rigorousintuition.ca

see link for full circumcision
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/cit ... y_id=87788

Circumcision ban a step closer to the ballot



Noah Berger/Special to The Chronicle


Will a circumcision ban in San Francisco make, um, the final cut and appear before voters this November?

Proponents of the ban took 12,265 signatures to the Department of Elections today and should learn within a month whether 7,168 of them indeed came from registered city voters. If so, the city will have another one of its classic only-in-San Francisco measures to debate.

Wearing pins reading "May the foreskin be with you," the backers of the ban gathered at City Hall to turn in their signatures. Then they told reporters more than anybody ever wanted to know about the increasingly controversial procedure.

I had a daughter, but had I had a boy child I would have fought NOT to have him circumsized. I say 'fought' because I'm pretty sure his father would have wanted to, and social pressure to conform would have been strong.

Glad to see that perhaps the social pressures are swinging the other way.

Here we have yet another reason that democracy is, in general, a very bad idea.

NOCIRC

An organization I coincidentally was introduced to while traveling through the bay area.

The new law should add a certain frission to the briss.



There's so many great paintings of the circumcision of Jesus, it's tough to choose just one! But he looks a little angry here, and I kinda like that.

Seems ridiculous the excruciatingly minute that can be outlawed. A universal standard of laws should be - "does this law prevent a person's health or wealth from being hurt? If so, put it on the books.

I'm personally indifferent regarding circumcision as I am most things that are and should be a personal choice - perhaps. If you want to change society, it's easier to pass a law than starting an advocacy organization and hoping for end results.

Bit of an over=kill, but for those families who need "authority" justification to follow their choices, it might be useful to have a Bill in writing. I dont think it will pass though. But the debate is important. Circumcision should be optional, IMHO, the problem is that in the relevant communities the choice hardly exists, as there is enourmous pressure to follow the custom.

In Israel, there is a substantial movement against it, and the hipster/newage/vegan types do not practice it anymore, especially when there is a growing number of former USSR immigrants who do not do it as well, so the social penalty is on the decrease, in secular regions.

Reminds me of the Burka debates. Its a mixture of so many touchy issues, gets the heat up, but hardly the most important abuse these days. I would recommend to first stop killing people, selling them, torturing them, enslaving them etc., one of the next steps is to deal with all those fancy rituals.

In fact, some of those rituals have some logic as inhibitors/sublimation against the worse urges (human sacrifice, infanticide , castration and what not, as some of us experienced those practices , myself included, among what is refered to as "normative" groups/families.)

Reminds me of the Burka debates. Its a mixture of so many touchy issues, gets the heat up, but hardly the most important abuse these days. I would recommend to first stop killing people, selling them, torturing them, enslaving them etc., one of the next steps is to deal with all those fancy rituals

Yes, it is an emotionally charged debate but I think it is long overdue. If this were a female issue we (society) would have talked about it at length already since we seem to be so comfortable publicly dissecting anything and everything to do with female biology. We also have no trouble codifying female biological functions into law (which of course is too intrusive for my liking)

I can agree with you that legislation of the issue is probably a step too far, I think that the idea of it is useful in bringing the issue to the fore (pardon the pun.)

I fail to see how the psychological, somatic or sexual repercussions of genital mutilation could be much different for boys than for girls.

edit: Who is to say that the damage done by subjecting infant boys to trauma so early in their lives (or a little later in life in certain countries) isn't part of the root cause of the 'more important abuses' you refer to above?

I fail to see how the psychological, somatic or sexual repercussions of genital mutilation could be much different for boys than for girls.

As I understand it, female genital mutilation is guaranteed to prevent sexual pleasure, or at least curb it to a very high degree and with males the effects are on a different scale. The current view is, again according to my understanding, that female genital mutilation is a patriarchal institution whose intent is to control the ever-scary female sexuality whereas with males... what? Anyone?

All in all, I find it very strange that some country, which isn't even predominantly Jewish, has a tradition of ANY KIND of circumcision/genital mutilation. I believe way over 50 % of US boys are circumcised? The whole concept is just... creepy.

Canadian_watcher wrote:
edit: Who is to say that the damage done by subjecting infant boys to trauma so early in their lives (or a little later in life in certain countries) isn't part of the root cause of the 'more important abuses' you refer to above?

That would require data, I think you will find that the atrocities are common to both circumcized and non=circumcized societies. the idea was, to the best of my knowledge, to circumvent infancitide, by making a symbolic gesture. But I am really not an expert on history/anthropology etc. I assume that in the older times, it was quite common to kill the first born for the "god" of the area, and so forth. That does not mean to say that the habit did not outlive its original benefits. THe matter should be debated, no doubt.

There's a difference bn male/female circumcision, that in case of females it takes away some of the fun, i think for men, if done properly, it does not transform basic functions. But again, information is kind of unclear.

From my experience, the custom is mostly problematic to the female members of the tribe, because the maternal control is disturbed. I have seen that with my cats, well the male of the house felt a need to kill one of the kittens. While the cat=mom objected, she could not overcome him, and a new balance was set. He did not kill more, but she kind of let him have some more attention, as he wished, and dominance. I think that by doing something so much against the emotional attachment of the mother, the males establish hegemony. Plus, they establish the "male hierarchy" and burn it into the child's psyche. So its a male business of how they assert control both on females and within the peck, one of the worst fears of males is the rebellion and usurpation by the younger males. So...my two cents.

Now, you'd need to get into all that social structure, you have done some of this in the myso thread, where angels (and me) fear to tread. These are very complex processes. I want to be convinced that breaking the older order is going to bring better arrangements. not yet convinced, but i "feel" that its the right evolutionary step. ('feel" is so...feminine...anyway..)

RocketMan wrote:The current view is, again according to my understanding, that female genital mutilation is a patriarchal institution whose intent is to control the ever-scary female sexuality whereas with males... what? Anyone?

pretty much the same. It is a rite which asserts the supremacy of the patriarch. It does inhibit sexual pleasure for both males and females. It symbolizes allegiance to God as the Bible and Torah make much of the sacrifice of sons and male body parts - particularly if the father is to sacrifice his son at the behest of the Almighty.

edit: I am not that familiar with the Qur'an but rumour has it there is more personal choice re circumcision within Islam.

Okay, got it. Thx, Watcher.

hava1 wrote:

Canadian_watcher wrote:
edit: Who is to say that the damage done by subjecting infant boys to trauma so early in their lives (or a little later in life in certain countries) isn't part of the root cause of the 'more important abuses' you refer to above?

That would require data,

Here's some:

Goldman (1997) suggests that men who were neonatally circumcised would be more likely to suffer from low self-esteem, to avoid intimacy in male-female relationships, and a higher incidence of divorce. Moreover, he says neonatal circumcision may cause a higher incidence of unnecessary surgery, and of adult violence, including suicide, rape, and murder. 1

Baker (1996) argues that men harbor rage toward their mothers for their circumcision. She also identifies a connection between sexual violence, rape, and neonatal circumcision. 2

DeMause (1996) connects perinatal circumcision trauma with increases in teenage suicide and social violence. 3

1-Goldman R. Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma. Boston: Vanguard Publications, 1997: pp. 139–75.
2-Baker JP. Ending circumcision: where sex and violence first meet. Primal Renaissance: The Journal of Primal Psychology 1996;2(1):54–8.
3-deMause L. Restaging fetal traumas in war and social violence. Pre- & Perinatal Psychology Journal 1996;10(4):227–58

hava1 wrote:There's a difference bn male/female circumcision, that in case of females it takes away some of the fun, i think for men, if done properly, it does not transform basic functions. But again, information is kind of unclear.

What are you basing this on, though? Is this the collected wisdom of simply living or is this based on any study on your part? I don't want to take away from the knowledge you've gained through your personal experience because of course that is valid. But this is one of those subjects that is quite taboo - and also quite internalized. What I mean is that people don't generally talk about this let alone compare stories.

Informal gym-shower-room data-gathering of mostly white Canadian boys born in the 60's revealed to me that the vast majority had been snipped. The ones who weren't, were born in Europe or the boondocks.

Circumcision was sold as part of responsibly parenting a new frontier, hygienic best-of-everything kid, I believe. A class distinction like braces on the teeth, colour TV, or a fridge with an icemaker.

I mean, Albert Goldman went so far as to write about Elvis that "he saw his beauty disfigured by an ugly hillbilly pecker" because he wasn't circumcised. That seemed to be the prevailing attitude back then.