I received a phone call from a friend of mine. His daughter just had a baby boy and there appears to be some dispute with the in-laws about whether to have him circumcised or not.
Back in the 1970s I fathered 4 sons, all of whom were circumcised (the norm here in Oz back then (nothing religious, just a health precaution - hot climate and all that)). No problems have ever arisen with my sons, me or anyone else I've known. As I understand it, in the 1980s, the • Edited by a Moderator • seeking self (sexual) satisfaction started aggitating against circumcision. Of late the noisy • Edited by a Moderator • have been equating male circumcism (even though here in Oz it can have health benefits) to female genital mutilation (imu, an African practice frowned upon by conservative Moslems, which has absolutely no benefits for the woman and has as its sole aim the elimination of female arousal).
Anyway, for the benefit of my friend I did some investigation...
Here is an interesting article from the Drum (Oz political talkfest on the ABC) that is definitively worth reading (it fills in a lot of important gaps in my understanding of the debate. Especially why it has suddenly become a sizzling issue in the last couple of years) - "Never mind the Culture Wars, behold the Circumcision Wars. Brendan O'Neill says the mish-mash of intolerance, children's rights and victimology that is fuelling the anti-circumcision debate could have some serious consequences for religious freedom...Out of the blue, circumcision has become one of the most hotly contested issues of our time, generating miles of furious commentary. From America to Europe to Australia, the 3,000-year-old act of snipping the foreskin off newborn boys has suddenly become highly controversial. Courts in Europe want it banned. Some health officials in Australia want a ban too. Commentators, especially those who identify as liberal and secular, claim circumcision is "child abuse", even a form of "sexual mutilation". What's going on? How did a straightforward operation on infant boys, which Jews and Muslims have been practising for centuries and which is a routine health procedure in some countries, become the focal point for an international war of words? At first glance, it seems that old-fashioned intolerance, particularly towards Jewish customs, is driving the anti-circumcision juggernaut. But there's more to it than that. What we have in the circumcision wars is the crashing together of some of the most backward trends of our time, from the New Atheist disdain for ancient religious practices to the elevation of children's rights over parental rights to the increasingly influential culture of victimhood. And the end result is not pretty..."
Here is an advocacy by doctors. "Over their lifetime up to half of uncircumcised males will suffer a medical condition as a result of retaining their foreskin..."
I couldn't find an anti-circumcision argument from doctors. The articles I found just say for infants it is an unnecessary procedure (none mentioned the potential adverse impacts on uncircumcised adults) and list some pros & cons for infant circumcision.
A real, true story: One of the girls at work got married and the newly weds went to Hayman Island for their honeymoon. Both were in their late twenties. Both were supposedly virgins. Both are hasidic Jews, but the husband had not been circumcised (Very strange for a member of such a fanatical sect and I don't know why he hadn't been circumcised!). Well, I wasn't made privy to the intimate details, but whatever happened the husband had to be flown by emergency airlift to the mainland because of complications caused from him being uncircumcised...
So what would your input be for my friend?
Back in the 1970s I fathered 4 sons, all of whom were circumcised (the norm here in Oz back then (nothing religious, just a health precaution - hot climate and all that)). No problems have ever arisen with my sons, me or anyone else I've known. As I understand it, in the 1980s, the • Edited by a Moderator • seeking self (sexual) satisfaction started aggitating against circumcision. Of late the noisy • Edited by a Moderator • have been equating male circumcism (even though here in Oz it can have health benefits) to female genital mutilation (imu, an African practice frowned upon by conservative Moslems, which has absolutely no benefits for the woman and has as its sole aim the elimination of female arousal).
Anyway, for the benefit of my friend I did some investigation...
Here is an interesting article from the Drum (Oz political talkfest on the ABC) that is definitively worth reading (it fills in a lot of important gaps in my understanding of the debate. Especially why it has suddenly become a sizzling issue in the last couple of years) - "Never mind the Culture Wars, behold the Circumcision Wars. Brendan O'Neill says the mish-mash of intolerance, children's rights and victimology that is fuelling the anti-circumcision debate could have some serious consequences for religious freedom...Out of the blue, circumcision has become one of the most hotly contested issues of our time, generating miles of furious commentary. From America to Europe to Australia, the 3,000-year-old act of snipping the foreskin off newborn boys has suddenly become highly controversial. Courts in Europe want it banned. Some health officials in Australia want a ban too. Commentators, especially those who identify as liberal and secular, claim circumcision is "child abuse", even a form of "sexual mutilation". What's going on? How did a straightforward operation on infant boys, which Jews and Muslims have been practising for centuries and which is a routine health procedure in some countries, become the focal point for an international war of words? At first glance, it seems that old-fashioned intolerance, particularly towards Jewish customs, is driving the anti-circumcision juggernaut. But there's more to it than that. What we have in the circumcision wars is the crashing together of some of the most backward trends of our time, from the New Atheist disdain for ancient religious practices to the elevation of children's rights over parental rights to the increasingly influential culture of victimhood. And the end result is not pretty..."
Here is an advocacy by doctors. "Over their lifetime up to half of uncircumcised males will suffer a medical condition as a result of retaining their foreskin..."
I couldn't find an anti-circumcision argument from doctors. The articles I found just say for infants it is an unnecessary procedure (none mentioned the potential adverse impacts on uncircumcised adults) and list some pros & cons for infant circumcision.
A real, true story: One of the girls at work got married and the newly weds went to Hayman Island for their honeymoon. Both were in their late twenties. Both were supposedly virgins. Both are hasidic Jews, but the husband had not been circumcised (Very strange for a member of such a fanatical sect and I don't know why he hadn't been circumcised!). Well, I wasn't made privy to the intimate details, but whatever happened the husband had to be flown by emergency airlift to the mainland because of complications caused from him being uncircumcised...
So what would your input be for my friend?
Comment