Uh .. because it's ritual religious mutilation ?

What religion co-opted it from some much older tradition or custom? What if the initial reason had nothing to do with religion?

Agreed. But the origins of the practice don't matter today, surely, at least when deciding on general principles.

What matters is whether there is convincing scientific evidence that the surgery is necessary. Since the major US, European, and Japanese medical associations believe there is no such case, the practice must be assumed to be a bad idea.

Unnecessary surgery is unnecessary and hence not something that should be imposed on unwitting humans. The moral choice is to wait until the child is old enough to make an informed decision himself.

the public health benefits outweigh the cultural bias against it.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx

But the second half of that sentence is important too, no? Thus "the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision." So "the AAP does NOT [my emphasis] recommend routine circumcision."*

And as for the CDC, the 2014 guidelines read as you indicate but subsequent publications have reached more ambivalent positions, with the official stance now being that it is "biologically plausible" that circumcision may reduce the transmission of STIs; and a number of studies have subsequently cast doubt on even that, particularly because the underlying studies are dubious.**




-----------------

*https://medlineplus.gov/circumcision.html

**https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4364150/

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uh .. because it's ritual religious mutilation ?

Because it allows people to say things which might not be acceptable under other circumstances (no pun intended)?

When I was born I was just a shade under 10 pounds. I had a reaction to the drops they put in my eyes which caused my face to be all puffy and discolored. The doctor told my mother that my circumcision was the best looking thing on me. Now when I see an old geezer in the mirror, it just might be the best looking thing on me once again.

Jaxson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
< The doctor told my mother that my
> circumcision was the best looking thing on me.
> Now when I see an old geezer in the mirror, it
> just might be the best looking thing on me once
> again.

Quite a lot of the ladies I know would heartily agree with you.

Why go through life wearing a wet hoodie?

I'm fairly certain that this obsession with circumcision is just the tip of the whole situation!

In Europe there is more cultural bias against it than in Britain or America but that is changing.

There is a problem with this discussion, which is that the major medical bodies only decide their policies every several years--as is evident in your citation above as well as in my sources, which date to the same period. If you have more recent sources, I'd love to see them.

Until then, however, I question your conclusion. Consider first your own source which says the AAP "does not recommend routine circumcision."

Second, "although routine neonatal circumcision is still common in some Western countries such as the USA, the arguments generally used to justify on medical grounds have been discredited and no national or international medical association currently advocates routine neonatal circumcision."

https://medsyndicate.com/2019/03/05/illustrated-textbook-of-paediatrics-fourth-edition-pdf-free-download/

And third, "outside of strategic regions in sub-Saharan Africa, no call for routine circumcision has been made by any established medical organizations or governmental bodies. The range of positions is from “some medical benefit/parental choice” in the United States, to “essential no medical benefit/parental choice” in Great Britain, to “no medical benefit/physical and psychological trauma/parental choice” in the Netherlands."

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4471-2858-8_1

Again, I'd like to read any more recent authoritative studies that you have.

or religion -- as it is was continental Europe where it was seen as a traditionally Semitic non-Christian practice -- same reason you didn't many parents name their children Issac, Saul, Deborah, Sarah, etc until after WW II.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 03:06PM by anybody.

Do you mean the bias in favor of, or against, circumcision?

My impression is that circumcision was quite common in Europe, part of the Christian tradition, until the 20th century. Do you know if that is wrong?


ETA: This source, whose credibility I do not know, says that circumcision became the norm in Britain in the 19th century--part of the campaign against masturbation--and remained common till the late 1940s, when the national health service decided not to finance unnecessary surgeries. It was from that period onward that the practice grew infrequent there. The source also states that the royal family has long practiced circumcision and still does.

There is no mention of Judaism.

https://www.circinfo.net/history_and_recent_trends.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 03:18PM by Lot's Wife.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

The prevalence of circumcision is the percentage of males in a given population who have been circumcised. The rates vary widely by country, from virtually 0% in Honduras and Japan, to 3.8% in the United Kingdom, to 7% in Spain, to 45% in South Africa, to 82.5% in the United States, to over 90% in many Muslim-majority countries.[2][3][4] In 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 33% of adult males worldwide (aged 15+) are circumcised, with about two-thirds of those being Muslims.[2]

Male circumcision is nearly universal in the Muslim world and in Israel due to the religious beliefs of the majority of Muslims and Jews; however, some non-Muslim groups living within Muslim-majority countries, such as Armenians and Assyrians, do not practise it.[5] It is prevalent in some Muslim-majority countries in southeast Asia such as Indonesia and Malaysia; however, the WHO states that there is "little non-religious circumcision in Asia, with the exceptions of the Republic of Korea and the Philippines".[2] In parts of Africa it is often practised as part of tribal or religious customs. The prevalence of circumcision used to be high in the United States, although there has been a major decrease in routine neonatal circumcision in recent years.[6]

In contrast, rates are much lower in most of Europe, parts of southern Africa, most of Asia, Oceania and Latin America, constituting South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico.[7]

Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are examples of countries that have seen a decline in male circumcision in recent decades, while there have been indications of increasing demand in southern Africa, partly for preventive reasons due to the HIV epidemic there.[8]

Yes, circumcision went from Judaism to Islam but not to Christianity. I saw some maps that showed it uniformly ubiquitous in Israel/most of the Islamic world/and sub-Saharan Africa for the reasons you state. This would support the notion that Judaism and its influence were the source of the practice at least on a global scale.

But in the Anglo world, the trend towards universal circumcision appears to date from the 19th century--again without explicit mention of religion.

Does that sound right?

Your source matches my and my family's experience in the UK, Lot's Wife.

I used to think it was a necessary part of being a christian.

I also thought that boys would be less likely to get infections if they had it done.

The latter might be true, but the former definitely not. I don't know how I missed it. Paul was very explicit about the gentiles not having to copy what the jews did (law of Moses) in order to be a follower of Christ.

actual reasonable bit from tscc's website.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/circumcision?lang=eng

I don't think there is anything to worry about circumcision these days because they use cutting edge technology. But let's cut to the chase on this matter. As I understand it, the Q15 were circumcized and in doing so a lot of dickheads were exposed in the process. Barring that though, to say that it's not medically necessary is just the tip of the issue.

Because it touches on a sensitive area. My parents making a decision to cut off a part of me is pretty brutal.

circumcise my son. I just thought it was something that had to be done. I didn't know I had a choice as I was raised MORMON and everyone I knew circumcised their boys. I will forever remember the day they did it as my son, when they brought him into my hospital room, was whimpering, so I checked. I had twins. My girl didn't have a circumcision obviously. My thought was, "What have I done?"

My boyfriend is not circumcised. He's the Jewish one. His mother didn't think that a brand new baby needed such a barbaric thing done to his body. What a concept! My boyfriend is a Jewish convert, married into Judaism, but he had his boy circumcised. I know we've discussed it before, but I'm going to have to ask him again. He has told me if he were to have to be circumcised, they only require a little cut, not the actual circumcision. He is a reformed Jew. I think that is what they are called. He has chosen not to have anything done.

I actually do remember when my younger brothers were circumcised and I couldn't understand it.

At this time, this is so far in the distance that I'm going to tell the story of my older brother getting circumcised. My mother couldn't handle going in with him, so my dad went in. My mother is a bit ditsy and my dad came out from the circumcision with a newborn baby and my mother was gone. He had to walk home. In thinking about it, I know why my mom did what she did. She couldn't handle it and this was her reaction. A new mom at age 20 who had to have her little baby cut. I had my husband go in for shots with my kids as I just couldn't handle them being hurt.

BUT I also saw a news show on the circumcision of twins. They botched one of the circumcisions, so they decided he would grow up a girl. It destroyed his life. I haven't heard how he is doing now, but the doctor who botched these surgeries also studied the 2 boys for years and introduced them to sex at a very young age. WHY put your child under the knife when there is nothing wrong with him? If my boyfriend's mom could teach him to clean himself as a child, then why in the hell can't I? It makes NO SENSE to me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 11:10AM by cl2.

Obsession is an interesting choice of words. You may as well ask "why the obsession with Mormonism?"

In both cases, I've been harmed. I don't feel obsessed with either, but, IMO it's not unreasonable to be willing to discuss and point out the very negative effects of both.

And, considering there are many people that try to use religion as a justification for the routine mutilation of a perfectly healthy, normal baby boy's penis, it seems reasonable to discuss it here.

Perhaps you mean to ask "why the obsession, by some, to routinely mutilate a boy's penis at birth?"

eternal1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obsession is an interesting choice of words. You
> may as well ask "why the obsession with
> Mormonism?"
>
> In both cases, I've been harmed. I don't feel
> obsessed with either, but, IMO it's not
> unreasonable to be willing to discuss and point
> out the very negative effects of both.
>
> And, considering there are many people that try to
> use religion as a justification for the routine
> mutilation of a perfectly healthy, normal baby
> boy's penis, it seems reasonable to discuss it
> here.
>
> Perhaps you mean to ask "why the obsession, by
> some, to routinely mutilate a boy's penis at
> birth?"

It comes out of desert cultures. In such cultures, there are certain infections that can be caused by dust/sand getting under the foreskin which can be severe.

As a cross section the custom can be found among Hopi, Arabs, Kalahari Bushmen and Australian Aborigines... All of whom live in deserts. Jews come from the desert originally too.

Male circumcision is not like female circumcision at all and the discussion of it on here has a nasty subcurrent. Using the term "mutilation" on here is inflammatory.

There is no good explanation of where and when circumcision arose. The first documented societies were Egypt and Mesopotamia, so advanced urban civilizations based on irrigation and agriculture rather than deserts.

Nor did Jews originate in the desert. The Jews emerged from Hebrew culture, which was Canaanite and based in the hills and mountains of the region. The biblical account of desert origins is incorrect.

Modern day Israel has deserts and often suffers low rainfall. Canaan was no different.

Egypt has been mostly desert for thousands of years and even the Nile Valley suffers from sandstorms.

Before the deforestation of the last several centuries, Israel was not desert. As late as 100 CE, Josephus described the country as entirely covered by pine and oak forests from north to south. Canaan was the hill country to the east. It was not desert, and the Jews, whose culture emerged from within Canaan ca 600 BCE, were not a desert people.

Regarding Egypt, there is no evidence that circumcision was practiced in the desert. The only evidence puts it in the richest and most verdant parts of the Nile river valley.

Sandstorms? Sandstorms do not a desert make.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 03:34PM by Lot's Wife.

Sand is the problem, which causes balanitis, so I think you've just proven the point I originally made. The Nile is surrounded by desert on both sides.

Then why didn't the Mongols and Manchurians in the Gobi Desert develop circumcision? And why not all of northern Han China, which is a dust bowl for several months a year?

And why does the evidence for Egypt and Mesopotamia come from the settled agricultural areas and not the deserts? And Judea, a mountain kingdom of people who originated in the mountains?

And what about the Americas? Why was circumcision much more common in the Amazonian basin than in North America?

Can you point to where I said male and female circumcision are exactly the same thing?

Can you explain this "nasty subcurrent" you're talking about since I must be missing it.

Can you tell me how the definition of mutilation does not apply?


mu·ti·late (myo͞ot′l-āt′)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To injure severely or disfigure, especially by cutting off tissue or body parts. See Synonyms at mangle1.

2. To damage or mar (an object): mutilate a statue.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/mutilation

And if you get balanitis or phimosis you risk losing the entire penis. Then you can really talk about "mutilation". Foreskin removal vs losing your one eyed snake entirely? No contest.

OMG ! You made me use google and I am regretting it. More stuff to worry about.

I had to look those up. Eewww....

Didn't answer the questions.

Balanitis is an infection that you can still get even if you've been circumcised as it's due to poor hygiene. Phimosis (abnormal constriction of the foreskin) can lead to paraphimosis (a rare condition in which the foreskin of the penis becomes trapped behind the glans). A doctor can diagnose these things and there are antibiotics and steroid creams that can take care of them. Circumcision is a drastic measure and not generally necessary.

Routine circumcision of newborns is not without risk. Babies die every year from it. The list of complications is long and losing their "one eyed snake" is included in that list. If it's truly medically necessary, it's always an option, however, there is no need to do it routinely as a preventative measure.

From a human history viewpoint, circumcision likely began in Africa--certainly long before human beings likely entered the Fertile Crescent.

Something that has been mentally nagging at me as these various circumcision threads have developed, is something that (aside from Jewish practice) I also know: that circumcision is, and has been going back millennia (including millennia before Judaism began), a requirement for [particularly sub-Saharan] African adolescent boys during their transition from childhood into "adult male" status.

In modern and contemporary times, African boys on the cusp of tribal adulthood (sixteen-ish or so), "go away" to secluded "initiation camps" where, among other things, they are circumcised.

I am not defending this practice, but simply explaining that it exists, and it HAS existed since long before recorded history.

Despite the very real problems (discussed below), male circumcision among at least many sub-Saharan African tribes is SO important that lack of it, in an adult male, renders him a "boy" (a "child") forever, regardless of whether he lives to the age of a hundred or more.

In modern times, there has been a small (but growing) minority of white (in particular) male teens who are voluntarily choosing to go to initiation camp, which includes circumcision for themselves....during this transitional period, as born Africans of ALL races are increasingly self-identifying as primarily "African," rather than as their specific racial or ethnic group (white/British/German whatever).

In a contemporary African context, this "going through initiation camp" is often a not so good idea: the circumcisions take place in remote areas of the bush, far from medical assistance (initiation camps are supposed to be WAY out of any place which could be in any way accessible to anyone not connected with that particular initiation camp)....the rough implements used are typically NOT sanitized (with the result that HIV-AIDS spreads rapidly)....the implements used are typically primitive "tools" of one kind or another (in keeping with the chosen culture of the "that" tribe's practices)....the adult male doing the circumcisions is frequently totally untrained in any ways other than knowing that tribe's initiation procedure....and the result is a huge injury rate (including debilitating, lifetime injuries, such as a cut-off penis), and a ferocious spreading of HIV-AIDS....including into the white African communities, as increasing numbers of adolescent white African boys are voluntarily making the choice to go to initiation camps (especially when their black, male, African friends are doing this....white male adolescents not wanting to be a "boy" forever, especially if your best friend has become a "man").

Re: Judaism: However the peoples who were going to eventually become Jews learned of this practice, it was likely something they originally learned from Africans, particularly Africans from eastern Africa and southern Africa.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/09/2019 03:40PM by Tevai.

That may be possible, but I would point out that it is impossible to know what happened "long before recorded history," so any assertions about those times is speculative.

Are you getting a sense of deja vu? I'm not a linguist so I'm far from certain, but something seems vaguely familiar.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2019 04:38AM by anybody.

Corrective surgery. The doctor attributed it to circumcision.


"Numerous studies over a long period of time clearly indicate that male circumcision contributes to the development of urethral stricture."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meatal_stenosis

Because it was a big deal to be the first to sail all the way around the earth and live to tell the tale.

Only 18 men survived that that epic adventure. Their fearless leader, Ferdinand de Magellan, along with 241 other original crew members died during the three year cruise. The ship sailed into a Spanish port three years after departing, captained by a Basque mariner, Juan Sebastian Elcano.

But here's an interesting tidbit: In 1511, Magellan visited the Phillipines and bought/abducted a slave, Enrique. Enrique traveled with Magellan back to Spain, via the Horn of So. Africa route.

Enrique was part of the crew that went west in 1519, around the tip of So. America and then on to the Phillipines, where he jumped ship, a few hundred miles from his point of departure, eastward, in 1511. So assuming he made it back to him village in less than a year, HE was the first person to circumcize the world!

>> So assuming he made it back to him village in less than a year, HE was the first person to circumcize the world!

Wow, fascinating tid bit. I wonder what he did with all the foreskin? Probably made a jacket and a pair of chaps.

If your into this kind of stuff a couple good reads....Christopher Columbus: The Four Voyages....very good with a lot of his recorded text from the voyages. The Conquest of New Spain.....an accounting of Cortez conquering the Aztecs, dictated by one of the men that made the journey with Cortez....so a first person account.

Many of my forbearers have handed down first-person accounts of the atrocities committed by Cortez and those who followed him.

I myself will be handing down the story of the atrocities I endured at the hands of some drunk Gachupines (an impolite word for citizens of Spain) whose table I had to bus in 1961, in the Show Room of the Thunderbird Hotel while earning money for the Junior Prom. They kept demanding more butter and more rolls for all the butter they'd demanded. And they commented on my dark skin and wondered if any of their antecedents had tupped any of my antecedents, not knowing that I knew every single word in the English language that meant sex. I told them, "Tup you!" Of course, I said it when they were on their way out, and the bill had been paid, and the other busboys (actually, busmen; I was the only busboy) were standing behind me, all dark-skinned,
themselves, tup-men of great stature.

Oh, the horror of it, having to recall it all!

Leper to prostitute: Thanks, and keep the tip.....


Sorry......ADHD

Ah, that explains what Enrique did with all the foreskin....he made tup-er-wear!

I'm leary of people who demand butter for buns. You probably handled it butter than I would have :)

Tup her where?

Big pharma and corporate health care have gotten every boy circumcized in the USA, because they got to make money. Getting your baby circumcized is like tipping the doctor.

I am investigating Islam just now. The good thing is that Islamics circumcize their boys when they're old enough to understand, and make that choice.

Read the Koran and ask the Muslims you meet what criteria they use for cherry picking which parts of the holy writ to ignore.
I believe you will find they are in the same position as the other religions trying to keep the traditions and teachings but not wanting to admit it's time to ignore many of the practices and teachings. Oh what a web we weave when we claim what God wants.

Some rituals deserve to die. I wish religion could be the instrument that helps cultures drop rituals that impact choice. I wish they were more progressive. Religion is regressive in nature and has a vested interest to perpetuate "the way things have always been" as long as they can. When they change, it's usually behind the curve of public opinion.

It's one thing to make a personal decision for yourself as an adult, but it is quite another for a religion to impose something on a child that is permanent BECAUSE it is ritual/custom.

Selling foreskin is a profitable business.

"Fibroblasts are what cosmetic companies have been looking for all these years. They are the key to growing new skin and are therefore widely used for skin grafts, pasting skin transplants over sores, and other skin conditions, which makes them great for cosmetic applications. One baby foreskin can be stretched to grow almost $100,000 worth of fibroblasts."


https://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/23/the-bizarrely-profitable-business-of-baby-foreskins/

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a52825969/foreskin_for_sale

This is just the tip of the iceberg...

My Dr. told me that condoms can sustain micro-abrasions that can lead to STI transmission. If you’ve used a condom as a male, you know that the penis can slide against the latex as a substitute for the vaginal walls. If the foreskin is left alone, the penis is allowed to slide within a nice natural sleeve instead of the latex, thereby reducing the chance of micro-abrasions. That’s how I worked it out, at least.

This is why I ordered a bionic foreskin from Amazon. The radiation hazard is not really all that dangerous...