Religion is nuts

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

It is an archaic, barbaric practice that serves to lessen the sensitivity of the penis something like up to 50%. Is it healthier? Well, less skin means easier cleaning, but that's no reson to do it to a baby or a child when he can be taught to wash himself thoroughly. You are right. Up until maybe 20 years ago, all boys had it done to them as a natural course of being born unless someone objected to it. Babies didn't object except by their screams during the process.

Mike

[cappuccina]

My son was given a local anaesthetic and did not scream during the process.

Circumcision helps to prevent a whole host of health problems, and the claims of "loss of feeling" are greatly exaggerated. There have been clinical studies of men who have undergone circumcision later in life, and the vast majority do not report a loss of sensation.

Here are some of the health issues circumcision helps with:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).


Also....it is, quite frankly, much easier to keep a circumcised penis clean...

...just sayin...

It's NOT a religious issue....it's a PUBLIC HEALTH issue...

If anyone wants to yell at me for using the word "penis", to him or her, I say...

PENIS

[The Good Michael]

Caps,

Sorry, but the AMA says this just isn't so and they don't recommend circumcision. Some doctors agree with you. Many others don't. I imagine if the lips of the vagina were cut away at birth, there'd be less venereal disease in women as well. Less tissue means les surface area to be affected. It's a backwards custom and you can't tell me that Germans (for example) are far more susceptible to things you mentioned because they are uncircumcised. It just aint so.

Mike

[Errata]

Errata,

It is an archaic, barbaric practice that serves to lessen the sensitivity of the penis something like up to 50%. Is it healthier? Well, less skin means easier cleaning, but that's no reson to do it to a baby or a child when he can be taught to wash himself thoroughly. You are right. Up until maybe 20 years ago, all boys had it done to them as a natural course of being born unless someone objected to it. Babies didn't object except by their screams during the process.

Mike

Well, it is archaic. I don't know about barbaric... certainly unpleasant. I hear barbaric and I think of someone doing it with a stone hatchet.

I have been told by adults who were circumcised that their sex lives got a whole lot better because of the decreased sensitivity. So I was under the impression that was a positive not a negative. But clearly opinions vary. Studies have shown that circumcision can reduce the transmission rate of HIV by 50% or more. So thats gotta be a good thing.

If the objection is doing it to an infant who cannot consent, I get that. I myself have had a number of surgeries I did not consent to. Some were lifesaving, so I'm fine with those. Some were "corrective" and I'm still a little murky on those. And I had tubes put in my ears which benefited no one except my parents who didn't have to hear the whimpering over the pain of ear infections anymore.

I mean, there is a reason they do it to infants and not say, teenagers. An infant is still protected by his mother's immunity, he won't remember it, there is no dread of the upcoming procedure, and with all the circumcisions I've been to, the baby is really only in discomfort for about an hour. Well, I can't really speak to the inner mind of an infant, but they stop crying and go right back to normal.

But as for consent, yeah that's an issue. I mean, I want to say that it should be postponed until the child can choose for himself, but I'm a doctor's kid. Kids don't get to choose a lot of things that pertain to their bodies and their health. And it's by design. Can you imagine what it would be like if kids could refuse vaccinations? Kids don't get to refuse tubes in their ears, or their tonsils getting yanked, or getting warts removed. I grew up with a girl whose legs were disproportionally short, and she spent ages 6-19 having her legs broken, and set a few millimeters apart over and over to gain about 3 inches in height. And that stuff is kinda not okay, but I also realize that there is no way a kid is capable of informed consent on these things. Decisions would get made based solely on whether or not something hurts, and since it pretty much all hurts, no one would ever get these things done while they are still young enough to heal, to not leave scars, to be able to forget.

So I'm torn on that.

[mariab]

It's a quick way to tell away an American from a European guy (if they didn't talk, which they invariably do).
Male circumcision started to become objectionable in the US much later after the outcry against female circumcision became public (in the 1980s?), but I think both movements were related and influenced each other. Interesting how things work out sometimes.
I agree with Michael that it's a barbaric practice, but we're still so used to expect Americans to be circumcised. Yet I'm sure that 10 years ago or even today they'll be people in Africa who might say “We're so used to girls being circumsized, this is how things are done here.“ Yikes!

PS.: OK, don't wanna get too graphic here, but decreased sensitivity is a plus for the partner, plus, aesthetically, circumcized simply looks better. (Probably just shot myself in the foot regarding European guys now...)

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

Koreans have it done when they are teenagers. Muslims in Kazakhstan at about age 12 or 13, as a rite of passage. By the way, it had been done with stone blades in the past. The Greeks were dead against it. I'm still pissed about it. The day I was born, my prepuce was taken from me and never returned. I know that some the Jews who wanted to hang with Greeks in the gymnasiums and such used to attach bronze ingots and such to the remaining skin to stretch it out so that they could do those naked, manly Greek things without being taunted. I just drink a lot to forget how I was butchered by an insane doctor while my parents nodded their approval.

I wonder if there's also a fee that is tagged onto the bill to the insurance company that produces income doctors and hospitals don't want to give up. My suspicions are that this is all political.

Mike

[Errata]

Caps,

Sorry, but the AMA says this just isn't so and they don't recommend circumcision. Some doctors agree with you. Many others don't. I imagine if the lips of the vagina were cut away at birth, there'd be less venereal disease in women as well. Less tissue means les surface area to be affected. It's a backwards custom and you can't tell me that Germans (for example) are far more susceptible to things you mentioned because they are uncircumcised. It just aint so.

Mike

The AMA changes it's mind on this about every five years. Which is irritating, because on health issues one would dearly hope that the AMA would pick a side and stick to it.

As for female circumcision, where the labia is cut off, it has no bearing on sexually transmitted diseases. And the reason is rather obvious. The highest transmission rates for every disease barring Herpes is male to female. And for pretty much the same reason that the contents of a water balloon don't ever go back into the faucet.

Female circumcision is practiced in parts of Africa, and has gotten to the point where it is considered cause for asylum in the United States. Essentially, during a ceremony performed by the women in the girls family, a girl's clitoris, labia majora and minora are cut off by a red hot kitchen knife or a flint knife. The entire area is then cauterized to ensure scar tissue forms, and in many places the remaining flesh is sewn together with wire or thorns, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstrual blood. When the girl marries, her husband will cut open the healed flesh that had been sewn open. The entire purpose of this ceremony is to eliminate sexual function and sexual enjoyment.

So why is it considered different than male circumcision? Well, to blunt, I'm not entirely sure. I know the ICC made a ruling about it, but it's been years since I have read it. Certainly the death toll is part of it. Outside of a truly ignorant blunder, men do not die from getting circumcised. Women do. They die of blood loss, shock, sepsis... and women are also circumcised when they hit puberty. They are actively fighting off their female relatives and screaming and kicking and there are some major blood vessels in that area. I think intent was also part of it. Rightly or wrongly, circumcision is an attempt to better a man's life,. Female circumcision is intended to harm the girl, it is intended to mutilate. Of course, families of these girls will all say that it will better her life by allowing her to marry. And some girls actively pursue this procedure. Some girls come from families who do not practice it, and they head out to find someone who will do it to them, because the need to conform or to marry is so strong. Or maybe it's just considered different because it is a much more horrifying spectacle to witness than a male circumcision. But the ICC and the Department of Immigration and Naturalization will have their reasoning available if you are interested.

[The Good Michael]

Aha! Circumcision (sources suggest) tacks on another 2-3 K to the hospital bill for the anesthesiologist and the doctor and the equipment. No wonder our medical costs are so high. That's like 10s of millions of dollars every year that insurance companies pay for. I think parents need to do it at home with rubber bands and garden shears so we don't all pay for it.

Mike

[Errata]

Errata,

Koreans have it done when they are teenagers. Muslims in Kazakhstan at about age 12 or 13, as a rite of passage. By the way, it had been done with stone blades in the past. The Greeks were dead against it. I'm still pissed about it. The day I was born, my prepuce was taken from me and never returned. I know that some the Jews who wanted to hang with Greeks in the gymnasiums and such used to attach bronze ingots and such to the remaining skin to stretch it out so that they could do those naked, manly Greek things without being taunted. I just drink a lot to forget how I was butchered by an insane doctor while my parents nodded their approval.

I wonder if there's also a fee that is tagged onto the bill to the insurance company that produces income doctors and hospitals don't want to give up. My suspicions are that this is all political.

Mike

Well, everything was done with a stone blade in the past. I knew about Muslims at 12 or 13, although it is rare. Though Egyptians did it. The Korean thing is new to me. Of course some Africans really do a thorough job of mangling their dangly bits as a test of manhood. I think I remember insertion of a hollow tube into the urethra and then secured by piercings while swinging a cement block back and forth... it looked excruciating.

If it really bothers you, have you ever though about surgically restoring it? People do, I hear.

[Errata]

Aha! Circumcision (sources suggest) tacks on another 2-3 K to the hospital bill for the anesthesiologist and the doctor and the equipment. No wonder our medical costs are so high. That's like 10s of millions of dollars every year that insurance companies pay for. I think parents need to do it at home with rubber bands and garden shears so we don't all pay for it.

Mike

Is it weird that Jews DO do it at home?

[The Good Michael]

But the rabbi gets some cash out of it, I'm sure. No, I don't want my skin back. I'm actually thinking about taking a little more off; making a kind of mosaic of scar tissue.

Mike

[Natalie Severn]

Errata and Caps,
You would ,I think ,love Whitechapel.It has such spirit of place that even the property developer's can't trash with their ferocious bulldozers-its not easy to destroy three hundred years of human settlement.The entire estate around Hawksmoor's gorgeous Christchurch for example ---whose clock features so big in the witness statements re Mary Kelly and Annie Chapman ,was built in the early 18th century by Huguenots silk weaver merchants.In Princelet Street is a lovely old synagogue-left just as it was two hundred years ago and where a man of great mystery, a hermit, David Rodinsky lived for many years in one room, known now by some as Rodinsky"s Room .Rachel Lichtenstein wrote a book on Rodinsky with Iain Sinclair.Rachel talks passionately about her Jewish ancestors---about Yiddish poets and anarchists,tailors and barbers about her Uncle Sid-Sidney Kirsh who was a barber in Docklands which is ,incidently close to where George Chapman had his barber shop in Cable Street.
Sandys Lane is a narrow winding street off Bishopsgate with a lovely old synagogue. The synagogue is bowed out with age and has to be strengthened and at the moment it has scaffolding all round it but it still looks impressive.
The 100,000 Jewish immigrants of Whitechapel and Spitalfields may have been poor in the 19th century---some of them desperately so, but they have left traces of their community in the bricks and mortar of the synagogues and surrounding houses where continuities can be glimpsed.A strange atmosphere pervades these streets ,a kind of presence from the past.
Norma

[Errata]

But the rabbi gets some cash out of it, I'm sure. No, I don't want my skin back. I'm actually thinking about taking a little more off; making a kind of mosaic of scar tissue.

Mike

Naah. You tip the mohel though. I mean, a job well done is worth rewarding with a tie clip or something.

[cappuccina]

TGM...more unchecked facts, I'm afraid....my son's physician circumcised him for almost nothing, actually...it's not the "big deal" procedure you're making it out to be, truthfully...

Michael, in the US and Canada, cicumcision usually costs between $100 and $400...that's it....

Don't even ask me about male athletes who often don't bathe as much as they should anyway, and then, on top of that are uncircumcised.... bbbbbbbbbbbbllllllllllllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaa aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Natalie/Norma - You are absolutely spot on!! I was to Whitechapel in 1989, and I absolutely loved it. My husband and I poked around a good bit of the East End. He took some FANTASTIC B&W pics that I would love to post someday, including the abandoned ragged school before it was made into condos, and all kinds of things we found...It's so incredibly rich with history, and you can still feel the presence of the thousands of people who used to live there...along with the vibrancy of the current inhabitants...

I want to go back...

[johns]

...it's not the "big deal" procedure you're making it out to be, truthfully...

..

It may not be a big deal when a boy is very young, but according to the guy who operated on me it becomes more of a problem the older the male is....

I had to be "done" for medical reasons aged 25.... it was a right old performance...