A few questions to ponder over circumcision traditions...
Dear Zyl84,
Zyl, I too enjoy my cut dick. Yet, I too have always wondered "what if"?
What if I had been allowed the luxury of enjoying it exactly as God created it?
What if my personal rights had not been pre-empted shortly after my birth by my otherwise well-meaning parents?
What if we had a religious tradition that granted the parents of every male child upon request to have his glans removed after birth, would you support it too? The glans are classified as “mucus membrane tissue” and unlike the shaft are an easy pathway for sexually transmitted diseases. If your tradition was to prevent as much exposure to diseases as possible, why couldn't you formulate a religious tradition for the removal of the glans and advance the same rights extended to parents who want their infant male circumcised one step further? They could still do just about everything everyone else could do, other that enjoy most forms of having sex. Speaking hypothetically, couldn't you allow that if this tradition were in place, it had outlived its useful purpose with the advent of condoms and should be stopped, just like female circumcision as cruel and barbaric? When it comes to being admitted to heaven, is an "Express Lane" offered for those circumcised males! What part of God's moral code deals directly with having a foreskin removed anyway? Are cut guys like me any more moral than uncut guys? If not, why make it a religious tradition and Holyday just like we Catholics celebrate the "Circumcision of Christ" like some baptism but only offered to males? Has there been no progress in the last 2000 years?
I deeply resent the liberty taken by any parent, as if their infant is some "pot roast" purchased at the grocery store and, therefore, allowing the "purchaser" the right to do anything they please. What we are talking about is something obviously having permanent and lasting effects with the child's penis at the child's expense (
not the parents).
Personally, I find that unbelievably selfish and disrespectful to the infant that something so permanent and totally unnecessary would thrust upon them without the child's ability to consent.
I do not honestly feel this would abridge any parental rights parents, because to do so has already exceeded their parental rights anyway. What is being talked about does not belong to either parent. Rather, it is their child's penis and how it is configured is not the parent's right to do with anyway they want, unless this was the result of some medical necessity. To do so otherwise, is profoundly abusive to their newborn child.
I want in my heart of hearts to respect all religious beliefs. Yet, to go against this mandatory assumption goes directly against my cultural upbringing of respecting all other's right to believe as they choose. Any consideration of traditions evoke statements or thoughts that I might lack civility, political correctness, or human sensitivity. Yet, what is at stake is my personal opinion. Realistically speaking, I acknowledge the rights of certain religious beliefs must be honored but, in that case, then where do you draw the line? Why not allow for the tradition of stoning of women when their virtue comes into doubt or they are so disrespectful as to file for a divorce? Why not allow for the tradition of honor killings? Why not sanction the tradition of Sharia Law stateside, as it too has a long tradition in the Islamic faith and culture? Since I personally am half-French, why not recognize nationwide the Napoleonic Code for people like me? All of these have long-standing traditions, but even so, that does not mean we must as a society slavishly adhere to those religious or legal traditions.
My point is that all traditions start with a purpose in mind. At what point when this purpose is no longer applicable, must we persist in following them blindly? If there is a God, then surely he should expect us to use our mental facilities to the fullest and choose which ones to follow and which ones to deem no longer serving its intended purpose. I am not hateful of others views or traditions, but I only want us to reevaluate the strict adherence to traditions when they no longer serve a good purpose.
Coming from the south with many Southerners viewing all "
Southern traditions" as somehow sacred, such as "
slavery" and "
the separation of the races", I cannot tell you how many proud Southerners I have come across in my 62 years who tell me how essential their "traditions" (
meaning racial segregation and maybe even slavery) are for them to be honored.
I SAY HOGWASH! I SAY "I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, ploop"!
Being Roman Catholic with all of its myriad of religious traditions and some based on the Jewish faith, I SAY HOGWASH to much of it too! I do not feel the least bit conflicted or hypocritical. It has no relevance in my life in 2011. Much of it is simply HOGWASH too! Especially the part about "homosexuality being sinful" since that was never mentioned in the earliest centuries of the Christian faith, or was there a momentary homosexual moratorium back then. I say HOGWASH to that too! This is a blanket moralistic statement and they do not know what relationship I have with my God. I alone must account for my own behavior while here on the earth, not them!
My prior statement though disapproving of circumcisions in general, does nonetheless condone a typical Jewish practice of using a "Moyle" to perform male circumcisions. The last time I checked, Moyles are Jewish, yet I believe they should be trusted more than typical physicians perform this procedure on any infant male, if asked. As stated earlier, they have a much greater amount of preparation for performing this specific procedure beyond the typical "untrained surgeon" that uses a crude mechanical clamping device as the surgeon's guide to assist with the procedure. On the other hand, Moyles take great care to leave enough intact so that the penis is less limited than the dreaded clamping device provides and other goofy techniques employed at the whelms of medical staff leaving an unsightly and often irregular scar for the circumcised male to enjoy. A conversation piece they call it.
The penis should have sufficient skin left following circumcision to freely slide up and down. This is so very obvious when viewing an uncircumcised male masturbating and how different their technique is from cut guys. Uncut guys have so much more to play with while protecting the skin below. Zyl, as we both share in our cut status, the circumcision process removes much of the elasticity in the skin of the shaft overall prevalent in most uncut guys. I feel we have all evolved from the beginnings of mankind, and before the creation of any existing religion, Nature has provided us with the best body possible through the process of evolving over thousands and thousands of years. As people can live without their appendix, when removed out of medical necessity. But, would we want a religion to now dictate all appendixes should be removed at birth of all newborns when it is less painful, we assume to avoid future complications from appendicitis. [B}Medical necessity should be the basic requirement to perform any surgery[/B]. With so small a proportion of the country being Jewish or Muslim, why is it practically all males in the US adhere to something outside their religious tradition. Almost universal circumcisions largely started in the 1930’s in the US.
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=8&id=73
Back then it was the obstetricians and gynecologists, not religious leaders, who were most in favor of circumcision. Is it that we are the only country or culture in the world that is concerned about personal cleanliness, to make this procedure a cultural norm. I think not!
As you can see, Zyl, I feel strongly in support of this notion of "
banning circumcising infant boys" and it seems reasonable enough, with an exception for religious beliefs. Although, not the best answer in my personal opinion.
I am amazed at the sense of entitlement that parents feel so free to deny their own child any voice in something so very personal running the slight risk of forfeiting their child's penis as a consequence. Since the sources I read state accidents do in fact exist, I do not want any part of this butchery and stupidity and I feel I can say this with justification! Imagine if this child was your very own. How could you as a parent ever explain adequately that an essential part of their anatomy and sexual identity was simply sliced off and thrown away much like routine waste? But even beyond this, the missing body part makes your child forever appear freakish to any other boy or girl they might ever come in contact with for the rest of their life. All done in the mindless pursuit of some unnecessary medical procedure. What could any parent possibly say to justify it, regardless of religion? "That it was meant to be???" And, for those mistakenly circumcised by a physician, as has happened in the past, is there any "law suit compensation" ever going to justify the insult to their body? I sincerely hope you will give it your consideration for the sake of other potentially innocent male victims, to support this ban on "medically unnecessary" circumcisions.
I sincerely hope you do not consider my personal opinions indication of my having religious or cultural intolerance of differing views or meant to be offensive? My whole point is that we all should review our automatic preferences from time to time making sure they are still relevant in our world and make our self aware of the possible risks and ramifications. I prefer taking the less risky path.
Stimpy