Talk:Circumcision/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

I admit that I am personally not very neutral here. While I am among those who think "barbaric" is a perfect description of this practice, I think I've been fair in my coverage. Someone with less interest may want to check my prose though. --Lee Daniel Crocker

I looks pretty good to me; I did some minor editing. But I think the practise is pretty barbaric too. --Stephen Gilbert

I think you guys have spent too much time in American hospitals. :) I have seen an American doctor perform a circumcision, and the event was pretty damn barbaric. But the barbarism wasn't in the fact that a tiny piece of foreskin was removed. What's wrong with that? Its not as if they touch the penis itself. When done skilfully and moderately, removal of a piece of the foreskin will be no worse than having someone pierce your little girl's ears for earrings. No, the real problem was the way that doctors literally strap a frigthened newborn down to a board, and then dig into the penis. I no longer wonder why so many gentiles are repulsed by this. But as a Jew I have been priviliged to personally see two Brit milahs (Jewish ritual circumcisions) up close, and it was a different sort of thing. No panic, little pain, and the infant was happy again in under one minute. People who have been to many of these events inform me that the two I saw were standard. RK

Since you probably don't have the benefit of a foreskin anymore, let me tell you that it is the most sensitive part of the body. There is absolutely no comparison with an ear lobe. And your phrase "it is considered barbaric if performed by a doctor without anaesthetic" is plainly false; it is considered barbaric if performed without anaesthetic, period.

What I mean was that to me, I think a doctor's way of performing circumcision is barbaric because of the way that they do it, and they pain and fright it causes the baby. That's why I consider their way barbaric. As for the comparison to the earlobe, I hold that it is correct because (a) Babies don't have fully developed nervous systems at birth the way that an adult, teenager, or child does later on. Thus, while it must hurt, it isn't the same thing to them as it would be to you or me. (b) I was actually thinking about the amount of physical damage done to body tissue. Its more, yes, but not that much more. RK

Aside from the current wisdom that babies do feel pain in an 'adult way', babies have the disadvantage of not understanding time. So when you hurt a child, as far as it knows that pain is the entire world forever. Now I'm sure that doesn't appear in the dictionary under mental cruelty, but maybe it should. And to declare my bias, I'm a Brit in the US who had an American friend at pre-natal classes ask about my 'intact' status, and my thought on having his potential son circumcised. He raised all the standard issues about looking like his Dad, etc., but wasn't sure it was worth it. I asked him how he would feel in the (hugely unlikely) event that his son died because his Dad didn't want him to have a flap of skin on the end of his penis.

There certainly is no comparison between a modest circumcision of the foreskin, and female genital mutilation (FGM). A better comparison would be to kidnap a 12 year old boy, strap him down, and literally chop off the head of his penis, leaving only the shaft and testicles. That, sadly, is the biologically correct analogy to FGM. There is no need for people to exagerrate what male circumcision is in order to disagree with it. RK

Sorry, RK, but the idea that infants don't feel pain the same way or as intensely as adults was debunked long ago, and you shouldn't be hanging your hat on that. And it's a weak justification at best. I would tend to agree that as practiced by a skilled Moel it's probably a lot less traumatic than the hack-jobs done by American doctors, but "less traumatic" is hardly a recommedation. Even if it were completely painless, and even if it had real health benefits, it still amounts to permanently lopping off a normal, functional, healthy part of a kid's body without his consent. Any son I have will grow up intact and make that choice for himself. --LDC

FGM is far worse, but mutilation is mutilation. Piercing children's ears is mutilation too. -- Tarquin

---

203.109.250.xxx, whoever you are, even though I may happen to agree with you, your additions about legal challenges don't really add to the reader's understanding of circumcision in general, and so I'm going to move them to a new page, where hopefully others may add other legal tidbits on both sides. Even the cause of lobbying for its elimination is better served by keeping the rhetoric to a minimum and being rigorously unbiased. --LDC

---

Since to Jews and Muslims the practice is a religious commandment, the medical arguments for and against are probably irrelevant. Perhaps some mention should be made of this, though I don't know how to frame it in neutral terms. As a Jew, I consider this to be more a freedom-of-religion question than a medical one.

What about people who don't believe in freedom of religion? I certainly don't believe it takes precedence over the child's welfare!

---

Which of these statements is true?

The only country that still routinely circumcises a majority of male infants is Israel.

The only countries that still routinely circumcises a majority of male infants are those of the middle east.

All mention of this topic has been temporarily removed pending verification. --maveric149

The USA practiced routine circumcision. Does it still?

---

The speculation about the "hygienic" origins of circumcision is complete nonsense. Nobody who knows anything about childhood history could believe something like that.

Nor could anyone who knows anything about the evolution of religion or history per se start making assertions like you are making now.

First of all, until a few centuries ago, people were filthy. Westerners in particular had fleas, lice and never bathed. For children, it was worse. Pretty much throughout human history, children were swaddled.

Nice piece of Eurocentric blather.

Swaddling, or something like it, occured in nearly all (if not absolutely all) societies across the entire planet and for most of human history (except for the earliest infanticidal period) and across all social classes. Come back when you have some facts.

Swaddling, a barbaric practice mercifully unknown in the modern Western world, involves tying an infant in bandages. The infants scream their heads off in the practice because it 1) tightly constricts the chest, 2) sends all the blood to the head until it's purple, 3) takes away all freedom of movement, and 4) puts them into a withdrawn, dormant state.

Parents have always considered swaddling "convenient". Taking infants in or out of their bandages is extremely inconvenient. Plus, and here's the killer for the "hygiene" argument, most cultures believed that filth (feces and urine) were beneficial to the infant. So the swaddled infants were left to lie in their own filth.

That gives you some impression about what humans are like. Especially that "hygiene" is not a universal human desire.

To get an idea of the actual origins of circumcision, we know that neolithic tribes practice cutting and mutilation of the genitals. And they are quite willing to tell you they do it for mystical / spiritual / religious (ie, psychological) reasons.

I'm wondering who you mean here by Neolithic tribes, or even if there is such a thing today. Of course, people that practice circumcision for religious reasons will give "mystical / spiritual reasons" for doing so. That does not, however, mean that these are the real reasons for the emergence of a custom or rite.

That's right, the "real" reason is supposed to be something you're comfortable with. Come back when you have some argument or fact to offer.

The idea that ancient humans were even sane enough to consider a rationale like 'hygiene' is ludicrous. Primitive people are insane, constantly hallucinating and in waking dream states. Things like "logic" are completely beyond them. Hell, the Papua New Guinea islanders can't even understand that you need to feed children 3 times a day. So we're supposed to believe that they had a grasp of hygienic needs of children when they don't have the faintest clue about basic nutritional needs? -- ark

Thank goodness we have the benefit of your wisdom and experience to lead us to sanity. Sorry, but your logic is failing, and your ethnocentric perspective is offensive. Cut the racist hyperbole. Danny

If reality is offensive to you, that's not my problem. The insanity of primitives is an extensively documented fact, one that is accepted many psychologists, especially those interested in that subject. Again, please come back when you have some facts or arguments to offer. -- ark

The "insanity of primitives" is not a fact, and not an extensively documented fact. Here are some pertinent facts: around the fifteenth century certain European states began expanding, especially in the Americas. In general they were in search of mineral resources (such as silver and gold), land (for the cultivation of export crops such as rice and sugar, and the cultivation of other foodstuffs to support mining communities), and laobr (to work in mines and plantations). In some cases the people already living in the Americas were merely occupying land, and were killed. In other cases, the people were incoroporated into the expanding states to serve as labor. Although Europeans recognized these people to be human beings, they had no plan to treat them as equals politically or economically, and consequently they began to speak of them as inferior socially and psychologically as well. In part through this and also through other, similar processes, Europeans developed a notion of "the primitive" and "the savage" that legitimized genocide and ethocide on the one hand, and European domination on the other. This discourse extended to people of Africa, Asia, and Oceania as European colonialism, neo-colonialism, and imperialism expanded. There are no more "neolithic" people on this planet; the word "primitive" does not refer to people living in a former stage in cultural evolution, it refers to people who are at the periphery of the world capitalist economy who have been, are, or are about to be victims of Western colonial or imperialist expansion, ethnocide, and genocide.

There have been some -- many, but not all, anthropologists, and many non-anthropologists -- who developed a critique of European ethnocentrism, and sought to develop more objective understandings of non-Western peoples. They continue to challenge the presumption of European (or Western) superiority, and to challenge specific claims made by Westerners concerning human nature and the world in which humans live and act. Needless, to say, those who are committed to the superiority of the West and Western ideas, colonialism, ethnocide and genocide, are profoundly, even hysterically, threatened by such attempts.

This is not to say that non-Western people are perfect or even better than Europeans; in many cases non-Europeans and non-Euro-Americans are as capable of being as hideous as Europeans and Euro-Americans. The critique of ethnocentrism does not require an absolutely amoral position, nor does it require a knee-jerk celebration of all things non-Western. For example, circumcision may be part of a system in which men assert power over boys -- not only by inflicting physical pain but by developing a ritual, controled by men, upon which boys depend for entry to society or manhood. But this does not mean that circumcision may not have other meanings and values which we can hardly appreciate. Similarly, there are things we (I will now speak only of Americans) do that non-Westerners might consider a horrific form of child-abuse: separating young children from their parents for five, six, or more hours; condemning children to spend hours sitting in chairs under florescent lights in "schools" that are designed to brainwash children into serving the needs of society efficiently; constantly buying children toys, and encouraging them to sit for hours in fromt of a television set exposed to commercials encouraging them to get their parents to buy even more toys or other things, and chiding them for being "uncool" or "unloved" if they do not get these objects, so that by the time they reach adulthood they can only find validation in their role as "consumer."

At stake in this issue is not only the possibility of expanding our own notions of what it might mean to be human; at stake is also how we continue to treat people at ther margins of the world capitalist economy. Are they "primitives" who must be killed or civilized, "civilized" meaning teaching them how to work on plantations or mines while living in a state of relative poverty, or perhaps having a chance to secure a moderatly comfortable life by learning to appreciate, desire, and buy manufactured goods, either way supporting the world capitalist economy? citations: see Fabian Time and the Other, Wolf, Europe and the People without History, and Torgovnick, Gone Primitive SR

I am about as vicious an enemy of capitalism as you are ever likely to find. I know of every evil of Western societies you have mentioned here and many, many more. I think it likely that for any evil of Western civilization you could mention, I am aware of it and already hate it (so long as it is sufficiently general, of course).

So what's my position towards infanticidal, insane, primitives? Exterminate them.

Because the thing is, I'm also a student of moral philosophy. I do not believe they have any right to abusing their children, sexually or otherwise. I do not believe they have any right to neglect or brutalize their children. I do not believe they have a right to a brutal and barbaric "culture". I do not believe they have a right to a succeeding generation of dissociative people who will go on to abuse its children. I do not believe their society has any inalienable right to a future. And frankly, I don't even think they're people. As for alternative options for "what it means to be human", I don't give a rat's ass about that; I care about people, whatever their species, and don't believe every member of our species is a person.

Naturally, the best program would be simply to take all of their children away as they are born and raise them far far away. Failing that, I really don't care what's done with them so long as the extermination of their societies is sufficiently humane, rapid, and efficient. -- ark

---

This text needs to be NPOVd... or maybe it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at all. Thoughts? --Dante Alighieri 01:08 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Beyond the medical implications of circumcision, there is a philosophical question. What is our relation to our children. Adults who choose to pierce tongues, belly buttons, or other parts of their body are making personal choices. A baby does not make personal choices. A circumcised baby has been permanently altered, for the benefit of the parents, and God (according to some people), not for the benefit of the child. Are our children in our care, or do we own our children? Do our children have the right to think and act differently than we do, or must they follow in our footsteps?

how about a brief description of why it isn't NPOV. Perhaps I can change it so that it meets your concerns. Karl

Well, there are a few problems. First of all, you use the first person... that typically is a bad idea in an encyclopedic article. Also, you state categorically that circumcision does not benefit the child. Well, if it DOES benefit God (and that's a big if, I agree) then surely it benefits the child. Also, I'm not certain that the larger philosophical questions you raise are truly appropriate for the body of the article or if perhaps we need an article called Controversy over circumcision or something. That being said, I am, as I imagine you are, opposed to routine infant circumcision, so don't think I'm trying to silence you. :) --Dante Alighieri 01:28 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

Hard to tell... it looks obviously NPOV to me too, but it's hard to explain why in words. The most obvious thing is that the sentences with question marks are argueing, instead of describing arguments. Compare with the following version:

"Some opponents of circumcision argue that the parent should not decide permanent body changes for their children"

...which immediately triggers the obvious counterargument that parents have to decide many things for their children, with often definitive consequences. FvdP 01:27 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

ok - I'm thinking about a change. It may take a bit. Let me try to say what I was thinking in a different way. - Western ideas of individual liberty probably make actions like circumcision as an infant unacceptable. Physical changes to babies to suit their parents is not consitant with western individual liberty. It is just a matter of time until it is not allowed. On the other hand - views that hold that children are owned by their parents, that parents can controll their children in any way they see fit until they are adults, and even as adults; where there is not the same concept of religious freedom, then circumcision might very well make sense. I see the continuation of circumcision as an issue based in religion and in how we view our children. Karl

parents can controll their children in any way they see fit: that's not what I said, nor believe ;-) And I guess proponents of circumcision (generally) don't believe that either. Perhaps they don't see the harmful side of circumcision, think that "Gods wants that" or "it's better for their health", and go for it. By decisions adults take, I mean for instance the choice of education: that has consequences that can't be entirely reverted, and it has to be made by the parents, not by the child. --FvdP

Let's not forget the possible peer pressure involved. If "everyone else is doing it", some parents may worry that their son will be teased if his penis does not look like the other boys'. --Dante Alighieri 01:53 Dec 5, 2002 (UTC)

I have to go to work, alas, so no time to restore a balanced POV to the entry. But let's make it very clear: RK's removal of massive slabs of text (see the page history) is an intolerable violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy. It's not even consistent with the remaining article content. In particular, RK, I draw your attention to the positions of the medical commonity as evidenced in the article itself. Tannin 23:34 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Your claims are simply not true; I have not done this! The problem is that you failed to read the article carefully; what you think has been deleted has simply been moved around. I have reorganized the text, added medical information, information about the anti-circumcision groups, and reorganized the material into a more logical fashion. I took great pains not to delete most of the text. Please re-read the article. RK

PS: right now it's darn near impossible to work in a sensible way, as the server lag is severe. There was LOTS deleted in your original edit. Since then there have been other edits. Now I can't work out what's going on. I'll go to work and hope the server is feeling better this afternoon. But rest assured, any claim that "medical opinion favours circumcision" is in clear violation of the observable facts and will be reverted. Tannin

Tannin, please stop attacking quotes I never wrote. If you re-read, you will see that I repeatedly wrote the exact opposite of what you think. I said that despite the fact that most doctors now recognize the medical benefits of circumcision (proven in multiple peer-reviewed studies) they nonetheless do not favor circumcision. In fact, I stated this multiple times. How can you read do not favor circumcision as they do favor it? Your recent comments indicate that you are having an emotional response to this topic. You are rebutting positions I am not promoting, and are seeing vast texts being deleted that are not being deleted! Chill; I think we can work together RK

---

Here is a view from a non-Wikipedia contributor, from a discussion forum that I am on. His views are considered mainstream within the Jewish community, although other views are certainly extant. I suspect many American non-Jews feel much the same way. Just a view to consider on the issue of the anti-circumcision movement:

I am aware of an anti-circumcision movement in the United States. I don't know much about its size or whether it is growing. One facet of this movement is represented by the attitude of Mothering Magazine. I summarize their position as "Keep your hands off my baby." They feel that the medical profession (and society in general) has been interfering too much with the mother/child relationship. Routine circumcision, routine vaccinations, bottle feeding in the hospital nursery, and other practices are seen as encroachments against the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit. They cite new evidence (I can't vouch for this stuff) that all these things are bad for children. They are angry that society thinks it can do a better job of parenting than parents can. And to a certain extent I think they are correct -- society (and medicine) can be very intrusive. About circumcision specifically, they argue that it is wrong to knowingly inflict pain on helpless baby boys. They contend that circumcision offers no clear and unequivocal medical benefits.

However, I sometimes sense an undercurrent that condemns any parent who would do these horrible things to their baby voluntarily. The message is that if you bottle feed, vaccinate or circumcise, then you are mistreating your child and you are evil and barbaric. At that point I would disagree strongly with them. As a Jew with an interest in continuing a long tradition, I might be inclined to view that kind of negative talk about circumcision as an attack on my heritage. Suppose this anti-circumcision rhetoric convinces many Jews to abandon circumcision as a religious practice? Those who see antisemitism everywhere notice that an anti-circumcision message could readily twist into "Jews circumcise, therefore Jews are evil." Though if this kind of antisemitism is really present, it is well camouflaged. On the other hand, the general editorial tone of Mothering Magazine seems to lean toward white Christian middle America -- the people who school their kids at home because they might learn secular values in a public school. Could such an audience internalize a tacit antisemitic message? Maybe.

---

First of all, RK in the beginning of this mess stated that circumcision need not involve "touching the penis". EXCUSE ME? What the hell is the foreskin if not part of the penis?

The problem (and this isn't your fault) is that most people have accepted a social bias which misunderstands basic human biology. Non-biologists are usually confused about the human body, and imagine that parts that are near each other are really the same. This is very common, and I can't blame anyone for thinking this way. But its wrong. Biologically, one can trace the development of both the penis and the foreskin surrounding the penis from separate embryological tissues. Even at birth the penis and foreskin are separate; you can even grab the foreskin and pull it far back, totally exposing the penis. You can remove some, or all, of the foreskin, without touching any of the penis itself. RK

You're being disingenuous, not to mention mildly insulting (I have an extensive medical and biological background, by the way). Many body parts involve sub-parts of different embryological origin, and that doesn't make them separate body parts. The prepuce is part of the penis, period, and it's a part that has an integral function as such. You may as well say that the nervous system of the penis is not part of the penis because of its embryological origins. Guess what? The penis wouldn't function without that nervous system. jaknouse 02:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I'm no doctor or biologist, but I have a foreskin and it's definitely part of my penis. Theanthrope 02:41 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Second, it must be clearly understood that Jewish circumcision is a form of HUMAN SACRIFICE. True, it's far better than the preceding custom of slaughtering your children on an altar, but it's still barbaric. And I speak as someone with Jewish ancestry, so don't try to pull some "racist" thing on me.

Ok, now you are spouting anti-Semitic hatespeech, and a particularly insane one at that. You obviously are part of the rabid anti-circumcision crowd, and a Jew-hating one at that. Fortunately, the majority of the anti-circumcision crowd is well-meaning in their intent, and doesn't push the crazy POV thsat you do. RK

There you go again. It's historically accurate that ancient Semitic tribes practiced human sacrifice of infants and children, and I can quote at least two explicit examples from the Bible (Abraham and Jephtha). It's also historically accurate that circumcision was, at the time, a huge ethical step forward in replacing an extreme human sacrifice with a minor one. As far as circumcision goes, I say that if someone WANTS to be circumsized, I couldn't care less -- that's their decision. It's when it's NOT their decision that I oppose it -- but YOU seem to support having irreversible surgeries forced upon non-consenting children. And don't try to bait me with asinine labels like "Jew-hating". Just because I disagree with a barbaric practice of my ancestors doesn't mean I hate them. jaknouse 02:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I am not going to waste my time refuting this Jew-baiting. Go away, troll. RK

Well, RK, you seem to be the most craven sort of apologist. Just because an ethnic group has suffered horribly at the hands of others does NOT excuse them from things they themselves have done. The need to assume responsibility for one's actions is universal, and no person is excused, no matter what their beliefs or station. In fact, for a great many Jews (if not the vast majority), the Holocaust made them far more sensitive to issues of human rights and tolerance, as it should have. Unfortunately, there are still rabid, intolerant fundamentalists in almost every religious tradition. jaknouse 14:55 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

Third, there are actually ancient proscriptions in Islam AGAINST circumcision, even though it's a common practice today. Fourth, there are very many circumsized men today who report a lack of sensitivity in the glans of their penes that is almost certainly due to being circumcized. Human beings are extremely variable in every aspect of their body functioning, so circumcision is little or no hindrance to many men, but it's a significant problem for many more. So, do we continue a ridiculous and revolting practice because it doesn't bother many guys, even though it presents a problem for a significant number? It's as bad as the now-discredited practices of performing routine tonsillectomies and appendectomies on healthy children.

Fifth, if we adopt the specious rationale that circumcision is desirable because it reduces the incidence of a very few and quite rare diseases, and that the foreskin, while a functional part of the body, is not actually necessary, then the same logic MUST dictate that we perform radical mastectomies on all female infants. After all, breast feeding is not absolutely necessary, and breast cancer is far, far more common than cancer of the penis, now, isn't it? And, after all, infant girls "don't feel pain" any more than the boys, huh? And many of them will look more like their mothers (who have had mastectomies).

Sixth, how can we possibly assume the right to mutilate a child's body without any compelling health reason when he is incapable of contributing to the decision? People should have the right to make such decisions when they reach what society adjudges to be the age of reason. I think it time that all Jews, Christians and Muslims re-examine their supposed religious bases for circumcision, and get with more evolved ethics. jaknouse 01:44 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

---

RK, some of your recent edits are unacceptable. Adding scare quotes around terms you do not like or using phrases like "hypothesized" and "one theory" injects a subtle POV into the article. We could just as well write about "medical benefits" instead of medical benefits etc.

You are incorrect on this issue. First off, I did not add scare quotes around these words. I don't know what you are talking about. The previous version was totally POV, because it took one theory about the origin of circumcision ten thousands years ago, and presented it as an indisputable fact! Obviosuly, that is totally unacceptable, and a violation of Wikipedia NPOV stanards. The fact is that no one knows for sure why circumcision first started, and mutliple theories on this subject exist. In fact, it may have independently evolved in different areas for different reasons. RK

You did add scare quotes around the term "barbaric", they were already there in the case of "sexual mutilation". I will remove them in both instances. Furthermore, you are incorrect that the previous version presented the suppression of masturbation as the only acceptable theory, in fact, it was in that respect less biased and more balanced than your last edit. In addition to that, you have now removed the Maimonides passage and improperly rewrote other parts. You are trying to inject a POV into the article by rejecting any notion that circumcision was practiced by Jews to control sexual behavior, which Maimonides himself openly admitted. --Eloquence

In most cases, the quotes already were there. Finally, I still think that you have misread the early version; the opening originally made it clear that there was only one serious theory as to the origin of circimcision. That version was misleading. RK

Now, I see that you claim that the changes I made are POV? Why? I do not understand your position that the results of modern day scientific studies, which show medical benefits, should be labelled with the same degree of certainty as theories about the origin of a cultural practice some 10,000 years ago. These two cases are not comparable. We can perform peer-reviewed double-blind medical studies today; we cannot do any such studies for how behaviours evolved in the past. RK

Certainly not, but we know a lot by now about how the brain works, and that decisions, especially in a religious context, usually have an emotional origin. We also know now that antisexuality is a specific cultural manifestation that can be found in a context of sexual deprivation, see e.g. Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence and this recent analysis of world cultural surveys. We also know that virtually all antisexual groups provide pretexts for their activity, e.g. modern religious fundamentalists claim that premarital sex needs to be controlled because of STDs and pregnancies. This knowledge allows us to conclude that circumcision probably evolved, or at least was practiced, out of a desire to control sexuality. Of course, many of these points are controversial and should be presented as such, but nevertheless, this perspective must receive proper exposure. --Eloquence

I disagree. To the best of my knowledge, scientists and historians have not concluded that circumcision probably evolved out of a desire to control sexuality. Have any individuals concluded thus? Sure, probably quite a few. But is this the mainstream consensus? No. We simply don't have the data necessary to make such a speculative conclusion. I persoanlly think that the idea of sympathetic magic is much more likely. RK

It should be noted that the studies finding circumcision to have medical benefits usually do not take into account the hygienic conditions among the circumcised and the uncircumcised subjects of the study. The underlying assumption is that they require equal care. Under that assumption, circumcision does indeed have some benefits such as the UTI reduction. However, the assumption is a flawed one: An uncircumcised penis requires more care than a circumcised one, simply because there is more skin to care about. What we are seeing in these studies, then, are not benefits of circumcision, but the effects of insufficient hygiene.

Many of the modern studies do take these factors into account. It is the older studies from the 1940-1960s that did not.

Then show me a single study that takes into account that a circumcised penis requires less care than an uncircumcised one and still shows medical benefits of circumcision. This means that the study must have controlled the non-circumcised members of its sample for daily hygiene procedures. Just picking one random 1998 study on UTIs, the main "medical benefit", shows that this control has not taken place. --Eloquence

And also note the full context of what I added. The current medical consensus is that despite the added medical benefits, most doctors do not reccomend circumcision, because the benefits are usually quite small. I think you may be arguing against a point I am not making. RK

The question is still whether the medical benefits exist in the first place, or whether they are methodological artifacts. --Eloquence

Another key point that is currently being downplayed is the question: Are the risks of circumcision higher than the benefits? An infant can die or be severely affected for the rest of his life from a circumcision gone wrong. I have seen pictures of such complications and believe me, they are not pretty. If you take the above hygiene factor into account, you can arrive at this conclusion: Under proper hygiene, an intact penis is no more vulnerable than a mutilated one; however, the act of mutilation places its victim at severe risk. Thus, circumcision becomes effectively a dangerous procedure.

Isn't this treated in detail in the article? And isn't this the reason that many doctors no longer push routine neonatal circumcision? In fact, I recently added several statements to the article saying that modern day doctors do not reccomend routine circumcision. I think some people are so scared of seeing any medical benefits for circumcision at all, that they don't even read the new paragraoh all the way through to their conclusion. RK

Since this article will be read by parents, we simply need to give a sound, reasonable summary and inform them in clear terms that circumcising their child puts them at a proven risk, whereas not doing so may provide smaller(!) medical benefits. --Eloquence

---

We are not currently providing the evolutionary side of the argument: The foreskin is a complex organ that developed in many animals as a result of natural selection. It therefore has to provide survival benefits, otherwise it would not exist. And before you respond that the foreskin is a "remnant", take a look at one: The human foreskin, again, is the result of evolutionary improvements, compared to other primate foreskins.

Your argument here is, to say the least, highly controversial, and unproven. Such arguments exist for a few parts of the human body, and for a huge number of gene sequences in the human geonome. Let's just say that this is a bit speculative at the moment. RK

There is nothing speculative about evolution. Complex organs do not evolve by chance, especially if they are (as circumcision advocates claim) harmful. Furthermore, the argument is a common one and thus needs to be properly represented in the article. --Eloquence

Whoah, who is denying that evolution is a fact? Not I! I never once said or implied any such thing. I know, for a fact, that evolution occurs. Rather, I was saying that your idea about the necessity of the foreskin today is speculative. I do admit that it is reasonable, of course. RK

Allow me to amplify my original idea, which probably has more applicability in other articles: Just because we see that a part of an organ, or a particular gene sequence, happens to still exist today, doesn't mean that it is still necessary. Evolution includes some dead-ends and redundancies, as well as dangerous mistakes. The best example of inherent evolved problems is that evolution always fails to deal with the biologial health of an organism after it reaches the age of reproduction. Most animal bodies go to heck and begin malfunctioning, aging, and finally dying shortly after losing the ability to reproduce. Modern science has already proven that this is unnecessary. Now that we are uncovering the multiple causes of aging, and learning how they work, many scientists believe that with a minor of number of genetic tweaks, we might be able to allow humans to live well past 300 years! This, of course, is more for the genetics or evolution article. RK

---

Lastly, the issue of sexual function is currently not sufficiently addressed. There have, in fact, been studies into this which found that sexual function is significantly impaired by male genital mutilation. There are two types of study that can be done:

• Asking a large number of women who had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised men which they prefer
• Asking men who have been cut as adults about their sex life before/after.

You are betraying a radical POV by claiming that every circumcision is some sort of mutilation. You must calm down if you want to discuss this issue impartially. As long as the anti-circumcision crowd tries to throw all Jews and most Muslims in jail as child-abusing mutilators (and many anti-circumcision groups are trying to pass such laws), the anti-circumcision hysteria prevents any calm and scientific discussion. Chill out. RK

I am not claiming that every circumcision is some sort of mutilation. I do call routine infant circumcision, or in fact any circumcision in absence of a clear expression of consent mutilation. As for your fears of persecution, Jews and Muslims would not be imprisoned for genital mutilations that took place prior to the passing of the law. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with the idea. Religious freedom ends where the freedom of the individual begins. Or would you defend clitoridectomy for religious reasons? --Eloquence

But this is still saying that Jews and Muslims should be thrown into jail as child mutilators after the law is passed; this gives me little comfort. In fact, it terrifies me. I do agree with you that religious freedom ends where the freedom of the individual begins. However, your bad analogy proves my point. You ask me "Or would you defend clitoridectomy for religious reasons?" I don't understand why you think this is the same as circumcision. It is not. Clitoridectomy is the removal of the clitoris; in males this would be equivalent to removal of the penis. I am opposed to both such savage mutilations. That is precisely why I spent so much time trying to explain that the foreskin is not the penis. I personally have very little foreskin, due to my circumcision as a child, but I do have a fully functioning penis! This issue should be very obvious, yet msot people still get confused about it. RK

In addition to impaired normal sexual function, there is an obvious impact on the learning of masturbation. A circumcised penis tends to require the application of a lubricant, whereas in an intact one, the foreskin acts as a natural lubricant, and masturbation is much easier, in fact trivial. This is the reason why circumcision was prescribed as a "remedy" against masturbation in the first place. As for the Jewish views, there is an interesting book called "Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective" by Dr. Ronald Goldman, whose views I will try to incorporate. --Eloquence 02:19 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

I am aware of this book, and it does not discuss Jewish views of circumcision. Please do not portrary it as such, because that would be a deception of the highest order. The book is an attack on Judaism's views of circumcision, and has been rejected by Jews from all the Jewish denominations. Presenting this book as a "Jewish view" would be like presenting the New Testament as a "Jewish view" of Jesus. You could try to do it solely because of the ethnicity of the author, but it would be misleading, and dishonest. RK

Goldman's book is certainly accepted by many Jews who oppose the primitive ritual of circumcision, and as such his arguments deserve inclusion. --Eloquence

No, you are totally mistaken. Just because you can find a tiny number of Jews who believe X, doesn't mean that X is a part of Judaism. Are you claiming that Jesus-worshipping Protestant Christianity is "a Jewish view of Jesus"? Why not? Thousands of Jews have left Judaism and converted to fundamentlist Christianity, through one or more forms of messianic Judaism. Doesn's this prove that Christianity is a part of Judaism? No. All it proves is that a very tiny percent of American Jews have left Judaism, and have adopted Protestant fundamentalist Christianity. Just because a tiny percent of Jews have attacked Judaism as "savage" and "barbaric", and have adopted a non-Jewish view of circumcision, doesn't mean that this Judaism-rejection is now magially a part of Judaism. It isn't. If you want to cite this book as an example of people who reject Judaism as "barabric" and want to end circumcision, then fine. But if you present it as a Jewish point of view, that would be dishonest. It would be no less misleading and dishonest than the "Jews for Jesus" (a real group) that present the worship of Jesus as form of Judaism. RK

Who cares what religion people are? Talk about religion belongs on Talk:Judaisim or Talk:Christianity or somewhere of that nature. This page is supposed to be about circumcision. Religion is irrelevant to anatomy. Tannin

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Circumcision/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I was bold and rated it as a class B page for these reasons; It is not NPOVed, the section layout heavily emphasizing religious views. It is too much text(122Kbytes), the article should probably be split if possible.

Last edited at 09:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)