Yeah despite the fact that I’ve thought Christianity (& religion in general) is a joke since 5th grade I don’t resent being baptized. Why? Because the sole effect it has today is that some church lists my birthday on it’s events calender. I didn’t have a cross tatooed on my ass or anything. I don’t even resent my grandparents taking me to church every week when I was little. Parents have the right to raise their children within their religion as long as it doesn’t involve permanently altering their bodies before they can even object. What happens if a boy’s mother worships Cybele and wants to have him castrated? Or if a girl’s parents interpret Islamic law to mean that they should have her clitoral hood removed?
Every time this comes up people cry, “female genital mutilation is worse than male genital mutilation so male genital mutilation is betterer!”
It’s a pretty silly counter-point.
My opinion? I was shocked when I found out (through this board) how common this is in America. Round here, the only people who do this do so for religious/cultural reasons, and I can sorta understand that (It’s a fairly minor thing, as far as I can tell, and it’s a basic part of belonging to those cultures.)
But millions of people cutting pieces of flesh from their own children just because it’s fashionable? WTF?
Well can you blame em yanks for wanting to look good? I’m just wondering when a permanent Brazilian will be done on infants so they don’t have to look all hairy and fugly down there when they grow up. 
I’m not really debating in this thread, I just chimed in to answer the op, the how it became the default option in America and an informed guess as to the thought process behind the op’s non-practicing Jewish friend. But no one has said anything of the sort. What was said is that making a comparison to female genital mutilation is specious. That is all.
Now you’re just being silly. Damn things look just fine the way they are (and what’s the deal with hair being ugly? I miss a memo or something?)
Do Americans realise how uncommon male circumcision is in the rest of the world ?
It isn’t routinely done in the Netherlands, either.
Does anybody have stats on the occurrence of certain diseases in, say, Boston compared to London? I’d like a comparison of these two cities since they have approximately the same demographic as to race and age, and men will approximately, due to similar climates, shower similarly often.
As to the OP; maybe, to your friend, circumcizion is the single one thing left that signifies her Jewish heritage? It might appeal to her because the practice is Jewish and American at the same time.
Captures my intention in launching this thread perfectly. Those of us immersed in US culture we’ve grown accustomed to how casually people lop off a sizeable, very sensitive chunk of their kid’s ding-a-ling. I wanted to take a step back and say ‘this is kind of bizarre, is it not? How can it be?’
The historical roots of the practice are salient but not quite to the point. There are lots of bizarre things our ancestors used to do for silly reasons that have been recognized as such and largely abandoned. How has this particular practice continued to flourish? My theory = it’s being done to someone who doesn’t have the capacity to express how traumatic it is, and once it’s done the kid doesn’t know what they’re missing.
I suppose, but as many have said here, slicing off a chunk of your kid’s dick is a real violation of their boldily rights. For some reason (it’s not really logical), I think I could accept it in someone who was deeply commited to the Jewish traditions. But to pick this, and only this?? Not acceptable.
Who are you to say what Jewish traditions are more important than other?
Circumcision is the oldest Jewish tradition out there. In fact, it’s probably the oldest continuously-observed tradition of any culture, anywhere in the world. As such, it’s also the single most important tradition of our culture and faith, and I can understand perfectly wanting to do it, even if you don’t observe absolutely anything else. I know plenty of atheist Jews here in Israel, and all of them circumcise their sons.
We’re Jews. It’s what we do.
Ah. So, despite what you said in your op, you were not actually interested in why this practice is so common in America or in why your freind may still be practicing it. Nor did you ask her for any reason of curiousity. You merely wanted to express self-rightous indignation of a cultural practice that you do not agree with as you sit in ignorant judgement of others. My bad. Mistook you for someone actually wanting to understand something.
What if there were an African tribe that branded newborn babies on the belly with a ten inch Coca-Cola logo in the belief that this will bring rain. Is that acceptable? Is it discernibly different from the Jewish tradition, or any other cultural or religious movement in which infantile circumcision featured?
I don’t really care how old it is, since arguing from tradition is a logical fallacy that has no bearing on whether or not it’s acceptable to cause irreprable harm to another human being’s body without their consent and for no compelling medical reason (e.g. to save their life).
This argument boils down to ‘We’ve always maimed babies’, and that hardly makes it right.
And I don’t think that anything guaranteeing the free exercise of religion was ever meant to be taken so broadly as to allow the disfigurement of someone who cannot consent.
What’s absurd to me is that it’s ever been considered anything other than disfigurement.
It’s not any different, but I’m sure you’ll be told that circumcision should be tolerated because it’s old.
Then again, branding slaves was tolerated for quite a long time.
In short, yes, it would be entirely acceptable. In point of fact there are many cultures which feature tattoos in childhood to mark tribal membership and even to help bring on the favor of the powers that be.
You remind me of the study of the tribe called the Nacirema which have children go to special healers, often prepubertally, who ritualistically, attach various devices inside childrens mouths, and actually, by prolonged physical force, and obviously with some discomfort, cause physical change to the whole mouth structure, distorting it in the hope that such distortions will mark the child as one of higher status within the tribe. And they do. Bizzare and unaceptable to you as well perhaps, but it is easy to just judge.
You can read more about them here.
Making female genital mutilation your argument against circumcision is pretty silly to begin with, so it doesn’t really deserve a better response. If you think circumcision is wrong, debate that on its own merits.
Even if someones deeply commited to their religion it still doesn’t give them the right to force it on their child. Circumcision can never be completely reversed. It’s one thing for parents to make their child attend religious, pray, etc against their will. Once that child grows up s/he can just move out and stop practicing their parent’s religion. And why is it that parents who’ve had their sons circumcised (for whatever reason) don’t seem to even consider that their son might disagree and resent them for it? Why are men who resent being circumcised so quickely dismissed as having “other issues” or the circumcision is a “minor problem”? And the whole argument that a guy circumcised as an infant won’t actually no what having a foreskin is like so they won’t miss it doesn’t fly either. No sane person would try to make that point if parents wanted to cut off a limb or blind their infant.
It is no more right to cut up the genitals of little boys than it is to cut up the genitals of little girls.
I can’t believe that there’s even a debate about that statement. I find it horrifying.
How on earth can anyone seriously suggest that cutting up the genitals of a boy is not as bad as cutting up the genitals of a girl? Are boys not worth as much? Or has the hatred of the penis and male sexuality really gotten that far out of hand?
Female genital mutilation takes many forms. A so-called pharonic circumcision (aka Type III) is what most people think of when FMG comes to mind. It involves the complete removal of all external genitalia and often the stitching up the vagina. Often it’s carried out with painkillers and under highly unsanitary conditions. It is clearly not the same as cutting off a boys foreskin. It’s better compared to castration combinded with a penectomy. A sunna circumcision (aka Type I) only involves the full or partial removal of the clitoral hood. Type I is comparable to male circumcision. It has nothing to do with Sunnis. It was practiced in the west, but never became as popular as male circumcision. All types can be carried out in a clinic or not (just like with male circumcision. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s equally wrong to cut healthy parts off genitals from both boys and girls and the more that’s cut off the wronger it is. Of course boys and girls (& intersex) have the same exact rights to genital intergrity. One can’t be right and the other wrong. Either they’re both wrong to they’re both right. Does that make any senses?
I thank god my parents did it to me.