Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Ifreann]

It's been pointed out before, simply leaving a visible scar on a vagina is considered FGM, regardless of whether or not it impairs the function of the vagina. Regardless, circumcision can actually impair the function of the penis, so you are wrong on that count.
And if you're going to discount the "medical complications" of male circumcision (like death, amputation of the penis, etc.) then you can't turn around and use the "unsanitary conditions" you seem to think FGM is normally carried out in as a reason for male circumcision being more acceptable.

Excepting male circumcision, since when have the religious practices of my parents ever trumped my right to bodily sovereignty?

Making you eat in a kosher household, maybe.

I am uncircumcised for what it is worth.

Everyone needs to post their foreskin status, so we know where the vested interests are. *nods*

[Anollasia]

Males can be circumcised if they want, but female circumcision is just messed up.

[Jacobania]

Unusual more than ugly. Since most males in the US are circumcised, people will tend not to be familiar with the appearance of an uncircumcised penis, which leads parents to fear that their son might one day not get a blowjob from the head cheerleader because she thinks he's got a funny looking mickey, so off comes the foreskin.

Honestly, I've never had much of an issue about my penis because it is uncircumcised.

It's just a non-issue, to me. I mean, hygiene is important, but that takes less than a minute in the shower anyways. Also, I feel that it is somehow far more sensitive to things than it probably should be for some reason; but those are not big inconveniences.

People are probably so sensitive to it because it is, first and foremost, a religious practice.

[Ifreann]

Honestly, I've never had much of an issue about my penis because it is uncircumcised.

It's just a non-issue, to me. I mean, hygiene is important, but that takes less than a minute in the shower anyways. Also, I feel that it is somehow far more sensitive to things than it probably should be for some reason; but those are not big inconveniences.

People are probably so sensitive to it because it is, first and foremost, a religious practice.

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

[Ostroeuropa]

People are probably so sensitive to it because it is, first and foremost, a religious practice.

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

I personally think people are sensitive to it because they don't want to think of themselves as mutilated or having anything wrong with their penis, and are willing to overlook that they are mutilating their children to feel better about their own wound because of the personal nature of it and such.

[Agerland]

I really do not understand all the heated argument surrounding this topic. I mean, it really just doesn't seem like an issue to me.

[Imperializt Russia]

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

I personally think people are sensitive to it because they don't want to think of themselves as mutilated or having anything wrong with their penis, and are willing to overlook that they are mutilating their children to feel better about their own wound because of the personal nature of it and such.

You seem way too sore about this.

[Ifreann]

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

I personally think people are sensitive to it because they don't want to think of themselves as mutilated or having anything wrong with their penis, and are willing to overlook that they are mutilating their children to feel better about their own wound because of the personal nature of it and such.

Plus people probably don't want to think of their parents, who most people tend to be reasonably fond of, as having done something cruel or wrong to them.

[Fartsniffage]

Making you eat in a kosher household, maybe.

I am uncircumcised for what it is worth.

Everyone needs to post their foreskin status, so we know where the vested interests are. *nods*

Whether my glans are vested or not is none of your damn business.

[Ostroeuropa]

I personally think people are sensitive to it because they don't want to think of themselves as mutilated or having anything wrong with their penis, and are willing to overlook that they are mutilating their children to feel better about their own wound because of the personal nature of it and such.

You seem way too sore about this.

I'm being matter of fact about it. I genuinely think the reason people are so invested in it is that the alternative is realizing they have had their genitals mutilated. People have a lot of emotional and psychological attachment to their junk and think it has baring on their status and such.

Coming to the realization that they have been mutilated may be too difficult for some.

[Ostroeuropa]

I personally think people are sensitive to it because they don't want to think of themselves as mutilated or having anything wrong with their penis, and are willing to overlook that they are mutilating their children to feel better about their own wound because of the personal nature of it and such.

Plus people probably don't want to think of their parents, who most people tend to be reasonably fond of, as having done something cruel or wrong to them.

That too yeh.

[Imperializt Russia]

You seem way too sore about this.

I'm being matter of fact about it. I genuinely think the reason people are so invested in it is that the alternative is realizing they have had their genitals mutilated. People have a lot of emotional and psychological attachment to their junk and think it has baring on their status and such.

Coming to the realization that they have been mutilated may be too difficult for some.

If we were talking about chopping the head off, I'd understand what you're getting at.

As it is, I really don't.

[The Alma Mater]

I really do not understand all the heated argument surrounding this topic. I mean, it really just doesn't seem like an issue to me.

It is an issue of principle. Is a parent allowed to cosmetically alter a child through surgery for religious or taste reasons without taking the wishes of the child into account ? And if so - to which degree ? And for what reasons ? Is the wish of religion A to remove the foreskin as worthy of protection as the wish of religion B to ritually pierce the child ? Etc.

It is something society has an intruiging case of doublethink. People are horrified by practices like footbinding or neck-elongation; respond with dismay when toddlers are tattooed - but surgically removing part of the penis is for some reason ok.

[Sun Wukong]

Everyone needs to post their foreskin status, so we know where the vested interests are. *nods*

They gave up on trying to circumcise me after my foreskin broke the chainsaw.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Making you eat in a kosher household, maybe.

I am uncircumcised for what it is worth.

Everyone needs to post their foreskin status, so we know where the vested interests are. *nods*

That really cuts to the head of the matter.

[Camicon]

I'm being matter of fact about it. I genuinely think the reason people are so invested in it is that the alternative is realizing they have had their genitals mutilated. People have a lot of emotional and psychological attachment to their junk and think it has baring on their status and such.

Coming to the realization that they have been mutilated may be too difficult for some.

If we were talking about chopping the head off, I'd understand what you're getting at.

As it is, I really don't.

You don`t understand why some people may be sensitive about having a part of their penis amputated? Or having to admit that their parents were the ones that had it amputated?

Penile foreskin isn't a vestigial structure. It serves a variety of functions, including protecting the more sensitive parts of your penis (like the glans), and increasing sexual satisfaction for men and women (preserving the sensitivity of the glans, providing increased lubrication, providing a more textured surface, etc).

What I don't understand is why you're so indifferent that society is perfectly OK with mutilating the genitals of infant boys.

[Gim]

You don`t understand why some people may be sensitive about having a part of their penis amputated? Or having to admit that their parents were the ones that had it amputated?

Penile foreskin isn't a vestigial structure. It serves a variety of functions, including protecting the more sensitive parts of your penis (like the glans), and increasing sexual satisfaction for men and women (preserving the sensitivity of the glans, providing increased lubrication, providing a more textured surface, etc).

What I don't understand is why you're so indifferent that society is perfectly OK with mutilating the genitals of infant boys.

I mean, similar to an appendix, you remove it, only when it causes pain and inflammation. I think foreskin should not be removed, unless it causes harm for the humans.

[Jacobania]

People are probably so sensitive to it because it is, first and foremost, a religious practice.

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

I find it hard to believe that the very minuscule religious minority in America are the primary cause of America's disproportionately high circumcision rate

Since the United States only has roughly 318.8 million people and because most Christians live in countries where they are the majority, it is illogical to conclude that the religious minorities in a nation composed of a predominately Christian population are responsible for the nation's abnormally high circumspection rate.

It's the Christians, not Jews or Muslims, who contribute the most to circumcision in America. This is why I believe circumcision is done on religious, not secular or medical, grounds.

If you find this to be biased, show me a country with a predominately atheist population (or a population that has no religious bias towards circumcision) with high circumcision rates and I will gladly change my position. As of now, I have not seen a single one.

[Camicon]

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

I find it hard to believe that the very minuscule religious minority in America are the primary cause of America's disproportionately high circumcision rate

Since the United States only has roughly 318.8 million people and because most Christians live in countries where they are the majority, it is illogical to conclude that the religious minorities in a nation composed of a predominately Christian population are responsible for the nation's abnormally high circumspection rate.

It's the Christians, not Jews or Muslims, who contribute the most to circumcision in America. This is why I believe circumcision is done on religious, not secular or medical, grounds.

If you find this to be biased, show me a country with a predominately atheist population (or a population that has no religious bias towards circumcision) with high circumcision rates and I will gladly change my position. As of now, I have not seen a single one.

Circumcision is not required by the Christian faith; ergo, Christians are not circumcising their children for religious reasons, because no such reasons exist.

[Ifreann]

1.7% of the US is Jewish, 0.6% is Muslim. Not sure how it's first and foremost a religious practice when the vast majority of people who practice it aren't members of religions that practice it.

I find it hard to believe that the very minuscule religious minority in America are the primary cause of America's disproportionately high circumcision rate

Since the United States only has roughly 318.8 million people and because most Christians live in countries where they are the majority, it is illogical to conclude that the religious minorities in a nation composed of a predominately Christian population are responsible for the nation's abnormally high circumspection rate.

It's the Christians, not Jews or Muslims, who are mostly responsible for the circumcision rate in America. This is why I believe circumcision is done on religious, not secular or medical, grounds.

If you find this to be biased, show me a country with a predominately atheist population (or a population that has no religious bias towards circumcision) with high circumcision rates and I will gladly change my position. As of now, I have not seen a single one.

It is a tenet of both Judaism and Islam that penises should be circumcised. It is not a tenet of Christianity. Christians outside the US don't generally do it. Christians in the US doing it doesn't make it a religious practice. Christians in the US also drink Bud Light, and no loving God would wish that on His people.

[Jacobania]

I find it hard to believe that the very minuscule religious minority in America are the primary cause of America's disproportionately high circumcision rate

Since the United States only has roughly 318.8 million people and because most Christians live in countries where they are the majority, it is illogical to conclude that the religious minorities in a nation composed of a predominately Christian population are responsible for the nation's abnormally high circumspection rate.

It's the Christians, not Jews or Muslims, who contribute the most to circumcision in America. This is why I believe circumcision is done on religious, not secular or medical, grounds.

If you find this to be biased, show me a country with a predominately atheist population (or a population that has no religious bias towards circumcision) with high circumcision rates and I will gladly change my position. As of now, I have not seen a single one.

Circumcision is not required by the Christian faith; ergo, Christians are not circumcising their children for religious reasons, because no such reasons exist.

Then why are mostly Christians doing it? You can't (rationally) argue with the statistics.

[Ifreann]

Circumcision is not required by the Christian faith; ergo, Christians are not circumcising their children for religious reasons, because no such reasons exist.

Then why are mostly Christians doing it? You can't (rationally) argue with the statistics.

I have a crazy idea. Maybe being Christian isn't the be all and end all of their lives. Maybe they can practice infant circumcision for reasons wholly unrelated to their fondness for Jesus.

[Imperializt Russia]

If we were talking about chopping the head off, I'd understand what you're getting at.

As it is, I really don't.

You don`t understand why some people may be sensitive about having a part of their penis amputated? Or having to admit that their parents were the ones that had it amputated?

Penile foreskin isn't a vestigial structure. It serves a variety of functions, including protecting the more sensitive parts of your penis (like the glans), and increasing sexual satisfaction for men and women (preserving the sensitivity of the glans, providing increased lubrication, providing a more textured surface, etc).

What I don't understand is why you're so indifferent that society is perfectly OK with mutilating the genitals of infant boys.

It's not perfectly OK with it. That's why restrictions are placed on the practice.

Purely on the definition, I object to your use of emotional argument by branding circumcision "amputation". It's not, let's at least call it what it is.

I'm just ambivalent about the procedure.
I have already outlined a possible workaround in which the circumcision of an infant is not permitted but must be chosen as the choice of the child. In the specific case of Jewish religious circumcision, it could be a part of the Bar Mitzvah rites. I do not know why this would be a significant problem, traditionalism aside, for the Jewish religious cause. There is no issue I'm aware of in which an adult convert having a circumcision is considered problematic or whatever.

You don't seem to be aware of my argument. Well, I don't have an argument. I don't have an opinion on the procedure but have an opinion on its legality, which is again, ambivalent.

[Jacobania]

I find it hard to believe that the very minuscule religious minority in America are the primary cause of America's disproportionately high circumcision rate

Since the United States only has roughly 318.8 million people and because most Christians live in countries where they are the majority, it is illogical to conclude that the religious minorities in a nation composed of a predominately Christian population are responsible for the nation's abnormally high circumspection rate.

It's the Christians, not Jews or Muslims, who are mostly responsible for the circumcision rate in America. This is why I believe circumcision is done on religious, not secular or medical, grounds.

If you find this to be biased, show me a country with a predominately atheist population (or a population that has no religious bias towards circumcision) with high circumcision rates and I will gladly change my position. As of now, I have not seen a single one.

It is a tenet of both Judaism and Islam that penises should be circumcised. It is not a tenet of Christianity. Christians outside the US don't generally do it. Christians in the US doing it doesn't make it a religious practice. Christians in the US also drink Bud Light, and no loving God would wish that on His people.

I'm sure you've met those people who say "Jesus turned water to wine" type alcoholics. No, circumcision isn't a tenet of Chritianity (and even rebuked by Paul in Galatians), but nevertheless Christians do contribute significantly to circumcisions worldwide.

I wonder why that is?

[Ifreann]

It is a tenet of both Judaism and Islam that penises should be circumcised. It is not a tenet of Christianity. Christians outside the US don't generally do it. Christians in the US doing it doesn't make it a religious practice. Christians in the US also drink Bud Light, and no loving God would wish that on His people.

I'm sure you've met those people who say "Jesus turned water to wine" type alcoholics.

I have never encountered such an argument.

No, circumcision isn't a tenet of Chritianity (and even rebuked by Paul in Galatians), but nevertheless Christians do contribute significantly to circumcisions worldwide.

I wonder why that is?

So do I. Do you have any evidence to suggest that it has something to do with their Christian faith? Other than correlation, of course. Correlating Christianity with any behaviour in the US is pretty meaningless, since most Americans are Christian.