Non Jews and Circumcision - Question

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So tired of this stupid idea that male and female circumcision have no relation whatsoever. It just shows that there is vast ignorance about a) the analogous male and female genital structures and b) the realities of the wide range of female genital cuttings that occur around the world.

A) Females do have foreskins. The clitoral hood is the exact same structure as the foreskin. In utero, the genital structures are identical at the earliest fetal stages before they begin to differentiate under the influence of hormones. Look it up. Technical term is the prepuce for both males and females.

B) The World Health Organization classifies female genital cutting into four types. Type I, which may involve only the removal of the female prepuce, is the equivalent of male circumcision as practiced in the U.S.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/overview/en/

FGC is not always practiced in the bush with rusty tin can lids by poor, "primitive" cultures as is commonly imagined. In North Africa and Southeast Asia, for example, it's often performed in hospitals -- by upper and middle-class people -- for what they believe to be hygienic and or religious reasons.

Many women who have undergone circumcision will claim that it's cleaner, reduces disease, and that they have perfectly good sex lives, and that they want the same for their daughters.

This. Thank you for articulating this so well, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish we could ask babies if it hurt.

We went to one at a doctor's office. Doctor was also a rabbi. So although it was a medical procedure, it had a religious aspect. My friend was the godfather, which involves holding the baby down during the procedure. Baby had anesthesia. Friend said he was pushing so hard against his hands that he couldn't believe he was holding a baby. I personally chose not to circumcise after that.

As to the OP's question, this data is available online, by state in the US and also by country around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the people who say to do it as a baby because babies feel less pain. That’s ridiculous and just a way to make your mind feel better.

Would you take your day old baby and say pinch him really hard because he doesn’t feel it much anyway? Or how about just cutting his little arm or leg, think he doesn’t feel it?

Even if a local anesthetic is used ( which is not good for a newborn anyway), you know that as soon as it wears off there will be pain. Just like when they pull your wisdom tooth and you’re numb for a little while until bam all the pain from the surgery hits you.

If you’re Jewish or Muslim and this part of your religion deems it necessary, fine. But don’t make excuses for it such as it’s medically better and that babies don’t feel pain to placate your senses and good judgement.

You're making ridiculous leaps that are not logical. The most current research shows it is better for long term sexual and reproductive health to circumcise. Sorry you don't like it.

Try harder, that same lame disproved theory is not working. The only people being illogical are the ones who do this for religion but need excuses to make it seem less barbaric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can't simultaneously claim it's NBD for babies -- especially without anesthesia -- and then make a huge deal about how difficult and impossible it is for adult men. Pick a lane.

This!

Exactly! I’m very protective against unnecessary (painful!) medical procedures for my baby.

When that baby grows up to be a man it will be his decision to undergo painful procedures, be it tattoos, piercings or genital mutilation. Why do you feel entitled to make those decisions for your sons?

Because we are his parents.

Lovely for you to make that decision about his penis.

This is the kind of thing only someone bizarrely focused on genitals could say. We make decisions for this child about everything, including how all of the parts of his body will be treated, all the time, and we will for quite some time to come. The same week, we had his tongue tie snipped—twice—and we did this so he could breastfeed, on evidence for breastfeeding’s superiority that is also pretty thin.

Parents are powerful. If you don’t acknowledge that at all, there is no hope of wielding that power wisely.

No opinion of what anyone else should do with their son’s foreskin. Let a thousand foreskins bloom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t get the people who say to do it as a baby because babies feel less pain. That’s ridiculous and just a way to make your mind feel better.

Would you take your day old baby and say pinch him really hard because he doesn’t feel it much anyway? Or how about just cutting his little arm or leg, think he doesn’t feel it?

Even if a local anesthetic is used ( which is not good for a newborn anyway), you know that as soon as it wears off there will be pain. Just like when they pull your wisdom tooth and you’re numb for a little while until bam all the pain from the surgery hits you.

If you’re Jewish or Muslim and this part of your religion deems it necessary, fine. But don’t make excuses for it such as it’s medically better and that babies don’t feel pain to placate your senses and good judgement.

You're making ridiculous leaps that are not logical. The most current research shows it is better for long term sexual and reproductive health to circumcise. Sorry you don't like it.

Try harder, that same lame disproved theory is not working. The only people being illogical are the ones who do this for religion but need excuses to make it seem less barbaric.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

We had our 3rd child (a boy after 2 girls) in 2011. We did not circ. My husband is. We are UMC, educated, white. Two other friends had sons around the same time. One mom is a MD, the other is a PhD in public health and they didn't circ. either.

[Anonymous]

I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Eh, I’m anti-circ but there are such bigger fish to fry. I’m not calling CPS on random Jews or others to have this investigated!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Jewish physicians *used* to dominate, so their beliefs about this will slowly phase out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Oh FFS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Oh FFS.

Strong rebuttal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Jewish physicians *used* to dominate, so their beliefs about this will slowly phase out.

Hmm, never thought about this.

[Anonymous]

The science seems to support circumcision, though not strongly enough for it to override some people's concerns. See, e.g.: http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%2814%2900036-6/abstract.

I'm curious to see if the anti-circumcision people have legit, peer-reviewed studies backing up their claims regarding the risks they fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Oh FFS.

Strong rebuttal.

.

I mean, what else can possibly be said in response to such histrionics?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why some excuse the practice if it's for religious reasons. If you think it's child abuse (many do), it's child abuse!
We wouldn't allow ritual cutting of torsos and faces in this country. Why do we allow it of penises?

Oh FFS.

Strong rebuttal.

.

I mean, what else can possibly be said in response to such histrionics?

That's pretty much the same as FFS, but with a few more words. You sound smart. You sure do write well.