Jewish groups oppose circumcision ban in US city

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – Jewish groups and others are up at arms over an attempt to outlaw male circumcision in San Francisco by putting the issue to a popular vote.

Self-described "intactivist" Lloyd Schofield has been collecting signatures for a voter initiative that would criminalize infant circumcision in the Californian city.

After two months of collecting names, he claims to be more than half way toward getting the 7,168 signatures he needs by late April to put the matter on the November ballot.

Schofield and a growing community of anti-circumcision activists say that infants should not be forced to participate in what is essentially culturally accepted genital mutilation.

They claim that the procedure can cause health risks and diminished sexual function and compare it to the clitoridectomies performed on girls in parts of Africa.

"This is a human rights issue," he said. "What you're doing is you're taking an infant and removing the most sensitive part of their body."

Jewish organizations have pledged to fight the measure should it be placed on the ballot. Anti-Defamation League director Daniel Sandman called Schofield's effort discriminatory and misguided.

"This is hurtful and offensive to people in the community who consider this a coveted ritual," he said.

Abby Porth of the Jewish Community Relations Council charged Schofield with wasting city resources for an inappropriate political stunt that was unlikely to become law.

"This is one of the most fundamental practices to our tradition of over 3,000 years," she said. "It's symbolic of our covenant with God."

Porth said the Jewish community would form a coalition against the initiative with medical professionals and Muslims, who also practice circumcision.

"It's very similar to those of the Jewish faith," said Omar Nawaz of the Bay Area-based Zaytuna College, one of the nation's only Muslim colleges. "It's a religious tradition and it's important for us."

Both pro- and anti-circumcision advocates make health claims, but the medical research does not firmly support either position.

The American Academy of Pediatrics holds that there are both benefits and risks to infant circumcision, and recommends that parents make the choice for themselves.

Several other health bodies are reviewing the evidence on circumcision with an eye to new policy recommendations.

Circumcision rates among US male infants have dropped in recent decades, but more than half of newborns are still circumcised, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

If the ban is approved, those caught cutting the foreskins of infants and other minors would face up to a year in jail and up to $1,000 in fines.

The ban would certainly face legal challenges, and could be found in violation of the First Amendment right to Freedom of Religion.

However, it would not be subject to legislative amendment.

California's unique voter initiative system allows residents to place virtually anything on the ballot so long as they secure the requisite signatures.

Many of California's most controversial and restrictive policies have been passed this way, among them a drastic reduction in property taxes and a ban on gay marriage.

San Francisco resident Mark Reiss, who grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home, is among a vocal community of circumcised men who say they struggle with the emotional and physical effects of circumcision.

He runs a website that lists rabbis nationwide who will preside over a naming ritual similar to the one performed at Jewish circumcisions but with no cutting.

Schofeld said that the issue is not one of cultural practice, but of individual freedom.

"This is a painful and irreversible surgery," Schofield said. "It's a man's body. It's his right to choose and we're trying to preserve that choice."

[Lobotomy]

I'm sure these people have the best of intentions, but this comparison is absolute bullshit (bold added):


They claim that the procedure can cause health risks and diminished sexual function and compare it to the clitoridectomies performed on girls in parts of Africa.

Female genital mutilation is done for the purpose of deliberately reducing the sexual pleasure a woman can feel and therefore controlling them as far as marriage etc. Male circumcision, while it is probably a pretty outdated practice, is NOT done for those reasons and therefore drawing this comparison is actually very offensive.

[Tim Finnegan]

Besides, it's perfectly possible to pursue a male circumcision as an adult- it can even be offered by doctors as a potential solution to certain physical conditions- while anyone pursuing female genital mutilation would be given psychiatric help. That alone suggests some meaningful distinction.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Great, someday the actions of culturally imperialistic and ignorant Atheists will actually bring the Muslim and Jewish communities together.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Really, this is just a joke. Are there many who actually care whether or not someone else gets circumcised? Shouldn't this be the choice of the person's parents/person who is actually getting the circumcision(For those doing after their infant years)?
Are there really bad effects, because I don't think anything is really wrong with my penis because it doesn't have foreskin.

[janrae20]

Religion kills the mind of every mind.

[CynicalIdealist]

Circumcision is abhorrent. Why am I the first person here to back this?

[Tim Finnegan]

Great, someday the actions of culturally imperialistic and ignorant Atheists will actually bring the Muslim and Jewish communities together.
How is it "cultural imperialism"? Circumcision has been the historical norm in the United States.

[¿Que?]

The sad thing is, circumcised men are ignorant to the glorious wonders and incomparable pleasures to be had with that dangling piece of flesh some of our parents were kind enough to let us have. To be sure, the thing looks absolutely beastly, but this may be a cultural thing. I've seen enough porn to recognize a bad cut anyway. Thanks but no thanks.

I think if we truly believe in self-determination and individual autonomy, then circumcision is a no go, at least until the kid is old enough to decide for himself. I would vote yes to outlaw.

EDIT: Oh and look at my join date. This is the first male circumcision thread I've ever seen on revleft. It's about fucking time!!!

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The sad thing is, circumcised men are ignorant to the glorious wonders and incomparable pleasures to be had with that dangling piece of flesh some of our parents were kind enough to let us have. To be sure, the thing looks absolutely beastly, but this may be a cultural thing. I've seen enough porn to recognize a bad cut anyway. Thanks but no thanks.

I think if we truly believe in self-determination and individual autonomy, then circumcision is a no go, at least until the kid is old enough to decide for himself. I would vote yes to outlaw.

EDIT: Oh and look at my join date. This is the first male circumcision thread I've ever seen on revleft. It's about fucking time!!!
Well it seems to outlaw it no matter what.

[¿Que?]

Well it seems to outlaw it no matter what.
Well that's just dumb. Might as well ban all elective surgery then. Do you have a source?

EDIT:

If the ban is approved, those caught cutting the foreskins of infants and other minors would face up to a year in jail and up to $1,000 in fines.
We're off to a bad start, it seems...

[Nolan]

I seem to agree that it should be up to the boy when he's old enough to make the decision to modify his body like that.

[StalinFanboy]

Great, someday the actions of culturally imperialistic and ignorant Atheists will actually bring the Muslim and Jewish communities together.

We should continue to view children as the property of their parents rather than as real people with bodies that feel pain and pleasure to please some idiots that still believe they are talking to a being in the sky?

I don't necessarily support this as a law, but I absolutely support the abolition of such practices.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well that's just dumb. Might as well ban all elective surgery then. Do you have a source?

EDIT:

We're off to a bad start, it seems...

Well the first line of the article was:

Jewish groups and others are up at arms over an attempt to outlaw male circumcision in San Francisco by putting the issue to a popular vote.
Which to me sounds like they're banning it outright no matter what age. But then later on in the article they say what you just quoted. DAMN THEM FOR THEIR SENSATIONALISM :lol:.

I guess you win this one. But is it really even a issue? I mean the article talks about both sides claiming health risks and benefits but I'd bet they're both minuscule right? I've never heard of some serious side effects of male circumcision/not being circumcised. I mean it's not like foot binding or female circumcision.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_of_circumcision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision

[Princess Luna]

Well the first line of the article was:

Which to me sounds like they're banning it outright no matter what age. But then later on in the article they say what you just quoted. DAMN THEM FOR THEIR SENSATIONALISM :lol:.

I guess you win this one. But is it really even a issue? I mean the article talks about both sides claiming health risks and benefits but I'd bet they're both minuscule right? I've never heard of some serious side effects of male circumcision/not being circumcised. I mean it's not like foot binding or female circumcision.
I know being circumcised will make your penis tip less sensative reducing sexual pleasure later in life because its meant to be a internal organ , Penn and Teller did a great thing on why circumcision is bullshit and i was going to link the video until i found the moronic piles of shit at youtube removed it for "sexual content" because it showed a baby's penis.
*edit* found it http://espanol.video.yahoo.com/watch/5808710/15202871

[Pretty Flaco]

I'm circumcised.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How is it "cultural imperialism"? Circumcision has been the historical norm in the United States.

Err, I think its cultural imperialism to tell people that they can't do this. Using the law to ban circumcision is an authoritarian measure. It's like a burqa ban, even if you disagree with the practice there are more civilized and culturally sensitive ways of dealing with it.

[Princess Luna]

Err, I think its cultural imperialism to tell people that they can't do this. What's wrong with that?
Because they are not telling people they can't circumcise themselves , they are telling people they can't circumcise other people without they're consent. When your kids reaches the age of reason and decides he wants to be circumcised then its fine , however by doing it before he has the ability to say "GET THAT F**KING KNIFE AWAY FROM MY DICK!* you are forcing another human being to confirm to your religious values and undertake a process which can't be reversed and can negative side effects later in life. if my parents had of asked me if i wanted to be circumcised i would have said NO , but i never got a say in the matter because it was done when i was a infant and now i have to live with the consaquences of their decision.

[Tim Finnegan]

Err, I think its cultural imperialism to tell people that they can't do this. Using the law to ban circumcision is an authoritarian measure. It's like a burqa ban, even if you disagree with the practice there are more civilized and culturally sensitive ways of dealing with it.
But the burqa ban specifically targeted a particular religious minority, which this does not; it merely has a disproportionate impact upon them, and that is entirely their own bloody fault. Circumcision has long been opted for by Christian and secular families in the US, they simply don't attach a mystical significance to it. Furthermore, as Karmorda says, it is still entirely possible for those who wish to be circumcised to pursue the procedure at a later date, so there's evidently no fundamental objection to it.

Also, in regards to the bolded: Firstly, what does that have to do with "cultural imperialism" (a phrase that I'm still not entirely sure actually means anything)? Secondly, don't you think that there's a difference between the state preventing you from dressing as you wish, and the state preventing you from cutting bits off a non-consenting human being?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How did the burqa ban target one minority? it targeted "face covering", it didn't necessarily target Islamic women.

As for cultural imperialism, it's because it is one cultural perspective seeking to impose a single absolute standard for acceptable behavior on everyone else who has different cultural perspectives (often, religious ones). In extreme circumstances, like clitoris removal, which is far more invasive, such an action by the state is understandable, but male circumcision doesn't have as many negative side effects.

I suppose you can justify the ban by saying babies can't consent, but there are plenty of non-lifesaving surgeries that babies go through. I haven't heard of male circumcision having serious negative health effects, and there are some hygiene benefits.

[¿Que?]

Well the first line of the article was:

Which to me sounds like they're banning it outright no matter what age. But then later on in the article they say what you just quoted. DAMN THEM FOR THEIR SENSATIONALISM :lol:.

I guess you win this one. But is it really even a issue? I mean the article talks about both sides claiming health risks and benefits but I'd bet they're both minuscule right? I've never heard of some serious side effects of male circumcision/not being circumcised. I mean it's not like foot binding or female circumcision.
Definitely don't agree with the comparison to fgm from a physiological point of view. From a physiological point of view, it'd be more like cutting off the entire penis, than just the foreskin, to make the analogy appropriate. But as far as culture is concerned, they're both practices that are done on behalf of the child without their consent, and I think this is why they bring up the comparison. But then not all barbaric practices are equal. FGM cannot be equated to ear piercings, which is done by some parents to children, particularly those parents overly concerned with their daughter's looks (you've seen the pageants I'm sure).

As far as the health benefits and risks, well that one's an age old argument that's been raging since man first set knife to skin. Every year or so you'll see in the NY Times or something how some scientists finally has been able to prove the benefits of circumcision. Currently, the US government subsidizes male circumcision in Africa to prevent the spread of AIDS. For example:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html
which says among other things:


An analysis of data in 2002 cited by the Agency for International Development found that 38 studies, mostly in Africa, appeared to show that uncircumcised men were more than twice as likely to be infected than circumcised men. Ok, but later on in the article they say:

Perhaps the most compelling evidence came last year from a study financed by the French government of 3,274 men outside Johannesburg. Half of them underwent circumcision; the others were uncircumcised.



After 17 months, 49 of the uncircumcised men became infected with H.I.V., while only 20 of the circumcised men caught the virus. The study was called to a halt in March 2005 when a review board decided that it would be unethical to withhold circumcision from the control group. Researchers estimated that the procedure reduced the risk of contracting H.I.V. by roughly two-thirds.
So 49 over 1637 is .029 or 2.9% of the sample whereas the circumcised group is 20 over 1637 is .012 or 1.2%. That's a whopping 1.7% difference out of a sample of over 3,000. What statistical mumbo jumbo they performed to get that 1.7% statistically significant, I would liek to learn, but the important thing to know is that 1.7% is a little over 1.2% and therefore 2.9% is a little over twice as many as the circumcised group (The article says the procedure reduced the risk by roughly two-thirds - they probably derived this figure from a regression analysis). In any case, is it starting to add up?

Consider, further, if the sample is representative. The prevalence of HIV in South Africa is 17.8% (http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm), out of the 3,000 or so sample, that amounts to roughly 583, but this would include both men and women, so we have to cut that number in half to get a rough estimate. That's still about 291, versus the 49 uncircumcised and 20 circumcised. So I wouldn't think the sample was representative, although I haven't seen the study. In some regions, HIV may be more prevalent.

Not to mention that a lot of information is left out of the article. Did any of the men use condoms? Were any of the men Muslim? Were any of the men gay or engaged in anal sex? How sexually active were the men? The article does not mention if any of these were controlled for.

Honestly, in spite of the lackluster results which show a small advantage towards circumcision for preventing AIDS, my own personal opinion is that the real difference is zero, zilch, nada, zip, nothing. I think it's shenanigans or unintended researcher bias, personally. But I haven't found the smoking gun yet...

[Kuppo Shakur]

There's nothing wrong with being circumcised or getting a circumcision, but circumcising infants is an unnecessary procedure with a chance of going wrong.
I mean really, what's the point anyway. You may as well cut off your earlobes.

[¿Que?]

I suppose you can justify the ban by saying babies can't consent, but there are plenty of non-lifesaving surgeries that babies go through. I haven't heard of male circumcision having serious negative health effects, and there are some hygiene benefits.
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

It's rare but it happens.

[Princess Luna]

As for cultural imperialism, it's because it is one cultural perspective seeking to impose a single absolute standard for acceptable behavior on everyone. In extreme circumstances, like clitoris removal, which is far more invasive, such an action by the state is understandable, but i dont know if it is in this case.
I don't really give a shit rather something is "cultural" or not if it violates another human being

I suppose you can justify the ban by saying babies can't consent, but there are plenty of non-lifesaving surgeries that babies go through.
Name one that is 100% unessacary , involves lots of pain , and will remove a perfectly natural and healthy body part

I haven't heard of male circumcision having serious negative health effects,
I posted a video up there of why its bad ,

and there are some hygiene benefits.
If you have access to soap and water then there are no hygiene benefits from circumcision.

[Delirium]

I don't think many men would choose to have part of their penis chopped off if it was up to them. The only reason i could think of for adult male getting circumcised is that he is extremely insecure with his body.

As people have said before, genital mutilation of babies is fucking sick. I think it is comparable to clitoris removal. I am not circumcised and the most sensitive part of my penis is the part they would have removed.

Just to preempt the usual bullshit... Your dick is fine it does not get dirty, and if your so worried about aids you should wear a condom.

Or just cut the whole thing off, that would defiantly reduce the risk of contracting AIDS. :rolleyes:

[Leonid Brozhnev]

The only reason i could think of for adult male getting circumcised is that he is extremely insecure with his body.


Health reasons? Watching medical programmes I've seen doctors advise circumcision to adult males a few times for various things.

I was circumcised when I was 8 for health reasons, never thought I was violated or maimed in anyway. Of course, personal choice is nice, forcing it upon children for 'religious' reasons is ridiculous, but Adult males should have a choice in the matter.

[28350]

My parents chose to have my infant genitals mutilated.
:(

There are definite pluses and minuses about circumcision. The paradox is, if you want to get circumcised, it's best to be circumcised at a very young age.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I haven't heard of male circumcision having serious negative health effects, and there are some hygiene benefits.

There aren't really many hygiene concerns for the uncircumcised as long as you, y'know, bathe.

Having a foreskin that won't retract is no bueno, though. In any case I'm pro-foreskin. :thumbup1:

[Tim Finnegan]

How did the burqa ban target one minority? it targeted "face covering", it didn't necessarily target Islamic women.
Oh, don't be dense. Everyone knows fine well that the ban was specifically intended to extend Sarkozy's xenophobic agenda by offering superficially progressive grounds for further marginalising an ethno-religious minority.


As for cultural imperialism, it's because it is one cultural perspective seeking to impose a single absolute standard for acceptable behavior on everyone else who has different cultural perspectives (often, religious ones). In extreme circumstances, like clitoris removal, which is far more invasive, such an action by the state is understandable, but male circumcision doesn't have as many negative side effects. I think you're stretching the limits of multi-culturalism there, to be honest. It's about minding your own business, not about turning a blind eye to abuse- which, if one agrees with the "intactivists", this is.


I suppose you can justify the ban by saying babies can't consent, but there are plenty of non-lifesaving surgeries that babies go through. I haven't heard of male circumcision having serious negative health effects, and there are some hygiene benefits. If you're going to bring up emergency surgeries as a comparison, then surely you must extent the same logic to adults- that is to say, declare that because surgeons are allowed to operate on a non-consenting patient, say, an unconscious car-crash victim with a non-fatal wound, then it is also acceptable for that patient's next of kin to ask the surgeons if they couldn't give him a little snip-snip while they were at it.


I don't think many men would choose to have part of their penis chopped off if it was up to them. The only reason i could think of for adult male getting circumcised is that he is extremely insecure with his body.
It was a medical condition, as it happens. :p

[TC]

Female genital mutilation is done for the purpose of deliberately reducing the sexual pleasure a woman can feel and therefore controlling them as far as marriage etc. Male circumcision, while it is probably a pretty outdated practice, is NOT done for those reasons and therefore drawing this comparison is actually very offensive.

Actually this is historically the reason why male circumcision is performed too. Circumcision is a relatively new practice among non-jewish, non-muslim people, it was introduced in America in the late 19th century as a way of discouraging boys from masturbating and reducing their sexual appetites.


When in 1896 a popular book, All about the Baby, advised mothers that circumcision of baby boys was "advisable in most cases," it recommended the operation mainly for preventing "the vile habit of masturbation."...Remondino, for his part, was certain that "circumcised boys may, in individual cases... be found to practice onanism, but in general the practice can be asserted as being very rare among the children of circumcised races... neither in infancy are they as liable to priapism during sleep as those that are uncircumcised." [56 (http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/#ref56)]

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/

In other words, male circumcision is sexually disabling by design.

Circumcision deprives children of future sexual function:



Mechanical function. The foreskin provides mechanical functions to facilitate intromission and penetration. Several authorities observe that the penis enters the vagina without friction as the foreskin unfolds.4 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n4) 9 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n9) 10 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n10) 11 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n11) Taves (2002) reported that excision of the foreskin by circumcision increases the force required to penetrate by ten-fold.51 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n51) Shen et al. reported 43.1 percent of men cirumcised as adults experience difficult penetration.59 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n59) After penetration, the foreskin provides a gliding action that greatly reduces friction,4 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n4) 9 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n9) 11 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n11) 15 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n15) 41 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n41) 49 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n49)and vaginal dryness.27 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n27) 40 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n40) 50 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n50) 55 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n55)
Elasticity. The foreskin has a layer of smooth muscle tissue called the peripenic muscle,1 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n1) which is part of the dartos muscle.1 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n1) 39 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n39) The contraction and expansion of the muscle fibers in this layer give the foreskin great elasticity and are important in erogenous sensation. Lakshmanan & Prakash report a "mosaic of muscle tissues and elastic fibres" contained between the two layers of the foreskin, which keep the foreskin snugly against in the glans penis in a close fit.15 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n15) The muscle fibres must stretch to allow the foreskin to retract over the glans and contract again when the foreskin returns to its normal forward position. The expansion and contraction of the muscle fibres during coitus allows the foreskin to stretch. The stretching deformes the Meissner corpuscles and produces sensation.68 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n68) The nerve bundles run alongside the dartos muscle.40 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n40) The stretching puts tension on the nerve endings contained within the foreskin. The nerve endings deform and generate pleasurable erotic sensations to the central nervous system and inputs to the autonomic nervous system, which plays a role in controlling erection and ejaculation.57 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n57) 68 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n68) Taylor (2003) reports preliminary evidence that stretching of the foreskin produces contractions associated with ejaculation.58 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n58) Taylor reports that the ridged band of the foreskin is reflexogenic and produces contractions that result in ejaculation.68 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n68)
Erogenous tissue. the foreskin is heavily innervated even at birth and before.5 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n5) 21 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n21) The foreskin is a specific erogenous zone6 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n6) with nerve endings near the surface of the ridged band arranged in rete ridges.29 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n29) The foreskin is noted for its sensory pleasure.12 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n12) 36 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n36) 51 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n51) Circumcision, therefore, diminishes sexual sensation.6 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n6) 9 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n9) 10 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n10) 11 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n11) 12 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n12) 18 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n18) 28 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n28) 31 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n31) 38 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n38) 57 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n57) 59 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n59) 62 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n62) 63 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n63) 64 (http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/#n64)

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

Of course people don't openly admit anymore that its designed to make children less sexually functional. But then people don't admit that often of female genital mutilation either. People who practice FGM say it makes girls 'cleaner' - it is hygenic - and it makes them look right for marriage! Basically exactly the same reasoning people use for justifying male genital mutilation (though their reasoning is the even more egotystical 'so he'll look like his father')

[TC]

Besides, it's perfectly possible to pursue a male circumcision as an adult- it can even be offered by doctors as a potential solution to certain physical conditions- while anyone pursuing female genital mutilation would be given psychiatric help. That alone suggests some meaningful distinction.


Yes it suggests that male genital mutilation is socially acceptable in America (can't say "the West" on this one since the Europeans and Latin Americans think its nuts) and female genital mutilation is not...Thats all it suggests.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Cutting a baby's foreskin off is worse than wearing a burqa.

IMO anyways.

This is where I take the stance that all children should be free of religious indoctrination and free to choose when/if they want to.

[black magick hustla]

Yes it suggests that male genital mutilation is socially acceptable in America (can't say "the West" on this one since the Europeans and Latin Americans think its nuts) and female genital mutilation is not...Thats all it suggests.
nah i knew some latin american kids that were circumsized. i was circumsized but my dad was muslim but as i said i knew other kids that were circumsized too.

[Sir Comradical]

Really, this is just a joke. Are there many who actually care whether or not someone else gets circumcised? Shouldn't this be the choice of the person's parents/person who is actually getting the circumcision(For those doing after their infant years)?
Are there really bad effects, because I don't think anything is really wrong with my penis because it doesn't have foreskin.

Shouldn't it be the choice of the male? Circumcision should be allowed so long as the male in question is over the age of 16 and can make up their own mind. Let's be honest, it's a stupid, outdated and backward practice when carried out on religious grounds.

[TC]

As for cultural imperialism, it's because it is one cultural perspective seeking to impose a single absolute standard for acceptable behavior on everyone else who has different cultural perspectives (often, religious ones).

Your different cultural perspectives' relevance ends where another's body begins: backwards cultural attitudes do not give you the right to chop up someone elses body, whether its male genital mutilation, female genital mutilation (also a cultural practice!), or stoning women for adultery.

Moreover by allowing the powerful members of a community to define its "cultural practices" you're just allowing those powerful people to impose their will on people less able to - namely their children and wives.


In extreme circumstances, like clitoris removal, which is far more invasive, such an action by the state is understandable, but male circumcision doesn't have as many negative side effects.

Male circumcision is less severe no doubt than clitorectomy but its about the same as female circumcision.


I suppose you can justify the ban by saying babies can't consent, but there are plenty of non-lifesaving surgeries that babies go through.

When someone is unable to consent to medical treatment in normal circumstances, such as because they are unconcious, it is in all other circumstances only permitted to treat them in medically necessary ways - you can't amputate healthy bits of people because you don't like how they look.

If you didn't like how ear lobes looked and you cut off babies external ears, that would also have minimal long term health side effects - and hey they'd be easier to clean so there would be a hygenic advantage! Besides, lets face it, human external ears look pretty f'ing goofy don't they? I doubt you'd be in favor of this policy though.

[Tim Finnegan]

Yes it suggests that male genital mutilation is socially acceptable in America (can't say "the West" on this one since the Europeans and Latin Americans think its nuts) and female genital mutilation is not...Thats all it suggests.
I can assure you from personal experience, circumcision is not, in itself, a form of mutilation, any more than body piercings or tattoos (for example) are. Just as it can be harmful, it can also be beneficial, something which cannot be said of female genital mutilation.

[TC]

I can assure you from personal experience, circumcision is not, in itself, a form of mutilation, any more than body piercings or tattoos (for example) are. Just as it can be harmful, it can also be beneficial, something which cannot be said of female genital mutilation.

Piercings, tattoos, and genital modification are all equally forms of mutilation if they're nonconsensual - and they're interpreted as being aesthetically pleasing to some people and not others. Lots of people in Somalia and Egypt think that FGM looks great and has hygenic benefits!

There also just aren't any benefits at all from male circumcision except a theoretical slight advantage in unprotected sex in high risk std populations (i.e. for people who are too stupid to wear condoms when having sex with infected partners, or who are in countries that unlike America where its difficult to get std testing and condoms). However its not clear how this statistical advantage comes about, it may just be that circumcized men have sex less frequently.

[Tim Finnegan]

Piercings, tattoos, and genital modification are all equally forms of mutilation if they're nonconsensual...
Of course, and I never said otherwise. My point was that they are not essentially mutilatory.


...- and they're interpreted as being aesthetically pleasing to some people and not others. Lots of people in Somalia and Egypt think that FGM looks great and has hygenic benefits!

There also just aren't any benefits at all from male circumcision except a theoretical slight advantage in unprotected sex in high risk std populations (i.e. for people who are too stupid to wear condoms when having sex with infected partners, or who are in countries that unlike America where its difficult to get std testing and condoms). However its not clear how this statistical advantage comes about, it may just be that circumcized men have sex less frequently.
My point was that most voluntary circumcisions are not actively harmful, and may even be beneficial (if intended as a solution to a medical problem), while FGM is universally and exclusively harmful- whatever some hateful Somalian patriarch thinks of it.