You didn't make the cut

Maybe so, but that has nothing to do with what Superfantastic asked. And to equate genital mutilation done on kids and teens to something done with modern antiseptics and topical numbing agents on a one day old that will not remember the act is stupid, careless, and flippant to real victims. Not that modern convenience plays down the act of circumcision, that's still f'n rough.

A medieval scholar living in Muslim Spain. It's interesting that he is a Rabbinic scholar. I still don't care either way. Unless done on an adult, I don't see circumcision dulling anyone's sex drive. Or was it common practice to do it wrong?

Either way, this has zip to do with the original question of the difference between male and female circumcision. To say the two are alike is absolutely asinine.

 

So, we were discussing that female genital mutilation is done to suppress sexuality while and male circumcision for hygiene. I then quote you a major Rabbinical authority stating unequivocally that male circumcision is to suppress sexuality, you blow it off by using an argument from personal incredulity and then declare the question has nothing to do with the distinction between female genital mutilation and male circumcision.

 

What are you, kidding? I haven't read the Old Testament in a while, but from what I remember, "covenant with god" and "keeping the law" was a huge reason for it, and cleanliness/health reasons had exactly zero to do with it, especially when you consider they didn't even know what germs were (and were a generally filthy people, as evidenced by the article you just posted). Might not be subjugation in the same way that started female circumcision, but it sounds like you're saying male circumcision was only ever and always done for disease prevention, when that's demonstrably not the case.

Also, regardless of sex, it's taking a fucking knife to the genitals of a helpless infant for a non-medical reason, so saying they are "nothing alike" is...a bit of a stretch.

I'll never understand this thought. As if them not remembering it makes it any less cruel. Shit, they might get caught in the cold someday and get frostbite/gangrene on their fingers -- better chop 'em off just in case! But just the tips. Not like they'll remember it anyways.

 

I'm cut. Honestly I'm glad I am. Hearing the horror stories my girlfriend tells me about residents in her nursing home, is fucking disturbing. Obviously I get that we're not all destined for a nursing home, and complete dependance on another person, but fuck having green shit grow around my dick. She has a few residents who every time she cleans their members, there is gunky buildup under their foreskin. Granted this is due to the fact that not many people due their jobs thoroughly at her work, however I would rather not be in that position. And lord knows if I was in that situation I wouldn't want to have my foreskin chopped off, but I wouldn't want nasty gunk 'round the junk either.

My kids are cut as well. It would be great to say I have some defensible moral high ground for this but I don't. The doctor asked their mother and I, and it never really even occurred to me to have an opinion. I really just thought it was something that was done. Having given it some thought, if the flying spaghetti monster curses, I mean blesses, me with another child, I'm leaning more towards leaving his junk alone, and letting him make the choice later in life.

 

A major rabbinical authority living in Muslim Spain during some of the fiercest xenophobia, violence, and intolerance to Jewish people, Jewish culture, and co-mingling of blood lines. Intolerance from Muslim and Christian, from both sides, not to mention internal conflict in Jewish communities. See, I can give anecdotal evidence too.

The fact that you see no distinction between the two acts is disturbing. Again I have to mention that in no way have I advocated for perpetuating EITHER form. But it is disgusting that you think the two acts are completely alike. It is varying degrees of mutilation, but you're quoting me a millenia old source and telling me that Jewish dad is subjugating his child emotionally and sexually just like a teenage girl in Africa held down and have her clit carved off completely. This is my point. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

You fucking asked the difference. The bible is not an accurate source here, sorry. And now you're telling me that ancient people knew nothing about infections, nothing about cleanliness, all because they integrated these procedures into their religion. So basically you didn't want an answer you didn't like. Fantastic.

What the fuck is the matter with you people?

 

First of all, go look up the definition of anecdote.

Secondly, you say that I see no distinction:

Yeah, sure.

 

Pretty sure he does see a distinction, as do I. We're saying that they're different degrees of the same, horrible practice (different degrees meaning one is clearly worse).

And apparently you agree.

Actually I asked about the difference between people's reactions towards the two, not the procedures themselves.

Ok now I think you're just fucking with us. You implied that male circumcision was only ever done for cleanliness reasons. The Bible (to my memory) never mentions cleanliness as a reason one single time. Literally billions of baby boys have had their penises mutilated becaue the Bible said so, and now you're saying the Bible saying so doesn't count.

Fixed that for ya.

 

What do you know? Two groups of guys arguing about who's dicks are better. Who would have thought?

If male circumcision was done to suppress sexuality, it's been a spectacular failure. Wouldn't you agree? Also, can we stop calling it mutilation? Some of you talk like the hack the whole thing off. Removing the foreskin doesn't result in any suffering, or sexual problems. It's an old religious practice, done mostly for inane reasons, but this one turned out to be harmless.

 

That's not really how Biblical scholarship (or at least good Biblical scholarship) works. Essentially, the Torah, in addition to being religious decree, spends a lot of time on social customs. For example, you'll find a lot on marriage, or lending practices, because it was basically the law of the land. Many of the seemingly illogical or arbitrary requirements of the Torah are widely believed to have practical but unstated bases.

Other examples include "boiling of a kid in its mother's milk" (a tradition of the Canaanites, a tribal rival of the Israelites) or the ban on pork (widely believed to have been meant to avoid trichinosis and other food born illnesses). Kosher is believed by many scholars both Jewish and Gentile to have a basis in health. So that being said, rooting Jewish circumcision in hygiene is a perfectly valid historical observation, albeit one with limited relevance today.

I see. Have you talked to anyone who has had said surgery and remembers it? Because adult circumcision is quite painful. As is infant circumcision, they just don't remember it. Your definition of suffering is odd.

If your logic is that it is harmless because the vast majority do not remember the pain, would you be ok with a religion that advocated slapping children as ritual?

 

I'm not sure what your point is. If it were successful, would that be a more or less powerful argument against it?

This is from Ayaan Hirsi Ali's excellent book "Infidel". Fair warning, I haven't used scissors to cut meat ever since I read it.

Now do we all understand why some people consider female genital mutilation and male circumcision to be different manifestations of the same impulse?

 

More powerful, since we're talking about something that's still common practice today. One result is damaging to millions of lives, the other isn't, which is a pretty important distinction to me. I can only speak for us Americans, but I'll assure you that prohibiting sexuality is in no way typical of why circumcisions are performed here.

 

I'm male and, being Israeli born to ethnic Jews, was circumcised in a temple with full Jewish ritual. Including, apparently, the use of a bit of wine as painkiller.
Hasn't been a problem save some chafing when figuring out masturbation.

Anyway, not sure what I'll do if I have a son. I waver back and forth on the matter. I'll give it another think if the day comes when we have to decide.

 

I know you Americans love your revisionist histories, but there is a long history in America of puritans advocating circumcision to prevent boys from masturbating.

You know what this needs? A Hitch Slap.



And as alluded to earlier in this thread, Penn & Teller's Bullshit had an episode of circumcision that showed a few circumcisions being performed. By all means, view.

 

Damn dude, I did not say the historical rationale behind it was reasonable. In fact, I said quite the opposite. What I don't get is this crusade against a harmless practice when cultural justification has shifted dramatically. Your average American today is not asking doctors to perform circumcisions because they're worried their kid is going to masturbate.

Honestly, I think there's a minuscule difference between cut and uncut. I'm not here to argue about how it's prettier than your elephant trunk, or being a meaningful preventative to STIs either.

 

Holy hangover batman. I meant penis on that second one. I swear I meant penis. Glad you guys got some jokes out of it though.

 

Uncut Canadian (surprise!) and the whole practice just freaks me out. We're hundreds of years beyond needing what it was initially intended to provide. But I do understand why it was done... ....back then.

I'm just going to leave this here for your viewing pleasure.

 

So apparently I mutilated my sons' genitals for no particular reason. My parents similarly mutilated mine. I suppose both my parents and I should feel bad about that, but they don't and I don't. Mine still works pretty well and I'm not suffering any long term physical or emotional trauma as a result of it. I'd like to say I did it for STD prevention reasons, but the simple truth is, had I given any real thought to the idea when we made the decision to do it, we did it for purely cosmetic reasons.

Not once did I give an instant's thought to Jewish history, American Puritanism, STD prevention, or cranky old British journalists. Not everything has to have a profound philosophical, moral, and social reason behind it. You can tell me I should have had a reason deeper than the one I had because it's unnecessary and stupid and whatever else it is, but, honestly, I'm not lucky enough to have the inclination to spend that much intellectual effort to attach a deep seated reason to everything I do .Even when it comes to irrevocably scarring my children for the rest of their lives.

You people could fuck up a wet dream.

 

More to the point, Jesus, Canadians. What don't y'all know about folks from the states? Mention circumcision and dudes are trotting out statistics like this was something y'all were discussing just the other day over Poutine and Labatt.