The SF vote on circumcision

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:37 am

/
circumcision is a sex assult on a child..

There is no difference if the child is 12yr old and in a 3000 year old cult.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:40 am

I'm more inclinded to call it genital mutilation perpetrated by sex-negative cultures.

And then I remember the Sub-Saharan Africa study and waver. Still, San Francisco isn't Africa. And doesn't the mere threat make the jews and the muslims get so cozy.

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:44 am

Witty response below.
(I hate double posting)

Foxfur · Post by **Foxfur** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:45 am

I did my own!
http://www.Instructables.com/DIY-Circumcision.html

Box Burner · Post by **Box Burner** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:22 pm

Difficult to follow a god that would command that every every male child be mutilated.

the god of the jews/christians must be one truly evil SOB.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:46 pm

Your ballot box meets my religious rights. See you in court.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:48 pm

Box Burner wrote:Difficult to follow a god that would command that every every male child be mutilated.

the god of the jews/christians must be one truly evil SOB.

You mean the god of the voices in the head of the paranoid schizophrenic Abraham

illy dilly · Post by **illy dilly** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:48 pm

I've never heard a girl say "I prefer Uncircumcised over circumcised" But I have often hear "O yeah, only circumcised".
Just my two cents.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:07 pm

Kinetic V wrote:Your ballot box meets my religious rights. See you in court.

Religious rights are the ansewer to mutilation and murder around the world?

And to attack childeren??

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:14 pm

Doesn't SF have anything better to waste their money on?

C187 · Post by **C187** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:47 pm

goathead wrote:Doesn't SF have anything better to waste their money on?

:shock:

I haven't a clue on how the issue reads, but you would think if they were smart, they'd issue a ticket for every violation. It'll be one hell of a cocky way to penetrate that revenue deficit.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:00 pm

unjonharley wrote:
Kinetic V wrote:Your ballot box meets my religious rights. See you in court.
Religious rights are the ansewer to mutilation and murder around the world?

And to attack childeren??

If you take these arguments out to the extreme little girls will never get their ears pierced, makeup could be considered toxic, OMG if they don't wear organically grown cotton clothes you're polluting your child and on and on it goes.

This won't be the forum that I fight a holy war in. I would join in the class action suit that's almost guaranteed to be filed if they tried to push that here. Fortunately many of the nut job ideas that SF has don't cross the Bay Bridge or if they do they die in Oakland and Berkley.

Long story short my little boy was circumcised, the practice goes back over 300 years in our family, and despite seeing all the arguments to the contrary I still see no reason to change my point of view.

motskyroonmatick · Post by **motskyroonmatick** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:16 pm

(Oh man this one riles me up) I'm just glad I never had to go through involuntary amputation. It definitely is genital mutilation.
We human males have done quite well intact for millions of years and I for one think it utterly ridiculous and completely unnecessary.

Seriously people! Really?

VeganChoirGirl · Post by **VeganChoirGirl** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:25 pm

Kinetic V wrote:
unjonharley wrote:
Kinetic V wrote:Your ballot box meets my religious rights. See you in court.
Religious rights are the ansewer to mutilation and murder around the world?

And to attack childeren??
If you take these arguments out to the extreme little girls will never get their ears pierced, makeup could be considered toxic, OMG if they don't wear organically grown cotton clothes you're polluting your child and on and on it goes.

This won't be the forum that I fight a holy war in. I would join in the class action suit that's almost guaranteed to be filed if they tried to push that here. Fortunately many of the nut job ideas that SF has don't cross the Bay Bridge or if they do they die in Oakland and Berkley.

Long story short my little boy was circumcised, the practice goes back over 300 years in our family, and despite seeing all the arguments to the contrary I still see no reason to change my point of view.

I really do understand what you're saying, Kinetic V. However, here is my two cents:

I am a jew, YAAAAY! So I really get the cultural tie to circumcision. However, plenty of reformed Jews these days aren't circumcising their children (I also realize not ONLY Jews do religiously based circumcisions and we are the ONLY developed country in the world that still widely practices this act.) The fact remains that circumcision is genital mutilation, it just so HAPPENS that it's considered ok in our culture for boys. If we all take a step back, I think it's pretty easy to see that changing a persons body, irreparably, takes away their free will. We cite religious/cultural reasons, but that isn't a good reason for other inhumane practices, so we can't keep hiding behind the tradition of our forefathers to justify what we do now.

Many people site medical reasons to circumcise their children. And it's true that it is easier to contract a sexually transmitted disease if you are uncircumcised...wait WHY AREN'T YOU WEARING A CONDOM?? That's right, problem solved.

Non-religious or "medical" circumcision began in the US during the Victorian Age as a way to prevent boys from masturbating. It's about control in so many ways, just as female genital mutilation is about control. The practice slowly picked up speed and reached it's height in the late 80's and early 90's when nearly 90% of male children born in the US were circumcised. It is slowly diminishing now as parents do more research and change their feelings.

All this being said, I don't know if banning this act in this way is the right way to approach it. I think education and conversation about what circumcision does/doesn't do, how it effects the children that undergo the procedure, what it means in a cultural and religious context, and why it may be time to let go of this tradition is more important and probably more useful.

These are just a few of my thoughts on this incredibly, INCREDIBLY sensitive and deep topic. It's an important one to me. And honestly, I hope there comes a day when, by choice, no one circumcises their newborn male children, and instead leave that as a choice for the individual to make as they grow and mature into adulthood.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:39 pm

Having seen the shame and ridicule given to kids in school who were uncut, there's no way I would put my child through that. Even in this day and age of anti-bullying efforts and pushes for tolerance...this is still a problem.

American society is just not ready for the change yet. And I happen to put a very strong value on tradition...some things should not be melted away in the great American melting pot. Also I do not have any regret about the decision made on my behalf...in fact I'm thankful it was decided on. Again....I'm not seeing a reason to shift my position. But Vegan Choir Girl, I do respect what you had to say.

VeganChoirGirl · Post by **VeganChoirGirl** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 3:56 pm

Kinetic V wrote:Having seen the shame and ridicule given to kids in school who were uncut, there's no way I would put my child through that. Even in this day and age of anti-bullying efforts and pushes for tolerance...this is still a problem.

American society is just not ready for the change yet. And I happen to put a very strong value on tradition...some things should not be melted away in the great American melting pot. Also I do not have any regret about the decision made on my behalf...in fact I'm thankful it was decided on. Again....I'm not seeing a reason to shift my position. But Vegan Choir Girl, I do respect what you had to say.

Thanks for listening. More than anything it's the respectful understanding of other's beliefs.

I'm glad you're happy with the decisions in your own life.

Dr Helix · Post by **Dr Helix** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:04 pm

Who cares if it's muzzled or not as long as it still shoots?

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:29 pm

/

Producing a child dose not make this human one 's property.

Inflecting your pagon cult onto a child is not your right.

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:29 pm

Being born in New York in 1950, I'm a circumcised male, despite having no religious background of my own that encouraged it. While I did not have any conscious choice about it, I've also never felt that I was "mutilated." The practice may have been thought to discourage masturbation, but I have profound doubts about its efficacy, based on personal experience.

Besides the AIDS reduction link, there are other disease reduction correlations. I'll just cite this CDC article, which includes the following:

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4].

I'd be in favor of research and education around the costs and benefits, but I'm not in favor of a ban on male circumcision. The tradeoffs are unclear, even in the absence of a religious tradition. In the presence of such a tradition I think that a ban is needlessly confrontational.

I have a different opinion about female genital mutilation, though, because it is a very different procedure. Removal of the clitoris is obscene. It is a direct assault on female sexuality. There are no known health benefits (at least none that I've seen objectively cited). Referring to female genital mutilation with the same term as used for the removal of the male foreskin is a gross falsehood.

VeganChoirGirl · Post by **VeganChoirGirl** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:38 pm

dr.placebo wrote:Being born in New York in 1950, I'm a circumcised male, despite having no religious background of my own that encouraged it. While I did not have any conscious choice about it, I've also never felt that I was "mutilated." The practice may have been thought to discourage masturbation, but I have profound doubts about its efficacy, based on personal experience.

Besides the AIDS reduction link, there are other disease reduction correlations. I'll just cite this CDC article, which includes the following:
Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4].
I'd be in favor of research and education around the costs and benefits, but I'm not in favor of a ban on male circumcision. The tradeoffs are unclear, even in the absence of a religious tradition. In the presence of such a tradition I think that a ban is needlessly confrontational.

I have a different opinion about female genital mutilation, though, because it is a very different procedure. Removal of the clitoris is obscene. It is a direct assault on female sexuality. There are no known health benefits (at least none that I've seen objectively cited). Referring to female genital mutilation with the same term as used for the removal of the male foreskin is a gross falsehood.

female genital mutilation is not so narrowly defined. It is defined as any mutilation to the female genitals from piercing the clitoral hood to fully removing the external genitalia.

Just thought I would clear that up. Because not everyone removes the clitoris. Some sew the outer labia together, some simply remove the hood of the clitoris (this is congruous with male circumcision), some add adornments like piercings and tattoos, others remove the labia and leave the clitoris, some split the clitoris...and on and on and on. As you can see there are many ways to define what female genital mutilation is. For some it's done for religious reasons, some aesthetic, some simply cultural reasons.

As for what you say about health reasons. I have this to say:

Women experience this SAME heightened risk of std's, uti's, etc. However, we use condoms, dental damns, soap and water, and pee after having sex. We don't remove our outer and inner labia and our clitoral hoods to get everything out in the open.

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:38 pm

Dr. Placebo stated it a lot more eloquently than I ever could. Especially the last paragraph.....

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:44 pm

/

brutaly altering a persons natural body is a crime against them..

How about if I wack your triger finger off to show the world your of a non violent cult. oops you didn't want that when you grow up

Or I wack your triger finger off to prevent you from shooting some one later on in your life.. Also so you wont pick your nose..

Kinetik V · Post by **Kinetik V** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:55 pm

unjonharley wrote:/

brutaly altering a person natural body is a crime against them..

I have mad respect for you Unjon....but on this one we're going to have to respectfully agree to disagree....

It does look like you took the flipside of my organic clothing point though...

thisisthatwhichis · Post by **thisisthatwhichis** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:00 pm

hehehehehe..... he said Penis..... hehehehehe.......

[youtube][/youtube]

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:10 pm

Just thought I would clear that up. Because not everyone removes the clitoris. Some sew the outer labia together, some simply remove the hood of the clitoris (this is congruous with male circumcision), some add adornments like piercings and tattoos, others remove the labia and leave the clitoris, some split the clitoris...and on and on and on. As you can see there are many ways to define what female genital mutilation is. For some it's done for religious reasons, some aesthetic, some simply cultural reasons.

THese have been outlaw almost world wide..

It's time to bring circumcision into the moderon world and put a stop to this crime..

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:28 pm

I did include the Wiki link for "female genital cutting" and I did so after reading the article. I was a bit sloppy to imply that removal of the clitoris was the only kind of such cutting. To be a bit more precise, if a male or female genital alteration is performed with the object or effect of eliminating or reducing sexual desire or performance without an overwhelming risk reduction, then I am against that practice.

So, I am strongly against many (possibly most) forms of female genital cutting and I am ambivalent about male circumcision. I suppose that one could generate endless hypothetical cases, but I don't see the point. Coercion by the law is not desirable without a reasonable cause, and I don't see sufficient justification in the SF case.

Elective genital modification by competent adults of their own genitals is their own damn business. I personally only use moderate soaking and polishing (although the definition of moderate depends on context).

Post by **Elderberry** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 5:54 pm

Foxfur wrote:I did my own!
http://www.Instructables.com/DIY-Circumcision.html

I would have paid to see that.

Snow · Post by **Snow** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:03 pm

I feel I was mutilated against my will. I refused to do the same to my son in the name of fashion.

EspressoDude · Post by **EspressoDude** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:09 pm

unjonharley wrote:
Kinetic V wrote:Your ballot box meets my religious rights. See you in court.
Religious rights are the ansewer to mutilation and murder around the world?

And to attack childeren??

religion is the CAUSE of most M&M

goathead · Post by **goathead** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 6:16 pm

unjonharley wrote:/

Producing a child dose not make this human one 's property.

Inflecting your pagon cult onto a child is not your right.

So it should be the state's right?