Cutting Bits Off

[Lonan3]

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim.

Circumcision is part of initiation rites in some African, Pacific Islander, and Australian aboriginal traditions in areas such as Arnhem Land, where the practice was introduced by Makassan traders from Sulawesi in the Indonesian Archipelago.

In the Pacific, ritual circumcision is nearly universal in the Melanesian islands of Fiji and Vanuatu.

Circumcision is also commonly practiced in the Polynesian islands of Samoa, Tonga, Niue, and Tikopia. In Samoa it is accompanied by a celebration.

 

So, is it a subconscious form of antisemitism to automatically refer to the Jewish law as soon as circumcision is mentioned?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), global estimates suggest that 30% of males are circumcised, of whom 68% are Muslim.

Circumcision is part of initiation rites in some African, Pacific Islander, and Australian aboriginal traditions in areas such as Arnhem Land, where the practice was introduced by Makassan traders from Sulawesi in the Indonesian Archipelago.

In the Pacific, ritual circumcision is nearly universal in the Melanesian islands of Fiji and Vanuatu.

Circumcision is also commonly practiced in the Polynesian islands of Samoa, Tonga, Niue, and Tikopia. In Samoa it is accompanied by a celebration.

 

So, is it a subconscious form of antisemitism to automatically refer to the Jewish law as soon as circumcision is mentioned?

 

Don't know. I suppose people in the west are far more familiar of Jewish customs than Muslim ones. And circumcision isn't explictly sanctioned in the Muslim religion. But what law were you referring to?

 

I do think it is disgusting that such things are carried out in the name of religion. Was reading how many Muslim boys are given circumcisions by people not trained to do it because the NHS only allow it for medical reasons. Some believe that the NHS should therefore allow it for Muslims.

[Rog]

Very often what in the past has been found to be good practice has been enshrined into religions.

 

Consumption of certain foodstuffs, for example shell fish in hot climates, isn’t a good idea for a variety of reasons, nor is consumption or even husbandry of pork due to the diseases that exist that are common to man and pig.

 

In the case of circumcision during childhood ---- there is advantage to having the glans protected from damage by childhood rough and tumble, and once puberty is reached there is a hell of a lot to be said for not having a place where infection can set in which is why circumcision is a 'rire of passage' amongs certain African tribes.

 

In the case of male circumcision there are other factors to consider however as the inner lining of the foreskin comprises of a highly permeable material that virus can very easily breach which is why HIV is more likely to be transmitted to an uncircumcised male than to a ‘snip-tip’.

 

But a word on so called female circumcision.

 

Many people confuse female genital mutilation with female circumcision, the two are NOT the same thing at all.

 

True female circumcision is at times necessary if a woman has what is commonly known as a ‘hooded clitoris’ (Google ‘clitoral phimosis’ for more) but mostly gentle manipulation over a period of time will allow the clitoris to become exposed when it needs to be.

 

Female circumcision is NOT the same as FGM whatever you might read.

 

It has become --- useful --- for Moslem’s to present the atrocious damage that is done to the womenfolk of many tribes as Female Circumcision since that presents it in the same category as that which is done to many males, or occasionally the minor ‘nick’ at worst to treat clitoral phimosis.

 

FGM is all about subjugation of women.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In the case of circumcision during childhood ---- there is advantage to having the glans protected from damage by childhood rough and tumble, and once puberty is reached there is a hell of a lot to be said for not having a place where infection can set in which is why circumcision is a 'rire of passage' amongs certain African tribes.

 

Rough and tumble? If we were meant to lose the foreskin at puberty then you would wonder it doesn't just drop off itself.

 

Do you really think that African tribes recognised that infection was lowered by chopping it off?

 

In the case of male circumcision there are other factors to consider however as the inner lining of the foreskin comprises of a highly permeable material that virus can very easily breach which is why HIV is more likely to be transmitted to an uncircumcised male than to a ‘snip-tip’.

 

And the issue is being considered in the United States as per the article, but hacking away at skin for the sake of slightly lowering the chances of getting HIV just doesn't seem to be justifiable when condoms can be used. It is a part of someone's body. I can't see why it is right for anyone to make a decision to do this to someone else based on what they might do in the future.

[Lonan3]

Do you really think that African tribes recognised that infection was lowered by chopping it off?

Are you really suggesting that they weren't intelligent enough to?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Do you really think that African tribes recognised that infection was lowered by chopping it off?

Are you really suggesting that they weren't intelligent enough to?

 

No, of course not. I am just very surprised at the very idea that it was somehow noticed that circumcision caused a slight reduction in the number of infections. How was it noticed? How did they decide one today to run a trial and chop some foreskins off to see if their societies would benefit? I doubt it origins had anything to do with infection.

[Stu Peters]

If circumcision IS such an important factor in preventing disease, you'd have thought we'd have evolved without foreskins. Certainly in the developed world - where we have plenty of soap and water - it's a spurious argument at best.

[Rog]

It’s a very good point since there must be a reason why the lining of the foreskin did evolve to be so permeable to certain classes of virus.

 

Maybe it was a means of ensuring that immunity to certain infections was assured by the transmission of disease prior to fertilization of the female with the susceptibility to specific infections ‘taking out’ the prospective mate?

 

And maybe some virus’s took advantage of the process in order to spread.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It’s a very good point since there must be a reason why the lining of the foreskin did evolve to be so permeable to certain classes of virus.

 

Maybe it was a means of ensuring that immunity to certain infections was assured by the transmission of disease prior to fertilization of the female with the susceptibility to specific infections ‘taking out’ the prospective mate?

 

And maybe some virus’s took advantage of the process in order to spread.

 

Or maybe it is about the fact that humans have not until relatively recently been exposed to HIV, though I might be wrong in saying this. In which case circumcision is a rather drastic response to dealing with this recent spread of disease.

[Pat Ayres]

[

[WTF]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7960798.stm

 

I think the idea of cutting off people's body parts for a probable slight decrease in the chances of them getting a sexual disease as quite sick in itself. What is wrong with condoms?

 

(I did hear that the reason why it is so common in the United States is because of the influence of Jewish doctors in American hospitals who give medical reasons for why it should be carried out, but will no doubt have religious reasons why it should be done.)

 

Those figures look more than just a 'slight decrease'

 

 

thats cos when your cock has been mutilated you get laid a lot less. if you remove it completely you won't catch anything.

[Sidney]

To justify circumcision on the grounds that it reduces the rate of infection is incorrect. The end of the urethra is a very sensitive mucous membrane, and as such needs to be protected. Chopping off the foresking leaves this mucous membrane exposed and increases the chance of unrinary tract infections substantially. And I'm not talking about STI's here (Not the 4 wheel drive type, obviously).

And telling men in undeveloped countries that circumcision reduces the chance of them catching an STI is a bad policy-they may think that this gives them a level of immunity and therefore encourage them to have even more unprotected sex in the belief that they are safe.

As for the argument about it increasing sexual pleasure and potency-complete rubbish. The foreskin allows the skin over the whole length of the penis to act as a sort of "Rolling bearing" during sex which if anything will increase pleasure. Not only that, but the fact that the skin is moving less decreases the possibility of minor rips in the skin of the penis where infections may enter the bloodstream.

[Mr. Sausages]

Removing children's fingernails would prevent them getting dirt underneath. I'm not sure that it would enhance the use of the fingers though.