Male Circumcision

FGM seriously interferes with the sexual, excretory, and/or partural processes. Many, many women to whom it is done regret its being done, and suffer greatly from it: women who have complained of the practice to aid groups, NGOs, and religious authorities number in the many tens of thousands, if not more.

It is simply not comparable with male circumcision, which does not interfere with the sexual or excretory functions of the penis, nor do circumcised men suffer because of their circumcisions. Men who have complained of the practice with claims of actual trauma and suffering are so few that they appear to be limited to either the very tiny minority who suffered some rare complication from their circumcision, or a few wackos with axes to grind about penis purity.

I know I personally have met countless circumcised Jewish men in my life, and with the exception of one apostatic professional atheist, none ever complained about circumcision. I have talked frankly about sex with a lot of Jewish and Muslim guys, and I have never yet heard a guy tell me "I just wish sex felt better. If only my penis were more sensitive. Maybe it's because I don't have a foreskin." And of all the secular Jews I know, whose observance has lapsed and their practice become nil, all of them attribute it to disinterest in religious practice or disinclination to theology: not a one expressed regret about circumcision or felt that a wrong had been done to his penis that drove him away from Judaism.

Whereas I have helped a number of men convert to Judaism who were uncircumcised, had to be circumcised, and, though they found the recovery unpleasant indeed, all said that, once recovered, their penises worked and felt just fine, and sex was just as good as previously. A couple even told me they thought it felt better. Not a one mourned the loss of his foreskin, and beat his breast about having been mutilated.

I have known mohalim and mohalot all my life. I know (and am related to) numerous Jewish doctors. My wife is the coordinator of the Reform Movement's training program for physicians to become mohalim and mohalot. I have done a lot of looking into this. The comparison of FGM to male circumcision is a false analogy, and an insidious one. Complications from botched circumcisions are rare outside the Third World. And most doctors (the AMA, the American Urological Association, etc.) agree that male circumcision is, at worst, not deleterious to health or sexual function, and at best, might provide minor health benefits.

Which is why it very properly ought to boil down to: if you don't approve of circumcision, don't circumcise your sons.

 

All of these well stated positions in support of circumcision boil down to the fact that it is the parents decision. We have religious requirements in the cases of Islam and Judaism, however the remaining Abrahamic religion doesn't require it ( Christianity ). Levite, your arguments are sound, and also backed by medical fact. Yet, everything stated is from a Jewish perspective. The simple fact, is that a body part is being removed that we are born with. To me, this is akin to cutting off a portion of a finger. We are modifying the bodies of infants in the name of god. It sickens me. I read through all the old threads after the link was posted, and saw how this topic was debated to death. If I started a religion that required an infant to have it's large toenails permanently removed, the left ear docked, or a tattoo of a grapefruit on it's ass, I could use the same justifications. I am guilty of looking at this from a non-religious perspective, as I am a simple Agnostic. Half of my family is Jewish, the other half Christian. I'll never get it, but this circular debate will most likely just go on, and on...

 

ASU2003, as far as I can tell, no one is advocating for circumcision as a reliable alternative to condom use or monogamy. I'm not sure why you're bringing the subject up.

I think you've read too much into the research without reading enough of the actual research.

 

Well Levite, at least I think you're right about the need to treat circumcision like anything else.

Yes, there are plenty of things parents have control over, especially things that children cannot have control over (either because they ought not yet have that control or are unable to exercise that control). And there are plenty of ways we restrict parental freedoms within those domains that they do control. To use your two of your examples, there are restrictions on the denial of life saving medical treatments and basic levels of education requirements even for home-schooled children.

I'm reasonably certain most people would agree with me that parents do not and should not have unilateral control over their children's lives. Also, as far as I know in developed states there are plenty of things a parent can do which would result in their children being taken away by the state, because there is a basic recognition that children have rights; rights that not even parents are allowed to ignore. There are plenty of examples of things we can do to children's bodies which would likely not have any long term lasting effects, but I don't think that means anyone, not even parents should have free reign to do those things to their children. Children ought to have the same right to wholeness of body that everyone else does.

Which brings me to ASU2003's point which was not (not that I want to put words in his mouth) that FGM in all it's disgusting inhumanity is directly comparable to circumcision, but that even those forms of 'female circumcision' that are explicitly restricted to purely cosmetic procedures are prohibited, even the practice of 'knicking' generates outrage. So we arrive at a situation where purely cosmetic procedures on the genitals of little girls is horrible and completely disallowed, but purely cosmetic procedures on the genitals of little boys are harmless and a-okay. I can see no rational reason for the distinction. Gender should not influence the right of a child not to have their body tampered with for no legitimate reason.

As Halx said back on 4.0, 'Yes, its mutilation, however its normalcy wins it major cognitive dissonance points.'

 

Not really... seems like both sides just wanna cut it off.

*rimshot*

 

I am not aware, at this point, of a female "circumcision" that does not leave serious permanent damage to the female genitals. But, I suppose, if such a thing did exist-- a very minor female genital modification that in no way interfered with sexual function or pleasure, or excretory or partural health and function, and was done cleanly and humanely in infancy-- I would be open to considering that fair game for exemption under the laws prohibiting FGM, provided there was ample evidence that it constituted a core identity marker of the culture and religion that practiced it.

My basic point is that the idea expressed above, in both quoted posts, that circumcision is done for "no legitimate reason" or for insufficient reasons, is tantamount to saying that certain cultures should more or less cease to exist because some elements of Western society find them illegitimate.

To be an uncircumcised Jewish man is to be cut off from one's culture. One cannot participate in the rituals and responsibilities of Judaism as an uncircumcised man, unless one suffers some medical condition that would make circumcision life-threatening (like hemophilia, or certain rare immune disorders). Brit milah (the rite of circumcision) is how we enter boys into the covenant of Abraham. It was the first commandment given to the Jewish People, and must be done on the eighth day of life, unless doing so will threaten the physical health of the child. That is our religion and our culture, which are one, inextricably intertwined.

I cannot say for certain, since I don't know enough, but I think that it is of equal importance and stature in Islam.

The notion that bodies are somehow pure as they are, and any modification thereof is somehow severe and shocking, is a very Western idea, inherited from the Greeks. The idea that parents should be proscribed from initiating their offspring into their cultures if those initiations are in any way physical is pretty much cultural supremacism based in a very specific set of cultural norms.

I personally think that cultures are worth preserving. And unless I am given evidence that the methods used are traumatic, damaging to health and function, and routinely complained of by those upon whom they are imposed, I think that it is entirely appropriate for society to be tolerant and pluralistic about both culture and religion.

That includes not only all my Jewish and Muslim brothers and sisters who want to circumcise their sons, but also my Maori friend and his wife, who want their kids to start getting ritual tattoos; or the acquaintances of my friend Gershom who is a rabbi in Uganda who let their kids go through scarification rites: he knows a number of people from various West African cultures that practice such identity and religious rituals. Would I tattoo or scar my child? No. But then, I am not a member of such a culture, and the act would have no meaning for me, or for my child. And I am not willing to say that my cultural biases are better than those people's.

Yes, these things are foreign to Western culture. They represent very different cultural norms and values. But they are central to identity in those cultural traditions, and I, at least, am not willing to say that it is better for children to be physically unmarked and culturally bereft.

I understand that there are those who disagree. And I respect their rights not to have my cultural values, or the cultural values of my friends from other cultures, imposed on their families: I would hope that the reverse is also true.

 

I know this all too well, being born from a Shiksa.

 

My dismissal of circumcision as illegitimate is not the result of the misguided fetishization of bodily purity much less the notion of the cultural superiority of 'the west'. It's a result of the importance of human rights and the way I perceive them to function in helping to make the world we find ourselves in a better place. Hopefully, you can forgive me the indulgence of explaining myself 'from the top', it will, hopefully, help to clarify why I don't think the compulsory circumcision of infants is a good idea.

I consider the rights of the individual sacrosanct, or as near to sacred as I anything I can imagine, were I inclined to consider things sacred. This is a result, primarily, of an observation. The observation that those places and cultures that most respect the rights of the individual and promote individual well being are those places where human beings suffer least and flourish most. Children, of course, present a special circumstance. With their inability to fully exercise the ability of informed consent, they cannot be trusted to always be able to act in their own interests and for a large portion of their lives as children they are simply unable to do so. So in their stead we allow someone else (typically the parents, but occasionally others) to make those decisions. In lieu of trustworthy input from the children themselves, it's the best we have.

I find the compulsory circumcision of infants to be a clear violation of individual rights, namely the right to bodily autonomy. Sometimes violations of autonomy can be legitimate, such as the case of life saving medical procedures. So the question for me is 'Is this violation justified?". At this point, one would begin the potentially brutal calculus of weighing the pros and cons, and in some circumstance that is all we can do. One insidious problem we need to watch out for is that we can justify any violation of human rights, no matter how horrible, so long as we can find a way to artificially tip the scales slightly in the direction required.

When we throw human beings into the mix they can be surprisingly resourceful in finding ways to do just that, for example by subscription to a religion that demands an inescapably high price for failing to commit certain violations. Secular leaders and ideologies can be good at this too. When I characterize the issue at hand as illegitimate I am not saying the cultures and religions that practice it should cease to exist, but that their tipping of the scale is artificial therefore illegitimate. It is not an unavoidable consequence of the world we live in and it would be better for everyone if they could find a way to manage to not do it. Many cultures and religions find a way to do just that, as does Judaism, ostensibly. At least, I'm not familiar with any exceptions granted for immune disorders in ancient scripture. And yet, all the same, those that practice the faith have managed to realize and correct the incredible unfairness of tipping the scales in such a way.

Naturally, I would expect members of the religions in question to balk at the description of their scriptural commandments as artificial and this would set the stage for our arguing the legitimacy of the religions themselves. While some of us might be perfectly happy to do just that, it would seriously derail the thread and I have my sincere doubts would get us any closer to an understanding or agreement on this particular issue. For my life and purposes, it is sufficient to say that nobody would even think of doing this or doubt it was wrong were it not for their religion telling them otherwise.
--- merged: Feb 10, 2012 1:11 AM ---

Also, since I've managed to forget multiple times now... As a student of biology and pedant: the clitoris is not homologous to the foreskin, but the glans penis (the head). The foreskin is more like the clitoral hood, which while possibly sensitive isn't really the heart of the action, so to speak.

 

All three of our sons, and myself, are circumcised. Knowing what I do now, I probably wouldn't have had them circumcised...but, honestly, I don't think it's all that big a deal.

 

Even though these are both mutilations, making them equally questionable practices, the intentions of these similar acts are rooted in very different places; protection for the male, control of the female.

 

well said
May be that is why female circ was ridden but male circ wasn't

 

But it's that basic notion that individual rights and autonomy are of paramount importance relative to cultural or social rights that is so fundamentally modern and Western. This idea that we are essentially sacrosanct beings, whose individual rights trump everything else, and should only do what we wish at any given time, or shoulder such responsibilities as we feel inclined to shoulder at a specific time, or make sacrifices for the welfare and preservation of our society and culture only to the degree we feel motivated at any given moment of adulthood-- all insofar, of course, as we harm no one else, as though that alone ensured that our individualistic social narcissism did not descend into either hedonistic materialism or casual sociopathy.

But many, if not most, other cultures are far more communitarian in their worldview. An individual's rights may be of great importance, yet they are not paramount above the needs and the good of their culture and society. Those needs and goods may be in demands of interpersonal loyalty, but also in preserving cultural inheritance, and, yes, preserving and passing on the spiritual teachings and revelatory mysticism of the society's traditions. And the price for that can be mental, as in years of dedicated education, or it can be physical, as in the shedding of a few drops of blood while making one's flesh a talisman of identity for all one's life.

It is deeply modern and Western to view such a communitarian and demanding model of society as both constricting and barbaric, because it is the modern Western society which prizes the individual's sovereign rights to all over everything, and seeks to minimize every kind of bond of responsibility laid upon the individual by society; and which proclaims that nothing passed down from time immemorial and preserved with sweat and blood can be as compelling to civilization as that which is now newly discovered and preserved with whim or wealth.

I disagree. This is not as simple as religion: cultural elements also are involved. Yes, Jews and Muslims circumcise primarily because we understand the duty as a commandment from God. But many cultures whose practice includes physical elements-- whether Maori tattooing themselves, or Shaolin monks raising children as ascetic mystics and martial artists-- do not necessarily construe what they do as divine commandment, and yet feel they have extremely compelling reasons within their cultural paradigms to do as they do.

Obviously, the words "immune disorders" are not used. But that's part of the point of having a complex and nuanced understanding of text. We hold that Written Torah and Oral Torah must be understood together, so that hidden meanings in the text that would otherwise likely go unnoticed can be unfolded, and from these we can construct living and flexible laws for observance, rather than an ossified and absolute set of static rules that would quickly be archaic. Part of the importance of preserving our culture is our duty to extend and re-understand Torah in every succeeding generation, lest by inaction it wither. To have a dynamic system of religious law that evolves as we do is how we understand that God designed our Torah.

 

This article came across my radar today and reminded me of this thread:

Full article: AFP: German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

 

My youngest son was circumcised at three years old because the whole foreskin had adhered to his little penis and went he pee'd he shoot anyone standing to his right with an unnerving accuracy. He had a general anaesthetic, and took three weeks before he could even wear pants as he was in so much pain ( his little willy looked like a burnt button mushroom) If he hadn't needed this operation I would never have put him through unnecessary pain.
You can argue that for religious reasons you have to have it cut, but not having a foreskin does not make you a better person or a more religious one.
I can't imagine God cares !!!

 

there are some kooks that set up a booth by my apt. on the venice boardwalk about this every weekend. i really think it's a personal decision of the parents and everyone should stay out of everyone else's business. i think the kooks probably often have the opposite effect of what they're trying to do on people, much like pro-life protester kooks make pro-choicers look reasonable to those on the fence. i think there's a real big distinction to be made between this and mutilating kids when they're older and able to remember the trauma along with the fact that it doesn't affect function for the vast majority. next thing you know there's going to be a booth complaining about docking tails on dobermans

 

You might want to be a little more specific or clear, because what I read in this is that NAMBLA is a-okay as long as the parents sign a waiver and the kids aren't old enough to remember. Surely, you don't mean that.

 

don't call me shirley.

 

Good for Germany. They are correct. I wish the US would have that attitude towards it.

(And at 3, the foreskin is supposed to be adhered to the glans. It isn't until the boy is older that it is supposed to be retractable. It can be damaged by people trying to clean under it when they are a baby though.)

 

I try not to think of circumcision too seriously. It's one of the few things in this world that truly pisses me off when I really think into it and I don't like to be pissed.

"Cut your sons' dicks up so you can remain the chosen people..."

People seriously still buy into this shit?

Please...