I haven't posted on penis-chopping in a while, so I thought I'd give the Orgahs an update.
First off, Jewish activists are finally getting uppity about the unkind cut.
Activists Up Efforts To Cut Circumcision Out of Bris Ritual
Jacob Victor | Wed. Jul 18, 2007
A few months before his son was born, Thomas Wolfe of Wheeling, W.Va., consulted the rabbi of his Reform congregation to discuss plans for the baby’s circumcision. “I had the perception that a circumcision was just an innocuous procedure, with no risk,” he later told the Forward. After the rabbi had recommended that Wolfe find a ritual circumciser, or mohel, to perform the newborn’s bris, Wolfe did a little Internet research. “It wasn’t really until that time that I became aware of all the controversies,” he said.
While the United States is one of the few industrialized countries in which a majority of newborn boys are circumcised, recent surveys show that the American circumcision rate, which was close to 90% in the 1960s, is now at only 57%. But even though the national rate has declined, circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations; most newborn Jewish boys have either a traditional brit milah or have the procedure performed at a hospital. Nevertheless, a small but vocal minority of Jewish activists have begun to question the importance, and even the morality, of circumcision. Some have even begun using alternative “bris-less” brisses to welcome their sons into the world.
The Internet is full of Web sites sponsored by circumcision opponents, who often call themselves proponents of “genital integrity” or “intactivism.” After conducting his research, Wolfe decided to forgo circumcising his son. Instead, he arranged a so-called brit shalom ceremony, a newly created ritual that celebrates birth while omitting circumcision.
His own son’s case behind him, Wolfe is now pressing for broader change. This past May, he began circulating a petition calling on Reform rabbis and congregations to reconsider a 1982 rabbinic edict affirming the centrality of circumcision in Reform Judaism. As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatories. But despite — or perhaps because of — their small numbers, Jewish anti-circumcision activists remain vocal in demanding that Jews change the way they view circumcision. Mark Reiss, a retired diagnostic radiologist, is executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a strong advocate of the brit shalom ceremony. Reiss, who is a member of a Conservative congregation in San Francisco, believes that the time has come for Jews to abandon the practice. “A lot of scholars feel that circumcision was an atavistic cultural remnant from the days when pagans sacrificed their boys to the gods,” he told the Forward. Reiss has been active in creating a database of rabbis and laypeople who will officiate at brit shalom ceremonies. There are no restrictions on the content of the ceremony, according to Reiss. Some parents simply use it as a naming ceremony, some celebrate the “intactness” of their child and some design versions all their own.
Moshe Rothenberg of Brooklyn officiates at around six or seven brit shalom ceremonies a year. He preserves many of the traditional aspects of the bris, including a blessing over wine, a festive meal and a sandak (a person close to the family designated to hold the newborn during the ceremony). Instead of a circumcision, however, Rothenberg incorporates unconventional rituals. “One time we gathered stones and cast them into water to remember all the living people in the child’s life in one bowl and all the people who aren’t there in another bowl,” Rothenberg told the Forward. “Sometimes we do a ritual involving nature, often consecrating a plant or tree on behalf of the baby.” At the brit shalom of his own son, Rothenberg retold the biblical story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming angels disguised as travelers into their home. It was these angels who told Sarah she would give birth to Isaac. After the story was told, the baby’s feet were washed. This symbolically linked him to Abraham and Sarah, who washed their guests’ feet as a sign of hospitality and respect.
Many brit shalom proponents have based their stance on medical grounds. Reiss and other anti-circumcision activists claim that there are several medical reasons to abandon the practice. These include the possible pain experienced by a child during the procedure, the risk of infection and the theory that the foreskin provides sexual sensation that circumcised men can never experience. Reiss also argues that many of the perceived benefits of circumcision are in fact spurious. “Circumcision has always been related to whatever the disease of the decade was,” he said.
For some doctors, however, recent studies showing that circumcised heterosexual African men are around half as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to contract HIV simply back up what they have claimed all along: that circumcision is not only harmless but also beneficial. Edgar Schoen, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision, claims that there at least 10 known medical benefits provided by circumcision. For example, there is some evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of infant kidney infection early in life and helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Still, the official position of the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision is equivocal: “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” Schoen argues that this decision was reached because of the influence of what he calls “anti-circ” activists. “These people are very good with the sound bites, and they get on all the talk shows and all over the Internet,” he said, adding that such activists are especially effective in convincing young liberal Jews not to circumcise their sons. “For young, trendy Jewish parents, everything has to be natural and organic. ‘Why would the foreskin be there if it wasn’t good?’ That resonates with a lot of young Jewish parents.”
Jewish critics of circumcision have not limited their arguments to the medical realm, with some contending that the central issue is one of volition. Eli Ungar-Sargon, a Chicago-based filmmaker, recently released the documentary “Cut,” an exploration of circumcision from religious, scientific and ethical perspectives. Ungar-Sargon, who was raised Orthodox but no longer identifies with a specific denomination, told the Forward that he views circumcision “as gross violation of human rights.” He said, “I think the real central ethical issue here is one of autonomy. Do we have the right to permanently alter another person’s body without their permission?”
At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”
Depending on how tough your stomach is, here are a couple of video clips. The first is a rather tame video of doctors discussing the practice.
The second is much more graphic, and I warn you that it contains video of the operation. It's rough stuff; I'm only including it for the sake of those Orgahs who will someday have male children. For Gah's sake, don't cut your boys. The only way to end this madness is to choose the right thing when the time comes.
Last edited by Lemur; 07-20-2007 at 21:44.
Reason: Typeos.
Unnecessary operations should always be avoided IMO. If my appendix starts causing trouble, I'll cut it out. However, I wont do it until that time. Circumcision are in my mind just as pointless as cutting out an appendix before it starts causing trouble.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Is more about this on the .net than I could have imagined - gah!
Regardless, for health reasons circumcision is a good idea.
Recall when I was in Korea a friend coming down with a rather unique infection that almost cost him his manhood. The Docs' said it was due to his not being circumcised. He spent like a week in the hospital and almost caused a courtmartial (which would have been absurd - we blackmailed the commanding General ... long story ... to assure it was dropped). ["we", btw were members of the Finance Corp - friends in the Medics told us about something left off the Generals records. Documented just the same.]
It does seem a brutal act, but not if done shortly after birth - waiting 8 days seems antiquated. Still, for Jews it is part of their religion and coventant with Jehovah. What ya'gonna do? Change something accepted for a few thousand years?
I like the part that supposes it is a down play from when Jews were Pagans and sacrificed kids - atleast they don't do that any more. Unlike Bushy's religion.
To forgive bad deeds is Christian; to reward them is Republican. 'MC' Rove
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ]Clowns to the right of me, Jokers to the left ... here I am - stuck in the middle with you.
Save the Whales. Collect the whole set of them.
Better to have your enemys in the tent pissin' out, than have them outside the tent pissin' in. LBJ
Unnecessary operations should always be avoided IMO. If my appendix starts causing trouble, I'll cut it out. However, I wont do it until that time. Circumcision are in my mind just as pointless as cutting out an appendix before it starts causing trouble.
Wooooooo comparing your penis to you appendix never seen anything like that before.
Originally Posted by Sooh
I wonder if I can make Csargo cry harder by doing everyone but his ISO.
Lemur I love you but you really need to shake this whole circumscison thing. Its getting werid
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Wooooooo comparing your penis to you appendix never seen anything like that before.
Uhm, the point was unnecessary surgery...
Anyway, as for the AIDS-argument, there's really only one thing to say:
WEAR A FREAKIN' CONDOM! GEEZ!!
It's not hard, you open the pack, rip one off, open it as the package says, put it on the tip of the penis and roll it back. Then you squeeze out the air of the air bubble at the tip. That wasn't so hard, now was it? Oh, and do remember to stop humping once it's filled.
I don't really see how circumcision will work against HIV, as a condom(used correctly) is near 100% secure. Circumcision is only safer than not using a condom.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Lemur I love you but you really need to shake this whole circumscison thing. Its getting werid
What, I'm not allowed to add another fixation to the Backroom? Not every thread can be about abortion, religion, gun control, politics and the evil of Micronesia. Somebody's gotta stand up for the wang.
Anyway, as for the AIDS-argument, there's really only one thing to say:
WEAR A FREAKIN' CONDOM! GEEZ!!
It's also worth noting that the studies showing that circumcision helps stop the spread of AIDS were all conducted in places where dry sex is popular. I would be much more convinced by a study conducted in a first world nation.
Anyway, as for the AIDS-argument, there's really only one thing to say:
WEAR A FREAKIN' CONDOM! GEEZ!!
It's not hard, you open the pack, rip one off, open it as the package says, put it on the tip of the penis and roll it back. Then you squeeze out the air of the air bubble at the tip. That wasn't so hard, now was it? Oh, and do remember to stop humping once it's filled.
I don't really see how circumcision will work against HIV, as a condom(used correctly) is near 100% secure. Circumcision is only safer than not using a condom.
Just joking around.
Originally Posted by chat
<Whacker> it apparently does reduce the risk of cancer in some cases
Originally Posted by Sooh
I wonder if I can make Csargo cry harder by doing everyone but his ISO.
What, I'm not allowed to add another fixation to the Backroom? Not every thread can be about abortion, religion, gun control, politics and the evil of Micronesia. Somebody's gotta stand up for the wang.
I'll take a snip thread over a gun thread any day...
@Ichigo: Yeah, I kinda understood that... I contemplated a joke in response, but they were all to manly for me...
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
This topic is like radiation. It may not bring as much "badness" to the backroom as many other topics, but any addition of "badness" can universally be considered bad. So stop it.
I believe anyone who feels like cutting in their penis should be allowed to do so.
However, doing it on someone who is newly born and doesnt have a say is in my view considered to be torture and should be prosecuted.
i have a friend whos parents are jewish... he however doesnt really fall for teh godstuff, and he kind of hate them for having cut his penis to shreds.
Mainly because the girls go "wtf is that" when they see it...
And of course, it makes the penis less sensitive, and I and probably any other man kind of likes a sensitive penis, for various reasons;)
So feel free to cut away, but forcing it on someone should be illegal.
EDIT: For me the question boils down to: who does the penis belong to? The child or the parents? For me the answer is simple.
For Gah's sake, don't cut your boys. The only way to end this madness is to choose the right thing when the time comes.
So this is now an advocacy thread vs an info/opinion-gathering thread. np.
I'm all for "Leave the body alone, as it was born and grows. Modifications can be done later, when the mind in that body can decide on its own."
I caught plenty o' hell for that stance with my first wife and our 2 daughters. They lobbied-pleaded-demanded-begged for pierced ears for the girls. I firmly refused, citing our mutually-agreed stance (as above).
10 days after our divorce, by phonecall, I was informed that both girls (age 7 and 2) had pierced ears. I sent solid gold, hypoallergenic earrings in response.
So much for memory lane. IMHO: if it were more advantageous to cut the foreskin, boys would by now be born without one. Let it be.
Full disclosure: I'm circumsized. My depression-era parents were big on the hygiene aspect.
Is more about this on the .net than I could have imagined - gah!
Regardless, for health reasons circumcision is a good idea.
Recall when I was in Korea a friend coming down with a rather unique infection that almost cost him his manhood. The Docs' said it was due to his not being circumcised. He spent like a week in the hospital and almost caused a courtmartial (which would have been absurd - we blackmailed the commanding General ... long story ... to assure it was dropped). ["we", btw were members of the Finance Corp - friends in the Medics told us about something left off the Generals records. Documented just the same.]
It does seem a brutal act, but not if done shortly after birth - waiting 8 days seems antiquated. Still, for Jews it is part of their religion and coventant with Jehovah. What ya'gonna do? Change something accepted for a few thousand years?
I like the part that supposes it is a down play from when Jews were Pagans and sacrificed kids - atleast they don't do that any more. Unlike Bushy's religion.
Right on, I like my mushroom. I personally like drawing eyes on him and pretend he's singing opera. Unfortunately he usually throws up after his performance, then I take a nap...
I guess I really don't see the big deal. I mean honestly, cut or uncut, most people will never know the difference, unless they weren't cut prior to having their first adult Sexual experience. Plus as I firmly remember being a teenager, I really didn't care so much about what kind of stimulation my female partner at the time was receiving, all I knew was that I was having a pretty good time. Now imagine to my dismay, that years later I'm hearing my wife's friends wishing their male partners had gotten the chop, to increase their pleasure..
I was born with a foreskin, cleaning the whole area is part of my daily hygine ritual, to be honest I can't imagine being comfortable in pants without it.
Besides, next time I have to dive out of a window naked and run down the street I have a funny feeling it will elicit fewer screams in it's current state. It also won't get so damb cold.
As far as cancer, well if a woman has her breasts and nipples removed that removes the chance of cancer completely.
Sound like a good idea? I mean, it's not like women need them in the modern age, is it?
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
I see no gain in removing the male genital foreskin nor do I see gain in a general belief, religion, or habitude, in doing so. One advantage I detect is possible increased easiness of cleaning. And perhaps there is the possibility of less sensitivity? If true, this could be regarded as some kind of advantage in certain situations.
Circumcision, disregarding Jews, Christians, or whomever applicable... why? Good day.
Emotion, passions, and desires are, thus peace is not.
Emotion: you have it or it has you.
I haven't posted on penis-chopping in a while, so I thought I'd give the Orgahs an update.
First off, Jewish activists are finally getting uppity about the unkind cut.
Activists Up Efforts To Cut Circumcision Out of Bris Ritual
Jacob Victor | Wed. Jul 18, 2007
A few months before his son was born, Thomas Wolfe of Wheeling, W.Va., consulted the rabbi of his Reform congregation to discuss plans for the baby’s circumcision. “I had the perception that a circumcision was just an innocuous procedure, with no risk,” he later told the Forward. After the rabbi had recommended that Wolfe find a ritual circumciser, or mohel, to perform the newborn’s bris, Wolfe did a little Internet research. “It wasn’t really until that time that I became aware of all the controversies,” he said.
While the United States is one of the few industrialized countries in which a majority of newborn boys are circumcised, recent surveys show that the American circumcision rate, which was close to 90% in the 1960s, is now at only 57%. But even though the national rate has declined, circumcision remains the norm in all major Jewish denominations; most newborn Jewish boys have either a traditional brit milah or have the procedure performed at a hospital. Nevertheless, a small but vocal minority of Jewish activists have begun to question the importance, and even the morality, of circumcision. Some have even begun using alternative “bris-less” brisses to welcome their sons into the world.
The Internet is full of Web sites sponsored by circumcision opponents, who often call themselves proponents of “genital integrity” or “intactivism.” After conducting his research, Wolfe decided to forgo circumcising his son. Instead, he arranged a so-called brit shalom ceremony, a newly created ritual that celebrates birth while omitting circumcision.
His own son’s case behind him, Wolfe is now pressing for broader change. This past May, he began circulating a petition calling on Reform rabbis and congregations to reconsider a 1982 rabbinic edict affirming the centrality of circumcision in Reform Judaism. As of now, the petition has drawn about 70 signatories. But despite — or perhaps because of — their small numbers, Jewish anti-circumcision activists remain vocal in demanding that Jews change the way they view circumcision. Mark Reiss, a retired diagnostic radiologist, is executive vice president of Doctors Opposing Circumcision and a strong advocate of the brit shalom ceremony. Reiss, who is a member of a Conservative congregation in San Francisco, believes that the time has come for Jews to abandon the practice. “A lot of scholars feel that circumcision was an atavistic cultural remnant from the days when pagans sacrificed their boys to the gods,” he told the Forward. Reiss has been active in creating a database of rabbis and laypeople who will officiate at brit shalom ceremonies. There are no restrictions on the content of the ceremony, according to Reiss. Some parents simply use it as a naming ceremony, some celebrate the “intactness” of their child and some design versions all their own.
Moshe Rothenberg of Brooklyn officiates at around six or seven brit shalom ceremonies a year. He preserves many of the traditional aspects of the bris, including a blessing over wine, a festive meal and a sandak (a person close to the family designated to hold the newborn during the ceremony). Instead of a circumcision, however, Rothenberg incorporates unconventional rituals. “One time we gathered stones and cast them into water to remember all the living people in the child’s life in one bowl and all the people who aren’t there in another bowl,” Rothenberg told the Forward. “Sometimes we do a ritual involving nature, often consecrating a plant or tree on behalf of the baby.” At the brit shalom of his own son, Rothenberg retold the biblical story of Abraham and Sarah welcoming angels disguised as travelers into their home. It was these angels who told Sarah she would give birth to Isaac. After the story was told, the baby’s feet were washed. This symbolically linked him to Abraham and Sarah, who washed their guests’ feet as a sign of hospitality and respect.
Many brit shalom proponents have based their stance on medical grounds. Reiss and other anti-circumcision activists claim that there are several medical reasons to abandon the practice. These include the possible pain experienced by a child during the procedure, the risk of infection and the theory that the foreskin provides sexual sensation that circumcised men can never experience. Reiss also argues that many of the perceived benefits of circumcision are in fact spurious. “Circumcision has always been related to whatever the disease of the decade was,” he said.
For some doctors, however, recent studies showing that circumcised heterosexual African men are around half as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to contract HIV simply back up what they have claimed all along: that circumcision is not only harmless but also beneficial. Edgar Schoen, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision, claims that there at least 10 known medical benefits provided by circumcision. For example, there is some evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of infant kidney infection early in life and helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Still, the official position of the 1999 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision is equivocal: “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.” Schoen argues that this decision was reached because of the influence of what he calls “anti-circ” activists. “These people are very good with the sound bites, and they get on all the talk shows and all over the Internet,” he said, adding that such activists are especially effective in convincing young liberal Jews not to circumcise their sons. “For young, trendy Jewish parents, everything has to be natural and organic. ‘Why would the foreskin be there if it wasn’t good?’ That resonates with a lot of young Jewish parents.”
Jewish critics of circumcision have not limited their arguments to the medical realm, with some contending that the central issue is one of volition. Eli Ungar-Sargon, a Chicago-based filmmaker, recently released the documentary “Cut,” an exploration of circumcision from religious, scientific and ethical perspectives. Ungar-Sargon, who was raised Orthodox but no longer identifies with a specific denomination, told the Forward that he views circumcision “as gross violation of human rights.” He said, “I think the real central ethical issue here is one of autonomy. Do we have the right to permanently alter another person’s body without their permission?”
At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”
Depending on how tough your stomach is, here are a couple of video clips. The first is a rather tame video of doctors discussing the practice.
The second is much more graphic, and I warn you that it contains video of the operation. It's rough stuff; I'm only including it for the sake of those Orgahs who will someday have male children. For Gah's sake, don't cut your boys. The only way to end this madness is to choose the right thing when the time comes.
I tried watching that video but I couldn't sit through it. That is brutal. I'm circumcised but all this talk about circumcision is making me wonder what life could have been like with a foreskin. It sucks that so much pleasure is lost and I was given no choice in the matter. Ah well, it's a moot point for me anyway.
I had trouble getting over "Axeing" and "circumcision" in the same title.
Loved the line about tally whacker....viscious punning!
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
I have a question...How do we know that uncircumcised men get more pleasure than circumcised ones?
Pleasure is unquantifiable, so we have no way of knowing anything. However, sensitivity is measurable, and tests have shown that removing the foreskin wreaks havoc on the sensitivity of your Johnson.
Unknown. The only thing I can think of would be to conduct a large statistical study comparing the incidence of sexual dysfunction among circumcised and uncircumcised men. But even that would be problematic, since you're depending on honest answers from guys about their sexual performance.
Maybe a breakdown of Viagra prescriptions, controlling for size of each population? That would be a little less subjective. Interesting question, and hard to answer.
Even Jews Are Axeing Circumcision
Reply With Quote
Re: Even Jews Are Axeing Circumcision
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Took me a while to read this thread.
Bookmarks