Next on San Francisco's Hit List: Circumcision

[Newsjock]

Source: NBC Bay Area

... One city resident is proposing a ballot measure that would ban circumcision in the City, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

If passed in November 2011, the measure would change San Francisco's police code “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”

The punishment for those who choose to cut away anyway would be up to a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison.

... But to actually get the measure on the November ballot, he will have to collect 7,168 signatures by April 26, 2011. In San Francisco, he might just be able to do it.

Read more: http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Next-on-San-Franciscos-Hit-List-Circumcision-107316878.html

[no_hypocrisy]

1. No religious exemption for Jews?

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Not going to get too many Jewish votes....

[TheWraith]

3. Not a fan of circumcision, but it strikes me that these cities go way over the line.

A lot of these city ordinances are overreaching into things that the city has no good reason to regulate: pets, body modifications, self defense, and the list goes on. Not just San Fran--SF and LA seem to be the poster children for it--but NYC and Chicago are pretty bad like that too.

[demosincebirth]

11. You don't know half of the ideas that come out of the Supervisors head.

They just tried to stop fast-food joints from giving away toys with their children meals. Its going to get voted by the mayor.

[TheWraith]

14. In NYC, they have a ban on any sort of toy guns.

Not just "realistic looking" ones, anything, even alien ray-gun types. They City Council members call them a "serious threat to the safety of our streets."

[Renew Deal]

69. Wrong

Toy guns must not look like real guns and I'm pretty sure require the red tip at the end of the barrel. You can buy nerf and water guns in NYC.

[nyc 4 Biden]

126. +1

[TheWraith]

222. No, that law is federal. NYC's laws are MUCH more strict.

"Toy guns can't be sold in New York City unless they are colored bright green, blue, red or another neon color. Over the past seven years, city officials have seized over 7,200 illegal toy guns from stores and levied $2.4 million in fines. Retailer Party City paid a record $500,000 in fines for 800 violations of the city's toy gun law.

New York City passed even tougher toy gun laws to take effect in 2010. Fines for selling illegal toy guns will go from $1,000 to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $8,000 for repeat offenses. It'll also be easier for the City to temporarily close stores that continue to break the law."

http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/New-York-Targets-Illegal-Sales-of-Toy-Guns.html

In practice, the law is so vague that any toy which even resembles a gun is illegal.

[saigon68]

127. Idiots

[Crunchy Frog]

427. In NYC they refused to ban adult men sucking on babies penises.

Even after a couple of babies died from the practice.

[KamaAina]

16. This is too crazy even for the Supes

This is one lone San Franciscan collecting signatures on a petition (insert felt-tip pen joke here). As the saying goes, The City is "49 square miles completely surrounded by reality". :P

[demosincebirth]

55. Its the most beautiful city in the U.S., though. N/T

[bitchkitty]

56. Only your opinion. n/t

[Ignis]

68. Oh, you've never been to SF? Pity.

[bitchkitty]

102. Unfortunately, I have been.

I saw a different side to San Francisco, both times that I was there. Admittedly, both times my reasons for being there were not happy reasons.

Yes, it has steep streets and picturesque buildings. It also has exceptionally shitty weather and a population who don't meet each others' eyes.

As for beauty, give me New Orleans over SF any day!

[cyr330]

172. New Orleans is a shit hole.

I lived there for 10 years. It's surrounded by blight and stupid Republicans. It has hideous suburbs, and the political situation there is god awful. As for the city itself, it's fast headed NOWHERE. The only jobs they have are service-oriented, and most of those are minimum wage with NO benefits. It's a dreadful place to live.

As for the surrounding environment, it's polluted as hell, trash everywhere, horrible crime, and just a shitty place in general.

[Ignis]

179. You got "exceptionally shitty weather" from 2 visits in a bad mood?

Well, I suggest you never visit London, or Des Moines, or DC, or Belfast, or Detroit, or Cleveland, or...well, anywhere outside the Caribbean, I guess.

[ishaneferguson]

322. New Orleans

I lived there for two years as a Federal "LEO" in the Victor Schiro - Jim Garrison era.

Corrupt as hades.

As a Federal "LEO" I quickly learned (ok - observed) that the local cops were sorta kinda expected to "supplement" their income in the way overbearing crooked cops can.

Drug law enforcement was a cash cow for the crooked cops and crooked criminal justice "system."

The city commercially died when container ships and container cargo came in -- and no REAL container facilities were established.

I was last there as a Red Cross volunteer vey shortly after Katrina hit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I spend about 1-2 weeks a month in Santa Clara County CA/Silicon Valley. Go up to SF on occasion, and I rate it as far superior to NOLA.

[demosincebirth]

206. You know what? I don't even live there and it still the most beautifil city in the U.S.

[Socal31]

389. LOL.

Juneau, AK makes it look like Oakland.

[EFerrari]

88. It's a guy with a petition.

LOL

And yeah, those wild and crazy supervisors that protect unions and fight for healthcare and housing, what will they do next.

:party:

[Tikki]

406. Will you maybe don't get it , foreskin is biodegradable but hard...

plastic toys will be in the landfill, forever.


Tikki

[slackmaster]

133. State law explicitly prohibits cities from making up their own regulations

The state has exclusive control over medicine.

[mainer]

4. If they called it "male genital mutilation" it might have a chance

but as it is, I doubt it.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

6. Which it is n/t

[Ignis]

80. While strictly accurate, that term trivializes the horror of FGM.

Not a fan. :(

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeighAnn]

87. Female Circumcision

If female circumcision was widely practiced on infants and girls in the United States the way it is in some countries, I don't think many voters would object to banning the practice by law. Male circumcision on non-Jews became widely practiced in the last century because it was thought to curb mastrubation in young men. "We've always done it like that" holds more weight than any kind of reason ever could.

[earthside]

5. Nannyism run amuck.

Can't the government mind its own business?

I mean, I'm pretty progressive, but I am fully capable of deciding if I want my child to get a Happy Meal or not.

And I certainly wouldn't need any government making medical and or religious decisions for me or my child.

[arcane1]

10. It's one person in this case

and if he managed to get enough signatures and it got on the ballot, it would be the residents, not the government, who makes the decision.

I would be surprised if he got enough signatures, and VERY surprised if it wins 51% of the vote.

[Politicub]

12. It's not all about you

One man's nannyism is another man's freedom.

[HomerRamone]

28. Circumcision not acceptable but abortion is? nt

[musette_sf]

36. Reproductive health care options

up to and including termination, are (1) Constitutionally protected rights of US citizens, and (b) completely legal medicines and procedures.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

[Politicub]

130. You have made my point. It's about control over one's body

Women should have control over their bodies as should males have the power to make a decision about circumcision when they're adults.

Hats off to you my friend.

[earthside]

31. Freedom?

This person is free not to let his minor son's be circumcised.

He should never be 'free' enough to make the government enforce his personal beliefs upon anyone else.

And, by the way, there are sound medical reasons for circumcision.

[Politicub]

128. I guess it depends on who gets the freedom - the son or the parent

I'm on the side of the son deciding as an adult whether he wants circumcision or not. This is a philosophical argument about who gets to control, and we as a society have determined that it's in the child's best interest to not allow a parent to abuse their kids, for an example.

I guess we'll just have to agree or disagree.

[Devil_Fish]

248. Wile there might be sound medical reasons for circumcision, It should be up to the boy whos penis

it is, when they are old enough to understand what they are doing.

[Eryemil]

308. The only medical reason to circumcise short of frostbite or gangrene is true phimosis which is

extremely rare. More mild forms of preputial stenosis are easily treatable with a topical steroid ointment and gentle manual stretching. Please, list all the reasons of why circumcision is sound medical choice. I will have fun shooting them down.

[Eryemil]

414. No, there are NO sound reasons routinely to circumcise newborns.

The overwhelming majority of the time, only therapeutic need for circumcision is if the foreskin itself is compromised and must be removed like in the case of frostbite, gangrene or extreme trauma and conditions such as very severe phimosis. (preputial sphincter is too narrow that it makes urination difficult)

[Jim Sagle]

246. And a third man's vicious antisemitism.

[Chan790]

271. Oh dear god, that bull shit again.

Let me accumulate a list of bodily mutilations performed in the name of religion upon small children sans consent and you tell me which ones, other than circumcision, you would condone...or since I already know that the answer is "none of them", I don't feel that it makes me anything more than an atheist to say that opposing the bris is any more offensive than opposing any other religious idiocy.

[Jim Sagle]

304. It's not your call. Or don't you get that?

[Chan790]

305. As a member of society, it is though.

(Not worth the impending flamewar.)

[Douglas Carpenter]

320. I don't believe that this nonsense is motivated by antisemitism or anti-Muslim sentiments for that

matter. After all most Americans who are circumcised or have their children circumcised are neither Jewish or Muslim.

I suspect that it is motivated by the same busy-body attitude that has the busy-body wing of the left banning Happy Meals or trying to outlaw smoking even inside people's own apartments as is being proposed in Santa Clara. I suppose soon the PC thugs will be trying to ban Sunday School.

I guess since some people cannot restructure the world economy or the whole social order they want to stick their nose into other peoples lives and other peoples families. History has shown that there can be a fascism on the left just as easily as there can be a fascism on the right. And I for one - want no part of it. If I can't smoke in my apartment or order happy meals for my little nephews or if my neighbors cannot have their baby boys circumcised - I don't want any part of their revolution.

[ishaneferguson]

323. Look what happened in Europe

when Parliaments tried to regulate (ban) burquas and nijabs ---

[Devil_Fish]

247. One person should not have the freedom to decide what body parts another person keeps.

[The Northerner]

13. +1

[JackRiddler]

24. Speaking of minding their own business, can't the cutters keep their knives off infant genitals?

[AlbertCat]

35. can't the cutters keep their knives off infant genitals?

Sure.... if the parents ask them to. Or they can circumcise the baby if that's what the parents want. It's not the Government's decision.


Just stupid.... like most things involving religion. Sounds like someone's mad they got circumcised!

[Kitsune]

39. It's not the parents' decision either.

It's not their genitals. They belong to someone else.

Let the kid grow up. If it matters that much to him for cultural reasons or whatever, he'll get it done for his own damn self.

[Devil_Fish]

250. +1

[JackRiddler]

58. Why would you trivialize the denial of choice about a piece of someone's body?

It's not the government's decision. It's not the parents' decision either.

It's the adult human being's decision that is denied.

[Devil_Fish]

251. +1

[tigereye]

398. but parents are required, as parents, to make many decisions about the

lives of their children, as infants, as toddlers, as teens. That's what parents are supposed to do. Some parents will decide to have their male infants circumcised, and some will not. And how many males would really want to decide to be circumcised as adults? :shrug:


I understand that as standard medical practice it probably doesn't really make a lot of sense from what I have read, but it became a cultural norm on some level. That is changing as more people think about it and make a choice for their male infants. I really would not like, as a parent, someone who is not a doctor, etc and who has a large ax to grind, taking that decision out of my hands, as a parent.

[Eryemil]

413. Then why aren't parents allowed to modify the genitals of their female offpsring?

I'm not just talking about the most severe forms of genital mutilation but any procedure that alters the genitals.

[tigereye]

422. that wasn't a culturally accepted procedure here (fortunately)

Actually it's rather odd, since the needs and health of males generally, have often tended to be taken way more seriously than those of females over time.

Are you equating this procedure then with female genital mutilation? (sorry if I missed that argument)

[Eryemil]

424. Don't play dumb. If you have half a working brain, you know very well that "culture" is not nearly

enough of a reason to justify any moral position, let alone something as serious as circumcision. If your only defense in favor of male genital mutilation is that it is part of your culture and your only argument against female genital mutilation is the fact that it is not, then that's just irrational hypocrisy.

As has been already posted in this thread, female genital mutilation comprises many different procedures just as male genital mutilation does with varying degrees of invasiveness in both. Some forms of FGM are very mild just as some forms of MGM are extremely severe. You should have researched the subject a bit more before you popped here, guns blazing, to defend your cultural sacred cow. How blind does one have to be to give thanks, in one breath, that FGM is not practiced in your culture yet turn around and defend MGM when there is no difference between the two?


The overwhelming majority of the time, routine infant circumcision is not a medical choice and treating it like one is a convenient excuse. Did you know that in cultures where females have their genitals modified, the practice is often justified through potential medical benefits that never quite pan out? Practically every single reason used to justify MGM in "civilized" North America, is also used to justify FGM in those backwards, savage countries where the it is a tradition.

[Crunchy Frog]

225. Well frankly I'd be mad if someone had cut off part of my genitals at birth

even (especially?) if my parents had wanted it. I don't see that it's something to mock. :shrug:

[Devil_Fish]

249. I am mad that I got circumcised! It should be my choice. Not any one elses. NT

[EFerrari]

33. If someone were to read the article, they'd find out this is a citizen with a petition

and not the city government at all.

LOL

[RandomThoughts]

7. That law violates seperation of church and state, and claims ownership of children.

There are religious grounds, and also societal grounds, like the state does not own children to justify that as a messed up law. Although it fits into concepts of nanny state, and movements like that are often made to hurt the liberal position from insider moles. Democrats, either in SF, or anywhere else, are not concerned about that, and such a thing being a news story is to smear liberals. However their is a debate on tradition that could be had on that topic, their is also health benefits from being circumcised when young.

So for health reasons, once clothing became a common thing in society, foreskin causes more harm then good from a medical perspective. Although most likely articles like that are just to get someone to post on topics that are really good thought puzzles, but are not things society really is worried about.




Side note,
People that do such things while torturing people being interrogated and against their will, then that should be a crime.

[Ignis]

19. Links for "foreskin causes more harm then good from a medical perspective?"

[sharesunited]

40. Check it out. Yikes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

[Ignis]

59. That's a rare condition. You suggest circumcision as a preventative measure?

Yikes, indeed. :hide: That's a bit like suggesting that women should have mastectomies to ensure they don't develop breast cancer, don't you think?

[sharesunited]

90. Prevents the need to have it done in adulthood or old age. A miserable ordeal.

[Ignis]

93. You MIGHT develop a brain tumor, so I recommend removing the pesky organ at birth.

:freak:

[joeglow3]

139. Odd comparison

Removing a piece of flesh that is not vital and serves no purpose equals removing your brain???

Wow

[JackRiddler]

145. "Not vital" implies it's a great idea to do preemptive appendectomies on all people at birth.

Who says the brain is vital? Plenty of arguments seem to get along fine without any use of it.

[joeglow3]

162. Now, you switched arguments

Before, you equated removing an external piece of flesh with removing a brain. Then, when asked how the 2 compare, ignore it and compare a piece of external flesh with a vestigial organ. Odd.

[JackRiddler]

167. Who are you talking to, joeglow?

[joeglow3]

193. Shit. I linked both posts to you.

Sorry. However, I still think comparing the removal of external skin and an invasive removal of an organ is not quite comparable.

[JackRiddler]

214. Thanks to laproscopy the risks of an appendix removal nowadays are close to nil.

Possibly less than the risk of cutting off part of a sensory organ with a dense cluster of nerves and definite functions.

[jancantor]

391. only "probably" if you don't know the relative medical risks

which clearly you don't.

[northzax]

397. or say, removing wisdom teeth

based on family history.

just out of curiosity, should other procedures be banned for children? fixing a cleft lip, for instance? most are simply cosmetic, after all. how about orthodontia? wait till 18?

draw a line, one needs to be drawn, after all.

[Name removed]

416. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[northzax]

432. wisdom teeth are a birth defect now?

interesting.

[Name removed]

440. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

446. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Eryemil]

447. I, like all Cuban men and most Canadians of my generation, am whole.

My work as a genital integrity activist has very little to do with my own situation; it is based on a desire to see human rights respected in the country I've come to call home.

Once again, you are being obtuse. What is the most obvious difference between the two procedures?
I'll help you out:

While both practices are often cosmetic in nature, circumcision negatively impacts the function of the penis while orthodontics does not and IS actually used therapeutically in some cases.
Nothing is lost when teeth are straightened, in contrast, the equivalent of fifteen square inches of tissue (on an adult male) is removed through circumcision; thousands of blood vessels, twenty thousand nerve endings, all of the Meissner's corpuscle in the male genitals (which are mechanoreceptors responsible for detective the very finest vibrations) and even some muscular tissue.

You simply cannot compare the two.

[Crunchy Frog]

449. That little bit of skin is a good half of the skin system of the penis

and contains the largest concentration of nerve endings anywhere on the penis. It would only be a little bit of skin if you were very underendowed to begin with...

[Eryemil]

451. I'm baffled at how easy it's been to convince men that they should want LESS cock than they started

with. Practically every male on this planet worries about the size of their genitals yet somehow some cultures have managed to make them believe penis reduction surgery is a GOOD thing. It leaves me stumped, no pun intended.

[Crunchy Frog]

453. It's easy. They remove a large chunk of cock at a time when the

(future) man has absolutely no say over the matter. So he's stuck with what he's got, which is whatever a particular doctor decided to leave him with. He still has a psychological need to believe that his cock is the best it could possibly be. Therefore, he has to believe that that which was cut off was a tiny bit of useless skin which would have just made him unhealthy and unappealing to women if he had been allowed to keep it. The alternative possibility is too horrible for most men to even contemplate.

It's not that they wanted less cock. It's that they didn't have a choice, so they don't want others to have the choice either.

[Ignis]

176. Yet you didn't think the comparison to a mastectomy was odd?

I don't recall having seen you decry the comparisons we've seen up and down this thread between circumcision and ear piercing. I'll go review to see if I've missed one of your posts on that subject.

[joeglow3]

192. People are cutting off their newborn's breasts?

Guess I missed that.

[Ignis]

194. Well, given your arguments above, shouldn't they?

I mean, why not do all we can to cut off all the "non-essential" parts of the body that MIGHT encounter problems later in life?

[Crunchy Frog]

232. If they're not they should be.

At birth it's an almost microscopic amount of tissue. Definitely a far less invasive and risky procedure than an adult mastectomy. Definitely should be done for boy infants since that really is useless tissue, and male breast cancer is both more prevalent and more deadly than penile cancer.

[Devil_Fish]

255. How do you know it serves no purpose? you might feel diffrently if you had one. NT

[Eryemil]

310. The foreskin does in fact serve a purpose.

Not only is it very erogenous tissue, having by itself more than twice the amount of nerve endings as the entire clitoris as well as mechanoreceptors not present anywhere else in the male genitals, it also serves protects the fragile mucosa of the glans. If you are a circumcised male and have ever wondered why the head of your penis has such an dry, rough texture when vagina are so glossy and pink --- now you know the reason.

[Crunchy Frog]

231. There's definitely some people who would benefit a great deal

from that little operation.

[Ignis]

235. These gentlemen agree:

Loudly and incoherently!

[Crunchy Frog]

230. Unless it has to be redone later on.

A surprisingly frequent occurence.

[Name removed]

415. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mainer]

144. You would think that evolution would have taken care of it

a hundred thousand years ago if intact foreskins were so dangerous to males.

If God wanted boys to have foreskins, She would have made sure they were born with them. Umm... errr....

[Ignis]

180. Good point. Why don't we give every baby an appendectomy?

[Crunchy Frog]

229. Same thing for labia. Check this out. Yikes.

http://wikiparenting.parentsconnect.com/wiki/Fused_Labia

[Devil_Fish]

253. Guess what, If you happen to be one of the rare cases that have that condition, you can choose to

get circumcised.

[Eryemil]

309. Severe enough phimosis that it requires surgical intervention is extremely rare.

Less than 1% of intact males. Less than the rate of complications due to circumcision which is somewhere between 5% and 10%.

These are some examples of what can happen:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html

[Crunchy Frog]

343. And most cases in the US are either misdiagnoses by misinformed doctors

or else iatrogenically caused by misinformed doctors and nurses giving incorrect information about proper care.

The small number of real cases can usually be resolved non-surgically.

[RandomThoughts]

45. Not going to have that argument.

Such a law or post is meant to hurt liberals, nothing more. It exaggerates state control in a method of who decides issues for a child, the parent or the state.

You can look it up if you want.

[Ignis]

60. Well, the evidence available doesn't support your assertion.

I thought perhaps you had access to some as-of-yet unpublished data that contradicts the current research. I didn't realize this was simply an unsupported opinion; if I had, I wouldn't have asked for links. I mean, I like the color blue, but I don't go around claiming that blue is the best color.

By the way, if you're basing your assertion on the WHO scare tactics in Africa, you might want to take a look at all the (published) research that's been done in South Africa over the past few years. The results might surprise you, if you are willing to put aside your biases and review the evidence.

Best of luck. :hi:

[RandomThoughts]

76. Then don't believe that comment.

As I said, the intent of that post was not about the argument, so not arguing that issue.

[Ignis]

77. OK. The Sun rises in the West, and chocolate is a healthy snack for dogs!

But that's not The Point, so don't expect me to support those claims.

[RandomThoughts]

85. Thats not the point you see in the article.

[Ignis]

92. Yes, an article consisting of a whopping eight sentences!

I just re-read that stellar piece of hard-hitting journalism and tried to find the medical/health assertion you made detailed therein, but I couldn't seem to find it, either.

Huh. That's odd. :shrug:

[RandomThoughts]

100. Why are you arguing this.

Is it really a big thing to you, or do you just want to discuss the topic. It is a silly discussion that uses concepts of breaking traditions, and concepts of who decides what is best for a child based on spiritual thoughts and beliefs of the parents and society.

My comment on health comes from memory, and since I am not saying it to convince you, nor do I really mind what you think on the topic, why do you continue to post?

As I said such an attempt is to paint SF bad in the eyes of many people, nothing more, nothing less. Such posts and articles are done all the time.

[Ignis]

174. Because I don't like people passing opinion off as fact.

...particularly when it comes to the health of small, defenseless children.

I guess I'm just funny that way. :eyes:

[RandomThoughts]

318. It is a reported fact, at least as accurate as any you can link to on the Internet.

If you were really worried about the health of small defenseless children, you would put your efforts and conversations into many issues of concern like poverty and disease, and even spiritual well being in much of society, not trying to create a discussion on religious traditions that is more vitriol then actually having an effect on the welfare of a child, extrapolated to gain over a full lifetime. That tradition is one that has no large effect on society like many other 'traditions' actually do, so again you might want to think about how much you are really worried about children, and how much you are against a tradition, you probably know is a volatile discussion with little gain.

Tell you what, if you can tell me how and why that tradition started, and what was its purpose, to my satisfaction of accuracy, then I will consider having a conversation on that topic. You should be able to explain that if you are going to discuss that religious tradition.

Side note, include both sides of the argument for that tradition, then I will reply to your comment. And I don't think you will be able to look that up anywhere, although it is possible someone wrote it down.

[Ignis]

349. If it's a "reported fact," you should have no trouble providing support for it.

Right? :shrug: I've directed you to recent studies coming out of South Africa regarding the health benefits (or lack thereof) regarding circumcision. I don't recall you having provided any evidence to support your assertion to the contrary.

But thanks for the personal attack that employed all of your mind-reading skills! :hi: "If you were really worried about the health of small defenseless children," you say? Well, I can only really respond by suggesting that you perform some anatomically unlikely acts upon yourself.

I think we're done here, and I welcome you to Ignore. Buh-bye, and here's hoping you (and your children) never need to rely upon the medical science for which you display such contempt.

[tigereye]

399. you've made many more, and ruder, comments than any RT has posted...

[Ignis]

405. Speaking of nannyism...

So, are rude comments 2x as bad as passing opinion off as medical fact? 3x? 4x? What? :shrug:

Want me to be sweetness and light? Don't lie about stuff. :hi: It's quite simple.

[tigereye]

421. no, it's that tiresome "I know better than everyone" attitude that's annoying

No room or openness to anyone else's opinion and a lot of specious and circular reasoning, while accusing others of the same.

[Ignis]

433. Links to my "specious and circular reasoning," please?

And no, I have "no room or openness to anyone else's opinion"...when they try to pass it off as medical fact.

:banghead: I've been incredibly clear on this point. :argh:

Want to make a religious argument? Then do so. I don't really give a toss. I'm discussing the psychological and physiological effects of an unnecessary, elective surgery performed without a child's consent. I don't go to clerics for advice on medical matters, but YMMV.

Don't like me personally? There's an Ignore feature on DU. :hi: You can cover your eyes and you'll never have to see the scary, bad man's writings ever again.

But don't think you can swan into a subthread, engage in character attacks disguised as civility nannyism--all without lifting a finger to support your claims--and attempt to claim the high road.

[tigereye]

435. but that's what you guys do!

I'm a parent who had to make this decision for my child. Can you say the same? If you have, I will take your argument much more seriously.

Are you a Doctor? Are you a nurse? Are you any type of medical professional? What qualifies you to make decisions about anyone else's infant? Infants are not capable of consent!

That's what I find so exasperating. I'm entitled to my opinion, just like anyone else, btw. I can some in and offer my opinion when I like.

[Name removed]

442. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Devil_Fish]

256. No, it's an issue of who get's to choose what body parts you keep, You, or your parents. NT

[slackmaster]

140. It would violate the state's exclusive power to regulate the practice of medicine

That's all that really matters.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=01001-02000&file=2000-2029

[mainer]

199. Only 6 out of 100,000 men need therapeutic circumcisions

In Finland. That's how rarely it really needs to be done.

The rate of infant circumcision in Finland is close to zero. And out of all those uncircumsized babies, only 6 out of 100,000 need to be circumsized as adults for medical reasons. So you would advocate circumsizing EVERY BABY BOY just because 6 / 100,000 of them will later need it?

"in 1980 that the Finnish rate of adult circumcision for health reasons is six per 100,000." (source: Wikipedia)

[Devil_Fish]

252. So you support torturing new born infants as long as you don't interrogate them in the process?

How about if you ask them one question like say: "do you want to have your forskin painfully removed?"

Or maby: "Do you want to enjoy sex after age 40?"

[tigereye]

400. c'mon, what hyperbole!

Making that kind of comparison would also invite the comparison, maybe mothers should never allow their infants to come out of the womb at all - it might be traumatic. And so on. There are infinitely more traumatic medical procedures performed on children overall, than this one.

Please.



Also I don't think you can prove that adults with intact foreskin necessarily enjoy sex more than circumcised males, can you?

[Eryemil]

412. Actually, you CAN prove it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4611604&mesg_id=4614136
Look at the study in this post. It's been proven that foreskin is densely ennervated and extremely sensitive. You cannot take away from something and expect it to remain the same; you cannot remove most of the nerve endings on the penis and not expect the depth of sensation to decrease.

Also, circumcision is not a medical procedure, it is a cosmetic one.

[Chan790]

272. You'd be wrong, RT.

It's already a standing point of law (upheld by the Supreme Court more than once) that the state can exercise prohibitions upon religious practices where they affect the well-being of minors who lack the legal grounds or physical capacity to self-determine.

Every year, it makes news that some Christian Scientist couple has had their child removed from their custody for refusing medical attention to their mortally-sick child on religious grounds.

[DJ13]

8. Do they have a life that doesnt involve F'ing up everyone elses life?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

41. Cutting a persons penis

without their permission is just about as intrusive as you can get.
Remember boys and girls; you can fuck about with our own genitals but don't have your children's genitals permanently disfigured....those genitals are not yours!!!

[Igel]

50. Neither is my son's hair or his fingernails and toenails.

Simply not mine.

Nonetheless, I cut them or have them cut.

I also authorize doctors on a regular basis to contaminate his bloodstream with foreign substances, and even authorized them to perform surgery on him and remove tissue without his permission. Those are more invasive than a circumcision would be, by far. He really, really didn't like the antibiotics we forced him to consume.

Those are okay because my betters, it seems, permit me to do so. The all-wise and perfect, morally pure see a reason for it, and not only authorize me to do some things but require me to do so in their infinite wisdom.

It's so much better not having to make decisions, being informed, and worrying about such things. The more submission we have, the more freedom. Eventually we can have absolute freedom by means of absolute submission. Islam teaches it. Buddhism teaches it. Xianity teaches it. And some varieties of politics teach it. Unfortunately, while the US Constitution all but makes imposing the first three impossible, some apparently argue that it compels the secular version of worshiping the almighty--except that in this case the almighty is a group of people who routinely make mistakes and are, by and large, no better than their inferiors. They just lack that horrible vice, humility. On the other hand, they practice that virtue known as "intransigence" and "lack of forgiveness" so it's okay.

[Ignis]

61. Wait, wait, wait...you're equating circumcision with a MANICURE?

Wow. :wow:

[Art_from_Ark]

259. I share your astonishment

:wow: :wtf: :crazy:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

66. Does this look like submission to you?

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”

--Prince Siddhartha, Gautama the Buddha


Study your comparative religion a bit more.

Thank you. :D

[Boudica the Lyoness]

104. OK so you don't understand the difference between

trimming finger nails, hair or permanently cutting a penis to disfigure and desensitising it?

[proteus_lives]

117. Here's where you don't understand.

Some people don't consider it disfigured. Entire cultural groups in fact.

That's your belief.

Your choice, not the choice of others.

There's that scary word again.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

118. No choice is not a scary word for me

But I think you are having trouble with it.

Once more; CIRCUMCISION IS ONLY YOUR RIGHTFUL CHOICE IF IT'S YOUR PENIS THAT IS GOING TO BE CUT. IT'S NOT YOUR RIGHT TO MAKE THESE PERMANENT CHANGE CHOICES FOR OTHER PEOPLES PENIS'S. Here's an example for you, a pregnant woman should have the choice to decided if she wants to give birth to the baby or abort it. I'm pro choice all the way....MY BODY MY DECISION.

Yes, it's disfiguring..of coarse it is! THE END IS GONE...CUT OFF...If I was to have my ear lope cut off, my ear would be disfigured because the end of it is gone.

[proteus_lives]

119. Is your belly button disfigured?

Because your umbilical cord is cut-off.

Is your ear disfigured by a earring?

It is if you support the government taking away the choice from the parent.

You've stated your belief. Caps-lock doesn't make it anymore valid.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

120. Oh dear

A man's belly button is not the same as their penis. Umbilical cords have been breaking themselves for millions of years...we've managed. Ear rings and pierced ear lopes can't be compared to a calloused penis tip caused by removing the protective membrane called a foreskin. A pierced ear can close and pretty much become invisible and if it doesn't, it never spoils any pleasures in life.

No parents should decided if a man should go through his entire life with a calloused penis because they happened to be ignorant when he was a baby. It's ignorance in my opinion.

I wrote in caps not to make it more valid but in a futile effort to get through to you...it didn't work.

[proteus_lives]

121. "it never spoils any pleasures in life."

Neither does male circumcision.

[Ignis]

189. Links?

[proteus_lives]

210. Sure.

http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_sensitivity_sensation_sexual_function.html

[Ignis]

215. Sorry, not clicking on a link with sub-50 scores in every WOT category.

Have anything from a real, reliable, peer-reviewed medical/health source?

ETA: WOT = http://www.mywot.com/

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Devil_Fish]

261. I call BS on that.

http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

[proteus_lives]

287. Dueling studies.

And no mention how yours is more valid then the one I linked to.

[Eryemil]

357. You've really shot yourself on the foot with this one. Circinfo is a well-known site in the

genital integrity activism community. It is run by the same people that run circlist.com, a circumcision fetishist website.



You do realize the article you linked to is not an actual peer-reviewed paper right? It quotes some very interesting sources, but I'll get to that later. Here's the most comprehensive study done on the subject in recent times. You can find a free copy on the net if you're interested in reviewing their methodology.

Also: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

From the same study:

Circumcised:




Intact:






Now to address the credentials of your opinion piece:

The study your article claims to be biased (O'Hara & O'Hara, 1999) has very little to do with the sensitivity of the penis. It actually asks women if they prefer intact or circumcised partners.

The study that shows no difference between circumcised and intact men, didn't actually measure the sensitivity of the foreskin. In fact, they did not included the foreskin at all. How fucking ridiculous is this? The foreskin has more than four times the amount of nerve endings than the rest of the penis and mechanoreceptors not present anywhere else in the penis. Of course intact and circumcised men will have a similar degree of sensitivity in areas which they both have in common.

(Collins et al., 2002; Fink et al., 2002) and the other similar study, also done by Collins. did not actually measure sensitivity but libido, erectile functions, and ejaculation. Also, it did not actually measure penile sensitivity but relied on on the testament of men that had undergone adult circumcision. By the very nature of the procedure, practically every man that goes under the knife as an adult does so either because of a condition that impairs their sexual performance (phimosis), because they are attached to the idea of being circumcised or due to cultural pressure. All of these variables make personal testimony unreliable except as a measure of personal satisfaction of men that have chosen the procedure; it does nothing to elucidate on the sensitivity of the penes, both intact and circumcised.

(Senkul et al., 2004) Showed an increase in ejaculatory latency time. If anything, though the article tries to paint it as a positive, this is a sign of less sensitivity.

(Bleustein et al., 2005). Once again, only measured the sensitivity of the glans. (43 for intact men and 36 for neonatally circumcised men, by the way)

(Masood et al., 2005) This one measures erectile dysfunction.


Basically, every single study on this list is shit and I can tell you WHY it is shit. I'm not going to write a note on each one but if you would like me to address a specific study feel free to point it out and I will do so. In the meantime, you've failed to support your statement.

[Devil_Fish]

260. You must have been circumcised at birth, and as such you have no basis for compairison.

If you have son's I pitty them for like you, they will have the pain of loosing their forskin shortly after birth, and will never know what it is like to even masturbate with an intact penis.

I'm sorry for your loss, and I am sorry that you feel you should have the right to impose your loss on others.

[proteus_lives]

286. Hyperbole

You haven't been paying attention.

It's about not imposing.

No one except the parents have the right to make this decision.

And what comparison can you make?

[Devil_Fish]

290. The parents should not have the right to choose. Only the life time owner of the penis should choose

I can't make any comparison because evidently, like you I was mutilated shortly after birth. A choice that was not mine, and if you had asked me, I would have chosen to remain intact.

[proteus_lives]

301. So.

You were capable of decision-making at birth?

"if you had asked me, I would have chosen to remain intact."

Did you cut your cord too?

[Devil_Fish]

330. Yes, I chose not to be circumcised as was evident by me screaming my head off.

[proteus_lives]

331. You would have also screamed your head off:

If you weren't being held.

If you weren't being fed.

If you were cold.

If you were hot.

If you soiled yourself.

If you had be burped.

Did it hurt? Yeah, do you remember? No.

Floundering.

[Devil_Fish]

333. The choice should have been mine, and no one else's. That means waiting till age 18 so I can make th...

decision. No one should choose what another persons penis will look like for the rest of his life.

I'm sure I would have also cried if I got a tattoo across my for head.

Your examples are lame as they do not involve cosmetic surgery, but even so:

If I cry when: that means:
not being held. I choose to be held.
not being fed. I choose to be fed.
being cold. I choose to be warm.
being hot. I choose to be cooled off.
being soiled. I choose to have my diaper changed.
not being burped. I choose to be burped.
having foreskin
removed from the
tip of my penis. I choose to remain intact.

Baby langage is pretty simple really.

Not Floundering at all. It did hurt, and has left me scared for life both physically and emotionally. The fact that you and other people don't care about your basic human right to have every thing you were born with, should not deny me or other infants that right. That is what this is about. San Francisco doesn't get to decide if a person gets or does not get circumcised regardless of weather or not this passes. If it passes, and I hope it does, then only to person attached to the penis for the rest of his life gets to decide what it looks/feels like. The law should grant exceptions for medical necessity only.

[proteus_lives]

340. Emotionally?

:rofl:

How so?

[Eryemil]

365. Logical fallacy. This implies that the choice was urgent or even needed to be made at all.

There was no immediate reason why a choice needed to be made. A foreskin is not a growth that must be extirpated before it turns malignant, it is a fully-functioning organ present in all mammals on this planet.

If there is a choice to be made at all, there is no reason why the child himself cannot choose once he is an adult; the same way that an adult may choose to any other form of mutilation, be it castration, penectomy, piercing, subincision, or any other of the hundred of ways humans choose to modify their bodies.

[snooper2]

143. how about pierced nipples?

How about lip plates, You know they usually remove all four lower teeth....I guess that's just fine and dandy. But cutting off a little extra skin (Oh NOES the chil-den!)

"a calloused penis tip"

Seriously...didn't feel like that last night at all :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Eryemil]

411. It's not a "little extra skin".

It is fifteen square inches of blood vessels, nerve endings and muscle. Since you brought up nipple piercings; should parents be allowed to pierce their children's nipples? At what point do cosmetic body modifications stop being OK in your eyes?

[Crunchy Frog]

450. On my sons it's at least a good 2/3 of the skin on their penises.

Probably more if you consider that much of it is a double layer. Most Americans are woefully ignorant when it comes to basic anatomy.

[Ignis]

182. Wow, the medical ignorance on display here is stunning.

Unlike the foreskin, the umbilical cord will naturally dries and severs itself by the third day after birth if it is not artificially clamped and cut.

Google "lotus birth" if you're curious. If.

[FedUpWithIt All]

191. None of those alterations is permanent and irreversible.

If they were, i assure you we'd be discussing the morality of making those decisions for a child as well.

A more equal argument would be tattooing.

[Withywindle]

279. Um...hair, fingernails and toenails GROW BACK.

That's why you have to keep cutting them. Not just in infancy, but all through life.

However, foreskins don't. The choice to cut or not to cut is a once-in-a-lifetime choice, and once it's done, it's irrevocable.

That's why I think that choice needs to be made by the OWNER of the penis in question, when he is old enough to do so--not just by his temporary health-care proxies who happen to have control of him while he's helpless and vulnerable.

[tigereye]

401. nice description of parenting, there.

[Devil_Fish]

257. +1

[Sandrine for you]

288. they are not "genitals disfigured", they are enhanced.

circumcised penis are a lot more beautiful than the other. I know a lot of women who said that non-circumcised mens are simply disgusting.

"those genitals are not yours!!!"

"""It thus seems entirely reasonable that
parents or other guardians of a child’s best interests
be morally entitled to decide for the child.

-----The role of a parent is not simply to save children from immediate
catastrophe, but is to protect and foster a
child’s long-term best interests.-------

That is why most people think that parents may consent on behalf of
their children not only to vaccination but also to
such procedures as orthodontics and various nonmedical
interventions, including schooling."""

http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/844413__713606994.pdf

We can argue a lot about the "necessity" of circumcision, but if it's disfigured or enhanced, it's just a question of culture, not an objective statement. Also, the choice for the muslim parents to do it before the puberty, they can say it's for the "child’s long-term best interests", because for them it's better to be a muslim than a lost.

[Orrex]

295. Best Reply Evah!

[Eryemil]

307. I agree. A neatly trimmed vagina is much more inviting than one with disgusting folds. . .

all over the place.

Aesthetics are subjective. In places where women are genitally modified in any way (not just clitoridectomy, but also where the clitoral hood or the labia are amputated) the modified vagina is considered more beautiful. If your only argument in favor of MGM is that parents should be allowed to modify the bodies of their offspring so that their chances of finding a mate are increased then you would fit right in with those grandmothers in Africa that circumcise their daughters so that a man will marry them.

[Crunchy Frog]

346. Yes. I regret that my parents didn't get me labiaplasty when I was an infant.

I'd really like to have it done, but it's simply too painful of an ordeal for an adult to go through.

I honestly don't know how men are not repulsed by our girly bits.

[rug]

9. That's over the top.

[jberryhill]

20. The unkindest cut of all /nt

[jberryhill]

21. The unkindest cut of all /nt

[Taverner]

15. Even though I am anti-circumcision, this would not be a good idea

Any time you affront a religious organization, you have to be prepared with studies

There are no studies for or against circumcision. The recent pro-circ study turned out to be a bit skewed.

So why not do studies first?

[slackmaster]

132. The bottom line, legally, is they cannot legally do that

The state regulates medicine here. The state Constitution and the Government Code explicitly prohibit cities and counties from usurping state control over activities that the state regulates.

[Blasphemer]

208. I agree

I'm fairly anti-circumcision and I am not a fan of organized religion but unless there is clear documented evidence that it is medically inadvisable, I can't agree with such a law. Even though I am not religious myself, I think it's best to err on the side of freedom of religion unless, as is the case with FGM, a religious practice is actually unsafe and inhumane.

[Crunchy Frog]

233. What about forms of FGM that are less invasive and severe than male circ?

Like the one described in this blog. http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

That would still get you thrown in prison in this country even though there is no evidence whatsoever that it is in any way dangerous or harmful, much less so than male circ.

[Devil_Fish]

263. I'm on the side of freedom, The freedom to choose wether or not I want my forskin.

I wasn't given that freedom. The choice was some one elses when I was a day old. No one asked me. they didn't even tell me why.

[slackmaster]

17. Anti-Semitism on the rise in San Francisco?

Consider it a joke at your own risk.

[arcane1]

23. Say what??

One guy wants to ban circumcision (which is not limited to Jewish people) and suddenly anti-semitism is "on the rise in SF"??

[La Lioness Priyanka]

168. one guy in sf is v. powerful

:P

[arcane1]

198. Too bad it's not me!

:P :P

[Chan790]

276. It's an old canard.

By equating opposition to circumcision to Antisemitism, they hope to shut down debate. Ho-hum, that's a tired old tune.

If Judaism cannot survive the banning of the bris the exact same way it survived cultural opposition to animal sacrifice and dozens of other archaic practices no longer practiced in modern Judaism, then it has much larger problems which threaten its' viability into the future as a major world religion than a ban on circumcision.

[ProudDad]

109. Bullshit...(as usual)

[slackmaster]

131. Yes, yes! OF COURSE IT'S BULLSHIT!!! The SF City Clowncil knows it can't get away with that.

The practice of medicine is regulated exclusively by the state here, and state law explicitly prohibits cities and counties from making up their own rules. It doesn't matter how many people sign the fucking petition - Putting it on the ballot would be a violation of state law.

Those clowns know exactly what will happen if they (or the voters) pass this ordinance - Someone will file a lawsuit, a court will issue an injunction against enforcement, and eventually the state Supreme Court will throw the thing out. Just like what happened the last two times they tried to ban handguns.

They can't ban circumcision any more than they could ban abortion. It's illegal. The mystery to me is why the people of that beautiful city keep electing a bunch of fools who do things that waste a bunch of public money in court costs. Yesterday it was announced that the state budget deficit for this year is up to 25 BILLION dollars!

It's government by Kabuki Theater up there.

[JackRiddler]

146. You don't even seem to know the difference between the state and the city government.

[slackmaster]

152. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to make some bullshit personal attack here?

I'm very familiar with many aspects of California state law.

What are you talking about, JackRiddler?

It's very simple - The state of California has exclusive authority to regulate the practice of medicine, licensing of physicians, etc. in the state. Cities and counties can't make up their own rules. If the voters of San Francisco pass some bullshit ordinance banning a medical procedure, and the city or county allow it to become law, it will be struck down in the courts just as has every other bullshit illegal ordinance that has been either voted in or passed by the supervisors. That whole process ends up costing the STATE money, because it gets worked out in STATE courts, which takes away resources from everyone else in the state.

Have I made my point sufficiently clear for you, JackRiddler?

[JackRiddler]

153. Not at all. Just read what you wrote:

"They can't ban circumcision any more than they could ban abortion. It's illegal. The mystery to me is why the people of that beautiful city keep electing a bunch of fools who do things that waste a bunch of public money in court costs. Yesterday it was announced that the state budget deficit for this year is up to 25 BILLION dollars!"

Last sentence a complete non-sequitur.

[slackmaster]

154. It's totally relevant because the city's bullshit illegal ordinances cost the state money

Every time one of them gets challenged in state court.

The problem here is one of reportage. San Francisco hasn't had a decent newspaper for decades.

The proper way to frame this story would be "Crackpot in San Francisco circulates petition to ban circumcision in the City", with the first paragraph mentioning the fact that it would be illegal for such an ordinance to pass. Then a laundry list of idiotic measures that have been killed in state court, and a breakdown of how much of the public's money has been wasted because the supervisors aren't fulfilling their fiscal and legal duties.

[sorcrow]

18. Studies are inconclusive either way

When circumcisions are outlawed, only outlaws will have circumcisions.

Crow

[jancantor]

25. There will also be mandatory child foreskin

inspections next. "for the children" of course...

[Tunkamerica]

44. outlaws' children

[jberryhill]

22. He also wants to set up a telephone number for anonymous tips /nt

[FSogol]

26. Groan.

[uncle ray]

37. i think you mean groin.

[bemildred]

27. This appears to be more bizarre political drivel. nt

[armodem08]

29. Ridiculous.

This is non-news, with an egregiously incorrect headline. No offense to the OP, but if we had an article about every ballot measure a crazy local resident said they would submit for a vote, DU would probably crash. I doubt it will get the petition signatures to be on the ballot, much less attract enough support to win. It's an individual resident expressing an extreme view, either for personal or religious reasons. But according to the NBC Bay Area headline writer, it's "San Francisco's Hit List." Utterly ridiculous and unworthy of publication.

[sakabatou]

30. Next up is breastfeeding, Olive Garden and pitbulls.

[HuckleB]

32. I am calling for a law that bans jet contrails within viewing distance of San Francisco!!!

I don't even live in the state, but why not?

:beer:

[Renew Deal]

72. Forced breastfeeding in San Francisco isn't too far off

Why should you make any choices in life when San Francisco can do it for you?

[tomm2thumbs]

34. on the 'hit list' or the 'slit list' - I can't decide

frankly, I could see this passing - and it'll be struck down just as quickly

[Boudica the Lyoness]

38. Circumcision should be allowed BUT

only if the victim signs for it and is also over the age of 18.

[24601]

53. See response 50. n/t

[Ignis]

62. I have. It's ludicrous. What about it?

:shrug:

[24601]

122. So who makes decisions about what a child will do & will have

done to him or her? There was no shortage of information on both sides when we made the circumcision decision for our son.

We also were capable of deciding what activities were appropriate and which were not. We decided what camps he would attend and what Schools, sometimes public and sometimes private, would best suit his needs. When our daughter, about 10 years shy of the age of majority, we needed no state social worker nor any attorney to determine she could get her ears pierced.

This issue isn't about circumcision but about who raises our kids. There may be some parents that can't fulfill this role but they are the exception, not the rule. When we need help, we'll ask for it.

[Ignis]

169. "We decided what camps he would attend and what Schools"

Hey, that's great. But that's not the same thing as irreversibly snipping off parts of your child's body for aesthetic reasons.

And for the umpteenth time, making comparisons between circumcision and ear piercing is ridiculous. :eyes:

[24601]

244. You can claim that all you want. Our daughter, who permanently

had part of each ear clipped might disagree, especially since she had to do one ear twice. And since this was done 10 years or more before she was 18, yes, it was in the end our decision because we are her parents.

[Eryemil]

311. To correct a birth defect I assume? The foreskin is not a vestigial organ; it serves a puporse

and does so admirably well. It exists, in humans, for a reason like it does on every other mammal on this planet except monotremes which are the result of an early branching of the mammalian tree.

The foreskin is healthy, functional tissue and there is simply no medical reason to amputate it. Are you advocating that parents should always be allowed to modify their children's bodies to the fit in with cultural standards?

[Ignis]

348. What, precisely, am I claiming?

:shrug: Sorry, it's not clear. I don't recall having made any unfounded assertions, but I'm human.

[Devil_Fish]

265. No, the issue is who decides what parts of your body you keep. You or your parents.

[Ignis]

64. ^^ Agreed. Adults should be allowed to snip away at anything they like.

But if it's not broken on your kid, you shouldn't be allowed to force them to undergo elective cosmetic surgery without informed consent.

Hell, I'd go along with putting the age of consent for circumcision at 13 or so, to align with bar mitzvahs. But elective cosmetic surgery on newborns is (IMHO, of course) unwarranted.

[Devil_Fish]

264. +1,000

[Just One Woman]

42. teabagger authoritarian mentality

otherwise known as the church lady laws. It is certainly no joke. These authoritarian ideas are more and more the stance of the tea partiers here in Tennessee. And don't kid yourself, studies have already been done. Insurance companies have studied this for years. My son, now 17, was turned down for the procedure at birth. Then at age six months, the doctor ordered it due to skin irritation. So they had already done the studies then and found out it costs money. That's all the study they need. Now they have a cheerleader. We have to keep the stand that they don't have the right to tell us what to do with our bodies. I am kind of surprised they are only going after boys, and not the genital mutilation of girls as well.

[SnakeEyes]

46. i'm not sure how wanting to ban genital mutilation

is a teabagger mentality.

And with circumcision, the religious element is on the side of allowing circumcision (Jewish tradition).

Typically, the people that are advocates for banning circumcision are pro-human rights and pro-child advocates and workers. the teabaggers aren't these types of people.

[Just One Woman]

54. You are right

But here, we have many of the religious right that are also tea baggers. I do know there is a difference, but in Tennessee, it is hard to tell the difference. They don't want to be treaded on, but want to tell everyone else how to live and what to do.

[joeglow3]

141. I think you missed the point

It is the idea of thinking you need to dictate to everyone how they need to live (clearly in accordance with how YOU want to live).

[Ignis]

70. Oh yes, SF is just chock-full of authoritarian teabaggers.

:freak:

[DJ13]

97. Neo Liberals are close relatives to Neo Cons

Authoritarianism is at the heart of both groups.

[ronnie624]

114. I think you need to Google the term, 'neoliberalism'. n/t

[DJ13]

116. Here

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
NEOLIBERALISM AND AUTHORITARIAN
STATES:
THE CASE OF TURKEY

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/neolibstate/meltemyilmazsener.pdf



A Review of The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy

Every person who works with young people should know that politics is more than the Democrats or who you are voting for in the next election. Much more. Dozens of people have spent hundreds of hours speaking and thousands of pages writing to explain how politics underscores everything that we–as individuals and as a society–do every moment of every day of our lives. This kind of politics helps us make up our minds about what clothes to wear to work; what job to work at; who we work for; and, most importantly to youth workers and educators, what work we actually do.

A new book illustrates how a hellacious political reality is actually altering the society we live in right now. In The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy, scholar/author Henry Giroux outlines how neoliberalism–the belief that the private sector should be wholly responsible for the public good–is about more than money. Throughout this book, Giroux explains how neoliberalism is actually a set of values, ideologies, and practices that is actively recreating America today–for the worse. Of course, CNN, the presidential elections, and the never-ending war in Iraq have proven that the political and economic reality of democracy in the US has changed. But Giroux exposes a more terrifying plot.

http://freechild.org/ReadingList/terror.htm

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. So you see that 'neoliberal' doesn't apply to San Francisco politics, then?

"neoliberalism–the belief that the private sector should be wholly responsible for the public good".

[Ignis]

227. "Well, looks like we got ourselves a Reader!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvs2g5Nj0NI

[muriel_volestrangler]

238. Thanks for the link!

I haven't seen that before. :)

[Ignis]

351. It's my great pleasure to share.

Mr. Hicks was a treasure.

[Ignis]

177. Perhaps you should read post #42 again re: "teabaggers"

[slackmaster]

136. A Chinese man told me "A left jack-boot up your ass feels the same as a right jack-boot up your ass"

Authoritarianism comes in many flavors.

[Ignis]

178. I challenge you to find me more than a handful of teabaggers in SF.

[slackmaster]

184. I didn't say there were many teabaggers in SF. But there are authoritarians in SF.

Some of them are even on the far left.

[Ignis]

188. You're responding to my response re: the claim of "teabaggers" in SF.

So here we are. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

190. No, I was responding to your use of the adjective "authoritarian"

Although it was introduced to the thread by by Just One Woman.

:hi:

I have never said there were many (or even any, though there probably are a few) teabaggers in San Francisco.

The issue is authoritarianism, not right v. left. The crackpot who is circulating the petition we are discussing here is an authoritarian. Whether he is on the right or the left makes no difference to me.

[Ignis]

196. Before we spiral too far out of control here...

I think we both agree that authoritarianism is bad, m'kay? :toast:

But the assertion made by the poster above that this anti-circumcision is the result of a "teabagger authoritarian mentality"--when taken in the context of SF--is ludicrous. That's the point to which I was responding.

[slackmaster]

207. Thanks for the clarification

I'm glad we agree on something.

But the assertion made by the poster above that this anti-circumcision is the result of a "teabagger authoritarian mentality"--when taken in the context of SF--is ludicrous. That's the point to which I was responding.

OK, I understand your point of view.

My point of view is that authoritarianism is bad; and whether it arises from a teabagger mentality, a religious mentality, a Marxist mentality, or any other state of mind is not important compared to the impact that implementation of authoritarian policies have on peoples' lives.

[proteus_lives]

211. That's a great quote.

I'll remember that one.

[Crunchy Frog]

234. Wow. My sons have had skin irritation and all I've done is put a dab of Desitin on.

You really put your son through surgery for that?

[Devil_Fish]

266. agreed, no one should have the right to tell some one else what to do with his body not even parents

[tigereye]

402. no, not even life-saving surgery (not that circ is that)

just saying that for the sake of argument. I just find the comments of folks who seem not to know anything about parenting or the difficult decisions which parents have to make every day, exasperating.


Most parents make the best decisions for their minor children that they can, with the information they have at the time. Some ask more questions than others, and probably many don't worry about the enhanced sexual abilities of their progeny when they become adults. Maybe they should, and more do than in the past.

[Eryemil]

417. Routine infant circumcision is a cosmetic procedure, not a medical one.

No parent should have the right to perform plastic surgery on their offspring unless it is to correct a birth defect.

[tigereye]

420. that's not what I said- I said that parents have to make choices based on the

best information available at the time- and that's what they typically do.

[Eryemil]

423. The best information available right now consigns routine infant circumcision to the realm of

cosmetic surgery. If a parent is not allowed to tattoo their newborn child then they should not be allowed to circumcise them. It's as simple as that.

[tigereye]

426. another fun comparison. Nice job.

Bye!

[Crunchy Frog]

429. Why would that not be comparable?

Other than the fact that tatooing does not actually remove any tissue and is not considered surgery. It's all just different forms of body modification.

[tigereye]

430. well, that tatooing is not a commonly performed medical procedure ?

sorry, their hyperbole was making me a bit snarky. As a parent who had to make choices about what would happen with my own child, I still think that snarky complaints about how it's evil and shouldn't happen are absurd.

[Crunchy Frog]

436. Circumcision as it's commonly performed in this country is a body modification

that is often but not always done by medical persons. I am not talking about therapeutic circumcision done to treat a medical condition. And there is a such thing as a medical tatoo, (Google "medical tatoos").

All I'm saying is that I think that body modification can reasonably be compared with body modification. I'm certainly not saying it's evil and shouldn't happen. I just think that, if we as a society decide that non-therepeutic body modification is an acceptable choice for parents to make for children, then we should be consistent and honest about it. I'm against pretending that infant circumcision is something different than what it is.

I'm sympathetic about your being a parent who had to make choices about what would happen with your child. I'm one too. I don't know what information you had when you made your choice. It may very well have been presented to you as a medical procedure done for health reasons, and you made the decision with the information you had. When I made decision I made it with the information that I had.

I'm not trying to be snarky in making the comparison. I think that the two things genuinely are comparable, but our cultural blinders prevent us from seeing the similarities.

[tigereye]

441. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and openness - it's something that people

often don't seem to display during discussions about this topic and that's why I got so exasperated with them. (well for me, i"m usually pretty mellow) :D I don't agree with you that they are comparable, but so be it.

I consider myself fairly sharp and aware and when my kid was born I really hadn't thought this issue through with the same level of specificity that some posters here have, or maybe that younger parents have now. I did what my husband and I thought made sense and what my doctor recommended, and it wasn't that big of a deal. It wasn't something that the La Maze classes emphasized as a critical decision.

:shrug:

I guess I wonder how many of the folks here ranting about this (not aimed at you) have actually had to make the decision about their infant... it's not the most critical aspect of concern when you are giving birth... :rofl:


I guess I don't feel that some bureaucrat with an ax to grind should make that decision for parents... or people in this thread who seem to feel that criticizing parents who aren't as upset about this issue with disdain.


:hi: thanks for having an actual discussion!

[Eryemil]

445. In my country of birth, less than 1% of the population is circumcised.

A lot less than 1% in fact. Out of 10,000,000 people, only like 6000 have been put under the knife and NEVER as infants. That is the true result of circumcision being used as therapeutic procedure. The only reason that you felt that you HAD to make a choice is because the pervasiveness of your culture makes it seem as if neonatal circumcision is an equal or superior alternative to leaving your child whole. It is not.

[Crunchy Frog]

448. In most developed countries it's not a choice that parents are ever faced with

unless they are Jewish or Muslim. In this country, when you have a male child, it's presented as a choice that you HAVE to make one way or the other. There's no reason why it should be so, other than that it has become so ingrained in our culture that most people don't even question it.

This has been an amazing success for a handful of 19th century whackos who believed that cutting children's genitals would prevent the dreaded scourge of masturbation and all of it's horrifying consequences.

And yes, I had to make a choice too. I never even had a doctor or a nurse speak to me or counsel me about it. My preemie babies were in the NICU and at one week old the consent forms just appeared by their isolettes. It was like they just assumed that everybody would do it and the forms were just a legal formality.

I wonder how the culture would change if they started treating it as the elective body modification it is and stopped soliciting the surgery to pregnant or newly delivered mothers. If parents had to be the ones to initiate the inquiry if they wanted it done, rather than having it presented by medical personel as a decision they HAVE to make. Of course the big concern in this country is that some doctors and hospitals would lose a revenue stream; the most important consideration in American medicine today.

[zeemike]

43. First they came for the vagina's

And I did not say anything because I didn't have one....then they came for the peniuses....

[AtheistCrusader]

95. The vagina's what?

Does it have luggage?

[zeemike]

129. Well I guess the Virgina's fruit.

After all they did not want the actual vigina....or the actual dick... they just want to control what you do with it.

[Proletariatprincess]

47. I live in San Francisco and I will sign the petition.

If you want to circumcise your baby boy, go out of town to do it. I hope the petition includes language that proscribes female circumcision too...which is a barbaric crime against little girls and women.
Unnecessary genital surgery on children is barbaric for any reason...including religion. Let them decide when they are 18 whether to take that step.
Why do we accept that it is ok to ritually cut babies in the name of religion? Would we allow it for any other reason? What is child abuse, anyway? Wouldn't CPS be at your door if you decided to cut your child for any other reason? What if it was some off beat cult that believed in carving a pentagram or some other symbol on a child's body?
I don't care how ancient the tradition is or what religion practices it. It is barbaric and should be prohibited in a civilized society.
Now...where do I sign this petition? :rant:

[Ignis]

65. Well, that's no surprise, given your hobbies.

:D

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProudDad]

110. If I still lived there, so would I...! (n/t)

[pinniped]

48. I got a preban one.

.

[Iggo]

49. Yee-haaaaw!!!1

:bounce:

:popcorn:

[bemildred]

51. Indeed.

Every bit as reliable as guns and Nader.
:popcorn:

[lynne]

52. What about piercing the ears of minors? That has to end, too!

If they are serious about banning unnecessary physical mutilation, they need to include ear piercing under the age of 18, too. That also goes for tattoo's.

Anything less is being dishonest in their intent.

[ronnie624]

158. Is it legal in the U.S. to tattoo a newborn infant? n/t

[lynne]

166. It's legal to pierce a newborn's ears and I've not seen law -

- saying you could NOT tattoo a newborn. Minor's - under age 18 - certainly get them as I've seen them.

[Crunchy Frog]

408. There was an incident where a father was prosecuted

for getting his 7 year old tatooed.

I think it should be one or another. Either parents should be able to choose a wide range of body modification for their children, including various types of piercings, tatoos, genital cutting for either gender (with some limitations), tribal scarifications etc., or it should simply be illegal to practice body modification on minors.

I think there should be consistency in the law, and the father should not have been prosectuted.

[Withywindle]

280. No it doesn't.

Ear piercing: tiny pinpricks in a non-functional part of the outer ear. Very brief, negligible pain, and it will heal and close up if earrings aren't worn.

I got mine done at 10 (after much nagging) and I assure you, it has had no effect on my sense of hearing.

[herbm]

57. The moyles are happy. Wages were low, sure, but they got to keep the tips,

[madrchsod]

63. well that`s a candidate for one of the most idiotic ideas ever......

[Renew Deal]

67. Anti-Semitic nanny's

Didn't see that one coming.

[truthisfreedom]

71. Here's the problem: I've never met a person who was cut who wishes they hadn't been.

So right there, I lose interest in the argument. Is it genital mutilation? Yes, by the strictest definition, of course. Is it a valid part of Western culture? Presumably. Is it dangerous or damaging? Maybe, possibly. Are there medical benefits? A couple, yes, according to studies I've read about HIV transmission and other disease-related issues, and physical problems as well.

Bottom line for me? I was cut. I have never wished I wasn't, not for a moment.

[jaybeat]

75. Hello. I don't believe we've met.

Medical benefits have yet to be proven. Detriments? Listen to a kid scream bloody hell when it's done, while the doc sez, "Oh, they can't really feel it."

Plus, I changed many diapers at my son's co-op pre-school. Even in 2 and 3 year-olds, when they've been cut it just looks, well, damaged, mutilated.

And there are plenty of downsides which I won't go into here, since they are not PG-13.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. One poor kid was teased mercilessly in my middle school swimming class.

The tip seemed deformed, so naturally the other boys rallied around 'NOT ONE OF US'.


Turns out, it was a botched circumcision. You can be sure that haunted him right into his adult life, because the girls all found out too.

[Ignis]

78. I can name about a dozen male friends off the top of my head who fit that bill.

Aren't anecdotes fun? Whee! They're much more useful than scientific data!

Is it dangerous or damaging? Maybe, possibly.

Well, it's certainly damaging to the foreskin.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Meet me. Hello, how are you doing? I wish my parents hadn't had my penis cut.

I was never consulted. I was never asked. And it is MY PENIS. It wasn't doing anything wrong. It wasn't harming anyone, me included.


I propose an adjustment to the law; allow it, but require it be performed with a sharpened stone, like the barbaric, mythical, bullshit ritual it is.


Worse, I always intended to leave any of my children un-mutilated, but alas I cannot have children, and my adopted son, who the 'parents' never intended to care for him at all, went ahead and had it done.

[Devil_Fish]

270. I was adopted. I hate my bio parents for mutilating me.

I was never consulted. I was never asked. And it is MY PENIS. It wasn't doing anything wrong. It wasn't harming anyone, me included.

It should be the choice of the person who has the penis for the rest of his life. no one elses.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

101. You don't know any better

so you have nothing to compare to. I read about GI's 'cut' after they entered the military and they stated that sex wasn't nearly as good and were very regretful.

As far as disease prevention goes; why stop at your penis, there are plenty of other body parts that go wrong or let in diseases. I suppose you should cut them off or sew them up.

[ProudDad]

112. Here's one right here...!

And I'm sure there are thousands more...

[Politicub]

135. Hello - nice to meet you

I would have liked to have made the choice.

[JackRiddler]

148. Did you conduct a survey?

I've met a whole bunch who wish they hadn't been cut.

[Eryemil]

237. Western culture? Are you fucking kidding me?

The United States is the ONLY Western country where you still routinely mutilate the majority of your offspring. Canada? It has less than 10% incidence of circumcision these days, Australia's is even lower and the UK's below 2%. New Zealand is pretty much zero and so is the rest of Europe. Genital mutilation is not and has never been part of Western Culture; it came to US from the Jews who (along with other people of the Levant) got it from the Egyptians.

Also: http://www.foreskin-restoration.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5

There are thousands of men in the US that are currently undergoing foreskin restoration and many, many more who are unhappy with their status. Just because you've refused to look doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Canuckistanian]

262. You're right about attitudes in Canada

My son was born in 1996 and the doctor came in and asked "So, when do you want to schedule the circumcision?". We had already decided that it wasn't necessary and told the doctor so.

I was just surprised the doctor assumed we wanted it done. None of our friends wanted it done to their sons.

[Sandrine for you]

269. Circumcision is part of Western Culture

first :It is not a real mutilation, because it does not degrades the appearance or function, unlike the excision:

"Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually without causing death....A joint statement released by the United Nations and numerous other international bodies opposes female genital cutting (female circumcision) as a form of mutilation.<4> Denniston et al. have argued that male circumcision is a form of mutilation;<5> their arguments have been criticised by Benatar and Benatar.<6>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutilation



Second, in Canada of 2006 , neonatal circumcision rate is 31,9 %. So yes, it is in our western culture.

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-f.html








Edit for the subject.

[Eryemil]

291. If there ever was a sad, tragic example of the relativistic nature of human morality. . .

If there ever was a sad, tragic example of the relativistic nature of human morality. . .

I always promise I won't discuss circumcision with Americans. It's like trying to have a rational conversation about the merits of rape; I almost literally can't contain my disgust, even writing to you and it never achieves anything. But here I find myself yet again and as usual I can't stay silent; it feels a lot like being complicit to your crimes.

Not mutilation? Does not degrade appearance or function? In what fucking world do you live in? Have you ever even SEEN an intact penis let alone held one? Do you even know what it is like to interact sexually with a man that is whole? Answer this question: How can you strip away erogenous, healthy tissue without degrading appearance or function? How sick and warped does one point of view have to be to not consider the amputation of 15 square inches of skin, muscle and nerves to be mutilation?

You've probably heard many American feminists boast about how the clitoris is estimated to have around 8,000 to 9,000 nerve endings while the penis only has 4,000 to 6,000 nerve endings. What they don't say (maybe cause they don't know it) is that the the foreskin has a whopping 20,000 or so. These are just one of the things that are irrevocably stripped away when people like you hand over your sons to be butchered.

The foreskin has a large concentration of Meissner's corpuscles, which are mechanoreceptors sensitive to light touch and which are not present anywhere else on the penis. They are also present in the nipples and particularly in the fingertips. This is another thing that you take away from your sons; the ability to have a full range of sensation on their genitals. The ability to really feel light pressure, like say the texture of a tongue or the friction ridges of the pad of a finger.

Ignoring the fact that that the foreskin itself is a fully-functioning organ in its own right, serving to facilitate intercourse, it also helps to protect the glans. The skin of the glans is different from that of the shaft of the penis and outer foreskin and more like that of your inner eyelids and the lining of your mouth. It is a mucous membrane and not meant to be exposed to the elements; take the lips for example, even as close to a source of moisture as it is, it dries out very quickly in certain conditions. This is the reason why the texture of circumcised glans is so radically different from that of an intact one and one of the reasons why circumcised men are not as sensitive to stimulation.

Yet another reason is the removal of the frenulum. This band that connects the foreskin to the glans has the highest concentration of nerve endings in the penis and is often removed during circumcision.


According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information the rate of neonatal circumcision in 1995 was just below 20%, dropping to 9.2% by 2005 and continues to decrease. There hasn't been any new data on the subject lately but I trust them more than I would a survey, even taking into account discrepancies due to out-of-hospital circumcisions.

Either way, two countries do not "Western Culture" make. You can't even say North American culture since circumcision is not performed in Mexico. Though the practice is falling out of favor, even in the US, it is still a wholly American thing. You, and countries that you've influenced, (like South Korea) are alone in the developed world when it comes to cutting your boys. Own up to it; once again you are number one. Another statistic to be proud of.


By the way, as a continuation of my original post. That poster states that he had never met any circumcised man that is unhappy about their mutilation; I have. As an advocate for genital integrity I've counseled many men that felt resentment towards their parents over what was done to them and did not feel they could talk to them about it. Do you have any male children? It might have been your son.


This is the last time I will post in this thread. It makes me feel helpless and unclean just knowing that there's someone like you on the other end of my computer screen. "What will future generations condemn us for?" Asks this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092404113.html
I hope you and those like you come to understand and feel shame for your legacy but in the meantime I will do everything in my power to hasten your consignment to the rubbish bin of history.

[Sandrine for you]

302. "...I won't discuss circumcision with Americans... the merits of rape ?" lol !

First, I'm not an American, I'm a Canadian like you.

Second, you said you are an "advocate for genital integrity",

well, the rate that I gave to you come from the "Genital Integrity Association", who take that from a study of the Canadian Institute for Health,from 6500 mothers, I don't know why a mother will lie about that.

You are using a lot of hyperbolic associations, like:

"merits of rape;
complicit to your crimes;
cutting your boys...Another statistic to be proud of (you Americans);
American feminists boast;
It makes me feel helpless and unclean just knowing that there's someone like you on the other end of my computer screen;
I hope you and those like you come to understand and feel shame for your legacy"

I don't know what to do with all these statements...I suppose you have your reason to be so passionate about this specific subject, and don't want to go one this.

For your explanation about the nature of the foreskin, I want to say to you that it's a better way to inform people than making hyperbolic associations.

[Eryemil]

306. People don't want to be informed.

There's a reason why I barely discuss the subject anymore, but sometimes I just can't help but become involved -- like when people put worth misinformation or outright lies. After many years of trying to change minds, I just can't control my reaction to the way people from circumcision cultures approach the subject. I've convinced a handful of people and I would say it's been worth it but I'm just not able to cope with it emotionally any more.

I mentioned rape; whether you feel that circumcision is anything at all like rape, imagine that you were dropped into a social paradigm where rape was encouraged and glorified and you had to attempt to convince people that it is a breach of autonomy and that that was not itself a "good" thing. How angry would you be, knowing that year after year it continuous and there's nothing you can do about it?
I was not born in the Canada or the US, though I've lived in both places. Like in the rest of the Western Hemisphere, circumcision is unheard of in my country of birth and learning of the practice after emigrating to the US had a very deep impact on me.



The WHO classifies FGM into these four types:

1. Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
2. Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
3. Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
4. Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.


With this in mind, if you were trying to convince millions of people that female genital mutilation should be stopped, can you say that your arguments would be any different from my arguments against male genital mutilation, rage side? What would you say to these people that would not also apply to our own? I can't think of one single argument that applies to one group and not another yet all forms of FGM that are outlawed in Canada and the US while the male equivalent is not. The same can be said for the so-called benefits of circumcision.

What makes our daughters worthy of the right to a whole body while our sons are not? Why are only half of our children protected against having parts of their body amputated for no reason beyond tradition and aesthetics?

[Sandrine for you]

347. Thanks for your more reasonable argument

I think the reason why, by the law, and our "social paradigm", we do not put the FGM in the same basket as the circumcision, is because to compare them will be better if the circumcision imply the partial or total removal of the glans, or if the FGM was only the partial removal of the prepuce, then I think we can have a real comparison.

When we remove the foreskin, or partially the prepuce, there are no alteration of the function (I put away the aesthetics part of it). Function of the penis is to urinate, penetrate the female, have pleasure and ejaculate.

You explained that the removal of the foreskin make the penis less sensitive, I trust you on that. I suppose if we remove the prepuce, the clitoris can become less sensitive with time. But is this alteration sufficient to make the circumcision a mutilation ? Is there any study who show that the circumcision is a isolate factor of anorgasmy in men ? Because anorgasmy is the real goal of FGM, that's why we call it a mutilation.

You said that some men talk to you about their circumcision, maybe we need a study to see the scale of that problem.

Tradition can be a great part of the strength of someone, you cannot just put it away like if it's nothing. Our own body is a cultural body. I don't know any muslim boys who regret his circumcision..., maybe they, like you said, feel shame to talk about it, or maybe, like I think, they just don't feel it like a mutilation. In fact, it's like a rite of passage to become a man, they just can wait to be circumcise.

[Eryemil]

353. You are not listening. FGM is not just the removal of the clitoris.

Any form of procedure that modifies the female genitals is classified as "FGM" and is illegal. This is unjust and reveals the hypocritical nature of our laws and culture.

There are as many forms of male genital mutilation as there are female, but I bet you've never heard of them. Penile subincision, for example, which is practiced by Australian aboriginals and requires that the penis be cut open like a fish along the corpus spongiosum with or without breaching of the urethra. There are other practices like the perforation of the urethra through a hole at the base of the penis and skin stripping, where ALL of the skin of the penis is removed. If any group that practices these customs managed to find their way to our countries would you say that they should be allowed to performed these procedures upon their children?

Orgasm and sexual pleasure are closely related but they are NOT the same thing. Women that have been circumcised report still being able to orgasm, in fact, it is these women that continue to defend the practice; whether they might be able to orgasm we just can't know but we definitely can know whether their pleasure has been reduced. The same holds true for circumcised males. Did you, by the way, know that a penis is not at all required for a man to achieve orgasm, or even pleasure? A man that has had a penectomy can still orgasm and ejaculate through stimulation of the prostate just as a woman that has been completely circumcised can orgasm through the stimulation of the vaginal wall. It is not ideal of course but it doesn't completely remove the ability to perform the functions you've listed above.

Funny, the venerable tradition of MGM was outlawed in our countries without much fuss. Are you saying that our traditions are superior to theirs, for no other reason that because they are ours?

[mainer]

334. "Part of Western culture?" FALSE FALSE FALSE!

Fewer than 20% of male infants in western Europe are circumcised. It is primarily a Jewish, American, and African tradition.

In fact, in some Scandinavian countries, the rate of circumcision is close to 0 percent -- and in those countries, only 6 out of 100,000 males go on to have medical reasons for circumcision in adulthood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

[Devil_Fish]

268. I wish I wasn't. I wish I had the oppurtunity to choose to be cut or not.

[Chan790]

278. OOOOHH!!! Me! Me!! me!

One should never make statements like:

"I've never met a person who was cut who wishes they hadn't been."

if one doesn't want to look like an idiot when people line up to be counted against your polling statement.

[waddirum]

409. Well you're meeting one now (at least virtually)

NT

[proteus_lives]

74. Authoritarian bullshit.

[Ignis]

79. Circumcision? Yeah, it is.

Glad we agree. :hug:

[proteus_lives]

82. What other decisions would you like Nanny to make for you?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

89. For adults? Not many. For children unable to give informed consent for elective cosmetic surgery?

Well, at least one.

[proteus_lives]

94. Parent's choice.

Not mine, not yours and not that of a jag-off city council.

Too bad your unwilling to understand that.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

103. So in your un-bigoted world

parents can do whatever they want to their children because they are 'The Parents'?

[proteus_lives]

105. When did I say that?

You're floundering.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

107. I don't flounder

You wrote the following;

"Parent's choice.

Not mine, not yours and not that of a jag-off city council.

Too bad your unwilling to understand that".

[Ignis]

173. What else should parents be allowed to snip off thier children?

Please provide a list of what you consider to be acceptable elective cosmetic surgeries, and we can discuss them.

Personally, I'm planning to cut off my daughter's earlobes. They're not necessary, and they'll just get in the way when she's washing. Besides which, I hear Gawd hates earrings.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

197. Aside question

Are you going for a deleted message world record or something like that?

If so, I must commend you on an impressive job.

[Ignis]

201. I commend the vigilance of our Alerters.

:patriot:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

204. I missed the party. Ah well, there's still a few crumbs left. -nt

[proteus_lives]

236. No way man.

I've seen way, way worse threads.

And if was so objectionable, they would deleted the whole sub-thread.

[Devil_Fish]

273. What other decisions would you like your parents to make for you? how about a tatoo across your face

[ProudDad]

111. Yep, circumcision is authoritarian bullshit..

And religionist nonsense...

Piss on ALL bullshit religions...

[Douglas Carpenter]

81. there is a sizable Jewish community AND a sizable Muslim community in San Francisco

Obviously this will not fly with either of these two groups. Perhaps this is one issue where both religious communities might feel that their religious practice is under siege and there is at least one issue where they can unite

But aside from the religious angle and regardless what people may personally think about circumcision, such legislation is going to strike most Americans as out-of-touch authoritarian-nanny-state PC.

No doubt, some will wonder, what next? Are they going to try to pass laws against sending children to Sunday School or Catechism Class or Hebrew School because they consider this subjecting children to religious indoctrination?

Those who oppose male circumcision should feel free to try to convince parents not to have it done on their children. But most Americans, will not accept the law mandating such a prohibition.

[ProudDad]

113. Let 'em go to Daly City... (n/t)

[cyr330]

213. There's a HUGE Jewish Community here and a sizeable Muslim one

[defendandprotect]

91. Good for SF ....

[Ter]

96. San Francisco is no longer a liberal city, it has now become a bastion of Socialism

First the handgun ban, then the plastic bag ban, then the Happy Meal ban, now this. The hell with them, let them dare try and put this into law. Any lawmaker who supports this over there needs to have Federal Marshals at their door and haul their asses to prison!

[ProudDad]

115. You must be fucking kidding! What a bullshit post if you're not!

And you should fuckin' talk -- New Jersey :rofl:

[Ter]

123. I don't joke about liberty and crimes against the Constitution

These laws are exactly what brought the rise of the tea baggers, and will bring many more with this doozy.

I also do not live in NJ, it was my place of birth. I do not choose to disclose my current location.

[Politicub]

134. Oh, please. Do get off that cross... somebody needs the wood

or the foreskin as it were.

Be proud of where you are. Stand up for liberty and justice as the constitution tells you to do. Water that tree of liberty, baby. Make the ground really wet and saturated.

As for the teabaggers, I salute them with a hearty fuck you. Social justice has a pesky way of winning when all is said and done.

[JackRiddler]

151. I see. The solution for evil "socialism" is to have federal marshals knock down some doors...

and imprison politicians. Gotcha.

[Ignis]

186. !

:spray:

[David__77]

156. Socialism is a worthy goal. I would choose socialism any day.

San Francisco is a capitalist city, not a socialist one, however.

[fascisthunter]

181. funny, because what you characterize as "socialism" is the same way the right wing does

[xor]

319. Ummm.... How the hell does that describe socialism?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

[somone]

98. How about a law banning bad blow jobs or something

while they're at it

[rug]

125. There are no bad blow jobs.

[Crunchy Frog]

99. It'll never happen, at least not in this lifetime

but I wish it would. It's the sort of thing that should be illegal, but our society is too invested in the practice.

[ProudDad]

106. Very good idea!!!

Wish I'd had the option...

I sure as FUCK wouldn't have opted to have an important part of my body hacked off...

[last_texas_dem]

137. San Francisco needs to cut it out.

[leftynyc]

138. WTF is wrong with San Francisco?

I don't need a fucking nanny. They're just as bad as those on the right who want to control my every action. That city can go fuck itself.

[slackmaster]

142. They think they can make up their own laws. Sometimes they can, but not in the case of medicine.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=bpc&group=01001-02000&file=2000-2029

[cyr330]

175. You've been listening to too much nut TV

as in Fox News. . . .

[leftynyc]

203. Your ignorance is showing

I never watch fox and the only one I watch at all is Rachel. If I want to get my kid a happy meal with a toy, I don't need a fucking government nanny telling me no.

[cyr330]

220. Just what I figured. . .

someone who gets enraged about a happy meal but doesn't give a good goddamn about regressive tax policies or the sale of our nation to the most rich and affluent. Figures. You sound like a Tea Party Nut Case who rails against "communism." Maybe those commie supervisors are going to ruin your life by taking away your Happy Meal while you drown in debt and don't have insurance.

[leftynyc]

327. WTF are you babbling about?

Was this thread about tax policy or communism? No, it was about happy meals and government overreach. Now go take a xanax.

[jancantor]

392. San Francisco (Newsom) Performed Same Sex Marriages When they were illegal

in California. I would suggest most people here didn't criticize them for that. To some extent, it depends on whether they agree with the underlying cause SF is trying to promote, EVEN IF they have no authority to do so. If and when SF passed a medical ordinance it would be illegal, just like their performing same sex marriage.

Fwiw, I 100% support same sex marriage, but I was 100% against the stunt that Newsom pulled by ordering city officials to perform them.

And if we want to talk true nannyism let's talk about WA, where it's a C felony to play online poker, but the state itself sells lottery tickets and casinos are everywhere.

And the state is banning alcoholic energy drinks based on... some college kids who got drunk at a party.

[mainer]

147. Post-op complications from circumcision:

estimated at 2 - 10%

http://menshealth.about.com/od/genitalsexualissues/a/circum_comp.htm

And let's not forget that there've been accidental amputations and even deaths from infant circumcisions, which is totally unacceptable for an elective procedure.

Why on earth would you place your precious son at risk (albeit a small one) merely to fulfill some cultural obligation?

[fascisthunter]

160. When and if I have a child, no way am I doing this to him

[Ignis]

187. Thanks for trying to inject facts, but I fear it will have no effect.

Some people simply believe they have a right to snip away at parts of their children for aesthetic reasons, and damn the medical, sexual, or psychological consequences.

[RZM]

149. Oh my . . .

I must be out of the loop. I had no idea there was a vibrant anti-circumcision lobby. :rofl:

[Sirveri]

240. NOCIRC is based under 20 miles from SF. SF is actually at the epicenter for the movement.

San Anselmo and surroundings have like 3 separate anti-circumcision groups. They aren't very well funded however. You've also got the natural birth and hippy groups over in Berkeley.

[Luciferous]

150. Some people have way too much time on their hands. Aren't there bigger issues to worry about?

[Eryemil]

418. What is exactly is more important than the right to a whole, healthy? n|t

[AngryAmish]

155. What a collection of jerks

[David__77]

157. If I had a son, I would NOT opt for circumcision.

And I do not think that limiting the practice to adults is at all unreasonable. If there are so many health benefits, they can encourage adult men to surgically alter their penises.

[hayu_lol]

164. San Francisco would be doing the world a favor if they tossed...

nuts like this petitioner off one of their scenic bridges.

Time for that city to proclaim that for every apartment unit and every single family home in San Francisco to have adequate parking spaces.

As a first grader, had a pair of brothers as friends. One was about my age and the other was 12. The older boy developed an infection from smegma buildup under his foreskin(neither boy had had the surgery). The swelling was 'awesome.' They both had the operations done, both were out of school for more than a week and both were in tremendous pain.

Parking in San Francisco is a more important problem.

[mainer]

183. Funny how Europeans and Chinese do fine with their foreskins

It's only tender American boys who get horrid smegma infections and life-threatening sicknesses from a part of their body they're BORN WITH.

[Crunchy Frog]

267. It's called FAPS.

Faulty American Penis Syndrome.

[David__77]

195. Proper hygiene seems easier than surgery.

Daily bathing would seem sufficient for almost everyone. In most of the world, the emergency rooms are not clogged by boys with smegma-related infections.

[Ignis]

202. That's just crazy talk!

After all, we remove all babies' tonsils and appendices at birth, too!

Er, wait....

[fascisthunter]

159. Thank you Mom and Dad for not Circumcizing me

I prefer the sensitivity, thanks...

as for this? I can think of more important issues to legislate upon, but there is an argument here for mutilation, regardless whether it is a cultural or religious tradition. Anyway, to each's own.

Also above, a poster made a great point about allowing the kids to grow up so that they can make that decision themselves. Seems fair to me...

[JonLP24]

161. Reading this thread is painful

It is all in my head though.

My .02. If I had the choice, I wouldn't do it. Unfortunately I didn't. I'm not sure why I was, my parents never were religious.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

163. It's not SAN FRANCISCO doing this, you jack asses --

It is one resident who wants to start a petition. :eyes; Fer fucks sake, do you guys not read what is being said in that article???

Same with the whole "Happy Meal ban" bullshit -- nothing is getting "banned" -- a kid can get a cheap, Chinese-made toy with their meal -- that meal just needs to be healthier than the current option.

Get some reading comprehension, folks.

[Ignis]

171. You can't expect people to read an article EIGHT sentences long!

The horror! :scared:

[Hell Hath No Fury]

209. Al I can say is --

:banghead:

[Ignis]

218. "SF latte Liberals! MARXISM! SOCIALISM! Yargle blargle blargh!"

A lot of the above could have been avoided by reading the damned eight sentences.

It's. Just. One. Guy. With. A. Petition.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

224. Yep. The glee with which people jump at the outrage is revealing. -nt

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

200. Aw, but left-bashing is such righteous fun! Why let those pesky facts get in the way?

Lying for the Lord is not a sin!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

212. Well said

[NuttyFluffers]

390. DU illiteracy strikes again. Remember, we walk over dying people at BART cuz they look homeless, too

oh wait, that was between the hours of 2 am ~ 6 am, when BART was closed and almost no one is wandering the streets (let alone a deep sub-level BART stairwell where the guy was laying)!

nope, this is nothing but a pattern of DU illiteracy: read a headline and rush forth with your soapbox and indignation! because everyone needs to hear your righteousness drip forth like honey from your lips. too bad there's such a mob crowding you out doing the same thing...

you have absolutely pegged it, reading comprehension issues. maybe DU is too amped up on outrage fatigue to bother reading with any sort of real attention? TL;DR syndrome? if so, at least admit one's ignorance of not even reading the material in the first place. admitting ignorance looks so much better than pontificating from a position of ignorance, IMHO.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

165. Unrecomended for --

the source's completetly inaccurate headline -- this is one man's crusade, "San Francisco" ain't doing shit right now.

[cyr330]

170. STUPID!!!

It's actually a public health risk NOT to circumcise, as uncircumcised men have a much higher rate of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV, and also they are more likely to catch urinary tract infections, etc. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!!

Nonetheless, I live in San Francisco, and this is the FIRST I've heard of this measure, so is it actually a fact, or is it just somebody wanting to bash "Liberal" San Francisco again?

ON EDIT-- I feel like an idiot, as I didn't read the entire post before responding. Now that I see that it's just a city resident who wants to put it on the ballot, I feel much better. This will NEVER pass, even if it DOES make it onto the ballot.

[Crunchy Frog]

274. Yes, that's why the Europeans are plagued with

much lower STD rates than the United States. :eyes:

[Eryemil]

356. You'd think that a member of the community most affected by HIV would be better imformed. I hope you

are not relying on your flayed cock to keep you safe.

First of all, all these studies that have been done about the impact of circumcision on the incidence of HIV infection only apply to heterosexual intercourse; specifically female to male transfer which is the least common source of HIV infections. Studies have shown that circumcision has no impact on male-to-male transfer. Secondly, the most recent, highly-publicized studies were done in Sub-Saharan Africa and whatever their results, they simply have no impact in the developed world.

The United States is one of the countries in the developed world most plagued by HIV; at the height of the AIDS epidemic that decimated our community most men were circumcised. While intact Europe easily rebuffed the spread of this disease, people in the US were dying like rats.

YOU are an example of the ignorance and misinformation that has led to our community in the US to still be plagued by this horrible disease and part of the reason American gay men of my generation are contracting HIV faster than ever. You are a disgrace to the memory every gay man that died during the AIDS crisis for spreading these lies to defend an archaic, barbaric tradition that has not place in a civilized society.


Also, UTIs are easily treatable with antibiotics and only more common in intact males during the first years of life. They are also much more common in females, yet strangely enough we do not butcher their genitals as a preemptive measure.

[cyr330]

428. Had to laugh when I read your post. . .

As you seem to make yourself the "expert" on "genital mutilation." Do you take yourself for a urologist?

but wait! You know more than a urologist or any other medical professional because you're the expert!

[Eryemil]

439. The research and statistics agree with me. One does not have to be an expert to be educated;

all of the humanity's knowledge is at your fingertips, you merely require a desire to learn. If I showed you some scientific articles, would you read them or cast them aside with a look in order to preserve your beliefs?

[mainer]

185. In western Europe, circumcision rate < 20%

And this is in countries with national health coverage, where you would think that governments would do what's good for the health of their population. So why don't they mandate circumcision if it's so necessary for infant health?

Maybe because it isn't.


Europe

]Less than 20%
The following countries have a circumcision rate of less than 20%: Iceland,<5> United Kingdom,<5><33> Ireland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain, France, Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Slovakia, Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Ukraine, Austria, Belarus, Cyprus, Georgia.<5>
A national survey on sexual attitudes in 2000 found that 15.8% of men or boys in the United Kingdom (ages 16–44) were circumcised. 11.7% of 16-19 year olds, and 19.6% of 40-44 year olds said they had been circumcised. It also found that, apart from black Caribbeans, men born overseas were more likely to be circumcised.<33> Rickwood et al. reported that the proportion of English boys circumcised for medical reasons had fallen from 35% in the early 1930s to 6.5% by the mid-1980s. An estimated 3.8% of male children in the UK in 2000 were being circumcised by the age of 15.<34> The researchers stated that too many boys, especially under the age of 5, were still being circumcised because of a misdiagnosis of phimosis. They called for a target to reduce the percentage to 2%.
Denniston reported in 1996 that the neonatal circumcision rate in Finland is zero and that the rate of later circumcision is 1 in 16,667.<35> Similarly, Wallerstein estimated in 1980 that the Finnish rate of adult circumcision for health reasons is six per 100,000.<36> Schoen et al., however, reported in 2006 that data from 1996-1998 indicate a circumcision rate of about 7.1%;<37> Houle reported the same figure in 2007.<38> Finland's Ministry of Social Affairs and Health reported in 2004 that, "some 500-1000 circumcisions are performed as a therapeutic measure annually in Finnish hospitals",<39> amounting to 710 nationwide cases in 2002.<40>
The overall prevalence of circumcision in Spain is reported to be 1.8%.<9>
In 1986, only 511 out of approximately 478,000 Danish boys aged 0–14 years were circumcised. This corresponds to a cumulative national circumcision rate of around 1.6% by the age of 15 years.<41>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

[Kurska]

205. Sounds less like San Fransisco 2010 and more like Nuremberg 1935 n/t

[JackRiddler]

216. First they didn't come for the foreskins... and nothing happened.

Yeah, the proposal is clearly aimed at the extermination of peoples.

[Kurska]

293. First they remove the jew's ability to practice their faith one bullshit law at a time.

But go ahead and lecture me on how it is totally okay that a several thousand year old jewish custom be put to popular vote.

[Eryemil]

312. Appeal to tradition; it's a logical fallacy. The age of a tradition has no bearing on its moral

impact. There are hundreds of cruel ancients traditions that modern man has rightfully abolished, and with good cause.
The Jews are not special little snowflakes that get to harm their children simply because their sky fairy tell them they are allowed.

[JackRiddler]

329. Note also the paranoia that this is aimed at Jews more than Muslims or others...

...who practice this insanity because the Sky God told them to (which, by the way, he didn't, given the ambiguity of what practices are actually described in these "scriptures.")

For a start, I'd be very happy to see genital mutilation of any kind removed from medical practice of any kind. No doctor should be doing this. The majority of US males have had their genitals mutilated, and they are NOT Jewish. For a hundred years it was done by doctors in the name of "hygiene" originally backed by life-hating ideas about the evils of masturbation.

No doubt there will be religious exceptions for a long time. It's a start to rescue the majority of non-Jewish, non-Muslim males who fall prey to the practice. Let the Mumbo Makers of the religions practice the mutilation in their own ceremonies.

Gradually, those who do it for "religious reasons" have already begun to awaken.

http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/attorneys-for-the-rights-of-child-newsletter/mi_8080/is_200710/jewish-intactivists-stop-circumcising/ai_n50562954/

Jewish "Intactivists" In U.S. Stop Circumcising

By Helen Chernikoff

New York Times

October 3, 2007

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/ lifestyle-circumcision.html

NEW YORK (Reuters) - In most respects, Michelle Chernikoff Anderson is a rabbi's dream congregant. She sings in the choir and takes classes at her synagogue. But, like an increasing number of Jews in the United States, she has decided not to circumcise her son, rejecting the traditional notion that it is a Biblically prescribed sign of the Jewish relationship with God. "I see circumcision as a blood ritual that I can let go of," said Anderson, who lives in Southern California. Her position is in harmony with a wider decline in circumcision in the United States.

About 85 percent of all American boy babies were circumcised at its peak in 1965, according to a National Opinion Research Center survey. By 2004, it had fallen to about 57 percent, reflecting the increased birth rate among Hispanics, who are less likely to circumcise their sons, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows. "Circumcision's out of the closet. It's not a taboo subject anymore. People are talking about it. Parents are talking about it," said Dr. Mark Reiss, a synagogue-goer in the San Francisco area and executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision.

Among those talking about it is a gaggle of young, male, Jewish commentators. This year alone, in books, online and in magazines, authors Neal Pollack, Sam Apple, Jonathan Safran Foer and Shalom Auslander have all fretted about doing to their sons what was done to them. The title of Auslander's memoir, scheduled for publication in October, is "Foreskin's Lament." Circumcision is even before the courts. In November, the Oregon Supreme Court will rule on whether a convert to Judaism can force his 12-year-old son to undergo the procedure.

"INTACTIVIST"

Reiss, who calls himself an "intactivist," maintains a roster of 50 officiants who conduct nonsurgical alternatives to the bris, traditionally performed on the eighth day after a boy's birth. He says he fields as many as five queries weekly from conflicted parents. At the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center in Boston, director Ron Goldman maintains a list of 400 names of Jews who refuse to circumcise their sons.

SNIP (UM... You know what I mean?)

[Kurska]

339. The Jews have a right to practice their religion, if you don't believe it I'm sure you understand

what the jews will think of you.

[Eryemil]

342. Why the fuck would I care about what they think of me? Like everyone else, they have a right to hold

whatever beliefs they wish as long as it does not harm others. Even their own children have the right to be protected from their parents cruelty.

By the way, there are Jews, both secular and religious that have abandoned circumcision and I respect and admire them for it as I would anyone else.

[Kurska]

360. Denying Jews the ability to follow our religion is harming us.

Circumcision is right there in the Jewish holy book as a command of god, if you have a issue with it then you have a issue with Jews, one which I hope you sincerely manage to work out. Just keep your damn nose out of our religious practices.

[haifa lootin]

425. Aren't you supposed to write it G-d?

That's what my Jewish friends tell me. By the way, Richard Dawkins in "The God Delusion" makes a compelling case for the charge that forcing ANY religion (and its practices) on young children is in itself a particularly vile form of child abuse.

[Ignis]

217. ...

[Kurska]

294. Good to know we can't call anti-semitic laws anti-semitic on the internet.

Maybe we can ban kosher slaughter next.

[Ignis]

350. I sure hope we do ban shechita. It can result in incredible cruelty.

Sure, it can be relatively painless if performed perfectly--but as anyone who's been following the news over the past few years knows, it's rarely performed perfectly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/national/30cnd-kosh.html?_r=3&ex=1142053200&en=70f0eae998077038&ei=5070&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

But I can't wait to hear how one guy with a petition in SF equals "anti-Semitic laws." Be sure to limber up before you make that big stretch. :hi:

[Name removed]

359. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

382. Oh, the drama. I'm not "advocating denying the Jews meat."

:eyes: That's really beyond the pale.

And this would no more be an "anti-Semitic law" than a ban on FGM--which I sure hope is passed by the UN soon--would be an "anti-Muslim" or "anti-African" law.

I don't hear you decrying bans on public nudity as "anti-Pagan" laws, either. Funny how narrow your outrage is focused here. :shrug:

[Crunchy Frog]

452. Wow, just read that.

On the 30-minute tape, each animal is placed in a rotating drum so it can be killed while upside down, as required by Orthodox rabbis in Israel. Immediately after the shochet, or ritual slaughterer, has slit the throat, another worker tears open each steer's neck with a hook and pulls out the trachea and esophagus. The drum rotates, and the steer is dumped on the floor. One after another, animals with dangling windpipes stand up or try to; in one case, death takes three minutes.

I'm all for religious freedom when it involves attending a particular house of worship, celebrating particular holidays, emphasizing particular scriptures, and placing oneself under various religious disciplines that one has chosen for themselves.

When it extends to practicing body modifications on non-consenting minors, or the sort of gratuitous cruelty described in that article, I lose my sympathy.

[AtheistCrusader]

221. Someone translate, I can't read gibberish.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

223. "People I don't like are Nazis."

[Kurska]

292. Laws that keep jews from practicing one of the tenants of their faith are anti-semitic.

But please go ahead and mock me, you don't have family who suffered in the cruelness of those years.

[Eryemil]

313. Wah wah.

Cry me a fucking river. Having been oppressed is also not a carte blanche to harm others.

[Kurska]

338. "Wah Wah Wah" at a refrence to the holocaust?

How in the name of all that is mighty are you still posting here? Don't you have a rally to get to or something?

[Eryemil]

341. No past event, no matter how horrific, justifies injustice in the present.

Humans have been trying to exterminate each other for a hundred thousand years; the holocaust is just one of these many attempts and it is not the most recent or the most effective.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass."

[Kurska]

358. And denying the Jews a key religious practice is INJUSTICE of the highest degree.

Me and the rest of the Jewish community DEEPLY THANKYOU for your input on how to follow the orders of god, but we humbly request you get the hell out of our private religious practices, because they are none of your god damn business.

[Eryemil]

372. Your rights end at the treshold of another's person. Most people agrees with you, for now but

the wheel is turning and there will come a day when it will be a crime to mutilate the bodies of children. Your beliefs, any religious belief, is worthless in my eyes but you have every right to believe whatever delusion your brain's managed to cook up as long as it is in no way forced upon those that will not or cannot consent.

If performing circumcisions on infants was absolutely necessary, there would be no converts to Judaism. Religions are pragmatic when it comes to their own self-interest. You will adapt. Did you know that practically all Jews alive today are the descendants of converts to the religion instead of being descended from an original stock?

Also, this will be my reply to you unless your posts are more relevant to actual arguments in favor or against circumcision. Spending so much time discussing this ridiculous crap just lends credibility to your delusions.

[Kurska]

374. "Did you know that practically all Jews alive today are the descendants of converts to the religion"

Studies of the Y chromosome in jews have proven that the vast majority of Jews today are decedents of the original Israelites. Those that are not are normally very recent converts. Your little theory there was peddled by white supremest in the early 1900 hundreds as a means to prove that Europeans not Jews are the actual decedents of the Israelites, it has tragically stuck around after being regurgitated by idiots mindlessly such as you are doing.

[Eryemil]

376. The article I read was pretty recent. I admit I've never had much interest in the subject.

According to Wikipedia you might be right, at least it says that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from people that lived in the Middle East.

[Kurska]

378. Indeed, the theory was Ashkenazi Jews were decedents of Khazar converts.

This has been proven not to be the case.

[Kurska]

298. I'm afraid you might just not be able to read.

Because that is in perfect English.

[haifa lootin]

226. Maybe this "one city resident" got a too-agressive blowjob?

Hey, anything is possible...

:eyes: :crazy: :shrug:

[w4rma]

228. I doubt it will pass the vote. There are no religous exceptions & without them its unconstitutionall

[Sirveri]

241. How is it unconstitutional?

The courts, in the cases involving hardcore Christian scientists have already found that there are limits to what parents can do to their children in the name of religion.

[Name removed]

239. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[proteus_lives]

242. So we're back to Muslims, Jews and etc being barbarians, huh?

:eyes:

[Eryemil]

243. Anyone that tortures or mutilates other human beings against their will is beyond contempt and

religious disillusions are no excuse. Is it that easy to forget that Muslims mutilate females as well as males? The only reason you hypocrites defend one expression of religious freedom and condemn the other is because you happen to practice the "acceptable" one. How fucking convenient.

[Sandrine for you]

254. Circumcision: mutilations and tortures ? Hyperbolic not beyond contempt

Maybe you should talk to young muslim boys who just got their circumcision, talk about mutilation and torture with them, just to see.

[Eryemil]

277. Maybe you should talk to women that have been circumcised; see what they tell you.

[Sandrine for you]

283. I asked some muslim young boys about that, they did not feel mutilated or tortured Message:

In fact, I did not ask it in this term, it could be very insulting for them.

I do not know any women that have been circumcised, but I know a couple of sexotherapists who report about their female patients who live that. Nothing to compare with the male circumcision, it's a false comparison. That's also why the female circumcision is considerate as a mutilation by the US federal government, and not the male circumcision.

Also, the female circumcision is not large practice in the world muslim community, in fact, it is not relate to the fact of being muslim, it's an old tradition that exist before the coming of Islam, and a lot of important muslim sharia leader in Africa are stating that's it's a punishable crime, nothing to compare with the male circumcision.

So stop saying things like: "Is it that easy to forget that Muslims mutilate females as well as males?" It's false, it's showing some islamophobia of your part, and it's a false comparison.

[proteus_lives]

285. Your hyperbole destroys your argument.

[Devil_Fish]

245. The fine is not stiff enough (no pun intended). NT

[Canuckistanian]

258. Whoa, who's talking testicles, here?

I can think of NO culture that excises testicles, except for the freak culture of Baroque Italian opera singers.

Is there some resurgence of castrati that I haven't heard of?

[Kurska]

296. Eunuchs were commonly used as palace guards in some eastern societies.

Certainly a practice that has fallen out of favor, but at one time yes it did happen.

[Eryemil]

314. And according to your arguments above it is a tradittion that should be completely

acceptable simply because it is ancient.

[Kurska]

364. Shouldn't you be out "Forcing the Jews to adapt"? n/t

[Eryemil]

366. When I am having so much fun rubbing your face on your own irrationality? No.

[Kurska]

371. Oh good you're taking a break from trying to force your opinions on the Jews.

Mazel tov

[Eryemil]

373. My superior foreskinned chopper will devour you naked little mushroom.

They call it docking.

[Kurska]

375. My god blessed cock would be too much for you to handle. Better men then you have failed n/t

[Eryemil]

377. Stingy God

When your god's blessing leaves you with less than you started with, well there's a problem, in my opinion. Granted, my experience with Jews is limited but your penes are not any different from any other circumcised white guy I've seen.

Maybe I need to go out and find myself an obedient Jewish boy and take a closer look. Since you've admitted to having tried docking, maybe you can send a few my way.

[Kurska]

380. Oh no problem at all, I'll send a few and then keep them coming (as I hope you will).

Or if you find yourself that hard up on them, you could try tel aviv, largest gay community in the middle east and the best nightlife around.

I'd volunteer myself, but I think the term obedient already excludes me.

[Eryemil]

381. You're being too nice. It's not a fun when they don't bite back.

Well, try to anyway. Also, obedience can be taught.

I've seen vids of Tel Aviv pride, pretty impressive. Then again, I imagine having the largest gay community in the Middle East is not too much of a race when the neighbors keep beheading and hanging the competition. There's something really wrong with that region; think of how much conflict could have been spared if Jerusalem had been built in Antartica.

[Kurska]

385. Obedience taught? I'm not just another wild horse you can break in.

At least not easily.

Anyways, I think of tel aviv in this way, how harsh the desert is seems to correlated directly with how beautiful the oasis is. Tel Aviv is that oasis, wonderful city my stay was too short...

[Eryemil]

387. You wouldn't be the first to say so but with a firm hand and the right incentive. . .

And you come neatly docked too; saves me the trouble.

[Lucian]

275. I like this.

I had part of my dick hacked off when I was an infant, and I'm pissed. No one should make the decision to hack off part of an infant boy's tallywhacker except the boy himself. No one.

[Devil_Fish]

281. +100,000

[junior college]

282. Both of my boys were born at UCSF and both are uncircumcised

We weren't sure what to do with the first born but the nurse who was supposed to perform the procedure, I think she was a nurse, talked us out of it. Then, four years later when our second was born they tried to talk us into getting him circumcised. Apparently the medical opinion on circumcision changes with the wind.

[Withywindle]

284. I'd sign the petition.

I don't have either a penis or a son, so I guess I have no "right" to an opinion, but no one has ever--ever--shown me a really truly convincing reason for performing an irrevocable surgical operation on a child FOR NO REAL MEDICAL REASON.

Religion? Well, fine. Let the kid make that choice when he's old enough to understand the religion.

I think a lot of parents don't understand that their cuddly new baby is, in fact, a stranger. Another person. You don't even know who he is yet. You just met. You'll have to be with him a while to learn who he is.

Maybe he'll be down with your god and his weird fetishes, maybe not. (Seriously, JHVH. Foreskins? REALLY? Why foreskins? Why not the left pinky nail, or the bottom third of the right earlobe, or a piece of that little fold of flab under the armpit when your arms are down no matter HOW hard you plow or fish or weave....)

I really don't get why this is complicated. It's not YOUR dick. It's your son's dick, and he is a whole other person. Nature's not stupid. There is nothing wrong with our bodies as they are made. I'm 41 and I still have my tonsils, my appendix, and all but one of my wisdom teeth, and those are things way more likely to cause medical problems. LEAVE YOUR CHILDREN'S BODIES ALONE UNLESS THERE IS A SERIOUS NEED TO DO OTHERWISE.


Anyway. Yeah. That's why I'd sign it.

[Kurska]

299. Jews have to be circumcised shortly after birth.

It isn't a "Wait till you're 18" thing, you either do it or you are not upholding the covenant with god.

[Withywindle]

303. Yeah, I know that.

BUT--in the Torah, Abraham did it AS AN ADULT to establish his covenant with god.


(It still comes back to the same question - why does God care so much about foreskins? Honestly? I really don't get it. It comes off a sick fetish to me.)

[Kurska]

361. Yes, because the Abraham covenant didn't exist before then.

You're basically telling Jews they aren't allowed to follow their religion until they are 18, because not being circumcised is a violation of that covenant.

[Sirveri]

315. That's not actually true. There are Jews who have abandoned the procedure.

In addition, even if it's not done, it's an issue for the parents, not the child. The law falls on the father, not on the child.

[Name removed]

317. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kurska]

362. "they will too be forced to adapt. " Wow, just wow.

There is no way to respond to that besides, you are not the first and you will not be the last who has tried to snuff out the practices of Judaism. Whether the entire religion or even just aspects of it like you propose.

And like all the others you too will fail.

[Eryemil]

368. We'll see about that. It is not through violence that this custom will end but through education and

marginalization. As I said, there are Jews today that are already abandoning the practice; more will follow. But ultimately, as respect for human rights and autonomy grows any group that practices any form of mutilation will be increasingly pushed to the boundaries of society unless they change.

The Maori of New Zealand used to consume human flesh and considered it a key aspect of their culture. They do not, anymore.

[Kurska]

370. Like I said, The Jews deeply respect and value your opinion (right), but keep your damn nose out of

our religion. This isn't a hard concept to get, remarkably rmeinds me of the fact some people can't get over what gays do in their private life.

People have been trying to "marginalize and educate" the Jews for almost as long as people have been outright killing us.

[mainer]

337. Why does god care about foreskins? Has anybody explained that?

Because I can't figure out why He would go to all the bother of creating little babies with foreskins, and then demand we snip those foreskins off.

Frankly, it makes God sound kind of creepy. The kind of guy who'd write a book about infant foreskin fetishes, which he'd then publish on Amazon.

[JackRiddler]

344. No, they don't. That's what certain religious fantasists say who think they speak for "god."

Anyway, I'd be happy in this case to start with preventing damage to the 90 percent of penises who belong neither to Jews nor to Muslims.

[mainer]

326. I never got the foreskin fetish, either.

Why are religions so obsessed with dicks?

[Sandrine for you]

289. Jesus was circumcised ;) nt

[Orrex]

297. I agree with you that circumcision is every bit as bad as crucifixion.

Worse, even. The worst-est.

[Eryemil]

316. Jesus is a myth. Osiris' body was cunt into a hundred pieces and scattered all over Egypt.

Now why couldn't religious people emulate that godly practice? It would spare the rest of us so much grief.

[JackRiddler]

345. No more than any fictional character can be.

[marzipanni]

300. Something boys used to learn in shop, girls in sewing class

Be careful not to cut too much off; you can always trim a little more, but you can't add any on.

[sarcasmo]

321. More out of control Government. Next up, no whacking off.

[Crunchy Frog]

354. How about no adults whacking off minors?

Or is that too much of a government imposition?

[Ignis]

383. And there's the slippery slope.

If Big Gub'mint (booga booga!) has absolutely no right to interfere with the things a parent wishes to do to his/her child's body....

[ishaneferguson]

324. Sacramental wine

How about banning sacramental wine for children under 21 years of age ?

[Eryemil]

355. Is your stupidity congenital, genetic or did they extirpate most of your neurons when they

cut off a chunk of your cock?

There's simply no difference between the two; circumcision causes direct and irrevocable damage. Amputation of a healthy, fully-functioning organ simply cannot compare to drinking a bit of watered-down wine every Sunday. What the fuck is wrong with you?

[alp227]

325. Uhh, "black market" anyone?

Does this resident know the effects of the War on Drugs? I think that banning circumcision is going to create a black market and make things worse for the kids. Wonder how the voters in SF (who usually vote Democrat and overwhelmingly against stuff like Prop 8 and for Prop 19) will react; at least this is a ballot initiative.

[Sirveri]

332. yes, because a 49 square mile city will cause a mass black market surgical market to appear.

They can just drive outside the city and get it done there.

[Kurska]

363. Why does this sound remarkably like abortion bans to me?

Something equally as unjust as this.

[Sirveri]

384. The parallels to abortion aren't what you think they are.

Abortion violates the womans right to choose what she does with her body (and has a 13th amendment defense)
Circumcision violates the males right to choose what he does with his body.

The parents have a duty to protect the child from harm. In the case of circumcision it is not recommended by any medical organisation on earth, and thus is best classed as cosmetic surgery. Do parents have the right to perform non-therapeutic cosmetic surgery on their children, for any reason? Are minors a protected class in the legal sense? Does the federal law banning any female genital cutting on minors stand up to a 14th amendment challenge?

[Kurska]

386. If you ask a Jew they tell you that not having their child circumcised is harming them.

Female genital mutliation isn't a religious practice and it has a obvious negative effect on a woman's ability to even enjoy sex. The comparison isn't close to valid.

[Sirveri]

388. The law isn't against FGM, it's against genital cutting.

The law as written prevents even a pin prick to a female minors genitals. So it is quite comparable. As for the Jews, if there were a special exemption, from people who consider RIC (routine infant circumcision) to be harm, then they would effectively be saying that they believe children of Jews (or Muslims) are of less worth than other children. Finally, circumcision doesn't make a person Jewish, that is conferred by birth from a Jewish mother. In addition the forced cosmetic surgery upon another violates their future ability to join other religions, if the child so chooses to do so. Finally, the duty to circumcise doesn't fall on the child, it falls on the parents, in the case of a ban the typical response of the Jewish community is to simply continue on as Jews (see former USSR). Because of the high population density of the area any burden imposed by travel is non-existant, since there is a major hospital less than 3 miles from the SF border, and the city itself is only a 7 mile by 7 mile square.

[Vehl]

328. This law makes sense to me

How can we excuse permanently altering a child's body without any thought for its wishes?

[ozone_man]

335. Exactly.

Let an 18 year old make that decision.

Female or male genital mutilation is irreversible, reduces sexual pleasure, is a barbaric, religious ritual, goes against our natural evolution. Plus, it's got to hurt.

[cyr330]

437. Perhaps. . .

But whatever the case may be, it's not going to stop. IT won't be illegal anywhere in the USA, and if parents want it done, it's going to happen. I was circumcised as a child, and I've never given a rat's ass about it, and even if I did, it's already been done!

As an RN, I've actually witnessed it being done to newborns, and it is quite awful to see, as the babies SCREAM bloody hell. I'm glad I can't remember it being done to me!

[mainer]

336. Routine infant circumcision is a religion-based practice. PERIOD.

Everyone claiming it has health benefits is purposefully overlooking the fact that western European and Chinese infants are NOT routinely circumcised. In Finland, the rate of infant circumcision is about ZERO percent. Of those who are not circumcised, only 6 out of 100,000 boys in Finland go on to need it later during adulthood.

So if you are advocating circumsising every single male infant for "health reasons," you are advocating 100,000 surgical procedures, with inherent risks, to prevent medical issues that will never affect 999,994 infants.

If you want to use religion to advocate taking a knife to your newborn son, well, I guess you probably agree that Abraham was right to sacrifice his son Isaac as well. "Because God told me to" is as good a reason as any, I suppose.

[Taverner]

352. Watch and learn:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1cfLR-5mco

[mainer]

394. That is a HOOT. Thanks!

Isn't that Hank Azaria playing Abraham?

[Taverner]

396. Yep - and he's hilarious in the role

[MikeW]

367. The election makes perfect sense now ...

459 fucking posts about circumcision and

Very little discussion regarding real issues prior to the mid terms.

Unfreakingbelivable DU.

[Kurska]

369. People seem more concerned about trying to force their opinions on the Jews then

the fascist teaparty's attempted takeover of America.

[Proletariatprincess]

379. Come on, Mike. Lighten up.

This has been a great thread and it's been going on a few days now. I'm thoroughly enjoying it all...lol :popcorn:

[sammytko]

403. me too!

[Orrex]

393. And now, a limerick

This topic is such fertile soil
And the law brings the case to a boil.
And yet, even so
It still seems to go
Too far just to foil a mohel.

[HopeHoops]

395. Thanks for the "tip".

[rug]

404. Some heads need to be cut.

[Maine-ah]

419. bwhahahahaha

:rofl:

[liberaltrucker]

407. Kick from Teh Lounge

:)

[rurallib]

410. no body's going to read what I have to say in all this traffic.

Keep your heads up boys.

[TexasObserver]

431. "One city resident ...." Talk about much ado about nothing!

Parents will continue getting their boys circumcised, for whatever reason they want, and anyone who doesn't like it can get really upset about it, but no one will ever really care.

It's a non issue, like which way the paper goes on the toilet paper dispenser. People can get as emotionally invested as they like, but it's not going to change anything. Circumcision of young males is a part of our culture for many, and there's sufficient reasons to keep doing it that it will not change.

Taking out tonsils, giving kids vaccines, putting tubes into inner ears - also things that are done to kids that some find objectionable.

I wish people who worried about circumcision would spend more time simply being a decent parent, as bad parenting is what screws up most kids, not the existence or not of their foreskin.

[Eryemil]

444. And I wish people would educate themselves.

Do you believe that all cultures are created equal, and that all cultures have the intrinsic right to practice their traditions without interference? Or do believe that yours alone is worthy of that carte blanche? Is culture your only argument in favor of genital mutilation; and if that is the case do you support a parents choice to perform every other form of MGM on their offspring as well? What about female genital mutilations? Do you support a parents choice to perform all forms of it on their daughters or just some of them? Which ones?

[TexasObserver]

457. I wish people wouldn't think everyone has to agree with them.

Do you really think I haven't read and rejected your point of view already?

You have a point of view most don't share. When society shares your point of view, it will change.

[Name removed]

458. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

459. self delete

moot

[Eryemil]

460. You are still whining.

Why have you rejected my argument?

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but if you can't defend your position then anything you have to say becomes worthless. That's simple enough to understand, isn't it? For an argument to actually be an argument, it must actually be propped up by a supportive statement otherwise it is just a statement.

If I say that the sky is blue because blue light is more easily scattered in our direction and you say that the sky is red and do not support your statement, it doesn't mean that both positions are equally valid.

So I ask again; why do you reject my position?

[TexasObserver]

461. I rejected your argument because I find it unworthy.

You need to look up the word "whining," as it accurately describes your posts to me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whining (see #2, #3, #4, and #5)

You behave as if this is the first time I've ever considered the topic. I've told you've I've considered your arguments and found them lacking. As in real life, I don't need to tell you why I disagree with you, and don't need to answer your pleas to give you reasons.


Good evening.

[Eryemil]

462. Then I have ended up ahead in this exchange, lending further credibility to my position in the eyes

of every person reading this that rightfully expects that belief and tradition should not be enough to justify a moral position.

Your unwillingness to even state your argument shows either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. I don't deny that I was really hoping to rip your excuses to shreds but this is just as good.

Cheers!

[TexasObserver]

463. Your comments change no one's mind.

That's your folly - believing that anyone is convinced of anything by the virtue of your posts.

Everything that can be said about this topic, has been said. Here. In DU. Hundreds of times.

If you want to believe you alter anyone's opinion about anything other you, that's your option.

[Eryemil]

464. I HAVE changed minds. Why do you think I keep doing this, even though it is so emotionally painful?

There's rarely any hope for parents that have already circumcised their children; they MUST believe that what they did was right otherwise they would probably not be able to live with themselves. DU is mostly an aging community so I never jumped into this discussion hoping that everyone would "see the light". But I still speak up because it is the right thing to do.

I've countered every argument posed in this thread by the pro-circumcision side. This is not a very rational community but even here the fact that every single person I've responded to has been unable to justify their position is clear to anyone that reads this thread. To the DU contingent that believes that opinions can't be wrong and that all cultures are equal, my posts will simply go into one ear and come out the other but I imagine even now some are thinking about what I've written.

Let me tell you about someone who's mind I changed, not here but on another forum; the now defunct RichardDawkins.com forum, an atheist community. Atheists are generally more in favor of genital integrity in general but this particular young man (a Canadian) swore that he would circumcise his boys when he had them. Unlike practically everyone I've sparred with here in DU, he didn't back down, we fought back and forth for a dozen pages and in the end he was arguing on our side. He was not the first or the last, but what touched me was his ability to actually think rationally in the face of an overwhelming desire to maintain his point of view.

There is a reason why most of my conversations on this thread end abruptly and it is not because I am an asshole (which I am) but because after a certain point the person I was arguing with could simply not continue the conversation and still retain their original beliefs. You are no different.

[John Kerry VonErich]

434. There are two kinds of people in San Francisco

San Fraciscans, and dumb Friscos

[cyr330]

438. No cheese for me!

As for me, I'm quite content I'm circumcised. I don't miss having to peel back the foreskin to wash all the head cheese out whenever I'm bathing. I prefer my guys to be cut as well. It's so much nicer & absolutely CLEANER! Uncut penises tend to smell bad.

[Eryemil]

443. Uncut vaginas smell pretty bad too; I absolutely applaud those peoples smart enough to trim their

females of all those disgusting flaps of skin. It's so much nicer and absolutely cleaner; why rely on 21st century hygiene practices when we can just extirpate healthy, functional tissue in order to avoid having to wash ourselves.

Also, I am very glad you are content with the fact you are circumcised; but if you are not, you can always go ask your doctor to put it back right? Not like those poor intact souls that have no choice but to keep their foreskins whether they want it or not!

[Crunchy Frog]

454. You should see how offended people on DU get

over articles describing the increasing popularity of labiaplasty among grown women. Suddenly the grave concerns over unsightly flaps of extra skin and folds that collect gunk and smegma go right out the window. :rofl:

[Name removed]

455. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Crunchy Frog]

456. Yes, they actually convince them to squirt Lysol up there.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

465. As an adult female, cutting makes sex far more uncomfortable.

The foreskin is there to make sex easier. The man slides around inside his own skin instead of chafing the vagina. If the man is uncut, it's possible to have sex lots of times and not be uncomfortable. Which is exactly why the Victorians were so crazy about circumcision.

Unfortunately in my age group (baby boomer) the uncut ones are pretty rare. I think circumcision is a way to make sex uncomfortable, and reduce sensation for the male as well as making the female raw and sore. I suspect it makes premature ejaculation more common as well due to the keratinizing of the glans. I'm not a male, so I don't know.

The Rabbi Maimonides admitted circumcision was to weaken the male organ. Christopher Hitchens has mentioned this as one of the reasons religion is bad.

It really pisses me off that DH a)doesn't know what he's missing -- a few thousand nerve endings; and b)can't do anything about it; and c) his parents by their decision over sixty years ago messed up his sensations, and also mine as well.

I'm in favor of no circumcision except medical necessity unless it's the man's choice and he's at least 18.

You know there is a thriving industry in growing foreskin cells for medical products for huge profits, don't you?