SEX & RELATIONSHIPS  
American Sexuality Magazine / By Bonnie Zylbergold
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 349

Circumcision: What's a Nonpracticing Jew to Do?

Circumcision remains one defining trait for Jewish men. But how does a Jewish feminist parent rationalize the tradition today?
April 14, 2008  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
I hate most pork. Roast it, glaze it, do what you will, pig rarely sings to me like a dead chicken does. But pass me a strip of bacon and I’ll promise you the world. Seventeen years of Hebrew day school can only accomplish so much.

Welcome to modern day Jewry; not so much a state of being as it is a state of mind. Or as the ultra orthodox like to call it, “Jewish goyim,” Yiddish slang for crappy Jew. Or Noam Chomsky in English.

Being the secular sort myself, picking and choosing what defines my Jewishness on any given day has never been much of a problem. In fact I’ve grown quite comfortable in my own hypocrisy, perfectly content with the casual neurosis and ill-defined guilt passed on by my mother, to guide me through life. But there is one exception of this inherited sophism—a Diasporic point of no return, if you will—that even I know not to mess with: that of an eight-day-old penis.

If there remains one solitary trait defining Judaism today, it is without a doubt a circumcised dick. But rationalizing the old snippety snip isn’t as easy as it once was. Back in the day, all Abraham needed was blind faith and a shank. This 2008, however, is an entirely different story. Not only is there the obligatory breakfast buffet of bagels and lox to contend with, but what to do with all those pesky open-minded, anti-circumcision liberals protesting this age-old tradition, the very people I usually relate to, being the lefty, feminist, “sexpert” that I am?

Such being the case, I was curious to see how others like myself intellectualized a life bereft of Jewish tradition and Saturdays spent in shul with an act exclusive to Jewish law.

As it turns out, not very well.

Enter the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center (JCRC), a group so shocked by modern day circumcision you’d think they would have collapsed from some sort of circulatory malfunction by now.

A subdivision of the larger, nondenominational Circumcision Resource Center, the JCRC is one of many online groups currently propagating the dangers and medical futility of circumcising male newborns, and “facilitating [the] healing” process for the estimated 1.2 million Americans still “diminished” every year. At the heart of their argument is the American Academy of Pediatrics dubious policy on circumcision, which states that despite scientific evidence demonstrating potential medical benefits of circumcision, “these data [remain insufficient] to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”

Rounding out the JCRC’s case are an additional nineteen journal articles further testifying to the awesomeness of the prepuce, with arguments including—but not limited to—a better sex life and the tendency to masturbate a little bit less compared with their crew-necked brethren. Not exactly code red but sufficient for a group going up against the word of God.

All this doesn’t exactly bode well for my fictional future son. By JCRC’s estimates, it’s only a matter of time before he winds up blogging his way through the pain, an activity surprisingly popular amongst the circumcised and suffering. Take, for example, the lucky bastard who posted that circumcision was “the single most traumatic event of my life” on the Circumcision Resource Center’s website. Or the forty-seven-year-old man from Atlanta who blogged about being ignored, explaining that, “When we men discuss our feelings about circumcision, no one listens, not even doctors. I'm one of the millions of men who doesn’t like being circumcised. I wish I had been able to scream at the doctors, ‘Hands off, it’s mine!’”

Though, admittedly, my first inclination is to write this off as insane, there is some legitimacy to the circumcision come crisis argument. In Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem, editors George C. Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges, and Marilyn Fayre Milos concur that “trauma can occur at any point in the life cycle from infancy to childhood” and that “many children have described their circumcision experience in the language of violence, torture, mutilation and sexual assault” resulting “in the development of long term PTSD in many cases.”

Of course, PTSD is nothing to laugh about (at least not out loud). More and more circumcised men are coming out every day with stories so vivid, you’d think they fought in Nam. And although little is currently known on the psychological impacts of circumcision, doctors now believe that infants as young as eight days old do feel pain, not to mention the neurological capacity to retain, store, and remember painful incidents. Mothers are quite susceptible to circumcision-PTSD as well.

According to psychiatrist Rima Laibow, circumcision significantly impairs mother-infant bonding. She argues that circumcised boys carry around unconscious rage toward their mothers for betraying and abandoning them in their time of need, lending to trust issues further down the road. And mothers, some already dealing with post-partum issues, find themselves knee deep in guilt for allowing their child to be put in a position of undeniable pain.

Finally, a methodological approach toward Jewish guilt.

Where some find humor, others find the need to forge foreskin. Witness the real life version of Europa Europa (single stall bathrooms and Nazi occupied Europe notwithstanding) otherwise known as foreskin restoration. The term refers to various surgical and non-surgical methods that aim to reproduce the appearance of a foreskin. Most of the resources on the Internet are focused on non-surgical restoration, a painful and time-consuming feat accomplished by gradually stretching the skin from the penile shaft into a makeshift foreskin. This technique, also called “tissue expansion,” can be achieved with tape and weights, elastic straps, traction devices, or good old manual stretching.

Oddly enough, foreskinmongering has been around for quite some time. According to The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (CIRP), the act dates back to biblical times where the “Hellenistic ideals of Antiochus IV, such as public nakedness at athletic games or in public baths, forced Jews to stretch their shortened foreskins with a special weight.” Fast forward a few millennia to 1970s America, where a bunch of pissed-off circumcised citizens bonded over their unfair situation, forming the now internationally recognized National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM).

Along with a slew of other organizations dedicated to undoing the mental and physical harm brought on by circumcision, NORM’s primary focus is to provide a safe space for circumcised men to come together and share their stories without being ridiculed.

Which basically means I should shut-up already, lest somebody have a freak-out over a butter knife.
  • 1
View as a single page
 
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Sex & Relationships headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: circumcision, reproductive justice, judaism

comments COMMENTS ( 349 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

ugh
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 23skidoo on Apr 14, 2008 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the best example of man hating Feminism I have ever encountered. Pure misandry. Let's slice off some of her, or her daughters genitals and see what she has to say.

Can you imagine if your mother spoke of you with such callous disdain? She is reveling in her indifference.

Thanks yet again Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more blaming women for men's actions Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» Wha? Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Wha? Posted by: fork
» RE: Wha? Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Wha? Posted by: fork
» RE: Wha? Posted by: suprmark
» Don't blame feminism - blame Judaism Posted by: Morgaine Swann
» oy! you! taxi driver! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: oy! you! taxi driver! Posted by: yellow

Comments are closed-

Stick to your area of expertise, if you have one
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TLCTugger on Apr 14, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Non-surgical foreskin restoration is not painful. It's easy, but it takes time.

It's very worthwhile. I'm shocked every day at how much better intimacy is with slinky slack skin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's worth pointing out, though -- Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle

Comments are closed-

We need more discussion of circumcision, not less
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gendershaman on Apr 14, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What message does circumcision send to a baby boy? It was always performed without anesthetic, and even now, anesthetic use is only slowly gaining acceptance. Anesthetic or not, circumcision sends the message to baby boys: “You are not safe. Your feelings don’t matter. The people closest to you don’t have your best interests at heart. Remember that they initiated what is being done to you. Remember this if they tell you that they love you. The pain you feel isn't necessary—people close to you chose to have you hurt. Welcome to the world, baby boy.”
The sense of loneliness, of abandonment, that no one will protect them, that their best interests will constantly and inevitably be subsumed to someone else’s (anyone else’s) agenda that boys come to feel, thus starts for some boys when they are days old.
For generations, parents have avoided taking time to teach their sons good personal hygiene including how to clean their genitals, especially under their foreskins. Instead of teaching their sons, many adults have instead availed themselves of circumcision as a quick, painless (for them) solution. Boys’ hands will become dirty in their lifetimes, too. Shall we cut them off now pre-emptively, and avoid “all that time-consuming hand washing trouble later?”
It wasn’t that long ago that circumcision was prescribed as a medically advised method to combat the “scourge” of masturbation. Other than religious superstition, parental laziness and squeamishness about their children’s avid pursuit of bodily pleasure, a history of harming sons in this way, parental refusal to examine admit to that history, and pressure from the medical establishment grubbing for every last bit of possible profit, there is no possible justification for circumcision. Circumcision is abuse.
Where are the warriors standing to defend the intact genitalia of baby boys? Why have most fathers avoided their responsibility to do so? Is it because it would logically be fathers who should teach their sons penile hygiene? But, most fathers have chosen to avoid this task either shunting it off to the mother or agreeing to circumcision to avoid the issue. Fathers’ refusal to teach their sons penile cleanliness blocks fathers once again from taking the important step to make an emotional connection with their sons as they help protect and heal another male.
Circumcision is the first of many painful initiation rites that boys are compelled to suffer. Boys’ innocence is sacrificed in a bloody, empty gesture. Offer-up your SUV’s for your Lord or sacrifice your cell phones to Wotan or your Internet porn sites to any televangelist, not your baby sons’ sense of trust and safety. Parents’ subsequent instruction to kids that their bodies are sacred or are theirs and no one else’s will sit as ashes in the parents’ correctly ashamed mouths.
Genital mutilation of girls and women: While much media attention recently (finally) has focused on this problem, their focus has been exclusively on Africa. Why only Africa? Female genital excision was practiced in prisons and asylums in the U.S. until the early 1950’s. The excuses? Female genital excision was indicated in cases of girls and women who masturbated or who were “sexually-active.” Sometimes, “sexually-active” referred to one partner of whom the parents or guardians didn’t approve.
The phrase “female circumcision” is a misnomer that attempts to soften and euphemize this violence against females by normalizing the less extreme, though distinctly abusive, treatment of males. This is no defense for either abuse. The degree of cutting in female circumcision is anatomically much more extensive. The male equivalent of clitorectomy would be the amputation of most of the penis. The male equivalent of infibulation would be removal of all the penis, its roots of soft tissue, and part of the scrotal skin.
Joe Weinberg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are absolutely right Posted by: gendershaman

Comments are closed-

Step back
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hugh7 on Apr 15, 2008 1:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bonnie, please let go the angst and the feeble ("snippety snip") humour. Step back a moment, take a Martian perspective.

You land on earth and find humans seem pretty nice people. Most of them believe in peace and human rights and freedom, and kindness to animals. And about a quarter of them hold down a male child and cut the most sensitive part of his penis off.

[rewinding noise] THEY WHAT? (And not just Jews, but, in descending order, Muslims, US Americans, Filipinos, South Koreans, tribal Africans, (Jews,) Eastern Polynesians and Australian Aboriginals. The rest of the English-speaking world used to do it, but gave it up.)

And they do it for literally hundreds of reasons, mainly crackpot. Clearly, something else is going on. Here's one attempt to make sense of it. Our green friends would shake their tentacles in despair at our folly.

What's a non-practising Jew to do? Here are contact details for celebrants of non-cutting Jewish naming ceremonies. Shalom!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Step back Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Step back Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Step back Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Step back Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Step back Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Step back Posted by: hugh7
» RE: Step back Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Step back Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

Uncut is better I have proof
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ashkewoof on Apr 15, 2008 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Uncut by birth, got cut at 18 because I was confused that cut penises looked better.

I have tried to live without regret and I swore when I got circumcised, I would never regret it.

I now live with that regret. I am reminded of this regret every time I am intimate with a partner.

With my foreskin went a wonderful degree of sensuality and sensitivity that I will never get back and never knew I would miss until it was gone. I had a whole lot of experience with a foreskin before I was cut and a whole lot of experience without one after I was cut.

I am in a very good position to speak on the subject clearly since I have experienced both sides of the issue for long periods of time.

I want to scream when I hear parents making the choice to mutilate their child for cleanliness, aesthetics or misplaced notions of health. With a few necessary medical exceptions, this is barbarity and it is mutilating your son in the most intimate of ways.

My penis was always clean, happy and wonderful. Now part of it, a truly wonderful part of it is gone and restoration will not bring it back.

Stop butchering your children and STOP making this choice for them!

It should be illegal to do this to children. If they want to do so later on their journey through this life, when they are adults for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, let them. No one should mutilate children at an age especially when they can not consent to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thank you for writing Posted by: deborama
» RE: Uncut is better I have proof Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» thank you! Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: Uncut is better I have proof Posted by: curiouscat

Comments are closed-

Genital mutilation is a serious issue.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aouie01 on Apr 15, 2008 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the absence of a medical emergency, circumcision should require the consent of the grown up and well-informed person whose foreskin is at stake.

While male circumcision isn't as bad as the more gruesome forms of female genital cutting, it still is bad and similar to some forms of female genital cutting, and it is widespread and happening in our midst. I hope you will do your part in saving children from needless genital mutilations. But first you need to know why. A lot of people who like being natural would mind having their natural states altered in permanent ways without their well informed consent. Check CIRP for information. Especially the information about the anatomy of the penis, and the mechanics of intercourse. Circumstitions.com is a useful resource made available by intactivists.

Some have worked on a bill, MGMBill.org. Female genital cuttings are already against the law. To some extent people probably dealt with the (non-rare) worst case examples of female genital cutting more as a women's "rights" issue rather than a child protection or child's "rights" issue. But even if the law makers knew of the child's "rights" issues related to a male human child's genital cutting, they may not be willing to challenge religious, cultural and political opposition to any law that tries to forbid all (non-critical) genital cutting of children.

Sincrerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Castration Posted by: suprmark
» RE: That gang should be put to death Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

hands off my dick
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HelperMonkey on Apr 15, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm australian and uncut and I have never understood the argument for circumcision - sorry, but having bits of yourself cut off doesn't sound quite right to me.

The argument that circumcision is better hygienically is a false one. Following that logic, one could say that everyone should shave their heads - hair is unhygienic, it gets greasy and people get dandruff, so why not remove it all? And hey what about your feet.. dirty toes, athlete's foot and all that, surely it would be more hygienic to lop them off?

My point is, hygiene is only an issue if you're an idiot who doesn't know how to take basic care of yourself. And as for your sex life, I can't say whether circumcision would make it better or worse.. but I have a sneaking suspicion that like most things, the unmodified version is better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Try respecting the kid's rights
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Julian on Apr 15, 2008 4:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Problem of whether to have a baby boy circumcised? Artificial. Every human being has the right to make his or her own life decisions and a boy needs to be at least 18 before being able to decide on circumcision, or baptism, or anything else that identifies him as "belonging" top this or that subgroup. Dawkins was right when he wrote that to deprive children of access - at the wishes of the child at all times - to any form of religion or anti-religion going was child abuse. So also is any other act of locking a human being in to a group chosen by parents or cultural "elders" of any stripe. One correspondent here said he was circumcised at 18 and later regretted it. But at least it was his decision, not foisted on him by social engineers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I'm Not a Victim
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Libertine on Apr 15, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not Jewish, but I was circumcised as most American baby boys were in the late fifties. It's been a total non-issue for me throughout my life. I don't feel like a "victim", and I'm quite happy with the appearance and performance of my penis.

It wasn't until the last few years or so that I even heard about the anti-circ movement. I have to admit it pretty much baffles me, as I do not see my life as having been diminished for the simple fact of being circumcised.

I rolled my eyes when reading about the man who said that his circumcision was the "most traumatic event of his life". Give me an effing break. I can understand a man perhaps wishing that he'd been left uncut, but I don't get all the hand-wringing and claims of continued "suffering".

And the idea of men forming a group to piss and moan about what victims they are because they were circumcised decades before, when there are people who go to bed hungry every night, people truly suffering and dying in cancer and AIDS wards, and a host of other examples of true suffering, just leaves me speechless. The idea of foreskin restoration leaves me similarly speechless.

Of course, disliking circumcision is a perfectly valid opinion. But for oneself, it's over and done with, and I see little benefit in embracing the notion of perpetual victimhood. Rather, a more positive way to express one's opinion would be to leave one's own sons uncut and to provide information for those future parents who are undecided about this issue, then leave them to make their own decision.

I blogged about this a few years ago and ended up having to write a second entry because of the heated responses. To read these entries click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm Not a Victim Posted by: everton9
» RE: I'm Not a Victim Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: I was making a point and it is a valid one. Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Apples and Oranges Posted by: Libertine
» Suffering Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Suffering Posted by: hugh7
» RE: It all makes so much sense now... Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I can say the same. Posted by: Libertine
» You are Not credible Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: And you are? Posted by: Techubus
» RE: I'm Not a Victim Posted by: koolwoman
» RE: Ever been to Africa? Posted by: Techubus
» RE: ver been to Africa? Posted by: Joe2

Comments are closed-

a choice for a child
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aislinnluv on Apr 15, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when i learned i would be giving birth to a son, this issue became one of real importance to me. i read all i could find, discussed it with anyone who would talk about it, thought long and hard (haha). from the first, it made no sense to me to subject my son to a painful and questionable practice with no discernible justification aside from the cleanliness issue. when he was old enough to begin his own cleansing rituals, i taught him how to retract his foreskin and make sure he was clean underneath. what i cannot understand is how any mother could not feel a sense of horror when confronted with this decision! what? you want to do WHAT to my baby boy? get out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Get it done: his girlfriends/wife will thank you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 15, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giving a blowjob to a circumsized cock is a better experience than a natural cock. Taste alone should dictate the decision (as well as hygiene, STDs).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oy! he says it's the taste! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» pfft! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» The asshole gets dirty too Posted by: xvictor
» RE: To hell with that girlfriend or wife Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

Done for you, your religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 15, 2008 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giving your thing for the One God, or rather having it done for you.
The history is that the social evolution of the
Ego involved identification with spirits and deities, since how long?
But the Hebrews had this new sense of identity a new kind of tribe with a single God which simplified many matters, cleared the mind of many things and superstitions and justified conquests, even if they were synthesized after the fact.
I had it done for my sons because it seemed hygenic, and cleanliness was an issue. But
life in those days was beset with traumas ranging scarlet fever to being beaten for belonging to the wrong religion or ethnic group
and veterans sitting on sidewalks begging.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Ritual mutilation
[Report this comment]
Posted by: beachpoet on Apr 15, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was carrying my son 28 years ago, his (Jewish) father and I had to decide what to do about circumcision. My gut told me it was a horrible thing, yet I wanted to make an informed decision. To learn more, in those pre-internet days, I turned to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and finally found the information I was seeking under the title "Ritual Mutilation."

Needless to say, our son remains a "whole" person. Male genital mutilation is every bit as horrifying as female genital mutilation and should be considered felony child abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

doctors now believe...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: setterwoman on Apr 15, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"doctors now believe that infants as young as eight days old do feel pain"

What? Just now? How obtuse does one have to be to not believe infants as young as one day old can feel pain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: everton9
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: everton9
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: lepidopteryx

Comments are closed-

Is it sexual only?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Apr 15, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Endogeny/Exogeny have their levels of generality, beginning with the individual and then the family and then society and then the species. Circumcisions carry a profound history and more holistically than only related to sex and sexual relations. It has brutally physical dimensions as well as deeply symbolic ones. And, of course, the practice is not exclusive to Jews, those familiar with similar practices in other social aggregations testify.

It seems to me the question has much more and deeper significance than reduction to sexual relations alone. After all, many Gated Communities are "a circumcision" of another, more symbolic, kind, as well as other forms of meeting the thoroughly human dilemmas of inclusion and exclusion which over time have developed into higher and higher complexity in all of our social relations. All religions in their rituals, ceremonies and preferred asceticisms will practice Cutting and Marking, brutally on the flesh or symbolically in "the soul" or "spirit".

As humans are all drawn closer and closer together in more fluid and dynamic relations with one another, all these questions rise again in all their various dimensions. Include or exclude? Fixed or permeable boundaries? Many more, many more. Does not Feminism itself, as all "isms", have a circumcision of sorts to contend with in respect to relations with non- and anti- Feminists? It seems a matter of developing and advancing consciousness and HUMAN relations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I've often wondered ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cybershaman on Apr 15, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if male genital mutilation was responsible for all the sexual dysfunction western society goes through. The idea that the small child is left with weeks of unending pain in their genital region must create lasting psychological damage. This is just one more example of our hippocracy as we judge other cultures.
Would we be 'dead from the waist down' or in such desperate need for Viagra if we stopped this insanity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Implication of these anti-circ arguments is...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goldmarx on Apr 15, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that the Jews are to blame for all this trauma and patriarchy since they brought circumcision to every land where they live.

Anti-Semitic, much?

Hitler was uncircumcised, so I guess that means he and his fellow Nazis were OK and psychologically balanced, and did not have issues with women, right?

Let's not forget recent studies, gong back over 10 years in the New York Times, that show that all things being equal, a circumcised penis prevents HIV transmission better that an uncircumcised penis.

Ms. Zylbergold is being hoodwinked by a group of men who are co-opting feminist victimization rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bingo n/t Posted by: Techubus

Comments are closed-

superstitious morons!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jstuv on Apr 15, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading all these comments, I can only roll my eyes. What a bunch of uneducated, provincial, untraveled, superstitious morons!

Personally, I never gave much thought to having been circumcised. It was only when I was thrown into the world, did I appreciate what my parents had done for me.

Let’s put religion aside, as that is just superstition: Not reasoning with facts.

When I was drafted into the Army, thrown into a barracks of backward, unschooled, fools, did I realize, first-hand, the importance of the circumcision practice. The daily routine of latrine activity was traumatic, to see all the slimy, dripping, ugly, nauseating, discolored, swinging dicks.

A) Circumcision is a cultural practice in all-modern educated societies.

B) Appearance: much more pleasing.

C) Sexual: Much more gratifying as 1. Coitus is prolonged. 2. Orgasm is heightened. 3. Lubrication is simplified. 4.Clean up is easier. 5. There is less possibility of infection. 6. No foreskin to catch and hold mucus. 7. It is just healthier, more appealing, cleaner and hygienic.

D) Medical. Without a doubt, a circumcised penis is much less likely to get infected.
Hygiene is easier, even if infected.

E) Ever get your foreskin caught in a zipper?

F) Ask any women which they prefer.

G) Ask any educated, worldly, man, which they prefer.

H) Lastly, research the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: superstitious morons! Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: superstitious morons! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: superstitious morons! Posted by: lepidopteryx
» You're the moron Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: You're the moron Posted by: HoboHomo
» wasn't you, joan Posted by: KaptainSpiffy

Comments are closed-

learning to forget
[Report this comment]
Posted by: IanEOnehome on Apr 15, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"doctors now believe that infants as young as eight days old do feel pain"

The author implies that doctors who performed circumcisions simply didn't realize the babies whose bodies they were cutting into without anesthesia could feel it. That one takes the prize for the biggest load of crap I've seen coming down the pike since the Bosnian sniper fire story.

Have you ever heard a baby boy being circumcised? I have. It would be impossible for anyone who has heard the level and intensity of those shrieks to believe that no pain is being felt.

The truth is that doctors have always known that infants as young as eight days old feel pain. They've known that babies younger than that do, too. It's not that they didn't know. What the author of this article is trying so hard to mask is that doctors (and the parents who authorized the procedure) simply didn't CARE. They rationalized it away by claiming, not that babies feel no pain, but rather, that they don't carry the memory of the pain with them for very long. They get over it. It's the first step on the path to learning to take things like a man.

New research is casting serious doubt on the belief that the memory of the pain of circumcision disappears after a few seconds. Moreover, even without that research, what sense did that argument make in the first place? Is the rule that it is okay to hurt a person so long as the pain isn't remembered for very long? So a man should be able to beat up a woman all he wants if she has a poor memory?

Why is the author of this article trying so hard to conceal the fact that doctors and parents who engage in the practice of mutilating boys' genitals simply DO NOT CARE that they are inflicting intense pain on boys?

That, I believe, is a question only the author of this article and her sisters can answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Concerning the "shreiks ..." Posted by: BenCaxton12
» RE: Concerning the "shreiks ..." Posted by: IanEOnehome

Comments are closed-

Circumcision is NOT something to mock
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ruby on Apr 15, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a mother who highly regrets having circumcised two of her four sons, I suggest the writer have a son before taking potshots about such a serious subject.

There is absolutely nothing funny about mutilating babies. I am mortified that I blindly did it "because it was done." I would give anything to reverse it. My sons, of course, dont know the difference and hopefully will never realize what I stole from them. I have apologized to them and my other two sons have thanked me for sparing them.

Ms. Zylbergold needs to write about what she knows, not muse ignorantly about that which she cannot know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rampaging Queen!!! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Rampaging Queen!!! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Rampaging Queen!!! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: ampaging Queen!!! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: ampaging Queen!!! Posted by: maestra

Comments are closed-

Penis Jewelry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 15, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--is the adult version of circumcision. People get their tongues pierced, their nipples pierced, noses, navels, eyebrows and of course earlobes. Having a tattoo is pretty painful too.

If adults want to be circumcised as a token of their religious beliefs, by all means. If sexy (to a Jewish woman) is your ambition, good for you. However, I'm not sure who you are when you torture babies for your faith. Is that all your faith is? Long term preservation of your own faith in God by hurting little babies?

This is just my opinion, but we don't live 2500 years ago any more. I believe in God, but maybe it's time to think about what really endures and what is now known to be pretty heathen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Penis Jewelry Posted by: Morgaine Swann

Comments are closed-

Cut me or kill me
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Apr 15, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not a Jew, but everyone in my family or who will ever be in my family, will forego the pain and suffering. There is nothing worse than standing in a john and having some uncircumcised fool standing beside you who forgets to pull the skin back. He does not have a clue which way he will piss. Being a good shot is worth the pain and suffering of youth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cut me or kill me Posted by: maestra

Comments are closed-

Fortunately, I am an atheist/gentile.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Apr 15, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though I am cicrcumcized, I did not end up as some ambulance chasing jew lawyer, money grubbing doctor, full of self writer, etc, ad infinitum typically jewish type.

As for you whiny imbeciles longing for your foreskins, the women in my life and myself have never suffered this neurotic longing for the dead(skin).

Im am comfortable in my skin(no pun) and laugh at your golems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» golems? or goyims? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Fortunately, I am an atheist/gentile. Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN

Comments are closed-

Just a Question
[Report this comment]
Posted by: theshadowknows on Apr 15, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If God created us in his/her image, why is it necessary to alter that creation by circumcision.... whether it be male or female? If God "designed" us, did he/she forget about the genitals until after we existed? Or is genital mutilation about something else?

This seems to be another way to control people's sexual lives..... make the male organ less sensitive and pleasurable and then you can weaken the natural drive..... maybe that's the thinking anyway. And look at what terrible things some cultures do to women..... scraping down the clitoris so that sex loses its pleasure for her. That helps reinforce the "shame" that women are supposed to have about their bodies.

If we really cared about children, we would let them decide for themselves what to do with their sexual organs when they become adults.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just a Question Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Just a Question Posted by: maestra
» RE: Just a Question Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Just a Question Posted by: Morgaine Swann

Comments are closed-

Typical...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 15, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet FINALLY adresses male genital mutilation and not only is it addressed ONLY in terms of Judaism (my family is about as Jewish as a bacon cheeseburger and it was done to me), but its also (no real surprise) addressed by a woman.. through the lens of.. yep, you guessed it.. FEMINISM. a FEMINIST view of male genital mutilation. And no surprise it is less than tactful and even mocks men who claim to have PTSD from their circumsisions.

How about we have a MALE view on the subject, considering it so intimately concerns males. Or are gender issues only supposed to be addressed by one of the genders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typical... Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Typical... Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Typical... Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Typical... Posted by: Morgaine Swann

Comments are closed-

Male Circumcision Significantly Reduced HIV Transmission
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fanny666 on Apr 15, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few pro-circumcision arguments:

Male Circumcision Significantly Reduces HIV Transmission

Circumcision is a Biomedical Imperative for the 21st Century

When they were studying the effect of circumcision on HIV transmission in Africa, they actually stopped the study halfway through because they decided that it would be unethical to continue having a non-circumcised "control" group in the study.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nonsense Posted by: fanny666

Comments are closed-

Tough Choice for New Moms/Parents
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Anonymom on Apr 15, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven’t thought about this issue for quite a while, and it’s still a difficult one. My partner and I have two sons, now teenagers. We circumcised the first one, and not the second. As a mom, I ultimately came to the conclusion that it’s a choice between tradition and logic/compassion. Here’s how I got there.

We are both lefty Jews, and our social context was roughly evenly divided on the issue of circumcision—or more precisely on the issue of whether or not we should circumcise our sons. About half of our friends and relatives said, “You should never” and the other half “You must.” Believe me, we got a lot of heartfelt pressure from both sides. And there’s not really any place for compromise on this one.

After a lot of discussion and struggle (and hoping we’d have a daughter, so it wouldn’t be an issue!), we decided to circumcise our first son. We had a mohel, who’s also a pediatrician, come to our house for the ritual, with no associated party or fanfare. After the elective-surgery-without-anesthetic, our 8-day-old son cried and shrieked all night. It was horrible for all of us; I feared he would never trust me again. In retrospect, I think it was a also low point in my relationship with my partner.

When we had another son, I put my foot down: No circumcision. This caused a certain amount of consternation and conflict, particularly with my partner’s mom. “He won’t really be Jewish…”—that sort of thing. It remained a difficult issue for a few years. We had Jewish “naming ceremonies” for both kids, in lieu of a brit.

Parenthetically, my favorite bogus argument in favor of circumcision is: “He should look like his father.” I’ve never noticed a great resemblance between a newborn’s penis and an adult one!

For the record, my older son still seems to love us. Once or twice, while taking a bath together as young kids, they noticed a difference between them and asked about it. They had nowhere near the buzz on it that we did.

So I’m back to the choice between tradition and logic/compassion. Personally, I think it’s a stupid tradition (or if you prefer, an outdated one). And the way that stupid traditions get changed is when people stop cooperating with them, and start raising the issue publicly. Meanwhile, good luck to those who have to make this choice now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm proud of you, Anonymom Posted by: asilsfable
» Typical faulty logic. Posted by: yellow

Comments are closed-

wow....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 15, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If there remains one solitary trait defining Judaism today, it is without a
doubt a circumcised dick."

So.. not only should a woman be the one writing about this.. because, of course, the one solitary trait defining Judaism today has SO much to do with her and her body... but this mutilation should continue for a religion you don't even believe in? Or perhaps for cultural solidarity? Tell ya what.. I'll buy those arguments when you start mutilating the genitals of jewish females as well... and even then I'd still denounce them as monstrous and criminal acts of abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bottom line
[Report this comment]
Posted by: logansmom on Apr 15, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Female circumcision is illegal in most places, for good reasons. Male circumcision is illegal NOWHERE, also for good reasons. Intelligent people understand the difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Circumcise your son and in denial? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Bottom line Posted by: Aleandria
» RE: Bottom line Posted by: Aleandria
» Where's Your Definition, MoM Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Bottom line Posted by: Jacko

Comments are closed-

Pun Intended
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HoboHomo on Apr 15, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the male circumcision issue is actually a red herring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Would you like to be FORCED to be straight? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Would you like to be FORCED to be straight? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

Why circumcision prevents aids/HIV
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ciccio on Apr 15, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can speak with some authority on this subject, I spent over 20 years in Africa. Some posters brought up the subject of hygiene as a reason for circumcision and it is certainly valid. There are 1000's upon 1000's of villages in Africa which have neither running water, toilets or bathrooms.
Entering an empty elevator, I could immediately smell if an African had used it before me. If you cannot bathe while working all day at temperatures often in the 80's, you to tend to stink. Without hygiene in hot weather, the prepuce is a fertile breeding ground for every disease under the sun. The reason HIV is so much lower in Muslim culture is because cleanliness is part of their culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh Come On.............. Posted by: gellero1

Comments are closed-

CUT OFF YOUR CLIT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Patriot76 on Apr 15, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
honey, we're coming for your clit with a garden shears, okay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What a hot topic!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: supercrisp on Apr 15, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm circumcised, and I wish I weren't. But like several other posters, I don't feel like a big victim.

But some comments here are odd. One guy writes that all civilized nations or some such do It. Well, my Austrian wife would have my ass if I got any son of ours snipped. Her brothers aren't snipped, and from what I gather it's not common among German or Austrian people. Nor is it a common practice in Asia, which contains several civilized nations.

And to the cleanliness argument, that's open to debate. I read the Science Daily feed, and I see research going back and forth on this issue. And really, eliminating an infection danger is as simple as cleaning your penis after sex.

There's a double-standard at work too. I know women who get over-wrought over boob jobs who snicker that there might be something wrong with infant circumcision.

At the very least the question of circumcision seems worth serious consideration. It doesn't cut it to puff out your chest and yawp "I'm a tuff guy, never bothered me." Nor does it to cop a moue and giggle over it like the author does here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

YES, BUT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ahimsa on Apr 15, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a former jew (Yes, FORMER)
I am circumcized, naturally. I am homosexual too.
I've had my share of cut and uncut... From empirical research, if you will, I can assure you that there is a difference in sensitivity and versatility between cut and uncut. And it is major! It is not just a piece of skin, it has mucose, nerve endings and serves more than one purpose (read your anatomy book and/or play with yours if you are lucky and have one.)
There is still no real and rational justification for circumcision in the XX C, just that of the biblical fable and the jewish influence in all things hygiene.
Yeah yeah, it worked 5000 years ago in the desert, why shouldn't it work now? Bullshit. Perhaps it is useful or necessary in certain cases.
I am not traumatized or bitter, but hell I'd love to get my foreskin back! Stop the barbaric practice, and the bullshit about it too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That is total bs Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

I don't see the point
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davesilvan on Apr 15, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was born and raised Roman Catholic until I was old enough to decide for myself that it was a bunch of bullshit, but I was circumsized too. (I don't see the point in highlighting Jews because circumcision is a common practice for jews and non-Jews alike.) There is no invisible sky entity who watches and remembers absolutely everything you say and do. It's all based on mankind's regret of death.

Religions play on that fear that one day you'll be gone and continue to suck in billions in donations. Meanwhile, war over who's god is better is the number one cause of death, suffering, and oppression in the history of mankind.

I'd rather not have to peel the foreskin off my dick every time I showered to clean it, and studies have proven that it's much more likely to get a genital infection if you have a foreskin.

As for the argument that there are nerve endings in the foreskin/sex is more pleasurable to those with foreskins, I'll never know and don't really care, I've already been sliced. Look at it the same way as tonsillitis or appendicitis; you certainly don't need them because plenty of people have gotten it and had their tonsils/appendix taken out. (I have a friend who got his tonsils taken out at 29.)

It's an evolutionary throwback which proves we evolved from a lesser hominid and if you want to ensure your baby doesn't die from a genital infection it should be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't see the point Posted by: davesilvan
» amendment Posted by: davesilvan
» RE: amendment Posted by: Xynyx

Comments are closed-

This is silly
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aleandria on Apr 15, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious circumcions began as removal of ONLY the tip of the forskin, nothing near what is removed today! All of the excuses for circumcision have been proven ridiculous time and time again. There are even new studies out saying that circumcised men are not safe from STDs.
News on Circ

Here's one from 10/07
Circ not recommended

AIDS

Aids info

STDs

Circ and HIV

You want research? There is plenty out there (new stuff too) that tells exactly why RIC is completely uneccessary. If you want it done when you are an adult, fine, but don't do it to an infant that doesn't have a choice.
It doesn't prevent infections, it doesn't look better (It's a freakin penis, looks don't make a difference in function), it doesn't prevent cancer, it's a stupid procedure that should be illegal to perform on minors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

To submit
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 15, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was always told from religious symbolozism it was basically the act of rendering submission to authority. Something along the lines of all those who are not kings should render their foreskins. Irrespective, it is a nobrainer, really comes down to what you believe in. For most it is a choice that they have no say in. I believe the modern philosophy and policies of our so called enlightened ones is to remove from the minds of men (wo-humankind),their sense of religiosity, familiality, dogma, tradition and turn us all into consumers, they just need a catalyst. Guess who that is. The sad thing in this industrialization process we do lose a very basic sense of value and personal responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To submit Posted by: lepidopteryx

Comments are closed-

Circumcision
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sir Jim on Apr 15, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look up SMEGMA on Google.

Jim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Circumcision Posted by: bomec
» RE: Circumcision Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: Circumcision Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

The issue is a matter of CHOICE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oceansong on Apr 15, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue is a matter of CHOICE.
Not whether a cut or uncut penis is more attractive.

Babies should not have unnecessary surgery just to satisfy the desires/fears/preferences of the adults around them.

I grew up around circumcised men. I didn't even know that nature started out differently. But when I was pregnant, I fortunately got educated. I learned that circumcision was an elective surgery, not essential. As my son grew older, he knew some other boys who were uncircumcised as well. But most males he saw (including his dad) were circumcised. There was one point in his childhood that he asked why I hadn't had it done for him. He expressed the desire to look like most of the other boys.
I told him that it wasn't necessary; that it was a painful procedure; and that it would be his own choice. I told him that if he still wanted to have it done, that he could decide for himself when he became an adult. Now that he's an adult in his 30's, he (and his wife) have thanked me for not doing it to him as a baby.

Babies and children should NEVER be subjected to unnecessary surgery just to satisfy the desires/ fears of the adults around them - whether for circumcision, intersex issues, cosmetic reasons, religious reasons, etc.

The child has a right to make their own choice as an adult.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absolutely Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Absolutely Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

Circumcision is immoral, whatever the rationalization
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dantheman99 on Apr 15, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the outrage over female circumcision in the world, why is it any more acceptable to engage in male genital mutilation?

Circumcision only caught on in North America because puritans like Kellogg wanted to discourage masturbation.

It offers no discernible health benefits. Doctors make money off the circumcision AND off of reselling the foreskin tissue to plastic surgeons.

The choice to circumcise should be left up to the man when he becomes a full adult. Unless there is a severe medical problem, infants should not be circumcised. My friend, Adam, who is Jewish did not circumcise either of his two sons and used an alternative pricking procedure at the bris.

Fortunately, circumcision rate are dramatically dropping in North America, and routine infant circumcision increasingly hard to come by in Europe and parts of Australia.

The "foreskin restoration" movement is also growing.

Check out www.nocirc.org and www.norm.org to find out more.

Also, uncircumcised men have better sex and more intense orgasms, if that matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A Pathological Aspect of Judaism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 15, 2008 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former Jew -now spiritual humanist-circumcision is clearly one of the pathological (to the point of barbarism) behaviors in fundamentalist organized religion.

Yet this act is so fundamental to the core of Judaism that many otherwise rational Jews still proceed with this cruel ritual.

Doug Rushkoff wrote a great book trying to rescue Judaism from its own self destructiveness. It is called "Nothing Sacred"

Modern Jews should not feel guilty at all for abandoning this bizarre practice.
Conversely they should feel proud for advancing their religion into modernity.

Thanks AlterNet

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» very sad of you, yellow Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Get Real Rick...... Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Get Real Rick...... Posted by: drricklippin
» OK............ Posted by: gellero1

Comments are closed-

circumcision creates a knob on
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bitsfick on Apr 15, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the end, which keeps your hand from slipping off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The original purposes of it
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 15, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More comments historical:
Thee was the thing about inheriting the land of Canaan part of which the circumcision was to distinguish them from the natives. Further breaking the old rules was the distinguishing
the heir from progenitor, the first born; the case of Ishmael and Isaac. Establishing the rules of the patriarchy; circumcision was a sign of all of this before the conception of Isaac.
Noting in Exodus, ch4:26,27 Zipporah, Moses' wife circumcised her son and said "You are a bloody husband"
Again, distinguishing the Israelites from the Egyptians in whom to protect from the Pharoh's genocide.

Then there exists a kind of embarrassment between fathers and sons so that the fathers
are not teaching the sons how to work it back.
(Especially among Austrian and Germans.)

Re: The Biblical injunctions upon not looking on each others nakedness, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If your religion asks you to cut up your junk...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: radiomorning on Apr 15, 2008 4:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your religion sucks. Ditch it.

If you religion asks you to cut up your helpless infant's junk, slice up your rabbi/pastor/priest/shaman's bits and see how he bloody likes it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» always the intellectual, aren't you? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy

Comments are closed-

Here's a Reason to Do It.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 15, 2008 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reason # one......,.Respect your Mother and Father.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That''s not a reason Posted by: drcyflowers

Comments are closed-

Reason # 2
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 15, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Girls don't like the taste or smell of SMEGMA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eason # 2 Posted by: radiomorning

Comments are closed-

HIV? Really? Really??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty on Apr 15, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm stumped.

Can someone stop for one second and ponder HOW in the world NOT having foreskin can prevent contraction of HIV? I understand that there are "studies" that say it does but show me one that says HOW!

If we leave religion, gender politics, superstition, tradition, and dramatic victimization out of this, then we can all look at this with clarity.

Bottom line: If circumcision is performed soon after birth then It is the removal of a body part of someone who is not able to give or deny consent and thus, mutilation.

Plain and simple.

End of argument.

If you let your child grow up and decide, I can guarantee there would be far less circumcisions in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HIV? Really? Really?? Posted by: fanny666

Comments are closed-

Mutilation???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 15, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on.... the transformation from an anteater to a mushroom is a beautiful, aesthetic thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mutilation??? Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Mutilation??? Posted by: curiouscat

Comments are closed-

DON'T DO IT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Apr 15, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't rationalize it. It's barbaric. Leave your child as he was born. All the b.s. about it being necessary for hygiene is ridiculous. It's what nature intended - leave the boys alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

IF YOU ARE NON-PRACTICING, THEN DON'T CUT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Mr.Steve on Apr 15, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The foreskin is part of a male's body. It is his right to be intact. It makes no sense that a person claims to be a non-practicing Jew, who does not believe in the religion, yet insists on circumcising her son because it is a Jewish thing. Let the boy make the decision himself when he is old enough to make an intelligent decision. If he is so moved by the religion, then he can always have it done. If he is not so moved, then he has the right to remain uncut. If you force it on him, and he does not practice the faith, then you have done him an injustice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

tradition vs. consent?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bluebirdella on Apr 15, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it came time to make the decision, I couldn't come up with any good reason to have my sons circumcized, but I could list a number of reasons not to. Their father really wanted it done because it was done to him, but I talked him out of it. Without God or a Rabbi looking over my shoulder, and even WITH a strong Jewish cultural identity, I didn't see what circumcision would accomplish. The doctors said it was not medically necessary. Why remove a healthy body part? I understand that many Jews are going to feel obligated to uphold tradition. It just isn't a choice I felt right making for my sons, who weren't old enough to have a say in it. We didn't do it. Sometimes I feel a twinge of regret that they are outsiders - but I'd feel more regret if I'd allowed their bodies to be permanently altered without their consent. Circumcision, to me, seems akin to one of those so-called "primitive" cultural acts like tattoing and body piercing - not inherently any weirder. Odd that circumcision is required by Jewish Law but tattooing is forbidden, the equivalent of putting graffiti on a building you don't own (for the uninitiated, because our bodies are considered the property of God, but God asked for circumcision, specifically, as a sign of the bond between God and man. Circumcision has a deep religious significance for the observant, a welcoming into the community and into a relationship with God.) One issue the article doesn't touch upon is the fact that most non-Jewish men born between, say, 1940 and 1985 have had the procedure, supposedly because of health issues. Has it gone out of vogue with non-Jewish parents as well, and what was their reasoning for having it done in the past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I love how so called free thinking progressives...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: may261989 on Apr 15, 2008 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
turn into blood thirsty skin choppers when the subject turns to circumcision.
sorry guys, just because your mums decided to mutilate you doesn't mean you have to be such killjoys. It must be a real bummer knowing part of you is missing, but you have to deal with it. Leave those of us who are intact alone O.K.?
It always amazes me how you can talk politics to an American progressive but when the talk turns to mutiliation they suddenly become red faced crazy people ranting on about disease and the like. See above posts for proof.

Yours truly,
happily intact and healthy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Do Not Circumcise!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drcyflowers on Apr 15, 2008 9:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I encourage all parents out there NOT to have their baby boys circumcised.

What can be crueler than chopping off part of a boy's (very important) anatomy without his permission?Do you people realize that the procedure is done WITHOUT ANESTHETIC? People seem to think it's okay for a baby to feel pain because he doesn't remember it later. What the hell sort of logic is that?

This is insane! In Australia, baby boys are no longer circumcised, and in Europe they never were. There is NO reason for circumcision! Stop doing it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There's always something worse
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hugh7 on Apr 16, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's always something worse, so it's always a red herring when people say "Haven't you got anything better to do?" Infant circumcision isn't the most important cause in the world, but it's not the least, either, and vast numbers of people don't involve themselves in causes at all. Most of us aren't in a position to do anything about castration in India, but some of us are in a position to do something about infant circumcision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

curiouscat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: curiouscat on Apr 16, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I witnessed a routine American male infant circumcision as a nursing student in the early 70's. I was horrified to see the severity of the baby's distress, then appalled as I realized the doctor was absolutely callous to it. The event was so traumatic to even WITNESS that I still have vivid recall of it to this day. And no, I am not a hypersensitive person.

I did vow that if I ever had a son I would never allow such a thing to be done! I never did have a son but I've always encouraged my friends with newborn sons not to do it. They never listened, of course, always using the lame routine of "He needs to look like his father."

Over the years I've done a lot of reading about circumcision pros and cons. I also had only circumcised sex partners until 1990 when my relationship with my current (and uncircumcised) husband began. Sexually, the difference in pleasure with a cut and an uncut man is strikingly in favor of the uncut man.

With a cut man (who has a significantly less sensitive penis due to the dense fibrous contracted scar tissue), I always felt like my vagina was an object they were using like a battering ram, as they struggled to get enough sensation built up to orgasm. It was always more a mechanical experience - so much so that it felt like I, as a person, disappeared.

Totally different experience with my uncut man - so much more sensitivity "down there" and throughout his being! Sex is 100% more sensual, tender, emotional, personal, & pleasureable.

I've read that even when women don't personally LIKE their uncut partners better than their cut ones, they report more sexual satisfaction with the uncut ones. I believe this is accurate. Having a foreskin that slides over the penis during vaginal intercourse is more pleasureable for both partners, personalities notwithstanding.

My conclusion is circumcision should be reserved for medical conditions that necessitate it or for people who decide they want it done for some reason, and then only after an extensive informed consent is done.

All you guys and gals who are so pro-circumcision out there - more power to you - make the best with what you've got - you don't know any better and that's okay. But for goodness sake let your kids have a chance to know something better. Go on line and read about people's experiences. Open your minds to something besides what you know. Some things are better left as God made them and foreskin is certainly one of them!

Oh, one more thing! Foreskin is a tricky body part. As a youngster my husband trained his to stay behind the head of the penis. Even his doctors at the Mayo Clinic think he's circumcised! So much for medical expertise!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: curiouscat--dead on Posted by: asilsfable
» RE: curiouscat--dead on Posted by: curiouscat

Comments are closed-

Cutting off part of a kid's penis is violently abusive
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thornwolf on Apr 16, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no other way to describe it and no rationale that excuses it. Parents today are unimaginably either selfish or cowardly for allowing it to be done to their child.

Citing religious reasons for doing it only reveals a stark lack of thought. Do those favoring circumcision take issue with the designer, seeing as they're so eager to modify the design? If there is a god who created everything, wouldn't he/she/it have done it "right" the first time?

Circumcision is cruel and unwarranted mutilization and traumatization of a helpless child unable to speak on its own behalf. That isn't aa practice one should leap to defend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

History
[Report this comment]
Posted by: miz13 on Apr 16, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It started as an ancient Egyptian custom and there are wall carvings to prove it. It seems to have its origin in snake worship. The Egyptians believed that when the snake shed its skin, and emerged shiny and new again, it was undergoing rebirth. They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans should follow suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began. From there it spread to many Semetic peoples, both Arabs and Jews adopting it and converting it into an act of religious faith. As the centuries passed, it became popular in other regions of the world for moral, medical, or hygenic reasons. " From the book, Babywatching by Desmond Morris.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

in the case of my own
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 16, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
foreskin? Its gone now... Im ok with it.Circumcision is ok. I know nothing else. No skin off my.... oh wait.. never mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: in the case of my own Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

God & Guns & Penii
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billgee on Apr 16, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama had it right
He didnt go far enough
Peoples problems with the size or complete lack of (envy) are among the oldest problems of man&womankind.
Give up this latent stupidity of a belief in a god (he is only one of many depending on where you live).
Turn your attention from ancient political and religious beliefs and give all your love&attention to your child.
Circumision is hardly a religious issue in this godforsaken country. The only child in my sons generation (twentyorso) that I know of is of a friend who refused to subject his small helpless son to such pain. Moyl or doctor, the baby screams.

Forget feminism. It was a nice game for your youth. Talk to aging feminists without babies. Youre a mother now. Youve got a fulltime priority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

regardless of opinion on this issue, this is a terrible article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cameo on Apr 16, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is clear that the female writing this article did not actually speak with any males about this issue before writing on it. Quoting what men say in the midst of a drawn out discussion on a blog or a conversation board is not the same as asking for pointed comments.

Further more, thanks to a previous commenter for pointing out that circumcision is not strictly a Jewish thing. In the US the majority of men are circumcised, and for the Christians this is more compulsive (as opposed to conscious) than it is for the Jews, who at least have a ceremony and a reason (whether or not you think pleasing that god is a _good_ reason aside) for their actions. From the headline I expected some discussion of how men's experiences differ by religion, but this article taught me nothing.

Circumcision is a curious human practice, and I would love to hear more thought and discussion on this topic. It's unfortunate that this article doesn't involve much of either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» try reading the comments Posted by: KaptainSpiffy

Comments are closed-

Sexual Mutilation of Children
[Report this comment]
Posted by: marizara on Apr 17, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexual Mutilation of Children -- If somebody started a new religion right now, that thought it was a good idea to sexually mutilate little kids, they'd all be arrested and thrown in jail, no parole. -- If they were very lucky, a few might survive until released. -- That sort of primitive activity has NO place in a modern, enlightened society. -- If you're too ashamed to handle it, teach him to keep it healthy. -- Good grief, get over it, already! -- That's not religion, that's just mindless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If you don't have the genital parts, how can you know how important it is
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jacko on Apr 18, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found many pro circ comments upsetting because they include statements (Such as DEAD skin) when the writer has no knowledge about this genital feature that IS SO MUCH FUN.

Men that are cut as babies think there sex is fine. OK that is fine, but they do not know what they are missing. Men may be a bad judge as to the value of a clitoris. Women (certainly those that have not had natural partners) and circed men do not understand the value of the prepuce. It is a fact that Drs and dads that are cut try to justify this by trying to keep the practice going. This is a natural reaction.

Women that have been circumcised (FGM) often say the sex is good enough. BTW, a study shows female circumcision cuts male to female HIV transmission rates (Soemthin male circ does not). Anyone want to push FGM in Africa to cut HIV? FGM and MGM are not the same. However, if you cant remember having a frenulum or a rigid band, don't be so quick to say that FGM hurts female sexual function/pleasure and MGM does not. They are both practices that affect sexual pleasure and function.

Cut men say they are sensitive enough and say Intact men do it too soon. The only study on premature ejaculation and the cut (MGM) indicates that the cut may be the problem viz. PE. Intact men have feedback and control. Young circed men have the PE issues.

The cut contributes to ED. ED can have many contributing factors. However, it is believed that cut men become sexually dysfunctional 7 yrs on average before natural men. Your sex may have been great and your cut may have been a good one, but the sex may go bad sooner than it should have.

The pro MGM people sometimes have opined that the pro intact use mean and hateful tactics. It is an area that emotions get involved. I hate to see babies mutilated. I also am against the prolongation of this culture in the US (nothing to do with Judism or Islam). It is dying a slow death here (unlike the UK, Canada, Aus).

The other side has perpetuated myths that are very mean. No natural does not have PE problems, no ew and not ugly but natural, functional sensual and beautiful (in the male anatomy context). In fact natural looks the same when errect as cut and can look the same in the shower retracted and flacid.

The harm done by circ is what it is. It is not being mean to point out shortened penis, curved penis, painful errection, hair on shaft, ending sex 7 years earlier, cummming too soon as a youth and then not at all or after exceesive time as an adult over 40 (to name a few). These are things to be avoided. They can be avoided with a natural penis. It is the natural penis that has the health benifits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Iris Fudge
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beryl on Apr 18, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bonnie Zylbergold says- "Picking and choosing what defines my Jewishness on any given day has never been much of a problem" Alas, that is not a privileged option for a baby boy. It is disturbing that as a 'leftist feminist' she has forgotten all the struggles that enabled women to have some say and autonomy over their choices which she can enjoy. Why deny others that? As some comments have argued,the issue is that of humane behaviour towards others, and especially children over whom we adults wield such power. Her definition of Noam Chomsky as a 'crappy Jew' says all we need to know about the poverty of her thinking!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Consent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goldfishlaugh on Apr 19, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You shouldn't cut pieces off people for the sake of "tradition" without their consent. It's that simple. The choice to circumcise should only be made once the boy can make his own choice.

Apart from that, this has to be the worst article I've ever read on AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

We were proud to tell our four sons
[Report this comment]
Posted by: do on Apr 20, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they weren't like their dad because we chose not to mutilate their genitals like his parents had, however lovingly misguided that was. After seeing films of the procedures in birth classes and hearing stories of babies bursting blood vessels in their eyes from screaming so hard while their penises were being sliced on and the protective, adheared foreskin being torn away, we opted out for our child. A baby boy's foreskin is adheared to the head of the penis, and it performs a specific biological purpose. That nature would make such a huge mistake in making the human penis that man would have to improve it at birth in such a barbaric way was a preposterous idea to me. None of my sons had the problems my sister's circed sons had, which included little ulcers on their little diapered penises. My sons are grown now and none have opted to have their genitals mutilated.

It's sad that the author takes genital mutilation of helpless infants so lightly. It's not a source of humor for the millions of mutilated victims of a warped religious/medical system. Let's see how she'd like us making jokes about a scalpel being taken to her genitals. I pity her future son. I wouldn't wish that kind of insensitivity in a mom on anybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Ah, nuts!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beepath on Apr 20, 2008 1:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A big issue over a little tissue. Uncircumcised pecker looks like sock hanging off the end. I have a brother who wisely had that smegma carrying skin removed in his 30s. Now, that was when it was painful, but at least he didn't feel like he was an ignorant bumpkin.

And then there's the nonsense about an intact Hymen, ferchrissakes! When will this ignorance cease! I suppose when the last king has been strangled by the entrails of the last priest.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ah, nuts! Posted by: Aleandria
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

ugh
[Report this comment]
Posted by: 23skidoo on Apr 14, 2008 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the best example of man hating Feminism I have ever encountered. Pure misandry. Let's slice off some of her, or her daughters genitals and see what she has to say.

Can you imagine if your mother spoke of you with such callous disdain? She is reveling in her indifference.

Thanks yet again Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: more blaming women for men's actions Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» Wha? Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Wha? Posted by: fork
» RE: Wha? Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Wha? Posted by: fork
» RE: Wha? Posted by: suprmark
» Don't blame feminism - blame Judaism Posted by: Morgaine Swann
» oy! you! taxi driver! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: oy! you! taxi driver! Posted by: yellow

Comments are closed-

Stick to your area of expertise, if you have one
[Report this comment]
Posted by: TLCTugger on Apr 14, 2008 6:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Non-surgical foreskin restoration is not painful. It's easy, but it takes time.

It's very worthwhile. I'm shocked every day at how much better intimacy is with slinky slack skin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's worth pointing out, though -- Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle

Comments are closed-

We need more discussion of circumcision, not less
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gendershaman on Apr 14, 2008 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What message does circumcision send to a baby boy? It was always performed without anesthetic, and even now, anesthetic use is only slowly gaining acceptance. Anesthetic or not, circumcision sends the message to baby boys: “You are not safe. Your feelings don’t matter. The people closest to you don’t have your best interests at heart. Remember that they initiated what is being done to you. Remember this if they tell you that they love you. The pain you feel isn't necessary—people close to you chose to have you hurt. Welcome to the world, baby boy.”
The sense of loneliness, of abandonment, that no one will protect them, that their best interests will constantly and inevitably be subsumed to someone else’s (anyone else’s) agenda that boys come to feel, thus starts for some boys when they are days old.
For generations, parents have avoided taking time to teach their sons good personal hygiene including how to clean their genitals, especially under their foreskins. Instead of teaching their sons, many adults have instead availed themselves of circumcision as a quick, painless (for them) solution. Boys’ hands will become dirty in their lifetimes, too. Shall we cut them off now pre-emptively, and avoid “all that time-consuming hand washing trouble later?”
It wasn’t that long ago that circumcision was prescribed as a medically advised method to combat the “scourge” of masturbation. Other than religious superstition, parental laziness and squeamishness about their children’s avid pursuit of bodily pleasure, a history of harming sons in this way, parental refusal to examine admit to that history, and pressure from the medical establishment grubbing for every last bit of possible profit, there is no possible justification for circumcision. Circumcision is abuse.
Where are the warriors standing to defend the intact genitalia of baby boys? Why have most fathers avoided their responsibility to do so? Is it because it would logically be fathers who should teach their sons penile hygiene? But, most fathers have chosen to avoid this task either shunting it off to the mother or agreeing to circumcision to avoid the issue. Fathers’ refusal to teach their sons penile cleanliness blocks fathers once again from taking the important step to make an emotional connection with their sons as they help protect and heal another male.
Circumcision is the first of many painful initiation rites that boys are compelled to suffer. Boys’ innocence is sacrificed in a bloody, empty gesture. Offer-up your SUV’s for your Lord or sacrifice your cell phones to Wotan or your Internet porn sites to any televangelist, not your baby sons’ sense of trust and safety. Parents’ subsequent instruction to kids that their bodies are sacred or are theirs and no one else’s will sit as ashes in the parents’ correctly ashamed mouths.
Genital mutilation of girls and women: While much media attention recently (finally) has focused on this problem, their focus has been exclusively on Africa. Why only Africa? Female genital excision was practiced in prisons and asylums in the U.S. until the early 1950’s. The excuses? Female genital excision was indicated in cases of girls and women who masturbated or who were “sexually-active.” Sometimes, “sexually-active” referred to one partner of whom the parents or guardians didn’t approve.
The phrase “female circumcision” is a misnomer that attempts to soften and euphemize this violence against females by normalizing the less extreme, though distinctly abusive, treatment of males. This is no defense for either abuse. The degree of cutting in female circumcision is anatomically much more extensive. The male equivalent of clitorectomy would be the amputation of most of the penis. The male equivalent of infibulation would be removal of all the penis, its roots of soft tissue, and part of the scrotal skin.
Joe Weinberg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You are absolutely right Posted by: gendershaman

Comments are closed-

Step back
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hugh7 on Apr 15, 2008 1:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bonnie, please let go the angst and the feeble ("snippety snip") humour. Step back a moment, take a Martian perspective.

You land on earth and find humans seem pretty nice people. Most of them believe in peace and human rights and freedom, and kindness to animals. And about a quarter of them hold down a male child and cut the most sensitive part of his penis off.

[rewinding noise] THEY WHAT? (And not just Jews, but, in descending order, Muslims, US Americans, Filipinos, South Koreans, tribal Africans, (Jews,) Eastern Polynesians and Australian Aboriginals. The rest of the English-speaking world used to do it, but gave it up.)

And they do it for literally hundreds of reasons, mainly crackpot. Clearly, something else is going on. Here's one attempt to make sense of it. Our green friends would shake their tentacles in despair at our folly.

What's a non-practising Jew to do? Here are contact details for celebrants of non-cutting Jewish naming ceremonies. Shalom!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Step back Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Step back Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Step back Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Step back Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Step back Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Step back Posted by: hugh7
» RE: Step back Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Step back Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

Uncut is better I have proof
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ashkewoof on Apr 15, 2008 1:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Uncut by birth, got cut at 18 because I was confused that cut penises looked better.

I have tried to live without regret and I swore when I got circumcised, I would never regret it.

I now live with that regret. I am reminded of this regret every time I am intimate with a partner.

With my foreskin went a wonderful degree of sensuality and sensitivity that I will never get back and never knew I would miss until it was gone. I had a whole lot of experience with a foreskin before I was cut and a whole lot of experience without one after I was cut.

I am in a very good position to speak on the subject clearly since I have experienced both sides of the issue for long periods of time.

I want to scream when I hear parents making the choice to mutilate their child for cleanliness, aesthetics or misplaced notions of health. With a few necessary medical exceptions, this is barbarity and it is mutilating your son in the most intimate of ways.

My penis was always clean, happy and wonderful. Now part of it, a truly wonderful part of it is gone and restoration will not bring it back.

Stop butchering your children and STOP making this choice for them!

It should be illegal to do this to children. If they want to do so later on their journey through this life, when they are adults for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, let them. No one should mutilate children at an age especially when they can not consent to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» thank you for writing Posted by: deborama
» RE: Uncut is better I have proof Posted by: Dr. P. Mooney
» thank you! Posted by: bluebirdella
» RE: Uncut is better I have proof Posted by: curiouscat

Comments are closed-

Genital mutilation is a serious issue.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aouie01 on Apr 15, 2008 1:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the absence of a medical emergency, circumcision should require the consent of the grown up and well-informed person whose foreskin is at stake.

While male circumcision isn't as bad as the more gruesome forms of female genital cutting, it still is bad and similar to some forms of female genital cutting, and it is widespread and happening in our midst. I hope you will do your part in saving children from needless genital mutilations. But first you need to know why. A lot of people who like being natural would mind having their natural states altered in permanent ways without their well informed consent. Check CIRP for information. Especially the information about the anatomy of the penis, and the mechanics of intercourse. Circumstitions.com is a useful resource made available by intactivists.

Some have worked on a bill, MGMBill.org. Female genital cuttings are already against the law. To some extent people probably dealt with the (non-rare) worst case examples of female genital cutting more as a women's "rights" issue rather than a child protection or child's "rights" issue. But even if the law makers knew of the child's "rights" issues related to a male human child's genital cutting, they may not be willing to challenge religious, cultural and political opposition to any law that tries to forbid all (non-critical) genital cutting of children.

Sincrerely,
Aouie

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Castration Posted by: suprmark
» RE: That gang should be put to death Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

hands off my dick
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HelperMonkey on Apr 15, 2008 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm australian and uncut and I have never understood the argument for circumcision - sorry, but having bits of yourself cut off doesn't sound quite right to me.

The argument that circumcision is better hygienically is a false one. Following that logic, one could say that everyone should shave their heads - hair is unhygienic, it gets greasy and people get dandruff, so why not remove it all? And hey what about your feet.. dirty toes, athlete's foot and all that, surely it would be more hygienic to lop them off?

My point is, hygiene is only an issue if you're an idiot who doesn't know how to take basic care of yourself. And as for your sex life, I can't say whether circumcision would make it better or worse.. but I have a sneaking suspicion that like most things, the unmodified version is better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Try respecting the kid's rights
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Julian on Apr 15, 2008 4:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Problem of whether to have a baby boy circumcised? Artificial. Every human being has the right to make his or her own life decisions and a boy needs to be at least 18 before being able to decide on circumcision, or baptism, or anything else that identifies him as "belonging" top this or that subgroup. Dawkins was right when he wrote that to deprive children of access - at the wishes of the child at all times - to any form of religion or anti-religion going was child abuse. So also is any other act of locking a human being in to a group chosen by parents or cultural "elders" of any stripe. One correspondent here said he was circumcised at 18 and later regretted it. But at least it was his decision, not foisted on him by social engineers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I'm Not a Victim
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Libertine on Apr 15, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not Jewish, but I was circumcised as most American baby boys were in the late fifties. It's been a total non-issue for me throughout my life. I don't feel like a "victim", and I'm quite happy with the appearance and performance of my penis.

It wasn't until the last few years or so that I even heard about the anti-circ movement. I have to admit it pretty much baffles me, as I do not see my life as having been diminished for the simple fact of being circumcised.

I rolled my eyes when reading about the man who said that his circumcision was the "most traumatic event of his life". Give me an effing break. I can understand a man perhaps wishing that he'd been left uncut, but I don't get all the hand-wringing and claims of continued "suffering".

And the idea of men forming a group to piss and moan about what victims they are because they were circumcised decades before, when there are people who go to bed hungry every night, people truly suffering and dying in cancer and AIDS wards, and a host of other examples of true suffering, just leaves me speechless. The idea of foreskin restoration leaves me similarly speechless.

Of course, disliking circumcision is a perfectly valid opinion. But for oneself, it's over and done with, and I see little benefit in embracing the notion of perpetual victimhood. Rather, a more positive way to express one's opinion would be to leave one's own sons uncut and to provide information for those future parents who are undecided about this issue, then leave them to make their own decision.

I blogged about this a few years ago and ended up having to write a second entry because of the heated responses. To read these entries click here

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm Not a Victim Posted by: everton9
» RE: I'm Not a Victim Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: I was making a point and it is a valid one. Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» Apples and Oranges Posted by: Libertine
» Suffering Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Suffering Posted by: hugh7
» RE: It all makes so much sense now... Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» I can say the same. Posted by: Libertine
» You are Not credible Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: And you are? Posted by: Techubus
» RE: I'm Not a Victim Posted by: koolwoman
» RE: Ever been to Africa? Posted by: Techubus
» RE: ver been to Africa? Posted by: Joe2

Comments are closed-

a choice for a child
[Report this comment]
Posted by: aislinnluv on Apr 15, 2008 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
when i learned i would be giving birth to a son, this issue became one of real importance to me. i read all i could find, discussed it with anyone who would talk about it, thought long and hard (haha). from the first, it made no sense to me to subject my son to a painful and questionable practice with no discernible justification aside from the cleanliness issue. when he was old enough to begin his own cleansing rituals, i taught him how to retract his foreskin and make sure he was clean underneath. what i cannot understand is how any mother could not feel a sense of horror when confronted with this decision! what? you want to do WHAT to my baby boy? get out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Get it done: his girlfriends/wife will thank you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Bobsays on Apr 15, 2008 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giving a blowjob to a circumsized cock is a better experience than a natural cock. Taste alone should dictate the decision (as well as hygiene, STDs).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» oy! he says it's the taste! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» pfft! Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» The asshole gets dirty too Posted by: xvictor
» RE: To hell with that girlfriend or wife Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

Done for you, your religion
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 15, 2008 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Giving your thing for the One God, or rather having it done for you.
The history is that the social evolution of the
Ego involved identification with spirits and deities, since how long?
But the Hebrews had this new sense of identity a new kind of tribe with a single God which simplified many matters, cleared the mind of many things and superstitions and justified conquests, even if they were synthesized after the fact.
I had it done for my sons because it seemed hygenic, and cleanliness was an issue. But
life in those days was beset with traumas ranging scarlet fever to being beaten for belonging to the wrong religion or ethnic group
and veterans sitting on sidewalks begging.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Ritual mutilation
[Report this comment]
Posted by: beachpoet on Apr 15, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was carrying my son 28 years ago, his (Jewish) father and I had to decide what to do about circumcision. My gut told me it was a horrible thing, yet I wanted to make an informed decision. To learn more, in those pre-internet days, I turned to the Encyclopedia Brittanica and finally found the information I was seeking under the title "Ritual Mutilation."

Needless to say, our son remains a "whole" person. Male genital mutilation is every bit as horrifying as female genital mutilation and should be considered felony child abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

doctors now believe...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: setterwoman on Apr 15, 2008 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"doctors now believe that infants as young as eight days old do feel pain"

What? Just now? How obtuse does one have to be to not believe infants as young as one day old can feel pain?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: everton9
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: everton9
» RE: doctors now believe... Posted by: lepidopteryx

Comments are closed-

Is it sexual only?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talkville on Apr 15, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Endogeny/Exogeny have their levels of generality, beginning with the individual and then the family and then society and then the species. Circumcisions carry a profound history and more holistically than only related to sex and sexual relations. It has brutally physical dimensions as well as deeply symbolic ones. And, of course, the practice is not exclusive to Jews, those familiar with similar practices in other social aggregations testify.

It seems to me the question has much more and deeper significance than reduction to sexual relations alone. After all, many Gated Communities are "a circumcision" of another, more symbolic, kind, as well as other forms of meeting the thoroughly human dilemmas of inclusion and exclusion which over time have developed into higher and higher complexity in all of our social relations. All religions in their rituals, ceremonies and preferred asceticisms will practice Cutting and Marking, brutally on the flesh or symbolically in "the soul" or "spirit".

As humans are all drawn closer and closer together in more fluid and dynamic relations with one another, all these questions rise again in all their various dimensions. Include or exclude? Fixed or permeable boundaries? Many more, many more. Does not Feminism itself, as all "isms", have a circumcision of sorts to contend with in respect to relations with non- and anti- Feminists? It seems a matter of developing and advancing consciousness and HUMAN relations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I've often wondered ...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cybershaman on Apr 15, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... if male genital mutilation was responsible for all the sexual dysfunction western society goes through. The idea that the small child is left with weeks of unending pain in their genital region must create lasting psychological damage. This is just one more example of our hippocracy as we judge other cultures.
Would we be 'dead from the waist down' or in such desperate need for Viagra if we stopped this insanity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The Implication of these anti-circ arguments is...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goldmarx on Apr 15, 2008 6:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that the Jews are to blame for all this trauma and patriarchy since they brought circumcision to every land where they live.

Anti-Semitic, much?

Hitler was uncircumcised, so I guess that means he and his fellow Nazis were OK and psychologically balanced, and did not have issues with women, right?

Let's not forget recent studies, gong back over 10 years in the New York Times, that show that all things being equal, a circumcised penis prevents HIV transmission better that an uncircumcised penis.

Ms. Zylbergold is being hoodwinked by a group of men who are co-opting feminist victimization rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bingo n/t Posted by: Techubus

Comments are closed-

superstitious morons!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jstuv on Apr 15, 2008 6:49 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading all these comments, I can only roll my eyes. What a bunch of uneducated, provincial, untraveled, superstitious morons!

Personally, I never gave much thought to having been circumcised. It was only when I was thrown into the world, did I appreciate what my parents had done for me.

Let’s put religion aside, as that is just superstition: Not reasoning with facts.

When I was drafted into the Army, thrown into a barracks of backward, unschooled, fools, did I realize, first-hand, the importance of the circumcision practice. The daily routine of latrine activity was traumatic, to see all the slimy, dripping, ugly, nauseating, discolored, swinging dicks.

A) Circumcision is a cultural practice in all-modern educated societies.

B) Appearance: much more pleasing.

C) Sexual: Much more gratifying as 1. Coitus is prolonged. 2. Orgasm is heightened. 3. Lubrication is simplified. 4.Clean up is easier. 5. There is less possibility of infection. 6. No foreskin to catch and hold mucus. 7. It is just healthier, more appealing, cleaner and hygienic.

D) Medical. Without a doubt, a circumcised penis is much less likely to get infected.
Hygiene is easier, even if infected.

E) Ever get your foreskin caught in a zipper?

F) Ask any women which they prefer.

G) Ask any educated, worldly, man, which they prefer.

H) Lastly, research the subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: superstitious morons! Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: superstitious morons! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: superstitious morons! Posted by: lepidopteryx
» You're the moron Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: You're the moron Posted by: HoboHomo
» wasn't you, joan Posted by: KaptainSpiffy

Comments are closed-

learning to forget
[Report this comment]
Posted by: IanEOnehome on Apr 15, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"doctors now believe that infants as young as eight days old do feel pain"

The author implies that doctors who performed circumcisions simply didn't realize the babies whose bodies they were cutting into without anesthesia could feel it. That one takes the prize for the biggest load of crap I've seen coming down the pike since the Bosnian sniper fire story.

Have you ever heard a baby boy being circumcised? I have. It would be impossible for anyone who has heard the level and intensity of those shrieks to believe that no pain is being felt.

The truth is that doctors have always known that infants as young as eight days old feel pain. They've known that babies younger than that do, too. It's not that they didn't know. What the author of this article is trying so hard to mask is that doctors (and the parents who authorized the procedure) simply didn't CARE. They rationalized it away by claiming, not that babies feel no pain, but rather, that they don't carry the memory of the pain with them for very long. They get over it. It's the first step on the path to learning to take things like a man.

New research is casting serious doubt on the belief that the memory of the pain of circumcision disappears after a few seconds. Moreover, even without that research, what sense did that argument make in the first place? Is the rule that it is okay to hurt a person so long as the pain isn't remembered for very long? So a man should be able to beat up a woman all he wants if she has a poor memory?

Why is the author of this article trying so hard to conceal the fact that doctors and parents who engage in the practice of mutilating boys' genitals simply DO NOT CARE that they are inflicting intense pain on boys?

That, I believe, is a question only the author of this article and her sisters can answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Concerning the "shreiks ..." Posted by: BenCaxton12
» RE: Concerning the "shreiks ..." Posted by: IanEOnehome

Comments are closed-

Circumcision is NOT something to mock
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ruby on Apr 15, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a mother who highly regrets having circumcised two of her four sons, I suggest the writer have a son before taking potshots about such a serious subject.

There is absolutely nothing funny about mutilating babies. I am mortified that I blindly did it "because it was done." I would give anything to reverse it. My sons, of course, dont know the difference and hopefully will never realize what I stole from them. I have apologized to them and my other two sons have thanked me for sparing them.

Ms. Zylbergold needs to write about what she knows, not muse ignorantly about that which she cannot know.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Rampaging Queen!!! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Rampaging Queen!!! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Rampaging Queen!!! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: ampaging Queen!!! Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: ampaging Queen!!! Posted by: maestra

Comments are closed-

Penis Jewelry
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PaulK on Apr 15, 2008 7:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
--is the adult version of circumcision. People get their tongues pierced, their nipples pierced, noses, navels, eyebrows and of course earlobes. Having a tattoo is pretty painful too.

If adults want to be circumcised as a token of their religious beliefs, by all means. If sexy (to a Jewish woman) is your ambition, good for you. However, I'm not sure who you are when you torture babies for your faith. Is that all your faith is? Long term preservation of your own faith in God by hurting little babies?

This is just my opinion, but we don't live 2500 years ago any more. I believe in God, but maybe it's time to think about what really endures and what is now known to be pretty heathen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Penis Jewelry Posted by: Morgaine Swann

Comments are closed-

Cut me or kill me
[Report this comment]
Posted by: solrev on Apr 15, 2008 7:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not a Jew, but everyone in my family or who will ever be in my family, will forego the pain and suffering. There is nothing worse than standing in a john and having some uncircumcised fool standing beside you who forgets to pull the skin back. He does not have a clue which way he will piss. Being a good shot is worth the pain and suffering of youth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Cut me or kill me Posted by: maestra

Comments are closed-

Fortunately, I am an atheist/gentile.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Apr 15, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though I am cicrcumcized, I did not end up as some ambulance chasing jew lawyer, money grubbing doctor, full of self writer, etc, ad infinitum typically jewish type.

As for you whiny imbeciles longing for your foreskins, the women in my life and myself have never suffered this neurotic longing for the dead(skin).

Im am comfortable in my skin(no pun) and laugh at your golems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» golems? or goyims? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» RE: Fortunately, I am an atheist/gentile. Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN

Comments are closed-

Just a Question
[Report this comment]
Posted by: theshadowknows on Apr 15, 2008 8:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If God created us in his/her image, why is it necessary to alter that creation by circumcision.... whether it be male or female? If God "designed" us, did he/she forget about the genitals until after we existed? Or is genital mutilation about something else?

This seems to be another way to control people's sexual lives..... make the male organ less sensitive and pleasurable and then you can weaken the natural drive..... maybe that's the thinking anyway. And look at what terrible things some cultures do to women..... scraping down the clitoris so that sex loses its pleasure for her. That helps reinforce the "shame" that women are supposed to have about their bodies.

If we really cared about children, we would let them decide for themselves what to do with their sexual organs when they become adults.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just a Question Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Just a Question Posted by: maestra
» RE: Just a Question Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Just a Question Posted by: Morgaine Swann

Comments are closed-

Typical...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 15, 2008 8:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet FINALLY adresses male genital mutilation and not only is it addressed ONLY in terms of Judaism (my family is about as Jewish as a bacon cheeseburger and it was done to me), but its also (no real surprise) addressed by a woman.. through the lens of.. yep, you guessed it.. FEMINISM. a FEMINIST view of male genital mutilation. And no surprise it is less than tactful and even mocks men who claim to have PTSD from their circumsisions.

How about we have a MALE view on the subject, considering it so intimately concerns males. Or are gender issues only supposed to be addressed by one of the genders?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Typical... Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Typical... Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Typical... Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Typical... Posted by: Morgaine Swann

Comments are closed-

Male Circumcision Significantly Reduced HIV Transmission
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fanny666 on Apr 15, 2008 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few pro-circumcision arguments:

Male Circumcision Significantly Reduces HIV Transmission

Circumcision is a Biomedical Imperative for the 21st Century

When they were studying the effect of circumcision on HIV transmission in Africa, they actually stopped the study halfway through because they decided that it would be unethical to continue having a non-circumcised "control" group in the study.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nonsense Posted by: fanny666

Comments are closed-

Tough Choice for New Moms/Parents
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Anonymom on Apr 15, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven’t thought about this issue for quite a while, and it’s still a difficult one. My partner and I have two sons, now teenagers. We circumcised the first one, and not the second. As a mom, I ultimately came to the conclusion that it’s a choice between tradition and logic/compassion. Here’s how I got there.

We are both lefty Jews, and our social context was roughly evenly divided on the issue of circumcision—or more precisely on the issue of whether or not we should circumcise our sons. About half of our friends and relatives said, “You should never” and the other half “You must.” Believe me, we got a lot of heartfelt pressure from both sides. And there’s not really any place for compromise on this one.

After a lot of discussion and struggle (and hoping we’d have a daughter, so it wouldn’t be an issue!), we decided to circumcise our first son. We had a mohel, who’s also a pediatrician, come to our house for the ritual, with no associated party or fanfare. After the elective-surgery-without-anesthetic, our 8-day-old son cried and shrieked all night. It was horrible for all of us; I feared he would never trust me again. In retrospect, I think it was a also low point in my relationship with my partner.

When we had another son, I put my foot down: No circumcision. This caused a certain amount of consternation and conflict, particularly with my partner’s mom. “He won’t really be Jewish…”—that sort of thing. It remained a difficult issue for a few years. We had Jewish “naming ceremonies” for both kids, in lieu of a brit.

Parenthetically, my favorite bogus argument in favor of circumcision is: “He should look like his father.” I’ve never noticed a great resemblance between a newborn’s penis and an adult one!

For the record, my older son still seems to love us. Once or twice, while taking a bath together as young kids, they noticed a difference between them and asked about it. They had nowhere near the buzz on it that we did.

So I’m back to the choice between tradition and logic/compassion. Personally, I think it’s a stupid tradition (or if you prefer, an outdated one). And the way that stupid traditions get changed is when people stop cooperating with them, and start raising the issue publicly. Meanwhile, good luck to those who have to make this choice now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'm proud of you, Anonymom Posted by: asilsfable
» Typical faulty logic. Posted by: yellow

Comments are closed-

wow....
[Report this comment]
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Apr 15, 2008 9:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"If there remains one solitary trait defining Judaism today, it is without a
doubt a circumcised dick."

So.. not only should a woman be the one writing about this.. because, of course, the one solitary trait defining Judaism today has SO much to do with her and her body... but this mutilation should continue for a religion you don't even believe in? Or perhaps for cultural solidarity? Tell ya what.. I'll buy those arguments when you start mutilating the genitals of jewish females as well... and even then I'd still denounce them as monstrous and criminal acts of abuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Bottom line
[Report this comment]
Posted by: logansmom on Apr 15, 2008 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Female circumcision is illegal in most places, for good reasons. Male circumcision is illegal NOWHERE, also for good reasons. Intelligent people understand the difference.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Circumcise your son and in denial? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Bottom line Posted by: Aleandria
» RE: Bottom line Posted by: Aleandria
» Where's Your Definition, MoM Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Bottom line Posted by: Jacko

Comments are closed-

Pun Intended
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HoboHomo on Apr 15, 2008 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the male circumcision issue is actually a red herring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Would you like to be FORCED to be straight? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com
» RE: Would you like to be FORCED to be straight? Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

Why circumcision prevents aids/HIV
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ciccio on Apr 15, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can speak with some authority on this subject, I spent over 20 years in Africa. Some posters brought up the subject of hygiene as a reason for circumcision and it is certainly valid. There are 1000's upon 1000's of villages in Africa which have neither running water, toilets or bathrooms.
Entering an empty elevator, I could immediately smell if an African had used it before me. If you cannot bathe while working all day at temperatures often in the 80's, you to tend to stink. Without hygiene in hot weather, the prepuce is a fertile breeding ground for every disease under the sun. The reason HIV is so much lower in Muslim culture is because cleanliness is part of their culture.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh Come On.............. Posted by: gellero1

Comments are closed-

CUT OFF YOUR CLIT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Patriot76 on Apr 15, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
honey, we're coming for your clit with a garden shears, okay?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

What a hot topic!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: supercrisp on Apr 15, 2008 9:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm circumcised, and I wish I weren't. But like several other posters, I don't feel like a big victim.

But some comments here are odd. One guy writes that all civilized nations or some such do It. Well, my Austrian wife would have my ass if I got any son of ours snipped. Her brothers aren't snipped, and from what I gather it's not common among German or Austrian people. Nor is it a common practice in Asia, which contains several civilized nations.

And to the cleanliness argument, that's open to debate. I read the Science Daily feed, and I see research going back and forth on this issue. And really, eliminating an infection danger is as simple as cleaning your penis after sex.

There's a double-standard at work too. I know women who get over-wrought over boob jobs who snicker that there might be something wrong with infant circumcision.

At the very least the question of circumcision seems worth serious consideration. It doesn't cut it to puff out your chest and yawp "I'm a tuff guy, never bothered me." Nor does it to cop a moue and giggle over it like the author does here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

YES, BUT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ahimsa on Apr 15, 2008 10:37 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a former jew (Yes, FORMER)
I am circumcized, naturally. I am homosexual too.
I've had my share of cut and uncut... From empirical research, if you will, I can assure you that there is a difference in sensitivity and versatility between cut and uncut. And it is major! It is not just a piece of skin, it has mucose, nerve endings and serves more than one purpose (read your anatomy book and/or play with yours if you are lucky and have one.)
There is still no real and rational justification for circumcision in the XX C, just that of the biblical fable and the jewish influence in all things hygiene.
Yeah yeah, it worked 5000 years ago in the desert, why shouldn't it work now? Bullshit. Perhaps it is useful or necessary in certain cases.
I am not traumatized or bitter, but hell I'd love to get my foreskin back! Stop the barbaric practice, and the bullshit about it too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: That is total bs Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com

Comments are closed-

I don't see the point
[Report this comment]
Posted by: davesilvan on Apr 15, 2008 10:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was born and raised Roman Catholic until I was old enough to decide for myself that it was a bunch of bullshit, but I was circumsized too. (I don't see the point in highlighting Jews because circumcision is a common practice for jews and non-Jews alike.) There is no invisible sky entity who watches and remembers absolutely everything you say and do. It's all based on mankind's regret of death.

Religions play on that fear that one day you'll be gone and continue to suck in billions in donations. Meanwhile, war over who's god is better is the number one cause of death, suffering, and oppression in the history of mankind.

I'd rather not have to peel the foreskin off my dick every time I showered to clean it, and studies have proven that it's much more likely to get a genital infection if you have a foreskin.

As for the argument that there are nerve endings in the foreskin/sex is more pleasurable to those with foreskins, I'll never know and don't really care, I've already been sliced. Look at it the same way as tonsillitis or appendicitis; you certainly don't need them because plenty of people have gotten it and had their tonsils/appendix taken out. (I have a friend who got his tonsils taken out at 29.)

It's an evolutionary throwback which proves we evolved from a lesser hominid and if you want to ensure your baby doesn't die from a genital infection it should be done.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't see the point Posted by: davesilvan
» amendment Posted by: davesilvan
» RE: amendment Posted by: Xynyx

Comments are closed-

This is silly
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aleandria on Apr 15, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religious circumcions began as removal of ONLY the tip of the forskin, nothing near what is removed today! All of the excuses for circumcision have been proven ridiculous time and time again. There are even new studies out saying that circumcised men are not safe from STDs.
News on Circ

Here's one from 10/07
Circ not recommended

AIDS

Aids info

STDs

Circ and HIV

You want research? There is plenty out there (new stuff too) that tells exactly why RIC is completely uneccessary. If you want it done when you are an adult, fine, but don't do it to an infant that doesn't have a choice.
It doesn't prevent infections, it doesn't look better (It's a freakin penis, looks don't make a difference in function), it doesn't prevent cancer, it's a stupid procedure that should be illegal to perform on minors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

To submit
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Andrew_S on Apr 15, 2008 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was always told from religious symbolozism it was basically the act of rendering submission to authority. Something along the lines of all those who are not kings should render their foreskins. Irrespective, it is a nobrainer, really comes down to what you believe in. For most it is a choice that they have no say in. I believe the modern philosophy and policies of our so called enlightened ones is to remove from the minds of men (wo-humankind),their sense of religiosity, familiality, dogma, tradition and turn us all into consumers, they just need a catalyst. Guess who that is. The sad thing in this industrialization process we do lose a very basic sense of value and personal responsibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: To submit Posted by: lepidopteryx

Comments are closed-

Circumcision
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sir Jim on Apr 15, 2008 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look up SMEGMA on Google.

Jim

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Circumcision Posted by: bomec
» RE: Circumcision Posted by: Benjaminsjw
» RE: Circumcision Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

The issue is a matter of CHOICE
[Report this comment]
Posted by: oceansong on Apr 15, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue is a matter of CHOICE.
Not whether a cut or uncut penis is more attractive.

Babies should not have unnecessary surgery just to satisfy the desires/fears/preferences of the adults around them.

I grew up around circumcised men. I didn't even know that nature started out differently. But when I was pregnant, I fortunately got educated. I learned that circumcision was an elective surgery, not essential. As my son grew older, he knew some other boys who were uncircumcised as well. But most males he saw (including his dad) were circumcised. There was one point in his childhood that he asked why I hadn't had it done for him. He expressed the desire to look like most of the other boys.
I told him that it wasn't necessary; that it was a painful procedure; and that it would be his own choice. I told him that if he still wanted to have it done, that he could decide for himself when he became an adult. Now that he's an adult in his 30's, he (and his wife) have thanked me for not doing it to him as a baby.

Babies and children should NEVER be subjected to unnecessary surgery just to satisfy the desires/ fears of the adults around them - whether for circumcision, intersex issues, cosmetic reasons, religious reasons, etc.

The child has a right to make their own choice as an adult.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absolutely Posted by: fanny666
» RE: Absolutely Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

Circumcision is immoral, whatever the rationalization
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dantheman99 on Apr 15, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the outrage over female circumcision in the world, why is it any more acceptable to engage in male genital mutilation?

Circumcision only caught on in North America because puritans like Kellogg wanted to discourage masturbation.

It offers no discernible health benefits. Doctors make money off the circumcision AND off of reselling the foreskin tissue to plastic surgeons.

The choice to circumcise should be left up to the man when he becomes a full adult. Unless there is a severe medical problem, infants should not be circumcised. My friend, Adam, who is Jewish did not circumcise either of his two sons and used an alternative pricking procedure at the bris.

Fortunately, circumcision rate are dramatically dropping in North America, and routine infant circumcision increasingly hard to come by in Europe and parts of Australia.

The "foreskin restoration" movement is also growing.

Check out www.nocirc.org and www.norm.org to find out more.

Also, uncircumcised men have better sex and more intense orgasms, if that matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

A Pathological Aspect of Judaism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drricklippin on Apr 15, 2008 1:58 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former Jew -now spiritual humanist-circumcision is clearly one of the pathological (to the point of barbarism) behaviors in fundamentalist organized religion.

Yet this act is so fundamental to the core of Judaism that many otherwise rational Jews still proceed with this cruel ritual.

Doug Rushkoff wrote a great book trying to rescue Judaism from its own self destructiveness. It is called "Nothing Sacred"

Modern Jews should not feel guilty at all for abandoning this bizarre practice.
Conversely they should feel proud for advancing their religion into modernity.

Thanks AlterNet

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» very sad of you, yellow Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
» Get Real Rick...... Posted by: gellero1
» RE: Get Real Rick...... Posted by: drricklippin
» OK............ Posted by: gellero1

Comments are closed-

circumcision creates a knob on
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bitsfick on Apr 15, 2008 2:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the end, which keeps your hand from slipping off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

The original purposes of it
[Report this comment]
Posted by: GPFrank on Apr 15, 2008 3:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More comments historical:
Thee was the thing about inheriting the land of Canaan part of which the circumcision was to distinguish them from the natives. Further breaking the old rules was the distinguishing
the heir from progenitor, the first born; the case of Ishmael and Isaac. Establishing the rules of the patriarchy; circumcision was a sign of all of this before the conception of Isaac.
Noting in Exodus, ch4:26,27 Zipporah, Moses' wife circumcised her son and said "You are a bloody husband"
Again, distinguishing the Israelites from the Egyptians in whom to protect from the Pharoh's genocide.

Then there exists a kind of embarrassment between fathers and sons so that the fathers
are not teaching the sons how to work it back.
(Especially among Austrian and Germans.)

Re: The Biblical injunctions upon not looking on each others nakedness, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If your religion asks you to cut up your junk...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: radiomorning on Apr 15, 2008 4:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
your religion sucks. Ditch it.

If you religion asks you to cut up your helpless infant's junk, slice up your rabbi/pastor/priest/shaman's bits and see how he bloody likes it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» always the intellectual, aren't you? Posted by: KaptainSpiffy

Comments are closed-

Here's a Reason to Do It.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 15, 2008 5:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reason # one......,.Respect your Mother and Father.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That''s not a reason Posted by: drcyflowers

Comments are closed-

Reason # 2
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 15, 2008 5:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Girls don't like the taste or smell of SMEGMA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eason # 2 Posted by: radiomorning

Comments are closed-

HIV? Really? Really??
[Report this comment]
Posted by: PhantomOfLiberty on Apr 15, 2008 5:55 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm stumped.

Can someone stop for one second and ponder HOW in the world NOT having foreskin can prevent contraction of HIV? I understand that there are "studies" that say it does but show me one that says HOW!

If we leave religion, gender politics, superstition, tradition, and dramatic victimization out of this, then we can all look at this with clarity.

Bottom line: If circumcision is performed soon after birth then It is the removal of a body part of someone who is not able to give or deny consent and thus, mutilation.

Plain and simple.

End of argument.

If you let your child grow up and decide, I can guarantee there would be far less circumcisions in the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HIV? Really? Really?? Posted by: fanny666

Comments are closed-

Mutilation???
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 15, 2008 6:24 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on.... the transformation from an anteater to a mushroom is a beautiful, aesthetic thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mutilation??? Posted by: radiomorning
» RE: Mutilation??? Posted by: curiouscat

Comments are closed-

DON'T DO IT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Morgaine Swann on Apr 15, 2008 7:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You don't rationalize it. It's barbaric. Leave your child as he was born. All the b.s. about it being necessary for hygiene is ridiculous. It's what nature intended - leave the boys alone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

IF YOU ARE NON-PRACTICING, THEN DON'T CUT
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Mr.Steve on Apr 15, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The foreskin is part of a male's body. It is his right to be intact. It makes no sense that a person claims to be a non-practicing Jew, who does not believe in the religion, yet insists on circumcising her son because it is a Jewish thing. Let the boy make the decision himself when he is old enough to make an intelligent decision. If he is so moved by the religion, then he can always have it done. If he is not so moved, then he has the right to remain uncut. If you force it on him, and he does not practice the faith, then you have done him an injustice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

tradition vs. consent?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: bluebirdella on Apr 15, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When it came time to make the decision, I couldn't come up with any good reason to have my sons circumcized, but I could list a number of reasons not to. Their father really wanted it done because it was done to him, but I talked him out of it. Without God or a Rabbi looking over my shoulder, and even WITH a strong Jewish cultural identity, I didn't see what circumcision would accomplish. The doctors said it was not medically necessary. Why remove a healthy body part? I understand that many Jews are going to feel obligated to uphold tradition. It just isn't a choice I felt right making for my sons, who weren't old enough to have a say in it. We didn't do it. Sometimes I feel a twinge of regret that they are outsiders - but I'd feel more regret if I'd allowed their bodies to be permanently altered without their consent. Circumcision, to me, seems akin to one of those so-called "primitive" cultural acts like tattoing and body piercing - not inherently any weirder. Odd that circumcision is required by Jewish Law but tattooing is forbidden, the equivalent of putting graffiti on a building you don't own (for the uninitiated, because our bodies are considered the property of God, but God asked for circumcision, specifically, as a sign of the bond between God and man. Circumcision has a deep religious significance for the observant, a welcoming into the community and into a relationship with God.) One issue the article doesn't touch upon is the fact that most non-Jewish men born between, say, 1940 and 1985 have had the procedure, supposedly because of health issues. Has it gone out of vogue with non-Jewish parents as well, and what was their reasoning for having it done in the past?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

I love how so called free thinking progressives...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: may261989 on Apr 15, 2008 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
turn into blood thirsty skin choppers when the subject turns to circumcision.
sorry guys, just because your mums decided to mutilate you doesn't mean you have to be such killjoys. It must be a real bummer knowing part of you is missing, but you have to deal with it. Leave those of us who are intact alone O.K.?
It always amazes me how you can talk politics to an American progressive but when the talk turns to mutiliation they suddenly become red faced crazy people ranting on about disease and the like. See above posts for proof.

Yours truly,
happily intact and healthy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Do Not Circumcise!!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: drcyflowers on Apr 15, 2008 9:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I encourage all parents out there NOT to have their baby boys circumcised.

What can be crueler than chopping off part of a boy's (very important) anatomy without his permission?Do you people realize that the procedure is done WITHOUT ANESTHETIC? People seem to think it's okay for a baby to feel pain because he doesn't remember it later. What the hell sort of logic is that?

This is insane! In Australia, baby boys are no longer circumcised, and in Europe they never were. There is NO reason for circumcision! Stop doing it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

There's always something worse
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hugh7 on Apr 16, 2008 12:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's always something worse, so it's always a red herring when people say "Haven't you got anything better to do?" Infant circumcision isn't the most important cause in the world, but it's not the least, either, and vast numbers of people don't involve themselves in causes at all. Most of us aren't in a position to do anything about castration in India, but some of us are in a position to do something about infant circumcision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

curiouscat
[Report this comment]
Posted by: curiouscat on Apr 16, 2008 12:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I witnessed a routine American male infant circumcision as a nursing student in the early 70's. I was horrified to see the severity of the baby's distress, then appalled as I realized the doctor was absolutely callous to it. The event was so traumatic to even WITNESS that I still have vivid recall of it to this day. And no, I am not a hypersensitive person.

I did vow that if I ever had a son I would never allow such a thing to be done! I never did have a son but I've always encouraged my friends with newborn sons not to do it. They never listened, of course, always using the lame routine of "He needs to look like his father."

Over the years I've done a lot of reading about circumcision pros and cons. I also had only circumcised sex partners until 1990 when my relationship with my current (and uncircumcised) husband began. Sexually, the difference in pleasure with a cut and an uncut man is strikingly in favor of the uncut man.

With a cut man (who has a significantly less sensitive penis due to the dense fibrous contracted scar tissue), I always felt like my vagina was an object they were using like a battering ram, as they struggled to get enough sensation built up to orgasm. It was always more a mechanical experience - so much so that it felt like I, as a person, disappeared.

Totally different experience with my uncut man - so much more sensitivity "down there" and throughout his being! Sex is 100% more sensual, tender, emotional, personal, & pleasureable.

I've read that even when women don't personally LIKE their uncut partners better than their cut ones, they report more sexual satisfaction with the uncut ones. I believe this is accurate. Having a foreskin that slides over the penis during vaginal intercourse is more pleasureable for both partners, personalities notwithstanding.

My conclusion is circumcision should be reserved for medical conditions that necessitate it or for people who decide they want it done for some reason, and then only after an extensive informed consent is done.

All you guys and gals who are so pro-circumcision out there - more power to you - make the best with what you've got - you don't know any better and that's okay. But for goodness sake let your kids have a chance to know something better. Go on line and read about people's experiences. Open your minds to something besides what you know. Some things are better left as God made them and foreskin is certainly one of them!

Oh, one more thing! Foreskin is a tricky body part. As a youngster my husband trained his to stay behind the head of the penis. Even his doctors at the Mayo Clinic think he's circumcised! So much for medical expertise!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: curiouscat--dead on Posted by: asilsfable
» RE: curiouscat--dead on Posted by: curiouscat

Comments are closed-

Cutting off part of a kid's penis is violently abusive
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thornwolf on Apr 16, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no other way to describe it and no rationale that excuses it. Parents today are unimaginably either selfish or cowardly for allowing it to be done to their child.

Citing religious reasons for doing it only reveals a stark lack of thought. Do those favoring circumcision take issue with the designer, seeing as they're so eager to modify the design? If there is a god who created everything, wouldn't he/she/it have done it "right" the first time?

Circumcision is cruel and unwarranted mutilization and traumatization of a helpless child unable to speak on its own behalf. That isn't aa practice one should leap to defend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

History
[Report this comment]
Posted by: miz13 on Apr 16, 2008 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"It started as an ancient Egyptian custom and there are wall carvings to prove it. It seems to have its origin in snake worship. The Egyptians believed that when the snake shed its skin, and emerged shiny and new again, it was undergoing rebirth. They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans should follow suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began. From there it spread to many Semetic peoples, both Arabs and Jews adopting it and converting it into an act of religious faith. As the centuries passed, it became popular in other regions of the world for moral, medical, or hygenic reasons. " From the book, Babywatching by Desmond Morris.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

in the case of my own
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 16, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
foreskin? Its gone now... Im ok with it.Circumcision is ok. I know nothing else. No skin off my.... oh wait.. never mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: in the case of my own Posted by: hugh7

Comments are closed-

God & Guns & Penii
[Report this comment]
Posted by: billgee on Apr 16, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama had it right
He didnt go far enough
Peoples problems with the size or complete lack of (envy) are among the oldest problems of man&womankind.
Give up this latent stupidity of a belief in a god (he is only one of many depending on where you live).
Turn your attention from ancient political and religious beliefs and give all your love&attention to your child.
Circumision is hardly a religious issue in this godforsaken country. The only child in my sons generation (twentyorso) that I know of is of a friend who refused to subject his small helpless son to such pain. Moyl or doctor, the baby screams.

Forget feminism. It was a nice game for your youth. Talk to aging feminists without babies. Youre a mother now. Youve got a fulltime priority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

regardless of opinion on this issue, this is a terrible article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Cameo on Apr 16, 2008 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is clear that the female writing this article did not actually speak with any males about this issue before writing on it. Quoting what men say in the midst of a drawn out discussion on a blog or a conversation board is not the same as asking for pointed comments.

Further more, thanks to a previous commenter for pointing out that circumcision is not strictly a Jewish thing. In the US the majority of men are circumcised, and for the Christians this is more compulsive (as opposed to conscious) than it is for the Jews, who at least have a ceremony and a reason (whether or not you think pleasing that god is a _good_ reason aside) for their actions. From the headline I expected some discussion of how men's experiences differ by religion, but this article taught me nothing.

Circumcision is a curious human practice, and I would love to hear more thought and discussion on this topic. It's unfortunate that this article doesn't involve much of either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» try reading the comments Posted by: KaptainSpiffy

Comments are closed-

Sexual Mutilation of Children
[Report this comment]
Posted by: marizara on Apr 17, 2008 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sexual Mutilation of Children -- If somebody started a new religion right now, that thought it was a good idea to sexually mutilate little kids, they'd all be arrested and thrown in jail, no parole. -- If they were very lucky, a few might survive until released. -- That sort of primitive activity has NO place in a modern, enlightened society. -- If you're too ashamed to handle it, teach him to keep it healthy. -- Good grief, get over it, already! -- That's not religion, that's just mindless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

If you don't have the genital parts, how can you know how important it is
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Jacko on Apr 18, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found many pro circ comments upsetting because they include statements (Such as DEAD skin) when the writer has no knowledge about this genital feature that IS SO MUCH FUN.

Men that are cut as babies think there sex is fine. OK that is fine, but they do not know what they are missing. Men may be a bad judge as to the value of a clitoris. Women (certainly those that have not had natural partners) and circed men do not understand the value of the prepuce. It is a fact that Drs and dads that are cut try to justify this by trying to keep the practice going. This is a natural reaction.

Women that have been circumcised (FGM) often say the sex is good enough. BTW, a study shows female circumcision cuts male to female HIV transmission rates (Soemthin male circ does not). Anyone want to push FGM in Africa to cut HIV? FGM and MGM are not the same. However, if you cant remember having a frenulum or a rigid band, don't be so quick to say that FGM hurts female sexual function/pleasure and MGM does not. They are both practices that affect sexual pleasure and function.

Cut men say they are sensitive enough and say Intact men do it too soon. The only study on premature ejaculation and the cut (MGM) indicates that the cut may be the problem viz. PE. Intact men have feedback and control. Young circed men have the PE issues.

The cut contributes to ED. ED can have many contributing factors. However, it is believed that cut men become sexually dysfunctional 7 yrs on average before natural men. Your sex may have been great and your cut may have been a good one, but the sex may go bad sooner than it should have.

The pro MGM people sometimes have opined that the pro intact use mean and hateful tactics. It is an area that emotions get involved. I hate to see babies mutilated. I also am against the prolongation of this culture in the US (nothing to do with Judism or Islam). It is dying a slow death here (unlike the UK, Canada, Aus).

The other side has perpetuated myths that are very mean. No natural does not have PE problems, no ew and not ugly but natural, functional sensual and beautiful (in the male anatomy context). In fact natural looks the same when errect as cut and can look the same in the shower retracted and flacid.

The harm done by circ is what it is. It is not being mean to point out shortened penis, curved penis, painful errection, hair on shaft, ending sex 7 years earlier, cummming too soon as a youth and then not at all or after exceesive time as an adult over 40 (to name a few). These are things to be avoided. They can be avoided with a natural penis. It is the natural penis that has the health benifits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Iris Fudge
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beryl on Apr 18, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bonnie Zylbergold says- "Picking and choosing what defines my Jewishness on any given day has never been much of a problem" Alas, that is not a privileged option for a baby boy. It is disturbing that as a 'leftist feminist' she has forgotten all the struggles that enabled women to have some say and autonomy over their choices which she can enjoy. Why deny others that? As some comments have argued,the issue is that of humane behaviour towards others, and especially children over whom we adults wield such power. Her definition of Noam Chomsky as a 'crappy Jew' says all we need to know about the poverty of her thinking!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Consent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: goldfishlaugh on Apr 19, 2008 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You shouldn't cut pieces off people for the sake of "tradition" without their consent. It's that simple. The choice to circumcise should only be made once the boy can make his own choice.

Apart from that, this has to be the worst article I've ever read on AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

We were proud to tell our four sons
[Report this comment]
Posted by: do on Apr 20, 2008 12:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they weren't like their dad because we chose not to mutilate their genitals like his parents had, however lovingly misguided that was. After seeing films of the procedures in birth classes and hearing stories of babies bursting blood vessels in their eyes from screaming so hard while their penises were being sliced on and the protective, adheared foreskin being torn away, we opted out for our child. A baby boy's foreskin is adheared to the head of the penis, and it performs a specific biological purpose. That nature would make such a huge mistake in making the human penis that man would have to improve it at birth in such a barbaric way was a preposterous idea to me. None of my sons had the problems my sister's circed sons had, which included little ulcers on their little diapered penises. My sons are grown now and none have opted to have their genitals mutilated.

It's sad that the author takes genital mutilation of helpless infants so lightly. It's not a source of humor for the millions of mutilated victims of a warped religious/medical system. Let's see how she'd like us making jokes about a scalpel being taken to her genitals. I pity her future son. I wouldn't wish that kind of insensitivity in a mom on anybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Comments are closed-

Ah, nuts!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beepath on Apr 20, 2008 1:04 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A big issue over a little tissue. Uncircumcised pecker looks like sock hanging off the end. I have a brother who wisely had that smegma carrying skin removed in his 30s. Now, that was when it was painful, but at least he didn't feel like he was an ignorant bumpkin.

And then there's the nonsense about an intact Hymen, ferchrissakes! When will this ignorance cease! I suppose when the last king has been strangled by the entrails of the last priest.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ah, nuts! Posted by: Aleandria