You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 05:48:13 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: San Fran and Circumcision  (Read 2393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ValenciaTopic starter

San Fran and Circumcision
« on: June 07, 2011, 04:40:16 PM »
There's a push in San Francisco to ban circumcision, making it a misdemeanor if it's done  on minors with no exemption granted to religious reasons. Discuss.

Here is my opinion: I was totally unaware that this even was an issue until just a few months ago. It was just something that's done, right? After all, I'd never been with a man that wasn't. Then, I heard of this big debate regarding it, so with my skeptical wits ready, I dove into researching it myself. First, I checked what the APA, American Pediatrics Association had to say about it. To my surprise, they neither say yay or nay. I found that curious. Not knowing much about the procedure, I then checked that out. After reading my findings there, I have to admit, it sucks to be a baby boy. You're born, and then the first thing that you experience is someone slashing off one of the most sensitive spots of your anatomy! Granted, we don't retain memories when they are that small, but that just kinda creeped me out. You're strapped down for up to 15 minutes, and then you are cut...with no pain killer or anesthesia because you're too small to handle that. And that's the first thing you experience in life. Ugh!

I think what really put it into perspective for me was this: http://www.drmomma.org/2010/06/fgmmgm-similar-attitudes-misconceptions.html  There are places in the world where they think it's okay and normal to cut a woman's labia and clitoris OFF. And they feel that it too is done for hygiene purposes. As the proud owner of a vagina, I've never had worms in my crotch just because I have my naughty button intact. Did you know that medical journals until the 1960s stated that circumcision was performed not for hygiene purposes, but to PREVENT MASTURBATION. .....My brain started to hurt!

And let's not get into the countless men who've unfortunately had botched circumcisions (not saying that it happens everywhere, all the time but it does happen) Or that they've seen that the experience of circumcision causes neural symptoms identical to post-traumatic stress disorder. O.O

After really looking at it, it seems like there's alot of disinformation out there. I'm not the type to start huckin' pitchforks at Mommies who do make the decision to do so, I would just like to encourage people to check it out.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2011, 05:09:42 PM »
There's actually been a push in recent years to help manage neonatal pain during medical procedures, including circumcision.  I was able to find this 2002 abstract without much looking, with related articles dating as far back as 1991, and as recent as this year.  I'll admit, I'm not a proponent, and if the little Oni had been a boy, there would have been quite a bit of discussion (Mr. Oniya's family is Jewish, although he's not.) 


Offline RubySlippers

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2011, 05:51:02 PM »
I have a feeling the Jewish faith would move in court to have any ban overturned without an exemption for religious purposes, and the First Amendment is a HIGH bar to overcome unless there is a very good reason. But I don't see a reason to support the procedure.

Offline ValenciaTopic starter

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2011, 05:58:52 PM »
I think that religion should have an exemption, but my only qualm is this: That little boy may be born to Jewish parents, but how can we make that decision for him? Should anybody? True, he may very well grow up in the theology of his parents, but shouldn't he be allowed to make that decision on his own as an adult? Getting circumcised when you're a grown up would be a real pisser, I bet, but at least you can get drugs then!

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2011, 06:00:35 PM »
That sounds like San Fran.. the moral high road without consideration of all the details. I always found that the city of San Francisco has been uptight and high handed with some of their laws. Like their attempt to put additional taxes on coffee a few years ago to enforce the use of ONLY fair trade beans if I recall right. I don't think they really think through some of their laws implications.

Offline Harley

  • The Clown Princess of Crime
  • Lady
  • Enchanted
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2011
  • Location: Following her puddin' wherever he goes
  • Gender: Female
  • Don't you want to rev up your Harley?
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #5 on: June 07, 2011, 06:09:32 PM »
Am I the only one who appreciates when a guy is circumcised?   I know that the act is probably really horrible for the baby boys involved, but...  Well.  I'm afraid of seeing a guy's natural foreskin.   

Who knows though, maybe one day in the future the procedure will be banned everywhere in the US, and...  Well...   More happy babies.   

I'm all for finding a way to help give pain relief though when the act is done, but...  Well.   

Offline Noelle

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #6 on: June 07, 2011, 06:21:26 PM »
There's really no medically necessary reason to circumcise most little boys. At this point in American culture, it's mostly just for the sake of aesthetic with a healthy side of people still believing that circumcised penises are cleaner (spoiler: they're not). Most parents fear the inevitable locker room teasing, but again, that's not due to anything inherently wrong with what's already naturally there, that's purely perpetuated misconception (say that fast!).

I don't know that it's exactly comparable to female circumcision, though, at least not how it's done in first-world countries and I don't think the after effects are quite the same. Most reports I've read on female circumcision are done in developing nations in an extremely unsanitary environment and result in a mass amount of complications unrivaled by male circumcision, which really only seems to affect sensitivity, whereas the female counterpart is much more extensive (cutting or burning off the clitoral hood, if not the whole clitoris, cutting the labia minora and/or majora completely, damaging the inner vaginal walls with a rainbow variety of substances, sewing things shut...) and I would argue far more oppressive reasons stemming from the need to control a woman's sexuality.

Most men simply have penises that are less sensitive, to my knowledge, with what seems to be a slightly greater disposition to infections waaay early on, while women can suffer a host of urinary infections (the urethra is quite close, after all), hemorrhaging, tetanus, disrupted menstrual cycles, later childbirthing issues, scarring, cysts, and so on.

It's because its pitfalls aren't quite as dramatic as female circumcision that I would be hesitant to put an outright ban on it, but I also recognize that this is an awfully large double-standard. I think the public perception and information needs to be changed more than anything. If you ask me, you might as well leave the kid uncut until he's old enough to decide whether or not he wants someone to scalpel off some excess skin :P It's always easier to take more off than it is to put it back on.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #7 on: June 07, 2011, 06:27:00 PM »
I think that the Synagogs (sp?) outside the city will be booked up a bit till this is settled. I find it VERY interesting that a religious practice was pointedly ignored in the law, given that it was CLEARLY going to be a point of contention and a definite cause for appeal. If I was a law writer, I'd have left religious issues out as a possible exception.

I mean.. it's going to cost the city time and money in courts now that could have been avoided with a well worded paragraph or two.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #8 on: June 07, 2011, 06:35:25 PM »
I think that religion should have an exemption, but my only qualm is this: That little boy may be born to Jewish parents, but how can we make that decision for him? Should anybody? True, he may very well grow up in the theology of his parents, but shouldn't he be allowed to make that decision on his own as an adult? Getting circumcised when you're a grown up would be a real pisser, I bet, but at least you can get drugs then!

Its not a choice your born a boy to a Jewish mother your Jewish under Jewish Religious Law & Tradition regardless if a natural born and raised Jewish woman or a convert, you are a Jewish boy. The rest is simple you get circumsized ina religious rite at a certain time after birth. It might work for reform Jews but if your moderate, conservative or orthodox not to mention Hassidim your going to have to get snipped if your a Jewish boy.

And do you think a court would go after this its ANCIENT Jewish custom with no proof it harms the child it would be destroyed at the first level of court just on religious grounds unless the judge is wacky.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #9 on: June 07, 2011, 06:55:36 PM »
Am I the only one who appreciates when a guy is circumcised?   I know that the act is probably really horrible for the baby boys involved, but...  Well.  I'm afraid of seeing a guy's natural foreskin.   

Who knows though, maybe one day in the future the procedure will be banned everywhere in the US, and...  Well...   More happy babies.   

I'm all for finding a way to help give pain relief though when the act is done, but...  Well.

I didn't see an uncircumcised penis until after I was out of college.  He was British, and the procedure is apparently less common there.  Yes, it was different, but other than the novelty, there wasn't a lot more to say about the incident.  Mind you, I only had a chance to 'see' - not get any more friendly with.  I think I was more surprised at seeing him naked than the fact that he was uncut.  ;)

Ahem.  Anyways, the article that I linked to indicated that there are methods of making the procedure itself less painful (I recall the term penile nerve blocker, and lidocaine, which is a topical anesthetic).

Offline ValenciaTopic starter

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #10 on: June 07, 2011, 07:44:43 PM »
Am I the only one who appreciates when a guy is circumcised?   I know that the act is probably really horrible for the baby boys involved, but...  Well.  I'm afraid of seeing a guy's natural foreskin.   

I've never been with an uncircumcised guy. And I've appreciated every penis I've had the pleasure of knowing.  :P

The issues that come from being uncircumcised, i.e. infections, and passing them on to their female lovers is this: You have to be hygenic. If you're raised in a society that says: 'Don't touch your penis. It's evil to explore your body.' You're gonna have kids, and then later, adults, who aren't comfortable with performing the necessary hygeine procedures. Same thing with us ladies. It's designed to be self-cleaning, but you still gotta do a little manual work yourself, ya know?

Offline Noelle

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #11 on: June 07, 2011, 07:48:52 PM »
The issues of not cleaning your dick in general are universal. So, uh. Clean your dick.

Offline Callie Del Noire

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #12 on: June 07, 2011, 07:59:23 PM »
The issues of not cleaning your dick in general are universal. So, uh. Clean your dick.

True.. but there is a CHANCE of infections.. so the trend was for a while just to go ahead and do it. I think that trend is changing these days.

Offline grdell

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #13 on: June 07, 2011, 09:44:16 PM »
Am I the only one who appreciates when a guy is circumcised?   I know that the act is probably really horrible for the baby boys involved, but...  Well.  I'm afraid of seeing a guy's natural foreskin.   

And here we differ. I vastly prefer uncut guys. I LOVE playing with a guy's foreskin. But I admit that it is purely a matter of preference. I am also seriously bitter that it was done to me - long before I had any say in the decision, of course. I consider it a mutilation... But that's another discussion, and old territory at that.

As for the law, well, when looked at from one angle, it is mutilation. But I'm really on the fence about completely outlawing it. It's yet one more example of the law stepping in where it really isn't any of their business.

I have many male friends who are grateful that they were circumcised. One even went so far as to say that if it hadn't been done to him when he was born, he'd go have it done now. I have also argued the case with a friend who has already decided that when he has children, if he has any boys, they will get it done to them, too. On the flip side, I also have friends who are very grateful that they were left intact.

There are foreskin restoration procedures. Trust me, I know, I've looked. But they're dangerous and inadequate.

My opinion is that parents should leave their boys intact and let them decide as adults. If they want it done, fine. If not, also fine. But the crux of the argument is this - it is permanent. What has been done CANNOT be undone. I resent that my parents consented to me being mutilated at birth. So I, for one, am very much in favor of not doing it.

But is that for the courts to decide? I don't think so.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #14 on: June 07, 2011, 10:44:22 PM »
I think that there should not even be a religious exemption. None. I think that we should not mutilate the genitals of children. If they grow up and choose to mutilate their own genitals, so be it, but it absolutely should be their choice.

That includes Jewish men, too. I'm sure God won't mind it if you wait 18 years to make sure you're not doing harm to your son's penis against his wishes, for chrissake.

Offline ValenciaTopic starter

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #15 on: June 07, 2011, 11:57:31 PM »
I think that there should not even be a religious exemption. None. I think that we should not mutilate the genitals of children. If they grow up and choose to mutilate their own genitals, so be it, but it absolutely should be their choice.

That includes Jewish men, too. I'm sure God won't mind it if you wait 18 years to make sure you're not doing harm to your son's penis against his wishes, for chrissake.

Word. It is one thing if it's your choice to do so, but leave the babies alone, ya know?

Offline Xajow

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2011, 04:52:04 AM »
I'm sure God won't mind it if you wait 18 years to make sure you're not doing harm to your son's penis against his wishes, for chrissake.
Leaving aside the humor of saying "for chrissake" when talking about Jewish tradition, the Jews didn't take up circumcising babies because they thought it would be fun. You say you're sure God won't mind if they wait, but according to scripture that isn't what God said. According to scripture, as I recall, it was to be done to male infants eight days old, and any male member of Jewish society to whom it was not done would be cast out as one who had violated covenant with God. So maybe God does mind. I don't know.

Offline Lilias

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2011, 06:18:48 AM »
The obsession with wholesale circumcision seems to be another very American thing. In Europe, barring religious or medical reasons, it's simply not done. And since Europe is very far from a hotbed of infection, I guess that proper hygiene is not that hard to achieve. :-)

A few resources - rather out of date, but you can get the idea.

The whole thing reminds me of the wholesale tonsillectomies of years past. That fell out of fashion too. I'm personally dead against preemptive surgery, which circumcision is, when all is said and done.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 06:20:42 AM by Lilias »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2011, 09:23:38 AM »
Leaving aside the humor of saying "for chrissake" when talking about Jewish tradition, the Jews didn't take up circumcising babies because they thought it would be fun. You say you're sure God won't mind if they wait, but according to scripture that isn't what God said. According to scripture, as I recall, it was to be done to male infants eight days old, and any male member of Jewish society to whom it was not done would be cast out as one who had violated covenant with God. So maybe God does mind. I don't know.

I saw it, and left it because it amused me.

The point that Lilias brings up is good, too: There are different kinds of circumcisions, and the one most widely practiced now snips away a good deal more than is needed for someone to be considered circumcised. And saying, oh, it's only a difference in sensation - that's like cutting off the labia minora and then saying, "Well, it's only a difference in sensation". There are plenty of medical and ethical reasons not to perform a circumcision on a newborn, and the majority of parents don't even have religious reasons to stand on. "Well, it's my child and my choice!" someone might cry, but the truth of the matter is, a parent has no right and no business cutting their child's genitals unless there is a medical reason to do so. But, if someone were to insist on the right of a religion to mutilate its children's genitals even though the child may not even follow that faith later, they should at least shoot for minimal damage and not the current lop-the-whole-thing-off movement.

There are some traditions that are held over from the Old Testament that don't harm others, and that I understand. Kosher laws, fine. Cutting into other peoples' bodies, not fine. I think that if you believe in God and you believe that He created us, then it's a little silly to think that He created us with something He doesn't want us to have. If He didn't want little boys to have foreskins, He wouldn't have created the foreskin. It seems so simple to me; it's a law that comes from a book that allows for selling your daughter into slavery and stoning people to death. (Edit: Actually, I can't remember if it's Leviticus, the Bible, or some other holy script that instructs Jewish men to mutilate their genitals, so I'll strike that part out in case I'm misremembering.) And in my opinion, it's barbaric.

That said, I should probably note that I'm not really sure that the law has a place in this. The purpose of the law is to protect those who cannot protect themselves, though, including from their own parents, but it's an awfully intimate thing to be legislating. So I don't know.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2011, 09:27:08 AM by Trieste »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2011, 09:46:16 AM »
The Biblical reference in question is actually in Genesis, not Leviticus.  In that book, it was seen as a visible affirmation of the covenant between God and Abraham.

The hygiene thing brings up another issue in this suit-happy country we're in:  In order to keep properly hygienic, someone would have to show the little boys how to clean themselves, which is a bit more involved than cleaning the female genitals (you have to manually retract the foreskin).  I can mime to a little girl how to wash, even with my clothes on, but I have a hard time figuring out how to show a little boy how to do that without visual aides.  How long before someone accuses a mother of molesting her little boy?  I'm thinking not only about all the single mothers of little boys, but all the women who (whether through work schedules, or other circumstances) find themselves in charge of their infant/toddler sons' bath times.

Offline ValenciaTopic starter

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2011, 02:38:04 PM »
What makes me laugh is that the religious front says that this is a long-standing tradition that their holy books says they must do, so they do not think they should change that. I just look at them point blank and say 'When was the last time you sacrificed a lamb in the name of your Lord? This is also stated as a requirement in your holy book, yet you no longer practice this. Are you saying the life of an animal is more reverent than the condition of your infant son?'

Well, cleaning the weenie should fall under the Daddy's jurisdiction, as he has one and can lead by example. Granted, alot of Daddies don't have the foreskin, but they can do their reading and figure it out. And people just need to get over adults being naked around kids, and vice versa. I grew up in a large family of semi-nudists, which is something that we still practice with the kids (My sister and I live together, and I help raise her three kids).  And you know what? None of us grew up to be child molesters, and our kids are comfortable with their own bodies. They still have their moments of 'Hehe, that's a penis' like all little kids do, but they let it go pretty quickly.  You just need to shrug it off. 'Everybody has essentially the same anatomy, it just comes in different proportions' is what we tell them. The religious right thinks that just viewing the human body will make you have 'sinful' thoughts. Well you know what, it's your responsibility to control your own mind, not anyone else's. They just need to stop being so damned lazy about it, and man up. You don't have to fantasize/touch every set of genitals that you lay eyes on, ya know?

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2011, 02:46:19 PM »
The Biblical reference in question is actually in Genesis, not Leviticus.  In that book, it was seen as a visible affirmation of the covenant between God and Abraham.

I thought it was a fair assumption that it came from Leviticus, but I realized after I posted that I don't actually know for sure and certain, so that's why I chose to strike it out.

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2011, 03:04:00 PM »
I thought it was a fair assumption that it came from Leviticus, but I realized after I posted that I don't actually know for sure and certain, so that's why I chose to strike it out.

Yeah - my curiosity made me check.  *draws on the floor with her toe*

Offline jewess

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2011, 12:40:50 PM »
What makes me laugh is that the religious front says that this is a long-standing tradition that their holy books says they must do, so they do not think they should change that. I just look at them point blank and say 'When was the last time you sacrificed a lamb in the name of your Lord? This is also stated as a requirement in your holy book, yet you no longer practice this. Are you saying the life of an animal is more reverent than the condition of your infant son?'

Not that I'm particularly religious or anything but the reason Jews don't sacrifice animals anymore is because the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed and if/when it's rebuilt, animal sacrifices are supposed to start up again. Religious Jews do everything that it's possible to do, but circumcision is one of the like most fundamental pillars of the religion.

Offline Caela

Re: San Fran and Circumcision
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2011, 10:57:41 PM »
Personally, I'm in the camp of liking penises period, cut or not, but that extra bit of skin and the sensation it can give my partner really is just damned fun to play with!

As for San Fran, I think whoever wrote the law was just flat stupid. To no include a religious exemption is asking for a lawsuit you KNOW you will lose. It's a waste of taxpayer time (tieing up the court system) and money and whoever drafted it should be smacked.