Corwin

I don't have a problem with that.

I don't have a problem with banning female circumcision either, or jail for parents who let their children die rather than allow them to have medical treatment.

Religious rights with regards to other people's bodies and lives aren't absolute.

Mageth

I agree about religious rights not being absolute, but I think it's fair to say that many male circumcisions aren't performed for religious reasons.

And I think there are significant differences between the morality of female circumcision (which, if I understand correctly, is targeted at eliminating orgasmic sexual experience, which male circumcision does not do) and male circumcision. As well as between male circumcision and withholding life-saving medical treatment. And IIRC female circumcisions are often performed for societal reasons that are not necessarily religious reasons (supposedly to make females less likely to seek sexual pleasure outside of marriage). So I don't think the three can necessarily be lumped together in one moral category.

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Corwin

Actually yes they can.

Routine circumcision as practiced in the United States has one purpose, to lessen sexual sensation. It was proposed in the mid 19th century as a way to cut down on masturbation, which was held responsible for a whole mess of problems ranging from psychosis to 'consumption' to more masturbation (duh) etc.

Male religious circumcision is quite different. A bris doesn't take off nearly as much of the foreskin. (I still wouldn't encourage it, but at least it leaves the glans mostly covered.) Most male sexual problems, from lack of enjoyment to the various malformations of the genitals that we consider to be 'just part of life' in our culture, or look for drugs to treat, are caused by circumcision. (Exposing the glans kills off the nerve tissues and keratinizes the skin, removal of that much foreskin frequently causes the remaining skin to be too tight, causing the 'bend' that many men consider to be completely normal.)

Both of them are essentially useless procedures that were conned off onto an ignorant population in a vain attempt to control human sexuality.

It's time we left both of them on the shitpile of history where they belong.

Mageth

It was proposed in the mid 19th century as a way to cut down on masturbation, which was held responsible for a whole mess of problems ranging from psychosis to 'consumption' to more masturbation (duh) etc.

Well, it didn't take, at least in my case.

Even if that's a reason used for originally justifying male circumcision, I don't think it's one that's commonly used today (medical justifications such as the one Dr. Rick has expressed are used, I believe), so when discussing the morality of circumcision in current society, I don't think it applies.

Most male sexual problems, from lack of enjoyment to the various malformations of the genitals that we consider to be 'just part of life' in our culture, or look for drugs to treat, are caused by circumcision.

Forgive me if it's already been posted in this thread, but is there evidence to back up this assertion?

It's time we left both of them on the shitpile of history where they belong.

Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't bother me if neonatal male circumcision was made a thing of the past. But there is question in my mind as to whether the procedure is "essentially useless."

Corwin

There's plenty of evidence, if nobody else has posted it before I get home I'll dig up the links. (In the meantime I'd prefer not to have links to gentials left over in my work machine. )

And regarding Dr Rick's links... look. I basically like the guy and respect him. But not on this issue. Like most of the medical community he's doing whatever he has to to justify this procedure... even to the point of convincing himself and others that these studies point to more than a fraction of a percent difference in disease rates.

I can understand the motivation. Most people who have circumcised their children don't like to face it either.

Mageth

I don't think you or I can justifiably claim to know Dr. Rick's or anyone else's unstated motivations, and I don't think it's proper to assign motivations to someone which they may not have.

Corwin

It's called 'empathy' and 'experience with human interactions.'

It may not always be right.... but I'm right more often than not.

Mageth

The important thing is not to be right most of the time, but to recognize that you may be, and especially when you are, wrong. And to recognize that all issues are not as black-and-white as you may think they are.

Thus, it's better to state such things in terms of "Joe Blow appears to be...", "In my opinion, Joe Blow is...", or "It may be that Joe Blow is...". I've learned that from my experience with human interactions.

Corwin

The other important thing is to realize that not everything is opinion, and some issues are black and white.

Nihlism is an interesting intellectual argument, but for life it's fucking useless most of the time.

Mark_Chid

It already is 'on the shitpile of history' in the UK, without negative effect.