Hilarious

[gary_s]

I just came across this story and thought it might generate some interesting conversation:

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) –

Jewish groups and others are up at arms over an attempt to outlaw male circumcision in San Francisco by putting the issue to a popular vote.

Self-described "intactivist" Lloyd Schofield has been collecting signatures for a voter initiative that would criminalize infant circumcision in the Californian city.

All I can say is Wow. Never saw that coming.

[JustJim]

Is the surgical alteration of female genitalia at the behest of her parents illegal? If not, it should be. So should circumcision. People shouldn't have the legal right to mutilate their children's sexual organs for their own religious reasons. When people reach the legal age of consent, they can decide for themselves if they want to be butchered or not.

Just my humble opinion on that....

Jim

[gary_s]

Well, I don't think it's fair to compare the two procedures that directly. The female version renders the girl incapable of orgasm. The male version doesn't. I don't know if it actually alters the sexual performance or pleasure. There seems to be some controversy in that.

[Pseudonym]

Well, I don't think it's fair to compare the two procedures that directly. The female version renders the girl incapable of orgasm. The male version doesn't.

There is no single "female version", but I get your point. Having said that, I do think that if every culture that practiced female circumcision practiced a version that was as unobtrusive as the male version (e.g. "hoodectomy" or the so called "ritual prick"), then we probably wouldn't be having this debate.

[gary_s]

There is no single "female version", but I get your point. Having said that, I do think that if every culture that practiced female circumcision practiced a version that was as unobtrusive as the male version (e.g. "hoodectomy" or the so called "ritual prick"), then we probably wouldn't be having this debate.

So, there's more than one type of female circumcision? I didn't know that. But I agree that if all female circumcisions were as inconsequential as the male circumcision, then that probably wouldn't be very controversial. However, the point of the article was the potential banning of male circumcision in San Francisco. So, based on that, it appears that there are quite a few people who consider male circumcision to be just as inappropriate as female circumcision. This would be an enormous step for many people in the U.S. if this were to spread to other states. It could be interesting if it does. I can honestly say that in this particular debate, I am totally uncommitted. I can see both sides very well. It's a procedure that millions of people find traditional and/or religious significance in, and it appears to have no detrimental affect on the males (that I know of). Yet it does also appear to be of no particular point, physically, and I can see how some would consider it barbaric. I'm certainly thankful that I have no memory of this procedure myself. However, I had a childhood friend who had the procedure when he was about 12 and it didn't seem to have any harmful affect on him either.

[Pseudonym]

So, there's more than one type of female circumcision? I didn't know that.

The WHO defines the following types of female genital cutting:

Type Ia: Removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only.
Type Ib: Removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.

Type IIa: Removal of the labia minora only.
Type IIb: Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora.
Type IIc: Partial or total removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora.

Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris.

Type IV: All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

Type III is the most commonly-practised version in Africa, but the others are more prevalent elsewhere. Type IIa is the closest equivalent to male circumcision, and some forms of Type IV (e.g. the "ritual prick" as seen in Indonesia) are, though still unnecessary and not risk-free, far less invasive than the male form.

However, the point of the article was the potential banning of male circumcision in San Francisco. So, based on that, it appears that there are quite a few people who consider male circumcision to be just as inappropriate as female circumcision.

Yes. Of course, unlike female circumcision, male circumcision actually does have an actual religious edict in its favour, so there are First Amendment issues to consider. Of course, if you're not Jewish or Muslim (i.e. most people in the US), then you don't even have that to hide behind.

[gary_s]

OK, so another aspect of this issue is the reality of botched circumcisions. A small percentage go wrong, I read between 1.5% and 15%, depending on where you get your numbers. In this case, a mistake can have disastrous consequences ranging from infection to penile amputation to death. In lieu of the probabilities of such events, it seems such a procedure makes less sense given that there is no medical need for it.

[JustJim]

I have a very vague partial and foggy memory of my circumcision, performed by a Dr. Greenburg when I was an infant. I don't remember the actual procedure (hallelujah!), but I remember the ceiling, the lights, the sounds and the people all around. My astonished mother confirmed it all for me as an adult, when I told her about the memory, including that the doctor who did the circumcision was named Greenburg, and that that was the only time I ever saw him or that he saw me. The event was somehow recorded somewhere in the recesses of my memory. That was 64+ years ago, and I don't know the details of how it was all done back then, but my mother said it was done for free -- except that Dr. Greenburg got a big tip...

Anyhow, I recall reading about how removal of the foreskin significantly reduces sensation in the head of the penis over time, as it becomes desensitized to touch from repeated rubbing against clothing et al. I can't imagine having even more sensitivity... I wouldn't ever have been able to get anything done! I would have been so constantly distracted from all else.... <<sigh>>

Jim

[Brad]

Not to hijack the thread, but a related subject area to consider, especially if you wish to think about First Amendment issues is that of a practice among Orthodox Jews called metzitzah b'peh. You can learn about this in this article or several other related NY Times articles, for example, or through a search.

I'd add that the NYC public health department expended considerable time and effort dealing with the "b'peh" matter after several baby boys were seriously sickened and one died soon after the practice was performed on them by one particular mohel. Yet note the response of the rabbi in the linked article. "We will not compromise on performing the ritual the way it has been done for thousands of years," Rabbi Niederman said yesterday.

In the general area of unfortunate and should-have-been unnecessary expenditures of public resources and everyone's tax money, that business reminds me of, say, the huge public resources used to take the case of the Westboro Church protesters all the way to the Supreme Court. Even that, of course, is a drop in the bucket compared to the resources expended around the world to bring the Catholic hierarchy and even a smattering of child-molesting priests to justice or even to stop them from being moved around to places where they can abuse even more children. And then there are the many billions of dollars spent in the last decade to fortify the security of nations (or just in airlines alone) against people who believe that a god named Allah will welcome them in his heaven if they blow themselves up while among infidels.
Bottom line being that if more people were trained to be critical thinkers and far fewer were credulous believers in deities and in "the way it has been done for thousands of years," a whole lot of time and energy and money would be available for far more productive use, would it not?

Back to the circumcision issue, another question might be whether the practice would exist at all, in modern times if not in ancient times, but for the belief that an invisible god has a very strong preference for altered foreskins.
For the record, I don't presume to know the answer to that, I'm just curious.
While there are apparently some potential health benefits to circumcision, especially for those men who aren't too hygienically fastidious, if those benefits were of any magnitude those cultures in which circumcision has never been practiced would have either changed their ways by now or had a lot more problems with their "packages," no?

[gary_s]

I have a very vague partial and foggy memory of my circumcision, performed by a Dr. Greenburg when I was an infant. I don't remember the actual procedure (hallelujah!), but I remember the ceiling, the lights, the sounds and the people all around. My astonished mother confirmed it all for me as an adult, when I told her about the memory, including that the doctor who did the circumcision was named Greenburg, and that that was the only time I ever saw him or that he saw me. The event was somehow recorded somewhere in the recesses of my memory.

Jim, I'm sorry, but I have to say that I'm highly skeptical of your claim to remember this event if it actually occurred when you were an infant. Just how old were you? If you were less than a few months old, then I doubt what you are saying can be true. Infants ability to see is quite inferior in the first 3 months. Babies are born with extreme near-sightedness and can't even focus on objects more than a few inches away from their face. They can hear, of course, but they have absolutely no understanding of language, so there's just no way a name could be remembered if spoken to you in the first few weeks of life. Additionally, I just read a website noting that the Hippocampus, the region of the brain responsible for recall, is only about 40% developed in newborns and doesn't reach maturity until 18 months, making memory a legitimate problem for infants. Now, if you were more like 6 months old or older, then I suppose this could be possible, though still highly unlikely.

Anyhow, I recall reading about how removal of the foreskin significantly reduces sensation in the head of the penis over time, as it becomes desensitized to touch from repeated rubbing against clothing et al.

I've heard of this as well, but I don't know if it is backed up by any evidence. I tend to doubt it. The most common way that skin is desensitized is by the development of calluses, and I have never heard of a getting a callus on your penis. Maybe if you used it to play guitar?

[Brad]

The most common way that skin is desensitized is by the development of calluses, and I have never heard of a getting a callus on your penis. Maybe if you used it to play guitar?

Wait, isn't that the way Pete Townshend...


OK, nevermind.

[Pseudonym]

Back to the circumcision issue, another question might be whether the practice would exist at all, in modern times if not in ancient times, but for the belief that an invisible god has a very strong preference for altered foreskins.

If you look at the history of how circumcision came to the modern world, the answer is "almost certainly".

The practice is found in many cultures from all places, and was probably ubiquitous in the ancient European world prior to Greek civilisation, probably for reasons related to hygiene. Not circumcising might have been an innovation of the Greeks because they worshipped the perfection of the human form, and wished to distinguish their civilisation from the barbarians around them.

Circumcision was essentially not practiced in the English-speaking world (unless you were Jewish, obviously) until the 19th century. Its re-introduction came at the same time as medicine was starting to become ubiquitous, in the sense that just about everything was considered to be a medical problem and thus have a medical solution. It was this time in history, for example, when doctors started presiding over childbirth, which was previously considered women's business, and women were treated for "hysteria".

Circumcision was essentially re-introduced because it was believed to be a treatment for masturbation, and later gathered other post hoc rationalisations, such as hygeine. Eventually, the influence of evolutionary theory in medicine led rise to the idea that the foreskin was probably vestigal.

So actually, the prevalence of circumcision in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century English-speaking world is arguably due to over-eager medicine, not religion.

But, of course, you may as well ask this question of any type of cultural body modification, including ear piercing and armpit shaving.

While there are apparently some potential health benefits to circumcision, [...]

I have to wonder about correlation and causation here. Circumcision is, obviously, a practice which is seen more in Jews and Muslims. These are groups who may practice stricter sexual hygiene for cultural reasons, as a general rule.

[JustJim]

Jim, I'm sorry, but I have to say that I'm highly skeptical of your claim to remember this event if it actually occurred when you were an infant.

LOL!!! What can I say? That I don't remember what I remember because you don't think it's possible? LOL!!!

But don't forget, I don't remember it the same way I remember other things that occurred much later. Like I said, it's a very vague, foggy, partial memory of pictures and sounds. Maybe the way an infant remembers things without language and perfect hearing and vision? All I know is that I have the memory of it. Maybe it was just a dream.... Also, I don't know exactly how old I was, but it was probably right around six months or so, or maybe even later, according to my mother. I was born prematurely, and spent 5 weeks in an incubator. So they didn't get around to lopping off part of my penis until much later than usual.

Jim

[JustJim]

Circumcision was essentially re-introduced because it was believed to be a treatment for masturbation...

Let me be the first to say it didn't have that effect on me....

Jim

[hamax]

LOL!!! What can I say? That I don't remember what I remember because you don't think it's possible? LOL!!!

It's possible and probable that you remember your mother or someone else talking about it and not the circumcision itself.