How Do You Feel About Circumcision?

[Jeff Wrangler]

I think I need to look into the Lutheran Church a little closer! 

Maybe not, bud. I made that remark in response to Jess more or less askin' if my daddy and I ever went skinny-dippin', like her husband and her son.

No way. We're Lutherans, and Lutherans are sort of known for being dull and strait-laced. No skinny-dippin' around our place.

[delalluvia]

It's interesting that people are pooh-poohing the importance of boys looking like their fathers, when what brought us all here in the first place is a movie based on a story about guy who, as a kid, found out he didn't look like his father and was traumatized by the discovery.

I guess some do not consider this very important.

Yes, Jack was traumatized by not looking like his father, but you know as well as I, that different looking dicks were the least of Jack's problems in that household.  It may have simply been something Jack fixated on and thus associated with other more troubling events in his childhood and later was symbolic to him (and we readers) as a difference in sexuality.

Kids traumatized by not looking like their parents?    Yeah, OK.  But hey, some people were traumatized because Coke changed its flavor.

[Jeff Wrangler]

Kids traumatized by not looking like their parents?    Yeah, OK.  But hey, some people were traumatized because Coke changed its flavor.

Please! Don't remind me!

        

[Jeff Wrangler]

It was a dark time in our country.

I still light a candle on the anniversary of the return of Classic Coke...

 

I just did my best to block the whole sordid episode from my memory. 

[Lynne]

OK - here goes dipping my toe into a race in which I have no horse (namely a penis, nor a child with one!).

I voted opposed despite the strong wording because of this ritual's link with patriarchal religion.  First, I tend to lump circumcision in with old Judeo-Christian prohibitions against eating pork and shellfish.  I've always thought that these things were thought necessary in ancient times for health reasons but that modern societies know enough about sanitation, refrigeration, cleanliness, etc... that it should be a non-issue.

Then, there's the association with female 'circumcision' which to my mind is entirely indefensible.

The only thing I know - albeit one data point doesn't make a trend - is that when an adult male has the procedure because it is medically necessary, it is extremely painful and involves a much more extensive recovery period.  Imagine having the surgery, then having erections (not like guys can control that!), stitches breaking loose, pain, more pain...A really bad 2-3 weeks to go through, believe me, and I was just there for moral support!

[Kerry]

I put male circumcision in the precise same category as female circumcision. As such, I consider both to be entirely barbaric and unnecessary IMHO. The foreskin and the clitoris are essential parts of our anatomy and they are there for a purpose. And though I cannot speak with authority about all things clitoral (I am a gay male and it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to do so), I am certainly in a position to comment on the foreskin - or lack of it. Bottom line is that the foreskin is there to cover and protect a very important and sensitive part of the male anatomy.

[serious crayons]

Yes, Jack was traumatized by not looking like his father, but you know as well as I, that different looking dicks were the least of Jack's problems in that household.  It may have simply been something Jack fixated on and thus associated with other more troubling events in his childhood and later was symbolic to him (and we readers) as a difference in sexuality.

Yup. That was my exact point when I said, "I think it's intended to symbolize Jack discovering the more important difference between him and his father, sexually."

I put male circumcision in the precise same category as female circumcision.

Well, just to put things in perspective, here is some info about female circumcision, from Wikipedia:

The procedure, when performed without any anesthetic, can lead to death through shock from immense pain or excessive bleeding. The failure to use sterile medical instruments may lead to infections.

Other serious long term health effects are also common. These include urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring and infertility. The first time having sexual intercourse will often be extremely painful, and infibulated women will need the labia majora to be opened, to allow their husband access to the vagina. This second cut, sometimes performed by the husband with a knife, can cause other complications to arise.

... According to the WHO criteria, all types of FGC (female genital cutting) were found to pose an increased risk of death to the baby (15% for Type I, 32% for Type II, and 55% for Type III). Mothers with FGC Type III were also found to be 30% more at risk for cesarean sections and had a 70% increase in postpartum hemorrhage compared to women without FGC. Estimating from these results, and doing a rough population estimate of mothers in Africa with FGC, an additional 10 to 20 per thousand babies in Africa die during delivery as a result of the mothers having undergone genital cutting.

... Whether or not a woman who has undergone FGC can achieve an orgasm, especially those who have had their clitoris excised, is a question that tends to have more than one answer. Hanny Lightfoot-Klein traveled throughout The Sudan (where Type III is the prevalent form of FGC, ~90%) in the early 1980s asking women who had FGC this very question: "How often do you experience orgasm?" following sexual intercourse with their husband.[41] Many of the women had no idea what an orgasm was, but others interviewed (especially if the surgery excised less tissue) not only insisted that they did achieve orgasm, ranging from 90% of the time when they were young to 10% of the time once they had children, but were open to talking about their experiences. They were able to describe in great detail exactly what an orgasm meant to them. ...About one-third of women interviewed said they experience some sexual sensitivity at the area of their scar as well as internally, whilst others reported only internally or only externally. ... There were also women who did not enjoy sex at all, as it was too painful or did not leave them with any feelings.

Lumping them together in some large, vague category of bodily mutilation (along with piercings and appendectomies and plastic surgery and whatever else) is one thing. But a direct comparison between the two isn't appropriate. To do so means being either overly alarmed about male circumcision or underly alarmed about female circumcision, which IMO is less like male circumcision than it is like castration.

[ifyoucantfixit]

 
     Ok I have not made my ideas known, and have been reading with rapt attention to the responses..I personally
think it is a choice that each family should be able to make without recriminations..I dont have a great deal of
input that is different than that which has been made.  I had my children circumcised, and it had nothing to do with
their fathers being or not being circumcised.  I thought it was a hygiene thing..I have heard all the aforementioned
health reasons.  And i think I will err on the side of that...If it is an error. Personally I dont think so.  but again that is
my opinion.
      But it seems to be going over the top, to me.  Comparing clitoral removal with foreskin circumcision is ridiculous.
A male can still enjoy sex, if the foreskin is removed.  It may or may not be as good..On the other hand some say
its no different..Its impossible to say.. for sure.   However women that have been circumcised, are never able to have
a good sexual experience..at least in most cases.  An earring piercing, is not equated with either one as far as i am
concerned.  Earring holes are able to grow back, so that is not the same as having a foreskin or a clitoris removed.
If a child says they want one and it is disallowed, it flies in the face of the ones that say it should be the childs decision.
It is a very personal thing and I feel it should be left to the person who has to make that decision..This is the same
interference in other peoples business, that saying the sexual preference is someone elses business .
      I would never call it a mutilation, its a personal choice..I am not too sure about an unqualified person doing it
though..I would always be afraid of the gruesome results that have been shown in medical pictures.   my 2 cents

[serious crayons]

Janice, I agree with everything you said.

[delalluvia]

Lumping them together in some large, vague category of bodily mutilation (along with piercings and appendectomies and plastic surgery and whatever else) is one thing. But a direct comparison between the two isn't appropriate. To do so means being either overly alarmed about male circumcision or underly alarmed about female circumcision, which IMO is less like male circumcision than it is like castration.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I agree here.  In fact, female genital mutilation is worse than castration.  A castrato can still have sexual intercourse and it be pleasant.

Yes, male circumcision can be called mutilation, the foreskin is there to protect the sensitve part of the penis - the glans or head.

Female genital mutilation includes removal of the clitoral hood (like a foreskin) and the clitoris - the equivalent in a man would be the same as chopping off the glans/head of the penis, the lovely sensitive part.  THAT would be a more like comparison.