Iceland backs down in War on Foreskins

Snickers Man

Jewish religious leaders, supported by their Christian counterparts and presumably Muslims as well, are celebrating a victory in the struggle against an Icelandic parliamentary bill that would ban non-medical circumcisions for males, following the successful enactment in 2005 of a law criminalising the female version.

Last week an Icelandic parliamentary committee recommended scrapping the bill that would have made the "removal of all or part of a child's sex organs" an offence punishable by six years' imprisonment.

If the bill were passed, it would outlaw what is a sacred rite of passage for all Jewish and Muslim boys, for whom circumcision is a mandatory religious requirement.

Despite the fact that Iceland's Jewish and Muslim communities combined comprise only a few hundred people, and it is estimated that the total number of circumcisions carried out between 2010 and 2016 is only 13, Jewish leaders felt that were this bill to be successfully implemented in Iceland, other countries in Scandinavia would follow suit.

Danes and Swedes, apparently, are very down on any form of infant genital mutilation.

The Jerusalem Post, Israel's English language newspaper, has been on top of the story outlining how Jews and Muslims have been lobbying support for scrapping the legislation from Christian Leaders in Europe, and political representatives in America leading to the committee's recommendation to scrap the bill last week.

Personally, I think there is no place in the 21st century for ritual genital mutilation of any child, or indeed adult. But it is clearly very important to Jews and Muslims. It's one issue, probably the only one, on which they can all generally agree.

In fact, I rather think that Jews are grateful for the muslim position on this issue. If it were only Jews, many modern secular European states would probably introduce such a ban. But is it ever a good idea to piss off your Muslim citizens?

harry Bailey esq

Snickers Man wrote: »

Last week an Icelandic parliamentary committee recommended scrapping the bill that would have made the "removal of all or part of a child's sex organs" an offence punishable by six years' imprisonment.

That's taking the mickey.

Snickers Man

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

That's taking the mickey.

Groan.
I mean, Ouch!

Pat Mustard

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

That's taking the mickey.

Oy vey!

Kivaro

Snickers Man wrote: »

Personally, I think there is no place in the 21st century for ritual genital mutilation of any child, or indeed adult. But it is clearly very important to Jews and Muslims. It's one issue, probably the only one, on which they can all generally agree.

Say the words in bold out loud. It's barbaric.
This is what happens to children in the name of religion.
With one particular religion, a grown man sucks on the baby's penis to remove the blood after the circumcision. All in the name of religion.

In a time when religious concepts and myths are so easily debunked, it is appalling to think that (some) humans still support this type of behaviour.

The One Doctor

Genital mutilation is part of the Jewish culture.

Iceland has always been far less progressive and open than other Scandinavian countries, but this is ripping the p(en)iss. Pointless legislation to keep politicians appearing relevant.

I was circumcised (at 3) and the first piss afterwards was agony. Still remember it to this day.

Before the Boardsie snowflakes rises up to topple Leinster House over some long gone foreskin however, the procedure was very much needed. And it wasn't performed by some perverted old Semitic elder.

super_furry

The One Doctor wrote: »

Before the Boardsie snowflakes rises up to topple Leinster House over some long gone foreskin however, the procedure was very much needed. And it wasn't performed by some perverted old Semitic elder.

Honestly, I think you're overstating the importance of your penis to the people here.

Lollipops23

My ex was circumcised at 16/17. He said waking up with morning wood after was agony.

Snickers Man

The One Doctor wrote: »

I was circumcised (at 3) and the first piss afterwards was agony. Still remember it to this day.

Before the Boardsie snowflakes rises up to topple Leinster House over some long gone foreskin however, the procedure was very much needed.

Sometimes it is, on medical grounds. A relative of mine was circumsized in his 50s for whatever reason I never sought to ask. But it was nothing to do with religion.

Still, no need for mandatory ritual excision at a young age. It might become necessary in later life to amputate a gangrenous limb, but to do so at a few weeks in anticipation that it might save your life later is just bizarre.

Snickers Man

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My ex was circumcised at 16/17. He said waking up with morning wood after was agony.

Well at least if it happens in your 50s, you don't have that problem quite so much.

SusieBlue

Circumcision on either gender for non medically necessary reasons is absolutely disgusting, and parents of said children should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I don't understand the logic in chopping off a piece of the anatomy of your perfect newborn baby. It shouldn't be allowed to happen.

valoren

Remember how people ritually sacrificed animals and offered them as gifts to God?
The word for doing that is unenlightened.

However, today, removing the foreskin in another ritual is not unenlightened.
It is stupid. A stupid ritual endorsed, conducted and supervised by very stupid people.

Kotek Besar

Snickers Man wrote: »

..presumably Muslims as well..

..Jewish and Muslim boys, for whom circumcision is a mandatory religious requirement.

To correct you, male (or female) circumcision is not mandatory in Islam. Male circumcision is tradition, that is all.

Snickers Man wrote: »

Personally, I think there is no place in the 21st century for ritual genital mutilation of any child, or indeed adult. But it is clearly very important to Jews and Muslims.

I agree that ritual genital mutilation of any human is wrong. But there's a big difference between circumcision and genital mutilation.

Irish Praetorian

Never ceases to amuse me that this country bans tail docking on dogs, but a far more invasive operation (if not worse) on a minor is considered acceptable with parental consent.

Snickers Man

Kotek Besar wrote: »

To correct you, male (or female) circumcision is not mandatory in Islam. Male circumcision is tradition, that is all.

If you say so. I stand corrected.

Kotek Besar wrote: »

I agree that ritual genital mutilation of any human is wrong. But there's a big difference between circumcision and genital mutilation.

You're cutting off a part of somebody's genitals. Sounds like genital mutilation to me.

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich

I’m so bloody glad I’m circed myself, never asked my parents why I am nor do I care.

RobertKK

It should be banned for non medical reasons, especially in non Jewish and Muslim nations - since they won't ban it anyway.

wexie

can they still serve cocktails at circumcisions?

Stigura

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

silverharp

Stigura wrote: »

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

i just wonder why they didnt beat the crap out of the first person to ever suggest it

wingsof daun

valoren wrote: »

Remember how people ritually sacrificed animals and offered them as gifts to God?
The word for doing that is unenlightened.

However, today, removing the foreskin in another ritual is not unenlightened.
It is stupid. A stupid ritual endorsed, conducted and supervised by very stupid people.

Yes. Did you know that up to 90% of white males in the US were circumcised in the 1990s, a percentage which has risen steadily through the last century before dipping slightly this century? This is neo natal circumcision and is obviously performed on millions of non Jewish/Muslim babies under the guise that it is "healthy". I find that disturbing. It is linked to brain damage in these males or disrupts the normal growth of the babies brain. Disturbing stuff.

railer201

Three should be enough.

metaoblivia

wingsof daun wrote: »

Yes. Did you know that up to 90% of white males in the US were circumcised in the 1990s... It is linked to brain damage in these males or disrupts the normal growth of the babies brain

That explains so much

Ipso

wingsof daun wrote: »

Yes. Did you know that up to 90% of white males in the US were circumcised in the 1990s, a percentage which has risen steadily through the last century before dipping slightly this century? This is neo natal circumcision and is obviously performed on millions of non Jewish/Muslim babies under the guise that it is "healthy". I find that disturbing. It is linked to brain damage in these males or disrupts the normal growth of the babies brain. Disturbing stuff.

Hmm.

Irish Praetorian

wingsof daun wrote: »

Yes. Did you know that up to 90% of white males in the US were circumcised in the 1990s, a percentage which has risen steadily through the last century before dipping slightly this century? This is neo natal circumcision and is obviously performed on millions of non Jewish/Muslim babies under the guise that it is "healthy". I find that disturbing. It is linked to brain damage in these males or disrupts the normal growth of the babies brain. Disturbing stuff.

Yeah that was one hell of a decade, couldn't move for mohels on every street corner

In all seriousness I believe rates in the US as in Canada have been declining steadily, from two thirds in the 70s to 58% today, whilst Canada is at 31%. There are big regional variations also, so in the Mid-West its three quarters whilst west of the Rocky mountains its one quarter of babies who end up circumcised.

Stigura

Stigura wrote: »

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

silverharp wrote: »

i just wonder why they didnt beat the crap out of the first person to ever suggest it

Question still stands though.

Two, diametrically opposed crews both love it. I've never seen either lot explain Why. Not that it's a thing I've ever pursued. This thread's just reminded me that I've never known why.

Yer Da sells Avon

Lollipops23 wrote: »

My ex was circumcised at 16/17. He said waking up with morning wood after was agony.

Easily solved.

"Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders..."



"Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEnders, Sonia from EastEn... what?"

Wibbs

Stigura wrote: »

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

It's your basic Bronze Age blood sacrifice to some deity or other, which marked out the man as belonging to one group or other. Group affiliation body modification basically. The version in women follows a similar cultural path.

Latterly it came along in the back of late 19th century ideas about "self pollution", IE it was considered an anti masturbation remedy. And was seen as less "animalistic" and more "hygienic"(and FGM was also a thing at that time. Where the clitoris was sometimes removed to "save" the woman from "hysteria" and fiddling with herself ).

Add in a large element of medical and social fashion and it ended up being seen as "normal procedure" for a time in the West(outside of the religious stuff). Cultures like America still hang onto it, but it's slowly changing. Such influences can be seen in a place like Korea. Before the Korean War and the involvement of America in the place the practice was almost unknown, but following on from the American influence on social and medical practices it became the thing to do.

goose2005

Stigura wrote: »

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

Painful initiation rituals are common worldwide. Girls bleed from the genitals when they become women, so i suppose it made sense to make boys bleed from the genitals to make them men. Similar things were done by Aborigines

cd07

It's all such a load of crap it should be banned. I know everyone has their beliefs and thats fine. And the mods wil no doubt hate me for mine but anyway...its 2018! Grow up people get a load of the realism in u and see that there is more to life than some supposed god🀆there isn't a screed of evidence of any god whatsoever so people please open your eyes!

Stigura

Wibbs wrote: »

Add in a large element of medical and social fashion and it ended up being seen as "normal procedure" for a time in the West(outside of the religious stuff).

So; They saw no draw back?

gozunda

Stigura wrote: »

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

I've seen it suggested that it was practised in the Middle East to help prevent infection in a primitive attempt at hygiene (before regular showers or baths) - it then became associated with specific religions perhaps as the holy guy was the local big cheese (!) or whatever.

Same ideas goes for hygeine not eating pork as pork is a food that does not keep well in hot conditions and other issues ...

Stigura

gozunda wrote: »

... it then became associated with specific religions perhaps as the holy guy was the local big cheese (!)

I salute you, sir!

Mongfinder General

They can sharpen my sword all they want, I’ve a bat on me that would beat a donkey out of a quarry.

hatrickpatrick

Last week an Icelandic parliamentary committee recommended scrapping the bill that would have made the "removal of all or part of a child's sex organs" an offence punishable by six years' imprisonment.

It's absolutely f*cking sickening that this wording of a proposed law would be considered remotely controversial. Sickening. F*ck religious and cultural tolerance, if your religion or culture involves barbaric savagery then you should rightly be called out as a barbaric savage and find your religion or culture outlawed by civilised societies.

GrumpyMe

If there was any distinct advantage to having no foreskin - evolution would have made that decision long ago!

suicide_circus

People in ireland worry about Catholic indoctrination of children in state schools (fair enough) but remain mute on the systematic religious mutilation of children. It's a 4000 year old blood sacrifice practiced on babies. And it's A-OK. Mind boggling.

seamus

suicide_circus wrote: »

People in ireland worry about Catholic indoctrination of children in state schools (fair enough) but remain mute on the systematic religious mutilation of children. It's a 4000 year old blood sacrifice practiced on babies. And it's A-OK. Mind boggling.

I'm not sure about "remain mute", it's just not very high on most peoples' agendas. There aren't many Jews in Ireland, circumcision is not something that features frequently in peoples' lives, most men have a foreskin and most people will never even hear about a Bris being performed, never mind be invited to one. I imagine if asked, most people wouldn't be in favour of it, if properly informed of what it is and why it's done.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's your basic Bronze Age blood sacrifice to some deity or other, which marked out the man as belonging to one group or other. Group affiliation body modification basically. The version in women follows a similar cultural path.

+1
The importance of sex and genitalia to the animal means that there is a massive ritualistic link to it. There's always been an enormous link between libido and spirituality and vitality, and even though primitive cultures may not have known the mechanics of it, they recognised the significance of it. And so would seek to perform all sorts of rituals around it.

I was sent a video on WhatsApp of some kind of "ritual" involving what can only be described as a flaying of the penis using a machete. That is instead of stretching out the skin and cutting cross-wise to remove the foreskin, the "surgeon" slices lengthwise (quickly and boldly) to remove skin. While the fully consenting "patient" dances around in a festival atmosphere. Nothing except ritualistic behaviour can explain that.

Ultimately any benign or "misguided primitive healthcare" explanation for circumcision is an attempt by vested interests to retroactively justify the practice and fool themselves into believing that they're not just repeating barbaric and unnecessary bronze age mutilation rituals.

Billgirlylegs

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure about "remain mute", it's just not very high on most peoples' agendas. There aren't many Jews in Ireland, circumcision is not something that features frequently in peoples' lives, most men have a foreskin and most people will never even hear about a Bris being performed, never mind be invited to one. I imagine if asked, most people wouldn't be in favour of it, if properly informed of what it is and why it's done.

+1
The importance of sex and genitalia to the animal means that there is a massive ritualistic link to it. There's always been an enormous link between libido and spirituality and vitality, and even though primitive cultures may not have known the mechanics of it, they recognised the significance of it. And so would seek to perform all sorts of rituals around it.

I was sent a video on WhatsApp of some kind of "ritual" involving what can only be described as a flaying of the penis using a machete. That is instead of stretching out the skin and cutting cross-wise to remove the foreskin, the "surgeon" slices lengthwise (quickly and boldly) to remove skin. While the fully consenting "patient" dances around in a festival atmosphere. Nothing except ritualistic behaviour can explain that.

Ultimately any benign or "misguided primitive healthcare" explanation for circumcision is an attempt by vested interests to retroactively justify the practice and fool themselves into believing that they're not just repeating barbaric and unnecessary bronze age mutilation rituals.

Was that the directors "cut" of Live and Let Die??:pac:

topper75

Would be interesting to go back in a time machine and meet the founders of these 'clubs' like Abraham and Mohammed etc.

They must have had charisma beyond 10 Elvises.

I mean to say to people effectively, "you have to chop off part of your willies before you get to be in my club" and at the same time manage to attract huge numbers to follow your credo.

Snickers Man

Stigura wrote: »

I'm just curious about where the practice stemmed from

Genesis 17

1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
...
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
...
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.

...
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 And God said unto Abraham,......

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.



Sounds like a good deal.
God says: You get to be the father of kings of many nations and you get a land for your own called Canaan to be yours in perpetuity.

I get your foreskins!! All of them. And those of your slaves!!

Seriously. I'm all for respecting religion as a motivating force for people to consider it in their interests to do good in the world and to each other but this???

taserfrank

The worst thing about having a foreskin is that sometimes when you go to urinate, the shape of your foreskin makes the urine expel in weird directions. Also, having a foreskin can be smelly. My foreskin is often tight, which can be sore to retract.

Snickers Man

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich wrote: »

I’m so bloody glad I’m circed myself, never asked my parents why I am nor do I care.

Might be none of our business but why are you "so bloody glad"?

valoren

The religious believe that God created Man and this intelligent designer designed one of the reproductive organs with a protective skin but this must actually be removed in accordance to his wishes. That is laughable and in essence to remove something which God created is a sin isn't it? Yet logic and common sense doesn't apply to this at all of course.

It all stems from the Bible, written by men, the Genesis part of which was put to a vote by those with vested interests in the business of there being a 'God' that what was written ages ago by some fanatics was the actual word of God. So when some knob obsessed loon wrote in the centuries before this vote that God told Abram to cut off parts of people's mickeys it was decided that this was a fact. And today in the 21st century that still happens.

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich

Snickers Man wrote: »

Might be none of our business but why are you "so bloody glad"?

Because I love my junk just the way it is. When I see non circed d*cks they just look so alien to me. Of course I was probably screaming in agony as a baby or whenever it was I was circed, but I don't remember any of that, so who cares.
I think it may have been done for medical reasons though, I'm not really sure.

Mickeroo

suicide_circus wrote: »

People in ireland worry about Catholic indoctrination of children in state schools (fair enough) but remain mute on the systematic religious mutilation of children. It's a 4000 year old blood sacrifice practiced on babies. And it's A-OK. Mind boggling.

The fact that it isn't actually a common practice in Ireland probably has something to do with that I guess. I'd say most people would share the sentiment that it's a nonsense religious practice with no medical basis when performed on babies.

gozunda

topper75 wrote: »

Would be interesting to go back in a time machine and meet the founders of these 'clubs' like Abraham and Mohammed etc.

They must have had charisma beyond 10 Elvises.

I mean to say to people effectively, "you have to chop off part of your willies before you get to be in my club" and at the same time manage to attract huge numbers to follow your credo.

Afaik the origin of such practices is largely unknown. That they were absorbed into a number of middle eastern religions indicate that they predate those specific religions. By the time those religions arose - the practices were well and truely accepted as normal and of wider cultural significance. The bigwigs and promoters of those religions simply maintained those 'cultural' practices. Something that is going on to this day in the middle East and parts of Africa ...

RabbleRouser2k

gozunda wrote: »

I've seen it suggested that it was practised in the Middle East to help prevent infection in a primitive attempt at hygiene (before regular showers or baths) - it then became associated with specific religions perhaps as the holy guy was the local big cheese (!) or whatever.

Same ideas goes for hygeine not eating pork as pork is a food that does not keep well in hot conditions and other issues ...

topper75 wrote: »

Would be interesting to go back in a time machine and meet the founders of these 'clubs' like Abraham and Mohammed etc.

They must have had charisma beyond 10 Elvises.

I mean to say to people effectively, "you have to chop off part of your willies before you get to be in my club" and at the same time manage to attract huge numbers to follow your credo.

Reminds me of that cult that 'sterilised' themselves to make themselves into a 'genderless' unit. Then went and drank poison to prepare for aliens to take them to the next planet.

taserfrank wrote: »

The worst thing about having a foreskin is that sometimes when you go to urinate, the shape of your foreskin makes the urine expel in weird directions. Also, having a foreskin can be smelly. My foreskin is often tight, which can be sore to retract.

Steroid cream-it can loosen it. Phimosis is only a problem if the foreskin is tight and painful. Otherwise it shouldn't be a problem.

valoren wrote: »

It all stems from the Bible, written by men, the Genesis part of which was put to a vote by those with vested interests in the business of there being a 'God' that what was written ages ago by some fanatics was the actual word of God. So when some knob obsessed loon wrote in the centuries before this vote that God told Abram to cut off parts of people's mickeys it was decided that this was a fact. And today in the 21st century that still happens.

I remember having a discussion about this-and the word of God or whatever name you wish to use or not use, and how the 'message' or word has been lost over time due to editing. That from a religious or non-religious standpoint, a positive message is now lost to the sands of time.
Quite a shame. I've no doubt we've lost a great deal of positive messages over time.
Due to people in power wanting to 'change things' to make themselves sound better.

Snickers Man

Mackerel and Avocado Sandwich wrote: »

Because I love my junk just the way it is. When I see non circed d*cks they just look so alien to me.

And I mine. And I don't reckon you had much say in yours anyway so if you're happy with the outcome all well and good.

My old mother tells me she enquired about circumcision when I came around, because she wasn't sure whether it was a good idea or not. Her doctor told her to cop herself on that there was no need for it at all and it was not something even the church recommended. (That was in the 1960s)

I said "Thanks Mum!"

RabbleRouser2k

Wibbs wrote: »

It's your basic Bronze Age blood sacrifice to some deity or other, which marked out the man as belonging to one group or other. Group affiliation body modification basically. The version in women follows a similar cultural path.

Latterly it came along in the back of late 19th century ideas about "self pollution", IE it was considered an anti masturbation remedy. And was seen as less "animalistic" and more "hygienic"(and FGM was also a thing at that time. Where the clitoris was sometimes removed to "save" the woman from "hysteria" and fiddling with herself ).

Correct sir-Or madam-it was due to sand and other things could produce infections in non-circumcised penises. However we know more about hygiene now that washing is pretty easy. Also, phimosis, a tightened foreskin, could also cause problems-but that can be treated using steroid creams and other non-surgical procedures. So circumcision isn't necessary in this modern times.

(A friends girlfriend didn't like that he was circumcised-that he was 'constantly exposed' and found it unnatural. Another guy had it done at aged 4 due to phimosis).

Dr Kellogg claimed it was 'good medical practice' to stop deviancy and prevent masturbation. He also made Cornflakes for the same purpose.

facehugger99

I think the circumcision of young boys without their consent is an absolutely horrific and barbaric practice.

It has absolutely no place in a civilized society and the Jewish leadership promoting this male genital mutilation should be held to account. Disappointing that Iceland has seemingly backed down. I'd ban the practice and jail anyone who carried it out for assault causing GBH if I had my way.