until he's old enough and let him decide for himself? Yes, I know, it's "just easier" to do it when they'rel infants. But if parents would only wait and leave it up to their sons, this entire controversy would be moot. No more worrying about whether you'd made the right decision. No more angry men pissed and venting about having been "mutilated" without their consent. No more rabid anti-circumcision activists. Why is it so absolutely necessary that this be done to boys hours after they've been plucked from their mother's womb? Maybe because circ. advocates know that it's their best (and probably only) chance to get to them. Perhaps they realize that - if allowed to keep their foreskins - few of those men would be willing to part with them (or any other part of their penis for that matter) later on in life. Ask yourself why European and Asian men aren't getting cut in droves. If the foreskin is just a useless appendage and no pleasure is to be lost by its removal and protection only gained, then why are they seemingly less-than-eager to get rid of it? Citing African men lining up to get cut (and implying that your sons will do the same if you don't have it done for them) is laughable. Black Africans are largely poor, uneducated and illiterate. They will do anything someone of some authority tells them will prevent HIV. In South Africa, black men have been known to rape young children and even newborn babies because their witch doctor tells them that sex with a virgin is the only way to cure AIDS. Having your son's genitals surgically altered because those people think it's a good idea is insane.

You don't understand the role of circumcision, or most of the other Jewish laws. While there have been plenty of apologists for Jewish law this way or that, it is pretty much well acknowledged by Jews and non-Jews alike that the role of Jewish law is to create a separation, a distinction, a costly mark of purity and group identity.

Stamping children with this mark, especially if it is costly to the child and even perhaps to the parent, is critical to drawing boundaries, even from the time of birth; setting the child apart. There are of course plenty of stories in the bible about children additionally set apart - more so than the other Jews - like Samson or Samuel. They are considered archetypes of the form.

So circumcision of the male children brings them into the community, marks their membership, ensures their place - and hopefully keeps them bound there. It can be construed as loving or unloving depending on how you feel about community and individuality.

Infant baptism is sort of similar, but with much less pain and blood. Once again, there is the idea that God's blessing and protection and even salvation in the face of premature death, ride on this group identity claimed for the child by the parents - sort of like getting the child his social security number and citizenship after he is born in the USA.

Destroying the right of parents to induct their children into their community, into their group, doesn't just border on Spartan parenting. It is the essence of making the community itself illegal, cutting off its future generations. It should really only be pursued if this is the final intent; to delegitimize the community. It would be logical, like banning Mafia initiation rituals. Of course the community would resist and be driven underground, but school nurses and such could easily find illegal practitioners and have the children taken from their parents by force, to become wards of the state, because of the 'abuse.' Now we see a sort of Jewish orwellian situation building - genocide is defined by the UN as a practice that destroys a groups identity, and one of the mentioned methods is by forcible education of children in a way that is counter to the parents' culture - like teaching kids in Kansas about evolution, or, in this case, banning infant male circumcision.

So here is the question, put in terms of the usual problem - can an individualistic, secularist society rightly (even in its own eyes) commit genocide against african muslims or formerly european jews?

I don't know what's worse: saying that "Black Africans" will do anything their "witch doctor" says, or suggesting that criticizing circumcision is the same as inciting genocide against Jews. I invite you to entertain the fact that most circumcisions are performed on non-Jews.

Maybe I'm not reading your post right, but are you also suggesting teaching Kansas kids evolution is deplorable because it takes away their group identity?

Rest assured no one will be rushing to take your child away before you cut his penis. The practice is (debatably) mostly benign so I don't think that will happen any time soon.

As a circumsized man I can tell you I would do anything to get my foreskin back.. I have had many conversations with un-circumsized (mostly European men) and they are very happy having a non-mutilated penis. My family is not religious, I was circumsized because it was the normal thing to do at the time. It wasn't an attempt to be true to any faith, and the health concerns people cite are retarded. It's called soap and water and condoms.

I am no advocate of circumsicion, but, russman, are you that bothered? You'd do anything? Are you not able to maintain an erection or achieve orgasm? At least cut penises are better looking than uncut ones. You never have to worry about smegma. I would bet women are grateful for that, too. If you consider your physiology, your orgasms would be no different cut or uncut--getting there is the only thing that would change. Uncut men don't know what you're missing, either. Don't let them tease you. Their are probably smelly anyway (at least based on my girlfriends experience with uncut men). Unless your dong doesn't work, who cares? Just don't circumsize your kids.

rampart:

At least cut penises are better looking than uncut ones. You never have to worry about smegma. I would bet women are grateful for that, too. .

Do you always advocate for plastic surgery that reduces the size of male genitals? That is the most patently ridiculous argument for cutting I've ever heard.

And as far as "smelling", there's a word for it: shower. Most people can handle that.

God, Americans are so duped by this it's incredible.

"Yes, thank you for reducing the length and girth of my penis! Thanks for removing extra skin with nerve endings capable of generating pleasure! Thanks for altering my sexual functioning forever!"

kind sir, I don't advocate circumcision. If you read my posts on the matter (there's another thread concerning this topic on The Fray). I assert that I wouldn't have it done to my own kids. I only advocate letting go of this "I'd do anything to get my foreskin back," wailing--I see that as counter-productive. And, please, let go of this "you Americans" bit. You have no clue as to my nationality or religion. I accept my penis. I am not so riddled with insecurity, as you obviously are, that I must force others to accept my views and compund my boorishness by mocking others. Actually, that comes across as more stereotypically "American" than my statement. Also, lots of uncut guys don't take care to wash, otherwise there wouldn't have been a need to come up with a word like "smegma" Why are you so unhappy that you feel the need to lash out? Rejected by women because of your grotesquely misshapen, fetid member?

Oh yeah, circumcision has no impact on penile girth or length--if it does, I am grateful for that, too. My size is already pretty intimidating.

rampart:

Oh yeah, circumcision has no impact on penile girth or length--if it does, I am grateful for that, too. My size is already pretty intimidating.

Hi, do I need to explain how cutting something away from something else makes that first thing smaller?

LarsT, does removing the sheath make the sword smaller? Is your penis so tiny that when it is erect it remains buried in the foreskin? You must be either American or British or part of the British Commonwealth.

Well, I'm not Jewish, so you can drop the antisemitic jabs.

Anyway, my point is this: interfering with a parent's right to induct or introduce a child into a culture via the rituals and practices of that culture is in effect an attack on the perpetuation of that culture, ethnicity, and in some cases, religion - especially when they are entwined.

This is considered Genocide by the UN and is certainly not to be performed by the federal gov't of the US by even the most restrictive reading of the US Constitution.

So yes, by restricting a Jewish parent's ability to circumcise a son, one is crossing a bright line into genocide. But perhaps this is one of those times when an argument for genocide makes sense to a liberal audience.

BenK:

So yes, by restricting a Jewish parent's ability to circumcise a son, one is crossing a bright line into genocide. But perhaps this is one of those times when an argument for genocide makes sense to a liberal audience.

I AM Jewish, and I find your rhetoric extremely overwrought and inflammatory. This has nothing to do with genocide - nothing.

In addition, there is a lot of evidence that today's ritual cirumcisions are FAR more severe than the ones Jews used to do centuries ago. They truly did only take a small piece off the tip (bris millah, look it up). Today they cut off an incredible amount of skin and tissue.

Religious practices are restricted all the time in the name of public safety and decency. Can I kill cats in the name of Santeria? Can a Jehovah's Witness deny medicines for a sick child? The answer to both is no.

I still think parents should be allowed to choose (just out of political reality, not out of moral purity), but ONLY if they are told the entire truth about the practice, and not the "it may have benefits" crap they get today.

Of course it is meant to be inflammatory!

Maybe not overwrought, but certainly inflammatory. I'm trying to stimulate discussion by putting things in the boldest defensible terms.

Basically, if you believe (and many jews do) that you can't be accepted by God without circumcision, that you can't be a male member of the community, that you can't progress through BM or any of the other rites and rituals without it... and then the gov't says you have to wait until you are 18 and make a decision apart from your parent's influence - well, this is a radical restriction on religion that amounts to banning the religion and associated culture.

You mention that there are religions and cultures we ban. It is true. The USA thankfully doesn't take the freedom of practice as far as some people seem to think it goes. But imagine the outcry if Judaism were so radically restricted...

Arcados:

I don't know what's worse: saying that "Black Africans" will do anything their "witch doctor" says

Look it up if you don't believe me. It's one of the main reasons for the rape epidemic in South Africa. The sway that witch doctors have over the rural, uneducated populous cannot be understated.

The skin removed in a circumcision equals one-third of the penile skin. It is not just a sheath, but as it retracts the 'inside' becomes the 'outside'. That skin inside has the sensitivity of any other mucous membrane (which the glands of the penis is designed to be) like the mouth. During sex, the action in an uncircumcised male is meant to be a gliding motion, with the pleasure in the gliding, not in friction. Circumcision Information Recourse Pages (CIRP) has illustrations and an animation. In fact, knowing that circumcision lessens sensation, one early 'study' supporting circumcision (for there have been many before this one re: AIDS in Africa) did so because it was 'proven' that circumcision would reduce male masturbation.

Smegma is not unique to uncircumcised penises. Women make it too, and indeed 'cleanliness' is one reason that female circumcision is done. Most of us just teach girls how to wash. Suggesting surgery instead of a bath is rather extreme.

As to the appearance of the circumcised penis vs. the uncirc-ed, beauty is cultural. In cultures where female genital mutilation is common, men prefer women who are 'clean'. And yes, there have been 'scientific studies' validating the practice of female mutilation too.

In short, the arguments for the practice in both instances is the same. If FGM is abhorrent, so is male infant circumcision. Just because infants do not remember pain before they have language does not mean they do not remember. Science has shown that male infants who have been circumcised react to pain differently later in life than those who haven't. We don't argue that pain inflicted on infants in any other way is okay just because they can't remember. Would anyone really suggest that there should be no criminal penalty for burning an infant with cigarette butts because he won't remember it so no crime was committed? This argument only seems absurd to those who want to believe that there is a valid reason to continue a practice that has no justification.

As to the 'study', as I said, those who want to promote the practice will always find ways to justify it. However, IF (and it's a big IF considering all the 'supportive studies' that have been refuted already) circumcision does reduce the incidence of AIDS in Africa, has anyone wondered why that might be so? As I said, the foreskin is meant to be like the inside of the mouth, or the labia or the anus. The skin is very thin and tender. The reason that circumcision makes sex less pleasurable is that it 'denudes' the glands, meaning it exposes it when it is meant to be protected. The result is that about 15 layers of skin builds up on the glands. This skin is tougher than what would be there naturally. Perhaps the virus doesn't penetrate that skin as well?

OK, so let's assume that there is a reason to circumcise the sexually active men in a country where AIDS is epidemic; how does that translate into support of routinely mutilating tiny, obviously not sexually active babies in a country where it isn't?

I fail to see any logic in that argument.