functional genitalia. The father’s wishes IMHO conflict with this.
Seems to me this whole discussion is proving the OP’s original point: the whole issue frequently spins right outta control.
It seems to me there’s a world of difference between establishing a valid medical reason for default circumcision and justifying it’s use ever, for any reason. I don’t remotely see justification for either extreme.
I haven’t seen convincing proof that circumcision is either medically required or mutilation. Not to derail a promising (and all too redundant) train wreck, but circumcisions have been used for a millenia or so without dire consequences, so fraught arguments about mutilation ring pretty hollow. They certainly don’t justify challenging religious views and beliefs. The actual track record just doesn’t support that kind of attack.
I’m more than willling to consider whether the medical practice of circumcision as a default is valid though. Offhand it doesn’t appear to be, from a purely medical standpoint. At the very least I’d think parents of newborns deserve much clearer information, with the actual relative risks and benefits spelled out clearly. Since I don’t have a son or a penis (save for a few most generously loaned in the past), my viewpoint is vaguely “the fewer operations the better”.
Apologies to fanatics on either side, but I see this more as an issue of general medical policy rather than whether it should exist at all. It just doesn’t justify rabid off/on extremes, certainly not to the extent of demanding “reasons” for religious beliefs.
It is proving the OP’s point. But I gotta say, those of us on one side (Weirddave, myself, CanvasShoes, and some other folk, are not arguing that circumcision should be the norm. Weirddave is probably the most strident on our side of the debate, and his kid ain’t clipped.) On the other side, most of the debaters have also been quite calm and rational - Mangetout and Chotii have given me quite a bit of food for thought - I’d say that for the most part, this thread has been anything but a train wreck.
Emotions may run high on the issue, but they do on the whole PC vs Mac thing, and the only influence that has on your sexuality is determining how you download your porn. I don’t think this is any worse than any other debate.
I’m not saying the debate is any “worse”, Excalibre, nor remotely suggest trying to stifle anybody’s self expression. Honestly. After a while my head–and common sense–just spins enough to question whether the actual substantive points of debate have become obscured.
IME some things can be reduced to either/or–slam, discussion OVER–and this ain’t one of 'em. The actual relative points seem to be obscured by the smoke, fire and mirrors of absolutists.
Your analogy is spot on, though. Both work, in their own ways and for their own reasons, and nuclear winter hasn’t occured either way.
Oh, I didn’t think you were trying to shut us up - I didn’t mean to complain that you were stifling us. I was just pointing out that for a pretty hot-button issue, I think we’ve had some very nice discussion, in between the recriminations and bitter hatred.
And I enjoy debating in the pit; frankly, I enjoy pointing out when someone is really and truly batshit insane.
It’s also a nice change from the political “debates” which are often completely free of thought, and the ones where people try to convince others that yes, evolution is real.
What’s really funny here is that I here is that I hold circumcision personally as a neutral issue. I am cut, my son is not, I have great sex, Ginger enjoys it too, hopefully Critter Bug will when he gets older, but that’s not important.
What’s important to me is the idea that many people nowadays want to overreact to the slightest hint of a potential issue and, on the flimsiest of grounds, move to ban things that,while there is potential for harm in a few isolated cases, are basically harmless. The fact that with this particular issue that involves invalidating a five thousand year old religion/culture/people that are frankly amazing for maintaining cohesiveness in the face of centuries of unending persecution just adds fuel to the fire. I guess it’s just my basic Liberatarian sensibilities showing through. Although I don’t really care about circumcision one way or another, (although as a veteran of the JDT wars, it is perhaps a more sensitive subject then many others) I care passionately about the tendencies towards mass media driven hysteria that this country is awash in. I hate that a few very loud voices can often drive the crowd in the face of all logic, evidence and proof.
Also, Excalibre is right. My debate with Chotii got personal, in a way I didn’t intend and in a way that could easily be seen as nasty on my part. I want to apologise to Chotii for that. I am sorry, all I have been trying to do is to get you to look at the totality of the situation and not to be convinced that your exposure to a small, fanatical part of it is the end all and be all of the debate.
What circumcision means in Judaism would be irrelevant for me. Judaism is the baby’s parent religion. If one states that circumcision shouldn’t be allowed without evidences of az medical benefit for the baby, there’s no reason to make exceptions on the basis of the parent’s religious belief, since then circumcision would be considered as an unecessary harm for the baby, and in this case, one’s religious belief shouldn’t be a valid reason to inflict harm on another person, one’s children included.
As long as the baby isn’t, in full knowledge and responsability, able to state publically that he wants to be circumcized for religious reasons, if non medically justified circumcision was banned, I can’t see why your personnal beliefs should allow you to have it done on your son. You might feel that it’s of utter significance according to your beliefs, or be of the opinion that not allowing circumcision is a threat for the continuity of Judaism, but it’s only your belief and your opinion, and there’s zero evidence that your son will share them. IOW, it would be up to him to decide when he would be of age (I mean legal age for making decisions on medical issues, not according to Judaism).
You don’t have the right to engrave your beliefs in the flesh of an unable to consent person.
Finally, hinting that people not accepting religion as a more valid reason for circumcision than say, parent’s fancy are actually up to destroy Judaism is disingeneous. Though I would have no qualm with Judaism dissapearing to be franck, since I don’t have much love for religions, generally speaking. But anyway, my real reason for arguing against your statement is the one I gave above. That’s daddy’s religion, and the baby foreskin.
**
Pun intended, of course.
) is painful, by all means go get it fixed. OTTOMH, I’d say the ideal solution in this situation would be for the boy to stretch the skin sufficiently to be nice and comfortable, but not so much that he appears to be uncircumcised.