Erey : Please don't be dense just for show- I wasn't trying to pick on you, your's was just the first of a few posts which said the same thing. Obviously, in a private setting, with those they are close to, most men are going to admit to not being happy with their penis, in much the same way most women have similar problems with their breasts/weight... But, culture and male pride wouldn't let them proclaim such insecurities from the mountain tops... Are you mad? And also, again, circumcised from birth means they don't know what its like to be otherwise. You say show me a circumcised man who isn't happy, but I say show me an uncircumcised man who "got cut" for no medical reason, and I'll listen to him about what he has to say. Of course, again, the sample size would be too small to generalize, but I would take what he has a lot more seriously than you, or perhaps even myself, aside from considerations of civil liberties, given the procedure isn't life-and-death.

Secondly, if you aren't going to actually read a thing, then please don't comment on it. The point of my parallels between circumcision and female genital mutilation was not to talk about what was actually done, but simply to draw the obvious parallels based on anatomy. FGM, or a clitorendectomy, would be analogous to removal of the glands penis and just the glands penis -not the foreskin and not the whole penis, and circumcision would be analogous to removal of the clitoral prepuce (the "hood") -not the clitoris or anything else. Does that clear it up some?

Also, my sarcastic comments were just that ;) - IFF (if and only if) smegma and hygiene are valid reasons for circumcision, then they would also be valid reasons for removal of the clitoral hood. So, for the ladies who make that a valid argument, I sarcastically say they should prove it by going ahead and getting their "hood" removed, otherwise their argument falls apart by lack of conviction alone. Show me logic against that statement, otherwise smegma should be strickened from the whole thread with a single, hygienic good-bye. Also, a similar argument against aesthetics... If a woman wants to get implants to please the opposite sex, that is her choice, IFF that is a valid reason for circumcision as well, then it should be his choice... So aesthetics should also be strickened from the conversation. And, I'm pretty sure that is all I had so say about the subject, except a bit of support for the parents who opt for/against circumcision...

Anyway, hope that clears some things up... Though, if I may, I'm not sure what your goals are when you are posting, but the attitude will probably not help you get your point across very well... Especially when you ignore large tracts of what was written, or fail to think about what you actually did read. Honestly, friendly advice -nothing wrong with being a bit emotional, it is a good quality in proper contexts.

I guess the conversation has moved quite on from those specific topics, though, into the realm of the medical...

Just because it needs to be said- a neonate experiencing circumcision could very easily develop permanent changes in brain structure -experiments have shown in lab animals that even simply removing a neonate from its mother's presence for 15 minutes can lead to a 30% growth in the size of the amygdala, and also result in attenuation to certain stress hormones, making harder to "feel" the baser emotions... If there is no anesthetic, the mental stress from circumcision could be enough to lead to permanent damage of the hyppocampus, leading to certain behavior difficulties and with memory and learning (hmm, that does sound familiar, doesn't it? whoa, that is pure conjecture). Without directly referencing the topic of circumcision, a hot topic indeed if this board is any indication, the effects of certain types of experiences on neonates becomes so much more clear. Again, though, attenuation to certain, mostly negative, emotions might be seen as a good thing in many circumstances... Even with that, though, I think the issue of circumcision should be much more squarely centered on civil liberties...

From a strict perspective of civil liberties alone, FGM and circumcision are the same, as the question "who owns the baby's body" is answered with "the parents." And neither procedure can be unambiguously justified to be "on the child's behalf" like vaccinations and such can, so vaccinations and similar procedures are in a whole different category...

Aug 7, 2012 -- 10:06PM, loveontheair wrote:

Many different people have many different reasons... People are different despite what some may say since it differs from family to family.

I just needed to quote this for its profound wisdom and insight.

It is much more redundant than any foreskin could ever be.

Aug 8, 2012 -- 12:15AM, Ibn wrote:

 

Muslim men and Jewish men are happy that it was their right to have been circumcised. They don't regard their genitals "mutilated".

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Irrelevant what a clan member thinks about clan rituals.

The clan member is the only one who has the right to think about himself whether he is mutilated or not. Other clams with foreskin have no right to override his right.

Aug 8, 2012 -- 12:15AM, Ibn wrote:

The question is, can an adult who was circumcised as a boy make it undone if he likes to?

I appreciate your concern but can you show me how many Jewish or Muslim man “would like to”?

Others have no right to regard their genitals "mutilated".

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Of course everyone can think and form opinions for him or herself, and has EVERY right to that! A person missing a body part is mutilated, that's very simple. Are we back to re-defining language for political correctness reasons?

No. A person or millions of persons who don’t have foreskin do not feel “mutilated”. They are the only ones who have the experience and right to feel “mutilated” or “not mutilated”. Do you respect their right or not?

A person not missing his useless bit of skin is not “mutilated”. I have never missed the useless party part. You have no right to regard me “mutilated”. It is sheer stupidity for you to regard me “mutilated”. I am glad that my foreskin was removed very early in my life. It has saved me having it removed later on.

Try having a survey of Muslim and Jewish men to see how many think that it was their right to keep the foreskin or it was their right to have been circumcised.

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

Of course, after creating facts, it is hard to admit that other options might have been better. An honest survey would be one among adults who are in a situation to decide for themselves, and see how they decide.

A honest survey of Muslim men and Jewish men, the vast majority of circumcised men,  will be quite valid survey. It will show you how many of them want their useless skin back on them for your argument to be a valid argument.

They won't want the non-muslims or non-jewish people or even the politicians to decide for them.

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

LOL! It hardly is a politician's decision when the right to decide remains intact for the individual, rather than being amputated by enacting religious tradition.

Only the politicians can make laws to ban the practice. Muslims and Jewish people are not going to force their practice and will on others, why should others force their will on Jewish people and Muslim people? Do the others know better about the practice that they have very little or no experience of?

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

They should be in a position to make the decision themselves, at an age when they can weigh religion against bodily integrity, and not be patronised by their fathers... THAT is what it is all about here. Self-determination & freedom to decide.

Not one circumcised Jewish male or Muslim male feels that he was patronised by his father or his circumcision was against his bodily integrity. Why are you imagining it otherwise?

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

I see that some tribes don't favour individual freedoms, and place clan rites above them. I see that some tribes use religion as an excuse for such practice.  Is this what you propose?

 

I propose that secular people should not think that they know better about the rights of the religious people whether it is the headscarf or the foreskin. Stop telling them what they cannot keep and what they should keep. Frankly they are going too far!

Your husband and your sons are free to keep their foreskins, even though you know very well that they will never be able to clean the area under the foreskin properly throughout their lives, but every Jewish male and every Muslim male is happy not to have the useless bit of skin. Why should it bother you about their individual right when they are all happy

Aug 8, 2012 -- 9:50AM, Ibn wrote:

Aug 8, 2012 -- 2:39AM, CharikIeia wrote:

I see that some tribes don't favour individual freedoms, and place clan rites above them. I see that some tribes use religion as an excuse for such practice.  Is this what you propose?

I propose that secular people should not think that they know better about the rights of the religious people whether it is the headscarf or the foreskin. Stop telling them what they cannot keep and what they should keep. Frankly they are going too far!

The question is not what adult citizens do to themselves, but what minors are being subjected to without being in a position to judge whether this is what they would choose for themselves.

To conflate the wearing of a headscarf (assuming that it's done voluntarily by an adult) with cutting off infants' body parts is not helping anyone get a clear picture of what is the issue here.

Your husband and your sons are free to keep their foreskins, even though you know very well that they will never be able to clean the area under the foreskin properly throughout their lives...

What a shameless lie and insult! Do Jews & Muslims collectively suffer from phantom phimosis, or so, that you post such a sentence?

... but every Jewish male and every Muslim male is happy not to have the useless bit of skin. Why should it bother you about their individual right when they are all happy

I am not bothered personally at all, I just try to plant a tree of problem awareness in a Mid-Eastern desert sans water, it seems... There is a clash between ancient rites and modernity, and it is not the ancient rites that are in the right, in general.

It boils down to how serious you take infants, and how serious you take free will.

The baby skin cutters don't take either fundamentally serious, as their action proves.