Missed edit window
And i must add that the whole hygiene thing is too weak of an argument when we are talking about nonconsensual mutilation, i mean, some kids have bad ear hygiene should we cut them off then?, and what about dirt under the nails, let’s get rid of those too!
I wonder if other girls and women get all up in their vulva every time they shower and scrub out every last bit of smegma with soap. I know I don’t… I see no reason why an intact boy/man should have to, unless they have an infection or odor problem.
The foreskin is analogous to the clitoral hood/labia minora in girls. I suspect (though there is no way to cite THANK GOD) that if this was routinely removed from female infants the vulva would indeed be ‘cleaner’ (less glands producing smegma and fewer folds of skin to hold it), easier to clean, look neater/prettier to some, and there would be a slightly decreased risk of STDs and yeast infections. Also it’s just a bit of skin and we’d never know we were missing anything (though I can’t imagine my own sex life without that small amount of skin - being overly sensitive). However, most Americans would agree it would be morally wrong to routinely cut off their daughter’s labia for these reasons. I feel the exact same way about the reality of male circumcision as I do about this hypothetical.
I think the hygiene argument is a bad argument as well, but don’t assume that boys under age 13 are going to get all clean in the shower. Trust me you would think it would be easy to get them to rub soap in their armpits and rinse as well, but alot don’t unless you threaten them with taking away their Xbox.
I have two boys and both are intact. I never gave their foreskins another thought after deciding that they were keeping every bit they were born with. The whole idea made me panicky—to cut something off my innocent little newborn. And, as I said, I haven’t really thought about it since (except to be grateful that I didn’t have it done). No long instructions on how and when and how deeply to clean. 
People make way too big a deal out of it.
As an anecdote, a woman I work with, whom I consider a moron for many reasons other than this, “had” to have her son circumcised when he was about 8. She went into great detail how she had to be on him every single minute to “yank back that foreskin and scrub and clean and clean it—YUCK!” She was disgusted by the thing and harped on him constantly. I believe all that scrubbing injured it, he got infections and consequently “had” to get rid of the horrid thing. Which is what she wanted in the first place. Her husband made her leave him intact. :rolleyes:
I have 3 sons and none of them are circumsized. If I had to do it again, I might have the procedure done, because of the health benefits that have been recently discovered about contracting diseases.
But I don’t think it is a huge deal either way and I’m confused how passionate people get about this subject.
Yes, I agree. It just seemed that some people were proposing that it had roots in ancient medical wisdom, similar to the argument that Jewish prohibitions on eating pork were to prevent spread of trichinosis or such things…
Yup, its medical advantages are wholly fortuious. I suspect the same is true of the Kosher thing as well.
Certainly, at the time the rite of circumcision was created, the chances of complications (in a world lacking even the notion of aniseptics) would have far outweighed any possible advantages.
At the risk of revealing perhaps to much about my own equipment, I’ve got to say I don’t have this issue, myself. When I contemplate the “finish” of my glans, I’d have a hard time pointing to another patch of non-mucosal epithelium on my body that is as smooth and soft as that bit. The closest might be the inside of my wrist.
I guess 32 years of rubbing around on the inside of my underwear is supposed to have made it all rough and leathery by now, but it hasn’t happened.
It’s great to see how many say no. Yay to the natural penis!
Absolutely not. Why should the fact of being born male require surgical intervention?
I haven’t read the studies, but do think that it makes sense that circumcision would reduce the probability of contracting STD’s. On the other hand, a young adult who is conscious of the fact that he’s not circumcised, and is thus more susceptible to STD’s, could become more serious about using prevention measures that would yield in a net reduction of that probability.
Rubbing their armpits isn’t nearly as much fun.
Pretty much my exact opinion. Except, my sons are 16 months and -3 months. The 16 month old is not circumcised and my son that will be born in 3 months won’t be either.
I don’t have a real strong feeling one way or the other, but it just seems weird and unnatural. I’m circumcised, but I couldn’t get any doctors to give me a strong position one way or another. So, I went with not.
That’s certainly how Jews would view the practice today, and perhaps when the Bible was written as well, but what I’m wondering is what the practice’s significance was when it was first developed. There’s probably a reason why the prehistoric peoples who became the Israelites adopted circumcision as a ritual practice in the first place, and it may be that at the time it did offer a benefit in terms of cleanliness. Then the Israelites met other peoples who didn’t practice circumcision, and they redefined the practice as a divine commandment intended to mark them out of all the peoples of the world.
That’s the point, though, that you’re inclined to compare it to relatively heavy-duty skin. A comparison for an uncut male would be something like the underside of the tongue, it is closer to mucosal than not. The difference is especially marked during erection, as the circumcised glans takes on a smooth sheen that is absent from the uncircumcised. There’s a tangible difference that’s stands out (so to speak) in a side-by-side comparison.
Male circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years in eastern Africa/the Nile river region. It is possible the Jews picked up the practice from contact with such peoples, such as during their time in Egypt.
The Ancient Egyptians were gonzo about ritual purity and cleanliness - their priests would remove every body hair, for example, as a form of cleansing. So they may have influenced those around them or those they were in contact with back when they were a major world power.
For nomads or anyone living in a low technology world, a circumcized penis is more practical than an uncircumcized one. Roma circumcize our boys and there’s no religious aspect to it. It’s just considered what parent or guardian is suppose to do for a boy (preferably while they are still babies so they won’t remember the pain) just like they should teach children how to build a campfire, find food in the wild, etc.
I’m…well, I dunno. Can you explain how performing surgery in a low technology world is easier and safer than washing in a low technology world?
I dunno. I’m skeptical about claims that such practices of necessity had some sort of benefit. Many ritual practices are just that - ritual practices - and looking for some purpose beyond that, while a natural preoccupation for 21st century people, may be over-analyzing the matter.
For example, Jews are most certainly not the only peoples to practice circumcision. It is widespread in some parts of Africa, for example. The difference is that there, it is most commonly practiced as a comming-of-age ritual.
From a cleanliness perspective, the timing of this makes no sense, as the major cleanliness benefit (assuming there is any) would be to children too young to clean themselves effectively.
Infant circumcision and adult circumcision, while the same medical procedure, vary immensely in ritual meaning. An infant isn’t an “actor” in the process, and the pain of the procedure is not remembered. Infant circumcision is more a mark of family or tribal identity. Adult circumcision OTOH is a painful and frightening ordeal, the undertaking of which demonstrates bravery - marking the comming into manhood. Many tribes have painful puberty rituals other than circumcision (one tribe in the Amazon notably requires being stung repeatedly on the arms and hands by Bullet Ants!), but circumcision has an obvious symbolic connection with manhood …
The surgery and its required necessities for cleanliness only has to be done once. The ability to wash every couple of days has to occur frequently over a lifetime.