Topic: Circumcision in Orthodoxy

[admiralnick]

Why would we sacrifice anything in the temple when the ultimate sacrifice has already been made on our behalf? The fact that Jesus offered sacrifices in the temple and we do not doesn't have any relevence to whether or not a child should be circumcised. Doesn't Paul Circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3?

The whole point in this thread and the idea that Cleveland points out is: If you want to be circumcised, you can be circumcised, if you don't want to be circumcised, you don't get circumcised. End of story. People who are vehemently one way or the other are kinda creepy, especially those who are so profusely against it.

-Nick

Well then, you might as well be calling the Coptic church creeps since it's customary! And it's the parent's decision, not the child's, so how can you say, "If you want to be circumcised, you can be circumcised, if you don't want to be circumcised"?? That makes no sense. Also, if I'm against female circumcision, am I a creep?? If I was for it, I'm sure everyone would be calling me a creep. How can you call me a creep for being against circumcision man, that's offensive.

If I'm against torturing others, am I a creep??

What I meant to say about offering sacrifices, is that Jesus did it because He was a Jew, same with circumcision, and since we are Christians, there is no point to it. It should be illegal like it is with female circumcision because it is barbaric torture.

From your post on this subject I do indeed think you are a creep. What makes it creepy is that you're so against it you won't even bother to listen to reason on why people would support it and do it. And since you're so caught up in the semantics of my post rather than the ideas, I'll fix it for you.

If you want your child to be circumcised, they can be circumcised. If you don't want your child to be circumcised, then they aren't circumcised. Why does it have to be circumcision is wrong and no one should ever do it? That, my friend, is the insult.

-Nick

[Jo2444]

From your post on this subject I do indeed think you are a creep. What makes it creepy is that you're so against it you won't even bother to listen to reason on why people would support it and do it. And since you're so caught up in the semantics of my post rather than the ideas, I'll fix it for you.

If you want your child to be circumcised, they can be circumcised. If you don't want your child to be circumcised, then they aren't circumcised. Why does it have to be circumcision is wrong and no one should ever do it? That, my friend, is the insult.

-Nick

Okay, let's refrain from the insults here, you don't need to call me a creep, that's not Christian behavior. Also, you assume I'm stubborn, when I'm willing to hear what you have to say (although you have said nothing so far), but the matter is simple, there are no benefits to circumcision.

Why does it have to be circumcision is wrong and no one should ever do it? That, my friend, is the insult.

Listen, female circumcision is illegal, are you saying the majority of countries around the world are creeps, as well as the Coptic church, and their actions are insulting? It is illegal for a reason, but you are unwilling to listen to what I have to say. Answer me this: why is female circumcision illegal when it is more beneficial then male circumcision?

If you want your child to be circumcised, they can be circumcised. If you don't want your child to be circumcised, then they aren't circumcised.

It is the child's choice, not the parents.

Also, please give me your reasons for supporting male circumcision.

[Fr. George]

Answer me this: why is female circumcision illegal when it is more beneficial then male circumcision?

To answer the question, I think it's necessary for you to prove the underlying premise (i.e. that female circumcision is more beneficial than its male counterpart).

It is the child's choice, not the parents.

What a cop-out.  Parents make hundreds of other decisions that affect their children more than circumcision - it only draws the attention because (a) it's cosmetic and plainly obvious, and (b) most of us are in some ways hedonists.  But parents make decisions about dexterity, language, educational progress, physical fitness, diet, and in many ways (knowingly or unknowingly) about personality and identity.  Tell me which one of those aspects is less important than circumcision...

[Fr. George]

Also, please give me your reasons for supporting male circumcision.

His position isn't one of supporting or not supporting, but rather live and let live - don't forbid it, don't mandate it.

[Rosehip]

Since when is female circumcision "more beneficial" than male circumcision??  This is something I've never heard of in all my life.

[ialmisry]

YES! A thread on circumcision, oh how lovely.

Well, I'm against it...

If health's a reason to cut boys, then it's a better reason to cut girls... OH WAIT! That's illegal, how sexist of the legal system!

You say Jesus was circumcised? Well Jesus also offered sacrifices in the temple, should we do the same? I don't think so. We are the creation of God, we shouldn't mutilate our children's genitals.

20 000 out of 24 000 nerve endings... gone... and for what? Oh, and if any mother wishes to circumcise her child, SHE should be willing to get circumcised and see how SHE likes getting her genitals mutilated.

Forgive me if I may come off a little strong, but this issue gets me frustrated...

Yes, all those claimed nerve endings. The evidence doesn't support the claim.  Circumcision (male that is) doesn't normally cause sexual disfunction, in many cases it is done to solve it.  Female circumcision causes sexual disfunction, amongst a host of other problems.

I was willing to get circumcized and saw how I like it, and both my sons have the same.

[Jo2444]

Circumcision (male that is) doesn't normally cause sexual disfunction, in many cases it is done to solve it.  Female circumcision causes sexual disfunction, amongst a host of other problems.

Are you serious?? The foreskin (the part you cut off) is the most sensitive part of the male's obviously causing sexual disfunction, that's why you see people taking viagra. If anything, it causes more sexual disfunction than it does to females because you are removing much more nerve endings. What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

Since when is female circumcision "more beneficial" than male circumcision??  Undecided This is something I've never heard of in all my life.

The female _______ is dirtier, and harbors more bacteria than the uncircumcised male's. This is a fact. This is why female circumcision is more beneficial. Again, I am not supporting either male or female circumcision, but if you're giving me health as a reason to cut boys, then it is a better reason to cut girls. You guys view cutting girls as wrong, therefore male circumcision should be treated the same. This is a gender rights problem.

What a cop-out.  Parents make hundreds of other decisions that affect their children more than circumcision

Parent's are misinformed about this issue.

[Fr. George]

Circumcision (male that is) doesn't normally cause sexual disfunction, in many cases it is done to solve it.  Female circumcision causes sexual disfunction, amongst a host of other problems.

Are you serious?? The foreskin (the part you cut off) is the most sensitive part of the male's obviously causing sexual disfunction, that's why you see people taking viagra. If anything, it causes more sexual disfunction than it does to females because you are removing much more nerve endings. What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

You are assuming facts that haven't been presented into evidence: a. the number of nerve endings, b. circumcision leads to sexual dysfunction, c. circumcision leads to ED-like impotence (since you brought up viagra).  There's nothing hard to understand about your logic (it's fairly simplistic, which is part of the problem) - but your conclusions don't follow the logic unless the premises are proven first, which you haven't done.  Bring evidence, and maybe others will assume what you already do.

Since when is female circumcision "more beneficial" than male circumcision??  Undecided This is something I've never heard of in all my life.

The female _______ is dirtier, and harbors more bacteria than the uncircumcised male's. This is a fact. This is why female circumcision is more beneficial. Again, I am not supporting either male or female circumcision, but if you're giving me health as a reason to cut boys, then it is a better reason to cut girls. You guys view cutting girls as wrong, therefore male circumcision should be treated the same. This is a gender rights problem.

Again, assuming facts not in evidence.  The rest is faulty until you bring the goods.

What a cop-out.  Parents make hundreds of other decisions that affect their children more than circumcision

Parent's are misinformed about this issue.

First of all, "parent's" does not equal "parents."  Second, whether or not parents are misinformed on the issue, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims, so to an outside observer you are just as misinformed as you claim parents are.

[EofK]

Circumcision (male that is) doesn't normally cause sexual disfunction, in many cases it is done to solve it.  Female circumcision causes sexual disfunction, amongst a host of other problems.

Are you serious?? The foreskin (the part you cut off) is the most sensitive part of the male's obviously causing sexual disfunction, that's why you see people taking viagra. If anything, it causes more sexual disfunction than it does to females because you are removing much more nerve endings. What exactly is so hard to understand about this?

Sorry, Viagra doesn't work by making up for lost sensation.  It works by increasing poor blood flow, a symptom that can be caused by heart disease, diabetes, and other non-sexual problems.  I'd also like to see some evidence to back up your claims that male circumcision causes sexual dysfunction while it does not in females.  You've stated and restated that it does, but I would prefer to see some documentation, please.

[Jo2444]

I'd also like to see some evidence to back up your claims that male circumcision causes sexual dysfunction while it does not in females.

Since when did I say it does not in females??

Alright, I'll let you guys judge for yourselves, although a simple google search on this matter will give you the same evidence:

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/shortguide03-04.pdf
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2007-03-19pressrelease.pdf
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

[EofK]

I'd also like to see some evidence to back up your claims that male circumcision causes sexual dysfunction while it does not in females.

Since when did I say it does not in females??

Alright, I'll let you guys judge for yourselves, although a simple google search on this matter will give you the same evidence:

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/shortguide03-04.pdf
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2007-03-19pressrelease.pdf
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

Forgive me, I did say that and you did not.  You said that it causes more dysfunction than in females.  I can do a simple Google search, but my point is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.  Thank you for your references, I will read them when I am on my home computer.

[Fr. George]

I'd also like to see some evidence to back up your claims that male circumcision causes sexual dysfunction while it does not in females.

Since when did I say it does not in females??

Alright, I'll let you guys judge for yourselves, although a simple google search on this matter will give you the same evidence:

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/shortguide03-04.pdf
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/pdf/2007-03-19pressrelease.pdf
http://www.nocirc.org/touch-test/touchtest.php

I'll admit that I've merely scanned them, but I still don't see anywhere in your provided source material that says anything about female circumcision being better for women than the male counterpart is to males.

As for the rest, I'm not going to debate that there's no medical necessity for circumcision, but I think the patients' rights argument is flawed precisely because the same doctors also reject patents' rights when it comes to other procedures (I'm not going to name it here, because it will inevitably lead to a tangent) - if they were using it altruistically, it would be more evenly applied; instead, it's supporting hedonism.

[Jo2444]

How don't you guys support female circumcision? The female vagina is dirtier and harbors more bacteria than the intact penis, it makes it look much cleaner and better, and most women are still able to climax once they've had it. This is just my opinion (don't worry Salpy, I'm only comparing male and female circumcision).

Now these reasons alone should be enough, even though it's not scriptural (as well as male circumcision which is a Jewish tradition, not Christian).

[GiC]

How don't you guys support female circumcision? The female vagina is dirtier and harbors more bacteria than the intact penis, it makes it look much cleaner and better, and most women are still able to climax once they've had it. This is just my opinion (don't worry Salpy, I'm only comparing male and female circumcision).

Now these reasons alone should be enough, even though it's not scriptural (as well as male circumcision which is a Jewish tradition, not Christian).

I seriously hope this is a joke, but even if so, it's in bad taste. If it's not, this has to be one of the sickest, most twisted,  and most demented things yet posted on this board...and that's saying a lot.

[Jo2444]

I seriously hope this is a joke, but even if so, it's in bad taste. If it's not, this has to be one of the sickest, most twisted,  and most demented things yet posted on this board...and that's saying a lot.

You might as well be calling the Coptic church sick, twisted and demented for making male circumcision customary.

It's funny how many people hold a double standard of accepting male circumcision, but calling female circumcision torture. (Btw GiC, what I said was true).

[Entscheidungsproblem]

You might as well be calling the Coptic church sick, twisted and demented for making male circumcision customary.

It's funny how many people hold a double standard of accepting male circumcision, but calling female circumcision torture. (Btw GiC, what I said was true).

I hold no such double standard.  Both are barbaric and forced upon infants/youths before they are able to make a conscious decision of their own.

And what exactly is wrong with bacteria?  I'm assuming that since it is "dirty" you will be parting ways with your entire gastrointestinal tract then?

[GiC]

I seriously hope this is a joke, but even if so, it's in bad taste. If it's not, this has to be one of the sickest, most twisted,  and most demented things yet posted on this board...and that's saying a lot.

You might as well be calling the Coptic church sick, twisted and demented for making male circumcision customary.

Concerning your church, you REALLY don't want me to go there, so I won't unless pushed further, and I will agree that male circumcision is a bad practice that should be abandoned, but it does not even compare to female genital mutilation. A better analogy would be cutting off the head of the penis in combination with traditional male circumcision. Hey, most men may still be able to ejaculate.

It's funny how many people hold a double standard of accepting male circumcision, but calling female circumcision torture. (Btw GiC, what I said was true).

As I said, both are wrong; but with that said, the two aren't even comparable and to suggest they are would be either sheer ignorance or sociopathy.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

A better analogy would be cutting off the head of the penis in combination with traditional male circumcision.

*shudders*  I winced at that one.

[GiC]

You might as well be calling the Coptic church sick, twisted and demented for making male circumcision customary.

It's funny how many people hold a double standard of accepting male circumcision, but calling female circumcision torture. (Btw GiC, what I said was true).

I hold no such double standard.  Both are barbaric and forced upon infants/youths before they are able to make a conscious decision of their own.

And what exactly is wrong with bacteria?  I'm assuming that since it is "dirty" you will be parting ways with your entire gastrointestinal tract then?

Maybe he has a disembowellment fantasy?

[Jo2444]

What are you talking about 'going there'?? And they are comparable: the clitoral hood and foreskin are essentially the same thing... even if we stuck to a definition of female circumcision that only incorporated removal of the clitoral hood and the labia, the most people would still see this as a gross infraction of human rights if we suggested it be done to all female babies just like we do to males.

For me, this only shows how warped the cultural acceptance of male circumcision is.

Maybe he has a disembowellment fantasy?

How about you watch the language?

And what exactly is wrong with bacteria?  I'm assuming that since it is "dirty" you will be parting ways with your entire gastrointestinal tract then?

People use health reasons to justify male circumcision.

[GiC]

What are you talking about 'going there'?? And they are comparable: the clitoral hood and foreskin are essentially the same thing... even if we stuck to a definition of female circumcision that only incorporated removal of the clitoral hood and the labia, the most people would still see this as a gross infraction of human rights if we suggested it be done to all female babies just like we do to males.

For me, this only shows how warped the cultural acceptance of male circumcision is.

First of all, that's not the kind of FGM that is most prevalent in Africa according to UN reports on the matter, secondly only the clitoral hood is embryonically homologous to the foreskin, the outer labia is embryonically homologous to the scrotum and the inner labia is embryonically homologous uretheal side of the penis, can we hack those off you?...wait, maybe I shouldn't ask that question, I might not like the answer. And, thirdly, one form of barbaric mutilation of an infant does not excuse another...sheesh.

Maybe he has a disembowellment fantasy?

How about you watch the language?

How about not exposing us to your sick fetishes? I'm a pretty open and tolerant guy, but I draw the line at mutilating infants' genitals.

And what exactly is wrong with bacteria?  I'm assuming that since it is "dirty" you will be parting ways with your entire gastrointestinal tract then?

People use health reasons to justify male circumcision.

The species survived just fine for millions of years without it.

[Fr. George]

People use health reasons to justify male circumcision.

The species survived just fine for millions of years without it.

I'm not going to argue for or against circumcision.  But the species also had a fairly high infant mortality rate before the last 5,000 years, too, which has declined, and then declined again in the modern era.



Fixed quote tags...  -PtA

[GiC]

People use health reasons to justify male circumcision.

The species survived just fine for millions of years without it.

I'm not going to argue for or against circumcision.  But the species also had a fairly high infant mortality rate before the last 5,000 years, too, which has declined, and then declined again in the modern era.

But, in your honest opinion, how big of a role do you believe genital infection due to lack of circumcision played in that mortality rate?



Fixed quote tags...  - PtA

[Nazarene]

I'm not going even give FGM the time of day. But concerning circumcision, it can be barbaric too, at least by modern standards. Case in point: there is a tribe in South Africa called the Xhosas and it is tradition for all males to be circumcized - at the age of 21. But this circumcision does not take place in a hospital but in the bush (yip the wilderness), and it's administered by a witch doctor, not a trained doctor - many deaths. And BTW this brutal "coming of age" ceremony is not optional either. There are even cases where the guy, out of respect for his family will go to a hospital to get it done by a professional doctor, but the family's doesn't accept it so they kidnap him and force to get circumcised a 2nd time. So I would classify this as MGM.

[GiC]

I'm not going even give FGM the time of day. But concerning circumcision, it can be barbaric too, at least by modern standards. Case in point: there is a tribe in South Africa called the Xhosas and it is tradition for all males to be circumcized - at the age of 21. But this circumcision does not take place in a hospital but in the bush (yip the wilderness), and it's administered by a witch doctor, not a trained doctor - many deaths. So I would classify this as MGM.

Yikes...talk about a good reason to go away to college at 18

[Nazarene]

Modified my post before I saw your reply, I forgot to mention that this ceremony is forced, even if the guy decided to get done in a hospital first!

[GiC]

Modified my post before I saw your reply, I forgot to mention that this ceremony is forced, even if the guy decided to get done in a hospital first!

Then I add to my post...

...in a different country.

But also, as obviously barbaric as this is, it doesn't even compare to FGM, since in FGM the number of nerves cut through during the mutilation process is exponentially higher.

[Jo2444]

But also, as obviously barbaric as this is, it doesn't even compare to FGM, since in FGM the number of nerves cut through during the mutilation process is exponentially higher.

Show me proof.

First of all, that's not the kind of FGM that is most prevalent in Africa according to UN reports on the matter, secondly only the clitoral hood is embryonically homologous to the foreskin, the outer labia is embryonically homologous to the scrotum and the inner labia is embryonically homologous uretheal side of the penis, can we hack those off you?

I'm afraid I have been already strapped down, assaulted, sexually molested and mutilated by circumcision as a helpless infant thanks to my parents and my church.

does not impete urinary or sexual function. The same cannot be said for FGM.

Over 2/3rds of the penile nerve sensations are lost in male circumcision, so what are you talking about sexual function?

Btw, GiC, are you a female?

[LBK]

But also, as obviously barbaric as this is, it doesn't even compare to FGM, since in FGM the number of nerves cut through during the mutilation process is exponentially higher.

Show me proof.

sodr2, would you be happy to allow your wife, sister or any other female relative to undergo FGM? At least male circumcision, done in infancy, and correctly, does not impete urinary or sexual function. The same cannot be said for FGM.

[Salpy]

The above posts, starting with reply 57, above, were split off from the following thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,24230.new.html#new

[Jo2444]

I'm against both practices that I find comparable, that's all. I think I'll stop this discussion for now...

[Quinault]

Circumcision as it is done today in the doctor's office is a far cry from what it was in Christ's time. A jewish mohel is highly trained to perform the bris quickly and virtually without pain. I was originally against having our son circumcised due to the horrific videos of circumcisions you see no the sites listed above. We paid a mohel to circumcise our son. It is VERY fast- the cutting part was done in a matter of seconds and there was little bleeding. (literally a few drops) Our son hardly cried. He was given watered down sweetened wine on a gauze strip to suck while it was being done and he cried for only a moment- less then he did at a cranky diaper change. My husband gently held our son's feet and my father in law gave him the wine. Afterward I breastfed him and he was fine. All in all he healed in less then a week. The diaper changes were only slightly different with some vasiline and gauze placed each change for a week. He had no pain that would require so much as tylenol. Our daughter had to have her frenulum loosened at 3 months because she was born tongue tied. She cried for a good hour after that and needed pain medication for a week thereafter.

Doctors typically strap the child to a board and if they use pain medication it is an injection into the penis before they use a clamp on the penis. Circumcision amongst doctors is normally a weekend seminar unless they specialize in urology. Mohels don't strap the babies down or clamp in the same manner.

There have been recent studies (that are still a matter of debate) on how circumcision has lowered the HIV rate in Africa;

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/africa/28africa.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE56F7BG20090717

[PeterTheAleut]

I'm against both practices that I find comparable, that's all. I think I'll stop this discussion for now...

IOW, if I read you correctly, you've never advocated FGM on this thread, and those who have read you this way are simply wrong in their understanding of you.  If anything, you were here solely to show how inconsistent we are in our advocacy of male circumcision yet revulsion at female circumcision.  IYO, if we deem male circumcision so acceptable, why are we so horrified by female circumcision?  Or the converse: if we find female circumcision so revolting, why do we accept male circumcision?  You appear, then, to be trying to use the horror of female circumcision to persuade us to condemn the equally horrible practice of male circumcision.  Am I right?

[Asteriktos]

Males must be circumcised: it gives them more "personality". Not so for the womenz.

[Riddikulus]

I'm against both practices that I find comparable, that's all. I think I'll stop this discussion for now...

IOW, if I read you correctly, you've never advocated FGM on this thread, and those who have read you this way are simply wrong in their understanding of you.  If anything, you were here solely to show how inconsistent we are in our advocacy of male circumcision yet revulsion at female circumcision.  IYO, if we deem male circumcision so acceptable, why are we so horrified by female circumcision?  Or the converse: if we find female circumcision so revolting, why do we accept male circumcision?  You appear, then, to be trying to use the horror of female circumcision to persuade us to condemn the equally horrible practice of male circumcision.  Am I right?

I think I might be confused.

[BoredMeeting]

If I had a son, he would have made the decision for himself once he achieved adulthood.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

If I had a son, he would have made the decision for himself once he achieved adulthood.

As it should be.

[Jo2444]

I'm against both practices that I find comparable, that's all. I think I'll stop this discussion for now...

IOW, if I read you correctly, you've never advocated FGM on this thread, and those who have read you this way are simply wrong in their understanding of you.  If anything, you were here solely to show how inconsistent we are in our advocacy of male circumcision yet revulsion at female circumcision.  IYO, if we deem male circumcision so acceptable, why are we so horrified by female circumcision?  Or the converse: if we find female circumcision so revolting, why do we accept male circumcision?  You appear, then, to be trying to use the horror of female circumcision to persuade us to condemn the equally horrible practice of male circumcision.  Am I right?

lol, a bit of Sigmund Freud there, but I'm against both, you're right. It's simply from the evidence I've seen that I find them comparable. The only real question I have is what religious reasons are there for male circumcision - I can't see any, and why it's customary in the Coptic Church.

It was God's will that males were circumcised before Jesus, and I have no problem with this. But in the same way, martyrs being tortured was also God's will... that doesn't make torture right.

Males must be circumcised: it gives them more "personality". Not so for the womenz.

[ialmisry]

If I had a son, he would have made the decision for himself once he achieved adulthood.

As it should be.

Either it is mutiliation, in which case you wouldn't want him to do it as an adult (when it is more complicated and painful), or it is not, in which case the example of Father Abraham may be followed.

In either case, whatever your foreskin status, man up and make up your mind and follow through accordingly.

[GiC]

If I had a son, he would have made the decision for himself once he achieved adulthood.

As it should be.

Either it is mutiliation, in which case you wouldn't want him to do it as an adult (when it is more complicated and painful), or it is not, in which case the example of Father Abraham may be followed.

In either case, whatever your foreskin status, man up and make up your mind and follow through accordingly.

An adult should have the right to do what they want to their bodies, even to the point of mutilation, to inflict it on a child, on the other hand, is simply intolerable.

[Entscheidungsproblem]

Either it is mutiliation, in which case you wouldn't want him to do it as an adult (when it is more complicated and painful), or it is not, in which case the example of Father Abraham may be followed.

In either case, whatever your foreskin status, man up and make up your mind and follow through accordingly.

I believe it is barbaric, but if an adult wants to mutilate himself or consent to another person to mutilate them, all the power to them.

Edit:  I see GiC beat me to the punch.   

[ialmisry]

If I had a son, he would have made the decision for himself once he achieved adulthood.

As it should be.

Either it is mutiliation, in which case you wouldn't want him to do it as an adult (when it is more complicated and painful), or it is not, in which case the example of Father Abraham may be followed.

In either case, whatever your foreskin status, man up and make up your mind and follow through accordingly.

An adult should have the right to do what they want to their bodies, even to the point of mutilation, to inflict it on a child, on the other hand, is simply intolerable.

Either it is mutiliation, in which case you wouldn't want him to do it as an adult (when it is more complicated and painful), or it is not, in which case the example of Father Abraham may be followed.

In either case, whatever your foreskin status, man up and make up your mind and follow through accordingly.

I believe it is barbaric, but if an adult wants to mutilate himself or consent to another person to mutilate them, all the power to them.

Edit:  I see GiC beat me to the punch.   

Since it is neither barbaric, nor mutalation in the immoral nor criminal sense, it just underlines the difference between world views, without the mealy mouthed weaseling and squirming behind "let them decide when they grow up."

[ialmisry]

What are you talking about 'going there'?? And they are comparable: the clitoral hood and foreskin are essentially the same thing... even if we stuck to a definition of female circumcision that only incorporated removal of the clitoral hood and the labia, the most people would still see this as a gross infraction of human rights if we suggested it be done to all female babies just like we do to males.

For me, this only shows how warped the cultural acceptance of male circumcision is.

First of all, that's not the kind of FGM that is most prevalent in Africa according to UN reports on the matter, secondly only the clitoral hood is embryonically homologous to the foreskin, the outer labia is embryonically homologous to the scrotum and the inner labia is embryonically homologous uretheal side of the penis, can we hack those off you?...wait, maybe I shouldn't ask that question, I might not like the answer. And, thirdly, one form of barbaric mutilation of an infant does not excuse another...sheesh.

Maybe he has a disembowellment fantasy?

How about you watch the language?

How about not exposing us to your sick fetishes? I'm a pretty open and tolerant guy, but I draw the line at mutilating infants' genitals.

And what exactly is wrong with bacteria?  I'm assuming that since it is "dirty" you will be parting ways with your entire gastrointestinal tract then?

People use health reasons to justify male circumcision.

The species survived just fine for millions of years without it.

And you know that how?  Where is your evidence?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Isn't circumcision a symbol of being bound to the Law?

[simplygermain]

To jump in to this LLLOVELY topic... and from a perspective I haven't heard much from, save Isa's,

Former background - BodyPiercer...Yes, I've held hundreds of the very unmentionables in my hand..*shudder*

From this angle, I saw quite a bit of wang and the men who came in with-out a circumcision... nasty, schmeggy, and smelly.


We considered doing this with a mohel, but in the end we were blessed with girls. As most don't care if you're not a Jew and the price is slightly lower I say lop it!