Have you even read the thread? Eliminating circumcision woulddestroy Judiasm. Anti-religion or not, what is your justification for that?
Also(sorry to sound like a broken record again), would you care to provide any cites proving harm from circumcision? I have asked again and agin, yet all I get is anecdotes.
Just providing, ya know, another male perspective.
I get all I want and need, thanks.
Never had that problem.
Nope, never had that one either.
Well, fucking DUH.
“The worst one I ever had was pretty much right on the money.” --Woody Allen
Horseshit. You don’t have all that much respect for men, huh?
Doesn’t threaten me in the least. It absolutely terrifies me. Better sex? Better? Better than the usual sublime, mind-blowing, heart-attack-inducing, world-shaking sex I have now? Better than the searing, white-hot spiritual connection between my and my SO each and every single time?
Pfffft.
Sure, I could have better sex than I have now with my poor ol’ cut schlong. But I wouldn’t survuve to have it twice.
My gosh, this thread is long.
I just wanted to comment that my grandfather was uncircumcised, and he was adamant that his son (my dad) be circumcised. His (grandfather’s) reasons were that the foreskin was unsanitary, he (grandfather) had a lot of problems with it, (I’m not sure what—infections, perhaps?) and he didn’t want that for his son.
He did what he thought was best for his son, and he did it because he came from a perspective of knowing what it felt like to have a foreskin, and deciding that the hassle wasn’t worth it. He made that decision for his son because he wanted to spare his son unneeded difficulties and discomforts.
Did my grandfather decide “mutilate” my dad? My dad certainly did not think so.
You know, if someone argues that circumcision is an outdated thing, a needless expense that offers no real benefit and maybe we should think about not doing, well I’d have to say “you got a point, there”.
But if that person argues that I, as a circumsized male, have been abused and mutilated, and I should be resentful for all that I’m missing, then I would have to say “you’re out of your fucking mind”. Really, you ain’t getting anywhere with that argument.
I’m OK with being circumsized. I like my penis just like it is. It works fine, it looks fine, and if it felt any better, I’d never get any work done. I ain’t missing out on anything.
It’s not abuse. It’s not mutilation or amputation. As I said, it is still a fully functioning penis. But I will agree that if it’s not necesarry, why keep doing it?
Thank you. As far as I’m concerned, I’m the one in this debate, and you can call me a moron or whatever all you like. But you have to leave my husband out of it. He’s not involved, and I’m quite sure he wouldn’t really want to think that people have been talking about his sexual experience. I wouldn’t talk about it even peripherally if it didn’t intersect my experience so completely. It’s his, not mine.
Counter to assertions otherwise, I do care very much about what my husband experiences in bed. I hope it’s mind-blowing. I work on ways to make it better. I happen to have come to believe, through multiple anecdotes, that growing a fauxskin would add something for him. But as it happens, he’s not interested. End of story.
All I have ever wanted to try to express, and evidently I have failed completely, is that I do not think circumcision ruins sexual experience for the overwhelming majority of men. I do believe it has the potential to diminish that experience. In very rare instances, it has the potential to do worse (see the cites I gave before). I see no reason to disbelieve the men who say it diminished their individual experiences. I see no reason to disbelieve the men who say they are happy with what they have. I believe my husband when he enjoys himself with me. If I could find a way to help him enjoy it 10X more, I would. I want that for him. I’m sure he wants that for me. That doesn’t mean we’re dissatisfied, only that there’s always room for improvement.
And incidentally, I do know the difference between fanatical nutcases and ordinary people. I’ve been both. :rolleyes: I’ve been around both. I don’t read alt.circumcision because it’s full of screaming nutcases. I do read the restoration list because I find it to be full, by and large, of intelligent men (and women, some of whom were clitoridectomised) - doctors, lawyers, businessmen, high school students, and gentlemen 70+ years old - who write thoughtful stuff. Of course it occasionally devolves into screaming idiocy, but that’s the net for you, and there’s an active moderator.
Thank you for the apology.
Damn, we’ve all gotten all reasonable and shit. What were we debating again?
Actually, no. Noticing it was 6 pages long and given I hadn’t slept, I only read the last two pages. I’m going to read the posts related to this issue, just in order to know how it could destroy Judaism (something I’ve a hard time believing. Even if they were forbidden to practice circumcizion at birth, Jews could do it latter and could keep all of their others cultural and religious customs. They would adapt. If Judaism was to dissapear, it would be by “dilution”, because people wouldn’t care any more about being Jews, like say an american whose great-grandfather was irish stating he’s irish himself, without this making any actual difference in this current life).
As for justification, I don’t need one. Generally speaking, cultural differences are fading away world-wide, and it’s a totally diferent issue that would deserve its own thread (since we’re speaking about Jews, what about Yiddish speakers, for instance?). The diluting/dissapearance of Jews as a cultural group might be sad, but not anymore than say, the same thing happening to the Tuaregs in the Sahara or the Occitans in France (see my signature, if it’s still appears, which actually refers to this very issue).
So, I don’t need a justification for anything which could eventually result in (according to you) the destruction or dilution of Judaism. If there are sound reasons to implement a law which bans a particular religious practice, “protection of a religion in danger” isn’t a good reason not to pass this law. I’ve no particular interest in the preservation of any religion (actually, the contrary would be rather true), except once again from the cultural diversity point of view, and I don’t see why I should.
That’s not the issue at hand. I assume that people have discussed about this in the previous 6 pages, and in numerous older threads. My position is that people oposed to an apparently unecessary surgery done on newborns don’t need any cite, anyway. It would be up to people insisting on cutting a little bit of the babies body to prove that this practice isn’t harmful. That would be true with any such things, like say, ritual scarification, or tattooing, or cutting off a bit of an ear, etc…If it’s not necessary and medically useful, then go on and proves to me that no harm is done (though you don’t really need to, because I don’t feel much about this practice, actually).
Anyway, I wrote that it wasn’t the issue at hand, because my post was not about whether circumcision should be banned or not, but about the fact that if it were, there would no reason to exempt some people on religious ground (nor to not pass the law at the first place because it’s also a religious practice). If it’s justified to ban it “my religion says that I must cut little bits of my baby” isn’t a valid argument to oppose it anymore that “my religion oppose blood transfusion” or “opose eating anything else than fruits”. Parent’s beliefs is irrelevant when it comes to protect children health and well-being. It’s similar for instance to opposing chochlear implants on the basis that it would destroy the deaf culture (I know there are others more valid reasons for people to oppose chochlear implants on their children, by the way, it’s just an example, but it’s definitely one of the arguments used to refuse this surgery).
You might be very relious, give a lot of importance to yours beliefs and customs, but it will never justify causing harm to your child, especially since perhaps he won’t care at all about say religion/customs, and he is the one subject to the surgery, not you. So, your opinion about the importance of preserving Judaism or about what permanent body marks are appropriate have no bearing on him.
Since I was refering to my signature in the previous post, and I notice that for some reason it doesn’t appear, here it is :
S’en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
After rereading the thread, I saw arguments about circumcision being central to Judaism, but none proving that having by law to wait until the person is old enough to decide by himself if he wants to be circumcized would result in Judaism dissapearing in a puff of smoke (actually, I didn’t read any argument to this effect, convincing or not, just blunt unsupported statements like yours : “it * would *
destroy Judaism”).
Let’s give an example : communion is central to catholicism, but if a law was passed forbidding minor to drink wine even in church (or even azyme bread, for that matter) and you belonged to a branch using comunion under the two species, it wouldn’t destroy your religion.
So, no, you didn’t make your case (not that it would make any difference IMO, as explained in my previous posts).
If I’m wrong, the point to me the post where it’s explained how it would destroy Judaism. Otherwise, next time, avoid to make me waste my time searching for arguments which haven’t been made.
Or you’re being thickheaded and refuse to admit that slicing up a penis doesn’t have to occur for you to pray and worship and believe in your god.
Then don’t whine and cry if I say that your interest in cutting off parts of other people’s penises seems like a pretty fucked up obsession. What you seem to miss in your bid to call me an anti-Semite is that I don’t really care if you’re Jewish, Christian, or purple, I’d still consider it fucked up to hold that strongly to a desire to remove someone else’s erotic tissue without their consent.
Not necessarily. If a ‘core religious practice’ causes harm to unconsenting people, I doubt it’s protected by anything. By the way, ‘First Amendment’.
Laws in this country are not based on what you ‘feel’ or what Zev ‘feels’. In the United States, you do not have a Constitutional right to harm someone in order to practice your religion.
See the sentence above.
Next you can be called ‘batshit insane’ right beside me.
I do find this an interesting question:
Why is it that THIS custom, if discontinued, would spell the end of Judaism, when there are any number of other customs, and laws, which also define Jews to themselves and to the world (off the top of my head, I’m thinking of the Temple, and sacrifices) which are no longer practiced. I understand there is no temple today. I’m extremely unclear (barring the pretty clear evidence that the Arab nations would try to blow Israel to smithereens for even beginning to build one) why there is no Temple; why the Jews have not rebuilt it and resumed the sacrifices and all those other things which the law requires? Not just the keeping of Shabbos and keeping Kosher, but all the points of the Law? Why is it (and there are exceptions in the Talmud, I believe, excusing circumcision in certain cases, such as if a family has already lost more than one son to the practice before) that this particular tradition is absolutely essential but the others are not? Is it because it is Abrahamic in origin and not Moseic? Someone? Anyone? Beuller?
Cynical minds might suggest that this one is kept because newborn infants cannot defend themselves, whereas any attempt to keep the rest of the law (including rules about stoning people to death for various offenses) would raise international ire. I’m sure there’s a better explanation however.
Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you. Fuck you with a broken stick, fuck you with a crumbled brick. Fuck you bitch, you’re sick, sick, sick. I hope you’re fucked with a broken chair, I want your life fucked everywhere. You are the stupidest, vilest, most ignorant, hypocritical cow that it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. You accuse Zev, Doc and other Jews of simply wanting to harm children, ignoring the repeated posts where they have explained again and again that they view circumcision as nothing less than a vital componant of the covenant between their people and G-d. You blythly spew outrageous, insulting, racist, anti-Semetic, ignorant twaddle, including the above where you dismiss the entire foundation of one of the major religions of the world as “feelings” while simultaniously demanding that everyone else blindly agree with your belief that circiumcision is harmful, a claim for which you repeatedly demonstrate that you are
unable.
to.
provide.
one.
single.
bit.
of.
proof.
You’re the fucking hypocrite to end all hypocrites! “Your beliefs are invalid because I believe they are”. And, to top it all off, you diseased cunt, you spew all of this bile on a Saturday when you know that the observant Jews who have been the soul of patience itself trying to explain this stuff to you are unable to respond! I am sorry that you are mentally ill, but most people in your condition seek professional help, they don’t come to a message board and spout proof that they are insane day after day. Get some professional help, you badly need it.
When I asked if you had read the thread, I guess I was unclear, I am sorry. I meant read all of the posts, not just some of them. I was refering to all of the posts by Doc and Zev explaining what circumcision meant to Jews. Excalibre even took the time to post the actual verse from Genesis which is the basis for this. Don’t you understand? Circumcision is the oldest commandment in Jusiasm. G-d told Abraham that he(G-d) had made a covenant with (what would become)the Jews, and that as a sign of this covenant, all Jewish males were to be circumcised on the 8th day of their life. When a Jew circumcises his son, he is doing nothing less than following the direct word of G-d and confirming his love and feality to G-d! This is not some trivial ceremony picked up from the Visgoths in the 5th century, this is the foundation, the absolute basis for the entire religion of Judiasm. Expecting them to forego the practice ( and again: Why? Do you have any proof of harm?) is exactly like expecting Christians to have their religion , but without Jesus, or telling Muslems to be as Islamic as they want-but without following the teachings of Muhammed. Why is this so hard to grasp?
See my last post for an explanation.
Well, for practical reasons, in the 7th century the Muslems went and built The Dome of the Rock on top of the Temple, which is the holiest of site in Islam as Muslems believe that it is where the prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven. It’s not just the problem of rebuilding the temple, the Jews would have started that in 1948-except for the fact that the site is occupied, and by a mosque held every bit as holy to the Muslems as the Temple is to the Jews. I am sure Doc and Zev can give you the religious reasons behind this as well, i am not well versed on them.
As i said above, this is the procedure which started Judiasm It’s the origin, the Genesis of the entire religion. Now do you understand better?
Cynical minds would be wrong. When an uncircumcised male converts to Judiasm, he is required to be circumcised as well.
Heh. ooops. Perhaps it would be better if I posted an actual picture of The Dome of the Rock, rather than of a replica in Canada. It’s Gingys fault, she’s poisoned me to be predisposed towards all things Canadian.
.
WeirdDave, were you just possessed in your rage by Dr. Seuss?
Geez, exaggerate much? Last time i checked, no church turns people away because they’re circumcised. It’s hardly equivalent to being “engraved” with someone else’s personal beliefs, at least in the sense that one is able to change those religious beliefs later in life as they see fit. If you continue to follow Judaism, then sure it’s a symbol of that belief. But it certainly does not prevent you from changing those beliefs. And considering that so many non-Jews are circumcised, you probably won’t even be in the minority in whatever new religion you choose.
Again, I think that the parents have to be trusted with some degree of choice in their kids upbringing. Giving them the ability to choose whether their child is circumcised seems pretty mild, when you consider that they have the choice whether to terminate the baby’s life, whether they eat regularly, whether they receive proper treatment, etc. Especially since there seems to be no solid proof that either of the choices is superior to the other. They’re just trying to do what they think is best for their kid.
If you think it’s inhumane, by all means speak up about it and encourage parents not to have their kids circumcised. You can even wave the “they’ll have better sex” flag at them, that should convince at least half of 'em. But pushing to make it illegal not only seems to be a little overkill, and intolerant towards some religions, but it also seems rather close-minded. Maybe if there were proof that it was psychologically damaging (yeah right), detrimental to sexual function (doubt it), or damaging in some irreversable and harmful way (arguable), then it would qualify for legal action. But i don’t think any of that has been proven yet.
This thread has been quite enlightening. Before reading and participating in it, i wouldn’t have thought twice about whether i’d have any kids of mine circumcised or not. Now i have more to think about before making that sort of decision.
[Dr. Seuss]
Would you cut them with a blade?
Would you cut them as a babe?
I would not cut them, Sam I am
I do not like a fi-re-man.
[/Dr. Seuss]
sorry, couldn’t resist 
the thoughts and views expressed in this poem are not those of Dr. Seuss, the Straight Dope, or theckhd.
Despite your hysterical description of what’s perhaps the most minor and safe of surgeries, the law says you do, as long as you’re not doing the kid any significant harm. Circumcision may injure the child, but the injury is minor and the child readily recovers. No one really knows whether the sensations differ (even the few adults who are circumcised aren’t in the same position, given that their nervous system would develop like any other uncut guy’s.) There’s no reason to suspect any real harm.
And the law of the United States, at least, allows the practice of religion until a practice is particularly harmful. As the many cut guys in this thread can attest, circumcision doesn’t interfere with your sexual pleasure.
Well, I guess you’re at least being more honest than catsix. You seem coherent enough that I couldn’t really call you “batshit insane” - but having no qualms with destroying a major religion is probably worse.
Not a fair comparison - the “Occitans” that you refer to are not a particularly coherent group; the political unification among them, and the invented word Occitan, came up basically as a tool to fight the French government’s linguistic oppression.
The Occitans aren’t a different culture anyway - they don’t lead some sort of different lifestyle from the French or Spanish or Italians; they just happen to speak a group of languages that comprise a separate branch of the Romance languages from French. And the government, no doubt for their own good, has done terrible things to prevent their use of the language.
I guess linguistic oppression is bad, but oppressing religions is cool? Because, to be “franck” [sic] you don’t like religion much, and so you’re willing to screw the people who do?
Yeah, you guys keep saying that. Well, that’s good, because you don’t have one. Good thing you have some tortured logic that lets you make everyone else’s decisions for them.
If there were sound reasons to ban a religious practice, I’d have no problem. Got no trouble banning human sacrifice, ritualized cannibalism, female genital mutilation, bride-burning, or anything else that’s a terrible crime. However, there is no sound reason to ban circumcision, and you guys’ continual refusal to provide one makes that clear.
Besides, don’t you think there should be at least a small amount of justification when destroying a religion? I mean, just a little bit? Because if I take your first sentence at face value, it seems like you’d have no trouble with state-mandated atheism. I mean, really?
Fortunate, then, that we have 3,000 years of history backing us up. Oh, and the fact that the cut guys don’t freaking care. But, I guess the actual experience of those who are circumcised is irrelevant. You, clairobscur, know what a penis should be like, and anyone who disagrees better bring proof!
Wait, we let parents raise their children to believe everyone outside their own wacky cult is going to hell. We let them raise them to believe that gay people ought to be executed. We let a few wackos raise their children to believe that, being one of the lost tribes of Israel, white people are superior than the sons of Ham that populate the African continent.
We let people raise their kids with beliefs that damage them far more than any clipping of their flesh. And a lot of kids never do fully recover from these beliefs. Next do we police what parents are allowed to tell their kids?
Nice job abusing the Jews on Saturday, when they can’t argue!
You might be batshit insane, but you’ve mastered strategic thinking!
One more time, slowly, for catsix and clairobscur: the ritual of circumcision is central to Judaism. Abraham’s circumcision of himself and his infant son Yitzak was the human side of the covenant that established Jews as a people in the first place. Circumcising your children is as central to Judaism as praying to Allah is to Islam, or belief in Jesus as the bringer of grace is to Christianity. This is not some obscure practice from one of the parts of the book towards the back - it was the single, sole act that humans had to do to establish the covenant. The covenant is Judaism, and circumcision is the human end of the covenant.
So no, catsix, you can’t be a Jew without circumcising your kids. You may claim otherwise, but, in the words of a cheerleader:
**GIMME A B!
B
GIMME AN A!
A
GIMME A T!
T
. . .
What’s that spell?
BATSHIT INSANE!**
Yes, we do have a constitutional protection of religion in this country. Good job for noticing, you get a gold star!
No one is whining or crying, and no one here is obsessed except you and maybe clairobscur. The rest of us are trying to have a debate, you know, with reason and logic?
Attention constitutional scholars: The law of the United States is not based on what DocCathode or Zev_Steinhardt “feels” - it’s based on what catsix feels!
You haven’t proved yet that anyone is harmed. We’ve been nice and assumed that yes, there are a few kids out there who get hurt by circumcision. But all you can do is point out that you have some friend who’s peeved at mommy and daddy, and no he doesn’t want to be Jewish.
My heart breaks for your friend, catsix, but until you can come up with evidence that circumcision is actually harmful, I think the Supreme Court’s not gonna hear your case.
Cynical minds might wonder why the nasty statements about Jewish people waited until they couldn’t defend themselves (it being Saturday and all) but that is the direction the conversation was turning.
This has been discussed above, Chotii, and you sound in this bit at least a little dismissive of the Jewish faith, which I’m fairly certain is not the case. But suffice it to say, before there was a Temple, before there was a Sanhedrin that could sentence people to death, before there were any of these things, there were the Jewish people. They were not Jewish because of the Temple, they were not Jewish because of the Sanhedrin, they were not Jewish because they didn’t eat shellfish.
They were Jewish because G-d made a covenant with Abraham, a covenant that established his offspring as the Chosen People. The human end of the covenant was circumcising their sons. They were Jews at this point, before the captivity in Egypt (which preceded the building of the Temple.) There just isn’t anything more central to being a Jew than this.
I understand that it may seem like a bizarre ritual, but seeming bizarre, and even being done to kids too young to protest (much), aren’t enough for me to believe it should be condemned. Because they grow up just fine with it, and I just can’t understand how the catsixes and clairobscurs of the world could value the complaints from a tiny minority of men over the statements of the vast majority, and the beliefs of an ancient religion.
I understand the point that this may be just another weird religious custom. And yeah, Jews’ observance (both the extent and the method thereof) of some of the other laws (there are rather a lot) vary. But this one just can’t be qualified, or argued away. It goes to the vary core of being Jewish. Could Catholics figure out a way to practice without the Eucharist? Yeah, maybe. Could they figure out away to practice without Jesus? No. The assumption that circumcision could be given up is just not fair or accurate.
Besides, the discussion of sensation is pretty vague. Very few guys have both experiences; it’s hard to compare the two things at all. As Weirddave pointed out above, the sensations reported by uncut guys don’t seem to be exclusive to them. And I, with my intact penis, don’t seem to have the experiences that Chotii claims I ought to - does that mean I should have gotten cut?
There are cases of botched circumcision, and they’re pretty tragic. But self-reported claims about sensation don’t have much value, because as with any experience it varies from person to person. The people who feel they’ve lost sensation through circumcision may well be guys who woudn’t have had the same poor sensation otherwise, but believe it to be the result of circumcision. The guys who are upset about it are naturally self-selecting - the great majority of cut guys who aren’t upset about it could be wrong, but it’s also possible that guys who would never have had great sex in the first place mistakenly attribute it to being circumcised.
And I note that the real strong argument against circumcision appears to have come from those who don’t have dicks of their own. I’m not meaning to imply that you don’t have a right to an opinion, but you don’t have the direct experience of those of us who know what sex is like on the penis end. If uncut cocks were the recipe for mind-blowing sex, then mine must be defective.
I don’t see why the feelings of the majority of guys (including the ones who were, shockingly, happy to be circumcised as infants) don’t seem to matter at all when weighed against the opinions of the tiny minority who are upset.
I read these posts. And they mention exactly what I wrote above : that circumcizion in central to Judaism. But, once again , they don’t explain in any way why not allowing babies to be circumcized on the 8th day would destroy Judaism.
A 5th century Wisigoth religious ceremony wasn’t any less “trivial” than a 5th century or 21st century Jewish ceremony. They are exactly as significant for the people involved. Either they’re both “trivial”, either they’re both important.
I wrote twice that the previous posts in the thread didn’t bring any evidence that not circumcizing babies would destroy Judaism, so I might as well answer to this one also for the second time, saying the same things :
- I don’t really care about circumcision. My point is that either it’s harmful, either it is not. If it is considered harmful, its religious importance for some people is totally irrelevant and it should be banned. Especially since it’s not done on the person for whom this practice is important but once again on another person, the baby, who has no say in the matter, and who won’t necessary think latter that it’s important to him. The only person who could legitimately state whether his religious beliefs require the circumcision to be done is THE PERSON WHO IS TO BE CIRCUMCIZED !!! The fact that it’s important for his parents, his second cousin or his neighbors is IRRELEVANT!!
2)Once again too : if you’re undertaking a medicaly unecessary surgery on a baby, it should be up to you to prove that it isn’t harmful. There’s necessarily a non-zero risk involved even in a trivial operation like this. In this very thread someone mentionned a circumcision being botched and resulting in painful erection. So, you, bring in the proofs!
[/quote]
is exactly like expecting Christians to have their religion , but without Jesus, or telling Muslems to be as Islamic as they want-but without following the teachings of Muhammed. Why is this so hard to grasp?
[/QUOTE]
Nope. christians keeping their religion without Jesus would be roughly the same that Jews keeping their religion without God. Not the same thing at all. Not allowing circumcision before a latter age wouldn’t destroy anything. As soon as the person would actually be able to decide on his religious beliefs and whether or not they require him to be circumcized, he could be 100% Jewish. And meanwhile he could be taught Judaism, etc…
And even if this practice was as important in Judaism as the belief in Jesus in christianism, it still would be so only for the parents. As long as you don’t show me a newborn saying “I want to be circumcized because it’s central to my religion”, your point will stay moot.