Current Events

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Lady Saiga — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:55:20 GMT

There's certainly a difference of degree between doing a thing that's uncomfortable but not damaging versus doing a thing that's both uncomfortable and permanently disfiguring. I wonder if the degree matters, though? Are both types of actions not forms of aggression? I don't have kids, so it's easy for me to say this, but I do think that once a child is old enough to have the ability to voice a rational opinion, it seems like it's important for her to be consulted in her personal care like that. It would be helpful for her to be aware right from the start that she has the right to a final say over what happens to her own body. Probably a lot easier to recruit her good behavior during the event, too.

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Bert — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:43:40 GMT

That's different than physically removing a piece of my body depriving myself of full sexual pleasure.

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:40:39 GMT

If she wanted them taken out, she would've asked you, wouldn't she? (I'm assuming she's old enough to understand what you're doing.)

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

FlyingAxe — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:35:36 GMT

I consider it aggression to take out my daughter's bugers with a suction bulb without her permission (which, in many occassions she does not give on the account of the process being unpleasant).

But I still do it -- because what can I do? I want my daughter to breathe.

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Autolykos — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 16:09:46 GMT

I consider circumcision to constitute aggression if done without the person's express permission, no matter how young he is. If I ever have a son, it will be up to him to get circumcised (which means he won't be circumcised as an infant).

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Bert — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 15:35:24 GMT

From what I understand, when you get circumcised you are actually getting rid of a lot of nerve ends that can cause greater and fuller orgasms, that with a circumcised penis you are not fully feeling what you could during sex.

That being said, I'm against circumcision. I don't see any real medical or health reason to have it, it's only from a cultural/ritual aspect that it's performed, but for some reason even in our "age of reason" we still do it.

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Clayton — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:28:14 GMT

@FlyingAxe: I completely respect your position. My primary beef is with the medical establishment trying to gin up medical justifications for it. You and I agree that's nonsense. Without the propping of the medical establishment, we know the incidence of circumcision would drop drastically to mostly just those who do it for religious reasons. While I still think it is aggressive, as another poster pointed out, there are bigger fish to fry.

Clayton -

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

FlyingAxe — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:15:17 GMT

FlyingAxe:

I have asked this question before: how do we figure out what is the case of abandonment/child abuse (in Blockian sense) and what is not? For instance, is snipping the tongue frenulum a case of child abuse?

I.e., I am following my source of information (British Journal of Medicine) that says that tongue frenulum, when too short, can impede nursing. But you think it’s a barbarous practice... according to your sources (American Journal of Pediatrics). And your sources think my sources are a bunch of whackjobs, and vice versa.

What’s next? How do we figure out whether I am abusing my kid or not? Do we follow a local custom? But what does that have to do with anything? Just because most of my neighbors are AJP subscribers, I get to have my kid taken away from me (G-d forbid), or at least forbidden to do a procedure which (I believe) will help him to nurse?

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

FlyingAxe — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:10:55 GMT

Clayton:

I've read that some modern Jews just have a ritual cut made rather than going all the way around. Many old customs have had to be discarded as human moral awareness has become more sophisticated and I think it's high time we identified circumcision as one of those customs that's up for retirement. And I hope there's a special place in hell for the AAP.

Clayton -

It’s not a custom. It’s a commandment given to us by the source of all reality. Or so we believe.

Making a ritual cut is not a proper way of circumcision. It’s confusion of the concepts. The person who was circumcised in a hospital, without proper religious procedure, needs to be circumcised again. Since this is obviously impossible, they do the ritual cut (not really a cut, a pin-prick).

Whaver. As I said before, it’s a pointless discussion. It’s very difficult to make someone who doesn’t see a religious point of view understand it. And each religious point of view is unique. I also did not get it in my atheist years.

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

FlyingAxe — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:07:17 GMT

A decision to circumcise is not principally different from a decision to immunize. The parent is doing what he perceives to be the best for the child.

I have asked this question before: how do we figure out what is the case of abandonment/child abuse (in Blockian sense) and what is not? For instance, is snipping the tongue frenulum a case of child abuse?

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Clayton — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:00:48 GMT

@Flying: A competent individual should be able to make that choice on his own behalf. I do not believe it should be allowed on infants or children - incompetents. Of course, it's ultimately a family/religious matter so some enclaves may continue to permit aggressive practices such as circumcision. But it's not just the Jewish community saying "we reserve the right to practice this" - after all, I'm sure that the incidence of circumcision regret among Jewish males is much lower than in the general population precisely because it's an integral part of their identity within their own community. What pisses me off is the medical establishment trying to gin up justifications for an ancient and - in my opinion - barbaric religious ritual. I've read that some modern Jews just have a ritual cut made rather than going all the way around. Many old customs have had to be discarded as human moral awareness has become more sophisticated and I think it's high time we identified circumcision as one of those customs that's up for retirement. And I hope there's a special place in hell for the AAP.

Clayton -

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

ThatOldGuy — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:52:45 GMT

Most circumcised men do not find their organs’ sensitivity diminished. Some of those who do find it a welcome phenomenon allowing them to last longer.

If men are circumcised, I'm willing to guess that the majority of them had it done a few days after birth. How can they tell?

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

FlyingAxe — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:34:37 GMT

Most circumcised men do not find their organs’ sensitivity diminished. Some of those who do find it a welcome phenomenon allowing them to last longer. (And in Judaism, letting the woman orgasm is a required part of sex. If the man fails the first time, he has to try again.)

Having said that, I would not advocate circumcision for non-religious reasons. For religious reasons... there is little point arguing. People who believe in X find it more important than whatever arguments you will bring, simply because they "answer to a higher authority".

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Clayton — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:17:37 GMT

Honestly, this is such a silly clutch issue. If your family practices Judaism, then get your son(s) circumcised. If your family does not practice, then don't do pursue circumcision(s) for your son(s). There are bigger issues to tackle, just saying.

I think this is the very attitude that needs to be tackled and reversed. It's not no big deal. People take female genital mutilation very seriously... that's one of the justifications for US entry into Afghanistan where tens of thousands of Afghanis and hundreds (thousands?) of US troops have also died.

Please read any anatomy article discussing the foreskin. You will find that it is homologous to the female clitoral hood - which plays an essential role in female clitoral orgasm. Without the hood, many women find sex unpleasurable and are incapable of orgasm. That's a big deal.

Circumcision is precisely as damaging to the male anatomy. The "average" adult male foreskin is around fifteen square inches of skin. In addition to the role that the foreskin plays in male orgasm (similar to the clitoral hood's role for the woman), the foreskin also eases penetration, reducing the likelihood of minor injuries, chafing and discomfort for both partners. These effects can be detrimental over the long run. For example, a woman who is regularly injured by her partner during penetration can develop a fear reflex that makes it difficult for her to get lubricated, hampering the couple's sex life which can lead to other complications in the relationship. It's a big deal.

There are other fish to fry. Mass murder in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example. However, I don't think there's any dependency between ending the wars and being able to say "Circumcision is a big deal and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as not an issue that needs to be addressed right now."

Clayton -

Re: Thread on "Circumcision" or "Male Genital Mutilation"

Kelvin Silva — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 06:08:13 GMT

Sorry. Ill use better language next time.