BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Circumcision

 
  

Page: 12(3)4567

 
 
The Planet of Sound
11:07 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
And, if so, where do we arrange it in terms of priorities against people having the flesh of their vulva scraped out?


Which takes us to the interesting area of female circumcision in the UK. Illegal, emphatically, and yet still taking place. Perhaps it would be better just to ban all surgery which is not proven to be necessary, and deemed to be cultural, until adult consent can be given? Contentious, I know, as the reaction from practicing communities would probably be to drive the surgery underground, as has happened with female circumcision. Also brings us into areas of other physical mutilation; I've seen toddlers with their ears pierced.
 
 
Sauron
11:11 / 19.02.02
Yes yes I buy all of the above. I just find the tone you're using with regard to female circumcision a bit gauling; I'm sorry, I'm just sensative towards female circumcision. It is extreme mutilation, it is about male dominance and control, it is about lack of respect for women. It is far more phisically and psychologically damaging. It just seems, whatever the risks and wrongs of male circumcision ridiculous to compare the two. I'm repeating myself I know, so I'll stop.

Ganesh re: your point on your Jewish friend- I'm glad to hear it. But would this be the norm? And how do you balance years of tradition with medical reasoning- it's a hard one.
 
 
Ganesh
11:12 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Next question - do we still let the Jews, Muslims etc. get away with it? Or do we start trying to change attitudes towards it in those communities? And, if so, where do we arrange it in terms of priorities against people having the flesh of their vulva scraped out?


That's actually a much more complex question. Leaving female circumcision out for a moment (since it seems, invariably, to cloud the Eye of Sauron), those countries which have abandoned circumcision for secular reasons have all tended to approach this extremely delicately, for obvious reasons. The General Medical Council, recognising that this was hardly an area in which doctors alone should decide, solicited the views of Jewish and Islamic representatives as well as childrens' rights organisations. They published the results in 1997.

Basically, they came to the conclusion that individual paediatric surgeons should not be obliged to carry out circumcisions - but should explain their objections fully to the parents. Bit of a cop-out, really, but it looks like it was perhaps the only realistic way out of a deadlock.

If I were the surgeon, I wouldn't operate on non-therapeutic grounds...
 
 
Ganesh
11:16 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Sauron:
Ganesh re: your point on your Jewish friend- I'm glad to hear it. But would this be the norm? And how do you balance years of tradition with medical reasoning- it's a hard one.


Not that hard. Medical reasoning wasn't especially relevant in my friend's decision; more important was the fact that he'd reached an age whereby he could choose to withold consent for himself. Perhaps if he'd grown up more 'traditionally', he'd have chosen otherwise. What's pertinent is that he was allowed to choose...
 
 
Sauron
11:19 / 19.02.02
What were the feelings of Jewish and Islamic groups? Are they sympathetic to change or stubborn in their religious beliefs and learnings?

I think it's a tough one because it identifies you - it is a branding- the reason why it is so hated here, but perhaps the reason why those circumcised for religious reasons are so keen to keep it a tradition.
 
 
Bill Posters
11:19 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Sauron:


Irrelevant. The penis is a big gland too, but would you want to lop the top of yours off?


No, that's why I'm against male circumcision!

Hmm, this Freudian or Lacanian psychoanalytic angle is interesting, Planet. I mean, it must function as a symbolic castration of some sort, but whether this has much effect on the bahaviour of individuals, never mind entire cultures, I doubt very much. I think my take on psychoanalysis is not unlike Lyra's in the Deleuze thread. Having said that, it did ocurr to me that possibly the boys who are against male circ. have castration angst, and those for have a castration wish of some kind. Dunno, maybe Dr Nesh could shed some light on it.

And yeah, sorry Jack. Jeeeez, that almost did make me puke.

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Bill Posters ]
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:21 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by The Haus of Deletia:
Next question - do we still let the Jews, Muslims etc. get away with it? Or do we start trying to change attitudes towards it in those communities?


I think that before addressing this question we should be examining the reasoning behind the practice within these cultures/religions.
 
 
Ganesh
11:25 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Sauron:
What were the feelings of Jewish and Islamic groups? Are they sympathetic to change or stubborn in their religious beliefs and learnings?


Didn't go into that much detail. The latter, I'd imagine.

quote:I think it's a tough one because it identifies you - it is a branding- the reason why it is so hated here, but perhaps the reason why those circumcised for religious reasons are so keen to keep it a tradition.

It's branding before you're old enough to choose ie. non-consenting. And in the US, it's hardly even a flag of religious identity...
 
 
Sauron
11:25 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:


I think that before addressing this question we should be examining the reasoning behind the practice within these cultures/religions.


OK what are they? My reading was that the reason was to do with hygene (I'm not going to bang on about this agian, but I think this was more pertinant back in the day), in much the same way that Jews and Muslims are forbidden from eating swine/ shellfish- basically because it goes off so quickly.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:32 / 19.02.02
Jews and Muslims are forbidden from eating swine/ shellfish- basically because it goes off so quickly.

And they didn't have freezers. The point is, most of this stuff just isn't necessary today. People just get it into their heads that this is "God's Law" and must be obeyed, forgetting, lost in a sea of fucking dogma, that there were *reasons* for all this stuff, once upon a time. Reasons that can cease to be relevant.

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Fantastic YOU [I, Runce] ]
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
11:34 / 19.02.02
Yeah, I think that certain tenets were slipped into religious texts as the will of the appropriate deity which under examination were just some good ideas regarding healthcare.

However far be it from me to be in any position to state be all and end all of such reasoning.

Does anyone else have any explanations?
 
 
Ganesh
11:34 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Bill Posters:
it did ocurr to me that possibly the boys who are against male circ. have castration angst, and those for have a castration wish of some kind. Dunno, maybe Dr Nesh could shed some light on it.


I don't know enough about Freud to comment, specifically, on castration anxiety - but I'm sure it plays a part, here. I was trying to think of another example of a 'functionless' piece of anatomy which is routinely removed in childhood so I could compare my own reaction to that - but I can't think of any other examples.

I do think it's interesting that, while we're generally prepared to countenance the idea that a single episode of genital manipulation ('abuse' seems inappropriately loaded in this context) by another, in childhood, can 'scar' one emotionally, it's somehow "ridiculous" to apply that same reasoning to male circumcision.

Are we suggesting that it's motive that separates 'abuse' from circumcision? Does the fact that the latter's carried out on the wishes of one's loving parents, in the name of tradition, negate/minimise the concept of 'harm' associated with the former?
 
 
Sauron
11:36 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Ganesh v4.2:

It's branding before you're old enough to choose ie. non-consenting. And in the US, it's hardly even a flag of religious identity...


Yes, this is the problem- the US thing I can't even begin to fathom, but then male circumcision is pretty low down on my Things to fathom out about the US list . Re: the religion, I completely agree but how do you stop the proud orthodox Jewish father from taking his boy to shul to have the Periah performed? This is going to be a tough campaign, especially in countries where Jews and Muslims are the minority as it will appear that the majority state is ignoring minority beliefs. Then try preaching anti- cricumcsion to the governments of Islamic countries ...
 
 
Ganesh
11:38 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Wisdom of idiots:
Yeah, I think that certain tenets were slipped into religious texts as the will of the appropriate deity which under examination were just some good ideas regarding healthcare.

Does anyone else have any explanations?


Since religious texts have been used in the past to point out my own essential 'lack of cleanliness' as a sodomite, I'm naturally a little sceptical. But yeah, I take your point.

And I'm pretty rusty on the specifics, but didn't Abraham or someone carry out a symbolic 'sacrifice' by cutting off his son's foreskin with a sharpened stone? Am I misremembering Sunday School?
 
 
Bill Posters
11:38 / 19.02.02
My reading was that the reason was to do with hygene (I'm not going to bang on about this agian, but I think this was more pertinant back in the day), in much the same way that Jews and Muslims are forbidden from eating swine/ shellfish- basically because it goes off so quickly.

Sauron, how many times does it have to be said, functionalist explanations are not considered valid. Any fish/meat/egg -based foodstuff is going to go off in a hot climate. Are you seriously telling me that beef in (Hindu areas of) India went/goes off faster than pork did/does in Israelite areas of the Middle East? Do you read any one's posts other than yours? Gadzooks man, why not just threaten me with a plank and get it over with?!
 
 
Sauron
11:40 / 19.02.02
And they didn't have freezers. The point is, most of this stuff just isn't necessary today. People just get it into their heads that this is "God's Law" and must be obeyed, forgetting, lost in a sea of fucking dogma, that there were *reasons* for all this stuff, once upon a time. Reasons that can cease to be relevant.

Yes, I think we're all aware here that most of these laws are now redundant, but I believe a lot of people, question why they existed at all and see them as another stick to beat minority religions with ... Anyway, this is off topic.
 
 
The Natural Way
11:42 / 19.02.02
I think the notion that functionalist interpretations are 100% invalid is maybe going a teensy bit too far. I'm sure it's a hodgepodge of stuff, really.
 
 
Ganesh
11:43 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Sauron:
Yes, this is the problem- the US thing I can't even begin to fathom, but then male circumcision is pretty low down on my Things to fathom out about the US list . Re: the religion, I completely agree but how do you stop the proud orthodox Jewish father from taking his boy to shul to have the Periah performed? This is going to be a tough campaign, especially in countries where Jews and Muslims are the minority as it will appear that the majority state is ignoring minority beliefs. Then try preaching anti- cricumcsion to the governments of Islamic countries ...


I'm not proposing a Real World anti-circumcision campaign, I'm arguing the point on an Internet message-board. And I'm sure no-one would argue with you that, to you, it's barely worthy of consideration. I couldn't claim to lose much sleep over it either. That's all beside the point: this is the Head Shop; regardless of personal investment (or lack of it), it's where we discuss this stuff.
 
 
Sauron
11:45 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Bill Posters:
Sauron, how mamny times does it have to be said, functionalist explanations are not considered valid. Any fish/meat/egg -based foodstuff is going to go off in a hot climate. Are you seriously telling me that beef in (Hindu areas of) India went/goes off faster than pork did/does in Israelite areas of the Middle East? Do you read any one's posts other than yours? Gadzooks man, why not just threaten me with a plank and get it over with?!


Fuck off Bill, I'm not arguing whether these laws were right or wrong or flawed, I'm just stating that was the reasoning behind the laws. Hindu's view of the cow is far different, and comes frrm the cow being pedastalised rather than being seen as dirty. And no I haven't read a post on this before. If you direct me to one I will read it.
 
 
Bill Posters
11:48 / 19.02.02
Well, me, I just don't regard culture as a logical phenomenon, be that ecologically, medically, whatever. Oh and I said it before on the first page of this thread, about half way down.

Rather than fucking off, I'll instead say, on a somewhat more flippant note, what always amuses me (and in fact it prolly shouldn't, 'cos it's serious) is that in French schools, very secular places they are, any "outward sign of religious affiliation" is prohibited. Which doesn't half beg the question as to what the Jewish/Muslim boys do in the showers...
 
 
Ganesh
11:48 / 19.02.02
(Side point: if one's of a smutty bent, it's amazing how many penile innuendos this thread already contains...)
 
 
Sauron
11:51 / 19.02.02
I'm not proposing a Real World anti-circumcision campaign, I'm arguing the point on an Internet message-board. And I'm sure no-one would argue with you that, to you, it's barely worthy of consideration. I couldn't claim to lose much sleep over it either. That's all beside the point: this is the Head Shop; regardless of personal investment (or lack of it), it's where we discuss this stuff.

Forfucksake, I was only widening the question. I was only looking at it in terms of religion vs medicine- I didn't mean to belittle the thread or the thoughts- I was only angsty when the Female circumcision was in the mix becasue the thinking appeared distinctly mysoginous. And as Bill has mentioned the plank, if Knowledge had taken the same tone (and I don't think I am missing the point here), he would have been accused of gross insensitivity.
 
 
Ganesh
11:57 / 19.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Sauron:
Forfucksake, I was only widening the question. I was only looking at it in terms of religion vs medicine- I didn't mean to belittle the thread or the thoughts-


Okay. You seemed to be saying it wasn't worth "fathoming" because a) there were many more pressing issues to consider, and b) it'd be extremely difficult to implement the anti-circumcision view in practice.

(Not sure I see the me/Knodge comparison there. I've managed thus far in the thread without a gratuitous cock-shot...)

I don't think it's "religion vs medicine": in this situation, doctors' main priority appears to be personal - that they don't want to have to operate on a child if they don't see it as necessary. The strongest anti-circumcision voices are, if anything, childrens' rights organisations.

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ]
 
 
Sauron
13:41 / 19.02.02
Ganesh, I didn't mean you on the Kndoger front- it was another comment, apologies, have calmed down now- I just got a bit pissed off with Bill and his authoritarian functionalist explanations are not considered valid enforcement, then he compared me to the Knowledge.

So it's my first visit to the headshop and some guy has a go at me for not reading evry thread that has been posted here and not towing his party line.

I was also not attempting say that resistance to male circumcision was futile becasue of religion, I was just thinking out loud -and thus probably getting off track.

Anyway none of this has anything to do with circumcision so I'm off now ...
 
 
Ganesh
13:45 / 19.02.02
Okay. Was seriously considering posting some geoduck shots there, though...

 
 
m. anthony bro
17:39 / 21.02.02
a'ight.

one) Being uncircumcised is good. Why? One, I'm told that 90% of the nerve endings that produce pleasure in your penis are in the foreskin. ninety percent. holy shit! Also, phew.

two) a foreskin is designed to retract, so cleaning can take place. No person has had any other part of their body removed for the purpose of cleanliness.

three) disease control? Think of countries where circ'ing has been pretty much abandoned. 93% of boys born in New Zealand today will not be cut. Do we have abnormally higher rates of specific diseases? No we do not. I think out HIV infection rate is dropping ever so slightly. Obviously, I would be foolish to say this is because we're not being circumcised en masse.

four) any religion that demands I cut off part of my son's dick in the name of love is really screwed. "We cut up your wenus because we love you". Ya-huh.

five) If male c'cision was directly equivalent to femal c'cision, then you wouldn't lose 90% of your nerve endings, you'd lose 90% of your penis. Female circumcision is more than that, it's genital mutilation, it's unjust, barbaric and dumb, and I don't understand how one could possess that much cruelty to actually do it to a person.

six) penises are cool. but, cut ones look...funny. They remind me of the apple pies from McDonalds...that's not what it's supposed to look like...
 
 
grant
18:49 / 21.02.02
quote:Originally posted by Sauron:


OK what are they? My reading was that the reason was to do with hygene (I'm not going to bang on about this agian, but I think this was more pertinant back in the day), in much the same way that Jews and Muslims are forbidden from eating swine/ shellfish- basically because it goes off so quickly.


It's not because they "go off," it's because they eat mud & feces.

Bottom-feeders & coprophages.
This includes hyraxes, which are also not kosher.

I hadn't heard the thing linking circumcision to Abraham's sacrifice, but it could be a link, at least thematically. One of the horrifying things in Joshua is the self-circumcision of the grown commandos before they retake the Holy Land.
Eeek!
 
 
Ganesh
18:55 / 21.02.02
quote:Originally posted by grant:
I hadn't heard the thing linking circumcision to Abraham's sacrifice, but it could be a link, at least thematically.


I'm probably misremembering.
 
 
grant
16:26 / 22.02.02
In case you're following the Magick, here's a new, reconstructionist midrash on circumcision.

quote:In reading chapters 17 and 21 of the book of Genesis and noting the identification, in both, of male circumcision as the sign of God's covenant with Israel, I have often asked myself: "If circumcision is, for Jewish men, a sign of covenantal membership, what sign is there, or what sign should there be, for women—i.e., what sign do women have that we, like men, are God's covenantal partners?"

Yet in rereading Genesis 17, which views circumcision as a sign of God's covenant with Israel, and Genesis 21, which describes Abraham's circumcision of Isaac, I came to realize that I had been unable to learn the answer because I had asked the right question in the wrong way. Unlike the biblical Leah, for example, who did have a daughter, Sarah had only a son.

Thus, in approaching these particular texts, my question needed to be: If God, as the biblical narrative so clearly implies, entered into a covenantal relationship with Abraham and Sarah and their offspring (not simply Abraham's, since were that the case, Ishmael would have gained membership into the covenant as well), what was the nature of God's command to Sarah?


The actual reading is kind of interesting, and equates the act of circumcision (a male activity) with suckling children (a female activity).

Here's the text in question:
quote:Genesis 17
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram [2] ; your name will be Abraham, [3] for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. (Isaac means he laughs) I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
...
23 On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. 24 Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised, 25 and his son Ishmael was thirteen; 26 Abraham and his son Ishmael were both circumcised on that same day. 27 And every male in Abraham's household, including those born in his household or bought from a foreigner, was circumcised with him.



quote:Genesis 21
1 Now the Lord was gracious to Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did for Sarah what he had promised. 2 Sarah became pregnant and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the very time God had promised him. 3 Abraham gave the name Isaac [1] to the son Sarah bore him. 4 When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him, as God commanded him. 5 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
6 Sarah said, "God has brought me laughter, and everyone who hears about this will laugh with me." 7 And she added, "Who would have said to Abraham that Sarah would nurse children? Yet I have borne him a son in his old age."


Hagar and Ishmael Sent Away
8 The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. 9 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, 10 and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac."
11 The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. 12 But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring [2] will be reckoned. 13 I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."


Interesting to note that this division is, Biblically speaking, the root of the problems between Israel and Palestine.
The division between Isaac and Ishmael is the division between Jew and Arab - it's the Arab people who become the other "great nation" referred to there.
 
 
The Planet of Sound
12:55 / 25.02.02
To add a further topical gender aspect to all this crazy non-cock-lopping talk, there's a programme on BBC2 this week about a boy whose circumcision went so wrong they amputated his penis, and he was raised as a girl. Should be interesting viewing.
 
 
Watts
20:44 / 25.02.02
To get back to the original argument, I'd say that Western society views male circumcision as a lot less severe than the supposedly equivalent female procedure, hence the lack of public outrage or disgust.

As for the idea of male circumcision being a form of mutilation, that point is completely dependent on culture and beliefs. For the purposes of discussion, I'll limit myself to my realm of knowledge: male circumcision as a baby as it is commonly practiced in the US.
Assuming a normally performed procedure, there are few long-term or even noticeable effects (other than the obvious lack of foreskin). Any argument over possibility of infection, change in sensitivity, etc. is a matter of degrees. Some variables are more consequential than others, but there aren't going to be any absolutes in that argument.

The only really arguable points about institutionalized circumcision is whether it causes unnecessary pain, and the risks of an improperly executed procedure. You have to realize, in the US, whether or not to circumcise your son is at about the same level of importance as deciding what show you want to watch on television. Probably less so, since most people never even think about the option.

When dealing with this sort of mentality, you're really going to only alter it by pointing out risks and harm, not by criticizing the necessity. Given equal footing, people will always choose the default, hence it remains the default.
 
 
Ganesh
20:54 / 25.02.02
Speaking personally, I'm not trying to alter an entire continent's opinion; I'm merelt arguing the point here, on Barbelith. And I think the necessity or otherwise of the operation is paramount. In any other setting/context, it'd be considered child abuse. Given the American propensity toward litigation in such areas, it's rather baffling that male circumcision remains, as you say, the default option...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
22:06 / 25.02.02
quote:As for the idea of male circumcision being a form of mutilation, that point is completely dependent on culture and beliefs.Well, no. It fits a strict definition of a mutilation. It's just that it's a culturally acceptable one, unlike having your baby's tongue pierced because it's fashionable.
 
 
m. anthony bro
01:17 / 26.02.02
mu·ti·late   Pronunciation Key  (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

yup, thats what it is.
 
 
A
01:32 / 26.02.02
Apparently it was actually the standard practice until recently for babies whose circumcision was botched to be completely castrated and raised as girls. I think that this was sort of phased out after a lot of them grew up and wanted to be changed back.

From what I've heard, it's not that uncommon for circumcisions to go wrong, leaving a baby with a severely mutilated penis, or worse.

I also remember reading somewhere that many men who were circumcised as children are getting operations (involving skin-stretching or skin grafts) to restore their foreskin.

It's interesting (if quite disturbing) to hear that circumcision is the "default" for babies in the US. I say this because foreskins taken from circumcised babies are apparently the major source of skin used in skin-graft operations. I remember reading somewhere that scientists can grow enough skin to cover a football field from one foreskin. I wonder if this is the reason that doctors seem so keen to circumcise.
 
  

Page: 12(3)4567

 
  
Add Your Reply