Circumcision
Offline Most people put this issue in the back of there minds and never think about it. I watched a documentary recently that sparked interest in this topic again. The last time I had even thought about it was when I was a theist, and that realization made me sick how tolerant I've gotten that it never even crossed my mind until recently.
Its safe to say that this practice is a religious one and no rational person would condone it. Its not even talked about by atheists much because its slowly dieing off itself with rates dropping every year, as more people realize (even theists) that cutting off parts of a perfectly healthy baby seems kinda... fucked up. I think there should be WAY more emphasis on getting rid of this practice on the grounds that it breaks all medical ethics, that its child abuse and mutilation. The mindset of a person can be changed but the interact blood vessels and nerves of circumcised penis can never be fully restored.
I really don't know what other atheists think of this since I would guess some number of them are former theists that are circumcised. I thank my parents for not doing it to me.
How do you atheists out there that are circumcised feel about it? do you resent your parents for it?
I know that its a very weird and hard question to answer for someone who is circumcised since they have absolutely no analogue to compare to.
This is something I found in my search more into this, I cant fully compare being circumcised to not being circumcised as I'm not but I tend to agree with this article from my own "experimentation" http://www.circumcision.org/adults.htm
What I mean by experimentation is... Only guys that aren't circumcised can test this. Ok basically pull back your foreskin and leave it retracted now go jogging, play some basketball or whatever sport you like for 30 minutes, come back and tell people how it felt... it dont feel good ;(
- Login to post comments
Doesn't bother me either way, to be honest. The head of your penis (which isn't skin, but a mucous membrance) increases in size to make up for the lost foreskin, effectively making cloth rubbing null and void. I suppose it makes us last longer in the sack as well.
I have throught about this issue myself and come to the conclusion that If I ever have children (not really planning on it but things change so who knows), and if any of them are male, they will not be circumcised. I am quite happy that circumcision is becoming less common. I know several friends of mine who circumcised their children because they didn't want them to be "made fun of in the locker room for being different", but the latest statistics (from 2003) show that circumcision is only performed on 55% of boys in the US. So getting made fun of, while being a non-isse to begin with in my opionion, is now truly a non-issue.
What I have always found baffling about circumcision is when people do it for "religious" reasons. Biblers use this quote to tell people it is a sin to get tattooed:
Riiiiight. You can't get a tattoo but god wants you to cut off part of your newborn baby's penis.
Your resident OTD/S, Christina
A good scientist will always change her mind if new evidence is presented which gives her sufficient reason to change it.
www.ziztur.com
There was a thread about this a while back, where a few people actually argued over whether circumcision had any benefit or was morally wrong. I think it's a disgusting, primitive practice that should be stopped, although it's not very detrimental to a person. And yes, the head toughens up to deal with jeans and the brutal, unforgiving forces of nature. Those of us that are circumcised can't really tell you "what it's like;" it's just our penis, and that's the way it's always been.
Do You Worship an Evil God?
Not sure how much your documentary went into the history, Navitron, but male circumcision of non-Jewish boys in the U.S. is mostly due to the work of Dr. William Acton in the 19th century. His motives were not religious, but were based on psuedo-scientific research that incorrectly suggested that male circumcision helped prevent masturbation (and the resulting disorder of masturbatory insanity). Although his influence is mostly forgotten, he's nearly single-handedly responsible for the mostly unexamined assumuption that boys have to be circumcised for medical reasons.
Among American gentile males in the U.S., circumcision is an evil that has to be laid partly at the door of science, not just religion. Yes, it was a result of Victorian morality, but the sources for the anti-masturbatory movement of the 19th century were not purely religious.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I have always thought that in the future I would not have a male child circumcised. It seems useless to me and not worth the risk. (I mean you know someone has to have messed up performing the circumsion sometime - even if they are good - mistakes happen.) Also if I a son grew up to have wished he was circumcised he could always choose, himself, to do it as an adult but it's not as easy to put it back.
However, my atheist ex-fiance became really irate at me when I said this. He's circumcised and he claims his grandmother insisted it was to be done when he was born for hygine reasons.
I don't know how much truth there is in that statement but I guess I would have to say if this was a decision I was faced with I would take into consideration what the child's father thought as well as the recommendation of a trusted doctor. Although, again, I would lean towards not doing it --- again with the it could always be done later argument.
There is a famous case (not remembering the names of the people involved) where a doctor failed in a circumcision that he was attempting with a hot iron, and mutilated the baby's penis beyond repair. So they decided to surgically alter the baby into a girl and raise him as a girl. He has since had himself changed back and is used as a case study for why gender is a brain phenomenon, not a genital one, and you can't just change how people feel about their gender by altering their external organs.
According to wiki, at least one estimate puts the death rate from circumcisions at 1 in 6000. Small odds, unless you're the parents who lose their son to a medically unecessary procedure.
"Hygene" is the inherited Victorian euphemism for "helps prevent masturbation." It's mental and moral hygene they understood each other to be actually talking about here. As long as the guy washes, there's no difference in actual cleanliness.
But it's one of those bandwagon phenomena where the actual reasons are long forgotten and have been replaced by a lot of urban legends and blind prejudice. Also it's something where permanent decisions are made for children without their informed consent. Kind of like a religion.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
Theres an episode of Penn and Tellers Bullshit about circumcision.
Season 3 episode 1 I think.
I never really thought about it honestly. I suppose it is kind of a cruel thing to do to a newborn child, but I can't exactly remember it being done to me, and it hasn't really scarred me for life or anything. The principle of the thing is pretty gruesome, but I don't resent my parents' decision to have my circumsized. I'm sure it sucked at the time, but I really don't have any recollection of it.
Also, since I can't go back and be uncircumsized, I have no basis for comparison. All I can do is take some other uncircumsized guy's word.
My penis has been my penis for my entire life. We've grown up together and become good friends. The issue doesn't bother me personally, but I guess I can see how it would be a beef with some people.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Here's something weird that occurred to me: Can circumcision potentially create a traumatic memory of quasi-castration?
David Reimer. He killed himself about three years ago. The Weakerthans wrote a very touching song about him called "The Hymn of the Medical Oddity."
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
I don't plan on circumcising any of my male offspring. I'm not sure where my wife is on the issue, I don't think it's come up yet. She wouldn't condone clipping a doberman or getting a cat declawed, so why mutilate your kid?
Also, it seems like the evidence for potential benefits gets overturned every other month. I think the latest report is that if one is circumcised you have less of a chance of contracting HIV. I'd rather teach my sons the importance of other forms of protection.
-Triften
I can't recall where I saw this (tv, net etc) but iirc there is a company in California that uses the removed foreskins to use as cultures to grow artificial skin. A single foreskin produces several football fields worth of artificial skin which can then be used for skin graphs.
I do not condone the mutilation of children who do not have the choice but I found it amusing and indeed fascinating that this was one of the outcomes of such a practice. I'll have to remember/find the link! I wonder whether it's possible to do the same with a smaller sample. Perhaps dandruff or the next time I peel my sunburn might be of use!
A quick google shows
"Dermagraph is the only artificial skin product on the market made from human tissue. Made from human foreskin, Dermagraph-TC can make enough skin to cover six to eight football fields from one male sample."
from here -
http://www.attorneyrobertbrenner.com/guide_resources_articles_10-28-97.htm
P.S - I do dislike the format for these forums, it makes using them much harder than a normal forum.
There was another thread on this - although I'm not going to dig it up - where I had a slight disagreement with Richard Carrier about circumcision. I find male circumcision just as barabaric as female circumcision, and I actually wrote a paper on it three or four years ago. Anyway, I have three sons, and I have not mutilated any of them. The link here has pictures and even a video of an actual circumcision. (It makes me cry every time I see it.)
http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/plastibell/
Atheist Books
It's become so routine that most Americans don't even think about it. They've been duped into thinking that it's cleaner and safer for their sons to have the skin removed.
Circumcision should be mandatory until women have full equality.
My wife and I decided well before either of our children were born that they wouldn't be circumcised if they were male. Both turned out to be female, of course, but our minds were made up. We had a different doctor deliver each of our kids, but both of them said that circumcision was medically unnecessary. They both offered to do it because of its prevalence in society, but that was it.
Now, here's something disturbing...I was just doing a search to see what circumcision rates are elsewhere in the world, and holy shit are there some fanatical people out there who are in favor of circumcision.
I found a particularly scary post on a Web site for nurses:
***
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...src=rss&rpc=22
"A U.S. National Institutes of Health study in Kisumu, Kenya, involving 2,784 men aged 18 to 24 showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV infections in circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men. A parallel study involving 4,996 men aged 15 to 49 in Rakai, Uganda, showed circumcised men were 48 percent less likely than uncircumcised men to become infected."
"Researchers previously had noticed that in places where circumcision is common, HIV was less common."
This might explain why heterosexual transmission is much less rampant in the United States specifically, and West generally. There is a much higher incidence of circumcision here.
~faith,
Timothy.
***
Now, I haven't read the Reuters piece, but assuming the quote is lifted directly from it, I have to say that is the worst example of statistical inferencing ever. Everyone knows HIV is most prevalent in Africa, where medical care and sexual education are almost non-existent.
From what I could find, it looks like most African countries have a circumcision rate of between 20% and 80%, and most of the developed countries in Europe have a circumcision rate of less than 20%. Yet HIV prevalence in Africa is 40+ times that of Europe. So I fail to see how circumcision really helps fend off HIV.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
There are multiple reasons why this research is completely irrelevant. First of all, the circumcised vs. intact populations are in fact a matter of religious differences, which we all know contributes at least in some part to the general sexual activity of a group. If the Muslim population is circumcised, and also taught that pre- or extra-marital sex is a mortal sin, then obviously their rates of infection will be lower. That is what researchers and statisticians like to refer to as confounding factors.
Secondly, we are aware that there are many more effective ways to diminish the spread of STD's that don't involve the mutilation of a normally functioning body part. Why not teach them about condoms and make them available instead of removing a foreskin?
Atheist Books
What a nightmare to control for...
American Christians are often circumcised and told that pre-marital sex is a sin as well. It doesn't do too much for STD rates from what I understand.
-Triften
I would have prefered not to have been cut as a child, but no-one seemed to care about my opinion. I do kinda resent my parents doing it and never providing a reason for it to me other than, everyone does it.
Morte alla tyrannus et dei
Another really bizzare reason I remember reading about (don't remember where the article was) was the case of an (American) mother who wanted her son circumcised because she was worried about the psychological repercussions on her son of his being "different." She herself was also repulsed by uncircumcised penes, so she was worried about the potential negative reactions of her son's future girlfriends.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
For anyone who is interested, circumcision reversal/restoration is gaining in popularity. It relies on a simple dermatological principle that if you apply constant stretching to a piece of skin, it will eventually cause more skin cells to be produced. It's the same idea that allows people to stretch ear (or other) piercings to extreme lengths. There are devices that you can buy that will allow you two stretch your foreskin to it's original length. It is quite time consuming (taking upwards of 1-2 years) but rather painless and it does not require the consultation of a doctor.
Men that have done a reversal describe the difference in sexual pleasure as the difference between seeing in black and white and seeing in color. Aforementioned "Bullshit!" episode, the fiancee of a "reverser" described it as the difference between having sex with a broomstick and sex with a "well-oiled piston". I like that analogy
My wife has actually exressed interest in me doing a reversal/restoration...I haven't decided yet, though.
Check http://www.noharmm.org/reversal.htm for more information.
You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.
I am a "mutilated" male from circumcison.
Guess how much trauma it has caused me?
None.
I do agree that in the case of accidentally cutting the penis completely off that it should either be stopped or somehow controlled to prevent such a thing occuring.
But really, I'm rather glad that I was circumcised.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Interesting... if you had not been circumcised would you have had it done yourself as an adult?
I highly doubt that I would elect for a doctor to take a blade to my penis. I literally don't understand what I am missing. So it may very well be that I have lost a lot of physical sensation through it.
So I can only speak through ignorance.
I can only say that not knowing what I have lost, it does not bother me.
I cannot condone circumcision. It just doesn't personally bother me that I am circumcised.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Wow glad a lot of people chimed in on this topic. What really makes me mad is that people who support circumcision give logic on par with creationists. I fail to see how not having a protective layer of skin over a penis makes you more immune to STDs and Cancer, if anything having extra protection should help not harm.
Be sure to try to educate your theists friends or family about this issue. I completely wiped the idea from my sisters and her husbands minds a few months ago when they were talking about starting a family. You can change someones mind easily about this issue even religious people.
All it took was for them to watch these.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fa_qn6i1Y0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntuHWixVxv0
I still cannot fathom the reasoning; that if we were made in god's image then why would males have to have part of their god given weiner removed? (and yes please say that with a South Park Kyle voice).
I understand that it is now more of a cultural/suedo medical thing in the US. (please correct this if I'm wrong). I remember a "Sex and the City" episode where the gals talked about it and how the famous four (no not the Enid Blighton lot) delt with it, although I have no idea whether that is indicative of mainstream US women.
Perhaps that's an angle I should try next time I'm in the US - yes ladies I have an irresistible English accent and my member has novelty value too!
I generally agree with your stance on circumcision.
However, your comparison is faulty. With circumsicion, a study was done with a hypothesis and all that, and evidence was gathered. Personally, I doubt their statistical methods, but creationism can't get that far. So, in light of the presence of evidence (disclaimer: I haven't read the study myself), your comment is basically proof by incredulity.
I think the issue may be that the foreskin retains fluids and gives the virus more time to get inside the person but that's just a guess.
-Triften
I was circumcised as a baby, and I'm extremely displeased about it. I resent my parents for making a bad decision, although I understand they were misled into thinking it would prevent health problems. I also resent them for making the decision for me instead of waiting until I was old enough to make it myself.
The way I see it, they had a doctor remove a protective layer of skin. The deal with things that protect you is that you generally don't miss them until you need them.
You could say the same about the excision of any body part.
I recall a documentary called "Sound and Fury." In it, a deaf child of deaf parents had the opportunity, due to the nature of her deafness, to have a device implanted to allow her to hear (and eventually, speak, etc.). Her parents went back and forth about it, but ultimately decided against it because they thought she would just be made fun of by hearing people, and that it would distance her from the deaf community of which they'd become an active part. I think they were selfish and short-sighted, because hearing isn't just some optional feature of being a human. It was relevant to our survival as a species, and it's an asset to us today: not having it can still get you killed, and at the least removes a dimension from your experience. Choosing a hinderance, or a mutilation, especially on behalf of another, seems immoral to me. I'm not saying they're equivalent, but I think the decisions are both poor ones.
here's one danger of circumscision eported by cnn:
Officials fear babies contracted herpes during circumcisions
CNN ^ | 2.02.2005 | Staff
Posted on 02/02/2005 2:18:43 PM PST by TheBattman
NEW YORK (AP) -- City health officials are investigating the death of a baby boy who was one of three infants to contract herpes after a rabbi circumcised them. Ten days after Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer performed religious circumcisions on twins last October, one died of herpes and the other tested positive for the virus, according to complaint filed by the health department in Manhattan Supreme Court. The complaint, reported in Wednesday's edition of the New York Daily News, also said health officials later found a third baby who had contracted herpes after being circumcised by Fischer in late 2003. Under Jewish law, a mohel -- someone who performs circumcisions -- draws blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand, but Fischer uses a rare practice where he uses his mouth. Fischer's lawyer, Mark Kurzmann, told the Daily News that Fischer was cooperating with the investigation, although it's unclear whether Fischer submitted to the city's request for a blood test. "My client is known internationally as a caring, skilled, and conscientious mohel," Kurzmann said."The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens
There's just something about a religious figures mouth on a newborn's penis that I find rather disturbing. Anyone else?
www.garageband.com/artist/abandonmypeace