This article states that a ban on circumcision in France is BAD thing, banning mandated circumcision is: "inconceivable to those who survived the Holocaust” and “dangerous because it stigmatizes Jews,” How on earth do you even equate a bill that bans mutilation to the holocaust? .
Forgive my ignorance, but is there any reason in scripture (Not tradition, actual religious authority) which says the bris cant be delayed till later in the childs life? Where they're old enough to have some degree of autonomy.
Because its always struck me as odd that a religion would want people to effectively be made a part of their order without any desire to do so. Worship is about accepting a deity (or whatever) into your life. An infant does not do that.
Early religion was all about survival of the culture. Imagine living in a time when, without warning, your town/village/city could be conquered by a marauding army and you could be forcibly converted to whatever. So if course the males get branded with circumcision -- it's a way to permanently remind a man that he's a member of the club, every time he looks down.
Dude, the religion of your parents is a huge determinant in one's own religion. How many people joined a religion based on adult reason and logic with no brainwashing? I'd say a tiny percentage of religious people. Childhood indoctrination is the lifeblood of organised religion.
Genesis 17, 10:14 basically says that every male child needs to be circumsized on their 8th day, and any who fail to be circumsized at all will have their soul cut off from the people- this is the harshest punishment that exists in judaism.
I understand what you are saying about autonomy, but what you need to understand is that judaism is not a faith-based religion, as christianity is, but one based in law. So, what you're saying about worship may be true in christianity, but not in judaism.
In judaism, jews have to follow god's commandments in order to maintain his blessing, and so we have to continue the commandments in our children so that they may receive his blessing. So according to judaism, the infant has no autonomy, he is a jew and is therefore bound to his duty to carry out the commandments or suffer the consequences.
judaism holds non-jews to a different standard. Non-jews do not have to follow the commandments, and are still seen as righteous so long as they follow the seven noahide laws, which almost every major culture holds to be basic morality to begin with.
actually we did. the story of how we were chosen by god goes that he asked every nation to accept his law, but they all wanted to know the terms beforehand. Only when he got to the hebrews did he find a people that accepted his blessing without precondition. He then gave us all the commandments and everything that only WE are obligated to do. 613 commandments for us, 7 for you.
My dad likes to joke that this is why jews learned to negotiate
Interesting, well that certainly explains it. Its a difficult situation then because by any moral standard male circumcision is as much a mutilation of another's body as female circumcision. However its a conflict between the rights of faith and the rights to bodily integrity.
I guess I'd have to come down on the side of bodily integrity. There are faiths that require/condone FGM, and we condemn and criminalise these actions and i dont think anyone believes (or very few) that this is incorrect. It naturally follows that MGM ought to be handled in a similar way.
The fact that this is Judaism holds no water for me, its a faith the same as any other. The fact that the Jewish people have suffered arguably more than other faith groups/races doesnt really change whats right or wrong in the here and now which is plainly what these appeal to emotion/holocaust guilt are attempting to convey.
I've done a little bit of reading, and I believe that female circumcision in some cases is actually pretty harmless also, in some cultures it is just a ritual involving a small nick, that heals quite readily which I believe to be as benign as male circumcision and I would not condemn this practice if people believe in it.
You're right in saying what's happened in the past doesn't change what's right or wrong in the present, and I do not mean to imply that it does. I am simply stating the reason for the sensitivity of the jewish population in this matter, and I will do my best to explain why this issue and the holocaust are linked to some jews, because i don't believe they are simply trying to guilt trip people:
Jews live with incredible freedom now, but we have experienced freedom like this in the past, and every time it disappears. It is easy for non-jews to seperate an issue such as this from the persecutions of the past, but jews are brought up learning about all of this past persecution. we cannot help but extrapolate what we see in front of us into a worst-case scenario where of all of our freedom to practice our faith is taken from us. Its simply embedded in our psyche.
I don't tell you this to guilt-trip you, and I'm not sure that these people do either. To them, this issue cannot be viewed independently of the holocaust, and to you, the two have nothing to do with one another. So to you, it comes across as a plug, but there is genuine fear from this jewish community that this is just the beginning. (for the record I don't think this is part of some scheme to slowly chip away at the jews, france is becoming more anti-semitic, but i doubt it will become institutional.)
and so that is why there is this holocaust rhetoric- whatever someone's opinion on the circumcision issue is, i would implore them not to trivialize that it would be devastating to france's jewish population, or dismiss this as one giant guilt trip.
The vast majority MGM is performed by Muslims. Only around 0.8% of boys that suffer this have it done to them by Jewish parents. That said, the Jewish community and Israel play a leading role in promoting this sexual abuse.
The Jewish people are mainly victims in this matter like the rest of the world. As they say: "Few are guilty; but all are responsible". So the Rabbis, Mohels and political leaders, are guilty; but the rest are responsible.
Here is some of the ammo I use around the internet when I come across Jewish people and/or Israelis promoting MGM. By far the best fact is that Theodor Herzl refused to have his son's penis mutilated. That gets them every time. You are welcome to use any of this yourselves :-)
Mohel tells the truth
Watch this evil Mohel showing and boasting about the “instruments” he uses to torture and mutilate little Jewish boys. Or as he calls it: ”tickling” them:
Theodor Herzl was the father of modern political Zionism and in effect the founder of the State of Israel. He and his wife Julia refused to amputate the foreskin of their son Hans, because they considered the practice “barbaric” and they wanted “strong, virile Jewish men to populate Israel, without any ‘essential’ part of them missing”.
Theodor is buried on the top of Mount Herzl in Israel. I assume you would like him to be dug-up and returned to Austria, where he can rest easily with all those other “anti-semites” who want little Jewish boys to grow up “strong and virile”?
Mohels sucking little boys' penises
Are you happy with this? – a grown Jewish man sucking the bleeding penis of an 8 day old infant boy he has just mutilated?:
As we both know, the great Jewish people span the vast range of political and social viewpoints. And time and again, Jews are found at the forefront of civil rights movements.
Even in Israel itself, more and more Jews are refusing to attack their son’s penises with knives – and the movement is growing every day.
And here are many, many other righteous Jewish men and women from Israel and around the world telling their stories and fighting this terrible mutilation of Jewish baby boys:
Here, Moses Maimonides, a Rabbi, and a preeminent medieval Spanish, Sephardic Jewish philosopher, astronomer and one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages; states quite clearly that the purpose of mutilating the genitals of little infant boys is to:
Decrease the pleasure of sex
Damage the penis
Cause terrible pain to the baby boy
Reduce the frequency of sexual intercourse
Amputate the protective covering of the penis
Damage the female sexual response, by reducing her emotional and physical attachment to men. He calls this “the strongest of the reasons for mutilating the genitals of infant boys [circumcision]”
“Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.”
-I dont care what other jews do to observe the faith, its none of my business.
-Theodor herzl was not an authority on judaism any more than I am, he was an authority on zionism- the two are not the same. Also, he can stay in his grave on mount herzl, they already went through all the
trouble of digging him up once and putting him there- cause he did not FOUND israel, he was dead for decades when it came to exist.
-I obviously disagree with the practice of the mohel sucking the blood out himself, as does almost every jew alive, so with this pointyou're jsut preaching o the converted. This practice is not founded in scripture.
-Maimonides, though a genius, is wrong. There are plenty of vestigial traits that do us more harm than good that need our correcting. Appendicitis, and ruptured spleens are fine examples.
-regarding the issue of sexual excitement: you would be hard pressed to find a circumcised man with any complaints about the way sex feels to his mutilated dick.
I dont care what other jews do to observe the faith, its none of my business.
Neither do I. Unless they are mutilating the genitals of babies. Then, call me old fashioned, I'm going to stop them.
Theodor herzl was not an authority on judaism any more than I am...
Hmmm... tell that to all the Jews who conflate Israel with Judaism. By your logic, Zionism has nothing to do with the Jewish people.
I obviously disagree with the practice of the mohel sucking the blood out
Funny how the child-abuser sucking the baby's penis seems to bother so many people. But the fact he has just raped and mutilated the child seems to not really bother you at all:
LOL. The male human foreskin is a high complex and sophisticated part of the human body, considered by some medical researchers and scientists to be a separate organ of the body. It's evolved over millions of years and every mammal has a foreskin.
When the genus Homo and his earlier relatives evolved from the common ancestor we shared with the modern apes, the foreskin continued to evolve into the part of the male penis we see today. The human male foreskin is far more advanced and sophisticated then its equivalent in the modern apes.
Slowly starting to realise you have a mutilated penis?
Surprise surprise! After 3.6 billion years of evolution, the human foreskin is there for a purpose - just like your nose, ears, lips, fingers, anus, eyelids and vagina:
Many people think circumcision removes nothing more than a little extra skin. However, circumcision removes several critical components of male sexual anatomy. This list enumerates everything currently known to be physically lost after circumcision.
Alongside these physical losses, it is important to remember that whenever a child is circumcised, by far the greatest loss is his choice to make decisions about his own body and his own sex life when he becomes an adult.
Further information on the anatomy of intact male genitals, and a diagram, can be found on the anatomy page.
Circumcision the Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All
The Foreskin which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches( the size of a 3x5 inch index card). This highly specialised tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing(keratinisation), and contaminants of all kinds.The effect of glans keratinisation has never been studied.
[1. M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 79-81. 2. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of the Foreskin," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.]
The Frenar Ridged Band, the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response.
[Taylor, J. R. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.]
The Foreskin's 'Gliding Action' - the hallmark mechanical feature of the normal natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth , comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a oneway valve, scraping vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for pleasurable intercourse.
[P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]
Nerve Endingstransmit Sensation to the Brain
Fewer Nerve Endings means
Fewer Sensations Circumcision removes the most important sensory component of the foreskin - thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors called Meissner's corpuscles. Also lost are branches of the dorsal nerve, and between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types. Together these detect subtle changes in motion and temperature, as well as fine gradations in texture.
[1. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Erogenous Zones: Their Nerve Supply and Its Significance," Proceedings of the Staff Meetings of the Mayo Clinic 34 (1959): 39-47. 2. R. K. Winkelmann, "The Cutaneous Innervation of Human Newborn Prepuce," Journal of Investigative Dermatology 26 (1956): 53-67.]
The Frenulum The highly erogenous V-shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; frequently amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, either of which destroys its function and potential for pleasure.
[1. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44. 2. Kaplan, G.W., "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.]
Muscle Sheath Circumcision removes approximately half of the temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the corpus cavernosa. This is called the dartos fascia.
[Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): Plates 234, 329, 338, 354, 355.]
The Immunological Defense System of the soft mucosa. This produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme.
[1. A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901. 2. P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.]
Lymphatic Vessels the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system.
[Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 379.]
Oestrogen Receptors The presence of estrogen receptors within the foreskin has only recently been discovered. Their purpose is not yet understood and needs further study.
[R. Hausmann et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.]The Body is Well Designed - Altering it Surgically
can only
Disrupt it's Natural Function
The Apocrine Glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheremones -nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioural signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been on, the human foreskin is ther. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901.]
Sebaceous Glands which lubricate and moisturise the foreskin and glans, normally a protected and internal organ-like the tongue or vagina. Not all men have sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin.
[A. B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's Glands: Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.]
Langerhans Cells Specialised epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body's immune system in a whole penis.
[G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.]
Colouration The natural coloration of the glans and inner foreskin (usually hidden and only visible to others when sexually aroused) is considerably more intense than the permanently exposed and keratinized coloration of a circumcised penis. The socio-biological function of this visual stimulus has never been studied.
The glans ranges from pink to red to dark purple among intact men of Northern European ancestry, and from pinkish to mahagony to dark brown among intact men of African and Asian descent. If circumcision is performed on an infant or young boy, the connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together is ripped apart. This leaves the glans raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. Over a period of years the glans becomes keratinized, adding additional layers of tissue in order to adequately protect itself, which further contributes to discoloration.
[P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]
Penis Size Circumcision means
Less Penis
Doesn't that matter? Some of the penis length and circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose and usually overhanging foreskin is now missing, making the circumcised penis truncated and thinner than it would have been if left intact.
An Australian survey in 1995 showed circumcised men to have erect penises an average of 8mm shorter than intact men.
[1. R. D. Talarico and J. E. Jasaitis, "Concealed Penis: A Complication of Neonatal Circumcision," Journal of Urology 110 (1973): 732-733. 2. Richters J, Gerofi J, Donovan B. Why do condoms break or slip off in use? An exploratory study. Int J STD AIDS. 1995; 6(1):11-8. ]
Blood Vessels Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery are removed in circumcision. This loss of the rich vascularity interrupts normal flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the the natural function of the penis and altering its development. [1. H. C. Bazett et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.� 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plates 238, 239.]
Dorsal Nerves The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision. If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be almost completely without sensation. [1. Agur, A.M.R. ed., "Grant's Atlas of Anatomy," Ninth Edition (Williams and Wilkins, 1991): 188-190. 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 380, 387.]
Complications Every year boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infection. They are then "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery" and expected to live their lives as "females". [1. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989):799-801. 2. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-Term Review and Clinical Implications," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 298-304.]
Death Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of circumcision, a fact the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry in the U.S. routinely obscures and ignores.
[1. G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549. 2. R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View," Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.]
Emotional Bonding Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development. Additionally, an infant's self-confidence and hardiness is diminished by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of "learned helplessness" or "acquired passivity" to cope with the excruciating pain which he can neither fight nor flee. The trauma of this early pain lowers a circumcised boy's pain threshold below that of intact boys and girls. [1. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997), 139-175. 2. A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.]
Neurological Sexual Communication Although never studied scientifically, contemporary evidence suggests that a penis without its foreskin lacks the capacity for the subtle neurological "cross-communication" that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes and which contributes to the experience of sexual pleasure. Amputating an infant boy's multi-functional foreskin is a "low-grade neurological castration" [Immerman], which diminishes the intensity of the entire sexual experience for both the circumcised male and his partner.)
So if you oppose mandated circumcision, you're insulting the jews who 'survived the holocaust' (well not them, their RELATIVES but wahhh I should still milk the World War 2)
it's shitty logic but why should you give a fuck? it's demagoguery designed to rally the masses of people who already support ritual circumcision.
the onus is on YOU to tell me why circumcision should be outlawed - providing an example of equally poor logic on the other side does not do that at all
Jews have sacrificed and endured a LOT to survive through history against all odds, so whenever we see societal pushback against our rituals or beliefs we do not take it lightly, because in the past it has meant that we must leave the country we have set up in and go somewhere else or face persecution (exile, slavery, pogroms, inquisitions, holocaust)
Saul was rejected as king because he refused to follow G-d's command to commit genocide. David became king because he chose to commit genocide.
Just because an ancient text tells you to do something does not make it reasonable. To mutilate an 8 day old child because Moses said so is not a standard anyone outside of Judaism can respect any more than they can accept G-d ordained genocide.
Like I already said, I am not sure god exists, nor am i sure moses ever existed, but my ancestors certainly did, and certainly sacrificed a lot to ensure their progeny would follow the same traditions, that is why I believe my children should be circumsized.
Jews that do believe whole-heartedly in god would argue that the two commandments (the genocide and the circumcision) are not the same. One came from god directly in the time of the prophets, and one came from the torah. jews do not believe that god will speak directly to a jew anymore, so god ordained genocide cannot occur. Our ancient text does not tell us to commit genocide.
While Jews might say "this is a tradition" rather than "this is a commandment" the same law and tradition that at one time commanded genocide also commands circumcision. There are other facets of the Law (such as capital punishment for adultery or blasphemy) that you allow man's law and reason to supersede. Why not genital mutilation?
Society moved on and realized capital punishment for blasphemy was inconsistent with humanity. You no longer have that option of obedience to your law/tradition in modern society (though some would still carry it out if given the opportunity.) By the same token, the genital mutilation of children is quickly become something civilized society will no longer tolerate, despite law/tradition to the contrary.
I really don't appreciate your 'culture' mandating the mutilation of men or face persecution (see what I did there?)
Circumcision isn't a jewish ritual, it's practice dates further back than judism.
I never thought I would say this but tips fedora your archaic religious beliefs are desensitizing (LITERALLY) billions, who do you think you're fooling by guilt tripping mutilated men?
It's sick, religion should give people hope, not take away something incredibly personal from me or anyone and then lay claim to 'freedom of religion'.
From what I read it doesn't seem the Jews in France are trying to keep the mandate. They do, however, seem to be working very hard (read: striking back with libel because they're desperate) to stop a ban.
Outside the religious law issue, it makes my dick easier to clean. Where's the beef?
This is strictly a matter of the article in which a WOMAN (who has no place to talk in this sort of matter) is saying preventing circumcision is a BAD thing when it's clearly an extremely good thing.
Try looking at it like the laws of Kosher in Judaism. Yes, they are written as part of a religious doctrine. Under close examination, however, they are for the most part a guide to sterile food conditions while living in the desert.
A circumcision can be viewed in the same light. Something the elders knew was a healthy alternative and therefore added into the doctrine.
jews don't persecute against those who are uncircumsized, even among themselves, the punishment occurs on a spiritual level. also, the fact that circumcision existed before judaism doesn't make it any less a jewish ritual. We also weren't the first ones to forbid pork, light candles, or ritualize wine.
I really don't care what YOU think of my culture, and I don't care if you are circumsized or not, I'll worry about my own dick, thanks. And when my son is born, I'll get his snipped. I'm not even sure I believe in god, but I keep the rituals because for thousands of years my ancestors have, and I know for a fact that they went through some serious shit to keep this alive and i'll be damned if I let it stop with me because some guy on the internet thinks a tiny laceration is akin to mutilization.
I only just stopped to consider this myself, actually, and I must admit i do not know the biological implications of female circumcision, I have made a note to look into it.
For now here are my thoughts:
Male circumcision is minor, and may actually have health benefits. It also does not bar the enjoyment of sex- though some insist that it decreases sensitivity.
So my answer is as long as the stakes are similar in the two procedures then I don't see a problem with it. If, however I come to find that the female circumcision is far riskier or more damaging then I will have to look at it independently of my views on the male variant and decide if the medical problems outweigh the cultural benefits to the child and the populations that this question affects.
Before I get a series of angry replies regarding double standards and hypocrisy I will apply the same test to the male circumcision:
I see everyone's arguments against mandated male circumcision, they are not without merit. I simply believe that the jewish population, and the child himself, derives a cultural and possibly medical benefit that outweigh what I believe to be a small cost of relinquishing his foreskin, and believe that this is a minor alteration to his body that can be made without his consent, just as parents can decide on vaccinations, breastfeeding vs formula-feeding, and surgery without a baby's permission..
I'm sorry this isn't a fully formed answer. its a good question I just haven't had the time to give it a proper examination yet.
Female circumcision is more present in Arabic countries. It is also MUCH more dangerous than male circumcision. I'm not saying either is right, I'm just saying the risk to circumcise a woman is much higher. It is also used to inhibit female sexuality whereas male circumcision does not do so.
Female circumcision isnt one single practice, its one that varies by degree. Some are higher risk than male circumcision, others are similar levels. Some for example remove the clitoral hood, some the whole clitoris, or some merely some of the external labia.
I would tend to assume so, in reality the primary risk is going to come from potential for infection. The more invasive the incision, the greater the risk
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you replied to the wrong person because that isnt even close to my position, and I've expressed no such thing.
If you wish to know my position its in a post further down the page, but its broadly that bodily integrity trumps religious expression, regardless of the level of risk involved.
I meant to reply to you, because I thought you were trying to - like many in this thread - say male circumcision is so much less harmful therefore it is OK. My apologies, I stand corrected. My knee jerked.
You're a little late. Another guy posted about how I was wrong and I agreed with him. There are 3 types of female circumcision - I was talking about only one type. I'm not arguing with you.
EDIT: On second thought, you're just a troll. Enjoy being reported dumbass.
Wonderful news! Women can now benefit from all the advantages men gain from having their genitals mutilated.
Time to start a program of female circumcision in Africa, and then expand that to the whole world.
Parents in the USA & Europe: Demand the the laws banning female genital mutilation are reversed, so women can all stop dying of AIDS/HIV.
It's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' genitals mutilated. Plus there are many so-called "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.
"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women,
the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC
was roughly half that of women who had not; the association
remained significant after adjusting for region, household
wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."
Female Circumcision & Health Benefits
"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:
Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:
So there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show FGM is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect. Well worth it for a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.
Ignoring the hyperbole, thanks for providing the links. I don't have time to read them all, but I did at a look at the first.
The study shows that women who were circumcised have sex just as frequently as women who were not circumcised. The same is actually true of males (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753060). The study's conclusion is that you can't use reduced sexual activity as an argument for circumcision.
I disagree.
The study looked at one country, Nigeria. While circumcision within a country may not change sexual activity between individuals, my theory is it does affect the culture as a whole and sexual frequency of that country. Searching quickly, here is data showing the frequency of sex by country.
It's not perfect, but there does seem to be an inverse correlation on the national scale between the frequency of sex and the frequency of circumcision.
Not to argue, but you are making a comparison. You're saying, "yes, but, female circumcision is worse." So what? We should be allowed to do genital mutilation as long as it isn't too bad? That's my point.
this is actually how law in most countries works these days- on a utilitarian basis- weighing the potential costs to public freedom against the benefits to public safety, freedom and security a certain law has in order to decide its worth to society. a supreme court could decide, in theory, that banning female circumcision is worth the cost to the public's right to free religion, but that banning male circumcision is not. They could rule this way because the two procedures may have sufficiently different consequences and outcomes that may leave them on opposite sides of the utilitarian "break-even-point"
there really isn't any hypocrisy in looking at them as separate procedures, since in reality they are.
France is already treating its men like disposable mules. They already banned paternity testing and consider dads replaceable cogs, biology be damned.
Hell, a woman successfully sued her husband for not having enough sex! I somehow doubt the feminists would be silent if a man got his wife to pay damages if she wasn't putting out
about that woman suing her husband for a lack of sex. that happens because France doesn't allow no-fault divorces, and its divorce laws are more old school. you can't just get a divorce when you feel like it. in order to divorce, you have to prove that one or both of the parties isn't holding up their end of the marriage, and sexual neglect counts. no fault divorce has its benefits and detriments.
I made it as far as "unprecedented resurgence". The high creator of all existence demands a fleshy sacrifice. Can you imagine how quickly it would get banned if it was, say, the left nipple, or any other part of the anatomy that women had too?
The disgusting thing is when the Rabbi effectively gives the baby boy a blowjob by sucking the blood from the baby's bleeding penis. There's been cases where a 10 day old baby contracts herpes/hepatitis from the Rabbis mouth too
Only a very small and extremist-fundamentalist sect of jews do this, my ultra-orthodox cousin who is an ordained rabbi has never witnessed a case of this, and he rolls with a pretty religious crowd.
Should we not cut off the umbilical cord too because that would be mutilation? And of course it's involuntary --- the baby has no ability to make decisions. No way would anyone choose to have this operation themselves later in life simply out of fear. We as a society have to decide if this is good or bad. I'll take a shot.
... our world is already sexualized enough and it causes more misery than happiness. The last thing we need is more people slaves to their penis and vagina tingles.
Anything can be equated to the holocaust because most Jewish people in politics tend to have a victim complex and anything that makes them look oppressed is to be called up to legitimize anything they do.
Is it me, or is there a trend by uncircumcised guys on the Internet who raise hell over circumcision? Rarely do I ever see threads like this originating from circumcised men.
Im starting to believe that circumcised men give zero fucks over their mushroomed penis over the non circumcised ones.
I'll probably never do heroine, I'm sure it would feel great, but I can still have an amazing life. Being cut is like this, except being uncut isn't likely to lead you to rock bottom.
That's the boat I'm in. I'm just watching these guys freak the fuck out about some people who are practicing religion in a country they'll never go to.
My dad had me circumcised. Not because I'm jewish, not because it matter, but because it was tradition. I'm glad he did it.
There was also a phase in the 70s through the late 80s that circumcision was a common procedure and billed as a medical thing and not a religious one. Same shit with tonsils removal.
Oddly western women grew to appreciate and expect the circumcised cock making the uncircumcised a freak.
France sounds like literally the worst place on Earth (aside from the areas where a well is a top water source).
It's no wonder every North American woman says they want to travel and will specifically list off 'France' as one of the top countries in Europe they want to go to.
I know exactly one self-identified feminist who understands that circumcision=mutilation, regardless of gender or religion. Some of the most insane hamstering I've ever heard has been from feminists who doublethink that female circumcision=Islamic barbarism, but male circumcision is completely different because Holocaust.
bigdawg54 10y ago
Are you joking bro? It's healthy, sanitary, and is part of a cherished tradition that defines at least two very significant ethno-religious groups.
I never got all this anti-circumcision bullshit.
[deleted] 10y ago
Forgive my ignorance, but is there any reason in scripture (Not tradition, actual religious authority) which says the bris cant be delayed till later in the childs life? Where they're old enough to have some degree of autonomy.
Because its always struck me as odd that a religion would want people to effectively be made a part of their order without any desire to do so. Worship is about accepting a deity (or whatever) into your life. An infant does not do that.
rebuildingMyself 10y ago
"Fill them pews people! Bring the little ones too. Hook 'Em while they're young!"
selfsufficientnigga 10y ago
Not only is there nothing against it, originally it was performed on older children, not on infants.
leftajar 10y ago
Early religion was all about survival of the culture. Imagine living in a time when, without warning, your town/village/city could be conquered by a marauding army and you could be forcibly converted to whatever. So if course the males get branded with circumcision -- it's a way to permanently remind a man that he's a member of the club, every time he looks down.
barneygumbled 10y ago
Dude, the religion of your parents is a huge determinant in one's own religion. How many people joined a religion based on adult reason and logic with no brainwashing? I'd say a tiny percentage of religious people. Childhood indoctrination is the lifeblood of organised religion.
[deleted] 10y ago
Which is true but not necessarily justifiable
def1000 10y ago
Genesis 17, 10:14 basically says that every male child needs to be circumsized on their 8th day, and any who fail to be circumsized at all will have their soul cut off from the people- this is the harshest punishment that exists in judaism.
I understand what you are saying about autonomy, but what you need to understand is that judaism is not a faith-based religion, as christianity is, but one based in law. So, what you're saying about worship may be true in christianity, but not in judaism.
In judaism, jews have to follow god's commandments in order to maintain his blessing, and so we have to continue the commandments in our children so that they may receive his blessing. So according to judaism, the infant has no autonomy, he is a jew and is therefore bound to his duty to carry out the commandments or suffer the consequences.
judaism holds non-jews to a different standard. Non-jews do not have to follow the commandments, and are still seen as righteous so long as they follow the seven noahide laws, which almost every major culture holds to be basic morality to begin with.
rebuildingMyself 10y ago
Sounds like the jews screw even themselves over, then
def1000 10y ago
actually we did. the story of how we were chosen by god goes that he asked every nation to accept his law, but they all wanted to know the terms beforehand. Only when he got to the hebrews did he find a people that accepted his blessing without precondition. He then gave us all the commandments and everything that only WE are obligated to do. 613 commandments for us, 7 for you.
My dad likes to joke that this is why jews learned to negotiate
[deleted] 10y ago
Interesting, well that certainly explains it. Its a difficult situation then because by any moral standard male circumcision is as much a mutilation of another's body as female circumcision. However its a conflict between the rights of faith and the rights to bodily integrity.
I guess I'd have to come down on the side of bodily integrity. There are faiths that require/condone FGM, and we condemn and criminalise these actions and i dont think anyone believes (or very few) that this is incorrect. It naturally follows that MGM ought to be handled in a similar way.
The fact that this is Judaism holds no water for me, its a faith the same as any other. The fact that the Jewish people have suffered arguably more than other faith groups/races doesnt really change whats right or wrong in the here and now which is plainly what these appeal to emotion/holocaust guilt are attempting to convey.
def1000 10y ago
I've done a little bit of reading, and I believe that female circumcision in some cases is actually pretty harmless also, in some cultures it is just a ritual involving a small nick, that heals quite readily which I believe to be as benign as male circumcision and I would not condemn this practice if people believe in it.
You're right in saying what's happened in the past doesn't change what's right or wrong in the present, and I do not mean to imply that it does. I am simply stating the reason for the sensitivity of the jewish population in this matter, and I will do my best to explain why this issue and the holocaust are linked to some jews, because i don't believe they are simply trying to guilt trip people:
Jews live with incredible freedom now, but we have experienced freedom like this in the past, and every time it disappears. It is easy for non-jews to seperate an issue such as this from the persecutions of the past, but jews are brought up learning about all of this past persecution. we cannot help but extrapolate what we see in front of us into a worst-case scenario where of all of our freedom to practice our faith is taken from us. Its simply embedded in our psyche.
I don't tell you this to guilt-trip you, and I'm not sure that these people do either. To them, this issue cannot be viewed independently of the holocaust, and to you, the two have nothing to do with one another. So to you, it comes across as a plug, but there is genuine fear from this jewish community that this is just the beginning. (for the record I don't think this is part of some scheme to slowly chip away at the jews, france is becoming more anti-semitic, but i doubt it will become institutional.)
and so that is why there is this holocaust rhetoric- whatever someone's opinion on the circumcision issue is, i would implore them not to trivialize that it would be devastating to france's jewish population, or dismiss this as one giant guilt trip.
MiracleRiver 10y ago
Yeah, right. Like amputating 15 square inches of adult male foreskin - 50% of the skin of the penis is going to "heal". LOL.
def1000 10y ago
mine seems to have healed up just fine.
[deleted]
MiracleRiver 10y ago
The vast majority MGM is performed by Muslims. Only around 0.8% of boys that suffer this have it done to them by Jewish parents. That said, the Jewish community and Israel play a leading role in promoting this sexual abuse.
The Jewish people are mainly victims in this matter like the rest of the world. As they say: "Few are guilty; but all are responsible". So the Rabbis, Mohels and political leaders, are guilty; but the rest are responsible.
Here is some of the ammo I use around the internet when I come across Jewish people and/or Israelis promoting MGM. By far the best fact is that Theodor Herzl refused to have his son's penis mutilated. That gets them every time. You are welcome to use any of this yourselves :-)
Mohel tells the truth
Watch this evil Mohel showing and boasting about the “instruments” he uses to torture and mutilate little Jewish boys. Or as he calls it: ”tickling” them:
Evil child abusing Mohel
Here he states quite clearly that the purpose of him mutilating little boys’ genitals is to damage their sexuality:
Mutilate infants to damage their sexuality
Theodor Herzl
Theodor Herzl was the father of modern political Zionism and in effect the founder of the State of Israel. He and his wife Julia refused to amputate the foreskin of their son Hans, because they considered the practice “barbaric” and they wanted “strong, virile Jewish men to populate Israel, without any ‘essential’ part of them missing”.
Theodor is buried on the top of Mount Herzl in Israel. I assume you would like him to be dug-up and returned to Austria, where he can rest easily with all those other “anti-semites” who want little Jewish boys to grow up “strong and virile”?
Mohels sucking little boys' penises
Are you happy with this? – a grown Jewish man sucking the bleeding penis of an 8 day old infant boy he has just mutilated?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPLh36XYolc
Am I supposed to stand by and see Jewish babies killed by the Rabbi because they contract herpes HSV-1? 15 deaths this year:
http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2013/03/15-babies-die-every-year-in-nyc-from-metzitzah-bpeh-herpes-hospitals-cover-up-deaths-leading-yu-rabbi-claims-567.html
Jews & Israelis fighting against MGM
As we both know, the great Jewish people span the vast range of political and social viewpoints. And time and again, Jews are found at the forefront of civil rights movements.
Even in Israel itself, more and more Jews are refusing to attack their son’s penises with knives – and the movement is growing every day.
Jewish mother with an intact son!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3xBHgeAc3E
And here’s a Jewish father refusing to mutilate his son’s genitals:
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/12/jewish-fathers-letter-to-his-son.html
And here are many, many other righteous Jewish men and women from Israel and around the world telling their stories and fighting this terrible mutilation of Jewish baby boys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4UEbsg-k5Y
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/index.htm
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org
https://www.facebook.com/JewsAgainstCircumcision
http://www.beyondthebris.com
http://www.cutthefilm.com
https://www.facebook.com/JerusalemCircumcisionResources
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ftgwUL4aE
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/jew-against-circumcision
http://www.britmila.org.il
http://www.intactnews.org/node/112/1313862929/jewish-voices-current-judaic-movement-end-circumcision-part-3
http://intactnews.org/node/168/1341064800/humanistic-judaism-increasingly%C2%A0critical-of%C2%A0child-circumcision
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4272455,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons-1.436421?block=false
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfnqN3YgTd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DRsJXJop5I
Moses Maimonides
Here, Moses Maimonides, a Rabbi, and a preeminent medieval Spanish, Sephardic Jewish philosopher, astronomer and one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages; states quite clearly that the purpose of mutilating the genitals of little infant boys is to:
“Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.”
Link to full text Moses Maimonides
def1000 10y ago
all of your assumptions are wrong:
-I dont care what other jews do to observe the faith, its none of my business.
-Theodor herzl was not an authority on judaism any more than I am, he was an authority on zionism- the two are not the same. Also, he can stay in his grave on mount herzl, they already went through all the trouble of digging him up once and putting him there- cause he did not FOUND israel, he was dead for decades when it came to exist.
-I obviously disagree with the practice of the mohel sucking the blood out himself, as does almost every jew alive, so with this pointyou're jsut preaching o the converted. This practice is not founded in scripture.
-Maimonides, though a genius, is wrong. There are plenty of vestigial traits that do us more harm than good that need our correcting. Appendicitis, and ruptured spleens are fine examples.
-regarding the issue of sexual excitement: you would be hard pressed to find a circumcised man with any complaints about the way sex feels to his mutilated dick.
MiracleRiver 10y ago
Neither do I. Unless they are mutilating the genitals of babies. Then, call me old fashioned, I'm going to stop them.
Hmmm... tell that to all the Jews who conflate Israel with Judaism. By your logic, Zionism has nothing to do with the Jewish people.
Funny how the child-abuser sucking the baby's penis seems to bother so many people. But the fact he has just raped and mutilated the child seems to not really bother you at all:
Rape it is
LOL. The male human foreskin is a high complex and sophisticated part of the human body, considered by some medical researchers and scientists to be a separate organ of the body. It's evolved over millions of years and every mammal has a foreskin.
When the genus Homo and his earlier relatives evolved from the common ancestor we shared with the modern apes, the foreskin continued to evolve into the part of the male penis we see today. The human male foreskin is far more advanced and sophisticated then its equivalent in the modern apes.
50 reasons to not mutilate your child's genitals
Want to learn some more about the human male foreskin? Here we go!...
MiracleRiver 10y ago
Grasping at straws eh?
Getting desperate?
Slowly starting to realise you have a mutilated penis?
Surprise surprise! After 3.6 billion years of evolution, the human foreskin is there for a purpose - just like your nose, ears, lips, fingers, anus, eyelids and vagina:
Medical research for you:
http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_lost.html
Many people think circumcision removes nothing more than a little extra skin. However, circumcision removes several critical components of male sexual anatomy. This list enumerates everything currently known to be physically lost after circumcision.
Alongside these physical losses, it is important to remember that whenever a child is circumcised, by far the greatest loss is his choice to make decisions about his own body and his own sex life when he becomes an adult.
Further information on the anatomy of intact male genitals, and a diagram, can be found on the anatomy page.
Circumcision the Hidden Trauma: How an American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All
The Foreskin which comprises up to 50% (sometimes more) of the mobile skin system of the penis. If unfolded and spread out flat the average adult foreskin would measure about 15 square inches( the size of a 3x5 inch index card). This highly specialised tissue normally covers the glans and protects it from abrasion, drying, callusing(keratinisation), and contaminants of all kinds.The effect of glans keratinisation has never been studied. [1. M. M. Lander, "The Human Prepuce," in G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, eds., Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy (New York: Plenum Press, 1997), 79-81. 2. M. Davenport, "Problems with the Penis and Prepuce: Natural History of the Foreskin," British Medical Journal 312 (1996): 299-301.]
The Frenar Ridged Band, the primary erogenous zone of the male body. Loss of this delicate belt of densely innervated, sexually responsive tissue reduces the fullness and intensity of sexual response. [Taylor, J. R. et al., "The Prepuce: Specialized Mucosa of the Penis and Its Loss to Circumcision," British Journal of Urology 77 (1996): 291-295.]
The Foreskin's 'Gliding Action' - the hallmark mechanical feature of the normal natural, intact penis. This non-abrasive gliding of the penis in and out of itself within the vagina facilitates smooth , comfortable, pleasurable intercourse for both partners. Without this gliding action, the corona of the circumcised penis can function as a oneway valve, scraping vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and making artificial lubricants essential for pleasurable intercourse. [P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]
Nerve Endingstransmit Sensation to the Brain
The Frenulum The highly erogenous V-shaped web-like tethering structure on the underside of the glans; frequently amputated along with the foreskin, or severed, either of which destroys its function and potential for pleasure. [1. Cold, C, Taylor, J, "The Prepuce," BJU International 83, Suppl. 1, (1999): 34-44. 2. Kaplan, G.W., "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10, 1983.]
Muscle Sheath Circumcision removes approximately half of the temperature-sensitive smooth muscle sheath which lies between the outer layer of skin and the corpus cavernosa. This is called the dartos fascia. [Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): Plates 234, 329, 338, 354, 355.]
The Immunological Defense System of the soft mucosa. This produces both plasma cells that secrete immunoglobulin antibodies and antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as the pathogen-killing enzyme lysozyme. [1. A. Ahmed and A. W. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901. 2. P. J. Flower et al., "An Immunopathologic Study of the Bovine Prepuce," Veterinary Pathology 20 (1983):189-202.]
Lymphatic Vessels the loss of which reduces the lymph flow within that part of the body's immune system. [Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 379.]
Oestrogen Receptors The presence of estrogen receptors within the foreskin has only recently been discovered. Their purpose is not yet understood and needs further study. [R. Hausmann et al., "The Forensic Value of the Immunohistochemical Detection of Oestrogen Receptors in Vaginal Epithelium," International Journal of Legal Medicine 109 (1996): 10-30.]The Body is Well Designed - Altering it Surgically can only Disrupt it's Natural Function
The Apocrine Glands of the inner foreskin, which produce pheremones -nature's powerful, silent, invisible behavioural signals to potential sexual partners. The effect of their absence on human sexuality has never been on, the human foreskin is ther. Jones, "Apocrine Cystadenoma: A Report of Two Cases Occurring on the Prepuce," British Journal of Dermatology 81 (1969): 899-901.]
MiracleRiver 10y ago
Sebaceous Glands which lubricate and moisturise the foreskin and glans, normally a protected and internal organ-like the tongue or vagina. Not all men have sebaceous glands on their inner foreskin. [A. B. Hyman and M. H. Brownstein, "Tyson's Glands: Ectopic Sebaceous Glands and Papillomatosis Penis," Archives of Dermatology 99 (1969): 31-37.]
Langerhans Cells Specialised epithelial Langerhans cells, a first line component of the body's immune system in a whole penis. [G. N. Weiss et al., "The Distribution and Density of Langerhans Cells in the Human Prepuce: Site of a Diminished Immune Response?" Israel Journal of Medical Sciences 29 (1993): 42-43.]
Colouration The natural coloration of the glans and inner foreskin (usually hidden and only visible to others when sexually aroused) is considerably more intense than the permanently exposed and keratinized coloration of a circumcised penis. The socio-biological function of this visual stimulus has never been studied. The glans ranges from pink to red to dark purple among intact men of Northern European ancestry, and from pinkish to mahagony to dark brown among intact men of African and Asian descent. If circumcision is performed on an infant or young boy, the connective tissue which protectively fuses the foreskin and glans together is ripped apart. This leaves the glans raw and subject to infection, scarring, pitting, shrinkage, and eventual discoloration. Over a period of years the glans becomes keratinized, adding additional layers of tissue in order to adequately protect itself, which further contributes to discoloration. [P. M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, "The Case Against Circumcision," Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family Living (Winter 1997): 36-45.]
Penis Size Circumcision means Less Penis
Blood Vessels Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery are removed in circumcision. This loss of the rich vascularity interrupts normal flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging the the natural function of the penis and altering its development. [1. H. C. Bazett et al., "Depth, Distribution and Probable Identification in the Prepuce of Sensory End-Organs Concerned in Sensations of Temperature and Touch; Thermometric Conductivity," Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry 27 (1932): 489-517.� 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plates 238, 239.]
Dorsal Nerves The terminal branch of the pudendal nerve connects to the skin of the penis, the prepuce, the corpora cavernosa, and the glans. Destruction of these nerves is a rare but devastating complication of circumcision. If cut during circumcision, the top two-thirds of the penis will be almost completely without sensation. [1. Agur, A.M.R. ed., "Grant's Atlas of Anatomy," Ninth Edition (Williams and Wilkins, 1991): 188-190. 2. Netter, F.H., "Atlas of Human Anatomy," Second Edition (Novartis, 1997): plate 380, 387.]
Complications Every year boys lose their entire penises from circumcision accidents and infection. They are then "sexually reassigned" by castration and "transgender surgery" and expected to live their lives as "females". [1. J. P. Gearhart and J. A. Rock, "Total Ablation of the Penis after Circumcision with Electrocautery: A Method of Management and Long-Term Followup," Journal of Urology 142 (1989):799-801. 2. M. Diamond and H. K. Sigmundson, "Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-Term Review and Clinical Implications," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 151 (1997): 298-304.]
Death Every year many boys lose their lives from the complications of circumcision, a fact the billion-dollar-a-year circumcision industry in the U.S. routinely obscures and ignores. [1. G. W. Kaplan, "Complications of Circumcision," Urologic Clinics of North America 10 (1983): 543-549. 2. R. S. Thompson, "Routine Circumcision in the Newborn: An Opposing View," Journal of Family Practice 31 (1990): 189-196.]
Emotional Bonding Circumcision performed during infancy disrupts the bonding process between child and mother. There are indications that the innate sense of trust in intimate human contact is inhibited or lost. It can also have significant adverse effects on neurological development. Additionally, an infant's self-confidence and hardiness is diminished by forcing the newborn victim into a defensive psychological state of "learned helplessness" or "acquired passivity" to cope with the excruciating pain which he can neither fight nor flee. The trauma of this early pain lowers a circumcised boy's pain threshold below that of intact boys and girls. [1. R. Goldman, Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma (Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997), 139-175. 2. A. Taddio et al., "Effect of Neonatal Circumcision on Pain Responses during Vaccination in Boys," Lancet 345 (1995): 291-292.]
Neurological Sexual Communication Although never studied scientifically, contemporary evidence suggests that a penis without its foreskin lacks the capacity for the subtle neurological "cross-communication" that occurs only during contact between mucous membranes and which contributes to the experience of sexual pleasure. Amputating an infant boy's multi-functional foreskin is a "low-grade neurological castration" [Immerman], which diminishes the intensity of the entire sexual experience for both the circumcised male and his partner.)
curtainmuglamp 10y ago
So if you oppose mandated circumcision, you're insulting the jews who 'survived the holocaust' (well not them, their RELATIVES but wahhh I should still milk the World War 2)
are you fucking kidding me?
bigdawg54 10y ago
it's shitty logic but why should you give a fuck? it's demagoguery designed to rally the masses of people who already support ritual circumcision.
the onus is on YOU to tell me why circumcision should be outlawed - providing an example of equally poor logic on the other side does not do that at all
curtainmuglamp 10y ago
I'm not going to feed your absolutist 'logic', circumcision is bad, especially when preformed without consent.
It's akin to rape.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
bigdawg54 10y ago
reasoning like a woman.
proud of yourself?
curtainmuglamp 10y ago
You're the one with lack of non-absolutist logic cunt.
Keep telling yourself that, I'm more of a man than you'll ever be.
vanzant38 10y ago
Your grandchildren will be saying the same thing, IF we still have free speech.
def1000 10y ago
Jews have sacrificed and endured a LOT to survive through history against all odds, so whenever we see societal pushback against our rituals or beliefs we do not take it lightly, because in the past it has meant that we must leave the country we have set up in and go somewhere else or face persecution (exile, slavery, pogroms, inquisitions, holocaust)
HarleyWalker 10y ago
What the jews have survived they have brought upon themselves. It doesn't take a genius to see who all these high profile feminists and manginas are.
30years 10y ago
Saul was rejected as king because he refused to follow G-d's command to commit genocide. David became king because he chose to commit genocide.
Just because an ancient text tells you to do something does not make it reasonable. To mutilate an 8 day old child because Moses said so is not a standard anyone outside of Judaism can respect any more than they can accept G-d ordained genocide.
def1000 10y ago
Like I already said, I am not sure god exists, nor am i sure moses ever existed, but my ancestors certainly did, and certainly sacrificed a lot to ensure their progeny would follow the same traditions, that is why I believe my children should be circumsized.
Jews that do believe whole-heartedly in god would argue that the two commandments (the genocide and the circumcision) are not the same. One came from god directly in the time of the prophets, and one came from the torah. jews do not believe that god will speak directly to a jew anymore, so god ordained genocide cannot occur. Our ancient text does not tell us to commit genocide.
30years 10y ago
While Jews might say "this is a tradition" rather than "this is a commandment" the same law and tradition that at one time commanded genocide also commands circumcision. There are other facets of the Law (such as capital punishment for adultery or blasphemy) that you allow man's law and reason to supersede. Why not genital mutilation?
Society moved on and realized capital punishment for blasphemy was inconsistent with humanity. You no longer have that option of obedience to your law/tradition in modern society (though some would still carry it out if given the opportunity.) By the same token, the genital mutilation of children is quickly become something civilized society will no longer tolerate, despite law/tradition to the contrary.
curtainmuglamp 10y ago
I really don't appreciate your 'culture' mandating the mutilation of men or face persecution (see what I did there?) Circumcision isn't a jewish ritual, it's practice dates further back than judism.
I never thought I would say this but tips fedora your archaic religious beliefs are desensitizing (LITERALLY) billions, who do you think you're fooling by guilt tripping mutilated men?
It's sick, religion should give people hope, not take away something incredibly personal from me or anyone and then lay claim to 'freedom of religion'.
ultragoodfaker 10y ago
From what I read it doesn't seem the Jews in France are trying to keep the mandate. They do, however, seem to be working very hard (read: striking back with libel because they're desperate) to stop a ban.
Outside the religious law issue, it makes my dick easier to clean. Where's the beef?
curtainmuglamp 10y ago
This is strictly a matter of the article in which a WOMAN (who has no place to talk in this sort of matter) is saying preventing circumcision is a BAD thing when it's clearly an extremely good thing.
While using the excuse
ultragoodfaker 10y ago
Try looking at it like the laws of Kosher in Judaism. Yes, they are written as part of a religious doctrine. Under close examination, however, they are for the most part a guide to sterile food conditions while living in the desert.
A circumcision can be viewed in the same light. Something the elders knew was a healthy alternative and therefore added into the doctrine.
ar10308 10y ago
Those, such as yourself, who are anti-religious do not have the right to determine the terms of religion.
def1000 10y ago
jews don't persecute against those who are uncircumsized, even among themselves, the punishment occurs on a spiritual level. also, the fact that circumcision existed before judaism doesn't make it any less a jewish ritual. We also weren't the first ones to forbid pork, light candles, or ritualize wine.
I really don't care what YOU think of my culture, and I don't care if you are circumsized or not, I'll worry about my own dick, thanks. And when my son is born, I'll get his snipped. I'm not even sure I believe in god, but I keep the rituals because for thousands of years my ancestors have, and I know for a fact that they went through some serious shit to keep this alive and i'll be damned if I let it stop with me because some guy on the internet thinks a tiny laceration is akin to mutilization.
[deleted]
[deleted]
30years 10y ago
How do you feel about clitoral mutilation? Should we allow those who think that's a good idea for their daughters mutilate them?
def1000 10y ago
I only just stopped to consider this myself, actually, and I must admit i do not know the biological implications of female circumcision, I have made a note to look into it.
For now here are my thoughts:
Male circumcision is minor, and may actually have health benefits. It also does not bar the enjoyment of sex- though some insist that it decreases sensitivity.
So my answer is as long as the stakes are similar in the two procedures then I don't see a problem with it. If, however I come to find that the female circumcision is far riskier or more damaging then I will have to look at it independently of my views on the male variant and decide if the medical problems outweigh the cultural benefits to the child and the populations that this question affects.
Before I get a series of angry replies regarding double standards and hypocrisy I will apply the same test to the male circumcision:
I see everyone's arguments against mandated male circumcision, they are not without merit. I simply believe that the jewish population, and the child himself, derives a cultural and possibly medical benefit that outweigh what I believe to be a small cost of relinquishing his foreskin, and believe that this is a minor alteration to his body that can be made without his consent, just as parents can decide on vaccinations, breastfeeding vs formula-feeding, and surgery without a baby's permission..
I'm sorry this isn't a fully formed answer. its a good question I just haven't had the time to give it a proper examination yet.
[deleted]
[deleted]
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
OK, but you can't claim that feminists don't use logic to argue when if you do the exact same thing.
MiracleRiver 10y ago
Pictures and videos of the reality of MGM is logic in it's own right. Facts and truth are inherently logical.
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
This is shock value, an appeal to emotion. Everybody knows surgeries are messy. That doesn't argue against the point that they can still be necessary.
[deleted] 10y ago
Female circumcision is more present in Arabic countries. It is also MUCH more dangerous than male circumcision. I'm not saying either is right, I'm just saying the risk to circumcise a woman is much higher. It is also used to inhibit female sexuality whereas male circumcision does not do so.
[deleted] 10y ago
Female circumcision isnt one single practice, its one that varies by degree. Some are higher risk than male circumcision, others are similar levels. Some for example remove the clitoral hood, some the whole clitoris, or some merely some of the external labia.
[deleted] 10y ago
Ah, you're right. I'm assuming that removing the clitoris is the most dangerous one.
[deleted] 10y ago
I would tend to assume so, in reality the primary risk is going to come from potential for infection. The more invasive the incision, the greater the risk
30years 10y ago
So it's OK to do to boys because doing it to girls is much worse? Does that argument make sense to you?
[deleted] 10y ago
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you replied to the wrong person because that isnt even close to my position, and I've expressed no such thing.
If you wish to know my position its in a post further down the page, but its broadly that bodily integrity trumps religious expression, regardless of the level of risk involved.
30years 10y ago
I meant to reply to you, because I thought you were trying to - like many in this thread - say male circumcision is so much less harmful therefore it is OK. My apologies, I stand corrected. My knee jerked.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
Jesus dude. I'm circumcised and have no plans on circumcising my children.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
You're a little late. Another guy posted about how I was wrong and I agreed with him. There are 3 types of female circumcision - I was talking about only one type. I'm not arguing with you.
EDIT: On second thought, you're just a troll. Enjoy being reported dumbass.
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
Sorry for being so open minded, but what exactly is wrong with female circumcision again? It seems like it would solve a lot of problems here.
MiracleRiver 10y ago
Here you go:
Wonderful news! Women can now benefit from all the advantages men gain from having their genitals mutilated.
Time to start a program of female circumcision in Africa, and then expand that to the whole world.
Parents in the USA & Europe: Demand the the laws banning female genital mutilation are reversed, so women can all stop dying of AIDS/HIV.
It's a myth that many women who have suffered FGM are unhappy and cannot have great sex lives. That's why they queue up to have their daughters' genitals mutilated. Plus there are many so-called "health benefits" - such as a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.
"Stallings et al. (2005) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone FGC was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, union status, and recent ulcer."
Female Circumcision & Health Benefits
"International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:
Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01550.x/abstract
"The Journal of Sexual Medicine" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown:
Pleasure and orgasm in women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975
"National Bureau of Statistics, Tanzania:"
http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf
http://mondofown.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/female-circumcision-health-benefits.html?m=1
"The New Scientist" — a peer reviewed journal of international renown
Female Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Activity:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html#.Uml2H2RDtOQ
Loving mother having her daughter's genitals mutilated in a modern hospital by a doctor: http://aandes.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/circumcision.html
Medical benefits of female circumcision: Dr. Haamid al-Ghawaabi
http://islamqa.info/en/ref/45528
Labiaplasty Patient Satisfaction Clinical Study
http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html#.Uf5hxBbVkqZ
Genital Cutting Advocated By American Academy Of Pediatrics
http://jezebel.com/5532683/genital-cutting-advocated-by-american-academy-of-pediatrics
So there are plenty of peer reviewed studies that show FGM is not a barrier to sexual orgasm and enjoyment. Some studies show that orgasm and enjoyment are reduced; and some show no effect. Well worth it for a 50% reduction in HIV/AIDS.
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
Ignoring the hyperbole, thanks for providing the links. I don't have time to read them all, but I did at a look at the first.
The study shows that women who were circumcised have sex just as frequently as women who were not circumcised. The same is actually true of males (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753060). The study's conclusion is that you can't use reduced sexual activity as an argument for circumcision.
I disagree.
The study looked at one country, Nigeria. While circumcision within a country may not change sexual activity between individuals, my theory is it does affect the culture as a whole and sexual frequency of that country. Searching quickly, here is data showing the frequency of sex by country.
http://www.gadling.com/2007/04/26/which-country-has-the-most-frequent-sex/
And here are the rates of circumcision by country:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/circumcised_men_country_ranks.html
It's not perfect, but there does seem to be an inverse correlation on the national scale between the frequency of sex and the frequency of circumcision.
30years 10y ago
So it's not as bad so it must be good?
[deleted] 10y ago
30years 10y ago
Not to argue, but you are making a comparison. You're saying, "yes, but, female circumcision is worse." So what? We should be allowed to do genital mutilation as long as it isn't too bad? That's my point.
[deleted] 10y ago
No, I agree with you. Both are bad are should be the choice of the child, not the parent.
def1000 10y ago
this is actually how law in most countries works these days- on a utilitarian basis- weighing the potential costs to public freedom against the benefits to public safety, freedom and security a certain law has in order to decide its worth to society. a supreme court could decide, in theory, that banning female circumcision is worth the cost to the public's right to free religion, but that banning male circumcision is not. They could rule this way because the two procedures may have sufficiently different consequences and outcomes that may leave them on opposite sides of the utilitarian "break-even-point"
there really isn't any hypocrisy in looking at them as separate procedures, since in reality they are.
[deleted] 10y ago
The Jews get blamed for a lot of stuff they didn't do, but circumcision is one thing they did do.
rebuildingMyself 10y ago
France is already treating its men like disposable mules. They already banned paternity testing and consider dads replaceable cogs, biology be damned.
Hell, a woman successfully sued her husband for not having enough sex! I somehow doubt the feminists would be silent if a man got his wife to pay damages if she wasn't putting out
[deleted] 10y ago
about that woman suing her husband for a lack of sex. that happens because France doesn't allow no-fault divorces, and its divorce laws are more old school. you can't just get a divorce when you feel like it. in order to divorce, you have to prove that one or both of the parties isn't holding up their end of the marriage, and sexual neglect counts. no fault divorce has its benefits and detriments.
hashtagpound2point2 10y ago
"She's not putting out for you enough? You should be praising her just for gracing you with her presence and ability to spend
your money!"[deleted]
SigmaMu 10y ago
I made it as far as "unprecedented resurgence". The high creator of all existence demands a fleshy sacrifice. Can you imagine how quickly it would get banned if it was, say, the left nipple, or any other part of the anatomy that women had too?
rebuildingMyself 10y ago
Or female circumcision, religious beliefs be damned?
curtainmuglamp 10y ago
If they outlaw circumcision then Jews will be outlaws.
Circumcision is part of their covenant with God.
And when your imaginary friend tell you to mutilate an infants genitalia you have to do it!
TRPsubmitter 10y ago
The disgusting thing is when the Rabbi effectively gives the baby boy a blowjob by sucking the blood from the baby's bleeding penis. There's been cases where a 10 day old baby contracts herpes/hepatitis from the Rabbis mouth too
W-Z-R 10y ago
Very few do that, even in the ultra-orthodox
def1000 10y ago
Only a very small and extremist-fundamentalist sect of jews do this, my ultra-orthodox cousin who is an ordained rabbi has never witnessed a case of this, and he rolls with a pretty religious crowd.
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
What is this world coming to?
30years 10y ago
Complete this sentence:
"Involuntary genital mutilation of baby boys should be legal because..."
[deleted] 10y ago
... it reduces the chance of catching dick rot.
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
Should we not cut off the umbilical cord too because that would be mutilation? And of course it's involuntary --- the baby has no ability to make decisions. No way would anyone choose to have this operation themselves later in life simply out of fear. We as a society have to decide if this is good or bad. I'll take a shot.
... our world is already sexualized enough and it causes more misery than happiness. The last thing we need is more people slaves to their penis and vagina tingles.
30years 10y ago
You forgot the sarcasm tag
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
If you want to communicate on my level, argue against it with logic.
Vomicidal_Tendancies 10y ago
If you can't tell the difference between a dead, shriveled umbilical chord and a penis then you clearly have a wrinkled little raisin dick.
Edit: 'penis tingles'? really? that's right up there with 'breasts are like a bag of sand'.
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
Well if insults make you feel better, go for it. This argument is over.
30years 10y ago
So, that was serious? OK, well then...
SlickJamesBitch 10y ago
I'm an Aztec and I'm quite offended ripping out hearts as a sacrifice is illegal, do we not care for the sun our great provider /s
Elecroam 10y ago
Oy vey, dis is like a second shoah.
Anything can be equated to the holocaust because most Jewish people in politics tend to have a victim complex and anything that makes them look oppressed is to be called up to legitimize anything they do.
Same as any group with that victim mentality.
bigdawg54 10y ago
Suck a dick you worthless little maggot.
You don't shit about jews, you don't know shit about politics, and as a matter of fact you don't know shit about shit.
Elecroam 10y ago
Cool, maybe later you can tell me about how I don't understand the culture of institutionalized holocausts.
PlanB_pedofile 10y ago
Is it me, or is there a trend by uncircumcised guys on the Internet who raise hell over circumcision? Rarely do I ever see threads like this originating from circumcised men.
Im starting to believe that circumcised men give zero fucks over their mushroomed penis over the non circumcised ones.
SlickJamesBitch 10y ago
I'll probably never do heroine, I'm sure it would feel great, but I can still have an amazing life. Being cut is like this, except being uncut isn't likely to lead you to rock bottom.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
SnowOnYourFace 10y ago
So you need your penis tingles, eh?
eberk87 10y ago
That's the boat I'm in. I'm just watching these guys freak the fuck out about some people who are practicing religion in a country they'll never go to.
My dad had me circumcised. Not because I'm jewish, not because it matter, but because it was tradition. I'm glad he did it.
PlanB_pedofile 10y ago
There was also a phase in the 70s through the late 80s that circumcision was a common procedure and billed as a medical thing and not a religious one. Same shit with tonsils removal.
Oddly western women grew to appreciate and expect the circumcised cock making the uncircumcised a freak.
lucifa 10y ago
American women. Circumcision isn't the norm in the rest of the Western world.
eberk87 10y ago
Word. I just shrug at this whole thread and article.
[deleted]
hashtagpound2point2 10y ago
France sounds like literally the worst place on Earth (aside from the areas where a well is a top water source).
It's no wonder every North American woman says they want to travel and will specifically list off 'France' as one of the top countries in Europe they want to go to.
ultragoodfaker 10y ago
Could be the huge phallic symbol on Paris that's been a romantic trope to Americans since its construction.
finalfantasybrownies 10y ago
While I agree, there could be some overlap.
ultragoodfaker 10y ago
I wasn't there. But in this realm of speculation I feel it makes sense. Also is anyone else confused at OP's hatred of losing the foreskin?
ScannerSloppy 10y ago
I know exactly one self-identified feminist who understands that circumcision=mutilation, regardless of gender or religion. Some of the most insane hamstering I've ever heard has been from feminists who doublethink that female circumcision=Islamic barbarism, but male circumcision is completely different because Holocaust.