nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why is circumcision for religious reasons tolerated, while other religious barbarism

hatrickpatrick

...is not?

Every time a move is made to ban or restrict circumcision of baby boys, you get a chorus of people crying "religious oppression!!!", and this argument is apparently taken seriously by a vast number of people.

To play Devil's Advocate, why does something being a religious tradition somehow make it ok? Honour killings are usually carried out for "religious" reasons as well, should we be more tolerant of those? How about ritual sacrifice of animals, which is part of some religions?

I'm not here to start another generic debate about circumcision itself, it just baffles me how "religious tradition" can excuse some, but not all of these things. Surely they're either all ok or they're not? If a religious movement decided that all newborns should have their belly buttons pierced at birth, would that be acceptable?

EDIT: I bring this up today because of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/nyregion/jewish-groups-seek-to-block-new-nyc-rule-on-circumcision.html?src=recg

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

My name is URL

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I know. That's what I am questioning here.

I think it's 'wrong' to circumcise for non-religious reasons. But barbaric? The definition of barbaric is "savagely cruel; exceedingly brutal" I'm not sure if circumcision fits the description.

Yeah, fair enough. I guess it doesn't really matter what words you use to describe it. It's a cruel ceremonial mutilation carried out by nut-jobs, but perhaps not barbaric.

Daftendirekt

While I think having kids circumcised for non-medical reasons is abhorrent, I hate seeing it compared to FGM. The two really aren't comparable. FGM would be more akin to amputating the entire penis.

If there really are health benefits to circumcision, then the child should be allowed to make up his own mind whether or not he wants to have it done once he's old enough to give informed consent.

joolsveer

I was circumcised as a child in 1953. I am Irish and not jewish or muslim. I have no idea why it was done. I have a daughter but no sons so I don't know if I would have had a son circumcised or what are the reasons for having it done. I don't think of it as barbaric though.

ejmaztec

Potatoeman wrote: »

That's sexist, both reduce sexual pleasure although female circumcision is more extreme, male circumcision still reduces sensitivity.

No it's not, it all depends on how squeamish you are as to how you would use the word "barbarism". The fact that female circumcision is more extreme and completely unnecessary makes it barbaric in my opinion. I don't think that male circumcision is barbaric, whereas female circumcision clearly is, not that I support any unnecessary surgery for reasons of religion, because I consider that to be feckin stupid.

Pottler

Circumcision is for kn0b-ends, IMO. People should never flute around with what God gave you, this is just the tip of a much larger issue.

kowloon

Ghost Buster wrote: »

In some circles the rabbi actually sucks the bleeding severed knob end which is messed up.
Remove the religious aspect and see how society would react to a religious leader sucking a babys willie.

If I remember correctly this is extremely rare and not something practiced by normal a normal Rabbi.

JuliusCaesar

seamus wrote: »

This is at best disingenuous.

......For healthy penises, circumcision provides zero medical benefit or prevention and is an unnecessary removal of a human erogenous zone, i.e. mutilation.

As has been pointed out, we don't whip out children's tonsils or appendixes, so the medical argument in any case is complete nonsense, it's a cynical attempt to retrospectively justify religious mutilation. It's no better than FGM.

I agree with all above.

however,

a disorder of the foreskin such as priapism (tight foreskin)

I think you must be confusing priapism with phimosis.

joolsveer wrote: »

I was circumcised as a child in 1953. I am Irish and not jewish or muslim. I have no idea why it was done. I have a daughter but no sons so I don't know if I would have had a son circumcised or what are the reasons for having it done. I don't think of it as barbaric though.

It was thought to be hygenic in the past and was routinely done. If you think of it, 'hygenic' means instead of washing it!

I think if more people saw the pain a baby goes through after circumcision - don't forget these are babies, who are incontinent - and so every time they pee, they are hurting the wound. A acquaintance had her baby 'done' and the poor wee thing cried for days and days. So, yes, I'd call it barbaric.

And FGC is misnamed - it's not a circumcision at all, it's nothing like circumcision, it is nothing but mutilation: there are 3 types - removal of the clitoris together with the hood; removal of clitoris and inner labia; removal of the clitoris, inner labia, and outer labia. So the equivalent would be amputation of the penis, or amputation of the penis and testicles.

Madam_X

Potatoeman wrote: »

That's sexist, both reduce sexual pleasure although female circumcision is more extreme, male circumcision still reduces sensitivity.

How on earth is it sexist? FGM *is* worse - you even say yourself it's more extreme. It involves slicing off the clitoris and sewing up the vagina save for a tiny opening - this leads to agony added to menstruation and even mere urination. It has no purpose other than to subjugate the woman and heighten the man's pleasure when having sex with her. I shudder to think about birth. :-/
It's often carried out with crude, dirty, rusty implements also.

FGM isn't considered worse because it's endured by women or to take a pot-shot at men - it's simply worse. But that doesn't take away from the fact that circumcision of a baby boy is utterly horrible too.

Pottler

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

I agree with all above.

however, I think you must be confusing priapism with phimosis.

It was thought to be hygenic in the past and was routinely done. If you think of it, 'hygenic' means instead of washing it!

I think if more people saw the pain a baby goes through after circumcision - don't forget these are babies, who are incontinent - and so every time they pee, they are hurting the wound. A acquaintance had her baby 'done' and the poor wee thing cried for days and days. So, yes, I'd call it barbaric.

And FGC is misnamed - it's not a circumcision at all, it's nothing like circumcision, it is nothing but mutilation: there are 3 types - removal of the clitoris together with the hood; removal of clitoris and inner labia; removal of the clitoris, inner labia, and outer labia. So the equivalent would be amputation of the penis, or amputation of the penis and testicles.

^That's what I wanted to say, but it came out as a kn0b joke instead.

Matt_Trakker

Odysseus wrote: »

to say itb isw messed up tells me nothing of why you think this act is inapporpriate, which is why I ask the question, what do you mean when you say messed up?

are you seriously trolling me or what?
Like, ya can't be, you're supposed to me a Mod.

But OK, for the benefit of doubt......here's why I think it's messed up, even though I've already explained.

An authoritative member of a religion cuts a piece of skin off a boy's penis, if blood is drawn from the 'operation' he bends over and puts his lips to the boy's penis and sucks away the blood.

I don't think there's anything sexual about it for the rabbi or anything but I do think it's disgusting.

Recently a kid died coz a rabbi kissed his dick during this ritual and the rabbi spread his STI to the kid
Check this out:

The practice, which involves a rabbi literally sucking the blood from the circumcised boy's "wound" with his mouth after the circumcision has been performed, has long been considered by many, including those in the public health sector, as extremely high risk -- some even attribute it to child abuse. And in this particular case, the boy, who is not the first to have died during a metzitzah b'peh ritual, contracted oral herpes from an unidentified, infected rabbi.

from here

also more here

That's why I think it's messed up, f*cked up, wrong, nonsense, brutal, unnecessary, disturbing..... *add more synomyms.

blatantrereg

seamus wrote: »

This is at best disingenuous.

Circumcision decreases the risk of cancer and STIs for individuals who already have a disorder of the foreskin such as priapism (tight foreskin). For healthy penises, circumcision provides zero medical benefit or prevention and is an unnecessary removal of a human erogenous zone, i.e. mutilation.

As has been pointed out, we don't whip out children's tonsils or appendixes, so the medical argument in any case is complete nonsense, it's a cynical attempt to retrospectively justify religious mutilation. It's no better than FGM.

It's not disingenuous. Not sure why you would suggest it was

Priapism isn't the condition where the foreskin becomes tightened. Priapism is when you have an erection that won't go away. But that is beside the point.

Circumcision does help prevent infections - including serious infections - in healthy penises as well as ones with some existing condition. If you check your facts you'll find that the statistics demonstrate this. It also makes sense intuitively: Things dont usually go into the male uretha, and it is a pretty small opening compared to a vagina. However the foreskin provides a warm damp environment for a disease or fungus to grow - that simply isn't present in the area without it.

It's not a clear cut issue. You could just as easily say it's unethical not to circumcise people because it would reduce the spread of disease - particularly HIV. Most boys born in the USA are circumcised. This is purely for health reasons, and nothing to do with religion in most instances.

One way or another, it's silly and hysterical to compare it to ritual killings or to apartheid in South Africa.

A better example for the topic this thread puts forward would be the cruelty involved in ritualistic animal slaughter in both Judaism and Islam. While that is tolerated, it is certainly widely frowned upon. This is in line with society's general attitudes to cruelty to livestock - and illustrated the point I made that the level of aacceptance of religious practices is pretty much in line with teh level of acceptance of the
practices abstracted from religious context. However I would think this specific instance might suggest another factor...

The other factor is the level to which a religion is accepted. People are often critical of the muslim form of animal slaughter, but you dont hear many people talk about the Jewish form of it, even though they are pretty much the same as far as the animal is concerned. So perhaps a second factor is the level of acceptance for the religion. [The more a religion is accepted, the more its practices are too, and vice-versa).

Chuck Stone

So not being allowed to mutilate (let's call it what it is) the genitals of a baby is an attack on religious freedom?

What a twisted, ****ed up excuse to continue a barbaric practice.

blatantrereg wrote: »

Circumcision does help prevent infections - including serious infections - in healthy penises as well as ones with some existing condition.

This is such a ridiculous defence of a barbaric practice. Circumcision kills babies (100+ per year in the US) and goodness knows how many around the world with approximately 1 billion people who adhere to this archaic violence against babies.

Circumcision is elective by proxy (if there can be such a thing) and thus is completely unnecessary.

Pottler

If a priest wandered up and said "I want to cut off the end of your kids mickey and then suck it-for religious reasons" what answer would you give him? I know what mine would be.

Chuck Stone

Pottler wrote: »

If a priest wandered up and said "I want to cut off the end of your kids mickey and then suck it-for religious reasons" what answer would you give him? I know what mine would be.

My answer would be in Morse Code with my fists.

Pottler

Chuck Stone wrote: »

My answer would be in Morse Code with my fists.

Oh vey!:D

Odysseus

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

are you seriously trolling me or what?
Like, ya can't be, you're supposed to me a Mod.

But OK, for the benefit of doubt......here's why I think it's messed up, even though I've already explained.

An authoritative member of a religion cuts a piece of skin off a boy's penis, if blood is drawn from the 'operation' he bends over and puts his lips to the boy's penis and sucks away the blood.

I don't think there's anything sexual about it for the rabbi or anything but I do think it's disgusting.

Recently a kid died coz a rabbi kissed his dick during this ritual and the rabbi spread his STI to the kid
Check this out:

from here

also more here

That's why I think it's messed up, f*cked up, wrong, nonsense, brutal, unnecessary, disturbing..... *add more synomyms.

Cheers, see now I can see what your saying, messed up is such a ambigious signifer that I could not really see what your objections were. I could stand over the comment in one of those links equating it with child abuse, though, that is really pushing the boat out.

The point is I was trying to see if it was the cutting itself you seen as messed up or the sucking of the blood/penis and why you seen it thay way. Going by your links it's about the latter which you percieve as disguisting. I wouldn't see it that way myself, but each to their own.

pablomakaveli

I think circumcision on children for non-medical reasons should be banned. If they want to adhere to their parents religion when they are adults then let them make the decision then when they are able to decide that is what they want.

The only reason circumcision became popular, particularly in america where its widespread, is that in the earlier 20th century it was (mistakenly) seen as a good way to prevent masturbation. Unfortunately this ridiculous practice has stuck.

As for the religions that require it, well religion isnt a reason to justify mutilating a babys penis.

fedor.2.

Odysseus wrote: »

Cheers, see now I can see what your saying, messed up is such a ambigious signifer that I could not really see what your objections were. I could stand over the comment in one of those links equating it with child abuse, though, that is really pushing the boat out.

The point is I was trying to see if it was the cutting itself you seen as messed up or the sucking of the blood/penis and why you seen it thay way. Going by your links it's about the latter which you percieve as disguisting. I wouldn't see it that way myself, but each to their own.

What a strange person. You may be thinking about this way too much.

Sulla Felix

Odysseus wrote: »

Serious answer NO.

It's certainly unusal, and as I said something that is well... not my cup of tea.
However, I think it is fair to say that the is nonthing overtly sexual about it, in that the rabbi is engaging in this act as a religous/cultural act, not to get his jollies off.

I can see people having various objections, however, to say itb isw messed up tells me nothing of why you think this act is inapporpriate, which is why I ask the question, what do you mean when you say messed up?

There've been dozens of cases of children contracting Hepatitis from a Rabbi in NYC. Reason enough for it?

Matt_Trakker

Odysseus wrote: »

Going by your links it's about the latter which you percieve as disguisting. I wouldn't see it that way myself, but each to their own.

I think the whole idea of anything to do with circumcision is disgusting, wrong, brutal & unnecessary.
Each to their own indeed, but if some douchebag comes near my kid with a knife and tries to hack off part of his dick and then wants to suck the blood from the wound then that chaps gonna be getting a his knife in his eye.

seamus

blatantrereg wrote: »

Priapism isn't the condition where the foreskin becomes tightened. Priapism is when you have an erection that won't go away.

Indeed, I used Google to check the spelling, should have used it to check the condition. I did actually mean phimosis, d'oh.

Circumcision does help prevent infections - including serious infections - in healthy penises as well as ones with some existing condition. If you check your facts you'll find that the statistics demonstrate this.

I think if you check the facts, the statistics in fact don't demonstrate this.

It also makes sense intuitively: Things dont usually go into the male uretha, and it is a pretty small opening compared to a vagina.

"Intuition" is not a good reason tbh. Many things seem intuitively common sense but when you actually look at the reality, they don't.
Logically if you think about it, the foreskin still exists after a few hundred million years of mammalian evolution. Which means that at worst it has no effect on reproductive health. If it had a deliterious effect on reproductive health, it wouldn't exist, it would have been kicked out of the evolutionary line a long time ago.
So it's a little bit arrogant (though typical of humanity tbh) to think that we know better than evolution and whip things off just because we don't like them.

It's not a clear cut issue. You could just as easily say it's unethical not to circumcise people because it would reduce the spread of disease - particularly HIV.

Again, the statistics don't back this up. As you rightly point out, most boys born in the USA are circumcised, primarily for cultural reasons above anything else.
Yet HIV is far more prevalent in the USA than it is in the EU, where the vast majority of males are not circumcised.
Circumcision has at best no effect on the spread of HIV.

At any rate, even assuming that circumcision did have an effect on STI rates, that still doesn't justify removing them from children. An STI is an avoidable, preventable disease. Why is surgery and amputation preferable to education?

A number of studies have also shown that circumcision can in fact cause problems in bed:

In a landmark study of US women, 85% who had experienced both circumcised and intact men preferred sex with intact men. Sex with a circumcised man was associated with pain, dryness and difficulty reaching orgasm (O'Hara 1999). In another study, women were twice as likely to reach orgasm with an intact man (Bensley 2003). Even when a woman said she preferred a circumcised partner, she had less dryness and discomfort with intact men (O'Hara 1999).
...
Men who are circumcised are 60% more likely to have difficulty identifying and expressing their feelings, which can cause marital difficulties (Bollinger 2010). Circumcised men are 4.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with erectile dysfunction, use drugs like Viagra, and to suffer from premature ejaculation (Bollinger 2010, Tang 2011). Men who were circumcised as adults experienced decreased sensation and decreased quality of erection, and both they and their partners experienced generally less satisfaction with sex (Kim 2007, Solinis 2007).

In essence you are risking lumbering your son with mentally difficult dysfunction as an adult rather than take the simple steps of educating them properly in looking after their mickey.

But again, this is still all retrospective story re-writing. At some point a few thousand years ago, some desert-dweller heard voices in his head which told him to whip off foreskins. Since then people have been scrambling to invent scientific reasons for maintaining a practice which is completely unnecessary. There is no benefit, medically or socially, to circumcision. The statistics back this up completely.

The other factor is the level to which a religion is accepted. People are often critical of the muslim form of animal slaughter, but you dont hear many people talk about the Jewish form of it, even though they are pretty much the same as far as the animal is concerned. So perhaps a second factor is the level of acceptance for the religion. [The more a religion is accepted, the more its practices are too, and vice-versa).

While that's a fair point, I think the "acceptance" of Jewish slaughter practices is more etymological than anything else. That is, the word "kosher" in everyday language is a synoym for "OK", "acceptable", "above board". It has a positive sentiment. So for people who do not know what "kosher" methods involve, the assumption is naturally that if it's "kosher" then it must be humane and good. "Halal" doesn't have any alternate use, so nobody has any assumptions about it.

Odysseus

fedor.2. wrote: »

What a strange person. You may be thinking about this way too much.

Interesting response, but yeah, anything that provokes a strong reaction in people like this I find interesting. But then again, I'm not in my consulting room, but my training makes me interested intrested in these type of reactions.

Odysseus

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I think the whole idea of anything to do with circumcision is disgusting, wrong, brutal & unnecessary.
Each to their own indeed, but if some douchebag comes near my kid with a knife and tries to hack off part of his dick and then wants to suck the blood from the wound then that chaps gonna be getting a his knife in his eye.

But parental consent hasn't been an issuse here is it? All of these cases have consent from all the parent; I imagine any parent would feel the same if this was done without their consent.

blatantrereg

seamus wrote: »

I think if you check the facts, the statistics in fact don't demonstrate this.
"Intuition" is not a good reason tbh. Many things seem intuitively common sense but when you actually look at the reality, they don't.

Reduces risk of acquiring HIV significantly (and recommends it is done as a matter of course in high risk zones):

http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2807%2960312-2/abstract

Reduces risk of UTI:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720543/pdf/v090p00853.pdf

Significantly reduces risk of HSV-2 HPV and HIV infections:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19321868

I could continue; there are thousands of papers on the subject

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=prevention+of+infection+circumcision&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=hNV6UNT0IMWwhAf_9oHADA&ved=0CBsQgQMwAA

Logically if you think about it, the foreskin still exists after a few hundred million years of mammalian evolution. Which means that at worst it has no effect on reproductive health. If it had a deliterious effect on reproductive health, it wouldn't exist, it would have been kicked out of the evolutionary line a long time ago.
So it's a little bit arrogant (though typical of humanity tbh) to think that we know better than evolution and whip things off just because we don't like them.

But the practice of circumcision has evolved independently in societies across the world. That suggests that societies that practice it have some advantage over those that do not.

Again, the statistics don't back this up. As you rightly point out, most boys born in the USA are circumcised, primarily for cultural reasons above anything else.
Yet HIV is far more prevalent in the USA than it is in the EU, where the vast majority of males are not circumcised.
Circumcision has at best no effect on the spread of HIV.

It very clearly does have an effect on reducing the spread of HIV, as the links I've already provided indicate. Obviously it is not the only factor involved; saying that it has no effect because there are more infections in the USA than the EU is simplistic to the point of silliness.

At any rate, even assuming that circumcision did have an effect on STI rates, that still doesn't justify removing them from children. An STI is an avoidable, preventable disease. Why is surgery and amputation preferable to education?

Personally I agree. I never said it was preferable to education though. I just pointed out that it has advantages and that it's nonsense to compare it to ritual killing or aparthied and so on.

A number of studies have also shown that circumcision can in fact cause problems in bed:
In essence you are risking lumbering your son with mentally difficult dysfunction as an adult rather than take the simple steps of educating them properly in looking after their mickey.

But again, this is still all retrospective story re-writing. At some point a few thousand years ago, some desert-dweller heard voices in his head which told him to whip off foreskins. Since then people have been scrambling to invent scientific reasons for maintaining a practice which is completely unnecessary. There is no benefit, medically or socially, to circumcision. The statistics back this up completely.

There are very significant medical benefits to it. You are confusing correlation with proof of cause in your interpretation of statistics. If you take a moment to consult the huge body of research on the subject you'll see that right away.

JuliusCaesar

blatantrereg wrote: »

Reduces risk of acquiring HIV significantly (and recommends it is done as a matter of course in high risk zones)....There are very significant medical benefits to it. You are confusing correlation with proof of cause in your interpretation of statistics. If you take a moment to consult the huge body of research on the subject you'll see that right away.

BUT a critique of the meta-analysis points out that

The results from this re-analysis thus support the contention that male circumcision may offer protection against HIV infection, particularly in high-risk groups where genital ulcers and other STDs 'drive' the HIV epidemic........

(my bolding)

In any case, the controversy is about encouraging circumcision in Sub-Saharan Africa to try to impact on AIDS; there's not a hint of a suggestion that it is such an advantage that it should be commonly practiced in Europe or the Western world.

blatantrereg wrote: »

But the practice of circumcision has evolved independently in societies across the world. That suggests that societies that practice it have some advantage over those that do not.

Advantage? Or maybe it was used as a mark of identity, eg the Jews.

the Jews of the time, circumcision wasn't as much a spiritual act as it was physical: it was an outward sign of their covenant with God,

regarding pre-history:

Remondino suggested that it began as a diminishment of full castration of a captured enemy: castration certainly would have been fatal, while some form of circumcision would permanently mark the defeated, yet leave him alive to serve as a slave.

Egyptians circumcision surely concerned purification, and was associated with those committed to spiritual and intellectual development

regarding Aboriginals and Polynesians

circumcision likely started as a blood sacrifice and a test of bravery

etc etc etc - all from Wikipedia if you'd like to look there. IMO, tattooing would be preferable.