Gentiles can do what they want with their penises. I wouldn’t suggest circumcision to them. However, it is a cultural imperative to circumcise Jewish boys at 8 days. It doesn’t have to be rational, medical, or ethical. It’s just what Jews do. Mind your own penis, Hanania.
I don't think it is a cultural imperative. My wife attended a bris and said it was horrible and that the baby's mother cried. My wife's mother told her she had cried at her own son's bris. My wife decided then and there that if she ever bore a male child he would not be circumcised, cultural imperatives be damned. She hasn't had any male children yet, but her attitude has not led to any disapproval among the local Jewish community. I think it's understood that it is her decision.
So, 99% of Jews circumcise their sons but it’s not a cultural imperative because 1% don’t?
No doubt, circumcision is an emotional experience for the parents. Often the parents cry. Some people refuse to deal with powerful emotions and avoid those circumstances. For instance, some people want their child to join the armed services. They take pride in their child going to war and fighting for their country. Me, I’d do what I could to keep my kids from doing that because I want to avoid the increased possibility of my child getting hurt or killed. I don’t ever want to have to mourn my kids. That’s me, but some societies behave differently and that’s none of my business. I’m actually more likely to be impacted by a society that values sacrificing their young for national glory than any gentile is impacted by Jewish circumcision. It’s just bizarre to me that anyone cares so much about what Jews do to the degree that they pass judgement on issues that have no possible impact on non-Jews.
Non-X can do what they want with their Y. I wouldn’t suggest Y' to them. However, it is a cultural imperative to Y' X boys at 8 days. It doesn’t have to be rational, medical, or ethical. It’s just what X do. Mind your own Y, Hanania.
I don't think Richard supports BANNING circumcision. In fact, I think he probably has Singer-ist views on infanticide. I am pretty sure he has the libertarian view here.
No longer necessary, as it probably developed as a prophylactic practice against the possibility of infection. There's a reason why mammals (incl. humans) lick their wounds - doing so produces nitric acid when saliva is exposed to air, creating a small anti-bacterial effect. The sucking remains as part of the tradition, but the purpose could be better served with easily-acquired, over-the-counter anti-bacterial ointments.
Normal oral flora is benign. In many primitive societies, mothers chew food for their babies before transferring it to them mouth-to-mouth, resulting in no harm. How many people do you know who infected one of their own cuts/wounds by licking it? Have you never licked a paper cut? Did you infect it?
I’m not sure why that makes a difference, either way. A people believe that their deity commands them to certain rituals. Those rituals don’t impact other people. Why should those others care aside from some sort of cultural imperialism?
As a circumcised man who has had a very satisfactory life, I agree that circumcision is a bad idea and parents should stop doing it to their infants, but I am not going to hyperventilate about it. A slow trend away seems like the right response. Calling it "barbaric" and comparing it to FGM strikes me as just trolling, not truth seeking. My understanding is that FGM ranges from a symbolic cut, which is comparable to circumcision, to far more extreme practices, which definitely are not.
I think that if circumcision was practiced only by some obscure tribe in the Amazon somewhere, and never by anyone in the developed world, and someone told me about the practice--I'd think of it as a barbaric practice, as in, it's literally something that I can only imagine Stone Age tribesmen doing, and if someone suggested that we as modern Americans practice it en masse, I'd be stupefied.
So yes, I think it's quite fair to call it "barbaric." It only doesn't seem as such because we have pre-existing cultural biases about it carried over from the past.
Young infant boys die as a result of circumcision. Estimates range from 200-400 each year in the US alone.
18 unarmed black men are shot by police every year, which gets a movement and months-long rioting. Over 200 boys die every year as a result of an unnecessary cosmetic surgery without their permission, and it's called "hyperventilating"? Seriously?
I lived it, but I'm biased? And the guy claiming it's barbaric has never experienced it, but is somehow unbiased? Let me guess. Anyone who doesn't agree with your position is "biased" LOL
The "lol" is often a tell for cognitive dissonance. To pretend that you're asking your question in good faith for the benefit of anyone else reading this, yes that's exactly how bias works. Some call it the 'sunk cost fallacy' but I try to avoid overusing the word 'fallacy'. In the same way that a boy whose mom encouraged him to wear dresses as a child has the option of growing up to insist that was good for him, or a boy who got head injuries playing football to get his dad's approval (just to pick two opposite examples) has the option of claiming it was important in building character, so too a man who has been circumsized has the option of pretending it's a good thing (and passing it on). That's exactly what bias means.
Now, many other circumsized men hate it, say it caused them lifelong problems, and swear they'll never do it to their sons. What percentage of men would need to fall into that category for circumcision to be a bad idea? 90%? 50%? 10%? I'm glad for you and your son that you're in the class of people who haven't noticed any big problems -- your anecdote is noted.
Circumcised, likely the day I was born. Never asked. Never really cared. It could be argued I either don't know what I'm missing, or don't know how good I have it. I have yet to read anything with concrete facts either way. I do wonder how it came to be a thing in the first place. This article answered no questions that's for sure.
Apropos dresses: historically it used to be common for both little boys and girls to wear dresses until the age of breeching, when the boys were first put into breeches.
"In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis."
That seems like kind of a big deal. Now you might object "that should be discussed between a man and his partner, the decision should not be made for them by the man's parents" but realistically only an infinitesimal fraction of men regret having been circumcised, and only an infinitesimal fraction of men would get circumcised as adults if their partners asked them to do so. Getting rid of infant circumcision seems like a major loss in welfare for no gain in welfare.
"We should perform cosmetic surgery on the genitals of babies because women like the way it looks."
I wonder if men had a certain preference regarding vaginal structure, would we consider it reasonable to start cutting up the labia of newborns in order to achieve it for them? Hmm.
FGM as I understand it is usually *far* more drastic than altering the labia, but actually involves removing the clitoris, thus depriving the woman of the ability to ever achieve orgasm later in life.
"In the overwhelming majority of studies, men expressed a preference for big breasts."
So, breast implants for infant girls then, right? Surely science can develop implants that expand over time. That'd solve this particular "problem," right?
Aside from this being a circular justification - if you stop circumcision, women will get over the fact it looks "different" - why do men's bodies get mutilated for the aesthetic preferences of women?
The only reason they have so little regret is what on Earth can they do? They've been violated already, it's already too late, and they have no control over it. Plus, society doesn't care and whines about FGM and then pops out stupid studies about what women think. Your argument is, people handwave it, so we should handwave it.
That's a clever argument that I have never seen before, not sure if the underlying facts are right, but if they are there would be a strong consequentialist argument, although note that most people aren't strict consequentialists.
FGM is performed to prevent sexual pleasure and women's vaginas are additionally sewn up (often more than once) to obstruct penetration. The procedure results in urinary incontinence - many women are house bound because of it - and prevents the evacuation of menstrual blood which leads to serious uterine infections, so I don't think it is reasonable to compare the practice to male circumcision.
Type I includes the mutilation of the woman's clitoris, so consider the 100 million population of Egypt - that includes a lot of women who are most likely traumatised, urinary incontinent and sexless.
Egyptian State Government says:
"The most common forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female genital cutting (FGC) still widely practiced throughout Egypt are Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy) and Type II (commonly referred to as excision). These practices are widespread".
People generally don’t understand how foreskin works. So, they think that it’s inherently unhygienic. But, like, it’s retractable. You pull it back, exposing the whole of the glans and the interior skin, and rinse those structures. Of course, if you never clean it, it stinks, just like your armpits or you ass hole would.
Intact men are often confused on this point. So, intact unfortunately gets a reputation as smelly, displeasing or unaesthetic. Some even have a condition where they fail to retract their foreskin for so long that it bonds to the surface of the glans. Frankly, that condition is pretty gross. But it is treatable! People are ignorant though and it’s hard to tell someone, “fix your dick.”
For sexual pleasure, my understanding is that an intact foreskin is a bigger deal for oral, anal or manual sex. Basically, vaginas have labias and other structures that (sort of) make up for the lack of foreskin on a circumcised penis. So, women who only have vaginal sex might not be aware of the difference.
Also, a tight circumcision is so much worse. Like, it’s horrible for a guy to have so little skin that, when he’s erect, his penis looks like it’s about to tear open. There’s just not a lot of give to it, it’s more like a rock when erect. Once, I met a guys whose remaining skin had torn, and his penis was deformed because of it. But most circumcised guys fortunately have enough skin left to be OK.
Lastly, women generally don’t have enough sex partners to know what makes a good penis. (Gays know.) Penises are all different, like faces, so you need a pretty big sample to conclude whether intact or circumscized is better, especially given all the other ways penises vary.
"For sexual pleasure, my understanding is that an intact foreskin is a bigger deal for oral, anal or manual sex. Basically, vaginas have labias and other structures that (sort of) make up for the lack of foreskin on a circumcised penis. So, women who only have vaginal sex might not be aware of the difference."
This is actually highly relevant. The anti-circ movement started off as a subset of gay culture for this reason. It grew by finding chronically miserable people with messed up lives - never in short supply in that community - and convincing them it was because of being circumcised and turning them in dedicated activists. The truth is that the gays actually should be happy they were circumcised, assuming you rate not dying of AIDs higher than sexual pleasure, but time preferences is what it is.
That said, I think it's inevitable that circumcision will eventually banned with religious exceptions that, too, will be gradually chipped away at. For normal people in countries with decent hygiene any health benefits are marginal, and probably negative. It clearly contradicts basic liberal ideas, and the truth is it probably hurts a lot. This is one reason why I'm a bit more happy about Israel existing than I might be.
I was circumcised as an adult, so I am a much better source on this than someone circumcised as a baby because I have a control. It didn't reduce my sensation and I am happy with it. A recent meta analysis finds a lot of the anti-circumcision claims are questionable: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jebm.12361
The most damning statistic of circumcision discourse is that the dad’s penis status is one of the most, or the most, predictive variables for the son. Normal health decisions don’t work that way, though they’ll always claim it’s a health decision.
Not being Jewish or Muslim myself, I don’t particularly care either way for those populations. We do lots of strange traditions for cultural reasons. But specifically the white Christian populations of the US have been fooled into thinking it’s a cultural, even religious, rite when it’s demonstrably not. The Puritan background of the country continues to have weird side effects.
Why do you exclude the Puritan background of the country from contributing to a 'cultural, even religious, rite'? The Puritan background is a big part of the American cultural and religious make-up. Just like baseball or gridiron football, or a widespread obsession with pretending that Britain was ruled by a tyrant instead of being one of the most liberal places (in the old sense of the word) on the planet.
Unconsented circumcision is bad, absolutely. But let's not pretend it's not pretend it's not part of US culture.
Just like eating cereal for breakfast is part of US culture. Their granddaddy, cornflakes, were also initially promoted as curbing masturbation.
Because cultural reasons that go back millennia (Jews, Muslims) are more legitimate than “cultural reasons” that started just centuries against and aren’t even described that way, but rather as half-assed health concerns, that started and continue to endure because of bullshit science.
Yes, we have a culture of failing to understand science and logic. That’s a weird cultural tradition to uphold.
I was told it was much cleaner when my boys were young because the flap can carry bacteria like yeast. I guess I shouldn't have an opinion on this as a woman, but I'm pro-circumcision, just for aesthetics, which I've been told is no better than fat shaming, so theres that.
As a woman, I have no skin in the game (hah) but I'm in full agreement, and I don't think religion is a good enough justification to remove the foreskin of a boy not even old enough to see all the colors yet, let alone consent to such a procedure. Nothing is, other than a legitimate medical need.
Well, a weak post - not one actual reason against circumcision. A circumcised German boomer here. At that time maybe because our doctors copied the US. I was too small to remember. My younger brothers stayed un-cut. One of them had a bad case of phimosis later when 10 and hated the experience. My son, I paid to have him cut as a baby, zero trouble then. The later you do it the worse it gets. And treating phimosis in alternative ways - oh I wish you lots of fun working with your son's penis or checking his compliance. - That said, an early circumcision is about as "big an issue" as putting a hole in your kids earlobe. No downside, really. - The ups: 1. no risk for a later treatment that might get traumatic 2. More sex, because a) girls like them clean (and how you know, if he is not cut) AND b) we last longer! My wife's best friend still is very, very sensitive, if I would feel even more ... nope, not a good thing. In modern times, the one-eyed snakes is resting all day safe in soft cotton - not hanging out in the fresh air. Check a mimosa pudica growing in the living room and another in the garden: VERY different sensitivities. The best theory (by a Jewish surgeon) I read: tribes-women noticed that the guys who had it cut (for some reason, phimose or accident) 'worked' better when grown-up. And then they urged to do it with all the boys. - As for masturbating, mating-desire et al: I doubt there is any difference. The biggest sexual organ is the brain. I can only wonder as to why this mainstream hate of circumcision: some gays may prefer their partner to come sooner?
Apparently doctors started claiming it as some kind of miracle cure after World War II. Given the timing, I'm going to speculate that association with Jews influenced this. Jews came up with a bunch of self-serving justifications for the practice and everyone else nodded along.
Given where it arose (Middle East deserts), probably something about sand likely to get trapped over the foreskin in the premodern low-hygiene conditions.
Maybe, although the fact that in the same region there was a female analogue for presumably non hygiene related reasons would be evidence in favour of some other theory.
Not quite! FGM is originally an _African_ tradition, note absence of FGM in Jewish tradition and the fact that, although we associate FGM with Muslims, it is not actually mentioned in Quran. (And, vice versa, there seem to be African tribes that have FGM but not male circumcision.)
When you live in a desert tribe, you want to prevent your young men from running away to the ‘big city’ This culture practice prevented the men from joining other tribes by marking them for life.
God ordained circumcision for the Jews. As far as I (as a Christian) am aware, He has never rescinded that command for Jews, though it is in no way required of Christians (including Jewish converts to Christ).
Please bear in mind that the Lord Christ, incarnated as a Jewish male, as He was, was properly circumcised the eighth day. Respectfully, if it was good enough for the Son of God, then I believe terming circumcision "mutilating" to be inaccurate.
To add a bit of humor, please also keep in mind that -- in order to win Saul's daughter's hand in marriage -- David was required to bring the king "an hundred foreskins of the Philistines" (1 Sam 18:27). David did more than the minimum, and -- with help from his men -- was able to return to Saul with no less than two hundred foreskins of Philistines they had slain (1 Samuel 18:27). (Note: The Philistines obviously did not practice circumcision.) Please note: The Tanakh casts no aspersion on this entire transaction as being overly brutal, "gay", or "icky". It was simply a business transaction during a time when men were men.
Full disclosure: I was circumcised as an infant, as were most of my Gentile playmates, and it was truly a compete nonissue growing up.
This is super obviously correct and has no real counter-arguments, but I wonder if the reason no one can be made to care about it is the Jewish issue. After all, if we actually changed our cultural norms to where everyone accepted circumcision as a barbaric mutilation and thus a form of horrific child abuse (which is in fact what it is, in my opinion), well, what do we do about the Jews then? There is an actual Jewish Question there. And all those same Jewish billionaires who got very peeved at Harvard just the other day are going to have certain feelings about this as well.
Gentiles can do what they want with their penises. I wouldn’t suggest circumcision to them. However, it is a cultural imperative to circumcise Jewish boys at 8 days. It doesn’t have to be rational, medical, or ethical. It’s just what Jews do. Mind your own penis, Hanania.
I don't think it is a cultural imperative. My wife attended a bris and said it was horrible and that the baby's mother cried. My wife's mother told her she had cried at her own son's bris. My wife decided then and there that if she ever bore a male child he would not be circumcised, cultural imperatives be damned. She hasn't had any male children yet, but her attitude has not led to any disapproval among the local Jewish community. I think it's understood that it is her decision.
So, 99% of Jews circumcise their sons but it’s not a cultural imperative because 1% don’t?
No doubt, circumcision is an emotional experience for the parents. Often the parents cry. Some people refuse to deal with powerful emotions and avoid those circumstances. For instance, some people want their child to join the armed services. They take pride in their child going to war and fighting for their country. Me, I’d do what I could to keep my kids from doing that because I want to avoid the increased possibility of my child getting hurt or killed. I don’t ever want to have to mourn my kids. That’s me, but some societies behave differently and that’s none of my business. I’m actually more likely to be impacted by a society that values sacrificing their young for national glory than any gentile is impacted by Jewish circumcision. It’s just bizarre to me that anyone cares so much about what Jews do to the degree that they pass judgement on issues that have no possible impact on non-Jews.
I assume you're also cool with FGM and gender-reassignment if minors when either is merely a question of faith?
If yes, then cheers, because consistency is important.
Non-X can do what they want with their Y. I wouldn’t suggest Y' to them. However, it is a cultural imperative to Y' X boys at 8 days. It doesn’t have to be rational, medical, or ethical. It’s just what X do. Mind your own Y, Hanania.
Replace boys with 'gender Z'. That's what our dear host basically does in his article, and it works.
I don't think Richard supports BANNING circumcision. In fact, I think he probably has Singer-ist views on infanticide. I am pretty sure he has the libertarian view here.
I was Jewish and circumcised without my consent. I wish I had my foreskin.
No longer necessary, as it probably developed as a prophylactic practice against the possibility of infection. There's a reason why mammals (incl. humans) lick their wounds - doing so produces nitric acid when saliva is exposed to air, creating a small anti-bacterial effect. The sucking remains as part of the tradition, but the purpose could be better served with easily-acquired, over-the-counter anti-bacterial ointments.
Normal oral flora is benign. In many primitive societies, mothers chew food for their babies before transferring it to them mouth-to-mouth, resulting in no harm. How many people do you know who infected one of their own cuts/wounds by licking it? Have you never licked a paper cut? Did you infect it?
I’m not sure why that makes a difference, either way. A people believe that their deity commands them to certain rituals. Those rituals don’t impact other people. Why should those others care aside from some sort of cultural imperialism?
As a circumcised man who has had a very satisfactory life, I agree that circumcision is a bad idea and parents should stop doing it to their infants, but I am not going to hyperventilate about it. A slow trend away seems like the right response. Calling it "barbaric" and comparing it to FGM strikes me as just trolling, not truth seeking. My understanding is that FGM ranges from a symbolic cut, which is comparable to circumcision, to far more extreme practices, which definitely are not.
I think that if circumcision was practiced only by some obscure tribe in the Amazon somewhere, and never by anyone in the developed world, and someone told me about the practice--I'd think of it as a barbaric practice, as in, it's literally something that I can only imagine Stone Age tribesmen doing, and if someone suggested that we as modern Americans practice it en masse, I'd be stupefied.
So yes, I think it's quite fair to call it "barbaric." It only doesn't seem as such because we have pre-existing cultural biases about it carried over from the past.
Young infant boys die as a result of circumcision. Estimates range from 200-400 each year in the US alone.
18 unarmed black men are shot by police every year, which gets a movement and months-long rioting. Over 200 boys die every year as a result of an unnecessary cosmetic surgery without their permission, and it's called "hyperventilating"? Seriously?
Circumcision has never negatively impacted my sex life. LOL. It also reduces the risk of transmission of STDs of all kinds.
Next, I was present in the room when my son was circumcised by his physician. It took less than a minute, and caused him very little discomfort.
Those claiming it's barbaric, or in any way negatively impacts a man's life are absolutely clueless.
Yes, thank you for reminding us how bias works.
I lived it, but I'm biased? And the guy claiming it's barbaric has never experienced it, but is somehow unbiased? Let me guess. Anyone who doesn't agree with your position is "biased" LOL
The "lol" is often a tell for cognitive dissonance. To pretend that you're asking your question in good faith for the benefit of anyone else reading this, yes that's exactly how bias works. Some call it the 'sunk cost fallacy' but I try to avoid overusing the word 'fallacy'. In the same way that a boy whose mom encouraged him to wear dresses as a child has the option of growing up to insist that was good for him, or a boy who got head injuries playing football to get his dad's approval (just to pick two opposite examples) has the option of claiming it was important in building character, so too a man who has been circumsized has the option of pretending it's a good thing (and passing it on). That's exactly what bias means.
Now, many other circumsized men hate it, say it caused them lifelong problems, and swear they'll never do it to their sons. What percentage of men would need to fall into that category for circumcision to be a bad idea? 90%? 50%? 10%? I'm glad for you and your son that you're in the class of people who haven't noticed any big problems -- your anecdote is noted.
My lived experience is worth a whole lot more than your opinion on your own victim matrix.
Ah, yes autoethnography, the highest form of science. Carry on, then.
And I'm no victim. I still have all my parts, and it's fantastic. Cheerio.
Circumcised, likely the day I was born. Never asked. Never really cared. It could be argued I either don't know what I'm missing, or don't know how good I have it. I have yet to read anything with concrete facts either way. I do wonder how it came to be a thing in the first place. This article answered no questions that's for sure.
Apropos dresses: historically it used to be common for both little boys and girls to wear dresses until the age of breeching, when the boys were first put into breeches.
Your ackchyually is also noted. Might as well add that male slaves in the Roman empire wore dresses their whole lives.
My Dad told me I "screamed like hell".
https://academic.oup.com/smoa/article/7/2/145/6956488
"In the overwhelming majority of studies, women expressed a preference for the circumcised penis."
That seems like kind of a big deal. Now you might object "that should be discussed between a man and his partner, the decision should not be made for them by the man's parents" but realistically only an infinitesimal fraction of men regret having been circumcised, and only an infinitesimal fraction of men would get circumcised as adults if their partners asked them to do so. Getting rid of infant circumcision seems like a major loss in welfare for no gain in welfare.
"We should perform cosmetic surgery on the genitals of babies because women like the way it looks."
I wonder if men had a certain preference regarding vaginal structure, would we consider it reasonable to start cutting up the labia of newborns in order to achieve it for them? Hmm.
Isn't that literally the main justification for FGM, although it's done a bit later in life?
Not quite. FGM is a practical intervention to prevent women having sexual intercourse, committing adultery and shaming their families.
FGM as I understand it is usually *far* more drastic than altering the labia, but actually involves removing the clitoris, thus depriving the woman of the ability to ever achieve orgasm later in life.
Flawless victory.
Even if most women prefer circumcised, men can get circumcised when they’re older, just like women get boob jobs when they’re old enough to decide.
"In the overwhelming majority of studies, men expressed a preference for big breasts."
So, breast implants for infant girls then, right? Surely science can develop implants that expand over time. That'd solve this particular "problem," right?
Aside from this being a circular justification - if you stop circumcision, women will get over the fact it looks "different" - why do men's bodies get mutilated for the aesthetic preferences of women?
The only reason they have so little regret is what on Earth can they do? They've been violated already, it's already too late, and they have no control over it. Plus, society doesn't care and whines about FGM and then pops out stupid studies about what women think. Your argument is, people handwave it, so we should handwave it.
Those studied were performed mostly in African countries or English speaking countries, so there is obvious bias.
If the claim were really true, European women would presumably spontaneously want their sons circumcised.
That's a clever argument that I have never seen before, not sure if the underlying facts are right, but if they are there would be a strong consequentialist argument, although note that most people aren't strict consequentialists.
FGM is performed to prevent sexual pleasure and women's vaginas are additionally sewn up (often more than once) to obstruct penetration. The procedure results in urinary incontinence - many women are house bound because of it - and prevents the evacuation of menstrual blood which leads to serious uterine infections, so I don't think it is reasonable to compare the practice to male circumcision.
This is the case only in the most extreme (and by far the rarest) form of FGM.
Type I includes the mutilation of the woman's clitoris, so consider the 100 million population of Egypt - that includes a lot of women who are most likely traumatised, urinary incontinent and sexless.
Egyptian State Government says:
"The most common forms of female genital mutilation (FGM) or female genital cutting (FGC) still widely practiced throughout Egypt are Type I (commonly referred to as clitoridectomy) and Type II (commonly referred to as excision). These practices are widespread".
People generally don’t understand how foreskin works. So, they think that it’s inherently unhygienic. But, like, it’s retractable. You pull it back, exposing the whole of the glans and the interior skin, and rinse those structures. Of course, if you never clean it, it stinks, just like your armpits or you ass hole would.
Intact men are often confused on this point. So, intact unfortunately gets a reputation as smelly, displeasing or unaesthetic. Some even have a condition where they fail to retract their foreskin for so long that it bonds to the surface of the glans. Frankly, that condition is pretty gross. But it is treatable! People are ignorant though and it’s hard to tell someone, “fix your dick.”
For sexual pleasure, my understanding is that an intact foreskin is a bigger deal for oral, anal or manual sex. Basically, vaginas have labias and other structures that (sort of) make up for the lack of foreskin on a circumcised penis. So, women who only have vaginal sex might not be aware of the difference.
Also, a tight circumcision is so much worse. Like, it’s horrible for a guy to have so little skin that, when he’s erect, his penis looks like it’s about to tear open. There’s just not a lot of give to it, it’s more like a rock when erect. Once, I met a guys whose remaining skin had torn, and his penis was deformed because of it. But most circumcised guys fortunately have enough skin left to be OK.
Lastly, women generally don’t have enough sex partners to know what makes a good penis. (Gays know.) Penises are all different, like faces, so you need a pretty big sample to conclude whether intact or circumscized is better, especially given all the other ways penises vary.
"For sexual pleasure, my understanding is that an intact foreskin is a bigger deal for oral, anal or manual sex. Basically, vaginas have labias and other structures that (sort of) make up for the lack of foreskin on a circumcised penis. So, women who only have vaginal sex might not be aware of the difference."
This is actually highly relevant. The anti-circ movement started off as a subset of gay culture for this reason. It grew by finding chronically miserable people with messed up lives - never in short supply in that community - and convincing them it was because of being circumcised and turning them in dedicated activists. The truth is that the gays actually should be happy they were circumcised, assuming you rate not dying of AIDs higher than sexual pleasure, but time preferences is what it is.
That said, I think it's inevitable that circumcision will eventually banned with religious exceptions that, too, will be gradually chipped away at. For normal people in countries with decent hygiene any health benefits are marginal, and probably negative. It clearly contradicts basic liberal ideas, and the truth is it probably hurts a lot. This is one reason why I'm a bit more happy about Israel existing than I might be.
I was circumcised as an adult, so I am a much better source on this than someone circumcised as a baby because I have a control. It didn't reduce my sensation and I am happy with it. A recent meta analysis finds a lot of the anti-circumcision claims are questionable: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jebm.12361
Well, no one is arguing against fully informed and consented adult circumcision. I'm glad it worked out so well for you!
This is antisemitic, sorry.
Sometimes it’s deserved!
So, Jews still stone girls to death if they're not virgins on their wedding nights, then?
The most damning statistic of circumcision discourse is that the dad’s penis status is one of the most, or the most, predictive variables for the son. Normal health decisions don’t work that way, though they’ll always claim it’s a health decision.
Not being Jewish or Muslim myself, I don’t particularly care either way for those populations. We do lots of strange traditions for cultural reasons. But specifically the white Christian populations of the US have been fooled into thinking it’s a cultural, even religious, rite when it’s demonstrably not. The Puritan background of the country continues to have weird side effects.
Why do you exclude the Puritan background of the country from contributing to a 'cultural, even religious, rite'? The Puritan background is a big part of the American cultural and religious make-up. Just like baseball or gridiron football, or a widespread obsession with pretending that Britain was ruled by a tyrant instead of being one of the most liberal places (in the old sense of the word) on the planet.
Unconsented circumcision is bad, absolutely. But let's not pretend it's not pretend it's not part of US culture.
Just like eating cereal for breakfast is part of US culture. Their granddaddy, cornflakes, were also initially promoted as curbing masturbation.
Because cultural reasons that go back millennia (Jews, Muslims) are more legitimate than “cultural reasons” that started just centuries against and aren’t even described that way, but rather as half-assed health concerns, that started and continue to endure because of bullshit science.
Yes, we have a culture of failing to understand science and logic. That’s a weird cultural tradition to uphold.
I was told it was much cleaner when my boys were young because the flap can carry bacteria like yeast. I guess I shouldn't have an opinion on this as a woman, but I'm pro-circumcision, just for aesthetics, which I've been told is no better than fat shaming, so theres that.
Just because you’re a woman, doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion on this topic.
I appreciate that.
As a woman, I have no skin in the game (hah) but I'm in full agreement, and I don't think religion is a good enough justification to remove the foreskin of a boy not even old enough to see all the colors yet, let alone consent to such a procedure. Nothing is, other than a legitimate medical need.
Well, a weak post - not one actual reason against circumcision. A circumcised German boomer here. At that time maybe because our doctors copied the US. I was too small to remember. My younger brothers stayed un-cut. One of them had a bad case of phimosis later when 10 and hated the experience. My son, I paid to have him cut as a baby, zero trouble then. The later you do it the worse it gets. And treating phimosis in alternative ways - oh I wish you lots of fun working with your son's penis or checking his compliance. - That said, an early circumcision is about as "big an issue" as putting a hole in your kids earlobe. No downside, really. - The ups: 1. no risk for a later treatment that might get traumatic 2. More sex, because a) girls like them clean (and how you know, if he is not cut) AND b) we last longer! My wife's best friend still is very, very sensitive, if I would feel even more ... nope, not a good thing. In modern times, the one-eyed snakes is resting all day safe in soft cotton - not hanging out in the fresh air. Check a mimosa pudica growing in the living room and another in the garden: VERY different sensitivities. The best theory (by a Jewish surgeon) I read: tribes-women noticed that the guys who had it cut (for some reason, phimose or accident) 'worked' better when grown-up. And then they urged to do it with all the boys. - As for masturbating, mating-desire et al: I doubt there is any difference. The biggest sexual organ is the brain. I can only wonder as to why this mainstream hate of circumcision: some gays may prefer their partner to come sooner?
So. How did we start doing it in the first place? Was it really just anti masturbation ideologues?
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-585-39937-9_28
Apparently doctors started claiming it as some kind of miracle cure after World War II. Given the timing, I'm going to speculate that association with Jews influenced this. Jews came up with a bunch of self-serving justifications for the practice and everyone else nodded along.
Given where it arose (Middle East deserts), probably something about sand likely to get trapped over the foreskin in the premodern low-hygiene conditions.
Maybe, although the fact that in the same region there was a female analogue for presumably non hygiene related reasons would be evidence in favour of some other theory.
Not quite! FGM is originally an _African_ tradition, note absence of FGM in Jewish tradition and the fact that, although we associate FGM with Muslims, it is not actually mentioned in Quran. (And, vice versa, there seem to be African tribes that have FGM but not male circumcision.)
When you live in a desert tribe, you want to prevent your young men from running away to the ‘big city’ This culture practice prevented the men from joining other tribes by marking them for life.
wow so many MGM advocates coping and seething in the replies
God ordained circumcision for the Jews. As far as I (as a Christian) am aware, He has never rescinded that command for Jews, though it is in no way required of Christians (including Jewish converts to Christ).
Please bear in mind that the Lord Christ, incarnated as a Jewish male, as He was, was properly circumcised the eighth day. Respectfully, if it was good enough for the Son of God, then I believe terming circumcision "mutilating" to be inaccurate.
To add a bit of humor, please also keep in mind that -- in order to win Saul's daughter's hand in marriage -- David was required to bring the king "an hundred foreskins of the Philistines" (1 Sam 18:27). David did more than the minimum, and -- with help from his men -- was able to return to Saul with no less than two hundred foreskins of Philistines they had slain (1 Samuel 18:27). (Note: The Philistines obviously did not practice circumcision.) Please note: The Tanakh casts no aspersion on this entire transaction as being overly brutal, "gay", or "icky". It was simply a business transaction during a time when men were men.
Full disclosure: I was circumcised as an infant, as were most of my Gentile playmates, and it was truly a compete nonissue growing up.
*complete nonissue
This is super obviously correct and has no real counter-arguments, but I wonder if the reason no one can be made to care about it is the Jewish issue. After all, if we actually changed our cultural norms to where everyone accepted circumcision as a barbaric mutilation and thus a form of horrific child abuse (which is in fact what it is, in my opinion), well, what do we do about the Jews then? There is an actual Jewish Question there. And all those same Jewish billionaires who got very peeved at Harvard just the other day are going to have certain feelings about this as well.