Ship of Fools: Circumcision

Thread: Circumcision Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027323

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Recently I congratulated a Muslim friend on the birth of his first child, a son.

He told me about the requirements which accompany such an event, such as shaving the child, weighing the hair, and giving the value of the equivalent weight in silver to charity; sacrificing two sheep (he admitted in embarrassment that it was only one for a daughter, but laughed that off as mere “custom”); and circumcision.

Hearing about circumcision in this context, instead of the more familiar Judaeo-Christian context, brought home to me what a bizarre concept it is.

I have no idea why God commanded the Jews to do it as a sign of covenant, and it remains an issue for Christians today even though it is not commanded.

I was circumcised, and had my son circumcised because at the time (forty years ago) it seemed the normal thing to do, but I don’t think I would have it done today.

He and his wife decided not to have my grand-son (now twelve) circumcised.

Its only merit appears to be the opportunity for the old feminist joke:-
What is the useless piece of flesh on the end of a penis?
Answer: A man.

Or the alleged reference by Shakespeare to circumcision by imams, rabbis or priests: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends / Rough-hew them how we will”.

We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?

On the other hand, banning male circumcision would be very offensive to Jews and Muslims.

There is no “party line” on circumcision in evangelicalism.

Do other Christian traditions make any sort of a deal about it these days?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I presume you're in the US.
Here in the UK it is very much a non-issue.
Most of us are happily intact.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Not an issue here either. I think the general view among Christians is that if there is no medical necessity then we absolutely should not circumcise. Why it became so popular in the US, I don't know, though I have my theories.

I'm all for a ban on circumcision, even if it restricts religious freedom of some. It is, after all, genital mutilation.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The thing is, I don't think male and female circumcision are equally bad. Male circumcision can, after all, be a very positive thing medically - tight foreskins etc, FGM however, AFIAK, has no medical or hygenic benefits. Millions of men are circumcised - maybe we need to ask them what the merits or otherwise are.

Also, do most men feel they have been mutilated, as I guess women and girls will feel about their FGM?

I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here... [Hot and Hormonal]

[ 22. April 2014, 08:12: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Rowen (# 1194) on :

Not much of an issue in Australia either... I used to be a chaplain in the maternity unit.

[ 22. April 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Rowen ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

And neonatal circumcision used be the norm here also, less so now than until 30 or so years ago, though. I hope that this thread is not going to degenerate into a rerun of one a couple of years ago, when those of us who have been circumcised were described as mutilated or worse.

Mudfrog says that happily he has not been circumcised; I say that happily, I have been. I accept what he says. Does he accept what I say?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I presume you're in the US.
Here in the UK it is very much a non-issue.
Most of us are happily intact.

Australia, actually, but I'm not offended because I am certainly not anti-American.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
And neonatal circumcision used be the norm here also, less so now than until 30 or so years ago, though. I hope that this thread is not going to degenerate into a rerun of one a couple of years ago, when those of us who have been circumcised were described as mutilated or worse.

Mudfrog says that happily he has not been circumcised; I say that happily, I have been. I accept what he says. Does he accept what I say?

Indeed I do. I don't hear a clamour for anti-circumcision and I have heard that a lot of people find it aesthetically pleasing.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

FGM is not comparable to male circumcision. FGM often totally prevents sexual intercourse, and force is often necessary for sex and for giving birth. FGM is equivalent to cutting off the whole penis, not just the foreskin. There are still consent issues with male circumcision, and I don't think it should be the norm for that reason (I have no opinion on intact v non-intact penises!). I am happy for it to be for religious reasons only.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

From the theological point of view, I understand it as God wanting the whole nation of Israel to 'sign up' to the covenant at the time of Moses, and this was an indication of that commitment. I've read arguments as to its health benefits within the conditions of the time. Also, fertility and procreation was of paramount importance to the people. This was connected with the belief that all children were God given, as was the flourishing of a nation it was intertwined with: therefore the penis was a very appropriate place to make the commitment.

As Jesus was circumcised, and was the firstborn son, when we partake of his body and blood in the Eucharist we share in the covenant without the necessity to be circumcised, at the same time making our commitment to the new covenant.

Posted by lapsed heathen (# 4403) on :

Of course it's mutilation and it's done for cultural rather than medical reasons so it's in the same camp as tattoos and ear piercings. It's an aesthetic thing.
FGM on the other hand is not an aesthetic thing, it's a control thing and is different for that reason.

Personally I'm against circumcision on anything other than medical grounds, I don't understand how its acceptable to do this and unacceptable to get your kid tattooed. But it's not my decision to make for other people so I'll stay out of it.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...

Wanker!

(Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

Proud to be a Cavalier rather than a Roundhead here, but can North American shipmates explain why so many men there are the latter?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Or the alleged reference by Shakespeare to circumcision by imams, rabbis or priests: “There’s a divinity that shapes our ends / Rough-hew them how we will”.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...
Wanker! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

Proud to be a Cavalier rather than a Roundhead here, but can North American shipmates explain why so many men there are the latter?

It's an extra healthcare cost for parents to pay for, along with giving birth in hospital (pregnancy and childbirth is highly medicalised in the US - doctor-led rather than midwife-led, and homebirths are illegal in many states). It's seen as more hygienic too, but didn't become common until the late 1800s.

It generally does not improve hygiene in healthy people, however it does significantly reduce female-to-male HIV transmission and so is recommended by the WHO in countries with high endemic rates of HIV.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Circumcision significantly reduces the passing on of ALL infections/viruses/general nasties.

One of the things that put researchers onto the track of the HPV as a factor in cervical cancer was the incredibly low incidence of cervical cancer in orthodox Jewish women...

There is NO 'female circumcision': its mutilation and it can, and does, kill.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I believe some African Christians still practice circumcision so it isn't just Jews and muslims.

I once saw a television programme where a child psychologist commented on a circumcision and identified pain and trauma in the baby's eyes.

I think it is a barbaric practice and suspect that the lack of a foreskin desensitises the penis.

The only way to back that up is to speak to a man who has been circumcised in adulthood - I heard one such man on another TV programme and he concurred - fir him, sex was less pleasurable than hithertoo.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Circumcision was recommended for all boys by doctor's associations in the US for a long time. It was said to reduce rates of penile cancer and a host of other diseases. Even when the evidence of the health benefits began to be questioned, many "experts" said it should be continued so that uncircumcised boys would not be made fun of in locker rooms.

In a way, near-universal circumcision (until recently) was one of many things that made Jews feel fully integrated into society and led to the attitude that made academics and politicians talk of society being based on "Judeo-Christian" values rather than just "Christian" values.

In the US, doctor's associations changed their recommendations to say that circumcision should be up to the discretion of the parents a few decades ago, but some of them have gone back to recommending it recently based on new evidence of health benefits.

As for Islamic circumcision, in some societies it is not done until boys are older and is a "coming of age" ritual of sorts. It's a bit more of an "intense" experience at an older age.

I think banning male circumcision does much more harm than good. The decrease in sexual sensation for men is a loss but it also has benefits such as delaying orgasm and allowing intercourse to last longer. It's not even in the same ballpark as female genital mutilation, which unlike male circumcision, has no religious basis. Given the relatively low level of harm, I would strongly against banning traditional Jews from observing this most fundamental of their religious laws in countries where they were long the discriminated minority.

As for aesthetics, I can't speak for women, but among gay men there are three camps - those who don't care (the largest), those who love whatever is "exotic" in their society (which would be being uncut in the US, being cut in Europe), and those who think that whatever looks different from their own body is "weird." Some people prefer cut penises because they think they are more hygienic - to which this uncut guy says that there is a thing called a shower that is not that difficult to use. [Smile]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...
Wanker! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)

Knob-jockey!

[Big Grin]

Takes one to know one!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Circumcision significantly reduces the passing on of ALL infections/viruses/general nasties.

One of the things that put researchers onto the track of the HPV as a factor in cervical cancer was the incredibly low incidence of cervical cancer in orthodox Jewish women...

There is NO 'female circumcision': its mutilation and it can, and does, kill.

Female-to-male infection of HIV is the only case where the benefit of circumcision is higher than the negative effects, and so is the only case of circumcision being specifically recommended by a major health body. It also seems to have little impact on infection rates of STIs in general between MSM (men who have sex with men) except for perhaps syphilis.

As for HPV, it is in fact present in most women and causes no problems. Circumcision does not have an impact on new infections, but rather helps to remove the virus from the body. Orthodox Jews are also a small minority of circumcised men - 70% are Muslim. It may be that Orthodox Jewish women are just less prone to HPV (I'm wondering if the monthly mikveh makes a difference), especially since female-to-male infections are the ones usually reduced by circumcision, and the oral type of HPV (that causes genital warts) is the kind more common in men - and genital wart infections do not appear to be affected by circumcision. Circumcision is not recommended by the WHO or other major health bodies as a prevention for HPV infection.

Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on :

Is there anything you don't know about Jade?

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

It's common in America because the AAP supports it

" Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP follow up

[ 22. April 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: art dunce ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Makes you wonder why God didn't do a better job of designing the human body to not include the foreskin, doesn't it?

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Makes you wonder why God didn't do a better job of designing the human body to not include the foreskin, doesn't it?

Toss it in with third molars and the appendix.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

It seems females need to circumcision about as much as males need gynecologists. As for male circumcision, what has been said here before about hygiene and health reasons seems to cover it.

As for other Christians making a deal out of it, we have been in the same congregation since 1981 and, while we may talk about Peter, we've never talked about peters.

I read a book by a preacher a few years ago and he recalled many years earlier the time he was walking through the classroom area and noticed a big penis drawn on a chalkboard. He asked the Sunday school teacher what the heck was going on and it turns out that they had read a portion of scripture that mentioned circumcision. Some of the kids didn't know what that was so she drew them a picture.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Makes you wonder why God didn't do a better job of designing the human body to not include the foreskin, doesn't it?

Innit! Thank gawd I've still got mine and that it was never the norm here, just as God intended.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

The medical benefits of circumcision are overexaggerated. This is proven by that fact that where circumcision is not the norm, such as here, there has been no outbreak of willy infections and the like. It makes one wonder then if there is another reason, a more sinister one, why it remains popular in some countries, even Christian ones.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
It's common in America because the AAP supports it

" Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP follow up

No, it's common because it's culturally accepted, for reasons which remain mysterious. Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease. IIRC it offers at best a 30% improvement for HPV, which is far, far less than vaccination.

It gained traction in North America as a quasi-medical cure-all in the 1880's-1930's in the era before antibiotics. Cultural taboos against masturbation also helped. The AAP recommended against it starting in the late 1970's and just changed it stance in the last few years.

Canada followed the US lead but it was deemed "not medically necessary" by Provincial public health insurance plans in the 1980's. The rates have since fallen, in some places off a cliff.

In some places in Canada, circumcision rates were never that high at any time, like Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It's a cultural practice masquerading as a medical procedure.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

As Inspector Parker once said, there are many difficulties inherent in a teleological view of creation. If you want real inefficiencies of design, consider your knees. Or your retinas. Or your appendix.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems females need to circumcision about as much as males need gynecologists.

A tad off topic but gynecologists do treat men.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

ISTM that the origins of circumcision are to be found in patriarchal social structure and the projection of patriarchy onto the Deity. Circumcision is a sort of token castration, the sacrifice of a small token of a male's potency to a God that is conceived as a male despot. This in part is perhaps a displacement of paternal rivalrous feelings toward the male child (a reverse Oedipus, as it were) onto the figure of a Deity that is assumed to have motives similar to human beings. The point is that I don't believe God commanded circumcision at all; rather, it is a cultural invention of some patriarchal societies, the ancient Jews amongst them.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
It's common in America because the AAP supports it

" Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement." American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP follow up
No, it's common because it's culturally accepted, for reasons which remain mysterious. Circumcision has always been a cure in search of a disease. IIRC it offers at best a 30% improvement for HPV, which is far, far less than vaccination.

It gained traction in North America as a quasi-medical cure-all in the 1880's-1930's in the era before antibiotics. Cultural taboos against masturbation also helped. The AAP recommended against it starting in the late 1970's and just changed it stance in the last few years.

Canada followed the US lead but it was deemed "not medically necessary" by Provincial public health insurance plans in the 1980's. The rates have since fallen, in some places off a cliff.

In some places in Canada, circumcision rates were never that high at any time, like Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. It's a cultural practice masquerading as a medical procedure.

I think you underestimate the influence pediatricians and the AAP have with new parents. Many people find the AAP claims that it guards health and that the benefits outweigh the risks compelling.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ISTM that the origins of circumcision are to be found in patriarchal social structure and the projection of patriarchy onto the Deity. Circumcision is a sort of token castration, the sacrifice of a small token of a male's potency to a God that is conceived as a male despot. This in part is perhaps a displacement of paternal rivalrous feelings toward the male child (a reverse Oedipus, as it were) onto the figure of a Deity that is assumed to have motives similar to human beings. The point is that I don't believe God commanded circumcision at all; rather, it is a cultural invention of some patriarchal societies, the ancient Jews amongst them.

Could it be that God used a culturally accepted sign of covenant/submission in order to ratify and underpin his own covenant?

The people at the time saw circumcision as a serious matter and God used that simply to show he was serious too?

Just asking - it doesn't really matter to me. It's no skin off my nose... [Razz]

Sorry, it had to be said.

[ 22. April 2014, 17:44: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Is there anything you don't know about Jade?

There is a lot I don't know about Jade, but I can live with that.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Could it be that God used a culturally accepted sign of covenant/submission in order to ratify and underpin his own covenant?

The people at the time saw circumcision as a serious matter and God used that simply to show he was serious too?

That seems eminently sensible to me. Though I have no idea whether circumcision actually was already an accepted cultural sign in that way.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
It's a cultural practice masquerading as a medical procedure

I totally agree. Unless a male is born with a foreskin too tight to allow normal urination, there's no reason on earth to mutilate his for social reasons. Its origins most likely lie in fertility rituals common in the ancient Middle East and other cultures worldwide. Its place in the story of Abraham is probably sacrificial, in that it represents a sealing of the covenant with a personal sacrifice, in response to God's pledge of fidelity to his descendents. But just as we no longer sacrifice animals in Christianity, there's no further need to sacrifice foreskins!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
there's no reason on earth to mutilate his for social reasons.

Um, yeah, mutilate is the best word to use.
I agree that it is most probably an unnecessary modification, but it hardly fits in the same category as FGM or hacking off ears, noses or limbs.

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A tad off topic but gynecologists do treat men.

Hope they decontaminate between to eliminate the transfer of cooties.

[ 22. April 2014, 18:37: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I think it is a barbaric practice and suspect that the lack of a foreskin desensitises the penis.

The only way to back that up is to speak to a man who has been circumcised in adulthood - I heard one such man on another TV programme and he concurred - fir him, sex was less pleasurable than hithertoo.

I have been circumcised in adulthood - twice - and I can confirm it leads to significant desensitisation.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

To be fair, it is likely that the effect is in influenced by at what developmental stage the procedure is carried out.

Also, forgive my curiosity, but how is it possible to be circumcised twice ? Isn't that like having you appendix out twice ?

[ 22. April 2014, 19:12: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

I think it is a barbaric practice and suspect that the lack of a foreskin desensitises the penis.

The only way to back that up is to speak to a man who has been circumcised in adulthood - I heard one such man on another TV programme and he concurred - fir him, sex was less pleasurable than hithertoo.
I have been circumcised in adulthood - twice - and I can confirm it leads to significant desensitisation.

One, as mentioned, there is likely a significant difference between circumcision as an adult and an infant.
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

I don't know of any of our clients performing circumcisions. If they do, then they must not be reporting tip income.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
ISTM that the origins of circumcision are to be found in patriarchal social structure and the projection of patriarchy onto the Deity. Circumcision is a sort of token castration, the sacrifice of a small token of a male's potency to a God that is conceived as a male despot. This in part is perhaps a displacement of paternal rivalrous feelings toward the male child (a reverse Oedipus, as it were) onto the figure of a Deity that is assumed to have motives similar to human beings. The point is that I don't believe God commanded circumcision at all; rather, it is a cultural invention of some patriarchal societies, the ancient Jews amongst them.
Could it be that God used a culturally accepted sign of covenant/submission in order to ratify and underpin his own covenant?

The people at the time saw circumcision as a serious matter and God used that simply to show he was serious too?

Just asking - it doesn't really matter to me. It's no skin off my nose...

Sorry, it had to be said.

.

I think it really depends on how you see the relationship between human religion and holy scriptures on the one hand, and the God sho created all things seen snd unseen on the other. I'm not sure there is any right or wrong answer in this particular case. I don't think cultural phenomena and theism or religious truth are mutually exclusive. I'm cut BTW and have never felt my orgasmic sensation was lacking. I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians. Obviously it was decided at Jerusalem that it isn't necessary. I do believe that it should not be legally proscribed for Jews and Muslims, and therefore I don't see how it can be legally prohibited at all. Finally I should say my spouse is uncut and I don't care one way or the other -- I like his dick just the way it is. If I had a son, i likely would not have him circumcised, but ig is rather a moot point.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

Sorry about tne typos above -- edit window passed before I could correct. Typing on the iphone.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I believe some African Christians still practice circumcision so it isn't just Jews and muslims.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One, as mentioned, there is likely a significant difference between circumcision as an adult and an infant.

fwiw, when teaching in central Africa last summer, I was surprised when one of my students (from a different tribe than the students I usually teach) shared some of their still current "coming of age" rituals, which included circumcision of 12 year old boys.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians.

I would argue tha

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians.

I would argue that not only should Christians not circumcise but that it is also sinful, except in cases of medical necessity. The Apostle makes it abundantly clear that Christians should not circumcise in his epistle to the Galatians.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
I don't have any firm opinion about circumcision in practice for Christians.
I would argue that not only should Christians not circumcise but that it is also sinful, except in cases of medical necessity. The Apostle makes it abundantly clear that Christians should not circumcise in his epistle to the Galatians.

Given that Paul circumcised Timothy, it would seem more accurate to say that Galatians argues that we should require circumcision.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Then what does the Apostle mean when he says "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Then what does the Apostle mean when he says "Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing"?

Whoops-- I left out a "not" in my post above. Paul is arguing that we should not require circumcision, or see it as a guaranteed entrance to the Kingdom-- because that would be a false hope. We are to put our trust in Christ.

[ 22. April 2014, 22:18: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Thanks for the clarification.

I wouldn't go so far as to say circumcision leads to damnation, but I would say that it is not appropriate for Christians to circumcise. It's popularity in certain places is really just a surreptitious form of Judaisation.

[ 22. April 2014, 22:21: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Neither appropriate nor inappropriate.

quote:
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Neither appropriate nor inappropriate.

quote:
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

Yes, this seems to be more consistent with what Paul actually says, and is the only thing that makes sense of both Galatians and the fact that Paul had Timothy circumcised.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

I can imagine one disadvantage but I'm not going to talk about it here...
Wanker! (Sorry, couldn't resist it!)
Knob-jockey!

Takes one to know one!

It is alleged that when Kinsey was asked what his published statement (that 96% of men in the USA reported that they masturbated regularly) said about American men his response was "4% of American men are liars."

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Globe & Mail article against circumcision

Excellent points, the benefits are marginal and in any case can be had by other methods which are cheaper, non-invasive, or far more clinically effective (HPV Vaccine).

Surgery on a newborn for cosmetic or sexual health reasons which won't become relevant for decades is patently unnecessary.

My brother and wife recently had two girls. Had they been boys, they were informed that the city's hospital doesn't do circumcisions and there are only four specialists in town who do. And they have to pay for it, it isn't covered under public health insurance.

The hospital staff neither suggest or recommend it.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Thanks for the clarification.

I wouldn't go so far as to say circumcision leads to damnation, but I would say that it is not appropriate for Christians to circumcise. It's popularity in certain places is really just a surreptitious form of Judaisation.

And to me this statement just sounds like that old European pathology of anti-semitism.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Whoops-- I left out a "not" in my post above. Paul is arguing that we should not require circumcision, or see it as a guaranteed entrance to the Kingdom-- because that would be a false hope. We are to put our trust in Christ.

I'm not sure that we always interpret Paul correctly in Galations. Timothy had a Jewish mother, so circumcision was appropriate for him. Paul beleved that Jews should uphold the Jewish Law. In Acts 21.24, he takes a purification vow. What he's saying in Galations is that there's no need for Gentile converts to Christ to take on the Law, because when Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness (Gen 15.6). It was later (17.23) that he was circumcised. So faith comes before circumcision and a long time before the Law which came through Moses.

In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem, the "circumcision party" ie James and the original apostles, reluctantly agree to the compromise that converts only need to obey the minimal requirements of Godfearers. But in verse 21 they say, " For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
So the hope is there that, eventually, all these converts will take on the Law. That the history of Christianity moved in a totally different direction afterwards is by the way.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Thanks for the clarification.

I wouldn't go so far as to say circumcision leads to damnation, but I would say that it is not appropriate for Christians to circumcise. It's popularity in certain places is really just a surreptitious form of Judaisation.

Prompted by whom? Seriously, who has anything to gain in the last couple of centuries from "Judaisation" and would actually have the power to push for it? Answers alleging a global Jewish conspiracy will be roundly mocked.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Well, don't you find it rather strange?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Not really. For what it's worth, I'm not a great fan of the State of Israel and some reactions to replacement theology, but I think that current trends in the church wrt Judaism are entirely to be expected given the massive kick up the arse the Western church got regarding its historical attitude to Judaism in WWII. No conspiracy theories about Jewish Plots or crap of that nature required.

[ 23. April 2014, 08:17: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Thanks for the clarification.

I wouldn't go so far as to say circumcision leads to damnation, but I would say that it is not appropriate for Christians to circumcise. It's popularity in certain places is really just a surreptitious form of Judaisation.

Let's for the moment ignore the nastiness inherent in the last sentence.

I can't speak for the US and some other places, but totally wrong as an explanation for the high rates of circumcision in Australia from the 1920s onwards. Even today, the Jewish ovulation here is under 100,000, but by 1939 was probably below 20,000. Most of these would have been in Sydney and Melbourne. There were some Jewish people in very prominent positions in Aust society - Isaac Isaacs and John Monash spring instantly to mind - but to suggest that the large percentage being circumcised arose from Judaisation is just plain wrong.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

The fact of the matter is that we have no idea why circumcision ever got started. It appears to have been common in SE Mediterranean tribes, especially of "semitic" origin. The earliest evidence looks if anything more like a rite of passage into adulthood, but it's hardly overwhelming evidence.

It's certainly true that these tribes were patriarchal societies, but then at that time so was everyone else, and if that were a significant motivation in its development (let alone the main or only one) you would expect to find it cropping up all over the place. So I'm distinctly wary of that as an explanation. But conversely, the geographical correlation is surely something that cannot be overlooked.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Circumcision was common amongst the ancient peoples of this land, usually carried out at the iniation ceremonies into manhood. Why? Because that is what they did and had always done.

[ 23. April 2014, 09:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Circumcision was common amongst the ancient peoples of this land, usually carried out at the iniation ceremonies into manhood. Why? Because that is what they did and had always done.

Surely the evidence from the USA is as good as anything else I can think of for this thesis, Gee D. Presumably the first time it got done, somebody had a reason, but these things get lost in the mists of time.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Well and truly lost in the mists of time, especially the very dense mists 60,000 odd years ago. That is what I meant by had always done.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Thanks for the clarification.

I wouldn't go so far as to say circumcision leads to damnation, but I would say that it is not appropriate for Christians to circumcise. It's popularity in certain places is really just a surreptitious form of Judaisation.
Let's for the moment ignore the nastiness inherent in the last sentence.

I can't speak for the US and some other places, but totally wrong as an explanation for the high rates of circumcision in Australia from the 1920s onwards. Even today, the Jewish ovulation here is under 100,000, but by 1939 was probably below 20,000. Most of these would have been in Sydney and Melbourne. There were some Jewish people in very prominent positions in Aust society - Isaac Isaacs and John Monash spring instantly to mind - but to suggest that the large percentage being circumcised arose from Judaisation is just plain wrong.

From an American perspective, I'd also say it's wrong. The rise of circumcision came at a time when the US was as anti-semitic as ever. Rather, as noted by others previously, it seems to be associated with the medicalization of childbirth and infant raising that came along with rising prosperity in the 20th c. Nothing whatsoever to do with the "Jewishness" of the procedure.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Well and truly lost in the mists of time, especially the very dense mists 60,000 odd years ago. That is what I meant by had always done.

Ah, but that is the very insidious nature of The Jewish Plot, introduce circumcision into Australia before anyone had heard of Jews, before Judaism existed.* Throw everyone off the trail, it does. Very Clever.....

*Possibly 54,000 years before the Universe existed! OMG! Those crafty bastards!

[ 23. April 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

As I understand it, the fad for circumcision in the US got a real big boost from it being touted as a masturbation preventative.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

That's my understanding too.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
As I understand it, the fad for circumcision in the US got a real big boost from it being touted as a masturbation preventative.

Alright, let us presume this is correct. If Kinsey's survey is at all accurate, or even close, these men advocating circumcision would be circumcised with, ahem, first-hand knowledge of the inaccuracy of the claim.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Is there anything you don't know about Jade?

Well I know how not to make rude comments. That makes one of us at least.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

This was before Kinsey.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
This was before Kinsey.

So I Googled and besides learning more of what Google will not autofill, I learned more about how fucked up people are when it comes to sex.

Still my point stands. People masturbate. Circumcised men who had their sons circumcised masturbated. They knew it did not work as a preventative.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
As I understand it, the fad for circumcision in the US got a real big boost from it being touted as a masturbation preventative.

That was indeed a major reason why it caught on in a big way a century or so ago.

I can testify that it doesn't work.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Still my point stands. People masturbate. Circumcised men who had their sons circumcised masturbated. They knew it did not work as a preventative.

I think we need to separate why it was first touted in goy society in the 19th century, and why it perpetuated after that. It is true that certain people claimed it would prevent "onanism," and it is also true that it doesn't, and that people know that and still have their kids circumcised. There is no contradiction here.

I think nowadays many people (goyim) who have their boys chopped do it because they want them to "look like dad." A generation ago it was simply "well, that's what everybody does." I doubt anybody in the last 100 years has thought it curbs wankification.

Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Circumcision was common amongst the ancient peoples of this land, usually carried out at the iniation ceremonies into manhood. Why? Because that is what they did and had always done.
Surely the evidence from the USA is as good as anything else I can think of for this thesis, Gee D. Presumably the first time it got done, somebody had a reason, but these things get lost in the mists of time.

While I fully respect the Jewish tradition of circumcision (and I would add, for what it's worth, that though I'm a Gentile I'm one of the "cut"), it has long struck me that circumcision is an extraordinarily odd way of "marking" one as part of a particular group. Whether God mandated it for Israel or whether --- if one chooses to take a higher critical approach to the Hebrew Bible --- it was a custom whose origins are lost in antiquity and the Hebrews chose it as the means by which to identify their male children as Israelites --- either way, it seems bizarre. Why this and not tattooing, which was prohibited? A tattoo would have a similarly permanent effect, and would have been --- face it --- much less strange. Two hundred foreskins to buy a wife (1 Samuel 18:27)? Ya gotta admit, that's definitely "out there."

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Because tattoing was associated with ancestor worship, whereas circumcision was a sign of covenant submission to deity.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Yeah, but why? I mean, no sane man (IMNSVHO) is going to look at his willy and say to himself, "I know, wouldn't it be great if I got a knife or sharp stone and cut a bit of it off to show I love my god."

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Token sacrifice?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Not exactly 'token', is it?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
Is there anything you don't know about Jade?
Well I know how not to make rude comments. That makes one of us at least.

Jade this is the second time in ten minutes that I have found a recent personal attack of yours in Purgatory. If you know not to make them, then stop!

Gwai,
Purgatory Host

Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on :

.....and she said:

"MMmmm, I didn't know they made cheese and onion flavour condoms"

....and I said:

"I'm not wearing a condom" [Projectile]

Yes, I suppose circumcision does cut down on the build up of the old knob-cheese, but I'd be really interested to know how one...ahem, 'knocks one out' with any great efficiency if one is cut?

[Killing me]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Yeah, but why? I mean, no sane man (IMNSVHO) is going to look at his willy and say to himself, "I know, wouldn't it be great if I got a knife or sharp stone and cut a bit of it off to show I love my god."

It is a way to separate the car buyers from the tire kickers and every guy has one to lose.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Not exactly 'token', is it?

I suppose it depends on how much you cut off (or how much you have that will be left
[Big Grin]

)

Maybe it's a little bit in lieu of death: a whole-body sacrifice.

Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :

When it comes to the point, it's surely a matter of taste.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
I'd be really interested to know how one...ahem, 'knocks one out' with any great efficiency if one is cut?

Obviously the Yanks are just as much a load of tossers as the rest of us, so they can evidently do it. I think they use some kind of lubrication - WD40 maybe, or 3 in 1.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

If you google you find a lot of folk asking and answering this question. The answer appears to be, much the same way - perhaps more vigourously, perhaps with lube.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Googling this subject might lead some of us into ways we really shouldn't explore too often [Biased]

Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on :

I don't really want to Google it for fear of what I might find: I already find far too many pictures of single barrelled pump action yoghurt rifles as it is. However I would imagine that if one was circumcised, the easiest way to coax forth the custard to start with an 'up stroke' i.e.pulling away from the belly. I would have thought that to commence with a 'down stroke' would be rather painful. Would this be correct?

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

50 years or more ago, when I was supposed to learn about such matters, sex education was very sketchy, to say the least and it was not until years later that I found out what circumcision is. In a clergy household, circumcision was something religious that the Bible goes on about at some length. I would never have imagined it had anything to do with the penis.

However, in retrospect I do wish I had asked at confirmation class what circumcision was!

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Obviously the Yanks are just as much a load of tossers as the rest of us, so they can evidently do it. I think they use some kind of lubrication - WD40 maybe, or 3 in 1.

It's been a personal "revelation" to me to find a Salvation Army officer posting jocular comments about masturbation! [Eek!]

Maybe the Sally Anne in the land of its birth is different than it is over here, where I've had the distinct impression that "onanism" is one of those things that is incompatible with Holiness, and not to be joked about! There is a large SA corps center in my neighborhood and the corps officers frequent my local coffee shop -- I'll need to ask one of them about this! [Big Grin]

But, seriously, does nearly every thread here need to end up as a Yanks-versus-Brits discussion?

Mudfrog, if you would like to know how a circumcised man can manage self-pleasure, you don't have to cross the Pond -- you could just ask the Prince of Wales! He was "done" by a moyel. [Further evidence in support of Ad Orientem's suspicion of a massive Jewish Conspiracy to rob gentiles of their foreskins! ... Hava Nagila! Hava Nagila!]

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.

...except that in some circumstances desensitising the penis can make it much trickier for men to get an erection. NOT really a benefit there.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.
...except that in some circumstances desensitising the penis can make it much trickier for men to get an erection. NOT really a benefit there.

But how common is that in reality? America would have no native born children and Judaism only converts.

Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Two, a desensitisation would be an advantage to female partners. Might make that elusive penetrative orgasm a little less elusive.
...except that in some circumstances desensitising the penis can make it much trickier for men to get an erection. NOT really a benefit there.
But how common is that in reality? America would have no native born children and Judaism only converts.

Not usual, maybe. But it does happen. (And I didn't say 'impossible', just 'difficult'.)

Posted by k-mann (# 8490) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?

Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the other hand, banning male circumcision would be very offensive to Jews and Muslims.

It wouldn’t just be offensive. It would be to say, at least to a Jew,* that he isn’t welcome in our country as a Jew.

While it might not be intentionally anti-semitic to ban circumcision, it would become that in practice.

* I haven’t studied the laws on circumcision in Islam, so I don’t know if it is mandated the way it is in Judaism.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
On the other hand, banning male circumcision would be very offensive to Jews and Muslims.
It wouldn’t just be offensive. It would be to say, at least to a Jew,* that he isn’t welcome in our country as a Jew.

While it might not be intentionally anti-semitic to ban circumcision, it would become that in practice.

Not all hypothetical ... and, in of all places, GERMANY! Fortunately, saner heads prevailed -- though it is worth noting that 100 German law-makers were quite prepared to send German Jews (and Muslims) the message that they're not welcome in Germany (at least if they practice their religion faithfully). [Frown]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

1. In the UK circumcision was in part a class thing -- never (except for medical reasons) among the lower classes, sometimes (see the previous reference to HRH the Prince of Wales and his brothers) among the upper classes and, I suppose, frequently among the upwardly mobile middle classes (or at least, those who aspired to be upwardly mobile).

2. Don't assume that the decisions about circumcisions are being made by the fathers. It was my wife, not I, who insisted on our son being circumcised...with the full consent (in advance) of our obstetrician who informed us that all the boys he delivered were done and that was that. And it is my daughter, not her husband, who has decided that if their child (due in a month) is a boy, he will be done. My wife's decision was about health -- and the fact that both my father and her father had to undergo the operation later in life. I don't know about my daughter's reasoning, but I suspect health comes into it. I haven't checked out her husband so I don't know if "looking like daddy" is a factor.

John

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
1.

2.My wife's decision was about health -- and the fact that both my father and her father had to undergo the operation later in life. I don't know about my daughter's reasoning, but I suspect health comes into it. I haven't checked out her husband so I don't know if "looking like daddy" is a factor.

John

Interestingly, circumcision is no longer recommended as a remedy for phimosis. The preferred intervention in Canada now is a single slit to relieve the restriction and to leave the foreskin otherwise intact.

It's not recommended for any other reason either and certainly not anything that can be cured with pharmaceutical intervention.

As for your obstetrician, no Canadian medical body currently recommends routine infant circumcision and the hospital medical staff where my brothers children were born no longer recommend the practice. The Canadian medical establishment really has changed its tune.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???

[ 26. April 2014, 00:11: Message edited by: Augustine the Aleut ]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???

Here is a detailed scholarly article, "The British Royal Family's Circumcision Tradition," which debunks some elements of the "legend." The authors claim that royal circumcision only goes back to the time of Victoria, and that it was not motivated by Davidic royal identifications.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

The torygraph says this - so apparently it would be George the 1st's fault.

However, the sociologists say not.

[ 26. April 2014, 00:19: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The torygraph says this - so apparently it would be George the 1st's fault.

However, the sociologists say not.

We "cross-posted".... According to the article I linked, it isn't George I's fault after all....

In fact, the practice may not even go back to Victoria's time, but may have begun with Elizabeth and Philip and their infant, Charles.

Oops! Cross-posted again!

[ 26. April 2014, 00:22: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I rather liked the Hezekiah line of thought but Queen Victoria is perhaps more likely. Rather than speak of Hezekiah we can call her the Vashti of England.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???

Sounds more like British Israelitism than history. Though the Diana bit has circulated on the internet for ages.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I recall seeing a text that from James I & VI, all British male princes were circumcized, the justification having something to do with the king being heir to the covenant of Hezekiah). I gather that this continued until the arrival of Princes William and Harry, as Diana objected to the procedure. Perhaps someone can verify this urban possibly-legend???
Sounds more like British Israelitism than history. Though the Diana bit has circulated on the internet for ages.

I think that you're right on this, although I had enjoyed a moment or two trying to draft an information bullet for the Minister on this one.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

[Ultra confused]

What possible need could a Canadian cabinet minister have for this information?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What possible need could a Canadian cabinet minister have for this information?

If someone puts a question in the House, the minister needs the information. I assure you that, if princely foreskins be discussed in that Campbellford Procrastinator-Mercury or the Guillotine de Chaudières or a broadcast the night before, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have all of the details and be ready to o-so-casually be master of the facts by 2.00 pm.

In my former RL, we spent many hours preparing them for possible queries. The system, invented by Hon George Hees (aka Gorgeous George) in the late 1950s, involves a small posse of bureaucrats reviewing the news from 5.00 am to 7.00 am, identifying hot issues or issues likely to be raised at Question Period that afternoon, the list going to ADMs for approval at 8.00, runners shooting through the corridors with the Questions to be answered and landing them on a second dedicated team of functionaries (myself as one of them, as I had been around for a long time, and was there at 8.15 most mornings); we prepared draft bullet point answers, with a fuller backgrounder by 9.00, approved with changes by managers at 9.15, directors at 9.30, directors general at 9.45, and in the assistant deputy's office through the director general of communications by 10.30. Copies then to the Minister's political office. At every stage, the QP material had priority-- waving the zebra folders, we could stroll past receptionists and into any meeting other than human resources stuff.

Question period briefing staff prepared their briefing, copied the political office, and then went into see the Minister at 1.40, just before 2.00 question period. In any case, this particular question might be ruled out of order.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I hope the either that the rumor about British royal princes being cut is untrue or that the rumor about Diana preventing it for her sons is true, because my fantasies about the princely brothers are much better with them intact. [Smile]

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

[Killing me]

George Hees. A bit before my time, but still a legend around here; he was the MP for Northumberland for ages.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Slightly not safe for work humour video with some interesting facts thrown in.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. One suggested approach to preventing harmful female genital cutting in the UK was to promote, instead, a ritual cutting - for example, the making of a tiny incision in the external female genitalia. As I understand it, though, this approach was strongly opposed by campaigners, because it continued to promote the idea that female genital cutting is a cultural tradition that we should respect, at least as far as allowing a harmless symbolic alternative.

Now why would it be the case that making a harmless cut in the external female genitalia should be considered wrong, because it would continue to promulgate the idea that non-consensual genital cutting is an important tradition, but male infant circumcision should be considered ok?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
What possible need could a Canadian cabinet minister have for this information?
If someone puts a question in the House, the minister needs the information. I assure you that, if princely foreskins be discussed in that Campbellford Procrastinator-Mercury or the Guillotine de Chaudières or a broadcast the night before, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Canadian Heritage would have all of the details and be ready to o-so-casually be master of the facts by 2.00 pm.

In my former RL, we spent many hours preparing them for possible queries. The system, invented by Hon George Hees (aka Gorgeous George) in the late 1950s, involves a small posse of bureaucrats reviewing the news from 5.00 am to 7.00 am, identifying hot issues or issues likely to be raised at Question Period that afternoon, the list going to ADMs for approval at 8.00, runners shooting through the corridors with the Questions to be answered and landing them on a second dedicated team of functionaries (myself as one of them, as I had been around for a long time, and was there at 8.15 most mornings); we prepared draft bullet point answers, with a fuller backgrounder by 9.00, approved with changes by managers at 9.15, directors at 9.30, directors general at 9.45, and in the assistant deputy's office through the director general of communications by 10.30. Copies then to the Minister's political office. At every stage, the QP material had priority-- waving the zebra folders, we could stroll past receptionists and into any meeting other than human resources stuff.

Question period briefing staff prepared their briefing, copied the political office, and then went into see the Minister at 1.40, just before 2.00 question period. In any case, this particular question might be ruled out of order.

A good friend at church showed me her cheek that George Hees kissed. Her father was Hees' campaign manager and fetched him from Montreal to get him to run in Northumberland.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

Now why would it be the case that making a harmless cut in the external female genitalia should be considered wrong, because it would continue to promulgate the idea that non-consensual genital cutting is an important tradition, but male infant circumcision should be considered ok?

Because circumcision is not a symbolic alternative to the practice of removing the penis.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that. One suggested approach to preventing harmful female genital cutting in the UK was to promote, instead, a ritual cutting - for example, the making of a tiny incision in the external female genitalia. As I understand it, though, this approach was strongly opposed by campaigners, because it continued to promote the idea that female genital cutting is a cultural tradition that we should respect, at least as far as allowing a harmless symbolic alternative.

Now why would it be the case that making a harmless cut in the external female genitalia should be considered wrong, because it would continue to promulgate the idea that non-consensual genital cutting is an important tradition, but male infant circumcision should be considered ok?

Exactly.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

A cut in female genitalia provides no medical benefit, while male circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure (unlike female genital cutting). There is no real parallel between circumcision and female genital cutting.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.

What a ridiculous comparison.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A cut in female genitalia provides no medical benefit, while male circumcision reduces the risks of urinary tract infection, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases and, in female partners, cervical cancer. Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure (unlike female genital cutting). There is no real parallel between circumcision and female genital cutting.

References?

Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
I don't really want to Google it for fear of what I might find: I already find far too many pictures of single barrelled pump action yoghurt rifles as it is. However I would imagine that if one was circumcised, the easiest way to coax forth the custard to start with an 'up stroke' i.e.pulling away from the belly. I would have thought that to commence with a 'down stroke' would be rather painful. Would this be correct?

Have never noticed/thought about whether I start on the up or down stroke!

There are varying degrees of 'cut'. For instance my parnter has very little 'movement' so lube is necessary for almost any hanky panky, whereas I have a bit more. Most guys around my age here in Oz are 'cut' and most gay guys here prefer cut ones.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
A cut in female genitalia provides no medical benefit,

A bit of a non-sequitur, I think. Jews and Muslims don't circumcise because they think it confers medical benefits.

quote:
Several studies, including two randomized clinical trials, found no long-term adverse effects of circumcision on sexual performance or pleasure.

This is more to the point. We would not permit a religious or cultural practice that caused significant harm to children (such as a clitoridectomy, castration or whatever). We do permit things such as male circumcision, where the damage, if any, is small. If some mainstream religion tattooed infants as an initiation ceremony, we'd probably permit that too, whilst maintaining the 18 age limit for other tattoos.

One could certainly make a symbolic, cosmetic cut in a baby girl's genitalia that would not cause ongoing pain or impede sexual function, but there is nevertheless a real question as to whether a harmless cosmetic cut that symbolizes a horrific mutilation should be permitted.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
What a ridiculous comparison.

And comparing FGM and circumcision isn't?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by k-mann:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
We regard female circumcision as unacceptable, so why male?
Well, that would be like asking why it isn’t OK to scalp a person when it is OK to given them a hair cut.
What a ridiculous comparison.
And comparing FGM and circumcision isn't?

No they're both ridiculous.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That is a very broad word, ridiculous.
So is painful.
It is painful if I step on your toe.
It is painful if I run over your toe with an armored vehicle.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0