A bit off the topic here, but I would be interested in hearing your response to CNN’s God’s Warriors series. I’m finding it to be helpful in painting the broad landscape of current events. Your thoughts?

What an interesting article. The rabbi, or whoever he was, you cited in your article, stated it very honestly and eloquently. I couldn’t have said any of that better myself.
I want to address something that is often overlooked when debating Jewish, or Old Testament, laws and rituals. Circumcision was mandated by God BEFORE He gave the Law, just as tithing (returning 1/10 of one’s gross income to God). These are two of the “biggies” for most Christians as well. The reason they ARE so important is because they pre-date the Law. That God included them in the Law is no reason to abandon them on the grounds that we are “free from the Law” because Jesus Christ came to fulfill it. Besides, God would not impose something dangerous or unhealthy; He is a God of grace and healing, after all! And He has really good reasons for His instructions.

who desides if it’s immoral. If it’s immoral to you is it immoralto me?
circumcision is unessesary after Jesus died came and he is the one who started it.

Circumcision has been shown to reduce risk of many diseases. It is the parent’s choice, and it is traumatic to the baby, but it is more traumatic the older the child or teen or man is.

personally, i would rather have sexual relations with a man who is circumcised than one who is not. the one who was NOT gave everyone he had sexual contact with many social diseases.

totally optional, if it makes you feel good to traumatize your child, go for it. God doesn’t require anything of anybody, never did, doesn’t care. She’s far, far beyond judging. The first person that said God requires anything of anyone committed the first sin, if such a thing as sin existed, which it doesn’t.

Why did God create foreskins?

I we only checked the logical reasons for many a rule, we souldn’t be discussing some issues.
The one on this table, is basically a higyene thing, which I think should be enforced everywhere notwithstanding its religious connotations.

And… God is defined by each own individual as to whom He/She/It is. If you’re going to say that “God” lay down that covenant to remove the male foreskin, what would you say to those in the islamic (I may be naming it wrong but it’s too early to confirm and look it up) or the xx religion that dictates the removal of the female clitoris “in the name of purity” which also causes no small amount of trauma to the woman.
Yet that was also a “God” or “Allah” or whatsoever you choose to name He/She/It….
ah………. Circumcision is a purely personal choice dictated by the leaders of the Jewish tribes at the time it was laid out IMHO…. Now perhaps at the reason it WAS laid out may have been – at the time – hygenic.
But hey.. the be all and end all to our choices lie within ourselves not by someone else – unless you CHOOSE to give that choice away and are happy with doing so, which IS a choice too.
your choice. so is the cleanliness of your personal hygiene LOL circumcision or no

Personally I PREFER an uncircumsized man. I like to stick my tongue in there.

how could anyone think they have the right to remove a piece of another persons body without their consent, for non medical purposes,
without knowing if that person will ever be a jew(he may decide on another religion after he investigates life..or not)
its not your penis…dont touch it.
i feel the same way about ear piercing…this is a right of passage if a girl chooses…not your decision.

I am Jewish, and I know very little about the Catholic faith. If I were to write an article about the Eucharist and why it should not be practiced today I would either offend some and look foolish to others.
This is my reaction when people with little knowledge write about circumcision. Mr. Feiler goes on about something about which he knows so little.
St Paul was only one in a long line of people who tried to stop this sacred ritual. Antiochus in the the of the Maccabees forbade it, St. Paul said that converts to Judaism no longer needed it and provided the break with the Jewish religion, Stalin forbade it in the USSR and many others made unsuccessful attempts to do away with it. Even in the USSR many Jews defied the Soviet authorities and circumcised their sons. Long after Mr. Feiler is gone circumcision will still be here and cries of Mazal Tov will ring out as a new member is welcomed to the fold.

I personally think that circumcision is barbaric. If God ordered the Jews to circumcize, then why did s/he create the human body as it is? It is not true that the infant does not feel the cut. His screams will break your heart. Hygiene is easy if one washes, especially with the use of soap. When one of my sons was very small, he got an infection from putting pennies in there. Before taking him to the doctor, I checked my herb books which told me to make a paste of corn starch and water and apply it to the area. I applied it that night and the next morning he was totally fine, infection completely gone! I was amazed at the speed of healing. Let’s leave a healthy body as Mother Nature intended. People sometimes do very strange things in the name of religion.

We make covenant with God–of course, God started it, made covenant with us. Men are the link to the covenant (hope this isn’t trolling ), and women are in covenant thru the men in covenant. So I hear. And the cutting is in our flesh, and in our generative parts, because God wants us all the way down, down to our generatives.
Yes, we can concede that the social context of scarring of the original context is past its sell-by date, but the main points are still spring-time fresh.

re: “Why did God create foreskins?” this is discussed in the mystical texts and hence will not be understandable to everyone. In brief: Mankind has an opportunity to be a co-creator with God in finishing / perfecting the universe. It is a very deep sharing between God and Mankind. The mila (circumcision) represents doing exactly that on the body: perfecting it. The Greeks believed that everything was created perfect and that there is no role for humans in progressing the universe forwards. We Jews believe that there is a role and an essential role. When we are part of the perfection process we will then earn our place. We start with that area which requires the deepest commitments and integrity: sexuality and relationship.
re: “many Orthodox Jews don’t keep these commandments”. Sure there are always slackers, but in the vibrant, growing and thriving
Torah communities to be found in the US, Israel and around the world, we are very very committed to keeping all of these laws. That includes: no masturbation, no touching the opposite sex unless married to them, and the main one (one of the 3 pillars of Judaism) the mikva laws (female cycles / male attunement laws).
In my own small community in N.J alone there are thousands of couples who keep these laws very firmly and we have yearly classes to review. The first building a Jewish community builds is a mikvah. According to Jewish law it’s much more important than a synagogue. That’s because in Torah Judaism the woman and the home are the centers of everything, not the synagogue.
Just because you will find some people who don’t or won’t doesn’t mean anything as to the validity of the laws. Talk to the million or so of us around the world who do and see what it brings to our lives. You will be amazed.
Zei gebenched (go with Blessings),
Yak

First of all, I believe this practice is barbaric because the owner of the foreskin has no choice. We cut off a part of a baby boy’s body as a constant reminder all his life that he is Jewish or Muslim or that how God has made his penis is not just wrong.
I’m gay so I know a little bit about penises other than my own and I can tell you that this practice should be stopped. I believe it hinders the emotional development of males (it is a shock to the system to cut anything off the body) and, in my opinion, brings a negative awareness to the penis early on in a child’s development.
The religion and hygiene excuses are just further elements of who wacky religious people are about sex organs in general.

Just to clear something up-islam does not require females to have the clitoris removed. Islam does not require circumcision at all for females. It is not found anywhere in the Quran, therefore ‘God’ did not say it. Any muslim who says differently is following culture, not religion.
Muslims, however, do get males cicumcised. The dictate is not found in the Quran, but it is practised.

Another take on this was that of the apostle Paul who said he was a Pharisee, circumcised the eighth day, and so forth…
In counseling Jews and Gentiles he said, “Neither circumcision is anything, nor uncircumcision…but a new heart.”
In other words, pleasing God has to do with the heart, not the outward appearance. Even the Jewish prophets knew about the “circumcised heart”, which sounds gross, but it is about the way we approach God.
That said, I was recently in Kenya where some tribes circumcise both men and women. For some of those tribes, many practices seem to have filtered down that way through the Ethiopian Jews: there is an old, even ancient, connection.
The practice among tribes was particularly barbaric and hypocritical when used on women. I was told that it was the British censure of this practice that got the Brits kicked out of Kenya.
Regarding hygiene, the Western consensus seems to be for circumcision. But there are many who feel it is barbaric. Sort of like trimming a boxer dog’s ears and tail, maybe. Those who think it does psychological damage are wrong.
As for why the covering is there in the first place: I would bet that some scientists would consider it protective, an evolutionary thing.
God may have had the same thing in mind.
Could this also be irksome to feminists, because God focused on the male appendage as a sign of separation? There is a little patriarchy suggested here.

As an adult survivor of this culturally supported sexual mutilation, I would like to say; I support any Adults choice to do whatever he or she wants with their own body, but I do not support the thought of any Adult choosing for a child how their body will be scared and cosmetically altered for life. A parent may ‘own’ their child, but the child owns his penis or her vagina. I believe it is the parent’s duty to protect their child until he/she is old enough to make these choices for him/her self.
My parents did not to that for me. I have expressed to them my disgust, pain and continued anger toward what was done to my body and, in time, they have apologized. My mother has even cried over her decision. I understand that they did not make the decision out of malice, but rather ignorance, and being new parents they only did what they thought was best based on what other people told them.
Still, the information existed at the time to help my parents make the right choice; to leave my body intact, as the Divine made it, for a reason. For the same reason the Divine gave every male in every species on earth a foreskin. It is not a dead piece of flesh; it serves a very real purpose, which an astounding amount of people don’t even understand. Not even men who, themselves, have grown up without this living part of their own bodies. How sad.
As an adult I am further baffled by the decision to mutilate my genitals, as the practice is against my religion and my personal convictions. This adds to the continuing pain and disgust I feel toward what was done to me. I am faced with the reminder of this every day. It is a terrible feeling I’d never wish on anybody.
I understand that there are many men who simply don’t care about what was done to them as infants, although by all accounts that number is rapidly shrinking as more and more men open up and speak out about their beliefs. Over 1000 men per month seek cosmetic foreskin reconstruction surgery in California; clearly many of us are unhappy about it! However, for the ones who really don’t care, I still urge them to leave their sons intact as God/the Divine made them. It costs them nothing, and to their son, it could mean everything – or at least, a heck of a lot.
Be blessed.

Circumcision is now more of a “zen” thing (in a totally western misunderstanding of the concept)We do not have the capacity to use circumcision as a badge of recognition (no flipping the robe/toga to check anymore) So it is something done in private, even secret, that still marks a person. Some say the psychological effect on the infant lasts their lifetime. Could this be part of the intent? Of course, in Abe’s day it was adult who were “getting cut”. I think there would be a whole lot more resistence to that now, if cricumcision were handled like believers/adult baptism.
As to hygiene, I read somewhere recently that circumcised men are less prone to contracting AIDS related afflictions. This would certainly open an intersting discussion – circumcision as STD prevention for later in life (sure to be followed by the entire argument about distributing condems to young people)
Of course, it all comes down to PE Class and the infamous compulsory showers, where anyone who is not like everyone else is ostracized, chastized, and hit with the wet end of a twisted towel. In my generation it was the UN-circumsized that were whacked. I expect the opposite is true today.

personally i woulnt want to be with a man who isnt circumcised. i’ve had close friends who dated uncircumsized guys and they said it was uncomfortable (not to mention looks very strange)
i always heard it was cleaner too.
i dont think it really marks the Jews as different anymore b/c so many non jews do it.
the questioner,
female circumcision was mandated to restrict female promiscuity. it severely damages the woman/girl and causes many health problems later in life.
removing the forskin doesnt have the dangers involved. not to mention that female circumcision is performed at a much later age. at least teh infant male cannot remember his circumcision.

I did not have a choice about being circumcised. I don’t recall the discomfort of having it done, although I do remember my mother crying (just joking about that).
One of my friends is a urologist. He also happens to be the community Mohel (one who does circumcisions). He can cite any number of health reasons for the act. Now and again there is research about the sensation felt by those with and those without. We all want to believe the research that says there is not difference. It would be interesting to be able to make a comparison within oneself.
Perhaps we should have a way to preserve those foreskins. Autologous transplants are the best. It would make great replacement tissue for say, burnt lips. The lips could be restored with better sensation than before. Hopefully, those puckers won’t be too dramatic.

When my first son was born, we debated whether to have him circumcised, and decided against it because it wasn’t medically necessary. We didn’t want to hurt him. I didn’t see any point in altering what Nature put there. I also didn’t want to make a body-altering decision for someone who was too young to speak for himself. My husband, who like most men of his generation, is circumcised, initially felt our son should be circumcized also, for aesthetic and hygienic reasons, and to “be like daddy.” Having made the decision, we didn’t circumcise our second son either.
Religion never entered into the equation for us. Reform Jews don’t seem to care one way or the other (as a member of a Reform congregation said, “No one’s going to check.”) I’m sure it could be a powerful religious ritual in a religious household. But religious law or not, it’s always seemed to me like a weird thing to think of doing. It seems very “primitive” like other forms of body modification (which are against Jewish law – i.e. tattoos, scarification.) Given that our culture approves of a number of other forms of body modification, I often wonder if circumcision is opposed just because Jews do it.
People who think “female circumcision” is in any way comparable to male circumcision should take note of the fact that male circumcision doesn’t destroy sexual sensation the way removal of the clitoris does. An accurate comparison would be full removal of the penis.
Circumcision has been shown to have medical benefits, such as reducing the risk of sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV.
Ultimately I think it’s a matter of personal preference. As such, as a religious ritual, if you feel strongly about it, it’s fine.

A study came out recently that showed that circumcized males were less likely to pass on HIV.
That is one reason for it.

Anyone with any sense of course realises that circumcision is one of those slightly barmy symbolic practices embraced by religious nuts. What else could body mutilation be? The sin of it is that the atrocity is inflicted on a child who has no say whether it is inflicted or not. If there is a God, why would he give us a foreskin and then expect us to cut it off in his name?
Some say circumcision is in he best interest of hygiene. Well, your ears get dirty but you don’t cut them off. Furthermore, the foreskin or prepuce to give it its correct name, is highly sensitive and enhances sexual contact. If God created sexual pleasure why would he want to reduce it by expecting us to remove a portion of the erotically sensitive tissue which he bestowed upon us?
Let’s face it. The practice is an anachronistic primitive absurdity. How any intelligent modern human being can defend it is beyond me.
Martin.

To David Walden: Does God require us not to traumatize children?

When my little boy was born I did not even consider whether or not he should be circumcised. Every male in my family for generations had been circumcised so even though there were health and sensitivity arguments I decided to have it done on the “Tevye” principal: tradition. I have a good friend who is a pediatrician as well as a mohel and, oddly, councils parents to avoid circumcision considering the practice cruel and unnecessary. I thought Christians did not circumcise as a rule but with the current support of Israel by some apocalyptic evangicals the practice seems to have become popular.
Go figure.

Jonah: you are WAAAY off the mark in suggesting that circumcision was once rare among Christians but that is has made some kind of resurgence because of evangelical fundamentalists.
In reality, MOST Christian males in America are cicumcised. That has been the case for decades. When I was born (1961), it was done almost routinely. The United States is highly unusual in this regard- Christians are rarely circumcised in Europe. It’s not clear why circumcision became so popular in the U.S. It may be because so many American doctors are Jewish, or it may be related to the widespread 19th century obsession over preventing masturbation (believe it or not, Sylvester Graham’s crackers and Dr. Kellogg’s corn flakes were originally marketed as a way of preventing boys from pleasuring themselves!).
Today, if there’s a trend among Christians in the U.S., it’s AWAY from circumcision, which is increasinly seen as unnecessary.

Jewish, Mohomidan or others FAITHS: MALES, with the incidence and prevellance of DIABETES on rise, it will be a PRUDENT PRACTICE to CIRCUMCISE a few days after birth(AS SOON AS PSSIBLE)! If it is a type I(Early onset diabetes) or Late onset-Type II – the high levels of GLUCOSE in the urine Presents higher risk and suceptibilty to prepucialskin infections, which are hard to contorll, as nesseciate circunscison in adult life-which is more traumatic than one done just a few days after birth. Nothing to do with Belief System!

I was married to a circumcised man and also to an uncircumcised man. Both were good with their hygiene, I don’t know why people keep mentioning hygiene and diseases, that’s absurd. I preferred the look, feel and texture of the uncircumcised penis!

mind you people, male circumcision is mostly for health or religious reasons -female circumision is tribal abuse of women! where they are mulitatied because the tribe thinks she will be sexually active. It is in the same category as being sown up for purity -neither of the last two were commanded except by tribal leaders which unfortunely still exist today in high places of power and even in civilized countries liek egypt or other middle east countries.

Religious beliefs are the best, if not only, good reason to have a male child circumcised. We have two sons. We talked about it, but decided against it. We are not religious. We talked about the medical reasons (STD/HIV prevention), the aesthetic reasons (cleanliness, appearance), the possible harm it could cause, and my ultimate feeling was: this is not a decision to make for a person who can’t speak for himself. I didn’t want to hurt my children or take away something Nature put there that isn’t a problem. Since then, I have come to appreciate what a potentially powerful symbol it is for Jews. If it’s part of a tradition you belong to and accept, do it. If not, not necessary. Many Reform Jews oppose it or opt out of it. My impression is that the Orthodox don’t recognize Reform as valid, anyway.

Do not assume that a foreskin is “dirty” – it is natural and made by god as a part of the human body. why do some people think that any uncircumcised man automatically has a “social disease”? this is prejudice, plain and simple

Health and religious reasons are fine and honorable reasons to become circumsized IF YOU CHOOSE. No one has the right to choose it for another person. Most people believe that a human being has the right to choose his or her own sexual expression and that no other person should control his or her body. Why don’t we feel that way about the most helpless among us?
It’s a matter of consent. Every newborn will someday be an adult, an adult who should have the right to determine this choice for himself. Parents don’t have that right, it’s a permanent change and must be decided by the individual.

How ever the author chooses, he should know that the Covenant of the Abrahamic tradition has not been abandoned. Circumcision is practiced on all Muslim males at birth or for converts. The Prophet Muhammad (saaw) taught this as part of the Abrahamic tradition which itself is consistent with human design and nature (fitra).
Coincidently, recent studies revealed that HIV and other STDs are transmitted easier in uncircumcised males through the inner lining of the foreskin.
Why did God create the foreskin? I don’t know. There could very well be a perfectly scientific reason, such as serving some purpose for the male fetus during in utero development.

In Nigeria it is a normal way of life to have your male children circumcised shortly after birth. In fact it is rare to see an uncircumcised male child how much more adult. Female circumcision is regarded as barbaric even though a few people still mutilate their daughters in this fashion. Whilst it is regarded as healthy (hygienic)for a male to have his foreskin removed, it is a health hazard for females to have to undergo such a crime. Those who still practise female circumcision in this day and age, a traditional rite in the olden days said to debar women from sexual promiscuity,need to have their heads examined. Males are usually circumcised when they are still too young to really ‘register’ the accompanying pain, whilst the female own is done at a time when they must have attained puberty and the pain registers. I can’t imagine the health risks involved in sleeping with an uncircumcised male, thank God I don’t have to!

I’ve gone through life wishing that I had been circumcised because I did not like being different. I was athletic and was embarrassed in the shower after games, at the swimming pool, in the army, etc. For those who think circumcision is cruel or silly or whatever, ask a lot of men in their 60s and 70s and older and suffer from enlarged prostate which, for many, means a sometimes unexpected dribble when they sit down or lift something shortly after urinating. The dribble is locked in, so to speak, by the forskin and that burns terribly if not dried quickly. Often, one does not even know there was a dribble and then you have to suffer the burning of the glans penis sometimes for several days. It’s not a pleasant experience. I urged all of my children to have my grandchildren circumcised. Fortunately, they saw the wisdom of my recommendation after I explained the reason for it.

education-I was not understanding only jewish a jewis male was to have a circumcision-almost all male children in our family have been and we don’t happen to be jewis.-why is or is it only expected to be for jewish males?

I can’t see how in this day and age, hygiene would be a good reason. Anyone who is thorough in their bathing should be alright. As for the sexual disease aspect. Should people be having unsafe sex with people they don’t know well? Besides foreskin or not, there are also condoms.

My fiancé is circumcised. It didn’t cause him any trauma at all, and certainly not the kind of trauma various forms of genital mutilation can cause a woman (so I’ve heard, at least). Plus, male circumcision is not about demonizing sexual desire. And women in many developing societies lack the power to protest the circumcision of their daughters if their own circumcision caused them problems, while men have the voices with which to protest and effect change if it’s needed. For those reasons, I don’t think it’s fair to equate circumcision with female genital mutilation.
I don’t believe that God requires anybody to be circumcised. I think there are factors in one’s life far more important than the status of their genitalia. But I personally find circumcision more attractive, and my fiancé and I plan to have future sons circumcised, not because God wants us to, but because it is his family’s tradition.

I say it’s invasive, unnecessary, painful, and non-consensual. It is a violation of a body of a defenseless, innocent living entity. Oh, and did I mention unnecessary?

I did not have my son circumcised 11 years ago when he was born. Religion was not an issue but Dr. Spock was. I sort of regret it now. There is literature on SDT and cancer that suggest that those men who are circumcised are at a lower risk.

I say let men penis be, but it a part of jewish tradtion. I do not think wise to mess with big part of that tradtion. Many american boys have their snakes trim and they are not jewish oh vey.

Circumcision is a sexual perversion. It deviates from the natural order. There is good reason why the human male has a a precupice. Lately, there has been propaganda that circumcision reduces sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. This is nonsense! If a man is educated correctly about how to keep his glans clean and sanitary on a daily basis, there would be no problem. However, because we live in an immature society (stemming mainly from the judeo-christian influence), it is nearly impossible to educate boys, adolescents and young men on the hygienic aspects of sexual health.

It is commanded by God and that is good enough for me. Whose husband was it that the wife said to him you are a bloody husband to me because her child had to be circumcised right away because his father (Moses) had been nearly killed. You see the “blood” requirement was necessary especially when the angel of death was sent forth to reign judgment on sinners. Below is the text of the bible Amplified that speaks to this:
24Along the way at a [resting-] place, the Lord met [Moses] and sought to kill him [made him acutely and almost fatally ill].
25[Now apparently he had [b]failed to circumcise one of his sons, his wife being opposed to it; but seeing his life in such danger] Zipporah took a flint knife and cut off the foreskin of her son and cast it to touch [Moses'] feet, and said, Surely a husband of blood you are to me!
26When He let [Moses] alone [to recover], Zipporah said, A husband of blood are you because of the circumcision.
Whatever God says: Do it. It is not optional. Yes, people commit sins and at times they do what they want when they want how they want but that is not is not right. It is disrepectful and in opposition to God’s holy will. And his is the only will that counts. You can bet on that.
Maria (an echo for my Lord and Saviour)

i HAVE A STRONGE FEELING ABOUT THIS NOT BECAUSE OF MY RELIGIOUS BELIEF.BUT BECAUSE PERSONALY MY HUSBAND HAD NOT BEEN CIRCUMCISED AT BIRTH AND HE KEPT GIVING ME INFECTIONS. wE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY TRYING TO KEEP ME WELL. HE DECIDED TO GET CIRCUMSIED AND IT TOOK CARE OF THE PROBLEM. MAYBE WE OUR I CASE BUT I BECLIEVE THERE IS A REASON FOR THIS. IT IS BETTER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH A MAN THAT IS CIRCUMSIZED.

Since it comes from the penis, it represents a sacrifice…
Infant circumcision is incompatible with modern understanding of rights and liberty. It involves one person making the sacrifice at the expense of another. If a man wants to sacrifice his own foreskin, I have no issue with it. I suspect it would also mean significantly more to him if he chose to do so.
It’s irrelevant that the sacrificer is a parent and the sacrificed is a son. Parents do not own the bodies of their children. They have no more right to remove healthy foreskins than they have the right to remove healthy arms and legs.

at least teh infant male cannot remember his circumcision.
This always pops up when discussing male circumcision, as if it’s a justification. If we follow this line of non-thinking, we could justify far more than we already do. It’s preposterous. More on this in a moment…
A study came out recently that showed that circumcized males were less likely to pass on HIV.
Several points. First, the studies were done in Africa. The CDC points out that the U.S. is mostly HIV-1 subtype B, while Africa is mostly subtypes A, C, and D. We don’t know if those findings are applicable to the United States.
Second, male-to-male transmission is the most common form of HIV transmission in the United States. No study has shown any benefit from male circumcision in reducing this. Cutting infant males in the U.S. is pure speculation.
Third, condoms work far more effectively. They’re also cheaper and don’t involve surgical risks and ethical violations.
Fourth, left out of every second-hand mention of the HIV studies in Africa are the two key words. The studies researched the effect of voluntary adult male circumcision. Again, cutting infant males is pure speculation. Also, given the combination of our HIV and circumcision rates, it’s fairly easy to understand that circumcision does not prevent HIV. So, see point three.
Coincidently, recent studies revealed that HIV and other STDs are transmitted easier in uncircumcised males through the inner lining of the foreskin.
The lining of the vagina consists of the same cells. Want to advocate research into determining whether that might reduce HIV transmission? If you trot out this argument, you’re most interested in health and all that can “improve” it. So, you should be interested in any preventive surgery, regardless of gender. Right?
… male circumcision is not about demonizing sexual desire.
Commenters have already pointed out above that male circumcision developed in the U.S. as a means of curbing and preventing masturbation. Carbolic acid was applied to the clitoris of girls to achieve the same result. Quickly, doctors decided that girls don’t enjoy sex enough to suffer the reduction in sexual sensitivity. At the same time, they decided that boys enjoy sex more than enough, so the reduction in sexual sensitivity would have a beneficial effect.
Then the parade of medical excuses began, continuing through the present. This allows us to separate male circumcision from our understanding that cutting the healthy genitals of children is barbaric. We’ve mostly made that illogical separation, so that unnecessary genital cutting is only bad if done to females. It’s an absurd concept.
Yes, most female genital cutting is more damaging than male genital cutting. But not always. Would we accept a pinprick to the genitals of infant girls? Removing the clitoral hood, a surgical procedure most analogous to male circumcision? The Female Genital Mutilation Act in the U.S. provides a fairly strong (and legitimate) “no” to those questions. So why are boys different?
And women in many developing societies lack the power to protest the circumcision of their daughters if their own circumcision caused them problems, while men have the voices with which to protest and effect change if it’s needed.
The flaw in there is subtle, but once exposed, it’s huge. I am a male, so I presumably have the voice to protest this. I am protesting it. But it doesn’t do me any good. I can’t change what was done to me. My foreskin is gone, even though I would never have chosen that for myself.
That’s the sick cycle that makes claims of patriarchy and arguments that men can’t be oppressed complete nonsense. We intuitively know – and evidence verifies – that males left intact rarely choose (or need) circumcision. Thus, it must be done to infants to perpetuate it because “we know best” based on our own subjective criteria.
Among males, this often takes the form of self-denial. “It was done to me, and I’m not damaged…” We ignore that the child may not want it. And again, evidence demonstrates that, if left intact, he won’t. So we choose for him, wrapping cultural, medical, and religious non-arguments around it. That is wrong. Every male’s (and female’s) body should be left to for him (her) to choose what to remove or not to remove.

Well other than it being the covenant between man and God, I think its also done for health reasons.

In response to David Walden’s comments:
Ooooh, a real-live moral relativist! How fascinating; you people never cease to amaze me. It’s a pleasure to meet you. I’d like to address some of your comments:
“If it makes you feel good to traumatize your child, go for it.”
Please. Male circumcision is not traumatic; in fact, it’s quite beneficial. I’m not Jewish, so I wasn’t circumcized as a baby, but for health reasons, I actually had to have it done as a teenager anyway, and I’m very, very glad I did. Your statement is just ignorance.
“God doesn’t require anything of anybody, never did, doesn’t care.”
It’s quite impressive that you know the mind of God so thoroughly.
“She’s far, far beyond judging. The first person that said God requires anything of anyone committed the first sin, if such a thing as sin existed, which it doesn’t.”
Oh, really? You don’t think God would judge the actions carried out during the Nazi Holocaust immoral? How about genocide in Darfur? How about murder, and rape? Are those immoral?
If you say yes, you’re a hypocrite. If you say no, you’re a monster. Welcome to moral relativism. Have fun playing in the ashes of reason.

“As an adult survivor of this culturally supported sexual mutilation”
A “survivor” of circumcision? As if circumcision somehow kills? Please.
“Given that our culture approves of a number of other forms of body modification, I often wonder if circumcision is opposed just because Jews do it.”
I truly do believe that subconscious anti-Semitism is behind attitudes that male circumcision is somehow “genital mutilation” or “body mutilation,” since it has no harmful side effects, UNLIKE female genital mutilation. As another poster pointed out:
“People who think “female circumcision” is in any way comparable to male circumcision should take note of the fact that male circumcision doesn’t destroy sexual sensation the way removal of the clitoris does. An accurate comparison would be full removal of the penis.”
The only possible explanations for a feeling of revulsion against male circumcision are anti-Semitism or discomfort at the idea of cutting away part of the skin on the tip of the penis. I can understand the latter, though there is still nothing scientific about it. Whether the health benefits of circumcision have been exaggerated or not, there is certainly no harm in it.

a voice of reason:
I truly do believe that subconscious anti-Semitism is behind attitudes that male circumcision is somehow “genital mutilation” or “body mutilation,” since it has no harmful side effects, UNLIKE female genital mutilation.
No harmful side effects? No infant males ever suffer complications from the surgery? No excess bleeding, no infection, no lost glans, no lost penis, no death? Are those harmful side effects? If you say “no”, that’s an interesting theory with zero basis in fact. I can provide examples. Do you think those infant males who lose the glans or the entire penis consider circumcision beneficial? What about the infant males who die? I suspect they’re unimpressed by the potential benefits.
Circumcision is surgery. As such, there is inherent risk, and there will be complications. All patients will face the risk, and no one can know in advance who will suffer the complications. (Aside from scarring, which occurs in 100% of patients.) In any other surgery on children, we require medical need, regardless of parental wishes. Not “this might help him avoid X, Y, or Z” as an adult, but an actual medical condition that can’t be alleviated with less invasive means. To argue otherwise is anti-science.
The only possible explanations for a feeling of revulsion against male circumcision are anti-Semitism or discomfort at the idea of cutting away part of the skin on the tip of the penis. I can understand the latter, though there is still nothing scientific about it. Whether the health benefits of circumcision have been exaggerated or not, there is certainly no harm in it.
You can understand the latter, yet you think there’s nothing scientific about it. Why? Again, circumcision is surgery. At the time it’s done, in almost every case, it is not medically indicated. Science (and medical ethics) dictates that we leave the boy’s genitals alone. The foreskin is there for several reasons. Science does not dictate that we remove it to chase potential benefits the boy is unlikely to need. Some people may choose to chase those benefits, and they should be free to do so. But with their own body, not the body of a child. Any other scenario is morally wrong and devoid of scientific ethics.
But it’s important to explore “no harm in it” further. Will you accept that there are nerve endings in the foreskin? Will you accept that the inner foreskin and glans are mucous membrane, exactly like the vagina (and the mouth and the nose…)? Will you accept that the foreskin adheres to the glans at birth, requiring forcible separation to circumcise an infant? Will you accept what I’ve written above, that there are boys who lose part of the glans or more? Death? How many of those complications fit into “no harm in it”? What is the threshold of complications that will suddenly prove harm for a surgical procedure that isn’t medically indicated in nearly 100% of the patients forced to undergo it? It’s more than zero?
You mention that you needed circumcision as a teenager. That makes you one of the roughly 3 in 1,000 intact males who needs circumcision at some point in his life. It’s good that you’re happy about it. My goal is not to make any circumcised man unhappy. Each individual’s preference is valid for himself. But I think you’re suffering from a bias. For example, ask a urologist about circumcision and they’ll tell you all about the unhealthy foreskins they see. But that’s a bias, since men with healthy foreskins don’t seek medical attention. It doesn’t makes sense to cut the other 997. Those 997 males might have a different opinion about how great unnecessary circumcision is. I do. The majority of intact males who never choose circumcision indicates the same.
You mention moral relativism. Both female and male genital cutting are the same basic act, regardless of the damage done: medically unnecessary genital cutting without the consent of the individual being cut. Your only defense is the extent of damage done. That’s insufficient, because there are forms of FGM that are less damaging than male circumcision and, as I mentioned, there are severe complications for some boys. You’re throwing out the extremes for both that contradict your stance to validate your stance. That’s unfair. You are engaging in what you denounce.
Unnecessary genital cutting without the consent of the individual being cut is unacceptable for females and males. Any other position is moral relativism based on gender.

If you within the context of your faith feel it required of you I have not contention as your faith is your own and arguing it is empty. Circumcision on a child who will not remember the event is nothing compared to the female version done on teens and adults, or the tibal scarification, but it’s just that, TRIBE, community, a rite of acknowledgent and acceptence within a group.
I see a problem as there are hospitals and care givers that will use the hygene excuse and individuals that blindly support there of. As wisely stated the argument swings back and forth with each new study but in the US, with it’s obsession of cleanliness, is doing this to a child under the guise of being just that microscopically cleaner (and saving a few seconds from properly cleaning one’s child) really something that is acceptable.

medically significant? I could function perfectly well without my clitoris, except for enjoying sex.
But then, who needs to have a good sex life, it’s not that important, is it?

Boys used to be routinely circumcized in the US, using the hygenic excuse. Also, parents wanted them to look like the other boys in the locker room (I remember as a kid being mystified by uncircumcized boys). In the ancient Greco-Roman baths, the opposite happened. The hygenic/procreative reason (water was scarce in the desert, so infections that impeded intercourse were more likely) is gone. Would any Conservative Jews enter the debate? The “conservation” of those ideas that apply to modern life seems to be in the mix. Is this one of them? And how?

My wife and I are having a baby soon and we’ve discussed this at length. We arrived at the conclusion that since it’s not our body it’s not our decision. Neither of us come from a spiritual tradition that requires circumcision, and I am an atheist.
Of course, since we found out we’re having a girl the decision is moot.

I have had the personal experience of working in Day Care for 40 years. I have held and rocked too many babies and toddlers that were screaming with pain because of not being circumcised. Their lil penises would be so red and inflamed, not just one occasion but many repeated episodes. I say, “All little boys should circumcised”

Becky:
“…babies and toddlers that were screaming with pain because of not being circumcised.”
How many babies and toddlers have you held and rocked that were screaming from the pain of being circumcised? You can’t pretend that circumcision exists in a vacuum where only the “good” of circumcision exists. Most boys will not suffer what you describe. And every boy who is circumcised will suffer the pain of the surgery and the healing process. So, you don’t mean it this way, but saying “All little boys should be circumcised” is also saying “All little boys should suffer pain.”
You bypassed everything else written above, as most people have, and in your moral pleading of “should”, you ignored the moral fact that children have rights. Circumcision is unnecessary surgery when it’s performed on an infant. The child can’t consent. Infant circumcision is immoral.

I too would personally, rather have sexual relations with a man who is circumcised than one who is not. the one who was NOT gave everyone he had sexual contact with many social diseases.

‘what would you say to those in the islamic (I may be naming it wrong but it’s too early to confirm and look it up) or the xx religion that dictates the removal of the female clitoris “in the name of purity” which also causes no small amount of trauma to the woman.’
Sorry, just to place a correction. Islam does not command that the female clitoris is removed. Such a practice has never been part of Islam as religion, and cannot be found anywhere in the Qur’an or the authentic Ahadiths (practices of the Prophet Mohammed). It is just a cultural matter / practice of some of the societies where the majority of people are muslims. That is why the outside world that do not know much about Islam percieve this practice top be a part of the muslim religion which is it not and has never been.
Islam, however as well as Judaism requires from men to be circumcised as so did the authentic Bible.

‘”Given that our culture approves of a number of other forms of body modification,…’
I agree with this. Why don’t we oppose body piercing or tatoos? Can’t there be a higher risk of infection or complications with any of those? And yet some would rather fiercely argue against the male circumcision performed most often in hospitals and under a medical supervision where the risks of infection and complications is rather low. At the same time those would somehow favour body piercing and/or tatoos although those are performed by those who might have heard the word ‘medicine’ but do not know the first thing about it?! Even the issue of basic hygeiene might be a difficult question for some fo those salons!
I would not want to even mention the issue of plastic surgery which is gaining popularity daily but am sure that many of those who are opposing male circumcision would not think twice of having a plastic surgery!

Why don’t we oppose body piercing or tatoos?
Because those involves decisions made by adults about their own bodies.
It’s easy to lose the word infant when reading of opposition to circumcision. Anti-circumcision advocates like me believe only circumcision of minors without medical need should be prohibited. Adult circumcision for any reason is fine, as long as the man makes the decision himself.

Actually, no one cares whether you would rather have sexual relations with a man who is circumcised (response to Annie). God gave male humans foreskin. If God really wanted removal of the foreskin, He would have done it without our help. Annie’s argument would validate men’s suggestion of women to be circumcised. If the argument is about foreskin and disease, then women should also get circumcised.

Foreskins do not carry social diseases. The person attached to the foreskin does. Try the uncircumcised some time, most say they are longer lovers…

David Walden -
I think that you are very wrong and confused. There is diffently such a thing as sin… God is a man … and God does require things of us … such as we follow His word.
Anyway , I believe that circumcision is a personal and parental choice for every memember of the jewish faith.

‘Because those involves decisions made by adults about their own bodies.
It’s easy to lose the word infant when reading of opposition to circumcision. Anti-circumcision advocates like me believe only circumcision of minors without medical need should be prohibited. Adult circumcision for any reason is fine, as long as the man makes the decision himself.’
First, we have seen very young children with ear piercing. Is a child mature enough to make such a decision? And isn’t such a decision made quite often by parents as they think ‘it looks cute’?!
Do not parents generally make decisions for children until they are mature enough to make the decisions themselves? If it was left to a child to decide whether to go to school or not the world would be a different place!
Parents are responsible for children (and their actions) until the children become adults. Therefore, it is the parents who make decisions for their children (from the day they are born).
That also goes for the religion. If a child is born to a Jewish or Muslim family s/he is not aware of what the religion is about. They are simply born into a family which follows certain traditions and practices (or practices a p[articular religion). And as long as the parents make decisions for children (until they are adults)they will make the decision including the one on circumcision. It is only natural and expected as ‘part of the package’ of being a child and being born to a particular family (practicing a particular religion).
Once the children become adults it is down to them to decide whether to follow practices of that particular religion or convert to a different one.
However, it appears to me that some do not respect or understand some religions as suggesting to leave a decision on something that is prescribed by a particular religion to an individual would be compromising the religions and its commandments. And religion is about following God’s commandments, and not making compromises based on human laws. What one needs to know about religion is that God’s law is way above the human rules, and cannot be compromised by letting human rules interfere with it.
And besides, I don’t know what all the fuss about circumcision is.All men in my family have been circumcised as infants and have never complained about it or referred to it as a ‘traumatising experience’.
And nowadays that the procedure is carried out in hospitals, most often under a total anaesthetic and medical supervision the risks of complications are next to nothing. And it is highly unlikely for an infant to even remember it once he grows up. I am sure you don’t remember things that happened to you when you were 2-3 years old even though you were conscious when those were taking place.
I feel that people have the wrong impression about something that isn’t what they think it is.

I don’t think that God is putting a big emphasis on circumsions, that is a earthly man decided judgment call. In the time of Abraham, David,etc. there was very little water in the desert regions and circumsions were necessary for reasons of cleanliness, and less infection. Today with alot of people being full time employees without medical for family, couples face the cost of circumsion from 500.00 upwards. I know this for a fact I have two sons, and neither were circumsized due to high cost. I taught them to take care of their genitals and keep them clean. They don’t feel any different than other men, and no less manly or confident. God doesn’t care about to circumsise or not to circumsise that is not a commandment, not a law, punishable by damnation. God cares about what you do, what you create, and how you are an example for him as a christian follower. He doesn’t meet you at the gate and say pull down your pants!

Actually, there seem to be few medical reasons for circumcision. As long as an uncircumcised man cleans underneath his foreskin on a regular basis, he is unlikely to suffer from anything that couldn’t or wouldn’t happen to a circumcised man too. Being uncircumcised certainly didn’t hurt my husband any.
And as far as sexually transmitted diseases go, removing a flap of skin is probably going to do a whole lot of nothing if he doesn’t use a condom.
In the end, the decision to circumcise comes down to personal beliefs.

For you are not a true Jew just because you were born of Jewish parents or because you have gone through the Jewish ceremony of circumcision. No, a true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not a cutting of the body but a change of heart produced by God’s Spirit. Romans 2:28-29
When you came to Christ, you were “circumcised”, but not by a physical procedure. It was a spiritual procedure-the cutting away of your sinful nature. Colossians 2:11
I personally did not want to put my sons through this kind of trauma. As newborn babies, they go through a drastic enough change at birth as it is. The decision to circumise should be their own as adults should they wish to do so.

I do not believe that the God of Abraham will demand sacrifices ie, “sacrifice your son ” “Remove the foreskins from your children’s
penis” No God requires sacrifice.
I believe the removal of the foreskin was for hygenic reasons. I am not certain, but was Adam asked to remove his foreskin? Hmmmm…