As I was anticipating the recent birth of my newborn son, news broke that anti-circumcision activists (or “intactivists” as they refer to themselves) had begun circulating a petition to introduce a 2012 ballot measure to ban circumcisions performed on children under the age of 18 in Santa Monica. Shortly thereafter a similar measure popped up in San Francisco. Suddenly, what would soon be a private decision to be made by my wife and me had burst forth into the sphere of public discourse.
We gave some thought to whether the health benefits of a circumcision really outweighed the risks (and pain) of a surgical procedure. In the end, though, we did not agonize over the decision. I am Jewish and, although I sometimes joke that I am a bit more “ish” than “Jew,” I chose not to fly in the face of “three thousand years of beautiful tradition from Moses to Sandy Koufax” as the character Wally Sobchak says in The Big Lebowski. (Yes, I am anticipating the raft of reader comments below explaining the weaknesses of such logic.)
So on the eighth day of our son’s life, we hosted a brit milah ceremony (more commonly referred to as a bris) in our home. It was conducted by Dr. David Raphael, Santa Barbara’s only mohel, someone who is trained in administering the Jewish circumcision ceremony. An OB/Gyn who also delivered our baby, Raphael learned to perform circumcisions when he was a resident at Cedars-Sinai hospital in Los Angeles. When he moved to Santa Barbara 18 years ago to take a job with Sansum Clinic, he learned that there were no mohels in town and decided to set up shop, so to speak.
He estimates that he has performed between 150 to 200 bris ceremonies, including two in Hong Kong for brothers whose grandmother works at UCSB and two on his own sons. Jewish ritual circumcision originates in the Old Testament book of Genesis where God makes a covenant with Abraham whose descendants will make up the Jewish peoples. As a part of that covenant, Abraham must circumcise himself and his son, Isaac. All of their kin must also be circumcised on the eighth day after birth. The bris is therefore an entrance into tribal membership. It is where Jewish boys are officially conferred their names.
The actual ceremony is an emotional whirlwind. It is a joyful welcoming of a new life into the world and the Jewish community, but also one that hurts that new life. To ease the stress, Raphael recites well-worn laugh lines in the tradition of a warm-up comedian and while he is actually performing the surgical procedure (which takes a minute or two), asks audience members to sing. He feels like the singing dissipates the awkwardness of watching someone take a scalpel to a baby’s genitals and also soothes the baby. For this practice he has been dubbed the “singing mohel.”
How much pain an infant feels is hard to ascertain. Some babies, said Raphael, start crying before the procedure even begins and some go through the whole thing without making a peep. For the record mine engaged in some wailing. And it was pretty obvious that the wound was irritable for a week or so afterward.
It was about seven or eight years ago, said Raphael, that he learned there was such a thing as an anti-circumcision movement. In fact, he was once surprised to find out that the husband of one of the partners in his practice vocally advocated against circumcisions. (Unsurprisingly she is no longer there.) In addition to fulfilling the duties of a mohel, Raphael performs a number of the in-hospital circumcisions in Santa Barbara as well—about 20 to 30 every month. He uses the same exact technique (with a U-shaped Mogen clamp) in hospitals as he does in bris ceremonies.
Raphael looks little like “Monster Mohel,” the villain in a comic book distributed by MGMbill.org, the group behind the California ballot initiatives. Monster Mohel is a rabbi with a mischievous grin and sharp, pointed nose and chin from which is suspended a long beard. He wears talit (a prayer shawl) and a large top hat that casts an ominous shadow over his face. (The hero of the comic book, Foreskin Man—a muscular be-spandexed blond—protects unsuspecting infants from the evil mohel.) Tall, lanky, avuncular, and bald, Raphael grew up in an orthodox home but he does not wear a hat or a yarmulke. In fact he does not perform circumcisions for Orthodox Jews. MGMbill has drawn the ire of Jews and Muslims who also typically perform circumcisions, but its seemingly anti-Semitic propaganda has only compounded the blowback. It also led the face of the anti-circumcision movement in Santa Monica, Jena Troutman, to withdraw her support.
The day my son was born, this paper published a column by Starshine Roshell who wrote that according to Peter Hasler, medical director of Santa Barbara County’s Primary Care Family Health Division, “few local pediatricians even provide the service these days.” The next day when Raphael stopped by our hospital room to check on my wife, he asked if I had read the column. I had not because, well, I just had a baby. Raphael said that it was true that most local pediatricians don’t perform circumcisions before adding, “because I do them all for them!”
When I told Raphael that had my Jewish identity not tipped the scales, I would have thought twice about circumcising my son, he replied that that would be proper. As with any medical procedure, he counseled, one must weigh the risks against the benefits. What Raphael said he found “concerning” was that a medical decision could be turned into a legal one. State Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi agreed with him when she recently struck the circumcision ban measure from the San Francisco ballot, ruling that California law explicitly prohibits local regulation of “widely practiced medical procedure[s].” (The proposed Santa Monica ban never made it to the ballot.)
“People need to be informed” when making their decision about circumcision, said Raphael. He said that the there is little evidence to support intactivist claims that removal of the foreskin reduces sexual pleasure later in life. There are risks involved with circumcisions, though, including excessive blood loss, the formation of adhesions and well … whatever deformity might arise from an infelicitous slip of the hand. Raphael fortunately has never encountered major complications.
The official line from the American Academy of Pediatricians reads as follows: “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” The policy statement goes on to say that parents should make an informed decision about what is best for their child and that “analgesia should be used.” According to three recent medical trials in Africa, the benefits include at least a 60 percent lower rate of HIV transmission among heterosexual males. Circumcision also reduces the risk of other STDs, penile cancer, infant urinary tract infections, and cervical cancer in female partners. The numbers, though, are probably not overwhelming enough to change your opinion if you think that foreskin removal is a violation of human rights.
Raphael said he has never witnessed as much public pressure against circumcision as he has these past few months. That pressure, however, has not touched him personally. On the contrary, he told as we sipped coffee on the patio of The Daily Grind. “People are very grateful that I’m available.” Then he headed off to Cottage Hospital to perform a circumcision.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
i have been in the nursing profession for 25 years now and have taken care of many elderly men and i can say from experience that when a 90+ year old man has to endure a circumcision it is not only painful but rather embarassing. as we grow older we are not always able to care for ourselves and that is when the complications arise. so why not take care of it as an infant to avoid any problems...just saying...
37087pav (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 3:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now in the US, How much--all direct and indirect charges--is paid for this procedure? If "Raphael performs a number of the in-hospital circumcisions in Santa Barbara as well—about 20 to 30 every month", and each yields (guessing) $1,000; this is a $20,000 to $30,000 monthly incentive....
I am under the impression that most of the world does not do this.
It is not correct to extrapolate opinions on the health benefits of circumcision between men who live in dramatically different conditions of sanitation and hygiene. Where in Africa and on what subjects where the "three recent medical trials" conducted?
Regarding the comment that, "there is little evidence to support intactivist claims that removal of the foreskin reduces sexual pleasure later in life", the fact is that circumcision inexorably removes sensitive tissue--and this delicate tissue is designed as a shield that also happens to maintain the sensitivity of the glans.
Caveat emptor!
mcheca (Miguel Checa)
August 11, 2011 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Total crap, the comment about 90 year old men needing to be circumcised. If you can't handle a washcloth, get out of the profession. Do they circumcise the 90 year old women, because they can't keep them clean? That is no justification for surgery on an infant.
Miguel, you got that right! Circumcision removes between 35% and 50% of the most heavenly tissue on earth.
To the author:
I need you to contact the mohel, please! The Mogen clamp is unsafe. The manufacturer is out of business, because all the court settlements drove them into bankruptcy. I am not kidding. One kid lost his glans, and two more lost a significant percentage of theirs.
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/...
I called the company. Their phone has been disconnected. This is why we have intactivists.
Contrary to common belief, circumcision has not always been practiced. Moses failed to circumcise his son (Exodus 4:25), and circumcision was totally neglected during the forty-year period in the wilderness (Joshua 5:5).
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spe...
Congratulations on his birth, and best of luck with your little bundle of joy.
TomTobin (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The author of this fluff piece is delusional: referring to slicing off the most sexually sensate part of a boy's penis as a "beautiful tradition."
What the author left out of this wolf in sheep's clothing article is the downside of circumcision, children so badly damaged by botched circumcisions that lost far more than their foreskins. Some loose their lives.
How does the author Brandon Fastman feel about the "beautiful tradition" of metzizah bi peh, where the mohel puts his mouth to the infant's wounded penis and sucks the blood? In 2004 a Rabbi Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer of NY performed circumcision followed by metzizah bi peh and passed the herpes virus onto twin boys, killing one.
In nearby Los Angeles Dr. Anthony C. Pickett sliced off much of a baby' boy's glans penis. That child now 8 years old was awarded just less than $4 million.
As for the "singing mohel" with the "mischievous grin" perhaps David Rafael will sing a different tune when the children whose genitals he is surgically tampering with now grow up and charge him with mischief, or worse.
I wonder, how much liability insurance do doctors who perform unnecessary surgery (without the expressed understanding and consent of the actual patient) carry?
JamesLoewen (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He uses a Mogen clamp! And parents let him!?!
I guess they didn't hear about these cases:
Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/...
Boy's botched circumcision leads to $4.6 million award
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_18500080
"Raphael fortunately has never encountered major complications."
Umm, maybe that's because he's an OB/GYN and not a urologist.
No-one complained when female circumcision was made illegal, even though some people regard it as their religious right or duty to cut their daughters.
It's illegal to cut off a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Even a pinprick is banned. Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.
ml66uk (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Child genital mutilation. Plain and simple. Time to get rid of these backward ways, this is the 21st century people.
Chato (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The same scripture that said Abraham and his son and "all their kin" must be circumcised, said their slaves and everyone in the household must be, too. The Mexican live-in gardener might have something to say about that.
"Raphael fortunately has never encountered major complications." Would he? Or would they be taken to a healing doctor, like the Richmond VA paediatrician who repaired 1600 botches in three years, suggesting a complication rate of 13%?
Cutting off parts of babies because of what _might_ happen when they are 90+? What proportion of the male population ever even reaches that age? (I checked, it's about 0.4%.)
Honestly, the topic of circumcision seems to switch off people's brains.
And again with Foreskin Man being blond! Is there an ADL for blonds?
Hugh7 (anonymous profile)
August 11, 2011 at 5:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, Brandon, your logic sucks. Nobody would care except that because you can't think straight you put your son at grave risk. And you wrote about it in the Indy. Dumb and dumber.
SezMe (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 3:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Imagine a cute little story like this about a mom or dad looking forward to and enjoying the circumcision of their daughter (also a venerable, ancient tradition in many cultures). As for using the Mogen clamp.... Your work is a lawsuit waiting to happen, given that the dangers associated with that device have been well-publicized.
gchapinjd (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 6:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ridickulous barbaric practice that should be stopped and any claim of authority from imaginary deities duly dismissed without further delay.
Mutilators should not be celebrated.
Ever.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The ignorant posts here ranging from the fallacious calculations of Dr. Raphael's earnings per month to equating a male circumcision to a female circumcision are staggering. Referring to a lawsuit with no knowledge whatsoever of any of the facts, but merely the outcome, is the epitome of hysteria. Leave it to a bunch of dimwits reading the Independent to find something politically incorrect about a practice (which may also provide hygienic medical benefits of fewer transmitted sexual diseases) that has dated back thousands of years. One writer even thinks that ..."most of the world does not do this." Since the Jewish population of the world is so tiny, let's just use the Islamic world instead at 1.5 billion. Assume half are men, and that most of them are circumcised. That's a lot of people, no matter how you "slice" it.
I don't hear any of the sanctimonious authors in this thread decrying the mutilation of tattoos or piercings, and yet those can be at least as physiologically traumatic as a circumcision. Probably more so, since they aren't done under the supervision of any medical professional.
Let people make choices for their own families. And don't dictate what they can or cannot choose.
Forelle (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forelle, tattoos and piercings are a decision an adult makes for his or her own body. If you were to pierce your son's penis you would go to jail. Male circumcision is a more severe from of permanent body modification than genital piercing or tattoos.
Most of the men in the world (~70%) are not circumcised. Of the 30% who are circumcision, 2/3 of them where circumcised because their parents are Muslims. Non-religious male circumcision is very rare in Europe, South America, and non-Muslim Asia.
SteveB (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 5:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forelle, we do not "equate" male and female genital cutting, except as human rights issues - the non-consensed removal of normal, healthy, irreplacable, functional genital tissue. ANY such removal (not just the horrors of tribal Africa) is outlawed federally in the USA and throughout most of the developed world, without any religious exemption, though many Muslims believe a mild version (the Prophet reportedly said not to take too much) is required by Islam.
If you compare tribal with tribal, scores of boys die from circumcision every year in one province of South Africa alone (the only place they keep figures). If you compare surgical with surgical, girls in the USA were circumcised in the 1960s with this device - http://www.circumstitions.com/methods... (NSFW) - which has a shield to protect the cl!tor!s.
"Referring to a lawsuit with no knowledge whatsoever of any of the facts, but merely the outcome, is the epitome of hysteria." The case is very clear (I have talked to the prosecuting lawyer) that in both (now three) cases, the faulty design of the Mogen clamp allowed the boys' penis-heads to be trapped unseen where part could be cut off, and the maker has gone out of business.
A risk/benefit analysis of circumcision finds against the procedure. The case that it prevents any STI transmission is weak and mixed. Circumcision does indeed date back thousands of years, to the stone age. So should clubbing and dragging by the hair be acceptable coursthip behaviour?
Of the world's 6 billion people, about half are men, about half a billion of them Muslims. The US, the Philippines, South Korea, tribal Africa, Israel, parts of Melanesia, eastern Polynesia and aboriginal Australia are the only communities where circumcision continues, making up perhaps another half billion. Most of the world does NOT do this.
"Let people make choices for their own families."
As one man said, but more colourfully -
"My family doesn't [urinate] with my [p enis], my family doesn't [ma sturbate] with my [pe nis] and my family doesn't [have sexual intercourse] with my [pen is], so what business did my family have to go cutting part OFF of my [peni s]?"
Hugh7 (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The decision to circumcise is based upon religion, tradition or health..
This decision is private and should be left to the parents..
Complications are very rare with experienced practitioners, such as with Dr. Raphael.
Circumcisions rates in the US among the middle class are over 80%. With the exception of the few in the anti-circumcised movement most of those not getting circumcised are immigrants or a child of poverty.
Now the facts that matter:
Women, by a margin of about 3 to 1, prefer the circumcised penis, mainly because of cleanliness which is of particular importance in oral sex.
It is an acknowledged fact that women (and men) find a circumcised penis more attractive...
Circumcised men receive more fellatio.
Women have stated the circumcised penis is “cleaner”, “sexier”, “nicer to the touch”, and “smells better.”
Wow...thanks Mom!
op (anonymous profile)
August 12, 2011 at 11:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
op--Where did you come up with the "statistic" of women favoring circumcized penises by a 3-1 margin? I'd hazard a guess that it's closer to 90% of women favoring their partners being circumcised, and our preference isn't limited to oral sex. Most of us refuse to be touched by an uncircumcized penis. So much for the argument of increased sensitivity.
winddancer1562 (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 5:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am a happily circumcised male in my 50's, my teenage sons are circumcised and every male in the history of my family was circumcised. We all had it done as infants for religious, and other reasons. None of us have any complaints. We had a family discussion after reading this article and our family would not have it any other way. They and I definitely are happy that the procedure happened at 8 days and not at 18 years. I have full function and feeling and couldn't be happier(my wife is too). I realize as with any medical procedure that there are a small number of people who have complications. Luckily, if you go to a skilled practicioner(such as the doctor who is cited in this article-he'd be my number one choice as he has done so many of these procedures-20-30 a month for many years and successful ones) chances are you won't have these kind of complications and from what I've heard the number one complication is leaving too much skin on which is easily remedied. Yes, you will find horrible cases that went south here and there and they are unfortunate(see my note above about skilled practicioner). And there are probably some men out there who are blaming their lot in life on their circumcision-have to blame something.
I went to a dinner party Thursday night where there were 12 happily circumcised men who had read the article that day. Of course we discussed the article. No one felt mutilated or unhappy that they had a circumcision, most of these men had a ritual circumcision. Everyone at the party was surprised that there was this inactivist movement. A few people had heard about the attempted ballot measures in San Francisco and Santa Monica.
Interesting note: My father was a Navy doctor during the Korean War and he, surprisingly to him, had many sailors who wanted to be circumcised in their 20's so he performed the procedure for them.
This is a religious decision for a lot of people and I think most parents make an informed decision when they are choosing circumcision for their sons. I think you "inactivists" need to back off and get out of peoples' lives AND their religion. You give a new meaning to whackjob.
HappyGuy (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 7:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not Jewish but we did this for my son because I do believe that it prevents disease and infection to remove the foreskin... and his father felt strongly it should be done for a simple reason, he wanted his son to look like him.
Live and let live folks, this is so not something worth battling about and trying to ban parents from doing! If you're a parent and don't believe in it then don't have your sons circumsized, for those that do believe in it they should be able to. Trying to ban it is just as stupid as trying to make it mandatory. What next, will you want to control religion too? If so, go to another country that doesn't believe in religious freedom!
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
PS - I wouldn't have sex with someone that wasn't circumsized... need to be able to make sure they are CLEAN or I wouldn't even want to touch them with my hand, let alone anything else!
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Many men in Africa feel the same way about uncircumcised women. Cutting the genitals of a child, whether it is an American boy or an African girl, to satisfy it sexual preferences of an adult is wrong!
Any woman who rejects a man because he has normal, intact genitals is as shallow as a man who rejects a woman because she does not have big breasts.
I am confident that women my son's age will not have the same sexual hangups about men with intact genitals that women his grandmother's age have. If he wants to have sex with women in his grandmother's generation, he can get circumcised when he is an adult.
SteveB (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are effective, non-invasive ways to prevent and treat the medical problems that male circumcision is supposed to prevent. Surgery should be the last resort, not the first option.
It is unethical and inappropriate for a doctor to use surgery when there are effective, non-invasive methods of prevention and treatment available.
SteveB (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am very proud not only to be friend of Dr. Raphel but would only have him do the circumcision on my son as well as children of my friends. Our (Jewish) community will contine to hold on to our traditions and will fight anyone who interested in taking us on. For the circumsion is VERY important milestone in a childs life, as well as being given their Hebrew name. My son was born in LA and the OB said he could do the procedure and he had a copy of the prayers somewhere in his desk and we said "absolutely no!" because we wanted it done here in Santa Barbara by Dr. Ralphel and with our friends present. It should be up to the individual and the family not others and government. What should we tell cancer patients? I'm sorry you are too healthy to have surgery you will just have to die, because we don't believe in cutting into a healthy person.
fmrlobbyist (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Holy crap those website comics have some crazy anti-Semetic stuff going on. Check out the second picture down:
http://www.foreskinman.com/
Stereotypical Jews killed by an Aryan hero. Note he's holding the 8-ball. The number 8 has special meaning for white supremacists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_Precepts
How much of the anti-circumcision movement is actually an anti-Semetic movement?
Tambora (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 3:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
An interesting correlation has been discovered.
Members of the anti-circumcision movement love the taste of cheese.
youknowhoo (anonymous profile)
August 13, 2011 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have 5 brothers-all circumcised and we aren't Jewish. The reason for the procedure in our family has been look, cleanliness, custom. No one has had any complaints and don't feel that something bad was foisted upon them(or for heaven's sake that they are mutilated)-all the nephews and sons have been circumcised too. These scare tactics by this fringe group needs to be reevaluated by them since it seems as if the majority of circumcised men are happy with their circumsions. As a woman I don't think I'd ever be with someone who isn't circumcised. Does not appeal to me in the slightest. You may be setting up your uncircumcised children for being ostracized and not accepted by their potential partners. Think of the emotional scars there. Also, the Mogen clamp brouhaha is ridiculous too. There are probably thousands of circumcisions performed daily in the U.S. using the Mogen clamp successfully and you point out 3 cases that went wrong with somebody probably who shouldn't have been performing these operations. Yes they went out of business because of large cash awards from the lawsuit. Unfortunately, for the parents and the child they went to the wrong person. Sorry, I am not in the least bit swayed by these inactivists and find their alarmist tactics more worrisome(and might i say anti-semitic) than a circumcision. Throwing out unsubstantiated, crazy, facts is not a way to get your cause accepted or listened to. Sorry about all your sadness connected with you circumcision, might I recommend some therapy to get over all your issues because I don't think they only stem from your circumcisions.
summerlandsurfer (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2011 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Come on people, can SB really be that backwards that they cannot figure who the good guys are from the bad? I now Raphael and I know his belief and more importantly a fair bit about the practice that is the subject of this article. If you can find a better, more qualified , objective person/doctor/human than you should feel fortunate. Someone please remind the knuckle draggers who made negative comments about Dr R above that we still have freedom of choice in the country. If you do not agree with the practice...I am guessing that you would opt out given the choice. As for the negative assertions about the medical practice and the equipment ....you have got to be kidding. Find a real cause. Solve unemployment, reduce the national debt, cure cancer, alzheimers...
MDL (anonymous profile)
August 14, 2011 at 5:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe that it is just about impossible to use the brutal and wholly inexcusable practice of mutilating a woman's genitals as part of any good faith argument opposing circumcision.
Men mutilate their daughters in order to promote the dominance of men over women. There is no other motivation or basis for that practice. A clitorectomy is not in any respect similar to a circumsicion.
You do not need to agree with me on whether or not to circumcize your son (or on most other topics). But if you call the removal of a woman's clitoris a "circumcision", and you then equate that brutal practice (directly or indirectly) with a practice followed by substantially every Jewish family on Earth, I start wonder about you,
Are you a thinking person, or are you a person that simply repeats the propaganda that he hears?
Or do you have some other motivation that draws you to attack the deeply private decisions that other people make for themselves and for their families?
Is this really about your and your parents? Is this really about you and the girl that would not touch your wee-wee when you played doctor as children? Is this really about you and Jews?
Of course, I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but when someone makes a really stupid comparison of a circumcision to a clitorectomy, I just have to wonder about that person.
Just my views.
Brett
blocker (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2011 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, so much interest in this topic... it may seem strange that any person should dare to ask a just God's assistance to cut into a tiny baby's genitals, but let us judge not that we be not judged.
Or perhaps we could just hold the knife back and let the tiny baby decide for himself when he reaches age 18.
snugspout (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2011 at 5:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forelle and santabarbarasand: Welcome to the 6th Century. Have a great time, imbeciles. And trust me, santabarbarasand: No one wants to have sex with you without first cutting the whole thing off.
Draxor (anonymous profile)
August 15, 2011 at 11:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think you "antis" get it. Snugspouts comment "let the tiny baby decide for himself when he reaches age 18." We don't want to have our circumcisions at 18 years old. Banish the thought. My critical mass of 15 guys were overjoyed that the procedure happened in infancy and we have no memory of it. I think if you asked a lot of men, 5 days old or 18 years old you'd get the same answer. Give me a break.
HappyGuy (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2011 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
From personal experience with my own children, it's clear that a tonsillectomy is far more painful and traumatic than circumcision is for boys, yet widely accepted. Both procedures are for the perceived health of the child, tradition aside. My children barely flinched during their circumcisions and are thankful they are. Their uncircumcised friends wish they were, and have had physical and emotional issues from not being circumcised.
Comparing medical procedures of choice in our free society to traditions in countries where women are oppressed and girls forced to undergo genital mutilation (while their mothers have no say in this) is not a accurate comparison. Parents in the US are free to make an informed choice in this procedure. Most men in our modern society, had they felt permanently traumatized based on their own experience, would not encourage this procedure for their sons. I know adult men who actually chose to have this procedure themselves.
It's clear that one or more of the inactivists on this site are internet surfing "professionals" possibly hired by certain fringe groups, and not speaking from their own personal experience. Pulling random facts off the internet based on media hype is only convincing to the ignorant.
christine4 (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Got mine clipped right out of the womb. Glad they did it.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2011 at 6:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
P.S. Draxor needs to get back on his/her medication.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2011 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Blocker, my reply to Forelle applied equally to your remarks in advance. The motivation/s of those who cut genitals means nothing to those whose genitals are cut, and they are many and varied (and irrational) for both sexes. (See http://wwww.circumstitions.com/FGC-st... and http://wwww.circumstitions.com/Stitio...)
ALL female genital cutting, not "just" clitoridectomy, is outlawed in most of the developed world. Why the double standard?
Rather strikingly, REAL anti-semtites, the American Nazi Party and the KKK, have nothing to say about circumcision - probably because they're mostly circumcised themselves.
Hugh7 (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2011 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hugh7: Isn't the motivation of female genital cutting to make sure that these girls/women end up not enjoying sex?
billclausen (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2011 at 1:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the "anti-circ" folk too. I don't think that you all were on the speech and debate team in high school. You are throwing out inaccurate information and you are TOTALLY ignoring the fact that there are a lot of men out there who are fine with their augmentations. I am in that group of being fine with my parents' decision to circumcise me. People like Hugh7, etc. need to make it more of a personal plea such as, I am unhappy with my augmentation because it is even smaller as a result or I have never been able to satisfy a sexual partner because of...really stop speaking for the masses because you just don't and nobody really buys your arguments, they just do not hold up at all..
onebigpickle (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2011 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What I don't understand... how can a man be positive he doesn't miss his foreskin, when he had it removed when he was so young he can't remember having it?
By and large as a society we do ask people what they want to do with their bodies before making them do it.
In first-world countries (Sweden, Japan, etc) there really are no health differences.
Now maybe in the year 1000 BCE, or in current third-world countries, there is a health issue.
snugspout (anonymous profile)
August 18, 2011 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Snugspout how to say this delicately...I don't miss my foreskin and I don't think that I am missing any sexual sensations because of it. Any more than I already have would be uncomfortable. So why you think I miss it that's the part I'm confused about.
onebigpickle (anonymous profile)
August 20, 2011 at 10:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How could anyone ever miss something they never had, or, never had while >1 week old?
I don't miss having $1 billion since I never had it in the first place.
But if someone offered me $1 billion I might well take it.
Now pickle, if a fairy godmother could wave her wand and give you a foreskin for one night's sex, and if after that you said you didn't want it and returned yourself to a circumsized state, that would be more convincing.
But absent that experience, it is hard to understand the basis of your failure to miss a foreskin. Is it a theoretical foreskin evaluation? Querying men with foreskins? Women who have experience with men both ways?
snugspout (anonymous profile)
August 23, 2011 at 3:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)