a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by mk
mk  ·  4590 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: "Genital mutilation is no joke"
    It's a procedure rooted in ritual and religious tradition and has no health benefits in a modern society.

Actually, it has been widely demonstrated to reduce the spread of HIV, among other STDs.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

I think Hitchen's view of it is colored based on his dislike of religion. I agree with b_b, male and female 'circumcision' is not a reasonable comparison. He's being a bit hyperbolic there.





thenewgreen  ·  4589 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Full penis removal will all but eradicate HIV and other STD's, doesn't justify it. I agree that he (and now I) are being hyperbolic to make a point --it's Hitchen's after all, but my thought is that if you never knew that such a thing existed in a culture and then found out about it, you would likely think it was barbaric.
mk  ·  4589 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 'barbaric'.

It's just important to recognize that there are reasons beyond religious ones why the practice continues. One reason is cosmetic. In countries where it is dominant, some parents simply want their child to fit the norm.

To be honest, I found the teeth I had pulled, braces, and other orthodontic procedures I had as a child to be infinitely more scarring than my circumcision. (I say infinitely, because I can't remember my circumcision at all.) And, those painful orthodontic procedures were by and large done for cosmetic reasons. If most people let their teeth go crooked, but one religious group didn't, we would have to call religious childhood orthodontics barbaric too.

thenewgreen  ·  4589 days ago  ·  link  ·  
In that case, let's just tell it like it is.. it's about cosmetic appearance and not preventative medicine. I agree that the use of the word "barbaric" was also hyperbolic. Take my previous comment and use the word "unusual" instead and I'd bet you would agree.
mk  ·  4589 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Yes, I'd agree that it's mostly done for cosmetic reasons. And, I'd argue that since we pull kids teeth and go through other painful orthodontic procedures for cosmetic reasons, it's a bit hypocritical to get up in arms about it like Hitchens did. I doubt he would have ranted about the brutality of pulling kid's teeth.

If people consider an uncircumcised penis to be as socially negative as crooked teeth, then IMO it would be very difficult to justify being ok with one and not the other. And what is more, preventing crooked teeth can easily be a more painful process.

    There have also been studies that show that an in-tact penis provides more pleasure to both the man and the woman during sex.

I'm curious about this. Can't really search at work, but if you can point to one, I'd like to see. I think sex is pretty great. I'd hate to think it could have been even better. And I'm not even Jewish! :)

thenewgreen  ·  4589 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    Circumcised males may also be at risk of premature ejaculation, or alternatively may have to resort to prolonged thrusting during intercourse in order to stimulate sufficiently the residual erogenous penile nerve endings to trigger ejaculation (Bensley & Boyle, 2001). They report that the unnatural dryness of their circumcised penis often makes coitus painful, resulting in chafing and/or skin abrasions (Gemmell & Boyle, 2001). Concomitantly, O'Hara and O'Hara (1999) found that female partners reported significantly greater sexual pleasure from intercourse with genitally intact men as compared with circumcised men. Money and Davison (1983) had previously documented a loss of stretch receptors in the prepuce and frenulum and an associated diminution in sexual response, thereby restricting a circumcised man’s ability to achieve arousal. Consequently, erectile dysfunction may be a complication of male circumcision (Glover, 1929; Ozkara, Asicioglu, Alici, Akkus, & Hattat, 1999; Palmer & Link, 1979; Stief, Thon, Djamilian, Allhoff, & Jonas, 1992; Stinson, 1973).
sourced here
mk  ·  4588 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Well damn, and all this time...
thenewgreen  ·  4588 days ago  ·  link  ·  
me too... me too :-(
b_b  ·  4588 days ago  ·  link  ·  
The fact that there can be a lively debate is evidence that its not at all the same as female circumcision. There is no debate there, in my mind. It is pure wrong, and I say that about very, very few things. My world, usually shades of grey, is purely black and white on that topic.
Roger_Green  ·  4577 days ago  ·  link  ·  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98f3IavuEgQ

This video should be very enlightening to you.

vinyl  ·  4577 days ago  ·  link  ·  
First of all, the video was enlightening to me and in a way that has nothing to do with male/female circumcision but rather in a way that displays how to share information. This video was very well put together. Simple and direct without pulling any punches. I'm glad I watched this.
Jm_Mac  ·  4585 days ago  ·  link  ·  
"My world, usually shades of grey, is purely black and white on that topic."

So what.

b_b  ·  4584 days ago  ·  link  ·  
You're right. On discussion sites people should keep their opinions to themselves. That makes for great conversation.
thenewgreen  ·  4588 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I agree that the two aren't analogous, my only point is that our view of male circumcision is completely ethnocentric. If you removed yourself from it as a cultural norm and saw the practice with a fresh mind, you would likely find it extremely bizarre. (I fully realize I've gone from barbaric to bizarre... this thread has tempered by view)
Jm_Mac  ·  4585 days ago  ·  link  ·  
"My world, usually shades of grey, is purely black and white on that topic."

So what.