Efforts to Ban Circumcision Gain Traction in California

[TomClash]

Source: NY Times

SANTA MONICA, Calif. — When a group of activists proposed banning circumcision in San Francisco last fall, many people simply brushed them aside. Even in that liberal seaside city, it seemed implausible that thousands of people would support an effort to outlaw an ancient ritual that Jews and Muslims believe fulfills a commandment issued by God.

But last month, the group collected the more than 7,100 signatures needed to get a measure on the fall ballot that would make it illegal to snip the foreskin of a minor within city limits. Now a similar effort is under way in Santa Monica to get such a measure on the ballot for November 2012.

If the anticircumcision activists (they prefer the term “intactivists”) have their way, cities across the country may be voting on whether to criminalize a practice that is common in many American hospitals. Activists say the measures would protect children from an unnecessary medical procedure, calling it “male genital mutilation.”

<snip, snip, snip>

Jewish groups see the ballot measures as a very real threat, likening them to bans on circumcision that existed in Soviet-era Russia and Eastern Europe and in ancient Roman and Greek times. The circumcision of males is an inviolable requirement of Jewish law that dates back to Abraham’s circumcision of himself in the Book of Genesis.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/us/05circumcision.html?hp

---

What an appalling and unconstitutional piece of legislation.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It won't survive constitutional challenge.

Not only due to the Free Exercise (of Religion) Clause of the First Amendment, but also due to the compulsory mandate.

Big difference between government mandate that carries penalties or prison for violation and a non-government physicians' association with its recommendations that carry no punishment.

[adds76355]

38. this

[formercia]

2. Banning Jews and Muslims is the goal

What a racist piece of trash.

The Nazis would make men suspected of being Jews drop their pants to see if they were circumcised.

[cali]

3. with their comic book Nazi imagery, those lobbying for the ban are

more effective at crippling their own efforts than those opposed to the ban. In any case, I think the answer is to educate people about how unnecessary circumcision is, not to try and ban it.

[Countdown_3_2_1]

16. I saw that: Its pre-WWII Nazi Propaganda come back to life.

That's why I think this inactivist deal is primarily racist in nature.

[John_Adams]

4. "anticircumcision activists..." You've gotta wonder what sort of intellectual impairment

is effecting these people. Clearly, they need professional help.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Can radiation make you think funny? Craaaaazy them. n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

6. If it were not for religion...

I doubt there would be much of a controversy allowing a child to grow up & make this very important PERSONAL decision themselves.

[Proletariatprincess]

7. Bravo!

That is exactly the point. I support this initiative 100%.

[cali]

9. it will fail. I think it's better to educate people that circumcision is

unnecessary.

[Proletariatprincess]

12. I think you are right...it will fail.

But it is a good effort. I don't think education would be effective because religious, cultural and traditional practices are not easily, if at all, influenced by logic or reason.
I believe that the discussion this initiative has generated (and there is a lot of it) is a good thing and that eventually we will see infant circumcision fade away in western society. I guess that is a form of education afterall....

[cali]

18. Education is succeeding. Rates of circumcision have been falling

and will continue to fall.

[SkyDaddy7]

10. I also think it is SAD to see so many here on DU...

supporting what is a form of genital mutilation...It might not go as far as some forms of female genital mutilation does but it is what it is...How so many can argue it is not baffles me.

Plus, I thought the god of the Bible was PERFECT when it comes to everything including his "Intelligent Design" of human beings? So why the need to alter it? Seriously, why?

[TomClash]

13. It is an ancient religious practice

that generally isn't harmful.

I don't care for religion much. But I suspect there is more to this "movement" than circumcision.

Calling circumcision "a form of genital mutilation" is not a stretch but a giant leap. Is there a circumscribed man who thinks his genitals have been mutilated?

[HereSince1628]

19. In the US it seems to also be a matter of fashion

That came to dominate by the middle of last century. Considering that Jewish and Muslim men are minority populations and circumcisions prevalence that reached 80% it seems obvious that many parents are not having neonatal circumcisions
done for religious reasons.


http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/USA

Historical rates estimated from three different sources



Prevalence in the US by geographic region.
It's least popular in the west and has been most popular in the Midwest



That said, promoting a legal ban on circumcision without consideration of the known role of circumcision within religions is yet another example of how supporters of an idea can over-reach and push for uncompromising solutions.

[defendandprotect]

45. The Statue of the David shows NO removal of the foreskin ... barely a nick ...

That said, promoting a legal ban on circumcision without consideration of the known role of circumcision within religions is yet another example of how supporters of an idea can over-reach and push for uncompromising solutions.


A ban for medical reasons -- which would probably require a full education program -- would

be based as much on this mutilation as any other mutilation which has no positve effect.

The American Academy of Pedicatricians has made clear that there is no medical benefit and

advise against it.

Draw up a picture of the statue of the David and you will see but a bare nick in the foreskin.

Certainly if it was a solid tradition -- i.e., the full removal of the foreskin -- you would

see that on the David. It is not there.

Here's is an excellent website for information -- but I really think that circumcized males

are going to have a more difficult time acknowledging that what was done to them was harmful.

http://www.johmann.net/essays/psychological-harm-of-circumcision.html

[Thor_MN]

54. Yeah, 'cause, David like, posed for that Michael Angelo guy and all.

If you want to argue one side or the other (personally I don't have much of an opinion in this one) at least come up with an arguement that's even slightly relevant. One statue, carved in Florence at the dawn of the 16th Century, does not represent all of Italy, much less the world or history. Attempting to draw inferences on "solid tradtions" from one piece of art is ridiculous.

Since your gender is undeclared, we don't even know if your opinion is relevent. If you don't have a penis, say whatever you want, but don't expect it to carry much weight. So many medical controversies hinge on women's health, this is one of the few issues where men get to tell women that their opinions don't matter.

[defendandprotect]

55. Certainly Michelangelo was familiar with the human form ...

and with the penis, both circumcised and uncircumcised --

and the status shows a "nick" in the penis --

Therefore, there is something of the suggestion of circumcision represented --

It has also been theorized that this was a conscientious decision, a consequence of Michelangelo's endeavor to emulate the ancient Greek aesthetic ideals, which regarded the circumcised penis as mutilated and inferior.

Undoubtedly, King David was circumcised -- but the question is to what degree ...

(According to an interesting claim on the Wikipedia David article, it was customary in David's time to remove only a small portion of the foreskin, but no substantiation for this claim has been provided as of this writing.)


As for circumcision, itself -- I have debated the negative side of male circumcision.

If you're interested, check the thread for my posts.

And, here's an excellent website on the harm done by male circumcision.

http://www.johmann.net/essays/psychological-harm-of-circumcision.html


Since your gender is undeclared, we don't even know if your opinion is relevent. If you don't have a penis, say whatever you want, but don't expect it to carry much weight. So many medical controversies hinge on women's health, this is one of the few issues where men get to tell women that their opinions don't matter.

Are you seriously arguing here that only a male's opinion on circumcison would be "revelant" -- ?

That a female's opinion would be irrevelant?

:rofl:

No male comes into this world except thru the body of a female -- and the mother certainly

offers opinion -- if not full blow dissent or consent to her son being circumcised!

(Though we must, of course, acknowledge the strong dictates of organized patriarcal religion

imposed upon both males and females.)

And, females are also the partners in sexual relations and often have very strong opinions

on the appeal or lack of appeal of the circumcised or uncircumcised penis -- !!

However, you are also overlooking the reality that a majority population of males who have been

circumcised will be less likely to be willing to acknowledge harm done to them by this mutilation.




............

A little more info on the statue --

]Like Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo studied anatomy on illicit cadavers, allowing him to sculpt a nude David, with defined muscles, veins and tendons (although perhaps he should have looked at a few Jewish cadavers, as he sculpted David as uncircumcised).

Like Bruelleschi, Michelangelo incorporated mathematics into the sculpture, balancing the weight of the statue down through the legs, achieving the unusual achievement of balancing a 5.17 metre tall statue weighin 5.6 tonnes through the support of David’s legs alone. Like Donatello, Michelangelo built in a distorted perspective, giving David an enlarged head and hands to ensure they looked proportional when placed up high (which is why they look peculiar at eye level). ]

http://www.travbuddy.com/travel-blogs/70357/Michelangelos-David-10


Also of interest --

Michelangelo's David - Everything on Michelangelo's David ...
Michelangelo's David is based on the artistic discipline of disegno, which is built on knowledge of the male human form. Under this discipline, sculpture is considered ...
www.spiritus-temporis.com/michelangelo-s-david


Michelangelo is a painter, sculptor, and architect. In this era, all three forms of art are thought to be based on disegno, an artistic discipline built on knowledge of the male human form. Sculpture is considered the finest art form because it mimics divine creation: The sculptural image is found within the block of stone much as the human soul is found within the physical body.

Furthermore, Michelangelo's David is not even circumcised. The Biblical David repeatedly disparages Philistines in general and Goliath in particular for being uncircumcised, and even brings Saul a trophy of 200 Philistine foreskins after a later conflict (1 Samuel 18:27). (According to an interesting claim on the Wikipedia David article, it was customary in David's time to remove only a small portion of the foreskin, but no substantiation for this claim has been provided as of this writing.)

We can only conclude that Michelangelo's David is more Hellenistic than Biblical in at least some of its details.


http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.ht

[Thor_MN]

56. Michaelgo knew nothing more about King David's penis than you do

You do understand that King David's penis was dust for almost 2.5 centuries before the statue was carved? :rofl:

Michaelangelo's artistic repesentation of King David bears no physical connection to the man himself and can say absolutely nothing about the practices of the Kingdom of Israel 2500 years earlier. It barely says something about Italian practices from around 1500. As an arguement for or against circumcision, it is an utter fail.

By your logic, all women are saggy and plump, because Peter Paul Ruebens was familiar with the human form.

Also by your logic, no child comes into this world except via fertilization with male sperm, therefore all men's opinions on women's reproductive health are fully relevent. Can't have it both ways. You want women to have an equal say on circumcision, you allow men an equal say on women's health issues.

[defendandprotect]

57. You don't think that Michelangelo believed that King David was circumcised ... ?

There seems to be little doubt on that issue -- why would Michelangelo doubt it?


Actually I would agree with those questioning how severe the original circumcisions

were -- after all, when some Rabbi proposed this new "idea" quite a few males must

have gasped! A "nick" might have been easier to sell to those who fainted at the

sight of blood -- especially their own!

On the other hand, maybe it was simply sold as something you do to your male child --

Well, that would be easier for the grown male to adjust to -- especially when told

that the newborn felt no pain? Or, even if he did, wouldn't remember it?


If you want an argument against abortion, read the link I gave you --

If you want to discuss the David and what seems to be Michelangelo's bias against

circumcision, then proceed. Michelangelo painted beauty and truth -- and obviously

saw neither in the mutilated penis.


By your logic, all women are saggy and plump, because Peter Paul Ruebens was familiar with the human form.

Not sure what that rant is about because I presume Ruebens painted his ideals of female

beauty. And that is what Michelangelo also painted -- his ideal of beauty.

And ...

Also by your logic, no child comes into this world except via fertilization with male sperm, therefore all men's opinions on women's reproductive health are fully relevent. Can't have it both ways. You want women to have an equal say on circumcision, you allow men an equal say on women's health issues.

Sperm can be tossed on the ground, saved in a cup or frozen -- how much of it do we need?

And on what women's health issues would you like an "equal say" -- ?

By any chance would you like to make "choices" for women re their bodies?


Nature has shown its trust in women in giving just about everything to do with childbearing

to females. Nature prefers women by a large percentage over males.

When Mitochondria is considered women contribute 57% of the child's DNA while males

contribute only 43%.

Women carry the child in their womb for 10 months -- breastfeed -- and are the usual

caretakers of children.

[Thor_MN]

58. Why do you think Michaelangelo's thoughts on King David's penis are relevant to anything?

Why do you seem to want to inflict your sensibilities on all matters health related on everyone else? You rant on and on, and at least on this issue seem to support banning what is a legal, traditional practice.

"Not sure what that rant is about because I presume Ruebens painted his ideals of female beauty. And that is what Michelangelo also painted -- his ideal of beauty. And ..."

Thanks for making my point, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, just like the statue of David has nothing to say about circumcision; it's an absolutely ridiculous argument on the topic, especially trying to relate it to Jewish practices.


I personally don't care if someone else chooses to circumcise their child or not. I have no say in the matter and neither do you.


"By any chance would you like to make "choices" for women re their bodies?"

Nope, none of my damn business. And BTW, none of your's either unless you are are making decisions for yourself. You seem to want to make choices for men, yet seem to think that it would be horrible for men to do the same for women... See the hypocrisy?

"Nature has shown its trust in women in giving just about everything to do with childbearing to females. Nature prefers women by a large percentage over males. When Mitochondria is considered women contribute 57% of the child's DNA while males contribute only 43%."

Yes, we get it that you think women are superior to men, should have more rights and get to make all the decision in life.

[defendandprotect]

60. A "nick" vs "mutilation" may be the true history of circumcision ....

in which case, Michelangelo may be speaking for that history of a limited

circumcision -- a symbolic circumcision --


Why would anyone stand against a cruel and mutilating practice which our Academy of

Pedicatricians has long said is unnecessary?

:rofl:


Michelangelo made clear his agreement with widespread views that full removal of the

foreskin is mutilation --


There is no "hypocrisy" in women trying to influence males NOT to circumcise their own

son -- because they are also the sons of the females!

Are you trying to suggest that only males should be the decision makers in regard to

whether or not their sons are circumcised?

:rofl:


Women all over the world support CHOICE re abortion -- whether or not they themselves

have ever had one -- not because they want to make a CHOICE for some other female but

because they want to protect that CHOICE for every female!


Debate against male circumcision also seeks to protect that right for the young male

who is circumcised with his consent.


No women are not superior -- and certainly not in our male-supremacist societies --

however NATURE has provided circumstances which should be respected and not used to

create notions of female inferiority. That mothers are as much the PARENT of sons as

males are is one of those circumstances which should be respected.


In this case, again -- so many males have been circumcised that there is much doubt

that they would be willing to acknowledge the sexual and psychological harm done to them.

Therefore, females -- as partners in parenting -- and as sexual partners -- should form

a stronger voice against these mutilations of their children.

[Thor_MN]

62. Yes, no mere male can have an opinion on a penis.

They HAVE to be deluded, WOMEN must tell them what should be done!!!

Yes, let us base our medical knowledge on the opinion of one artist born in the 15th century. What do you not get about ONE artist, 500 years NOT repesenting the entirety of history? :rofl:

As far as your "Academy of Pedicatricians" The AAP site says NOTHING about "a cruel and mutilating practice".

"Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised."

Let's try reading that for comprehension, They don't reccomend it for EVERY boy, because the benefits are not clear enough. Not a word about cruel or mutilating. They don't reccomend that it NOT be done. Seems that "a cruel and mutilating practice" is a overwhelming misinterpretation based more on emmotion than factual information.

Forgive me for not having much faith in the opinions of one who hung on every word of "Dr." Andrew Wakefield and argued long and hard against vaccination.


"Are you trying to suggest that only males should be the decision makers in regard to whether or not their sons are circumcised?"

Are you suggesting that a woman knows better than a man what having a penis is all about? :rofl:


And lest you get confused, I'm not advocating that circumcision be done or not done. I'm advocating for parents educating themselves and makng their own decisions on factual information, not overhyped woo from those who are completely unqualified to be giving medical advice.

[defendandprotect]

63. And no mere mother can have an opinion on her son's unmutilated penis?

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the issue of circumcising a son

is only for the father to decide?

:rofl:


Michelangelo isn't "one mere artist" -- Michelangelo studied the human body --

even attending autopsies -- inspecting the very connections of muscles and tendons,

bone and tissue.


As far as the American Academy of Pediatricians ...

Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.

But also note that in 1989 they change their position to mumbo jumbo --

In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained.
Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns.5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure.5

And this reeks of rightwing pressure to keep circumcising males in America --

Though the Academy seems to be doing everything they can to avoid pushing that idea -- !!

Also note their current opening statement ...

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are

not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.


NOTE ... THE DECISION IS FOR THE PARENTS TO MAKE -- THAT IS MOTHER AND FATHER --

And, also note that they are now trying to make sure that there is "procedural analgesia"

provided which CONFIRMING THAT THE NEWBORN FEELS PAIN.


"Cruel and mutilating" is opinion which most of the world once expressed on male circumcision ...

And which most of the world is now again awakening to -- !



Forgive me for not having much faith in the opinions of anyone who trusts and believes

in Big Pharma!



"Are you trying to suggest that only males should be the decision makers in regard to whether or not their sons are circumcised?"

Are you suggesting that a woman knows better than a man what having a penis is all about?

Stand back and look at what you are saying here -- i.e., that MOTHERS have no say in whether

or not their male child is circumcised?

:rofl:


Male circumcision is NOT done for medical reasons -- let's keep that clear!

Certainly not when practiced on 90% of the male population!

[Thor_MN]

64. OK, last time, ONE freaking man can NOT represent history!!!

One work of art says very little about the past million years.


"Stand back and look at what you are saying here -- i.e., that MOTHERS have no say in whether or not their male child is circumcised?"

I never said no say, just that they should be given the same amount of consideration that men are given concerning their daughter's health.



Your over emmotional interpretations of medical information leave something to be desired. Your apparent preferred statement, from what looks like over two decades ago "no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision" does NOT say that they reccommend not doing it.
"these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" does NOT say that they reccommend not doing it.

They are saying that data doesn't show a clear medical advantage to performing a procedure on ALL male children, That is clearly not the same thing as saying that it should be avoided at all costs, which is the message that seems to be your position. There is a vast difference between what you are representing and what their actual positions state.



Long short, parents should get competent medical advice, make their own choices and avoid like hell the rantings of purveyors of woo.

[defendandprotect]

65. Circumcision was about STOPPING MASTURBATION --

Try to open your mind to what Michelangelo is showing you --

that we can presume that circumcision began as a NICK in the penis --


"Stand back and look at what you are saying here -- i.e., that MOTHERS have no say in whether or not their male child is circumcised?"

I never said no say, just that they should be given the same amount of consideration that men are given concerning their daughter's health.

Your rants have been so out of balance that if you look at your posts you say over and again

that females should have no rights in making decisions over the male penis.

And you've lapsed into that kind of thinking because you are trying to suggest a parallel

between circumcision and abortion -- CHOICE.

However, CHOICE is . . . YOUR BODY/YOUR CHOICE.


Your are having trouble reading ...

"these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" does NOT say that they reccommend not doing it.

What they are saying is that the data is INSUFFICIENT TO RECOMMEND ROUTINE NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION --

i.e., not recommended that we run out and circumcise every male child!

They further reinforce their original statements that there is NO MEDICAL BENEFIT by telling you

that other countries continue to stand by their original statements that there is NO MEDICAL

BENEFIT.

They are also making clear that while there is no data to recommend it based on medical benefit

that there are also 'RISKS' to the procedure -- and that pain should be considered.


Newborns should not be mutilated in this way the day they come into the world!

It's their bodies -- it's their choice.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4876529&mesg_id=4877291

[Thor_MN]

66. People should not listen to misinformed woo

Reading for comprehension 101:

"We can not recommend X for all people"

does not equal

"We do not recommend X for all people"


There is a large difference between the statements. The former indicates that X may be suitable for some people, while the later indicates that it is suitable for no one. Some choose, either out of ignorance or malice, to rant on and on using the second statement, when what was actually said was the first statement.

Now one may ask, "Some people, which people?" The answer would be those that sought advice from competent medical professionals, and made an informed decision based on the documented benefits, while avoiding the rantings of busybody woo woo theorists who draw their knowledge out of misreading information to suit their preconceived notions and emotions and interpret all of history from one object of art.

Bottom line: It's about choice, and the choice should be based of of something better than crackpot conspiracy theory or emotional rantings.

[defendandprotect]

67. "data not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision" ....

is not clear to you?

They are also citing the "Risks" of circumcision -- and the pain for the newborn --

They further reinforce their original statements that there is NO MEDICAL BENEFIT by telling you

that other countries continue to stand by their original statements that there is NO MEDICAL

BENEFIT.


You also misunderstand CHOICE which is MY BODY/MY DECISION -- and no one else's --


OK -- you've reached desperate levels now and have become disingenuous --



Bye --

[Thor_MN]

68. Your own posts don't agree with you.

"data not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision"

EXACTLY. Nothing more, nothing less. No where does that say that circumcision should not be done. It states that they can not reccomend that it be done to all males. There are miles between what that states and what you have represented it to mean.

Goodbye, at least until the next time that you start posting woo as medical advice. Last time we tangled it was your anti-vaccine rants, based on the fraud of (now just plain Mr.) Wakefield.






Bottom line people, get sound, COMPETENT, PROFESSIONAL advice and ignore the rants of people that try to evangelize woo woo theories.

[defendandprotect]

69. Only if you think "up" is "down" ...

and you're now on ignore --

[Thor_MN]

70. Good, then you won't be bothered by me correcting inane interpretations

Really, "I can't say everyone should do this" does not equate to "No one should do this." The only way one could mistake one for the other is if one throws all logic out the window. Just because one wants a statement to support their beliefs doesn't make it so.

[SkyDaddy7]

41. YES! ME!

The question you should ask yourself is "How many men who were not circumcised at birth choose to get circumcised later in life?"

...There are tens of thousands of nerve endings that are removed...And YES it is Genital Mutilation! Seriously, to say otherwise is absurd! Cutting a very sensitive part of one's genitals off is by definition "mutilation"! There is no reason to cut any body part off a healthy baby...If the person wants to have a circumcision once they are old enough to make that decision then they can do it.

[defendandprotect]

44. Is isn't true that circumcision "generally isn't harmful" --

I think the defense of it has a lot to do with the simple fact that almost all

males are circumcized and naturally reluctant to come to a personal conclusion

that it has a negative effect on their sexual experiences --


First, if you look at the statue of the David, you will see that there is a

simple nick in the foreskin. Certainly, Jews could not require more of future

members of the faith than they required of David?

Secondly, though I haven't read the material on circumcision in a long time --

the foreskin protects the head of the penis -- when it is removed it makes an

already very sensitive area hyper sensitive. Eventually, this constant exposure

over a long period of time makes the penis less sensitive.


And I think what's covered below would be difficult to deny looking at our culture ...

which included male GYN's often sewing up women's vagina's "tight" after the birth of

a child -- and some of them even "assured" the husband verbally that that had been done!

The basic problem for the average mutilated American man is that his penis has been so desensitized by his mutilation that normal sexual intercourse with a female does not provide enough stimulation—hence the mutilated man must work at it, banging away, trying to feel something. In an effort to get sex that is more stimulating, a large fraction of America’s mutilated men fantasize about and/or practice forms of sex that apply more pressure on the penis. For example, many mutilated American men fantasize about anal intercourse—and they practice it if they can get a female to agree to it (most women don’t want to do it). The anti-circumcision literature written by others usually treads lightly on this subject of alternative sex practices, and any mention usually limits itself to simply noting America’s comparatively high rates of oral and anal intercourse. A relevant subject I have not seen discussed in the anti-circumcision literature is American porno—probably because no one wants to admit any familiarity with it.

One thing I have noticed in many American porno magazines is the frequent use of the word tight when describing the women shown (for each female shown in a set of color photos, there is typically some accompanying fictional descriptive text about that female, and it is common for this fictional descriptive text to claim that she is tight).<11> Of course, the female vagina is not tight in the way the

http://www.johmann.net/essays/psychological-harm-of-circumcision.html




I don't care for religion much. But I suspect there is more to this "movement" than circumcision.

There is no basis in medical care for circumcision -- American Academy of Pediatricians

recommend against it -- worldwide it is questioned.

Our major religions are patriarchal and support many positions which are out of accord with

our attempt at democracy -- as we move toward full human rights for all, these religions

often suggest biases against them --

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, still fights full human rights for homosexuals --

And they still do not acknowledge the full personhood of females as they acknowledge the

full personhood of males.

Throughout history, the RCC held biases against the Hebrew faith -- kept Jews isolated in

the Pope's Papal Ghettos for 1,100 years -- and forced them to wear yellow stars --

and after the French and Italians closed those ghettoes down, the RCC proceeded against the

Jews with another 100 years of vile propaganda.


Calling circumcision "a form of genital mutilation" is not a stretch but a giant leap. Is there a circumscribed man who thinks his genitals have been mutilated?

Certainly the removal of the foreskin qualifies as mutilation -- it is a natural part of the body.

However, again, it is going to be more difficult evidently for males' who have been circumcised

to acknowledge what has been done to them.

[Lordquinton]

59. in a word...

"Is there a circumscribed man who thinks his genitals have been mutilated?"

Yes, there are. Personally I find it abhorrent that people not only condone, but promote sexually mutilating newborn infants. It is un-necessary, and potentially dangerous. There are many ancient religious practices that are abandoned because they are not necessary any longer, like Gay marriage, or eating shellfish. Why cling so hard, and jump straight to racism when it comes to protecting the right of infants?

[defendandprotect]

61. +1 --

[struggle4progress]

17. Most US males have been circumcised, and most have been circumcised for nonreligious reasons

[SkyDaddy7]

40. It should be left up to the individual to make that decision...

once they are old enough to do so. The reason why there are so many who object to allowing the child to make that decision later in their life has everything to do with religion...And that is my point.

[defendandprotect]

36. Exactly... and as long as "religion" can hold concepts of mutilating people into their religion ....

without being constantly challenged, then it can serve as an underbasis

for other sexual mutilations -- such as FGM -- which unfortunately was

carried along by groups connected to Muslim religion.


Like religion itself and the early brainwashing of children into these

religions -- this is not something that should be imposed upon new borns.

[SkyDaddy7]

39. YES, I totally agree!

:toast: :hi:

[defendandprotect]

42. Just to say ...

:hi: back to you --

:)

[adds76355]

37. +1

[The Wizard]

8. But where will

Andrew Breitbart get his chewing gum?

[HockeyMom]

11. Ear piercing baby girls?

This used to be a custom in Italian families. Generally, it was done to set them apart from the general population and
"ethnic pride". No, it wasn't religious. I suppose these people would consider this cruel and mutilation too? Let's save the baby girls too.

My Nana was the first of the family to not pierce my Mom's ears when she was born. I wasn't either. Mom never got her ears pierced. I did mine as an adult.. My daughter wanted it done at 16 and I signed my permission for it to be done. In hindsight, we all (including my Mom) agreed we wished it had been done when we were BABIES.

Basically, circumcision should be the choice of the parents and doctors, much the same as the ear piercing. Certainly, it should not be banned and carry criminal penalties; especially when it involves a religious ritual.

[Proletariatprincess]

15. apples and oranges....

piercings heal themselves naturally if allowed to. Unnecesary surgery to remove part of an organ does not. It is permanent. The comparison is silly.

[HockeyMom]

20. Fine. Then read my post about the 2 medical

claims I processed. Think of that in this light. I was one person processing medical claims for one company for 6 years and can give you two instances, medically necessary. If it is that rare, what are the odds of that happening then?

[Proletariatprincess]

24. still talking about ear piercing?

You don't make any logical sense and contribute nothing to this conversation. You are a silly woman.

[HockeyMom]

26. My husband said if we had sons they would have had it

Just as he had it as a baby. Is he a "silly MAN"? He said he has no memory of it as an infant. We discussded this before we married. Would you want to prevent him from having that choice? Relevant? You see it's about CHOICE. You don't want it for your sons, fine. HOWEVER, if someone chooses to do it for THEIR sons, then that is their choice. It is basically none of your business. This especially includes those who choose to do so for religious reasons.

This proposed legistation is ANTI-CHOICE and imposing criminal penalties just because some "silly woman" has her own agenda. I wonder just what her REAL agenda is. No, I DO KNOW what that is.

[Proletariatprincess]

27. It is not a choice if it imposed on someone else without conscent.

To answer your question....yes. Silly. Illogical. Sectarian.

[Proletariatprincess]

29. Oh well...that explains everything.

If husband says it will be done...so shall it be. Who is a mere Hocky Mom...or any other woman to challenge such an authority.
:sarcasm:

[HockeyMom]

32. Lady,

I am just fine with my husband just the way he is physically. If you don't like circumcized men, that is your choice. Don't date, marry, or have sons who are.

This is DU, not FREEPERVILLE. We believe in free choice around here. That includes how we raise our children, or what RELIGION we are too.

[Proletariatprincess]

33. I am just so happy that you and your husband found each other.

But DU is about real discussions with logical and thoughtful debate too.
I'm not going to respond to you again....you haven't made a real argument in all your postings. Closed minded and silly.

[defendandprotect]

46. Why are you recommending a "choice" which has long been shown non-beneficial ...?

American Academy of Pedicatricians have made clear for decades that it has no benefit.

We need a re-education program in America, including for parents.

The "choice" at any rate should be the child's -- not the parents.

It is their body -- not the parent's body!

Otherwise, you would be arguing that a parent could keep a daughter from having an

abortion -- or force her to it.

Rather, the CHOICE is for the individual to make and that's the child.

The CHOICE must be in the hands of the individual whose body is impacted.

[bemildred]

14. This subject is going to need its own dungeon. nt

[HockeyMom]

21. Bottom line I see it as Anti-Semetic above everything else

that alone should be reason enough to quash this IF it should ever pass. Those pictures in that "comic" were disgusting and horrible.

[t0dd]

22. it's "anti-semetic" to be opposed to the compulsory mutilation of the genitalia of children?

:eyes:

[robcon]

23. Wow, do you get a little worked up about circumcision!!!

I think you're a busybody who likes to control what others do.

If you don't like circumcision, try to educate others. Either compulsion or banning the practice seems fascist to me.

[Proletariatprincess]

25. Society has an interest in controling what adults do to children..

especially when it comes to unnecesary surgery that has permanent results. Remember, this initiative doesn't outlaw circumcision, it outlaws the practice on infants and minors without medical necessity. Religion shouldn't enter into it. Too bad so many can't see through that veil to see how barbaric this practice really is.

[John_Adams]

28. Your comments are antithetical to the ideas expressed by the man quoted in your sig line.

[Proletariatprincess]

30. Well...that is a far reach.

My sig line is about Jefferson's warning about the power of corporations.
I smell trolls.

[John_Adams]

31. Jefferson also issued warnings regarding those who seek to control the lives of others.

I have never been able to conceive how any rational being could propose happiness to himself from the exercise of power over others.

The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.

It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father.

[Proletariatprincess]

34. Thank you for the thoughtful response.....

but I still don't see the comparison to this topic. Jefferson was talking about education...not a medical procedure. And, he was talking about forcing parents against their will to accept the education of their children.
I wonder what Jefferson would think about this issue or, in contrary, if parents should be allowed to withhold necessary medical treatment based on religion or tradition.
Everyone should have control over their own body and those who are too weak or immature to exercise that right, should be protected by law. That is why we no longer tolerate the forced sterilization of the mentally ill, for example. The law now protects them from that and so it should.
Let's remember too that there are many kinds of genital alteration associated with religion all over the world. Sub incision is particularly savage not to mention female circumcision. How can we justify one and not the others if all religion is to be respected?
I say let adults decide about their own bodies and let children grow up to make an informed decision for themselves. I believe that applies to religion too, but I know that many here won't agree with me on that topic.
Logic just doesn't apply to true love or religion....:-)

[defendandprotect]

50. And what is circumcision except the power of adults over a newborn?

If you want CHOICE, then it is the child's to make -- not his parents -- !!


In 1753 in London there was a proposal for Jewish emancipation. It was furiously opposed by the pamphleteers of the time, who spread the fear that Jewish emancipation meant universal circumcision. Men were urged to protect:

"the best of Your property" and guard their threatened foreskins. It was an extraordinary outpouring of popular beliefs about sex, fears about masculinity and misconceptions about Jews, but also a striking indication of how central to their sexual identity men considered their foreskins at that time. (R.Darby)<35>


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

[defendandprotect]

49. And was Thomas Jefferson circumcised? Unlikely ....

Male circumcision in the Renaissance Europeans, with the exception of the Jews, did not practice male circumcision.

The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442.<32> According to UNAIDS, it stated that circumcision was unnecessary for Christians;<33> El-Hout and Khauli, however, regard it as condemnation of the procedure.<34>

Male circumcision in the 18th century
Circumcision was not practiced amongst Christians in Europe in the 18th century.

Edward Gibbon had referred to it as a "singular mutilation" practised only by Jews and Turks and as "a painful and often dangerous rite" ... (R. Darby)<35>

In 1753 in London there was a proposal for Jewish emancipation. It was furiously opposed by the pamphleteers of the time, who spread the fear that Jewish emancipation meant universal circumcision. Men were urged to protect:

"the best of Your property" and guard their threatened foreskins. It was an extraordinary outpouring of popular beliefs about sex, fears about masculinity and misconceptions about Jews, but also a striking indication of how central to their sexual identity men considered their foreskins at that time. (R.Darby)<35>

The English explorer Sir Richard Burton observed that "Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror". This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The "like other body mutilations ... of the nature of a representative sacrifice". (R. Darby)<35>

Then, a change of attitude began, something that was reflected in successive editions of the Encyclopædia Britannica:

By 1910 the entry had been turned on its head:

Male circumcision to prevent masturbation

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


And, btw, since when is what America does medically thought to be intelligent, enlightened --

or not harmful?


This is also interesting from same wiki page ...

Male circumcision in the Greco-Roman worldAccording to Hodges, ancient Greek aesthetics of the human form considered circumcision a mutilation of a previously perfectly shaped organ. Greek artwork of the period portrayed penises as covered by the foreskin (sometimes in exquisite detail), except in the portrayal of satyrs, lechers, and barbarians.<15> This dislike of the appearance of the circumcised penis led to a decline in the incidence of circumcision among many peoples that had previously practiced it throughout Hellenistic times. In Egypt, only the priestly caste retained circumcision, and by the 2nd century, the only circumcising groups in the Roman Empire were Jews, Jewish Christians, Egyptian priests, and the Nabatean Arabs. Circumcision was sufficiently rare among non-Jews that being circumcised was considered conclusive evidence of Judaism (or Early Christianity and others derogatorily called Judaizers) in Roman courts—Suetonius in Domitian 12.2 described a court proceeding in which a ninety-year-old man was stripped naked before the court to determine whether he was evading the head tax placed on Jews and Judaizers.<16> The 1st-century Alexandrian Apion denounced circumcision as a barbaric custom in his diatribe against the Jews, notwithstanding that it was still practiced among the Egyptian priestly caste.

So like the wearing of yamulkas, or veils, or crosses around one's neck --

the main object is to push one's religious beliefs -- to make them visible in

the public arena.

[defendandprotect]

51. dupe

If you want CHOICE, then it is the child's to make -- not his parents -- !!


In 1753 in London there was a proposal for Jewish emancipation. It was furiously opposed by the pamphleteers of the time, who spread the fear that Jewish emancipation meant universal circumcision. Men were urged to protect:

"the best of Your property" and guard their threatened foreskins. It was an extraordinary outpouring of popular beliefs about sex, fears about masculinity and misconceptions about Jews, but also a striking indication of how central to their sexual identity men considered their foreskins at that time. (R.Darby)<35>


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


And what is circumcision except the power of adults over a newborn?

[defendandprotect]

48. And would being against ...

Female Genital Mutilation be anti-Semitic because Muslims picked up

the practice and moved it through their own faith?



Here's an excellent website --

http://www.johmann.net/essays/psychological-harm-of-circumcision.html

[defendandprotect]

47. Take a look at the Statue of the David ... no removal of the foreskin ...

Do you think the Hebrew faith required less of David?


The foreskin is there to protect a very sensitive area of the penis --

when the foreskin is removed, it exposes the head of the penis to constant

irritation which eventually de-sensitizes it.


If you are interested, here's an excellent website --


http://www.johmann.net/essays/psychological-harm-of-circumcision.html

[defendandprotect]

35. Jewish claims are nonsense -- look at the statue of David ... a bare nick ....

there is no Jewish religious argument for the circumcisions that have been

carried out -- it's cruel and we need a reeducation program -- which would

also target those of the Jewish faith and stop this insanity!

[bemildred]

43. Let men who want to be circumcized have it done when they reach the age of consent.

Infants ought not have the decision forced on them when they are helpless. The same logic applies to other forms of snipping, piercing, and so on, one ought to be able to make an informed choice about these things when one comes of age.

[mackerel]

52. Guys do what you like but I won't do a guy who is not

circumcised.

[bemildred]

53. It's good to be able to make your own choices. nt

[shimmergal]

71. I'm not wading into

the circumcision controversy.Fortunately I only had daughters so never had to make this decision.

However, about "making an informed choice when one comes of age" re ear piercing. That sounds fine in theory, and in fact that's what I told my girls. But it's a rare mother who can hold ut when her daughter is determined to do it sooner. I held out until about 8th grade and then gave in, figuring oh well, if that's the worst thing she does to rebel-- and at least if a girl/woman changes her mind later, the ear lobes repair themselves. Still don't know if it's worth going to the wall for. Although jewelry mfgrs don't make it very easy--if one likes wearing earrings, it's hard to find a good choice of designs that AREN'T designed for pierced ears. Arghh!

[bemildred]

72. I hear ya.

Getting them raised without any permanent marks can be difficult, and you aren't going to win them all. Tattoos are another mushy area, like pierced ears. OTOH, once they get into piercing things as something "cool", who knows what else they will want to make "cool"?

You have to be flexible, I'm just opposed to the routine snipping, piercing, marking etc. of infants in pursuit of speculative future benenfits or illusions of future social acceptance. If the kid at the age of ten WANTS to be circumsized or pierced or what have you, and Mom and Dad cave in, I'm not going to get worked up about it.

I'd like to hear from a guy, or a few hundred say for a statistically significant sample, that were uncircumsized, grew up normal, had plenty of sex, then got circumsized, and then had plenty more sex. Such a person would be in a position to have an opinion about the merits of having or not having a prepuce when screwing.

My own observation and experience (I'm a circumsized guy) is that it's not a big deal, I like sex, I've had three wives, four kids, and numerous girlfriends, and nobody has ever brought up the condition of my penis; but for that very reason they ought to leave little boys and girls alone, if it's not important, let them grow up first, let them make their own choices.

My guess is that the prepuce is there to protect the head of your dick, which in a state or nature in humans, apes and monkeys is just hanging out there, flopping around, subject to thorns, stings, bites, etc. What if your dick got infected and fell off?