circumcision in USA - historical fundi cultural infiltration

[Guest Anonymous]

I think it's an interesting idea. For converts to Judaism who have already had a secular circumcision, they do a symbolic drawing of blood from the head of the penis (at least in orthodox and conservative conversions...I don't know about reform). If that's ok, I don't see why a symbolic drawing of blood on an un-circ'd penis might not also be ok, in a religious sense.

My husband had it done at his Reform conversion!!

[lalapendragon]

FGM is a allegedly a cultural norm along with ear piercings whereas male circ is a religious obligation to enter the covenant and is not a choice for the observant parents of a baby boy. A naming ceremony for a baby girl is a wonderful family event but is not as symbolically important as a bris. My father grew up Orthodox in the US and when queried about a bat mitzvah for my sisters and myself he scoffed and said something along the lines of that was made up in the 20th century and is totally unnecessary and a modern invention. Judaism of the Orthodox is every bit as patriarchal as the fundies. He may have been wrong about the bar/bat mitzvah thing but I doubt it. Hardly any of the girls I went to school with had bat mitzvahs whereas almost all the boys did. i just looked it up and 1922 was the first proto-bat mitzvah.

[fundyfunland]

Lastly, not specifically towards you Beeks, as a nursing student I've seen a couple different circs being done. At the time, I was on the fence about circ., leaning towards the un-circ. side. After seeing my first circ., I was very strongly against them. It's horrible to watch.

Was planning on watching this one from the sidelines, but, meh....

First a question for Valsa -are you basing your view on the experiencesof circ you've seen in the hospital? I'm also a nurse, plan to circ any son, and have to agree that hosp circs are a little traumatic. I plan on hiring a mohel (I'm not Jewish but I'll find one to help me). Have you seen a Jewish circ being done? The one's I've seen, the babies didn't even cry. They weren't strapped down, but held by their mothers.

A second question, has anyone else seen the report from the World Health Organization (based on numerous recent studies), recommending circumcision to prevent HIV spread? It;s here: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/rel ... index.html

[FaustianSlip]

Ours were done primarily for religious reasons. I see no problem with you NOT circing, of course! I do think mohels are generally more qualified than a lot of regular doctors to perform the procedure...but that's just my opinion based on what I've seen and heard (I rarely see babies cry at a bris). A bris is also SO fast - like seconds. From what I understand the non-religious procedure is more like minutes. So that could have a lot to do with it too.

I haven't read the entire thread (because really, I suspect I've read it all before), but basically this. I've been to a couple of brisses, performed by mohels. In one, the baby didn't cry at all. At the other, the baby cried for a second or two, then stopped. I was a bit shocked, in that I expected the babies to be freaking out, but they really didn't. The baby sits on a parent or grandparent's lap, the mohel does the procedure in a matter of seconds, and it's over. I'm Jewish, my kids will be Jewish (should I have any), and if I have a boy, I'll hire a mohel and have a bris. If I hadn't converted, I don't know what my plan would have been; probably let my husband decide, since that's how my parents handled it. Even in that scenario, I think I would want a mohel to do the procedure; there's not many better people to have do something that delicate than someone who does basically nothing but.

San Francisco can make as many laws "banning" circumcision as it wants; it won't matter. If Jews continued to perform circumcisions in places like the Warsaw Ghetto, I really doubt that we won't keep doing it in spite of what the city of San Francisco has to say. Circumcision is way to deeply rooted in the Jewish psyche, IMHO, to just go away. The most secular families I know still made sure their boys had a bris eight days after they were born. And honestly, looking at some of the stuff that's come out from the anti-circumcision side (like the "Foreskin Man" comic in particular, which was written by the same guy who wrote this bill and loaded with all of the usual, anti-Semitic tropes, and I don't say that lightly), I really question the motives of a few of the people involved with this particular law.

Anyway, that's all I've got on the subject. If people choose not to circumcise their kids, that's entirely their prerogative, but I don't really see this as an argument where anyone is likely to have their mind changed. Much like the vaccination debate (and no, that is not an invitation to start that discussion again!).

[valsa]

First a question for Valsa -are you basing your view on the experiencesof circ you've seen in the hospital?

No, the horror of that is just incidental. I'm basing my view on the fact that parents don't have the right to perm. modify or mutilate their children. Even if circ. was painless, that doesn't give parents the right to make that choice for their child.

As for the AIDS studies, there are far better ways to prevent AIDS transmission than circumcision and if a young man/teenage boy really feels that circumcision is the best way to prevent the contraction of AIDS, he can get a circumcision once he's old enough to give consent himself.

As for the religious aspect of circumcision- I don't think everything that gets slapped with the label of "Religion" should be given an automatic pass.

If FGM was a religious rite, instead of a cultural one, it still wouldn't make it acceptable. And according to the Pearls, beating children with plumbing supplies is part of their religion but no one here supports that. Christian Scientists don't believe in medical interventions but they're required by law to get their children to a doctor when they get sick and when a child dies because a CS didn't do that, they're reviled here. Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in blood transfusions but they're still required to violate their beliefs if their child needs one. Even if circumcision is a religious belief, the welfare and bodily integrity of the child should win out, as it does in the above examples.

[deelaem]

Just wanted to add something funny to this thread. There is a headline on MSN.com this morning that reads "Circumcision funds cut" hehehe...

[mirele]

Some cities and towns in the US have made circumcision illegal. It is most prevalent in northern Africa and the Middle East, according to the WHO, but still quite prevalent in the US (I have seen figures that put it anywhere from 50-80% of all U.S. men). Wherever in the world it is done, it's primarily done at infancy. I really (really really really really) doubt that fundamentalism is the cause for a substantive increase in popularity.

It's not illegal anywhere in the USA--yet.

Some looney tunes have gotten it on the San Francisco ballot, but there's a very good chance it will not ever get to an election, because California state law leaves the regulation of medical practices up to the state--not to the cities.

ETA: USA, not other countries, which I don't know about.

[FaustianSlip]

I feel like I heard about an attempt to ban it in Sweden, but that might have been a law that tried to outlaw kosher/halal slaughter of animals (which I think was aimed more at the growing Muslim community there than any Jewish people- not that that makes it right, obviously).

I don't see the San Francisco law being viable at all. For one thing, it just isn't enforceable. Families who want to circumcise their children will just go to hospitals outside of the city (which could lose the city hospitals money, ultimately, if they decide to birth outside the city, as well) or have their bris at a hotel outside the city. So ultimately, it's not going to make a lick of practical difference in terms of the number of babies being circumcised. For another thing, I don't think it's constitutional in terms of freedom of religion or in terms of California state law vis a vis regulation of medical practices.

I get the impression that outside the US, it's seen as much less of an issue, because it's not nearly as prevalent except in communities doing it for religious reasons.

[treemom]

Oh, new can of worms alert! I remember the Great Circumcision Debate back in "the old days" : on Yuku. So I'll just go and get my tin hat and grab a spade to dig a defensive trench. This could get nasty..... :violence-duel:

Me too. It was a great example on my peristence in being annoying. I am gonna sit this one out.

[fundyfunland]

My source was from the dvd which listed several studies in its credits and contained some anatomy lessons to go explain the pain thing. As I said, I wish I had burned a copy. Sounds like you lucked out. Yours is the first story I've ever heard where the baby didn't fuss or scream. Maybe it was the wine. But there were interesting studies that looked at how babies interacted with mothers pre and post circ for several days, breastfeeding etc... It sounds like your circs were for religious and cultural reasons and so have a ritual symbolic meaning. So your perspective will be different than mine since I came from a non religious, this is what is done to boys and why question it.

Did you go through PubMed & get a hold of those studies? I'd be interested to see them. There are so many, many "scientific studies" done these days for the sake of the medical & pharmaceutical industries (which I am, by the way, a part of) that are either developed incorrectly, or the statistically flawed...hence wanting to see the studies.

[Cran]

It is not common in Germany. Parents who get it done here are prevalentely muslim or, in smaller numbers, jewish.

On other children, it is only done for medical reasons, I had a boyfriend who had it done in kindergarten, because his foreskin was too tight.

I think it is ok for religious reasons, but as most men in Germany do not smell bad and are still quite healthy in that department, I see no reason for cricumcision. If a grown man wants it, it is his business.

[Bellatrix]

I get the impression that outside the US, it's seen as much less of an issue, because it's not nearly as prevalent except in communities doing it for religious reasons.

Exactly. Circumcision is a pure religious thing over here in France. It's definitely not an aesthetic or hygienic procedure automically done to newborn boys. At all!

I remember the Penn & Teller B*llsh*t episode in which they followed a couple about to give birth to a son. The mother wanted the procedure done, the father not. He hadn't been circumcised when he was born and apparently that was not the norm at all. The mother-to-be insisted that it could get their kid teased at school since other boys would notice when they'd get changed in the locker rooms... I thought that was so sad. I'm absolutely NOT used to circumcision being a typical health procedure after birth so I was shocked to hear during said episode that young ladies thought a non-cut penis was ugly or that they wouldn't want to have sex with a non-circumcised guy.

Funnily enough, as FaustianSlip (your nick makes me think of Faust in his underwear rather than what I suppose you initially intended as a play on words :lol: ) put it: circumcision is just not a huge deal over here. If your parents are following their religion to the letter and circumcision is part of it, yah, it looks like you're going to get the snip (not that I agree with that personally but that's a different debate). If not, no. Voilà.

[Sola]

Personally, I am against circumcision unless there is medical need for it. That includes for religious reasons. I understand that some faiths require it, but I am against indoctrinating children in any way at all until they are old enough to make a rational decision to join that faith.

However, my husband is circumcised and I prefer it that way! Yep, I know it seems hypocritical, but my husband was circumcised for medical reasons about 15 years ago. Having been with him prior to that I am able to compare. Now he is circumcised his penis is much easier to clean and gets less whiffy. Even though he always showers every day when he had a foreskin his penis got a bit whiffy very quickly. Even if he had showered less than a few hours earlier and we were having oral sex, I would be able to smell it and would ask him to wash. He still will wash now prior to oral of course, but his penis doesn't smell.

I've got used to the look of it now too and prefer it. Uncircumcised penises look ugly to me. But my husband was in his 30's when he had it done so was able to make a rational decision about it, plus it was medically needed as his foreskin was unretractable.

[FlorenceHamilton]

I am Jewish. My son is all grown up, so his bris is just a faded memory. I am somewhat torn personally on this issue.

Despite the argument that circumcised males have less sexual pleasure, the overriding evidence (and the pregnancy rate) indicates that circumcised males enjoy sex very much and have no difficulty reaching orgasm. The female genital procedure is performed specifically to make it impossible for females to acheive orgasm or sexual pleasure. Its purpose is to ensure that females get no enjoyment from sex. This is how the cultures that practice this maintain their women as "property". Men have the ability and freedom to enjoy as many women as they would like and the females in question will not have any reason to "cheat" on them. They are not to enjoy sex. They are only to submit to the man who provides them with food and shelter.

As far as legality, that is the reason why one practice remains legal and the other has been targeted as a violation of human rights.

[maybeizfundie]

Despite the argument that cicumcised males have less sexual pleasure, the overriding evidence (and the pregnancy rate) indicates that circumcised males enjoy sex very much and have no difficulty reaching orgasm. The female genital procedure is performed specifically to make it impossible for females to acheive orgasm or sexual pleasure. Its purpose is to ensure that females get no enjoyment from sex. This is how the cultures that practice this maintain their women as "property". Men have the ability and freedom to enjoy as many women as they would like and the females in question will not have any reason to "cheat" on them. They are not to enjoy sex. They are only to submit to the man who provides them with food and shelter.

Was just going to lurk on this thread, but had to pop in and agree with this. This is *exactly* how dh explained why FGM is done in his country. (And I thank God he is one of the growing number who oppose FGM, or I'd never have married him).

Very different motivations, and very different results, between male circumcision and female "circumcision".

[Soldevi]

In Finland female circumcision is banned by law but that law doesn't say anything about male circumcision. Politicians and ministeries debated about the law long enough and in 2010 it was put aside so male circumcision isn't yet banned. It is in gray area still.

When they were preparing the law Finnish Medical Association said that law would damage person's sanctity (protected by constitutional law) and collide with medical ethics. They say that child should not be put through a surgeon with risks if it is mainly wanted for cultural and/or religious reasons. Doctors will not perform religious rituals and circumcisions should not be done nor paid in public healthcare. Those were the main points in Association's statement.

Some 200 circumcisions are made yearly for other than medical reasons (mainly for muslims, tatars and jews). For others it is done only for medical reasons though private clinics will perform it to men over 18 years old. Some groups unfortunately send their girls abroad to get circumcised :( I think the Supreme Court has drawn lines that circumcision should be done a) with necessarily pain prevention, b) by a doctor and c) in hygienic environment.

When I was in the middle of the conversion process to judaism, circumcision was (and still is) one of my biggest worries. I have very strong opinions about human rights and even though I am not saying that circumcision is all wrong, I couldn't have done that decision for my (possible) sons because I made that decisions myself and for me everyone should be able to choose their paths themselves even though my own values will affect, naturally. It is different thing to teach ethics and values than do something irreversible to their bodies. So after long discussions and hard decisions I decided to stop conversion process.

In sexual matters I don't have strong opinions. My ex was circumcised (as a child for medical reasons) and he complained that his penis will get numb sometimes, that is, during or after *ahem* long night... For me it was first hard to learn how to handle it correctly because there wasn't loose skin so much I thought there would be. And what comes to masturbation...heh. When in his late teen years, my husband was told to jerk off as much as he can to loosen tight foreskin to prevent circumcision operation. It eventually helped but some fundies would have had a heart attack for that kind of doctor's order.