A blogger whom I don’t know named Ben Buckman quotes Sully this way:
If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they’d be arrested for abuse. The great unmentionable, of course, is that religion, not medicine, is behind this practice – Judaism and Islam, to be precise. Many secular men, in other words, bear the scars of someone else’s religion on their own bodies for life. (I should add, as I have written before, that female genital mutilation is exponentially worse. It removes a girl’s sexual pleasure, rather than simply scarring and numbing it.) One commenter on Jeff Goldstein’s blog put one rationale for it this way:
Further proof that God exists: he mandates a ritual that tones down the male sex drive, if only by a little, to help men become more godly instead of more carnal.
Now, I’m not so sure that i agree with our commenter’s quote, which is, for my taste, a bit Candide-y. Still, it’s a bit funny coming from the left, which generally has trouble with any concept of “Natural Law.” However, as one of those people who has made the decision (quite apart from religious or aesthetic concerns) to have his (male) children circumcised, I believe that my decision was quite rational, considering:
According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests “substantial benefits” for routine neonatal circumcision. most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs.
And it may be true that the results are more mixed for other STDs, but at the same time, it’s undeniable that syphilis and genital ulcers are among the afflictions that AIDs “piggybacks.”
The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report.
Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex.
Numerous other studies have backed up these findings.
Now, I was personally present for the circumcision of both of my sons, and this despite the fact that I’m rather queasy regarding blood (whenever I give it, I pass out). Gay or straight, I don’t expect my sons to behave any better than I did (though I would rather they did), but I would be devastated if they acquired HIV. In my case at least, it was a matter of considered costs/benefits analysis. One may criticize my calculation, if one wishes, but it is asinine to believe that I chose this out of untutored and unreflecting brutality.
And as for those hygienic practices that we have inherited from the ancient Jews–are they really nothing more than superstition, or do they make sense, empirically?
****
update [Jeff G]: Typically, Sullivan quotes a commenter from my earlier post in an attempt to suggest that those who disagree with his argument are, of necessity, being quaintly religious.But as Sullivan knows, my argument has nothing to do with religion (apart from it being the impetus for choosing a procedure that is medically quite defensible) but instead takes issue with calling an elective procedure with scientifically quantifiable health benefits “child abuse” — a rhetorical maneuver that makes a mockery of actual child abuse, and weakens the impact of the charge. Ditto calling the procedure “mutilation” in an attempt to tie it to female genital mutilation; as I noted in the comments to my earlier post, one does not routinely talk about ear piercing or tattooing or liposuction or Lasik surgery as “mutilation”.
As I thought I’d made clear, I’m sympathetic to the choice argument Sullivan floats. But at the same time, I’m similarly sympathetic to parents who elect to have their boys circumcised — especially when a potential for “increased stimulus” is weighed against a potentially substantial decrease in STDs and HIV as a product of “routine neonatal circumcision.”
I suspect that for many (male) parents who are themselves circumcised, they have no basis for comparison with respect to what they might be missing in terms of stimulation; and so they conclude, quite reasonably, I’d say, that the stimulation they’ve been left with as a result of circumcision has been more than adequate. Given this rationale, I hardly think the desire to perhaps substantially reduce the chances your son will one day contract certain STDs or AIDS rises to the level of “child abuse.”
Instead, it rises to the level of parenting — which is difficult enough without those excited by studies of penis mapping working to vilify parents whose responsibility it is to make tough decisions on behalf of their children.
And yes, it is funny to watch those who would celebrate as “liberating” the female’s “right” to terminate a pregnancy, argue that the “choice” to cut off foreskin is a violation of an infant’s human rights.
Let me hear from those of you who are opposed to circumcision on human rights grounds? How many of you are also adamantly pro-life?
151 Replies to “Forcekin [Dan Collins] – [updated by Jeff G]”
First, they came for our kosher slaughtering and I said nothing. Then, they came for our foreskins.
Dan, your reasons for choosing circumcision are hard for me to evaluate; we do it because we’ve done it that way for nearly 4,000 years. It’s not superstition for us, but it also doesn’t matter to us whether it makes sense empirically. It’s our covenant with God (and you just have to respect a God who makes you do that to pledge His fraternity).
Sure, I’d like there to be evidence it’s beneficial, because that might make the loudmouths like Sullivan shut up and leave us alone. But if they’re willing to leave us alone, it doesn’t matter to me whether it’s beneficial.
Oh, I’m sure their shutting up and leaving us alone would be beneficial, prima facie.
Like the prostitute in Fargo, I think uncircumcised men are "funny looking". When I look at a penis I want it to "smile at me" to quote Elaine Benes in Seinfeld. I’m not gay or anything I’m just saying when I look I know what I want to see: someone who looks like me.
If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they’d be arrested for abuse. If the parents tear the foreskin off they would be arrested for abuse. A doctor performing a surgical procedure? Not likely.
And as for those hygienic practices that we have inherited from the ancient Jews–are they really nothing more than superstition, or do they make sense, empirically? Yeah, Dan, a superstitious religious mutilation ritual from some old parchment is justified because it reduces the risk of diseases when people act in a manner contrary to what is demanded by the very same religious text.God gave us the rule that we should be circumcised so we could more effectively break his other rules, and screw like barnyard animals. That God sure is wise!P.S.: if circumcision is such a great idea because it reduces disease, why is it wrong to hand out condoms in schools? Isn’t circumcision just going to increase the incidence of teen promiscuity?
<i>First, they came for our kosher slaughtering and I said nothing. Then, they came for our foreskins.</i><P>Of course, by "came for our foreskins" you mean "left our foreskins intact," which would be . . . the exact opposite. And nothing stops an 18-year-old from getting cut.
Mostly though aren’t we talking about other people’s foreskin management strategies? Myself, I don’t really know that I would ever be in a position to actually confirm a sweeping change in these practices, even if Andrew were able to compel one. Who would be in such a position? We will probably need to have a foreskin monitoring program if we want to move ahead with some wholesale change in our thinking about foreskins and stuff. We’ll need to have a binder for the guidelines, and probably a database too. We’ll probably want to password-protect the database so the information is secure, and the binder will need to be kept in a locked room. This is going to be a big undertaking.
Of course, by "came for our foreskins" you mean "left our foreskins intact," which would be . . . the exact opposite.
No, actually, I meant "prohibit our free exercise of religion," but it didn’t sound as good. They wouldn’t be "leaving" our foreskins intact; they would be prohibiting us by law from removing them. Which would be the exact opposite of what you say.
Hey. Maybe Daryl could be the foreskin monitoring manager. He seems to bring a lot of passion to the foreskin issue, and that’s just the kind of person we’re going to need.
Some of the 18-year-olds I’ve seen can barely be bothered to take out the trash, and you think they’re going to submit voluntarily to a surgical procedure?
Circumcision was mandated by God for a sign of obedience and membership. Jesus does not require it for baptism into Christianity. It may have practical benefits. What’s the hubbub? Are libs upset because it may have practical benefits or because it was required to be Jewish?
OT: Anyone watching Muslims Against Jihad on Fox? Ugh I hate Fox when they butcher stuff like this. I wish they lose the crawl, their sound effects and let the interviewees talk when the blond babe asks them questions.
Daryl–
You’re being a moron. What the left says, in effect, is that handed-down wisdom is prevalent in every greenie-worshipped primitive society except Judeo-Christianity. Are you going to outlaw ritual tatooing in other cultures? Is this somehow a bigger deal than thirteen year old girl’s finding a judge to permit them an abortion without parental permission?
I don’t personally give a rat’s ass whether schools hand out condoms or not, dumbass. My point is that rationally this is a valid decision, and if you don’t like it, fuck off. Andrew’s being a jackass, and so are you.
What Bloody Crap.
This attack on circumcision is base on the trauma inflicted on the infant ( funny thing none of us “victims” remember this great trauma ). It just a bunch of BS.
Hey you women, I know you’re out there. Which do you prefer? Cut? Uncut? Don’t care? Don’t see what the fuss is about?
So if these people succeed in saving all these foreskins, you think they will notice that an hour or so before that aborted circumcision it would have been okay to suck the brain out of the little fellow and toss him in the trash?
It’s hard (snicker) to have an opinion when the decision was made for you so long ago. I doubt I miss any sensation due to the procedure, so I really cannot complain about the results.
If parents tore the skin off their infants in any other part of the body, they’d be arrested for abuse.Unlike Sully, I have some first hand experience at circumcising. There is no tearing involved, at least in a traditional bris. Though the mohel set it up, I did the cut myself. The knife, the mohel messer, is as sharp as any razor or surgical scalpel and it goes through the foreskin easily, with no tearing. As a matter of fact, if I’m not mistaken, Jewish law insists that there be no tearing. The boy may cry some, but after sucking on a wine soaked gauze they chill out and are usually asleep within minutes, like most newborns. My daughters cried more when their ears were pierced. For the uninformed, this is how a traditional bris is done. Using a probe, the mohel makes sure there are no adhesions and then pulls the foreskin over the glans. A flat plate with a curved "V" shape cut into it is used as a clamp, the foreskin is slid into the V. This both holds the foreskin extended and also acts as a protective shield for the glans. Some religious authorities allow the use of a bell shaped clamp. After the appropriate blessings, the mohel or the father slices off the foreskin, using the clamp as a guide. There is some bleeding. Bleeding is an essential part of the ritual, as male converts to Judaism who have already been medically circumcised must be pricked (yeah, yeah) to produce at least a drop of blood, and traditional Jewish sources refer to dahm milah, the blood of circumcision. The mohel then bandages the penis, more blessings are recited andthe child is given his Hebrew name. Then, as in all Jewish celebrations, we eat. Now, compared to Jewish ritual circumcision, medical circs seem a bit, shall I say, barbaric. As I understand it, a bell shaped device is placed over the glans, the foreskin is extended, and surgical thread is tied around the foreskin and the bell, cutting off the blood supply to the foreskin, causing it to eventually slough off. As for circs impeding sexual function or pleasure, Luke Ford maintains that most of the leading male porn performers in the 70s and 80s were Jewish. Being cut certainly hasn’t hampered Ron Jeremy’s career.
Hmmmm. As someone who got circumcised as a teenager I’d have to say that I’d much prefer having it done as a baby.It really hurt like a bastard.
"Hey you women, I know you’re out there. Which do you prefer? Cut? Uncut? Don’t care? Don’t see what the fuss is about?"I prefer cut. Aesthetically at least. To be honest I’ve never actually ahh…handled a mature uncircumcised penis.When I was pregnant and deciding what to do if I had a boy, a friend that was a geriatric urologist convinced me circumcision was the best choice in the long run.What does Andrew think of late-term abortion, btw? Should it be legal to suck out a baby’s brains within minutes of birth, but not cut the foreskin?
Is there anyone out there performing foreskin restoration surgery for those who complain that the decision was taken out of their hands? I don’t remember having a heckuva a lot of input in decisions regarding my personal health before my teens. Telling the doctor I didn’t want that shot and trying to hide in the corner was not a typically winning strategy. Freaking police state we must live in when we cede certain medical decisions to our legal guardians before the age of majority. But not abortion!
Sheesh, takes me back, what year was that book, Our Bodies, Ourselves published, something like 1975?
Mmm. That didn’t work. Here’s my portion of the answer:I prefer cut. Aesthetically at least. To be honest I’ve never actually ahh…handled a
mature uncircumcised penis.When I was pregnant and deciding what to do
if I had a boy, a friend that was a geriatric urologist convinced me
circumcision was the best choice in the long run.What does Andrew think
of late-term abortion, btw? Should it be legal to suck out a baby’s
brains within minutes of birth, but not cut the foreskin?
The great unmentionable, of course, is that religion, not medicine, is behind this practice – Judaism and Islam, to be precise.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen either a Jew or a Muslim man naked in my life. There are damned few of either in rural west Texas. Yet, like myself, most of the white boys I grew up with and went to school with were circumcised. At least the ones who were born in a hospital were. I always thought that Christians had adopted the Jewish practice as their own. Maybe it’s just a Texas thing.
These circumcision threads are real fun because of the emotional lack of logic involved.
Firstly – Dan Collins cites various studies purporting to show that circumcision reduces rates of STDs and as a result HIV infection which he claims piggy-backs on these. From where do these studies emanate? The US Medical Profession of course, which consists largely of circumcised men with a vested financial interest in promoting and maintaining an unnecessary surgical procedure which earns them big bucks. Nothing is as effective as getting the gullible to part with their money than by scaring them. These ‘studies’ should be treated with more critical consideration.
Secondly – If you really want to do comparison studies, then perhaps you should look to Europe where healthy uncircumcised European men do not appear to suffer from all these ailments that this procedure is supposed to rescue us from. You may be surprised to realise that we are not syphillitic, riddled with genital ulcers, or carrying around skinloads of smegma that the circumcisionists would have you believe. Instead we have natural unmutilated genitals and experience the full extent of sexual pleasure through all the nerve endings we were born with which function as there were intended to do without any interference from superstitious meddlers.
Thirdly, Dan Collins states that "as one of those people who has made the decision … to have his (male) children circumcised" misses one of the main points of the arguments against enforced circumcision. This is that the decision should NOT be the parents decision on a neonate unable to give informed consent, but rather should be the decision of the individual concerned, who as an adult can then decide for themselves whether they consider that the supposed benefits from any such mutilation would genuinely compensate for the reduced lack of sexual responsiveness in the male organ. Parents who glibly put their children through this procedure are asserting dubious rights over the integrity, or otherwise, of their children’s bodies – which I suspect could be legally challenged on human rights grounds. It is to all intents and purposes an assault on another individual’s body – no matter how well intentioned or badly thought through it may be.
Finally, you ask "these practices that we have inherited from the ancient Jews–are they really nothing more than superstition…?" Hello??? This is the 21st Century calling – we really don’t need to carry on with ancient barbaric practices which should long ago have been outmoded in any civilised society. ( The practice of halal/kosher meat is another similar issue – but lets not go there! ) Most recommendations from so-called ‘holy books’ have been discarded or modified in the light of various reformations and widened understanding generally since they were written. It is time to jettison the circumstition superstitions to the dustbin of history. And for anyone who thinks it is ok for Jews and Muslims to ritually mutilate their children on the basis of their religion, then they should bear in mind that religion is NO EXCUSE for child abuse. Some Jewish parents are taking this on board, and hopefully, such sensiblities will spread in the civilised world.
This icky melodramatic concern about "neonate" foreskin is coming from the same people who are loathe to give said neonate a sibling, cause of the carbon or god knows why – but demographics shows a correlation between libtardedness and family size. I think giving a kid a brother or sister is probably paramount to a penis scar, but whatever… point being, I suspect libtards are more concerned with the existence of a ritual or procedure that is exclusive to males… This is what’s offensive to them. Simple as that.
englishman: Parents who glibly put their children through this procedure are
asserting dubious rights over the integrity, or otherwise, of their
children’s bodies – which I suspect could be legally challenged on
human rights grounds. It is to all intents and purposes an assault on
another individual’s body – no matter how well intentioned or badly
thought through it may be.—Does this also describe the European opinion on orthodontia?
What’s the secret to paragraph making on this thing?
Wow. A conspiracy of Doctors AND Jews, with the motive being to make money by fixing studies and maintaining the status quo.
And wait — most American doctors ARE Jews, are they not? And lawyers? At least, if I’m remembering my Philip Roth.
Sinister. Yet somehow predictable.
Superior Brit – I forget, did you have studies to back up you second contention about European men and their healthy wee wees, or is your point based on experience?
We had racists, then look-ists, and now circumcision-ists !
According to the morally superior wanker, the parents should have no rights to make medical decisions on behalf of a newborn, at a time they can never remember and will recover quickest, yet at the same time, likely has no problem with the same parent keeping the right to have the child’s brains sucked out of its head, rather than, God forbid, giving birth.
JD – You’re not supposed to look that closely. Those are mere details. This is all about EMOTION and HUMAN RIGHTS and SUPERSTITION, and cocks, don’t forget the cocks. Never question a superior Brit, they’re superior you know. They’ll tell you themselves.
Cheerio!
You can prick your finger.
Get rid of the snap previews… I’ve disabled them three times now and they still keep croping up.
Or you could finger your prick, which I think that is how all this shit got started.
Wow. I was quoted by Sully. I can die happy now.
MayBee: there’s an icon to the right of the ABC icon that you can click before you start typing. It allows you to do HTML, and it treats your hard returns as actual hard returns.
At least it does in Firefox 2.0.0.4.
Thanks, dicentra.I’m testing this now. In Jeff’s update:<blockquote> especially when a potential for “increased stimulus†is weighed against
a potentially substantial decrease in STDs and HIV as a product of
“routine neonatal circumcision.â€Â</blockquote> True, that’s the decision I made with my husband, male doctors, and the input of male friends. Never did I hear a man say, "Don’t do it because your son won’t like sex as much." Never. Which you know, tells me a lot as I am under the impression that men are indeed interested in enjoying sex. What I did hear were male doctors telling me horror stories about giving 80-year old men circumcisions. Sure, maybe my son would have decided at 14 to have the surgery, but maybe he wouldn’t. As a parent, I was interested in his well-being for his whole life. I couldn’t stand the thought that he ‘d have to have humiliating and painful surgery as an old man, and that I could prevent that.
Oh heavens. I’m hopeless. I’ll go back to lurking.
MayBee @ 10:21PM "Does this also describe the European opinion on orthodontia?"
My dictionary defines orthodontia as the rectification of <i>abnormalities</i> of the teeth. Being born with a foreskin is NOT an abnormality – so, NO this does not describe the European opinion on orthodentia as the practice is not comparable with unwarranted genital mutilation.
MayBee @11:55PM "Never did I hear a man say, "Don’t do it because your son won’t like sex as much." Never. Which you know, tells me a lot as I am under the impression that men are indeed interested in enjoying sex."
Ah, but were any of the men you spoke circumcised as adults with experience of sexual pleasure as both an uncut and cut male? Just because circumcised men enjoy sex in their own way does not mean to say that they can speak with any authority of the wider pleasures obtained by the uncut.
You also say "I couldn’t stand the thought that he ‘d have to have humiliating and painful surgery as an old man". By the same token are you going to have his testicles removed in case he develops testicular cancer in later life and has to undergo surgery? And his appendix in case of appendicitis? Where are you going to stop with this fear-induced paranoic preventative surgery? We’re all going to get old and die! The horror, the horror!
I don’t believe in docking the tails or clipping the ears of dogs or horses.
I don’t believe in clipping my son’s foreskin either.
And if you want to regard that as a statement of superiority, Daleyrocks, you go right ahead. You may even be right.
comment by Jeff G. @ 10:24 PM
"A conspiracy of Doctors AND Jews…And wait  most American doctors ARE Jews, are they not?…Sinister. Yet somehow predictable."
I presume this refers to my comment at 10:06PM where I stated "The US Medical Profession of course, which consists largely of circumcised men". I made no inference about Jewishness in this particular comment, and it should be quite clear that my intention was to imply that the US Medical Profession consists largely of circumcised men simply because they are AMERICAN and it is a wide-spread practice in the US. Nothing to do with religion.
I trust you will have the decency to retract this attempted slur.
As I said before, these threads are great fun because of the emotion generated. It is interesting to observe how debate get reduced to ad hominen attacks and imagined insults. – e.g. daleyrocks @ 11:15PM "Never question a superior Brit, they’re superior you know. They’ll tell you themselves." Well no-one has claimed to be superior here, it all rather says more about your own inferiority complex and the fact that you are losing the arguments! All cultures have rubbish elements contained within them which need to be addressed, circumcision just happens to be one of the anomalies in North American culture. Get over it and learn to live with the criticism. I am just as critical of elements within my own so-called Brit culture.
daleyrocks @10:43PM "did you have studies to back up you second contention about European men and their healthy wee wees, or is your point based on experience?" Is this another attempt at an ad hominen? Or is it your latent homophobia creeping out here?
englishman: "By the same token are you going to have his testicles removed in case
he develops testicular cancer in later life and has to undergo
surgery? And his appendix in case of appendicitis? Where are you
going to stop with this fear-induced paranoic preventative surgery? "————————————- I stopped at circumcision, eyedrops, PKU screening, and vaccinations. I don’t think there’s a good cost to value ratio in having testicles removed. Later, I opted to have a hydrocele repaired without his approval. Parents make medical choices for our children every day, and we try to make the best ones. You obviously don’t agree with my choices, but that’s ok with me.I brought up orthodontia. There are obviously very different standards for what constitutes "abnormalities". ———————–englishman: " Just because circumcised men enjoy sex in their own way does not mean
to say that they can speak with any authority of the wider pleasures
obtained by the uncut."———–For that matter, how can anybody but those that were uncircumcised, had sex, later became circumcised, and then had sex speak with any such authority?
Englishman – Dan offers evidence, all you offer is attitude. If that’s all it takes for you to consider winning an argument rather than addressing the other points raised here today, dude, you won. The breeders among the commenters have experience making medical decisions for minors in cases where they are not capable. The law allows us to torture our kids that way. I prefered to get my kids restorative surgery after a major accident rather than wait until they are old enough to make those decisions on their own. The same with the hernia surgery on two of mine. I didn’t consider it abuse or tortuse under the Sullivan definition you are peddling. Where do you draw the line in your superior logic?
I’m sorry, you guys. I obviously cannot be trusted with this new comment thing. Dicentra, you tried, but I am a failed student.
MayBee @ 1:22AM "I obviously cannot be trusted with this new comment thing."
No – its not just you, as you will see from my comments I cannot get the HTML to work. I am using the latest Internet Explorer on WinXP but do not have the ABC box or any icon next to it which might enable me to convert this. Grrr….
Will come back to respond to other comments later.
daleyrocks @1:19AM "I prefered to get my kids restorative surgery after a major accident rather than wait until they are old enough to make those decisions on their own. …I didn’t consider it abuse or tortuse under the Sullivan definition you are peddling. "
I am sure that the ‘Sullivan definition’ does not apply to the kind of normal restorative you are referring to here. You are confusing restorative surgery with cosmetic surgery or habitual ritualised surgery into which category circumcision fits.
The myth about circumcision being ‘preventative’ is simply not borne out by the evidence. Consider which Western country has the highest rate of circumcision – the USA. And which Western country has the highest incidence of HIV/AIDS transmission – again the USA. Whilst there is no direct causal link between these two incidences, what it does suggest that if circumcision is supposed to be a preventative measure in the transmission of HIV, then it is clearly not working very well in the case of the USA.
For those of you who are seriously interested in researching this issue may I recommend looking at :-
http://www.circumstitions.com/
which presents far greater evidence than I can muster and eloquently puts it arguments against the prevalent myths in America regarding this practice. It is NOT a porn site by the way in case any of you are nervous! :-)
daleyrocks @1:19AM "I prefered to get my kids restorative surgery after a major accident rather than wait until they are old enough to make those decisions on their own. The same with the hernia surgery on two of mine. I didn’t consider it abuse or tortuse under the Sullivan definition you are peddling. "
I am sure that the ‘Sullivan definition’ does not cover the kind of restorative surgery that you are outlining here. What you are conflating is restorative surgery with cosmetic or supposedly ‘preventative’ surgery into which category circumcision fits.
As regards the hypothesis that circumcision is somehow ‘preventative’ against HIV infection, I am afraid that this is not borne out by the most obvious evidence. Which Western country has the highest rate of circumcision? The USA. And which Western country has the greatest rate of HIV infection? Again the USA. Whilst there is no casual relation between these two incidences, it does however suggest that unfortunately, as a preventative measure, it has not worked effectively.
For those who are seriously interested in researching this issue, may I recommend the following website :-
http://www.circumstitions.com
which contains far more evidence than I can muster and also presents it arguments more eloquence.
Incidentally, it is NOT a porn site, so those of a nervous disposition need not worry too much! :-))
Sorry about the duplicate posting – I thought I had lost comment 46 but it has appeared nonetheless!
On a message board that I frequented some years back, there was a virulently anti-circumscion troll who insisted that circumscion was a vile practice because, for other reasons, the prepuce was prehensile and capable of stimulating women to otherwise unheard-of heights of sexual pleasure.
I wonder if that troll has now moved on to PW under the <i>nom du net</i> of <b>englishman</b>.
I trust you will have the decency to retract this attempted slur.
It’s not a slur, englishman. In fact, your assertion that the procedure is motivated by greed is a slur which you should retract. Unless you’ve got some evidence supportive of it, it is a purely emotional argument. As is this:
Is this another attempt at an ad hominen? Or is it your latent homophobia creeping out here?
Project much?
Ugh, well, that didn’t work so well.
Anyway, I suppose my previous (and eaten) comment can be summed up this way: Pablo has it right, englishman. You do seem to be projecting a great deal into this issue; I’m not seeing a lot of “emotion” on the side of your opposition with the exception of Dan (who seems to be upset for tangential reasons), other than a degree of irritation–but you (and Sullivan as well) are bringing a lot of emotionally loaded terms to the table to describe the practice you oppose.
Also, how do you feel about abortion? I haven’t seen this issue addressed by anyone arguing against circumcision yet.
Which Western country has the highest rate of circumcision? The USA. And which Western country has the greatest rate of HIV infection? Again the USA. Whilst there is no casual relation between these two incidences, it does however suggest that unfortunately, as a preventative measure, it has not worked effectively.
Do you have a source you’re using for that? Because this
says otherwise. And why the “western country” ploy? Is HIV a political virus? What does “western’ have to do with anything?
Englishmen, perhaps you are correct(though I do not agree) in your claim that America has the greatest rate of HIV infection in the Western world however this would not be due to circumcision but is an indication that people are following their teacher’s example by putting the condom on the cucumber and not on the cock.
It’s not like your argument is any different than gay activists who demand government stay out of gay bath houses while at the same time blaming the spread of AIDS on Reagan.
Tell it to Haiti.
In comment 24, ‘englishman’ writes that uncircumcised organs "function as there were intended to do". "Intended" by whom? If you’re bringing God into it, you need to admit that some fairly popular Gods (or gods) explicitly intend the organs of their male followers not to function uncircumcisedly.
Andrew’s a member of that pervasive bunch known as:
These are the people who don’t have actual children, yet are fully versed on the dangers of circumcision, the evil of television, the environmental devastation caused by Huggies, immunizations, et cetera. Thse Parents without Progeny tend to hold a belief – sort of like the Khmer Rouge – about the utter reasonableness of children. They also have a great deal of faith that their well laid plans will never go awry.
heh.
indeed.
–
Men who defend the uncircumcised are just burying their heads in the sand. Or the foreskin.
But that was because all film industries were and are and always will be controleld by the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
Maybee, PLEASE don’t go back to lurking: I need comments like Should it be legal to suck out a baby’s brains within minutes of birth, but not cut the foreskin? that address lefty illogic so succintly! Now, I’ve composed this post with HTML Source Toggled. Now I will untoggle…EGAD, that works like preview, and IS SO COOL. Dicentra, thanks for pointing me to the toggle HTML button, but it is on the LEFT side of the check spelling button.
Hee-hee…what HTML can I mess with now…Webmonkey, here I come!
URK…none of it worked. Oh well, back to the drawing board!
Now, to see if I understand:
But that was because all film industries were and are and always will be controleld by the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!
Maybee, PLEASE don’t go back to lurking: I need comments like
that address lefty illogic so succintly!
Now, I’ve composed this post with HTML Source Toggled. Now I will untoggle…EGAD, that works like preview, and IS SO COOL. Dicentra, thanks for pointing me to the toggle HTML button, but it is on the LEFT side of the check spelling button.
Hee-hee…what HTML can I mess with now…Webmonkey, here I come!
Well, none of it worked. Oh well.
When our first born son arrived, I didn’t want him circumcised, but my husband did.
Our son was circumcised. For quite a while I felt uncomfortable with that decision.
However, of the six adult male friends in our circle over the years, three had not be circumcised as infants. All three, in their late 20s were circumcised, apparently due to cronic infections. They all said they won’t recommend it at that age.
“The US Medical Profession of course, which consists largely of circumcised men with a vested financial interest in promoting and maintaining an unnecessary surgical procedure which earns them big bucks. Nothing is as effective as getting the gullible to part with their money than by scaring them. These ’studies’ should be treated with more critical consideration.”
But I’ll bet you believe that Al Gore is the cat’s pajamas.
My husband insisted my three boys be circumcised. Since he was the parent with a penis, I thought he might know more about the matter. I get a kick out of the arguments that men would enjoy sex more if they were uncut. Cripes, if my husband enjoyed it any more, he would never go to work.
My grandpa had to be circumcised as an older man (infections) and apparently it wasn’t fun.
Carin, my thoughts exactly…
Whatever happened to ed, or memomachine, up-thread? He appears to be our one and only source of first-hand information about pre- and post-circumcision sensation. (I’m intrigued, I have to say, in the assertion by the uncut that the cut are losing out in some way, though the uncut have exactly as much personal experience for comparison as the cut-from-birth do, and – it seems to me – a certain interest in putting it about that the cut <i>are</i> losing out, from a whole Schaudenfraude perspective at least.)
These are the people who don’t have actual children, yet are fully versed on the dangers of circumcision, the evil of television, the environmental devastation caused by Huggies, immunizations, et cetera. Thse Parents without Progeny tend to hold a belief – sort of like the Khmer Rouge – about the utter reasonableness of children. They also have a great deal of faith that their well laid plans will never go awry.
Ah, yes. This is the notion that finds the likes of Amanda Marcotte writing a parenting blog, and offering wonderful parenting advice like this
We’re simply blessed by them, aren’t we?
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned the British film "East is East," which looks at a Pakistani-British family (mum is the Brit). One little plot angle: The youngest son in uncircumcised and, at age 9, is going to undergo the procedure. In one of the funniest, but most grotesque, uses of symbolism, the boy wears a winter coat throughout the movie, with hood (get it?), and you don’t even see his face. Toward the end, when the circumcision is inevitable, two of his siblings, as I recall it, engage in horseplay with him and rip the hood off his coat.
Why are Sully and English so concerned about little boys and their penises?
Oy – the decision making process which led the team to add Marcotte to their stable of writers is probably going to bite them in the ass. But they’re sexy and relatively clever. I’m sure they’ll get over it, if not themselves.
On the plus side, when the kids of these self-aggrandizing reinventionists rebel against their parents, they’ll make Alex Keaton look like a Trotskyite.
The Jews went through a period of time where Greek influence was huge.
Part of that Greek influence was the body worship that led to all those great nude statues.
There were athletic events like the Olympics where the competitors were nude. Gymnasiums were everywhere (like 24HR Fitness in Denver) workout attire was zero.
So the Jews "stood out" due to their circumcision and began to have cosmetic surgery procedures to restore a foreskin. There were a… mmmm …rash… of failures and infections.
Oh yeah, And go ahead and call the American and Jewish practice of male circumcision a bit of vestigial barbarism that is the absolute equivalent to clitoral mutilation practiced by sects of muslims… because I know how much it means to the narrative
You know, Sully is an Englishman.
BTW, Englishman, thanks for debunking our belief in another stupid, misplaced, idiotic, and just plain wrong superstitious belief.
No, I’m not talking about the one about the medical advantages of circumcision.
I’m talking about our stupid belief that the English are more polite, erudite and rational in discourse. How could we have ever believed that?
Stupid Americans…
"About Offsprung:A new generation of parents is currently reinventing the very notion of parenthood, and, for that matter, of generations. Never before have human beings reproduced so interestingly, with such skepticism, and with such clever nicknames for their progeny. This important sociological development has only thus far been the subject of about 500 articles in the New York Times, and many far less important media outlets. That’s why we, a group of sexy and relatively clever parents, decided to start Offsprung Media."
The smugness, self-righteousness, and overweening arrogance in that piece tells me that their offspring are going to be the saddest bunch of spoiled brats since the baby-boomers.
This thread is becoming tedious. So here is a Blonde Joke.
A Cajun walks into a bar with a pet alligator by his side. He puts the alligator up on the bar. He turns to the astonished patrons. "I’llmake you a deal. I’ll open this alligator’s mouth and place my privatesinside. Then the gator will close his mouth for one full minute.Then he’ll open his mouth and I’ll remove my unit unscathed. In returnfor witnessing this spectacle, each of you will buy me a drink."
The crowd murmured their approval. The Cajun stood up on the bar,dropped his trousers, and placed his Johnson and related parts into thealligator’s open mouth. The gator closed his mouth as the assemblygasped.
After a minute, the man grabbed a beer bottle and smacked the alligator hard on the top of its head. The gator opened his mouth and the man removed his genitals, unscathed as promised. The patrons cheered and the first of his free drinks was delivered. The man stood up again and made another offer.
"I’ll pay anyone $100 who’s willing to give it a try." A hush fell over the crowd. After a while, a hand went up in the back of the bar.
A Blonde woman timidly spoke up… "I’ll try It! Just don’t hit me so hard with the beer bottle!"
The phrase reinventing parenting makes me vomit a little bit in my mouth. Narcissism as a form of parenting. Too cool to consider themselves “parents”, they need to “reinvent” it to make it kewel.
Blondes prefer blunts, furriskey. ;-P
This is all a big fucking joke, right? If you don’t want your kid circumcised, don’t get him circumcised.
As a circumcised male, I don’t feel some kind of emotional hole in my soul because of any perceived lack of sexual response. In fact, if anyone doubts my word as a circumcised male, I can prove it. All they have to do is to come over here and suck on my dick. I promise not to blame any lack of response on technique.
Carin – “reinventing the notion of parenthood” is exactly what Ted Whileman was arguing for in the same sex marriage thread. Once again, their desire to control and bastardize language is readily apparent. They do not even try to disguise it anymore.
Englishdude – Nobody is asking you to chop that smegma filled pile of skin off of your wanker, you wanker. Why are you so invested in making personal medical decisions for everyone else?
The attraction is in making the moral judgement, JD.
BECAUSE OF THE SUPERIORITY!
I always hear from uber-feminists that if men had to carry babies/become pregant, abortion would be sacred. Now they (meaning the left, I’m not hearing the right on this subject) are arguing that large groups of men, for millienia now, have been doing something that they say is against (supposedly) their best sexual interests? How are they going to reconcile this?
They’ll just say that men expect women to prefer their circumcised dicks, against their natural inclinations.
Now they (meaning the left, I’m not hearing the right on this subject) are arguing that large groups of men, for millienia now, have been doing something that they say is against (supposedly) their best sexual interests?
Perhaps because the men making the decision are making it for their sons, not themselves.
Seems to me the best course of action is to let the kid decide for himself when he’s in his teens, rather than forcing a permanent bodily alteration.
Sorry, furriskey, but I have a feeling that the Great Foreskin Flap has only just begun.
Hate to break it to you, Dan Collins, but this is awful rationale for having your kid’s johnson cut:
"According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests “substantial benefits†for routine neonatal circumcision. most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs."
… seeing as it was recently debunked by one of the researchers interested in showing benefit to circumcision. See here.
Oops.
In addition, HIV is pretty hard to catch. Epidimiological research shows that male hetero sex with a known infected female partner carries a transmission risk of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 2000.
This risk hardly justifies lopping off the sensitive end of the penis. You could, instead, say, teach your kid to use condoms.
Circumcision is a left-over religious/aesthetic choice, plain and simple.
JD, I think it refers to both things. New parenting is cool and hip. Married, unmarried, gay, lesbian, multi-partnered. Basically, it represents the opposite of everything the traditional family stood for. I’ve read too many articles by this new, young parents who naively believe they are inventing parenthood. An uber-cool New York friend of mine was explaining to me a new contraptions: a sling for carrying (and nursing) a baby. How hip, how chic,how trendy!! Imagine her surprise (and disappointment) to learn that a red-state type like myself was using one 13 years ago.
[…] bumperstickerist quips in a comment: On the plus side, when the kids of these self-aggrandizing reinventionists rebel […]
Highly effective debunking there Bill:
The study has important policy implications. Several international AIDS organizations have begun to provide funding for male circumcisions as a deterrent to AIDS. While male circumcision may indeed reduce the risk of transmission by some 50% to 60% in each sexual encounter, reducing single encounter transmission rates alone cannot control the epidemic. The reason is that individuals in highly infected countries have multiple contacts with the infected so reducing transmission rates only defers the inevitable.
See, Dan? You didn’t find the follow-up calling into question the findings of a previous medical study. That makes you a "child abuser!"
Here’s the thing: these competing studies have been battling my entire lifetime. Scientists are "certain" that circumcision is medically defensible; then they are "certain" that it is nothing but an antiquated religious ritual that’s become normalized and needs to be beaten back by the secular "realists" who favor "science" over "superstition"; then it turns out that another medical benefit is cited for neonatal circumcision; and the cycle continues.
The same thing happened, incidentally, with global climate change; with what foods are "healthy" to eat ("give up meat and dairy!" "No, wait, eat meat and dairy!"); and a host of other public policy health concerns over the years.
I agree with the commenters above who have noted that the concern certain people without children seem to take in this regard is born of a sense of superiority — and a strong (often unspoken) bias against religious ritual, which they tend to bolster by way of arguments that rely on false equivalence and an attempt at shaming those they believe to be unenlightened trouser prudes.
Your point?
Yeah, I know, Jeff. Throw caution to the wind. What the study doesn’t address (and it’s simply statistical tinkering with the data from previous field studies) is the apparent fact that it is simply more difficult to acquire or transmit disease without a foreskin. Or at least that’s what Johns-Hopkins tells us.
So, given the conflicting state of the information, it’s obvious that my calculation of costs vs. benefits is merely a way for me to rationalize subjecting my sons to a barbaric and primitive practice (for religious and aesthetic reasons, since I’m Catholic and repulsed by uncut cocks).
More Zionist neo-natal conspiracies.
You know, Bill, your supercilious jackassery really pisses me off. My sons were born in 1990 and 1993. What was the state of knowledge on the issue then, you twat? Bite me.
Oh, look! Course, I’m aware that Bill cares deeplier about my boys than I do, because he’s unencumbered by this primitive thinking.
Personally, I stay pretty much in the middle. I am agnostic so I don’t care about a covenant with God, for one thing.
On the other hand, I’m not sure that the foreskin is such a great plus – but maybe that’s because I already had surgery down there, and my shape isn’t the natural one anymore – you can say I’m halfway. I neither think that circumcision is a horrible child abuse.
On the third hand, except in rare cases proper hygiene will avoid smegma buildup and infections even with uncut penises. Or at least that’s my personal experience.
Yeah Bill. Dan spent days poring over the literature and tallying up the costs and benefits. Religion and tradition had nothing to do with it.
About circumcision, I have been circumcised, and am not amused by this practice, I was at the time a child and was given no choice in the matter.
My parents were at the time religious people (they have since discovered the truth about such ficticious beliefs)
I am left permantly disfigured by this outragiously silly practice.
As I am a realist and do not follow any so-called religionious fiction, I have not had my son’s (I have one child only a boy 12 years of age) genitals mutilated.
Nature put a mans foreskin on his penis for a purpose, else it would not be there!
There will be no peace amungst the human race till such time as religious people wake up to themselves and realise that there is no god, allah or otherwise.
Religion and it’s silly practices is for fools who don’t have enough common sense to reason that there is neither athiest nor god, allah or otherwise super natural being.
To the religious fools of the world, get connected with reality!, you have murdered and mutilated enough people for no valid reason other than your ignorance and foolish faith.
Any person who blindly accepts such dangerous concepts /practices as is preached by religious fiction, purely out of faith does’nt deserve to be alive, blind faith and it’s practices is a killer, history is proof that the fool is in the pudding!
Back to childless couples, one child is ample, large families are part of the ever expanding over population problem the world faces today, like we really need more hungry mouths to feed, exploit, polute and desimate our dwindling natural resourses.
Have a nice day.
Any person who blindly accepts such dangerous concepts /practices as is preached by religious fiction, purely out of faith does’nt deserve to be alive, blind faith and it’s practices is a killer, history is proof that the fool is in the pudding!
How utterly fucking enlightened, Tony! Come on New World Order!
BTW, the lithium is on the third shelf on the left. Take 3, they’re small.
To the religious fools of the world, get connected with reality!, you have murdered and mutilated enough people for no valid reason other than your ignorance and foolish faith.
What was Mao’s excuse?
Really, the rest of this comment is too silly to merit a response. I mean, it would be fun … but I have to go kill a few people for Jesus, and then feed my 5 children so they can grow up and exploit, pollute, and decimate our dwindling natural resources.
Oh, and Tony, spell check is your friend. Use it.
Nature put a mans foreskin on his penis for a purpose, else it would not be there!
Hey, wait a minute! Who’s this Nature with it’s purposes? Is this some sort of design you’re talking about?
Gee, Tony. Maybe one day you’ll find it in your heart to forgive them, you poor thing. And if you don’t, it’s only because Mom wouldn’t breast feed you after the age of four.
Get over it.
Tony, your comments sounds as sincere as a crack dealer’s plea of innocence.
They don’t even make good plants anymore.
Rationally, I’m not so sure that the foreskin has any particular utility. Like the appendix, it may just be an evolutionary residue with no reason.
Tony – What is the function of an appendix? Nature gave us one of those too.
And,how about those wisdom teeth? Pain from impacted teeth is natural, and we should learn to accept it.
except in rare cases proper hygiene will avoid smegma buildup
I know I scrub mine aggressively every time I shower. It’s a cupping/scrubbing motion.
one child only? that’s less than half the replacement rate. Maintain that growth and you have loss of population viability in about 6~7 generationsA group of 1 million people maintaining 1 child per family unit will procede as forth: 1,000,000500,000250,000125,00065,25031,25015,6257821.5Goodbye, humanity……
Hey, I did not ask for detailed instructions on penis maintenance! I already have my own owner’s manual, thanks.
I am afraid to look up what the body modders and feticists think of the issue. Anyone brave enough around here?
woah, weird post structure. What’s the advantages of this new setup again? The Enter Key, It does nothing!
Fast lathering is still a sin, al.
Hey Tony, I’m scheduled to removed some wisdom teeth this afternoon. Are you saying I should leave them alone? I mean, geez, if God put them there…..
My wisdom teeth were "ripped from my mouth" too, is there a victim group for us?
Cue spooky music……
I am afraid to look up what the body modders and feticists think of the issue. Anyone brave enough around here?
Hmmm…
STAY OFF OUR SONS PENISES!
Funny thing about when your nose impacts roughly against a hard surface. Sometimes it breaks. Nature designed it that way with a purpose, I’m sure.
I’ve seen people call tattoos and piercings "mutilation" (it’s rather common, in fact, at least for non-ear piercings, or ear ones that are "too large").People of a certain stripe tend to call <I>anything</i> done to a body – that they aesthetically disagree with – mutilation.This, of course, underscores the problem with the term itself, which is that it’s inherently an aesthetic (and thus unobjective) term, reflecting little more than the user’s opinions on <I>taste</i>. (That there are broad areas of agreement as to what constitutes mutilation means only that tastes are broadly shared.) (Or, to quote a certain film, "Lighten up, Francis.")
Why don’t you just phone up nature and ask it what that purpose is? While you’re at it, ask nature about make nipples and the uvula.
Oh, and cancer. Nature put it there; it must have a reason for being there.
male nipples.
Oh, hey, this damn thing ate my paragraph breaks, too. Sucky McSuckass, I say.
Last night I was at Lace in Atlantic City, getting a lap dance from a Brazilian leg model and a Swedish bikini model at the same time. During the friction, I screamed out “Damn you Mom and DadM religious god-bothering non-consensual body modificating genital mutilators!!!” If they hadn’t lopped off my foreskin, maybe I would have enjoyed those 2 hours pf pure bliss. Fuckers.
If nature wanted you to have short hair, nature would make your hair stop growing. STOP MUTILATING YOURSELVES AT THE SO-CALLED "SUPERCUTS"!!!1!
Has there ever been a guy that said, “That was the best blowjob ever. If only I had my foreskin, maybe I would have enjoyed it. Sorry about that mess in your hair”.
The mohel at my step-son’s bris was a man named Rabbi Peckeroff.
I shit you not.
My brother’s urologist, the guy who did his vasectomy, was Dr. Blank. It doesn’t get much better than that.
Although I did know a Dr. Kill once, he wasn’t an assisted-suicide kind of guy.
Hmmm…some interesting comments here which merit rebutting.
Pablo @ 3:55AM "It’s not a slur, englishman. " – it most certainly was in terms of the fact that it was a crude attempt to imply that I was being racist by blaming the practice on Jewish doctors – which, as I made very clear in my comment at 12:39AM, is an Amercian cultural issue not a specifically Jewish one.
Pablo @ 4:29AM "And why the “western country†ploy? Is HIV a political virus? What does “western’ have to do with anything?" – the reason for emphasing Western countries is because they have similar, although different, standards of medical care and cultural norms. You really cannot compare infection and transmission rates in the US with those in third-world countries. Consequently if you wish to argue the preventative case for circumcision and HIV infection, then you need to make comparisons with a largely uncircumcised Europe where infection rates have always been lower than in the US.
Pellegri @ 4:04AM "Also, how do you feel about abortion? I haven’t seen this issue addressed by anyone arguing against circumcision yet." – what on earth have my views on abortion got to do with my views on circumcision? They are completely different and unrelated arguments and as are relevant to the debate as my opinions, say, on capital punishment or immigration. These separate issues do not come together on some sort of political slate, as you seem to be implying, but rather are thought out individually.
Dr. Weevil @ 5:30AM "In comment 24, ‘englishman’ writes that uncircumcised organs "function as there were intended to do". "Intended" by whom? If you’re bringing God into it…" – by nobody, nature if you like. There was certainly no intention to drag any sort of god into this debate!
msk @6:13AM "All three, in their late 20s were circumcised, apparently due to cronic infections." – which says something about the sexual health care in the US not about circumcision per se. Why is it that European men are not having to rush off to the clinics in their late 20s with chronic infections?
McGeeHee @ 7:58AM "Why are Sully and English so concerned about little boys and their penises?" – its more of a concern about abusage. The issue is why has American culture uncritically fetishised non-religious penile mutilation?
Al Maviva @ 8:25AM "BTW, Englishman, thanks for debunking our belief in another stupid, misplaced, idiotic, and just plain wrong superstitious belief." – no problem mate, we can all learn from each other and I’m glad to be of help. :-))
englishman, nice of you to overlook my questioning of your data. Bloody good show, wot?
For what it’s worth, here my bit of anecdotal evidence: I’ve been a medical transcriptionist for 17 years. I transcribe close to 10,000 operative reports per year. During that period of time I have probably transcribed 20 or so adult circumcision reports, mainly secondary to penile adhesions and not infection . As a disclaimer I must add that my husband is uncircumcised (yes, I’m one of those strange birds who prefers an uncut man), as are both my sons. Like other matters of personal hygiene, my sons were taught at an early age to maintain cleaniness (let the bidet wars begin!). As to the HIV debate, I can’t recall ever transcribing a consult or an H&P on an uncircumcised patient who was HIV positive (as has been pointed out, most American men are circumcised). Having said that, I believe it is ultimately up to the parents to decide whether to go forth with circumcision. By the way, could everyone cease with the smegma insults–I’ve been with my husband for 27 years and have yet to observe evidence of that particular phenomenon (and yes I know what it looks like, as I spent some time as a nursing care assistant).
We had our son circumcised because we saw the negative results of not having it done at birth with our best friends little boy. He had to be redone at 3 due to infection and constant problems. Nothing like trying to explain to a 3 year old why Daddy took him to the doctor to have his peepee cut. The pain that kid was in afterwards was absolutely gut wrenching to watch. Besides, my spouse is done and we wanted the boy to be just like his pappy. And as a female, I have never seen an uncircumcised penis. Have heard they look and smell funny, sorta like illegal immigrants
Theresa Msgt(retd) @ 12:52PM "And as a female, I have never seen an uncircumcised penis. Have heard they look and smell funny, sorta like illegal immigrants"
The "retd" part of your moniker stands for "retarded" right?
The "retd" part of your moniker stands for "retarded" right?
Wow englishman! You’ve got the sense of humor of an uncircumcised tallywacker. You’re the caretaker of the Ol’ Westminstershire Foreskin Museum, aren’t you?
<blockquote>Have heard they look and smell funny, sorta like illegal immigrants</blockquote> I don’t know what a an unfunny, bigoted and deliberately provocative statement like this is supposed to accomplish, really.
Like I said, I’m probably the only one here who is not only circumcised but also have performed a circumcision.
My son my have some complaints about me as a father, but cutting off his foreskin isn’t one.
I don’t know what a an unfunny, bigoted and deliberately provocative statement like this is supposed to accomplish, really.
Well, if it was used by Don Rickles during a Dean Martin roast, it would be for the purpose of making Sammy Davis Jr. stamp his feet and wave his arms in a fit of Bojanglesque laughter.
Sorry, I don’t get references to American pop culture. Grown up elsewhere…
Oi! Down in front, Chauncey!
Englishman:
What on earth have my views on abortion got to do with my views on circumcision? They are completely different and unrelated arguments and as are relevant to the debate as my opinions, say, on capital punishment or immigration.
I think many here would disagree that the two subjects are completely unrelated. I know that I, for one, am puzzled by the inconsistency I see in one camp arguing "Mutilation of infants is child abuse; murder of fetuses is okay," while another camp argues the opposite.
In both cases, it appears that parents are making a medical choice regarding their offspring. In both cases, it appears that there is disagreement about the morality of the decision. The puzzling bit is that the two camps find their counterparts’ arguments invalid, when the arguments are so similar to one another.
All of which leaves me confused. Are those who claim "circumcision is mutilation!" guilty of hyperbole? Are those who claim "abortion is murder!" guilty of the same? And we haven’t even touched on the topic of motive, which is a minefield all by itself.
Please, enlighten a poor benighted denizen of the American wilderness.
I think one fundamental difference, Squid, is that in one procedure, the newborn heals rather quickly, and never remembers it, while in the other procedure, the child dies.
Now that I think about it, english wanker called people that choose circumcision “circumcision-ists”. If ones follows the traditional usage of the variety of -ists, he would in fact, be the circumcision-ist, as he has the dislike of or bigotry towards circumcision. I believe the term he was looking for was “non-circumcision-ists”, a bit more cumbersome. If you are going to make up a new -ist, at least have the decency to use it right!
I think that one ought to wait until the child is old enough to make the decision to have his brain sucked out of his skull himself.
Why should I have to support a foreskin if I don’t want to? Choice is a fundamental right!
(and yes I know what it looks like, as I spent some time as a nursing care assistant).
Then you do have personal experience of smegma and its accumulation under the foreskin as a result of poor personal hygeine, possibly as a result of an inability to care for oneself, which might occur even as a young man? Circumcision prevents smegma.
Circumcision prevents smegma.
Not in Michael Moore’s case. Uh…….hello? Flab folds?
There goes dinner !!!
“Circumcision prevents smegma”. Anything that prevents smegma cannot be all bad.
Wow, like a moth to a flame, a Brit shows up cherishing his foreskin. Where are you going to stop with this fear-induced paranoic preventative surgery?It’s called risk mitigation.We’re all going to get old and die! The horror, the horror! Especially when the NHS denies treatment because whatever.
All of your smegma are belong to … you !
You’re dangerously close to discovering the secret of English and French cheeses, here.
If a young man is incapable of caring for himself, then I imagine smegma would be the least of his problems (think pressure ulcers that go through subcutaneous tissue and muscle down to bone). If he cannot care for himself (and I refer to physical limitations), I doubt he would be engaging in activities that would put him at risk due to his uncircumcised state. In healthy men who can perform their own hygiene, smegma should not be a problem. It is, after all, the penile equivalent of ear wax, and you boys clean your ears every day, don’t you? Don’t you??
Whoa, comment box changed again.
Squid, thanks for fielding that for me! You said it better than I could’ve. :)
Keeping foreskins is like a religion with that english chap – he wanted to keep god out of the conversation but it seems he worships a different idol. That website he linked, circumstition, intactavists, foreskin warriors, a pretty demented place IMAO. Explains a lot.
Foresk…
Ow. Glad I didn’t click that.
Your quote from Dr David Fergusson about STDs tells only part of the story. After it was pointed out, he admitted that his study was anomalous, and even if accurate, it would take more than 20 circumcisions to prevent one minor, treatable STD – but that never got the worldwide headlines his first sensational claims got. Likewise, HIV, even if the African studies are accurate, it would take 30-50 circumcisions to prevent one female-male transmission/year in Africa – many more in the developed world where the incidence is so much lower.
Why is the infant male foreskin the only non-renewable part of the human body that’s fair game? Try cutting off –
* the exactly corrresponding part of the female, the clitoral hood (in hygienic conditions, with anaesthetic)
* any other similar part of a baby boy, such as his earlobe
* an adult man’s foreskin without his (not his parents’) consent
– and see how long you’d stay unjailed. Something very odd is happening here.
A guy who thinks there’s nothing the matter with having part of his d ick missing is like someone saying “What’s all this nonsense about 3D vision and stereophonic sound? I can see and hear as well with my eye and my ear as any of you!”
my secret videos kittens cumming ga massachusetts retirement laws no forwarding address mydogfucksme california class a