Comments on: Atheists, do you circumcise your sons? http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/ Reasonable Thoughts on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:47:03 -0500 hourly 1 By: An Atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-56148 An Atheist Fri, 31 Jul 2009 04:16:06 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-56148 “When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric.” Because, other than the word, male circumcision and female “circumcision” have nothing in common. Really? I will copy and paste a decent article: The horrors of female circumcision reverberate all throughout today's mass media. Male circumcision is often dismissed as nothing or not even talked about at all. Often in conversations people will tell me that "it is impossible to compare male and female circumcision." Well as the definition of a compare is "to consider or describe as similar," I believe I can. In both male and female circumcision part of the genitals are being amputated. Eureka! Now that we have determined that they can indeed be compared lets be a little more serious about the matter. One reason we have such a hard time getting through to African cultures about female circumcision is they think we are all hypocrites. We criticize them for circumcising a female in such horrible conditions, when a male is next in line. They also see us circumcising a large percentage of our males, so they see no reason why we have any room to talk. This leaves the most common argument that female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision. Well in some ways they are right. The kind of circumcision that you see in the news is much worse than what is commonly practiced here. However, the situation is much more complex than that. Before I start, there are some people whom this will not satisfy. They will point out some differences in what I am trying to compare. Notice I say they are "similar" not identical. Also to help satisfy those people who get angry when I do this, I am not downplaying female circumcision. I agree. It is sick. That isn't the point at all. The point is to find parallels. note: I have gotten some complaints that I don't talk about other complications from the procedures (death from the procedure, infections, and infant mortality) This is much harder to do, but I will try and do it quickly. As far as deaths go, more men die in circumcision than women. This is becuase many more men are circumcised than women. It is true that a greater percentage of circumcised women die or have infections. However, those women are operated on in mostly 3rd world countries with a shard of glass. This happens to the men there too and they also die in large numbers. The discrepancy in the percentage of infections/deaths comes from the US, where we have a trained medical staff and sanitary conditions. As a result it is hard to have any meaningful data. As far as childbirth goes, well Men don't deal with that at all obviously. As most anti FGM posters rarely talk about it, information about the subject was sketchy at best from my sources. While I am sure FGM contributes to deaths in childbirth and infant mortality, who is to say that the death would not have happened had she not been circumcised? As I stated earlier, another reason for lack of prevalent data is that FGM activists don't concentrate on it. 1. The most mild form of female circumcision is a prick or simple bloodletting. This is actually more common for girls than most people think. A prick is also becoming more and more common for Jewish boys, becuase their parents want a "bris" without putting their child in the most pain he has ever experienced. These two actually compare really well. Baring infection, neither has any long term damages. Both are mildly painful. Both are done for religious reasons. Neither serves a practical purpose. 2. Removal of the female prepuce is next on the list. Contrary to what most people think, this is actually the most common type of female circumcision. This type of circumcision may include the labia or clitoral hood. They both serve a similar function as the male foreskin and are biologically homologous organs. The purpose of this tissue is to cover the glans. For the female this is the clitoral glans. For the male, this is the head of the penis. Either surgery will have the same result. Both will dry the exposed glans out and leave it calloused. Unlike the female prepuse, the foreskin acts as the males main lubricant and has many more nerve endings than the female prepuce. Both males and females can usually experience sexual pleasure and orgasms, but it is often greatly reduced. 3. Clitorectomy. This procedure is hard to compare to anything for the male. Many angry women will chant that "Its like removing the entire penis you sexist pig!!!" While I am sure they have the best of intentions, that notion is absurd. A woman who has had a clitorectomy can have sex and has often been able to have orgasms. A man with a penectomy cannot function in any way sexually. He cannot even have sex let alone have an orgasm. Some people say that a very tight circumcision is the equilivant of a clitorectomy. A very tight circumcision removes a similar amount of tissue as a clitorectomy. It can also make normal living difficult as well as normal sexuality. Some poor circumcision jobs have make erections painful and can even tear the skin causing bleeding. It would also remove all sensitive areas around the glans such as the frenulum, and frenular band. This is probably a little less severe than a clitorectomy for the simple fact that a man would still have his glans and the woman would not. As they are biologically homologous structures, this discrepancy cannot be ignored. There is a very rare procedure called a glansectomy that would remove the males glans. This procedure is so rare that there is very little information about it, but given that this procedure would take away all of the males sensitive tissue, and would relocate the end of the urethra, it is probably more sever than a clitorectomy. A clitorectomy would remove most of the sensitive tissue, but it is nearly impossible to remove the entire thing, as well as many other internal sexual organs making some sexual pleasure still possible. In conclusion the clitorectomy is probably somewhere in between the two. 4. Infibulation or Excision of all the external genitalia followed by sewing the remaining tissue together so that a small opening is left for menstruation and urination. Now the comparisons get harder and harder. I would compare this to a penectomy, but again, a male without a penis cannot function in any way shape or form sexually. Both procedures make urination interesting to say the least, but women who have had infibulation done can still have sex, especially after the part that is sown shut is opened. It might be very painful, but it is still possible. I would have to say this is somewhere between a glansectomy and a penectomy, although probably closer to a penectomy. One a side note, a penectomy is uncommon but not unheard of after a botched circumcision. I introduce topic for two main reasons. One reason is I find that we tend to accept our cultural norms without question and reject others cultural norms. One classic example of this is the difference between male and female genital cutting. Through our western eyes the male version seems like a little snip while the female version seems unthinkable. However when you break it down to its core, it is very similar. While each stage of genital cutting does not have a 100% match, they all have a close cousin. The other topic is very simple. I make comparisons to female circumcision occasionally in my other blogs. Anyone who reads those blogs without first taking time to read this would probably be very confused. The information of female circumcision comes from these sources. The male equivalents comes from further research which I will elaborate on in subsequent blogs. http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php (October 2008)recognizes types 2 – 4 Mason, Christine, Exorcising Excision: Medico-Legal Issues Arising From Male and Female Genital Surgery in Australia, Journal of law and Medicine, Aug 2001, Vol 9, no 1: 58-67 Lightfoot-Klein, H. Pharaonic Circumcision of Females in the Sudan (1983) 2 Medical Law 253 at 357 quoted in Mason, C., (2001) This article was taken from: http://searchfortruth0525.blogspot.com/2009/04/female-circumcision-vs-male.html I would also like to add that both male and female genital mutilation take away two important things from the person who is circumcised: bodily integrity and control over one's body. Neither a little girl to be circumcised in some foreign land nor an infant boy here in the U.S. has a say in whether or not his/her genitals are to be cut up (off?). Both are equally horrific in that they violate the circumcised. I would even go so far as to argue that in some ways male genital mutilation is more horrific because of the context in which it is performed. As a people that have ample opportunity to be well-informed, we ought to know better! We do not have a long history of practicing this. Leaving a male intact will not cause him to never be able to marry and have a family. Leaving a male intact will not cause him to be a permanent outcast and social reject. I would also like to add that I am female and I am a feminist. I echo the sentiment in the article above - female genital mutilation is a disgusting, barbaric practice, and I do not agree with it. That being said, FGM and MGM are not in separate worlds. “When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric.”

Because, other than the word, male circumcision and female “circumcision” have nothing in common.

Really? I will copy and paste a decent article:

The horrors of female circumcision reverberate all throughout today’s mass media. Male circumcision is often dismissed as nothing or not even talked about at all. Often in conversations people will tell me that “it is impossible to compare male and female circumcision.” Well as the definition of a compare is “to consider or describe as similar,” I believe I can. In both male and female circumcision part of the genitals are being amputated. Eureka! Now that we have determined that they can indeed be compared lets be a little more serious about the matter.

One reason we have such a hard time getting through to African cultures about female circumcision is they think we are all hypocrites. We criticize them for circumcising a female in such horrible conditions, when a male is next in line. They also see us circumcising a large percentage of our males, so they see no reason why we have any room to talk. This leaves the most common argument that female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision. Well in some ways they are right. The kind of circumcision that you see in the news is much worse than what is commonly practiced here. However, the situation is much more complex than that.

Before I start, there are some people whom this will not satisfy. They will point out some differences in what I am trying to compare. Notice I say they are “similar” not identical. Also to help satisfy those people who get angry when I do this, I am not downplaying female circumcision. I agree. It is sick. That isn’t the point at all. The point is to find parallels.

note: I have gotten some complaints that I don’t talk about other complications from the procedures (death from the procedure, infections, and infant mortality) This is much harder to do, but I will try and do it quickly. As far as deaths go, more men die in circumcision than women. This is becuase many more men are circumcised than women. It is true that a greater percentage of circumcised women die or have infections. However, those women are operated on in mostly 3rd world countries with a shard of glass. This happens to the men there too and they also die in large numbers. The discrepancy in the percentage of infections/deaths comes from the US, where we have a trained medical staff and sanitary conditions. As a result it is hard to have any meaningful data. As far as childbirth goes, well Men don’t deal with that at all obviously. As most anti FGM posters rarely talk about it, information about the subject was sketchy at best from my sources. While I am sure FGM contributes to deaths in childbirth and infant mortality, who is to say that the death would not have happened had she not been circumcised? As I stated earlier, another reason for lack of prevalent data is that FGM activists don’t concentrate on it.

1. The most mild form of female circumcision is a prick or simple bloodletting. This is actually more common for girls than most people think. A prick is also becoming more and more common for Jewish boys, becuase their parents want a “bris” without putting their child in the most pain he has ever experienced. These two actually compare really well. Baring infection, neither has any long term damages. Both are mildly painful. Both are done for religious reasons. Neither serves a practical purpose.

2. Removal of the female prepuce is next on the list. Contrary to what most people think, this is actually the most common type of female circumcision. This type of circumcision may include the labia or clitoral hood. They both serve a similar function as the male foreskin and are biologically homologous organs. The purpose of this tissue is to cover the glans. For the female this is the clitoral glans. For the male, this is the head of the penis. Either surgery will have the same result. Both will dry the exposed glans out and leave it calloused. Unlike the female prepuse, the foreskin acts as the males main lubricant and has many more nerve endings than the female prepuce. Both males and females can usually experience sexual pleasure and orgasms, but it is often greatly reduced.

3. Clitorectomy. This procedure is hard to compare to anything for the male. Many angry women will chant that “Its like removing the entire penis you sexist pig!!!” While I am sure they have the best of intentions, that notion is absurd. A woman who has had a clitorectomy can have sex and has often been able to have orgasms. A man with a penectomy cannot function in any way sexually. He cannot even have sex let alone have an orgasm.

Some people say that a very tight circumcision is the equilivant of a clitorectomy. A very tight circumcision removes a similar amount of tissue as a clitorectomy. It can also make normal living difficult as well as normal sexuality. Some poor circumcision jobs have make erections painful and can even tear the skin causing bleeding. It would also remove all sensitive areas around the glans such as the frenulum, and frenular band. This is probably a little less severe than a clitorectomy for the simple fact that a man would still have his glans and the woman would not. As they are biologically homologous structures, this discrepancy cannot be ignored. There is a very rare procedure called a glansectomy that would remove the males glans. This procedure is so rare that there is very little information about it, but given that this procedure would take away all of the males sensitive tissue, and would relocate the end of the urethra, it is probably more sever than a clitorectomy. A clitorectomy would remove most of the sensitive tissue, but it is nearly impossible to remove the entire thing, as well as many other internal sexual organs making some sexual pleasure still possible. In conclusion the clitorectomy is probably somewhere in between the two.

4. Infibulation or Excision of all the external genitalia followed by sewing the remaining tissue together so that a small opening is left for menstruation and urination. Now the comparisons get harder and harder. I would compare this to a penectomy, but again, a male without a penis cannot function in any way shape or form sexually. Both procedures make urination interesting to say the least, but women who have had infibulation done can still have sex, especially after the part that is sown shut is opened. It might be very painful, but it is still possible. I would have to say this is somewhere between a glansectomy and a penectomy, although probably closer to a penectomy.

One a side note, a penectomy is uncommon but not unheard of after a botched circumcision.

I introduce topic for two main reasons. One reason is I find that we tend to accept our cultural norms without question and reject others cultural norms. One classic example of this is the difference between male and female genital cutting. Through our western eyes the male version seems like a little snip while the female version seems unthinkable. However when you break it down to its core, it is very similar. While each stage of genital cutting does not have a 100% match, they all have a close cousin. The other topic is very simple. I make comparisons to female circumcision occasionally in my other blogs. Anyone who reads those blogs without first taking time to read this would probably be very confused.

The information of female circumcision comes from these sources. The male equivalents comes from further research which I will elaborate on in subsequent blogs.

http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php (October 2008)recognizes types 2 – 4

Mason, Christine, Exorcising Excision: Medico-Legal Issues Arising From Male and Female Genital Surgery in Australia, Journal of law and Medicine, Aug 2001, Vol 9, no 1: 58-67

Lightfoot-Klein, H. Pharaonic Circumcision of Females in the Sudan (1983) 2 Medical Law 253 at 357 quoted in Mason, C., (2001)

This article was taken from: http://searchfortruth0525.blogspot.com/2009/04/female-circumcision-vs-male.html

I would also like to add that both male and female genital mutilation take away two important things from the person who is circumcised: bodily integrity and control over one’s body. Neither a little girl to be circumcised in some foreign land nor an infant boy here in the U.S. has a say in whether or not his/her genitals are to be cut up (off?). Both are equally horrific in that they violate the circumcised.

I would even go so far as to argue that in some ways male genital mutilation is more horrific because of the context in which it is performed. As a people that have ample opportunity to be well-informed, we ought to know better! We do not have a long history of practicing this. Leaving a male intact will not cause him to never be able to marry and have a family. Leaving a male intact will not cause him to be a permanent outcast and social reject.

I would also like to add that I am female and I am a feminist. I echo the sentiment in the article above – female genital mutilation is a disgusting, barbaric practice, and I do not agree with it. That being said, FGM and MGM are not in separate worlds.

]]> By: Marcel Kincaid http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-49182 Marcel Kincaid Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:11:03 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-49182 <i>Boy, is there some wrong information flying around here. I believe the majority of blacks, not just whites and (nowadays) American Hispanics, are cut.</i> So something is correct information if and only if you believe it? What a moron. Boy, is there some wrong information flying around here. I believe the majority of blacks, not just whites and (nowadays) American Hispanics, are cut.

So something is correct information if and only if you believe it?

What a moron.

]]> By: Marcel Kincaid http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-49181 Marcel Kincaid Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:07:55 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-49181 "When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric." Because, other than the word, male circumcision and female "circumcision" have nothing in common. “When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric.”

Because, other than the word, male circumcision and female “circumcision” have nothing in common.

]]> By: An Atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-35489 An Atheist Mon, 04 May 2009 07:12:19 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-35489 Dear Nicky Nurse, Thank you! Thats why I try to post on threads about circumcision - maybe someone will think twice before mutilating their son's penis. (I personally don't care what adult men choose to do - I'm not the one who has to live without my prepuce.) It's a shame you had to quit. I'm actually in nursing school now but I don't plan on working maternity wards here in the U.S. for that reason. I don't think I could bear watching little babies traumatized, disfigured and mutilated over and over at their parent's request. Dear Nicky Nurse,

Thank you! Thats why I try to post on threads about circumcision – maybe someone will think twice before mutilating their son’s penis. (I personally don’t care what adult men choose to do – I’m not the one who has to live without my prepuce.) It’s a shame you had to quit. I’m actually in nursing school now but I don’t plan on working maternity wards here in the U.S. for that reason. I don’t think I could bear watching little babies traumatized, disfigured and mutilated over and over at their parent’s request.

]]> By: An Atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-35486 An Atheist Mon, 04 May 2009 06:58:18 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-35486 The circumcised penis is not easier to clean in infancy. An open, fresh wound in a diaper with dark sticky sh*t and urine? No way, man. Once the boy is old enough to retract his foreskin, cleaning would be little different from running water over a vagina (not a huge/horrible/difficult/impossible task). Plus, how difficult do you really think it would be to get a little boy to touch/wash his penis in the shower? I don't think that would take much convincing at all. P.S. Washing her hands and brushing her teeth are two of my daughter's favorite things to do - so I think how much of a chore it is depends on the child. The circumcised penis is not easier to clean in infancy. An open, fresh wound in a diaper with dark sticky sh*t and urine? No way, man. Once the boy is old enough to retract his foreskin, cleaning would be little different from running water over a vagina (not a huge/horrible/difficult/impossible task). Plus, how difficult do you really think it would be to get a little boy to touch/wash his penis in the shower? I don’t think that would take much convincing at all.

P.S.
Washing her hands and brushing her teeth are two of my daughter’s favorite things to do – so I think how much of a chore it is depends on the child.

]]> By: Nicky Nurse http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4283 Nicky Nurse Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:59:50 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4283 To "an Atheist" who commented on Charles II note, GREAT JOB!!! Thank you very much for the comment. I was in shock and feeling so disgusted about the misinformation Charles II spewed out. I didn't have time to respond when the notification came up on my e-mail and I was planning on responding in the same way you did. Originally am from Scotland and my family is all European. People over there are intact and everyone likes it that way! Charles II really doesn't know what he is talking about. Most men are NOT mutilated. There is no medical reason to and women do not prefer it!!! "An Atheist", I think your comment was so well put, I second everything you said. Thank you, thank you!!!! Hopefully you saved somebody's foreskin! To “an Atheist” who commented on Charles II note, GREAT JOB!!! Thank you very much for the comment. I was in shock and feeling so disgusted about the misinformation Charles II spewed out. I didn’t have time to respond when the notification came up on my e-mail and I was planning on responding in the same way you did.
Originally am from Scotland and my family is all European. People over there are intact and everyone likes it that way! Charles II really doesn’t know what he is talking about. Most men are NOT mutilated. There is no medical reason to and women do not prefer it!!! “An Atheist”, I think your comment was so well put, I second everything you said. Thank you, thank you!!!! Hopefully you saved somebody’s foreskin!

]]> By: An Atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4282 An Atheist Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:45:58 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4282 Additionally, I saw a study that showed about 90% of women who have SAMPLED BOTH PREFERED INTACT MEN. Additionally, I saw a study that showed about 90% of women who have SAMPLED BOTH PREFERED INTACT MEN.

]]> By: An Atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4281 An Atheist Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:43:47 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4281 Boy, are you misinformed, Charles II. The only countries that really circumcise their infants routinely are Middle Eastern and the USA. This is absolutely a barbaric practice that cannot be justified by tradition. To answer the question, I certainly would never even consider circumcising a hypothetical son of mine. In fact, if I birthed this hypothetical son in an area that routinely circumcised, I would threaten the medical staff if they gave me any lip about it. No one in their right mind allows their little baby's genitalia to be mutilated, regardless of their own genital mutilation or tradition in the area. The one thing I am noticing here is that many say that women in your geographical area (I'm assuming you all are mostly in the U.S.) prefer circumcised men. Know why that is? These women have this weird preference (and it is weird when you have sampled both - unless you like pain, chaffing, and minor bleeding from having sex with a circumcised man) because they do not know their options! Or, more accurately, "the system" has deprived them of this knowledge via depriving the men of their generation of their foreskins. Many of the women you are referencing have only had the opportunity to have sex with circumcised men. I can tell you, socially, I am used to images of the mutilated penis. However, I can tell you that the sex is better and the penis sexier when it has a turtle head! I am also fairly certain that if you were to interview men in countries where they regularly mutilate their female babies genitals that they would tell you that the mutilated female is more attractive. Is FGM justified because of those men's preferences? I would think most would say not. Ridiculous double standard. Yes, there is a study out there that says that male genital mutilation (MGM) can help prevent the transfer of AIDS, HOWEVER - the drop-out rate in that study was so ridiculously large (look it up yourself - I don't remember exactly) that there is no way to draw any legitimate conclusions from it. Additionally, people, we have condoms. Should we amputate the breast tissue of baby female infants to prevent the possiblity of future breast cancer? How about cutting out labia to help prevent AIDS? Disgusting, ridiculous practice that we will one day look back in horror on this. Boy, are you misinformed, Charles II. The only countries that really circumcise their infants routinely are Middle Eastern and the USA. This is absolutely a barbaric practice that cannot be justified by tradition. To answer the question, I certainly would never even consider circumcising a hypothetical son of mine. In fact, if I birthed this hypothetical son in an area that routinely circumcised, I would threaten the medical staff if they gave me any lip about it. No one in their right mind allows their little baby’s genitalia to be mutilated, regardless of their own genital mutilation or tradition in the area. The one thing I am noticing here is that many say that women in your geographical area (I’m assuming you all are mostly in the U.S.) prefer circumcised men. Know why that is? These women have this weird preference (and it is weird when you have sampled both – unless you like pain, chaffing, and minor bleeding from having sex with a circumcised man) because they do not know their options! Or, more accurately, “the system” has deprived them of this knowledge via depriving the men of their generation of their foreskins. Many of the women you are referencing have only had the opportunity to have sex with circumcised men. I can tell you, socially, I am used to images of the mutilated penis. However, I can tell you that the sex is better and the penis sexier when it has a turtle head! I am also fairly certain that if you were to interview men in countries where they regularly mutilate their female babies genitals that they would tell you that the mutilated female is more attractive. Is FGM justified because of those men’s preferences? I would think most would say not. Ridiculous double standard. Yes, there is a study out there that says that male genital mutilation (MGM) can help prevent the transfer of AIDS, HOWEVER – the drop-out rate in that study was so ridiculously large (look it up yourself – I don’t remember exactly) that there is no way to draw any legitimate conclusions from it. Additionally, people, we have condoms. Should we amputate the breast tissue of baby female infants to prevent the possiblity of future breast cancer? How about cutting out labia to help prevent AIDS? Disgusting, ridiculous practice that we will one day look back in horror on this.

]]> By: Charles II http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4280 Charles II Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:21:31 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4280 Boy, is there some wrong information flying around here. I believe the majority of blacks, not just whites and (nowadays) American Hispanics, are cut. Most in S. Korea, Philippines and other countries are. Most in Australia are. A good number in Canada are. Most in the entire mid east are. But how many is not the issue. Many believe that it's just a damned good idea. That's why so many boys and men that didn't get cut when they were born or when little choose to get it done later, and most are exceedingly happy with the decision too, as are their women. There are just so many good reasons -- personal, social, cultural, traditional, simple cleanliness and proper penile development, and that's before you even get into the health, medical or religious reasons. Frankly, I disagree that either parent or church (or anybody) should be able to violate a boy's right to decide for himself. But he should certainly have it explained to him by the time he is starting school, and have it offered no later than about puberty if he feels he needs or wants it. Boy, is there some wrong information flying around here. I believe the majority of blacks, not just whites and (nowadays) American Hispanics, are cut. Most in S. Korea, Philippines and other countries are. Most in Australia are. A good number in Canada are. Most in the entire mid east are.
But how many is not the issue. Many believe that it’s just a damned good idea. That’s why so many boys and men that didn’t get cut when they were born or when little choose to get it done later, and most are exceedingly happy with the decision too, as are their women.
There are just so many good reasons — personal, social, cultural, traditional, simple cleanliness and proper penile development, and that’s before you even get into the health, medical or religious reasons.
Frankly, I disagree that either parent or church (or anybody) should be able to violate a boy’s right to decide for himself. But he should certainly have it explained to him by the time he is starting school, and have it offered no later than about puberty if he feels he needs or wants it.

]]> By: atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4279 atheist Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:24:21 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4279 PS. Congratulations. PS. Congratulations.

]]> By: atheist http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4278 atheist Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:21:14 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4278 I think a circumcised penis is much easier to keep clean. Especially when the boys are young, and getting them to wash their hands or brush their teeth can be a chore unto itself. :) I think a circumcised penis is much easier to keep clean. Especially when the boys are young, and getting them to wash their hands or brush their teeth can be a chore unto itself. :)

]]> By: Cristina http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4277 Cristina Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:16:45 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4277 I've been researching this quite a bit lately as I'm pregnant. I don't think I'll circumcise my son. I see no compelling reason to do and I'm not Jewish. In my research I've found sites that say Christians aren't supposed to circumcise - http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html . Since atheists have no religious conviction to do it, and since it's not medically necessary, why put your child through something unnecessary? I'm thinking Jews are the only ones who are supposed to circumcise their boys. I’ve been researching this quite a bit lately as I’m pregnant. I don’t think I’ll circumcise my son. I see no compelling reason to do and I’m not Jewish. In my research I’ve found sites that say Christians aren’t supposed to circumcise – http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html . Since atheists have no religious conviction to do it, and since it’s not medically necessary, why put your child through something unnecessary? I’m thinking Jews are the only ones who are supposed to circumcise their boys.

]]> By: Nicky http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4276 Nicky Mon, 26 Jan 2009 00:55:47 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4276 I am a maternity nurse and quit my job because I had to "help" with circumcisions. I have seen some horrible things happen to innocent baby boys. Sometimes they cut too much off sometimes it bleeds a lot and the babies always scream in pain. Why would someone choose to traumatize a perfect baby?! It makes me sick to think about. I have 2 sons and we did not circumcise. My husband is and wishes his parents had made a different choice. If someone is reading this trying to decide whether or not to do it...DON"T! I am a maternity nurse and quit my job because I had to “help” with circumcisions. I have seen some horrible things happen to innocent baby boys. Sometimes they cut too much off sometimes it bleeds a lot and the babies always scream in pain. Why would someone choose to traumatize a perfect baby?! It makes me sick to think about. I have 2 sons and we did not circumcise. My husband is and wishes his parents had made a different choice. If someone is reading this trying to decide whether or not to do it…DON”T!

]]> By: Harrison http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4275 Harrison Mon, 15 Dec 2008 06:48:45 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4275 If I am ever to have a son, I absolutely wil not have him circumcised. I was born in a Catholic household and I was circumcised, but I believe the practice is barbaric and cruel. I live in Canada and from what I can tell it's part of the WASPish society here to do so, but I dislike and disapprove of the idea. If I am ever to have a son, I absolutely wil not have him circumcised. I was born in a Catholic household and I was circumcised, but I believe the practice is barbaric and cruel. I live in Canada and from what I can tell it’s part of the WASPish society here to do so, but I dislike and disapprove of the idea.

]]> By: Chad http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/10/06/atheists-do-you-circumcise-your-sons/#comment-4274 Chad Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:16:26 +0000 http://unreasonablefaith.wordpress.com/?p=98#comment-4274 I was born in the U.S. in 1964. I was amputated against my will, because it was considered "normal" and "healthy", not for religious reasons. I was NOT given the choice to amputate a part of my own body. You may call it circumcision to make yourself feel better, but it is amputation. Look it up: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amputate I find it interesting that when you look up "Famle Circumcision" it is most often referred to as "genital mutilation", but when done to males it's considered acceptable. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=female+circumcision&spell=1 If you are religious, we are "made in God's image" (read with foreskin). My question to religious people considering amputating a son is - Is your son's foreskin God's mistake? I was born in the U.S. in 1964. I was amputated against my will, because it was considered “normal” and “healthy”, not for religious reasons.

I was NOT given the choice to amputate a part of my own body.

You may call it circumcision to make yourself feel better, but it is amputation. Look it up:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amputate

I find it interesting that when you look up “Famle Circumcision” it is most often referred to as “genital mutilation”, but when done to males it’s considered acceptable. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=female+circumcision&spell=1

If you are religious, we are “made in God’s image” (read with foreskin). My question to religious people considering amputating a son is – Is your son’s foreskin God’s mistake?

]]>