Male Circumcision

I agree. It is a little thing to do and it isn't all that different from the things you have listed. I just feel that it should not be done to a child who cannot give consent.

It's my opinion that if you believe in gods, you should not impose those beliefs on your kids. You should let them decide if they want to follow you into your chosen religion when they are old enough to decide for themselves. My belief on body modifications runs parallel to this.

 

It wasn't adhered to his glands, it was adhered to the whole penis, it would never have retracted on it's own.
The foreskin had grown attached to the penis like a double skin, and this double skin was removed by scalpel. The consultant explained it would be like taking the skin off an orange with a paring knife. He needed the operation as his penis would swell so badly when he wee'd that he would end up holding his urine for hours and hours then sob because of the pain when he finally went, his urine shot out at the force of a F1 jet. He could quite easily have killed the cat !
His operation was not a straight forward circumcision and he was in the operating theatre for over two hours while they painstakingly cut the foreskin away from the penis, his whole penis was an open wound, it was horrible.
He is 16 now and he can still remember it all !

 

Next up on Toddlers in Tiaras: breast implants.

Hey, it's no big deal, after all parent's rights and all that.

 

Groups like these (and there are not many of them), are tiny, tiny fringe lunatics. They don't even represent a significant minority voice in the Jewish community, let alone anything approaching a majority voice. There are anti-social crazies in every society, and we don't change society to suit their whims. Such groups are mostly made up of radically uneducated and Jewishly illiterate people, often not all of them are even Jews.

The major institutional backing (if it may be dignified with those terms) usually comes from a group called the Society for Humanistic Judaism, which is a small splinter sect that teaches radical secular assimilation under the guise of preserving a token Jewish cultural veneer. They are utterly disreputable, and without any serious Jewish merit. I've met a couple of the so-called "rabbis" they "ordain:" these people couldn't speak or read Hebrew, they had barely even read any Talmud in translation, they knew nothing of Jewish Law, their grasp of Tanach (Bible) was abysmal, and their knowledge of Jewish philosophy, even Jewish history, was atrocious. They are atheists, secular humanists, who advocate rejecting the vast majority of the commandments as nonsense, reject most of our history and tradition as worthless, and yet call themselves Jewish. And what is worse, they persistently cite mistranslated and/or decontextualized Jewish texts to "support" their positions, which is deeply misleading.

If a person doesn't believe in something, fine. No one should be forced to believe anything they don't want. And if one radically rejects a certain society or culture, fine: they should not be compelled to be a part of that society or culture. But one cannot radically reject a society/culture, disbelieve its core principles, and then claim to authentically represent that society/culture and its principles. Doing so is false.

No scholar or authority in any group even approaching the main stream of Judaism would say that circumcision is anything but a foundational obligation for Jewish males, a vital and key component of our identity, and a critical actualization of our theology into our daily lives.

Once again, what this leads back to is that no Jew supports making circumcision compulsory under national secular law, even for Jews. If people don't wish to circumcise their sons, fine. That should absolutely be their right. But we should be free to choose to do so, because failure to do so results in our male children being unable to be fully acculturated into Jewish tradition, which will precipitate a collapse of the Jewish People. And living in a pluralist, tolerant society means that we permit other cultures to flourish, even when we don't agree with the way that they conduct their lives, even when we would not make the same choices for ourselves and our family, because we understand that no culture has the right to eliminate another based on subjective moral judgments.

What bothers me tremendously is that this court ruling in Germany, the recent national ban on circumcision in Holland, and the fact that these types of bans are being seriously debated all over Europe, with the pointed agenda to include religious circumcision in the proscription, signals to me the rise of xenophobia in Europe. And the old anti-Semitism, which was never purged, but only hidden away after the shame of the Holocaust, is now being swept in alongside the anti-Muslim hysterias that are fueling this extremely insidious institutionalization of xenophobia under the pretense of human rights concerns. The great advancement here is that the monopoly of the radical right wing on bigotry in Europe has been broken, and now it is a shared property with the radical left wing.

Because that's really what this is, in Europe. It would be another story if circumcision were compulsory, or anyone were trying to make it so. It would be another story if the global medical community were united behind the idea that circumcision was utterly and inherently unsafe and cruel. But that is not the case: what is happening is that we have an extremely minor procedure, that can easily be done safely and without incident, which most doctors believe is neither of significant medical benefit nor of significant adverse effect-- some doctors believe it may have extremely minor medical benefit, and a few believe it may have extremely minor adverse effect.

The majority of people who are demanding to preserve the right to have it be done to their children upon request are those belonging to cultures where it is of essential and integral religious/cultural importance. The vast majority of people who are demanding to take that right away do not belong to those cultures, but in fact belong to the national societies that have historically consistently oppressed or been in conflict with the cultures that seek to preserve that right, and who are themselves unaffected by the continuation of that right.

In other words, doing critical harm to a member of another culture without legitimate reason: bigotry.

 

I wont pretend to understand the Jewish religion because I don't, like I don't understand the Muslim faith either or the Christian one, I am not religious or follow any one god, if I was going to have to choose a religion because my life depended on it, it would be Paganism.
If it harms none, do as you will.

But I don't understand why do they have to be circumcised to be fully acculturated into the Jewish tradition? I am not being arsey asking, I just am curious because I don't understand.
Who did it first and why ?

There is obviously a reason everyone follows this tradition, but is it like the traditions where nobody knows why they do it, they just do, like Friday in the UK is the day every school and work canteen tends to serve fish and chips, no one remembers why, they just do it.
Poor comparison I know but it is an example of something a nation does but no one really knows why.

Also would the Jewish faith really collapse if men were left un-circumcised, this seems really drastic, I would have thought the measure of a man's faith/integrity would be on his behaviour towards others, not on the appearance of his penis. <shrugs>

Sorry for my uninformed questions, like I said I am just curious

 

Male circumcision was God's first commandment to Abraham. It is a physical mark of being a part of the Covenant between Abraham and God. There are many reasons that have been hypothesized by the Rabbis-- none are given in the text save that it is what God commands that Abraham and all his descendants do-- which have included the significance of sealing a covenant in blood; fundamentally differentiating Jewish men from non-Jewish men; and various other ideas. But ultimately, the best reasons I have heard have to do with the idea that this is the one place on their bodies that men inevitably look at or handle every single day, without fail. And thus, every time we attend to our natural needs, we see and feel the mark of the Covenant, and remember to Whom we are bound, remember that we are bound to fulfill the commandments, and-- because this mark is upon the organ of generation-- we are reminded that this Covenant is our heritage, passed down to us from time immemorial from our forefathers, and it is incumbent upon us to remain faithful to it, passing it on to our children. It is a constant memento of our identity and responsibilities as Jews.

Furthermore, because this is quite literally the first, foundational commandment of our faith, Jewish Law dictates that it cannot be refused, save only for reasons of real risk to life and limb, nor can it be postponed (Abraham was commanded to circumcise his sons, and his descendants all to do likewise, on the eighth day after their birth) save for similar reasons. And those who are not circumcised may not publicly read from the Torah; they may not be communal prayer leaders; they may not be witnesses under Jewish Law; they cannot be married in a Jewish wedding ceremony; they may not say blessings for others; they may not be called up to the Torah; they may not be given bar mitzvah honors; and so on...basically any kind of ritual leadership or legal role in the Jewish community.

Because this isn't about penile aesthetics. It's about being part of the community of the Covenant of Torah. What kind of person says that they are bound by the obligations of a covenant, but then balks at the very first responsibility given to them in that covenant? How shall we expect a person to fulfill his obligations toward fulfilling the rest of the commandments when he won't even fulfill the first one of them?

 

Thanks for explaining that

 

Levite, the reason these debates are happening all over is not because people want to take away your right to be circumcised but because they don't see why you should have the right to compel the circumcision of another person who cannot properly consent. Claiming the entire argument is about anti-semitism is a pretty inflammatory attempt obfuscating the main point of the opposition.

You said it yourself:

Presumably the category 'person' includes children of Jews. Why should a person who cannot agree to be a Jew, be obligated to follow a Jewish covenant?


I also find your claim that Judaism is inseparable from circumcision to be dubious at best. It seems you all are getting along just fine without stoning people to death and/or animal sacrifice, which was also commanded by God for various transgressions, was it not?

 

Some real awesome-sauce lubricating that slippery slop you've laid out but, a point I've already dealt with back in #24:

 

It is a foundational presumption in pretty much every civilization that parents have the right and duty to bring up their children as successful, participatory members of their society, as doers of whatever duties their society finds sacred or of similar significance; to teach their children, guide their children, and act as agents for their children's behalf when those children are too young to be able to make good decisions-- or any decisions-- for themselves.

It is a foundational Jewish value that we bring our children up as followers of the commandments: that we teach them by example, and that we literally bring them into the covenant. This is absolutely core to Jewish identity.

Therefore there is absolutely no question to us that a Jewish child gets circumcised because it would be a grave wrong to deny them participation in the covenent, to exclude them from being part of their heritage. The parent "agrees" on behalf of the child. And, as I have mentioned, very few Jewish children indeed grow up to object to this. Therefore, for us, this is no different than any other choice that parents routinely make for their children, to ensure their good upbringing.

What is problematic is not that some non-Jews don't agree with circumcision: they are not commanded to circumcise, and we live in free societies. If they don't want to, they shouldn't have to. What is problematic is that, in the absence of any compelling medical evidence that overwhelming permanent harm results from circumcision, some non-Jews feel that their values should be permitted to dictate change in Jewish culture. No statisically significant number of complaints about circumcision are originating from Jewish men. They are overwhelmingly coming from non-Jews. Therefore, this is a case where you have non-Jewish society-- which apparently had no real problem with circumcision as late as ten or twenty years ago-- suddenly deciding that because some non-Jews are uncomfortable with the idea of circumcision, the Jewish People should be externally compelled to change something absolutely fundamental to our identity and practice.

This is cultural imperialism. It is intolerance. It is bigotry. And when such things happen to Jews, we call that anti-Semitism.

The analogy to sacrifice or capital punishment is false. We do not sacrifice because we no longer have a Temple in which to sacrifice, and sacrifice was only permitted there. We did not choose to dismantle the Temple. It was destroyed by non-Jews, and cannot be rebuilt, in part due to the actions of non-Jews. And as for capital punishment, we actually executed people extremely rarely. Jewish Law requires eyewitness testimony of two witnesses (who independently verify each other's accounts perfectly), who not only saw the crime being committed, but verbally warned the perpitrator not to commit the crime lest they be executed for it, and heard the perpitrator reply that he didn't care, followed by immediately committing the crime. Plus, capital cases had to be judged by a court of no less than 23 and no more than 71 judges, who had to convict by precisely one vote less than their total number: two or more voting not guilty rendered a not-guilty verdict, and a unanimous guilty verdict nullified the verdict, on the presumption that if not a single judge could find it in his heart to save the life of the perpitrator, the trial must be fixed, and the judges corrupted. We stopped giving people capital punishment because the right to hear such cases was taken away from us by non-Jews. But that turned out to be okay, because there was ample precedent in Jewish Law for relying on secular courts for justice in cases not involving ritual law, and likewise ample precedent for not executing people.

However, there is no precedent in Jewish Law whatsoever for refusing circumcision, or for delaying it at all, save in cases where circumcision would put the life of the baby in jeopardy. None.

And even if there were any to be found, such a fundamental shift in basic Jewish identity ritual would have to be advocated by every single rabbi and Torah scholar in the Jewish People in order to become effective. And the last time any significant majority of the Jewish People agreed on such a thing, it was to accept the legally binding nature of the Talmud, around fifteen hundred years ago. No such change could ever be accepted if externally imposed upon us.

And that is only right. Cultures ought to tolerate other cultures, wherever possible. I can think of very few instances in history when cultures subjected to cultural imperialism from outside thrived and thanked the imperialist culture for it later.

 

Circumcision is done on the majority of male children in the United States regardless of demographic, somewhere around 65-75%. There has now been a decrease in male circumcision rates as the majority of states have banned medicaid coverage of circumcision as it is deemed medically unnecessary, this applies to many other individual insurance plans as well. Currently a large number patients receive their circumcisions in the clinic rather than the hospitals as it is a cash pay service (unless it is found medically necessary treatment for certain penile problems) The fee is modest, I believe it is $366 currently where I work. The majority of parents I have encountered would prefer to have their infant males circumcised in infancy as the recovery is quite simple, prevention of future problems, cosmetic appearance etc. It isn't just protection of HIV, it also is about reduced risk of phimosis, paraphimosis, balanoposthitis, lowered risk of bladder infections, yeast infections, HPV, syphilis, chancroid etc. The foreskin creates a nice petri dish for infection. Is it medically necessary? Some would liken the necessity of circumcision to that of vaccination.

I would very much disagree that it is a barbaric procedure. I have assisted in many of these and they are hardly barbaric. The child is laid on a circumcision board, they howl over that. Newborns dislike being stretched out and the board may be cool against their skin. To make it more comfortable we place a chux over the board to make it more soft and warm and in the location of their head we like to place the child's own baby blanket for them to rest on. The skin is prepped with a surgical cleanser and the child is given a nerve block with lidocaine. Admittedly, the lidocaine injection is at first unpleasant as it does sting a bit but it kicks in quickly. During the procedure we also use a lamp which not only improves the viewing area for the physician but also keeps the infant very warm and relaxed. We offer sugar water which most of them are really focused on. The majority of the time the infant makes no sign (or almost no sign) of discomfort during the procedure and sometimes they even sleep through it.

In contrast to this, I have also worked in urology. In the urologist office we treat mainly adults. When an adult male presents with a need for circumcision they ALL say the same things, I wish my parents had done this when I was an infant and it would have been much easier when I was little. Circumcisions after infancy (generally after 4 weeks of age) are more complex, more expensive, riskier, must be done in the hospital and have a more difficult recovery period. This is what most parents attempt to prevent. I would hardly call their decisions abusive, careless or even inconsiderate.

 

You don't say. Not barbaric eh? So because you have applied the modern methods of circumcision that makes it OK?

Ayashe how about volunteering your oldest daughter and send her to the nearest OR. She'll be sedated and operated under with all the medical advances we've made and after a short and painless while, voila! No more clitoris.

We'll remove the pain and humitliation and see if the result is still "not barbaric".

 

So you're part of the problem...

Yes, getting a circumcision as an adult would suck, but it isn't necessary in the vast majority of cases. Actually most guys would not want to get that done as an adult if it was working fine.

$366 is still a wasted amount of healthcare expense. When you have a million of them getting done, it adds up. And there are still no unbiased medical studies that prove anything. There is way too much religion and religious people involved in the existing ones that were stopped when the results were changing away from what they wanted.

Women have just as many folds, but nothing is being done to air them out. (And circumcision wouldn't remove the clitoris like the above poster said, just the clitoral hood)

Why did circumcision rates in Europe drop so fast after WW2, where ours is so slow to drop? Why was it hardly done in the 1800s and early 1900s?

 

I would also like to point out that whether under the use of modern medical techniques or not circumcision is a medical procedure and as such is not risk free. Children have died and will die as a result of complications from circumcision. The numbers may be small, but they are ever present.

 

This thread is about male circumcision if I am not mistaken. As has been pointed out very clearly in this thread there is a vast difference between male and female circumcision which is widely accepted. With male circumcision patients are certainly not left incapable of feeling sexual pleasure, have the normal reproductive process disrupted causing childbirth issues or even have sex prevented completely. There is no comparison between male and female circumcision whatsoever. I have encountered multiple circumcised female in my work who have had difficulty with sex and childbirth while I have not see one case of a male patient suffering in any way. I am certain you are sensible enough to know the difference between the two.

How is it barbaric? I have not denied that there is discomfort in the procedure (mainly associated with the injection of the anesthetic) but barbaric is a huge stretch. Male sexual performance is not affected though the effect it has on pleasure, is it lasting, more profound with or without the foreskin is not really known.

I am a "part of the problem", what problem is it that I am a part of? I am a part of the society that believes that parents do still have the right to make some decisions for their children. I have a job, and it is a part of my job to assist in procedures. I am not a circumcision advocate, I am not a natural penis advocate either. I am actually fairly neutral in opinion of it. I agree that it is not a necessary preventative procedure for patients but I also know that problems can arise later in life if left alone. I told my SO I would leave the decision to him whether to circumcise or not if he had strong feelings either way.

Patients with insurance that does not cover the procedure pay out of pocket for it, it is not limited to a lack of coverage with medicaid. Whether the $366 dollars is wasted or not is up to the person spending the money. Some people throw just as much money for a pair of jeans, I think that is a waste but what they do with their funds is up to them. I have little doubt that the reduced number of insurance companies covering the procedure has contributed to a more recent decline in the procedure. The European drop after WWII, I have no idea. I really am not inclined to do a study of the history of circumcision. I think you are really reaching to suggest that a push for circumcision is so based in religion.

Basic anatomy, the clitoris is external. The same reason why many women need more physical stimulation than basic vaginal sex is why the removal of the clitoral hood would not have a great effect on genital health STD wise. The same reason why STD testing of men and women are done entirely differently. It's like trying to compare and elbow to a knee, there are similarities but it just doesn't quite work out. You test a woman for infection, you swab her vagina not her clitoris. You test a man, you are testing his urethra.

Circumcision as an adult would suck and I highly doubt the majority of adult male circumcisions are purely cosmetic. I never met one adult patient who made the decision for a circumcision based on religion, I am not saying that never happens. Of course there is the possibility that a patient stretches his complaints to turn a cosmetic (therefore non qualifying medical expense) into a medical complaint. The patients that I have seen had been suffering from complications of having a foreskin. I have a male friend who faced some scrutiny by women about his foreskin, he actually did consult a urologist about the procedure for cosmetic reasons and decided he was uninterested in the recovery. Living in the US, the majority of men have been circumcised and it is the norm. I have had this conversation among women, many find the foreskin unappealing and advocate circumcision in their children for that reason, I have no doubt that the male parents make similar decisions. I have no doubt that all parents are simply trying to do the best for their children regardless of what choice they make.

 

FWIW, only male circumcision is globally expected to only be the foreskin. Other cultures do whatever the hell they want when it comes to FGM.

Source.

Back on topic ...

Ayashe you are wrong.

 

You have only one image which realistically depicts a neonatal circumcision. If you want to have a debate at least debate common and typical practices here. We don't have our patients lying on the ground, on dining room tables, sitting in chairs, or on beds, we use gloves, we do so in an aseptic environment, we do not have people holding them down, if they are over 4 weeks of age they are sedated and in a hospital. If they are less than four weeks of age they receive a local nerve block and some sugar water to decrease their pain sensation. I completely agree the majority of the images you show are completely barbaric and unsanitary however that is not the standard conditions of the United States.

This most accurately depicts the procedure I stand in on:

I don't work in an OR but I feel reasonably assured that the patients in the OR are equally if not more comfortable during the procedure though their recovery will most certainly be different. I sit in on probably 2-3 circs per week on average. My experience is a bit more than seeing some images on the internet. I agree it definitely looks like those young boys are being quite traumatized by the experience, which is again a part of the reason why many choose to circumcise their children as neonates.