SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Bravo! Finally the beginning of the end of this disgusting, harmful, insane genital mutilation borrowed from Bronze Age superstition. Rock on, Lloyd and Bay Area intactivists.
-------------------
Activists who want to ban all male circumcisions in San Francisco took a step closer to getting the measure to a vote this fall.
Led by Lloyd Schofield who is part of a Bay Area “intactivist” group, the advocates call the after-birth procedure "male genital mutilation" and liken it to cutting female genitals.
Schofield and the intactivists seek to make it "unlawful to circumcise, excise, cut, or mutilate the whole or any part of the foreskin, testicles, or penis" of anyone 17 or younger in San Francisco. Under the proposal, a person who violates the proposed ban could be jailed (not more than one year) or fined (not more than $1,000). Exemptions for religious reasons would not be allowed.
"It's up to the choice of the individual - not the parents, society or religion," Schofield told CNN in November. "This is a choice for body integrity. Just as females are protected from having a drop of blood drawn from their genitals, baby boys deserve the same protection.
https://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...comment-175736
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
>>>Bravo! Finally the beginning of the end of this disgusting, harmful, insane genital mutilation borrowed from Bronze Age superstition. Rock on, Lloyd and Bay Area intactivists.
Personal opinion: I can almost believe this group is funded by the Koch brothers as a means of making progressives look like Stalinists.
I don't believe in circumcision, think it's pointless, possibly harmful, didn't choose it for our son. I'm circumcised, would not choose it for myself. But I don't feel "mutilated." For the men out there who do, you have a serious problem and I feel for you, but I think you're in the extreme minority.
Unless I'm mistaken, to make it equivalent to female genital mutilation you'd have to cut off the penis, not just the foreskin. I would surely hope that the practice diminishes and support the idea of parents being fully informed of negative consequences. But to try to combat a major religious practice and common medical procedure by city ordinance? — it's just making the proponents, and the issue, look ridiculous. To follow their logic, parents should not be allowed to give their child any vaccine, send them to church or school, or anything else that might affect his/her life until the age of 21.
Rant mode off. Enjoy any convenient penis, however arranged.
-Conrad
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
I'm circumcised, would not choose it for myself. But I don't feel "mutilated."
I won't quibble about whether or not it's mutilation, because the definition of mutilation is such that there's no objectively defined place to draw the line between what to call mutilation and what to call something milder, such as "body modification".
What I will point out is that it is painful and traumatic for infants and children, and unnecessary. That in itself should be enough to illegalize it everywhere. Seeing guys in this and previous threads on the subject evince total lack of empathy for the trauma that infants suffer--that they themselves suffered but don't remember--simply because they aren't bothered by it now is disturbing to me, and causes me to lose respect for these guys.
Quote:
Unless I'm mistaken, to make it equivalent to female genital mutilation you'd have to cut off the penis, not just the foreskin.
It's certainly true that male circumcision as usually practiced in this country is not nearly as bad as female circumcision as usually practiced, but it does not follow that therefore it's OK. That's like saying that a little child abuse is OK as long as it's not as bad as some parents do.
Quote:
...to try to combat a major religious practice and common medical procedure by city ordinance? — it's just making the proponents, and the issue, look ridiculous.
I disagree. The fact that they have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting such an ordnance passed anytime soon does not make it ridiculous, any more than early attempts at, for instance, abolition of slavery or women's suffrage were ridiculous. Early, initially hopeless attempts to make change are the thin edge of the wedge that slowly turns societies around on issues.
What look ridiculous, at least if we scrutinize entrenched habits of thought more rationally than usual, are the religious superstitions underlying brutal rituals such as circumcision, and the idea that we can tell ourselves we love our children while treating them as objects upon which to painfully and irreversibly engrave the symbols of our beliefs.
Quote:
To follow their logic, parents should not be allowed to give their child any vaccine, send them to church or school, or anything else that might affect his/her life until the age of 21.
Oh please, Conrad--none of these examples are good analogies to irreversible, traumatic body modifications enacted on helpless infants or children.
And one more thing: Those of you who would make a medical argument for infant circumcision based on some research which may have shown slight negative correlations between circumcision and some cancers cannot reasonably make that case unless you also endorse double mastectomies for all infants as a prophylactic against breast cancer.
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
This group is funded by small contributions through PayPal and a lot of volunteer work. I know some of the folks who have been working on it and plan on joining them when the signatures are verified.
There are a lot of men who are not at all happy about having had their foreskin amputated without their consent. Whether or not they feel "mutilated" is not for me to say, but they surely are not happy about it! Given that there are support groups for men doing a reconstruction of the functional equivalent of a prepuce (foreskin) and this has been going on for a few decades now, it seems that this is a long-running issue. The other day I had a very interesting conversation with one of the founders of the National Organization of Restoring Men (NORM); he said that the majority of these guys are quietly and privately doing what they can to make themselves as whole as possible. Nobody really knows how many are restoring or have restored. He also mentioned what some others have told me: that it is a psychological as well as physical healing, and more than just the missing covering of the glans tends to get restored in the process.
So we have a large group of men who have been harmed by this insane amputation of a healthy, normal, necessary structure from little boys' sex organs and a well-documented loss of sexual sensation and function, yet the cutting continues. Women have been harmed by this too, although it is less obvious. Visit https://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com for the rather explicit details.
People have been trying to get this to stop for at least 30 years and yes, it is sort of running out of steam on its own. However, genital mutilation is a multi-generational phenomenon, and it will take another two generations and c. 10 million more American men mutilated for no good reason, just habit or superstition, before this fades on its own - if it ever really does. So how would you recommend getting rid of it? The only way we have to protect our sons and daughters equally, and in the bigger picture our society as a WHOLE (a little pun there), is through local grassroots action.
You are indeed mistaken about the equivalent of the male foreskin to the female genitalia. The equivalent, sort of, of a male foreskin in a female is the hood over the clitoris. But what does it matter? It's all genital mutilation of a child, who by definition cannot consent and cannot defend him/her self from having this done to their body. The real issue here is the fundamental human right to reach adulthood with intact, normal, fully functional genitals and to have a normal, satisfying, quality-of-life-enhancing sex life. Genital cutting, including male circumcision, destroys that.
The big difference between genital cutting/mutilation and all the other things you mentioned, with the possible exception of vaccines (and yes, that is another controversial issue), is that they are reversible and they do not profoundly and permanently affect your sex life. Most kids stop going to church once they are big enough to resist :wink:
All day long I've been reading comments about outlawing circumcision as some sort of unconstitutional infringement of religious freedom. Hogwash! We already outlaw the religious practices such as human sacrifice (of the whole body, at least), honor killings (deprives the victim of the ultimate human right, the right to remain alive), plural marriage/polygamy, and female genital cutting (outlawed in the U.S. in 1997). A fundamental American value is that the rights of one person or group end where the rights of another begin. Genital cutting/mutilation deprives the child and the adult s/he becomes of the right to genital integrity (see above) and the right of self-determination with respect to his/her body.
That parents have had some sort of option or "right" to amputate their son's foreskin on an elective basis in the first place is bizarre. It seems to be some sort of leftover from the dominator patriarchy that considered women and children to be property and the same thinking that brought us slavery. (anybody have any insights on this?) And then there is the whole complicity of the doctors issue. For people with medical training who know damned well the harm that this causes to participate in this is unethical and reprehensible.
Hope that helps clarify things! :heart:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
>>>Bravo! Finally the beginning of the end of this disgusting, harmful, insane genital mutilation borrowed from Bronze Age superstition. Rock on, Lloyd and Bay Area intactivists.
Personal opinion: I can almost believe this group is funded by the Koch brothers as a means of making progressives look like Stalinists.
I don't believe in circumcision, think it's pointless, possibly harmful, didn't choose it for our son. I'm circumcised, would not choose it for myself. But I don't feel "mutilated." For the men out there who do, you have a serious problem and I feel for you, but I think you're in the extreme minority.
Unless I'm mistaken, to make it equivalent to female genital mutilation you'd have to cut off the penis, not just the foreskin. I would surely hope that the practice diminishes and support the idea of parents being fully informed of negative consequences. But to try to combat a major religious practice and common medical procedure by city ordinance? — it's just making the proponents, and the issue, look ridiculous. To follow their logic, parents should not be allowed to give their child any vaccine, send them to church or school, or anything else that might affect his/her life until the age of 21.
Rant mode off. Enjoy any convenient penis, however arranged.
-Conrad
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Thoughts to Dixon & Glia—
The point I thought I was making is that if this group is serious about ending the practice of circumcision, seeking a legal ban on the practice is (IMO) a dumb way to do it, and counter-productive. Using terms like "mutilation" and drawing equivalency to female genital excision are (IMO) overstatement that helps to discredit the basic idea.
>>>Seeing guys in this and previous threads on the subject evince total lack of empathy ... causes me to lose respect for these guys.
Dixon, you can stick your respect wherever it feels most interesting. I was too flip when I said "I feel for them," but frankly I have a problem with the logic here. If we don't remember the pain, then what's the evidence of "trauma"? Self-image and sexual problems can arise from any number of things. Perhaps there's scientific evidence of this, but I'm not aware of it. "Traumatic body modifications enacted on helpless infants or children" — are you exercising your usual standard of logic here, or just projecting, in part coming from your disgust with the religious root of it? Do you define "traumatic" as "registering pain reactions" or "producing serious psychological damage"?
>>>This group is funded by small contributions through PayPal and a lot of volunteer work.
To be clear: I didn't intend to suggest that the group was insincere. My point was that (IMO) their tactic is self-defeating.
>>>Whether or not they feel "mutilated" is not for me to say, but they surely are not happy about it! ...
>>>So we have a large group of men who have been harmed by this insane amputation of a healthy, normal, necessary structure.
You're saying that because a number of men feel mutilated, that this is evidence that the procedure itself has harmed them, or that those of us who don't as adults feel traumatized are merely repressing the memory. I could say, with equal lack of evidence, that these men have other serious psychological problems, from any number of sources, and are seeing their condition as focal point and cause of their suffering, or are led by their therapists to do so — as happened in many of the recovered-memory cases. I would have no evidence to support that claim, just as you have no evidence to support the contrary.
>>>So how would you recommend getting rid of it? The only way ... is through local grassroots action.
Yes: grassroots action of education and effective publicity, which requires using tactics and language that doesn't strike the average person (whom you're presumably trying to get through to) as crackpot. Why deflect it into a parental-rights issue and automatically put yourself on the losing side?
>>>You are indeed mistaken about the equivalent of the male foreskin to the female genitalia. The equivalent, sort of, of a male foreskin in a female is the hood over the clitoris.
Female genital excision may simply involve removal of the hood, but I believe it's more common for the entire clitoris to be removed. My statement was on that basis. Male circumcision certainly reduces sensitivity, but I've never heard actual evidence that it stops us in our tracks.
>>>But what does it matter? It's all genital mutilation... The real issue here is the fundamental human right ... to have a normal, satisfying, quality-of-life-enhancing sex life. Genital cutting, including male circumcision, destroys that.
So you saying that none of us who've been subject to this procedure have a normal, satisfying, quality-of-life-enhancing sex life? Thanks for letting me know. I must have been dreaming. :-) Let me dream on.
***
Again, my starting point was questioning a tactic I think is counter-productive. I support the intentions, just not the tactic.
Peace & joy—
Conrad
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
Dixon, you can stick your respect wherever it feels most interesting.
My goodness--that's possibly the least diplomatic expression I've ever heard from ol' level-headed Conrad. Your buttons must really have been pushed.
Quote:
If we don't remember the pain, then what's the evidence of "trauma"? Self-image and sexual problems can arise from any number of things. Perhaps there's scientific evidence of this, but I'm not aware of it. "Traumatic body modifications enacted on helpless infants or children" — are you exercising your usual standard of logic here, or just projecting, in part coming from your disgust with the religious root of it? Do you define "traumatic" as "registering pain reactions" or "producing serious psychological damage"?
Conrad, you should have asked that last question before you went off on your rant based on the inaccurate assumption that I was using the word "trauma" in the latter sense; I wasn't. I was using it in the former sense (as my dictionary puts it: "A deeply distressing or disturbing experience"). Of course, as you acknowledge, it's quite plausible that trauma in the latter sense (something like post-traumatic stress problems) could be a real problem, but I'm not assuming that, and we needn't assume that to have plenty of reason to passionately oppose nonconsensual circumcision. Having said that, many (all?) of the thousands of guys who've suffered botched circumcisions have been traumatized in the ongoing sense, sometimes to the point of suicide, and of course that's a continuing problem as long as nonconsensual circumcision exists.
Quote:
To be clear: I didn't intend to suggest that the group was insincere. My point was that (IMO) their tactic is self-defeating.
I hear you, Conrad, and respect that as a somewhat plausible position, though I partly disagree in ways I've mentioned.
Quote:
You're saying that because a number of men feel mutilated, that this is evidence that the procedure itself has harmed them...
Again, we needn't presume ongoing PTSD to affirm that needlessly inflicting pain on helpless children is, in and of itself, harm. In other contexts, that's called child abuse. I assert that this is equally child abuse too.
Having said that, and agreeing with you about the uncertainty as to whether unremembered infant trauma such as circumcision causes psychological problems, let me just emphasize that it's just that: uncertainty, and so the precautionary principle ought to apply. In other words, in addition to the other arguments against child circumcision (which by themselves are sufficiently condemning), and in light of the lack of good reasons to do it (and no, religious superstition doesn't count as a good reason) we ought to forbid it just in case it causes some form of PTSD.
Quote:
Male circumcision certainly reduces sensitivity, but I've never heard actual evidence that it stops us in our tracks...So you saying that none of us who've been subject to this procedure have a normal, satisfying, quality-of-life-enhancing sex life? Thanks for letting me know. I must have been dreaming. :-)
Not to trivialize either your pleasure or your love, but of course there's no way of knowing how much nicer it might have been had the most sensitive part of your body, an organ "designed" for pleasure, not been cut off in infancy. And that points to what I presume to be the anti-sex, anti-pleasure roots of the practice of circumcision, male or female.
Quote:
Again, my starting point was questioning a tactic I think is counter-productive. I support the intentions, just not the tactic.
Yes, heard and understood.
Blessings on ya--
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Routine infant circumcision is infant abuse. It is, in fact, a ritual of torture that has been perpetrated on helpless infants for many decades. It is a violation of a human's right to a whole, intact body. It does, in many cases, result in post-traumatic stress disorder, and this condition is undiagnosed and unrecognized because it is the norm for males in the US. It is extremely unlikely that anyone for whom this was a traumatic experience would have any memory of it, as it is generally impossible for an infant less than a week old to make sense of what is happening to him. It is also unlikely because the mind puts up many defenses against ever revisiting such an experience.
There is untold - and pervasive - damage to men, to relationships and to society as a result of this and other practices that disregard the rights, needs and feelings of humans (especially males and especially infants). This includes addictive tendencies, illnesses, a willingness to commit acts of violence upon command (or otherwise), abuse of partners and children, etc.
If any form of infant or child abuse is unconscionable or illegal, the same should be true for routine infant circumcision. Those of us who don't find war or other forms of violence and human-caused suffering colorful or interesting - and who recognize the true effects of infant circumcision - are united with any who would strive to make it unlawful. It needs to be seen in its true form: a crime against human males and against society.
If there were any medical necessity for the procedure, it might provide some small justification. It has been shown again and again that there is no such necessity or benefit, except to those doctors and hospitals that profit from performing it.
I write from experience, from years of study and from rage against man's inhumanity toward his fellow humans. May this barbaric practice end with this generation as doctors and others recognize how certainly it violates the physician's Hippocratic oath: First, do no harm!
C. Summer
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
It does, in many cases, result in post-traumatic stress disorder, and this condition is undiagnosed and unrecognized because it is the norm for males in the US...
...There is untold - and pervasive - damage to men, to relationships and to society as a result of this...This includes addictive tendencies, illnesses, a willingness to commit acts of violence upon command (or otherwise), abuse of partners and children, etc.
Brother Clint, I'm squarely in your anti-circumcision camp but, while I find your claims of psychological damage due to infant circumcision quite plausible, it's not clear to me that they are in fact true. This may just be due to my lack of study on the subject. You're apparently much more acquainted with the relevant literature and, since you make these claims with such apparent certainty, I assume you can point the rest of us toward some well-designed scientific studies that have found differing levels of these problems in uncircumcised and circumcised men. I'd very much appreciate getting a couple of links from you for such info if you can provide them.
Thanks;
Dixon
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Thanks, Dixon. I haven't looked for "well-designed scientific studies" as I don't see them adding anything to what I've learned already. However, here are a couple links. The first one is a book - Circumcision: the hidden trauma : how an American cultural practice affects infants and ultimately us all - that might be the best resource.
https://books.google.com/books?id=cX...ed=0CFEQ6AEwAg
https://epublications.bond.edu.au/cg...ext=greg_boyle
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Brother Clint, I'm squarely in your anti-circumcision camp but, while I find your claims of psychological damage due to infant circumcision quite plausible, it's not clear to me that they are in fact true. This may just be due to my lack of study on the subject. You're apparently much more acquainted with the relevant literature and, since you make these claims with such apparent certainty, I assume you can point the rest of us toward some well-designed scientific studies that have found differing levels of these problems in uncircumcised and circumcised men. I'd very much appreciate getting a couple of links from you for such info if you can provide them.
Thanks;
Dixon
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Clint, with all due respect, I can't imagine any type of evidence other than well-designed scientific studies that would allow us to say with much appropriate confidence that circumcision causes this or that psychological problem later in life. Can you? If so, what would it be?
Thanks for the links. I'll check 'em out.
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Dixon,
It seems to me that all we need to find is one person who can trace his psychological or other health issues to the experience of circumcision - or one psychotherapist who has worked with men who have made the same connection - to have confidence that infant circumcision can be significantly detrimental to the future mental health or psycho-social viability of circumcised males. I agree that a scientific study could give support to the case for making RIC illegal, and in the past I've thought of doing such a study as part of an MA in psychology (I never pursued this, though). It should be quite feasible to do such a study if one can devise ways to control for all the other variables that affect mental health.
Those of us who have intimate knowledge of these effects might ask: Do we need scientific studies to prove the harmful and long-lasting impact of childhood trauma resulting from physical, emotional or sexual abuse? Anyone who has known and been close to those of us who have suffered such abuse (and it's easy since most of us seem to be in that category) would agree we don't. Unfortunately, when you have no recollection of a traumatizing experience, it's easy to believe it was harmless. Odd thing about the mind: you can't be aware of or understand what is well-buried in the subconscious, with the mind working very hard to keep it buried there. So it's not surprising that many circumcised males are unconcerned about having their own infant boys undergo this procedure.
One thing it might be helpful to know is that at least two anti-circumcision organizations were started by nurses or doctors who have witnessed infant circumcision and soon recognized the harm that was potentially being done. Many people may also not know that circumcision and other forms of genital mutilation are tribal rituals going back thousands of years. My understanding, though, is that they were rites of passage, and the children or adolescents at least had some explanation for why it was being done. When it was first offered by medical doctors in this country, it was sold as a way to prevent masturbation with all its immoral and unhealthy affects. This - and all the other rationales for RIC - have never had any validity.
I'll let you know if I come across any interesting studies. It's possible there are some cited in the book by Ronald Goldman.
Clint
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Clint, with all due respect, I can't imagine any type of evidence other than well-designed scientific studies that would allow us to say with much appropriate confidence that circumcision causes this or that psychological problem later in life. Can you? If so, what would it be?
Thanks for the links. I'll check 'em out.
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Glia here, seconding the referral to R. Goldman's excellent book referenced below.
Another good one is Circumcision Exposed: Rethinking a medical and cultural tradition by Billy Ray Boyd.
Here are links to other resources regarding the psychological effects, physical damage and loss, and the pain and its consequences, etc. Conrad: Please do read/view all of these items with an open mind and heart.
Male Circumcision: Pain, Trauma and Psychosexual Sequelae
https://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/
https://nocirc.org/ be sure to watch the *entire* movie on the home page
https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcis...atement06.html
Circumcision of Boys: A Serious Male Health Problem
https://mensightmagazine.com/Article...circhealth.htm
How much does circumcision hurt?
https://nymag.com/health/features/60144/
NOHARMM web site (this group and site no longer active but available for reference purposes)
https://www.noharmm.org/home.htm
Intact America fact sheet
https://www.intactamerica.org/learnmore
An article that is not exactly on subject but something that seems to come up a lot in discussions of the human foreskin, namely the relationship to STDs, especially HIV --
How the Circumcision Solution in Africa will Increase HIV Infections
https://www.publichealthinafrica.org...2011.e4/html_9
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Thanks, Dixon. I haven't looked for "well-designed scientific studies" as I don't see them adding anything to what I've learned already. However, here are a couple links. The first one is a book - Circumcision: the hidden trauma : how an American cultural practice affects infants and ultimately us all - that might be the best resource.
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
I appreciate your supportive post, but beg to differ with your analysis on the chances of the ballot initiative.
There's been a lot of sneering in the corporate media (which is notably pro-circumcision, BTW, and that's always a tip-off that something shady is going on... sort of like the cheerleading for nuclear power) to the effect that "this could only happen in San Francisco." The implication is that therefore it is weird or off the wall or something.
While people all over the country in general and the Bay Area in particular have had enough and are working to end the practice, there are a few special things about San Francisco that make it likely that it will pass. For starters, there is a considerable young educated population that is *very* connected and social-media and Internet savvy. Second, there is a large, seasoned activist LGBT population that does tend to be the spearhead on a lot of social change issues. They are the ones who first noticed the difference in sexual sensation and function between cut and intact and also were a factor in the restoration movement that began in the late 1980s. Third, in 2009 only 15% (or so) of Bay Area male babies had their foreskins amputated in the first year of life. And last, there is a large Latino population, a demographic that has never started circumcising and has started voting.
Oh yeah, we've also had Dr. Dean Edell talking about how horrible circumcision is for quite some time now. (He recently retired.) And at least one other media doctor, Dr. Christiane Northrup, has added her voice to the pro-intact movement.
There are also a lot of people and groups all over the country that are watching and helping. (If you want to help too, visit https://www.sfmgmbill.org/Site/Home.html ) It's beyond the "early attempts" stage. As with anything of this nature, there needs to be a tipping point of awareness and number of people involved. Look on YouTube for circumcision-related videos and check out the comments. If you get past the corporate media, you'll see that there is a lot of support for ending this practice by anyone for any reason.
Its a lot like the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. There was a large, usually older population that thought that this is how things have always been and that's just how it is. Then there was the younger population that questioned that and started taking action to challenge it. What is ironic is that a significant portion of those young challengers were Jewish, and now they are on the other side of the fence with this one. Then there was the influence of television and photojournalism: once people started seeing what was happening and how it was causing harm, it created sympathy and the tipping point was reached.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I disagree. The fact that they have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting such an ordnance passed anytime soon does not make it ridiculous, any more than early attempts at, for instance, abolition of slavery or women's suffrage were ridiculous. Early, initially hopeless attempts to make change are the thin edge of the wedge that slowly turns societies around on issues.
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Well, Glia, I certainly hope I'm wrong and you're right about the chances for this initiative.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Glia:
...a significant portion of those young challengers were Jewish, and now they are on the other side of the fence with this one.
I'd watch out about painting all Jews (or all of just about anybody) with the same brush. I'm sure there are some Jews out there who are progressive on this issue. Any of you wanna weigh in on this? Or is it too socially dangerous to weigh in publicly as a Jew against nonconsensual circumcision?
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
That's a great point about American Judaism hardly being monolithic on the issue of child circumcision, and thank you for bringing it up.
Apparently the Jewish Reform Movement (not sure what the correct name is) tried to get rid of the genital cutting in the late 1700s in the U.S. Currently there a few groups that have openly rejected the circumcision and advocate a "bris shalom" -- basically the welcome party without the genital cutting. "Beyond the Bris" is one of the more prominent ones. And let's not forget Howard Stern and his strong intactivist stance.
Ron Goldman, the guy whose 1997 book "Circumcision: the hidden trauma" in many ways solidified the genital integrity movement, is Jewish. He also wrote a second book entitled "Circumcision: a Jewish perspective" on just this issue.
Unfortunately, the attention does tend to get paid to the orthodox crowd that is always in opposition to such ideas. This group is like the good ol' boys down south and ending segregation: they will never budge or accept change.
The best reform is that which comes from inside a group. At this point the practice is a significant PR problem, so this is a great opportunity for *working together* for positive change that will help our country evolve past the Bronze Age and all this militarism and patriarchical/dominator behavior. It would be awesome to see such a thing happen. :heart:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
I'd watch out about painting all Jews (or all of just about anybody) with the same brush. I'm sure there are some Jews out there who are progressive on this issue. Any of you wanna weigh in on this? Or is it too socially dangerous to weigh in publicly as a Jew against nonconsensual circumcision?
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
I'm a Jewish woman against circumcision. :Yinyangv:
Marcia in Forest Knolls
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Well, Glia, I certainly hope I'm wrong and you're right about the chances for this initiative.
I'd watch out about painting all Jews (or all of just about anybody) with the same brush. I'm sure there are some Jews out there who are progressive on this issue. Any of you wanna weigh in on this? Or is it too socially dangerous to weigh in publicly as a Jew against nonconsensual circumcision?
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
My family is culturally Jewish though I don't associate myself in this way. I'm against ritualized abuse in any form. I never circumsized my sons, and my grandson is uncircumsized. My daughters are with European men who are not circumcized, and all the children find it appalling.
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
... Unless I'm mistaken, to make it equivalent to female genital mutilation you'd have to cut off the penis, not just the foreskin. I would surely hope that the practice diminishes and support the idea of parents being fully informed of negative consequences. ...
-Conrad
I rarely disagree with you Conrad but I have to here. First though, to a point Dixon made: piercing the ears of an infant is body modification. Removing a functional organ from a human being is not only mutilation, it should legally be defined as mayhem in my opinion, as it relates more to cutting off an ear than adding a tattoo. The foreskin is an organ designed to protect some of the most important tissue humanity carries around. It is the most sensitive sexual tissue on a man. It is designed by Nature to protect and to give pleasure. Circumcision is, at a minimum, cosmetic surgery for which informed consent has not been obtained. Complications of the brutal and callous act result in the amputation of thousands of penises. I'm in sympathetic pain just thinking about it. There is NO good argument in support of it. All major pediatric groups around the world oppose it.
It would only be outlawed in a compassionate society; one that cares about the health and well being of its children.
-Jeff
Re: SF Could Vote on Male Circumcision Ban (CNN)
Almost forgot one of the best organizations and reference web sites on this aspect of the issue:
Jews Against Circumcision at https://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/
A quote from the home page:
We are a group of educated and enlightened Jews who realize that the barbaric, primitive, torturous, and mutilating practice of circumcision has no place in modern Judaism.
Rabbi Moses Maimonides himself acknowledged that circumcision is done to desensitize the penis and curb masturbation.
Jews are some of the smartest people in the world. We are 1/3rd of 1% of the population, yet we hold 33% of Nobel prizes. We are smart enough to understand that mutilating a little boys' penis is not an acceptable practice in modern times.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Glia:
That's a great point about American Judaism hardly being monolithic on the issue of child circumcision, and thank you for bringing it up.
...
