Culture, Identity, Mishegas, Religion, Sex & Gender

More ammunition for the (pro) circumcision wars

Nu? What should I put in the window?
According to Reuters, a new study from researchers at McGill University, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, have revealed what lots of people have known all along: circumcision has no effect on sexual sensation.
There’s lots of things I could say here, but the truth is, this study doesn’t much matter. For those who are determined to stop circumcision, this won’t make any difference – they’ll go on touting the flawed studies they’ve been using (one big problem that I noted a while back with those studies- they relied on men circumcised as adults, and also several of them on men who were unhappy with their circumcisions. Um, durr) and for those who are commanded to circumcise, well as they ought, they’ll go on circumcisiing. Because in the end, that’s the reason one does it. Not because it’s healthier for their sexual partners, or because it lowers the (relatively miniscule anyway) risk of penile cancer. Circumcision for Muslims and Jews is because God commanded it. That’s it. Move along now.

30 thoughts on “More ammunition for the (pro) circumcision wars

  1. New Study Claims Parity in Circ Sensitivity

    Medical News Today reports,
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78059.php

    <blockquote>According to a new study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, sexual sensation in circumcised and uncircumcised men may not be so different after all. The research, performed in the Department of Psychology of McGill University in Montreal, consisted of genital sensory testing conducted on circumcised and uncircumcised men during states of sexual arousal and non-arousal. Results showed that no difference between the two groups was found in sensitivity to touch or pain.

    “This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded,” says Kimberley Payne, Ph.D, principal author of the study.

    “People have been arguing about the sexual effects of circumcision for at least 1,000 years and I hope these data will encourage more research,” says Dr. Yitzchak M. Binik, co-author of the research and Professor of Psychology at McGill and Director of the Sex and Couple Therapy Service of the McGill University Health Center.

    The authors note that the presence of scar tissue formation from circumcision, as well as functional and mechanical changes related to sexual activity, are factors that may have secondary effects on genital sensitivity and should be considered in future research.

    Well, I guess that takes care of that! It looks like you can cut genital tissue off a boy (but never a girl, that’s soooo different, always, in every way, no comparison at all ever) and it’s no problemo! Well, great! I guess we don’t have to wor…oy. What’s this?</blockquote>

    The International Coalition for Genital Integrity asks,

    <blockquote>The question remains: Can 20,000 nerve endings be amputated without loss of sensitivity?

    ICGI notes, http://www.icgi.org/2007/07/penises-battle-for-sensitivity/

    According to the Penile Touch-Test Sensitivity Evaluation study by Sorrells et al. published in the British Journal of Urology International, intact men have four times the penile sensitivity of circumcised men. This is the opposite of findings in a recent Payne et al. study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine saying sensitivity is no different. Both studies employed the same testing method. Sorrells says circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, while Payne chose to ignore the hyper-sensitive foreskin altogether. The Payne study failed to reference the earlier Sorrells study.

    Both studies used a standard monofilament skin sensitivity measuring device. The Sorrells study tested 161 men at 17 locations (2157 tests) along the penis, including the circumcision scar, and inner and outer parts of the foreskin. The Payne study tested 20 men at 2 locations (40 tests), but inexplicably did not measure foreskin sensitivity.

    The foreskin has long been identified as the most sensitive portion of the penis, and Payne admitted that, “it is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum.” And, yet, omitted testing any part of the foreskin because, “this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis.” Their circumcision-centric perspective defies common sense, which says the sensitivity of the lost foreskin in circumcised men is simply nonexistent, and should have been recorded as zero. What Payne did was side-step this thorn in their hypothesis by ignoring it altogether.

    The difference in the findings in these two studies indicates the need to include the foreskin as an integral part of the penis when testing penile sensitivity. Selective testing should be declared ‘junk science.’</blockquote>

    In other words, if there is a question of a one legged man (say, with his left leg intact) walking as well as a two legged man, this sort of study would address the power of the left leg in each man only.

    Pretty dubious, indeed. Why would they do a test this way?

    Yizchak? Kol Rasash Gadol?

    And there is good reason to believe that brit priah is NOT A TORAH COMMANDMANT AS KOL RAASH GODOL FALSELY SUGGESTS.

    See today’s Failed Messiah’s article question circumcision and discussion over this aspect of practice.

    http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2007/07/should-we-end-c.html

    But ho hum, this issue is on boys, and male specific issues are NEVER a gender issue for Kol Ra’ash Gadol. Back to Agunahs everyone, show’s over.

  2. Also, the “science” you bring is both dubious and has been rejected by the scientific community as a whole. No one is arguing for circumcision because of penile cancer. This was rejected long ago. So too, your casual assertion of benefits of partners is also dubious. In fact, a cottage industry has developed to treat women who suffer from lack of lubricant because of the more traumatic intercourse with a circumcised penis, as well as that a circumcised penis pulls out moisture.
    Then you dismiss the importance of the science anyway. If you bring medical evidence, you either stand by it or you don’t.
    If you don’t, or if it doesn’t matter anyway, then don’t bring it.
    You can’t just reach for whatever once existed for five minutes and call that medical expertise. It doesn’t work like that, nor should it. Perhaps you should move along to your real issue, and not bring dubious, absentminded side notes that you have not researched fairly or fully.

  3. DK, grow up! The poster laid it out exactly, and you are not going to change 3,000 years of normative Judaism – if you don’t want to do something, don’t do it, no one is putting a gun to your head – but stop sniveling!

  4. well, it’s might be a deep question, no? All the other things that Jews have adjusted about their religion, when “better” ways were found: the end of polygamy, sacrifices—
    Because, lets say some information came to make clear that circumcision caused more damage than it saved us from… Would we really be free to stop? Some people might, but DK is concerned for the rest of Am Yisrael, G-d bless his soul, it’s not enough for him that his theoretical children not be wounded like our people have been for quite some time, but that as many children/people as possible should be saved from, let’s say, completely unnessesary trauma.
    I’m a bit torn up about it myself. I’m pretty religious, but i’d rather not mutilate my children only because i’m supposed to, and it would be so much easier socially to do so. If i could find the good Tairutz not to have to circumcize, I might rather do that, UNLESS I really understood why it’s so crucial. Is it just tribal affliation? Because G-d’s covenant with his people is affirmed so many different ways, is wounding my child in his name REALLYwhat he ideally wants?
    I have a problem killing cockaroaches until I see them causing me any really trouble, so maybe I’m just a huge faggot… but all the most honest reasons for Circumsion that i’ve heard, have to do with either toughening up your child, making him less sexually threatening and teaching him control of self by forcing them to give up the most self indulgent part of the body (which is why Daoists i’ve met do it sometimes,) or with doing something so bad to your son that you’ll always have to give them something in life worthwhile to justify it, as if.
    Sigh. No one’s holding a gun to our heads? God is holding a mountain over our heads! How free are we really, if we still want to hold this “Jewish” thing together?

  5. well, it’s might be a deep question, no? All the other things that Jews have adjusted about their religion, when “better” ways were found: the end of polygamy, sacrifices—
    Because, lets say some information came to make clear that circumcision caused more damage than it saved us from… Would we really be free to stop? Some people might, but DK is concerned for the rest of Am Yisrael, G-d bless his soul, it’s not enough for him that his theoretical children not be wounded like our people have been for quite some time, but that as many children/people as possible should be saved from, let’s say, completely unnessesary trauma.
    I’m a bit torn up about it myself. I’m pretty religious, but i’d rather not mutilate my children only because i’m supposed to, and it would be so much easier socially to do so. If i could find the good Tairutz not to have to circumcize, I might rather do that, UNLESS I really understood why it’s so crucial. Is it just tribal affliation? Because G-d’s covenant with his people is affirmed so many different ways, is wounding my child in his name REALLYwhat he ideally wants?
    I have a problem killing cockaroaches until I see them causing me any really trouble, so maybe I’m just a huge faggot… but all the most honest reasons for Circumsion that i’ve heard, have to do with either toughening up your child, making him less sexually threatening and teaching him control of self by forcing them to give up the most self indulgent part of the body (which is why Daoists i’ve met do it sometimes,) or with doing something so bad to your son that you’ll always have to give them something in life worthwhile to justify it, as if.
    Sigh. No one’s holding a gun to our heads? God is holding a mountain over our heads! How free are we really, if we still want to hold this “Jewish” thing together?

  6. Actually I think the sensitivity issue is just is just one of a myriad of reasons why people are trying to stop circumcision of minors.
    This study does little to scientifically settle the matter anyway; it measured only 2 points on the penis and of course they ignored the sexual tissue that it is actually removed in the operation. Duh. Imagine: “Studies show no difference in vision between people who are color blind and people who aren’t (btw, we only used black and white photos in the study)” But anyway, like I said the sensitivity issue is just a part of it but the basic principle remains: that nobody should have healthy parts of their body, and in this case sex anatomy, snipped off without their consent.
    As far as it being healthier for the partner, well lets get back to reality. I don’t see how the overblown hype of circumcision as an STD preventative or a reduced (miniscule) risk of rare infections that can be treated easily with pills or cream does not do much to detract from the main principles held by most who are opposed to this practice.
    The minor inconvenience of a minor surgery/bris (usually a guy can be back at work the very next day – got to love modern medicine) when a male is mature enough to consent can seem to be a fair trade off in order to avoid boys and men from having it done against their will.
    I can see how clinging to outdated health myths, or trumpeting a study like this makes one feel more comfortable about circumcising children. But like the author says: the real reason people do it is because it was commanded by God in the magical times of 20BC.(or because all their neighbors are doing it) That’s it.

  7. I think it would be a shame to allow this discussion to continue without some mention of smegma. There, I’ve said it.
    DK- “a circumcised penis pulls out moisture”??? What the hell does that mean? If anything, the opposite is true.
    My informal research, dating inside and outside the tribe, leads me to conclude that the circumcised don’t seem to be missing anything in terms of enjoyment and the uncircumsized have a lot of issues with shifting stuff around/uncomfortable folding with no perceptable benefit.
    And guys, it’s much more enjoyable to give a circumcized guy a blowjob. Chew on that.

  8. when did this command disappear from the Torah? Is there a new edition out?
    Again, I don’t get it. Generation after generation hasn’t had an issue with bris. Suddenly, it’s something that must be stopped. And it just happens to be at a time when Jew-hatred and hatred of God are in vogue.

  9. How can you guarantee that a boy born into Judaism will stay there as an adult? In USA we have freedom of religion – that means freedom for anyone to pick their own religion, regardless of their parents’ wishes. Jewish parents should have the right to raise their kids in Jewish schools and going to the synagogue, but not have the right to cut off parts of their sons’ penises. I’m fine if those sons chose to get circumcised at their 18th birthday, it’s their freedom of religion to enter the covenent of Abraham of their own free will.
    Step back and try to see it from the outside: would you allow parents in a Satanic cult to tattoo a pentagram on their newborn? Wouldn’t you go berserk trying to get the state to remove that kid from their parents? The parents were only trying to express their freedom of religion. You wouldn’t even notice if those same kids went to the tattoo parlor on their 18th birthday for that pentagram.
    In general body modification is restricted to adults consenting to it on themselves. Why is circumcision any different?

  10. Siviyo, see the gliding mechanism section of this piece to explain the moisture issue: http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/
    Siviyo wrote,
    “And guys, it’s much more enjoyable to give a circumcized guy a blowjob. Chew on that.”
    That’s a particularly bad reason for circ. I don’t think boys should not have parts of their genitals cut off anymore than girls should because of the claim men prefer it that way, which is absolutely a reason offered in those communities that practice FGM.
    yaaziel wrote, “when did this command disappear from the Torah? Is there a new edition out?”
    There is no explicit Torah Commandment to do brit periah, a more radical form of circumcision we practice. Additionally, we do not just “cut back” the inner foreskin, but cut that off too. Guess who doesn’t do that? Ironically, the chassidim. They cut off less than most Jews. Those circumcised in this fashion fittingly have a streimel effect below the corona.
    But again — everyone continue to have your fantasies that there is one way…and one amount, of cutting off part of the penis.
    “Again, I don’t get it. Generation after generation hasn’t had an issue with bris”
    Wrong. From Moshe’s time to late 19th and early 20th century Central Europe, there have many times where resistance to circumcision has arisen.
    Shtreimel wrote,
    “hatred of God are in vogue.”
    Bingo.”
    No. More information is available. Is resistance to FGM (of ALL FORMS, even a mere pricking of the clitorus, no amputation) because of “hatred of God?”
    Now with the Internet, the anti-circ reasoning is gaining ground in the general population, because it makes more sense than the pro-circ camp, which in the West, (and pro-circ only exists in the U.S., not the rest of the West, it’s long over). The hospital bias in the U.S. was always for the procedure in part because of the profit of the procedure. New reasons to circ were constantly invented as the old ones were debunked. This continues, but the anti-circ groups both track the history of lies, are quicker to question the logic and scientific claims of the new reasons offered, and most importantly, demonstrate the function of the foreskin itself, and have greater access to the public.
    The majority of the general anti-circ community is not anymore motivated by “hatred of God”than the anti-FGM community is.

  11. Stop worrying about the issue, at the rate of ascendancy of Muslim power in the West, it will soon be a governmental requirement that all boys are circumsised. Ya know, of all the issue to waste cyberspace on, this seems down near the bottom – reread the original post, it says it all, then do what you want guided by your conscience and Jewish law (if that guides you), other than that who give a shit!

  12. “The majority of the general anti-circ community is not anymore motivated by “hatred of God”than the anti-FGM community is.”
    The attempt to compare male circumcision to FGM is simply hilarious. It’s like comparing somebody who prunes a tree to somebody who cuts it down. Only somebody ignorant of the realities of both could try to make a linkage.

  13. Only someone who pretends, or is unaware, of the varying degrees of FGM, says such things. Clearly you are one of those that pretends FGM is confined to the more radical forms. This is bogus.
    The FGM ban in the U.S. includes merely pricking the clitorus to allow a drop of blood.
    Take it up with Hirsi Ali. She says the same thing. Explain to her that she is ignorant about FGM. What does she know about such things, after all?

  14. let’s compare what supposedly has no comparison:
    “Type 1 circumcision involves pricking or removing the clitoral hood, or prepuce. This is the least mutilating type and should not preclude sexual orgasms in later life, unlike other forms. In the southern Arabian countries Type 1 circumcision is commonly practiced. In African countries, however, Type 1 circumcision is often not regarded as genuine circumcision.”
    http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:0Lkr4_-ydEIJ:www.womensstudies.ku.edu/graduate_certificate_research/Female%2520Genital%2520Mutilation%2520and%2520Cosmetic%2520Surgery.rtf+mild+forms+of+fgm&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

  15. Yaaziel-
    Jew-hatred and hatred of God? Now that’s an intellectually lazy argument if I ever heard one. Also, I think its a safe bet to say that most of the Jew-hatred in this world is coming from people whose religion also mandates this custom. And, a hatred of God??? I’d love to hear that one explained.
    “Generation after generation hasn’t had an issue with bris” and throughout human history there are countless examples of things that went on from generation after generation for thousands of years that haven’t started to change until recently.
    and Siviyo –
    Your personal opinion that “it’s much more enjoyable to give a circumcized guy a blowjob.” Thanks for letting us know that. But who cares?

  16. And Eric – How FGM compares to male circumcision has little to do with the crux of the matter.
    The one similarity is that it is a cultural genital surgery performed on minors who have no ability to opt out which is why some make that linkage.
    It’s obviously most of the time much worse, like comparing losing and entire hand as opposed to just a finger. But, some versions of FGM are no worse than male circumcision like DK mentioned. Either way aside It’s not only about the degree of harm caused; but also about whether it is anyones right to cut off a part your body when your a child (outside the context of a necessary medical intervention of course).

  17. In any case, DK seems to have missed the point of the post, which is quite the opposite of what he implies, to wit: If your only reason for doing circumcision is because it protects one from a fairly rare form of not terribly dangerous cancer, then go back to statistics class, and don’t cut; if it’s because it protects women from some forms of viral transmission, we can probably find another way to do that (like, duh, properly used condoms). These other reasons, whether true or not, are ultimately flexible, and so one should NOT circumcise just because of them (I mean I guess you can if you want to – and it’s better to do it when the child is young than to wait until it really will be traumatic and a major operation, but why if you don’t need to?). The reason to circumcise is because you want to obey the first commandment given to the Jewish people. Otherwise, why bother? I know I’m in the minority on this, but it’s similar to the also unpopular position that if you don’t want to marry out just because, and you don’t really care about raising your kids Jewishly, don’t observe any thing yourself, etc, then caring that say, your kid married a non-Jew is just a form of racism. It’s when you have a holy mission that these things become relevant – I don’t say this to exclude any branch of Judaism: Reform Jews can have a sense of mission and hoiness as much as Orthodox, but one shouldn’t circumcise, convert, keep kosher, marry in, etc, without having some reason and motivation.
    Now, it may very well turn out that circumcision has some sort of health benefits – that’s been argued back and forth for decades. I don’t feel any need to weigh in on the argument. I suspect that ultimately, it will be concluded that there are some, and that they’re minor. But one shouldn’t circumcise for that, any more than one should keep kosher for the health benefits or to avoid trichinosis (which everyone conveniently forgets can also be acquired from undercooked beef, etc, not just pork, and that’s not even getting into milk and meat, or properly schechted, or whatever, which I haven’t ever heard to have any health benefits, so how to explain those things,then?).
    But since I’m being tarred as the devil who doesn’t care about men, I suppose I can play that a little longer for fun:
    The sensation debate- As best I can tell, all the studies measure only a before and after on men who were circumcised as adults. It is unlikely, in fact, that the results of adult circumcision and those done on a – not just a child, but an infant, are the same.
    BUT, let’s suppose that circumcision does in fact reduce sensation some. It is indisputable that the great majority of men have, after circumcision, some amount of sensation and pleasure. Most American men, Jewish or not, are still circumcised, and I gotta tell you, I haven’t noticed that American men – of either, er, flavor- have lost their desire for sex as a major motivation in their lives (unlike with say, FGM, where the purpose of the operation is generally to eliminate sexual pleasure in order to promote chastity). SOme of them, are, in fact, downright randy little fellows. To that extent at least, we have quite a bit of evidence that circumcised men do experience quite a lot of pleasure in the act of sex.
    So, let’s work from the idea that there’s some minor amount of lessening of sexual pleasure – we seem, by the throwing about of numbers and studies, to be pretty clear that it’s not a huge disincentive towards sex and sexual pleasure.
    But perhaps (and this is Maimonides’ theory – that is, the Maimonides pretty famously not known for being a feminist- not mine) perhaps God’s intention in this act was to reduce, without eliminating, sexual pleasure for the purpose of helping men get control over their sexuality and to offer that sexuality as a holy act to God. Or perhaps as the midrash has it: bread is better than wheat, clothing better than flax; a product is a holier item than one that has not yet been molded by the intent of a human being in partnership with God.
    And of course, to the suggestion that no one has been anti-circ before these crazy modern times, that’s certainly not true. How about : the Greeks (alright, Hellenists) and their body worship? One of the reasons we celebrate Chanuka was because our own people started assimiliating by attempting to undo their own circumcisions and not circumcising their sons. In fact, traditionally, not doing, or trying to undo circumcision was considered the ultimate mark of assimilation and turning away from God.
    NOw, please continue to flame away.

  18. KGR. First of all. The study you promoted as the accurate one is facing serious scrutiny in U.S. News and World Report. This study is seriously flawed.
    Here: http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/070801/01circumcision.htm
    “I haven’t noticed that American men – of either, er, flavor- have lost their desire for sex as a major motivation in their lives”
    It is not for Jews do decide if American gentile men need their foreskins or not, or are quite sexual enough, thank you, circumcised. Americans have every right in the world to challenge routine neonatal circumcision.
    “unlike with say, FGM, where the purpose of the operation is generally to eliminate sexual pleasure in order to promote chastity”
    Again, like others, you are grouping FGM 1 with the other more severe and radical forms of FGM. Do not. FGM1 is either comparable, or less severe (depending on the form) than male circumcision, such as when only the hood of the clitoris is excised, or when NOTHING is excised, but only blood is drawn. Even that is illegal in the U.S. Do you support that being illegal? Just FGM 1? If no, then shouldn’t male circumcision be banned as well?
    “BUT, let’s suppose that circumcision does in fact reduce sensation some. It is indisputable that the great majority of men have, after circumcision, some amount of sensation and pleasure.”
    Same with FGM 1 – so you support peoples right to perform that on their daughters as well, right? Also, removing the foreskin affects intercourse, and the woman’s enjoyment as well. Since you like midrashim so much, note the one about why Dinah didn’t want to leave her kidnapper.
    “Now, it may very well turn out that circumcision has some sort of health benefits – that’s been argued back and forth for decades. I don’t feel any need to weigh in on the argument. I suspect that ultimately, it will be concluded that there are some, and that they’re minor.”
    The APP (American Academy of Pediatricians) is revisiting their policy. If they maintain a neutral policy, the anti-circ movement will continue to grow. If they move to a negative position (in line wit the rest of the Western world) routine neonatal circumcision (not ritual) is over; things will move along quite quickly. We will know by the end of the year.
    “But perhaps (and this is Maimonides’ theory – that is, the Maimonides pretty famously not known for being a feminist- not mine) perhaps God’s intention in this act was to reduce, without eliminating, sexual pleasure for the purpose of helping men get control over their sexuality and to offer that sexuality as a holy act to God.”
    Do you quote Rambam to refute feminist issues and concerns? How do you justify embracing Judaism’s negative views on men while simultaneously rejecting all Judaism’s negative views about women?

  19. Would you support an African study that compared women who had had clitorectomy with those that had not, while deliberately failing to measure the sensitivity of the clitoris itself?…And then announced that clitorectomy did no harm at all?
    Of course you wouldn’t. And yet that’s the direct equivalent of what this study has done.

  20. Again, DK, you miss the point: I don’t advocate circumcision for non-Jews. I am perfectly neutral on that point. Ia lso have pointed out -twice- that even if circumcision does provide some benefit of some sort health wise, that isn’t necessarily a good enugh reason, since it could reasonably be accomplished in other ways. I’m also curios what the negative views on men are in Judism – that one has to circumcies according to GOd’s commandment? That’s not a negative view, it’s a particular act that you don’t care for, for whatever reason. But the truth that we all know is that generations of Jewish men have been circumcised, and there’s no evidence that it’s caused them harm as a group – other than possibly when anti-semites use it to identify them for purposes of harm. But there’s no arguing with someone determined to read what they want, which is, as best as I can tell, a straw person to make your own points to compare circumcision to FGM.
    But to answer that question: I suppose if FGM was limited to drawing blood, and had no later effect of suppressing female ability to enjoy sexual activity, and it was part of an important religious ritual, that the participants believed was commanded by their GOd, no, I wouldn’t oppose it. I don’t however, believe that that’s the case. Moreover, considering that despite its illegality, lots of parents in this country from the countries in which FGMis performed are still performing the more extreme (i.e. not “type 1′) forms of FGM, I am not inclined to believe that girls are not getting type 1 FGM performed on them anyway, probably in much greater numbers, since you imply that FGM “type 1” has no permanent effects.
    BUt that’s all I have to say on this matter. YOu may now proceed to repeat yourself as much as you desire.

  21. KGR, thanks for the information.
    And I apologize that I’m not up on all the research. Frankly, the evidence of my own experience tends to carry weight with me. I was circumcized, and in the secular fashion practiced by many American hospitals at the time, which could be considered quite gruesome, strapping the baby to a frame, etc. etc. I only know this, because my mother tells me. No trauma, no memories, no damage. Not a big deal.
    Frankly, my observation from looking at the literature is that some people who make a big deal out of circ seem to have a problem with Jewish practice, and much anti-circ lit has hostility to Judaism (see comment above about “jews telling gentiles what to do.”) It seems geared to making it easier and easier to not be Jewish.
    So the chassidim do it different, DK. So we can have a discussion about allowing different types of circumcision, perhaps?

  22. KRG,
    You asked,
    “I’m also curios what the negative views on men are in Judaism.”
    If a man’s sexuality is considered flawed and must be fixed through excision, this is having a specifically negative view on male sexuality. For instance, bragging that, “we are not like the foreskins” in our prayers — this is contempt for men in their natural state.
    Yaaziel asked,
    “So the chassidim do it different, DK. So we can have a discussion about allowing different types of circumcision, perhaps?”
    We should, yes. Why don’t we just make a tiny incision? Or certainly a less radical one than we do today.
    This needs to be addressed and talked about in the community. Pretending there is a uniform circ throughout history makes no sense. People like KRG question all sorts of traditional expressions of Judaism, but not cutting penis. That we keep at the same berit priah level, and even go further than the chassidim, cutting off the inner forseskin, not just tearing it back. Must be very, very frum when it comes to cutting baby-penis.

  23. I agree with this post. If you want a circumcision, whether for religious or other reasons, you should be able to get one… when you are 18 and old enough to decide for yourself that it’s right for you.
    No one should have the right to mutilate a child’s genitals. Ever.

  24. There is no god. And would he/she command circumcision? Why?
    Judaism, the old testament, was created to thwart and scare off the encroaching caucasian farmers coming down from the mountains and gobbling up all the land that the nomad semitic tribes were roaming over. Thats it. It was supposed to scare the whites away.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.