Print
U.S. circumcision rate drops
by Rachel Konrad, AP
Thanks to Mark Richards for the link.
Reposted from:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/18/us_circumcision_rate_drops/?page=1
SAN FRANCISCO --On the eighth day of her son's life, Julia Query welcomed friends and family to celebrate his birth and honor their Jewish heritage.
But there was no crying, no scalpel, no blood, no "mohel" -- the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith. In fact, Elijah Rose's "bris" differed markedly from the ceremony long used to initiate Jewish boys into a covenant with God: There was no circumcision.
"I knew before I was even pregnant that I would not circumcise," said Query, 39, a San Francisco filmmaker whose son was born in 2002. "It's not like you're just cutting a piece of paper off a pad -- there's no `cut here' line. It's not made to be cut off, and I would never, ever do that to my baby."
Query is among a growing number of American parents refusing circumcision, in which the foreskin is removed from the penis.
According to a study by the National Health and Social Life Survey, the U.S. circumcision rate peaked at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s but began dropping in the '70s. By 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent.
Experts say immigration patterns play the biggest role in the decline, which is steepest in Western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries where circumcision is uncommon. The trend has also accompanied a change in Americans' attitudes toward medicine and their bodies.
"The rates of drug-free labor and breast-feeding all rose during the 1980s, while the initial declines in male circumcision rates began during the 1980s as well," said Katharine Barrett, an anthropology lecturer at Stanford University. "It may have been part and parcel of the wider effort to reclaim bodies -- adult female and infant male -- from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions."
Circumcision remains the nation's most common surgery, and the United States is still one of the few developed countries where a majority of baby boys are circumcised. But circumcision is a heated issue and the subject of vehemently pro and anti Web sites.
"We were all circumcised when I was born," said R. Louis Schultz, a 79-year-old New Yorker and author of "Out in the Open: The Complete Male Pelvis." "People thought it could ward off masturbation or disease, and those funny attitudes have really changed. Now people are saying, `Why do it?'"
Many doctors still recommend circumcision because of some evidence that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, HIV and perhaps other sexual transmitted diseases. Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.
But circumcision opponents say the medical benefits are dubious. Penile cancer, for example, is extremely rare. Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics has not endorsed routine circumcision.
The debate escalated in February, when studies found that heterosexual men in Africa who were circumcised had HIV infection rates up to 60 percent lower than uncircumcised men. Because of those studies, the American Academy of Pediatrics is taking another look at its policy.
About one in three males worldwide is circumcised. In the United States, the rates vary widely by region.
It is most prevalent in the upper Midwest. In 2004, according to data compiled by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, more than 79 percent of newborn boys in the Midwest were circumcised before leaving the hospital. Michigan and Kentucky had the highest rates, at 85 percent.
In the fast-growing West, the rate declined dramatically -- from 64 percent in 1979 to just under 32 percent in 2004.
In California, the rate of hospital circumcisions among newborns was 21 percent. California -- which has more immigrants than any other state -- had the lowest circumcision rate in the study, which had comprehensive data on only 27 states.
The decline coincides with rising immigration from Asia and Latin America.
"If you have a solid Victorian, American background, routine circumcision is not unusual," said Carol A. Miller, clinical professor of pediatrics at University of California at San Francisco.
Circumcision was uncommon in 35-year-old Usha Toland's family, which has roots in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. When her son, Reynick, was born in 2005 in San Francisco, her husband, Chris, a white man from Southern California, assumed his son would be circumcised. But after the couple read Web sites and medical literature, they decided against the surgery.
"Usha probably would have understood if I really wanted to have Reynick circumcised," said Chris, a 42-year-old advertising executive. "But ultimately I didn't want to bring pain to the child unnecessarily. We wanted to do things the way God or the universe meant them to be."
Many parents fear their boys would feel awkward in the locker room if they were not circumcised.
"I like the idea of him looking like his dad -- that's the most important thing for me," said Denise Milito Stockwell, 40, an artist in Chicago who had her 15-month-old son, Harlan, circumcised. "It wasn't traumatic for him in any way. He came back from the event sleeping."
Circumcision is still common in many Jewish and Muslim communities.
Ruth Katz, 38, of San Francisco had both her sons circumcised at brises. She and her husband, Michael Rapaport, were astonished when the teacher in their birthing class described circumcision as "immoral" and "not consensual."
"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this."
Reposted from:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/06/18/us_circumcision_rate_drops/?page=1
SAN FRANCISCO --On the eighth day of her son's life, Julia Query welcomed friends and family to celebrate his birth and honor their Jewish heritage.
But there was no crying, no scalpel, no blood, no "mohel" -- the person who traditionally performs ritual circumcisions in the Jewish faith. In fact, Elijah Rose's "bris" differed markedly from the ceremony long used to initiate Jewish boys into a covenant with God: There was no circumcision.
"I knew before I was even pregnant that I would not circumcise," said Query, 39, a San Francisco filmmaker whose son was born in 2002. "It's not like you're just cutting a piece of paper off a pad -- there's no `cut here' line. It's not made to be cut off, and I would never, ever do that to my baby."
Query is among a growing number of American parents refusing circumcision, in which the foreskin is removed from the penis.
According to a study by the National Health and Social Life Survey, the U.S. circumcision rate peaked at nearly 90 percent in the early 1960s but began dropping in the '70s. By 2004, the most recent year for which government figures are available, about 57 percent of all male newborns delivered in hospitals were circumcised. In some states, the rate is well below 50 percent.
Experts say immigration patterns play the biggest role in the decline, which is steepest in Western states with big populations from Asian and Latin American countries where circumcision is uncommon. The trend has also accompanied a change in Americans' attitudes toward medicine and their bodies.
"The rates of drug-free labor and breast-feeding all rose during the 1980s, while the initial declines in male circumcision rates began during the 1980s as well," said Katharine Barrett, an anthropology lecturer at Stanford University. "It may have been part and parcel of the wider effort to reclaim bodies -- adult female and infant male -- from unnecessary and potentially harmful medical interventions."
Circumcision remains the nation's most common surgery, and the United States is still one of the few developed countries where a majority of baby boys are circumcised. But circumcision is a heated issue and the subject of vehemently pro and anti Web sites.
"We were all circumcised when I was born," said R. Louis Schultz, a 79-year-old New Yorker and author of "Out in the Open: The Complete Male Pelvis." "People thought it could ward off masturbation or disease, and those funny attitudes have really changed. Now people are saying, `Why do it?'"
Many doctors still recommend circumcision because of some evidence that it reduces the risk of penile cancer, urinary tract infections, HIV and perhaps other sexual transmitted diseases. Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.
But circumcision opponents say the medical benefits are dubious. Penile cancer, for example, is extremely rare. Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics has not endorsed routine circumcision.
The debate escalated in February, when studies found that heterosexual men in Africa who were circumcised had HIV infection rates up to 60 percent lower than uncircumcised men. Because of those studies, the American Academy of Pediatrics is taking another look at its policy.
About one in three males worldwide is circumcised. In the United States, the rates vary widely by region.
It is most prevalent in the upper Midwest. In 2004, according to data compiled by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, more than 79 percent of newborn boys in the Midwest were circumcised before leaving the hospital. Michigan and Kentucky had the highest rates, at 85 percent.
In the fast-growing West, the rate declined dramatically -- from 64 percent in 1979 to just under 32 percent in 2004.
In California, the rate of hospital circumcisions among newborns was 21 percent. California -- which has more immigrants than any other state -- had the lowest circumcision rate in the study, which had comprehensive data on only 27 states.
The decline coincides with rising immigration from Asia and Latin America.
"If you have a solid Victorian, American background, routine circumcision is not unusual," said Carol A. Miller, clinical professor of pediatrics at University of California at San Francisco.
Circumcision was uncommon in 35-year-old Usha Toland's family, which has roots in India, Sri Lanka and Malaysia. When her son, Reynick, was born in 2005 in San Francisco, her husband, Chris, a white man from Southern California, assumed his son would be circumcised. But after the couple read Web sites and medical literature, they decided against the surgery.
"Usha probably would have understood if I really wanted to have Reynick circumcised," said Chris, a 42-year-old advertising executive. "But ultimately I didn't want to bring pain to the child unnecessarily. We wanted to do things the way God or the universe meant them to be."
Many parents fear their boys would feel awkward in the locker room if they were not circumcised.
"I like the idea of him looking like his dad -- that's the most important thing for me," said Denise Milito Stockwell, 40, an artist in Chicago who had her 15-month-old son, Harlan, circumcised. "It wasn't traumatic for him in any way. He came back from the event sleeping."
Circumcision is still common in many Jewish and Muslim communities.
Ruth Katz, 38, of San Francisco had both her sons circumcised at brises. She and her husband, Michael Rapaport, were astonished when the teacher in their birthing class described circumcision as "immoral" and "not consensual."
"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 47 of 47 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #50544 by thebigredmachine on June 18, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Perhaps that outrage might be tempered a bit when one looks at the health benefits...http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.html
... though I do share the feelings of outrage regarding the induction of children into religious tribes without consent. It just so happens there seems to be legitimate reasons for subjecting infant males to the procedure in the absence of religion.
Other Comments by thebigredmachine
3. Comment #50546 by Friend Giskard on June 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Comment #50544 by thebigredmachinePerhaps that outrage might be tempered a bit when one looks at the health benefits...
The incidence of breast cancer could be reduced to zero if we surgically removed the mammary glands from all newborns. Perhaps thebigredmachine thinks that this would be a good idea too.
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
4. Comment #50547 by PrimeNumbers on June 18, 2007 at 5:48 pm
thebigredmachine, those studies have been debunked though, and there are other studies that show the opposite. Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
5. Comment #50549 by BMMcArdle on June 18, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I just did a Google search of complications from circumcision-some of the images would make a billy goat puke.Other Comments by BMMcArdle
6. Comment #50554 by Rosemary on June 18, 2007 at 6:15 pm
"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this."
Yet another example of religion making otherwise good people do bad things. It floors me that millions of people go along with this horrible painful tradition of cutting off parts of babies' genitals without their consent.
My son's father is from a Jewish background but luckily not religious and we never considered circumcising our precious son.
I think if circumcision is to be performed at all, it should only be done to consenting adults who have the facts needed to make an informed decision.
Other Comments by Rosemary
7. Comment #50560 by Shuggy on June 18, 2007 at 6:45 pm
thebigredmachine wrote:It just so happens there seems to be legitimate reasons for subjecting infant males to the procedure in the absence of religion.Protecting them against HIV 15+ years hence isn't one of them. With the high infant mortality in sub-Saharan Africa, the money and effort would be better spent making sure they survive till then.
You need to read "A Surgical Temptation" by Robert Darby
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226136450/intactivism .
He unravels the rise of circumcision and demonisation of the foreskin in 19th century England, from which the US took its cue. Many of the bogus claims still being made today had their origins then, and much of the "science" is no better.
Something I learnt from that book was that masturbation was so hated and feared that boys at public schools would be flogged and expelled if they were caught at it, losing their chance at a good education and a place in the Establishment. No wonder the middle and upper classes grasped at circumcision in the hope of protecting their sons from such a devastating loss.
For the intersection between Jewish circumcision and the US medical procedure, see "Marked in your Flesh" by Leonard Glick,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/019517674X/intactivism
Other Comments by Shuggy
8. Comment #50564 by greg_m on June 18, 2007 at 7:30 pm
"I like the idea of him looking like his dad"This has to be the dumbest line of argument in this whole debate. It's just as well his dad had not suffered testicular cancer and had one removed, otherwise they would have had to lop off one of those from the newborn as well.
Other Comments by greg_m
9. Comment #50565 by flyingscot on June 18, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Circumcision is a barbaric mutilation of the genitals and I am glad to hear the rate is dropping in the US. Not a minute too soon!I still have a hard time understanding why anyone would subject their newborn son to such a horrific, clinically unnecessary, procedure. It is madness!
Other Comments by flyingscot
10. Comment #50566 by steveroot on June 18, 2007 at 7:35 pm
From: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2007/s04/en/index.htmlWho writes this stuff?
"These findings are a very important contribution to HIV prevention science. Male circumcision has major potential for the prevention of HIV infection", said Kevin De Cock, Director of the WHO HIV/AIDS Department.
Steve
Other Comments by steveroot
11. Comment #50571 by BT Murtagh on June 18, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Well, I can explain how someone in this day and age does such a thing. It's mostly a lack of education. I have to confess, I did not do the research on this before my son was born. It simply didn't occur to me. Then, on his birth day, his mother raised the issue (D'oh!), and she wanted it done, the doctor recommended doing it, decision has to be made today if it's to be covered under the insurance, I myself had been chopped as a baby and it hadn't done me any harm that I knew of... so I went along.
Had I thought about it earlier I would have done the research and would have opposed it. Maybe I'm a negligent dad for not having thought about it, but hey, while he was his mother's fifth he was my first child, and somehow the word circumcision didn't enter any of my conversations for the entire pregnancy. I was a passive atheist then; now that I'm an active one it crops up regularly.
Unfortunately I don't have access to any supernatural beings who can save me from the bad decisions I made in the past, while in a state of ignorance. To paraphrase those who claim they do, please, hate the ignorance, not the ignorant (or formerly ignorant).
Other Comments by BT Murtagh
12. Comment #50575 by neander on June 18, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Lets get a grip .. so to speak. Check out: www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells"
to see the results caused by the lack of sensation in a circumcised penis. Apparently deeper and more violent thrusting is necessary to achieve orgasm. Besides violence towards women, this leads to increased(not guaranteed but increased chances of preferring anal and homosexual sex as the only ways of achieving release. Since the increased vascularization in the rectum is prime for HIV transmission then it is likely that moves to circumcise as a prevention of HIV may actually have the opposite effect.
Other Comments by neander
13. Comment #50578 by atheist_peace on June 18, 2007 at 10:18 pm
If god wanted men to not have foreskins, he/she would have designed men to not have them, period.Parents should not have the right to modify their child's sexual organs unless it is a medical necessity.
Other Comments by atheist_peace
14. Comment #50582 by somersetsimon on June 18, 2007 at 11:26 pm
"The edict to have your son circumcised was the first covenant with God -- the first challenge to being Jewish," said Katz, pursuing a master's degree in business administration. "I am a progressive person and think a lot about human rights issues, but I have never questioned this."Wouldn't it be more of a challenge if adult males had it done to themselves without pain relief instead of doing it to a child?
I've never understood how people have accepted this practice as a good thing to do to their sons. Lukcily in the UK, it seems to be limited to the Jewish (and Muslim) communities.
Other Comments by somersetsimon
15. Comment #50583 by somersetsimon on June 18, 2007 at 11:29 pm
Ignoring the obvious gag about the name..."These findings are a very important contribution to HIV prevention science. Male circumcision has major potential for the prevention of HIV infection", said Kevin De Cock, Director of the WHO HIV/AIDS Department.
I heard somewhere that the correlation between circumcision and AIDS prevention was statistical - there was no medical explanation. It's possible that the sort of men who were circumcised had different sexual habits that those who weren't.
I think I'd like to wait until we could find some real science before we start chopping bits off.
Other Comments by somersetsimon
16. Comment #50586 by Shuggy on June 19, 2007 at 12:07 am
somersetsimon wrote:
I heard somewhere that the correlation between circumcision and AIDS prevention was statistical - there was no medical explanation. It's possible that the sort of men who were circumcised had different sexual habits that those who weren't.
The latest studies were Random Controlled Tests, ie they got a group of HIV- intact men and circumcised half of them at random then counted how many became HIV+. However: -
- the tests were not (of course) double or even single blind, making them subject to experimenter effects, and there's no doubt that everyone involved very much wanted circumcision to be effective
- Just taking part in a scientific project makes people behave differently. In the field, the effect is not likely to be so great
- no effort was made to ensure the two groups were treated identically apart from the circumcision itself: the circumcised men were warned not to have sex for weeks after the operation and then to use condoms. Coupled with a painful and appearance-changing operation, that could well have affected their subesquent behaviour
- The circumcised men in Uganda got HIV at a greater rate than the intact men in Kenya, so whatever else they do in Uganda is more effective than circumcision - probably their campaigns against promiscuity.
- The tests were cut short because circumcision was looking good. If they'd been allowed to go full term, it might not have seemed so effective.
Other Comments by Shuggy
17. Comment #50588 by steve99 on June 19, 2007 at 1:03 am
Of course, using circumcision to reduce HIV transmission in countries with high rates means you don't have to offend Catholics with the use of condoms, or educate people about safe sex, or about cultural practices that help spread the disease. Other Comments by steve99
18. Comment #50591 by Corylus on June 19, 2007 at 2:08 am
Many major insurance companies still cover it, and many hospitals offer it free for newborns.
If you are paying insurance premiums for this then it isn't free! In fact those that pay their premiums and do not have this carried out are subsidizing those that do. Maybe some pressure needs to be brought to bear against these insurance companies?
Other Comments by Corylus
19. Comment #50596 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 3:15 am
It is obvious that fathers who have had the procedure will want their sons to have the same, otherwise this is some sort of recognition of self-inadequacy. It is also obvious that men who have had the procedure, and parents that have circumcised their sons, will want to hear the dubious positive benefits over and above the negative ones.It's a meme pure and simple.
Other Comments by AdrianB
20. Comment #50599 by Didaktylos on June 19, 2007 at 4:08 am
The only half-way credible practical explanation of the origins of circumcision that I have ever seen (and it was in a science fiction novel) is that it was a test for haemophilia.Other Comments by Didaktylos
21. Comment #50603 by phasmagigas on June 19, 2007 at 4:16 am
i was circumcised for medical reasons at 8-9 (very unlikely that today that would be done though) and if i have a son he will NOT be circumcised. As far as im concerned it DOES have a negative affect on my sexual experience, i just know that im not having all the fun i should be having and thats not some subjective belief, it has to be fact by 'un'default. Some of those bad circumcisions are appauling and even those deemed successful can leave the penis looking very ugly with scarring and over tight skin to just begin the problems. Other Comments by phasmagigas
22. Comment #50612 by BillySands on June 19, 2007 at 4:53 am
If the religious stop being circumcised, does that mean the next generation will be complete pricks?What do you call a 50p circumcision?
A rip off
Other Comments by BillySands
23. Comment #50613 by stephend on June 19, 2007 at 4:59 am
>>A rip offOuch. Speaking of which, a friend of mine was circumcised at 32 (after an unfortunate accident), and he's loving his newly released member.
I advised him he wouldn't be so pleased once it had keratinised, and ended up about as sensitive as the heel of his foot...
Other Comments by stephend
24. Comment #50619 by BillySands on June 19, 2007 at 5:35 am
Stephend, dare one ask how your friend managed to mutilate his boaby? Did he make a wallet out of the skin? It would be handy going on holiday - give it two strokes and it becomes a suit case Other Comments by BillySands
25. Comment #50635 by stereoroid on June 19, 2007 at 6:59 am
So circumcision reduces your chances of HIV infection through unprotected heterosexual sex by 60%. Considering how many times people have sex with their partners, is this enough reason to start circumcising adult males? Condoms are vastly more effective, but the Church does not like them, so... Other Comments by stereoroid
26. Comment #50637 by gibodean on June 19, 2007 at 7:13 am
Is it true that women are less happy giving oral sex to an uncircumcised man, preferring circumcised ones ?If so, that's nearly enough reason for me to circumcise my son. Wouldn't want him getting less than his fair share...
Other Comments by gibodean
27. Comment #50640 by konquererz on June 19, 2007 at 7:26 am
Women are just not used to seeing an uncircumcised penis. Once they get used to it, they will be fine as long as your son washes himself properly. Circumcision, though now trying to establish medical reasoning, exists solely on religious purpose. In America is was started as a big benefit to stop masturbation. But Judeo-Christianity pimps it out because its gods covenant with his children and Christians style themselves as his adopted people after the Jews killed Christ.
I circumcised both of my sons and dedicated them at church soon after. It wasn't until I dumped my faith (not lost, I'm not looking for it) that I understood that it was a load of crap. I later found that there was no conclusive evidence for or against circumcision. In other words, its tradition with a thin coat of "its beneficial" painted on. Its crap and if I had it to do it over again, I wouldn't circumcise my boys!
Other Comments by konquererz
28. Comment #50643 by pewkatchoo on June 19, 2007 at 7:34 am
konquererzGet him to coat it in warm chocolate first. That will do the trick.
Other Comments by pewkatchoo
29. Comment #50662 by John P on June 19, 2007 at 10:03 am
I know that, having read about it in the last few years, I feel like I miss my foreskin, only because I never knew what it was like to have it. OTOH, I doubt I'll feel that way if and when I have my appendix removed, but then, I don't use my appendix every day, and have consequently not developed any attachment to it. :)But this got me to wondering about the evolutionary reason for the foreskin. Everyone keeps talking about the present reasons for keeping it or cutting it off, but where did it stand in our evolutionary development? Why do we have a foreskin in the first place, and was it continuously selected because it gave our species an advantage?
Here's a paper I found that touches on it.
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-mcgrath/
Other Comments by John P
30. Comment #50665 by gibodean on June 19, 2007 at 10:21 am
This study that says "circumcision reduces your chances of HIV infection through unprotected heterosexual sex by 60%"..Assuming it's true for the moment, what do the numbers mean ? Is it per sexual encounter, or is over a lifetime, is it per 50 encounters, what ?
Just doing some back of the envelope calculations with some assumptions, assuming 50 copulations per year with your HIV infected wife, and a 60% difference each time you have sex, the chances of having HIV is about 99.0% versus 99.995% for circumcised vs uncircumcised. That's about the same chance of getting it (although from another angle, it's a factor of 200 for not getting it).
Or, if the 60% is for a year of copulations (assume 50 again), working backwards, I get that each time you have sex there's less than a 1% difference in the probability of getting HIV when comparing circumcised to uncircumcised...
And what are the real numbers ? Is there a 1.7% chance of getting HIV if you're uncircumcised, and 1.0% if you're circumcised ? Or is it 17%/10% ?
And, how about the chances of _giving_ someone else HIV if you've got it ? I've always assumed it's easier to transmit from penis->vagina than it is to transmit from vagina->penis.....
Other Comments by gibodean
31. Comment #50714 by jeepyjay on June 19, 2007 at 3:19 pm
"We were all circumcised when I was born," said R. Louis Schultz, a 79-year-old New Yorker and author of "Out in the Open: The Complete Male Pelvis." "People thought it could ward off masturbation or disease, and those funny attitudes have really changed. Now people are saying, `Why do it?'"The complete male PELVIS ?!
Shumshing wrong shurely?
Sorry. Comes of misspending one's life as a proofreader. A now obsolete profession.
Other Comments by jeepyjay
32. Comment #50716 by stephend on June 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Stephend, dare one ask how...
Without going into too many details (this is a family show), let's say a young lady friend of his was like a clumsy oaf with filo pastry. Riiiiiip!
(that's why the 50p joke prompted my memory).
He didn't get to keep it, but knowing British hospitals, they probably did and are using it on some unwitting skin-graft recipient as we speak.
Other Comments by stephend
33. Comment #50718 by BillySands on June 19, 2007 at 4:02 pm
let's say a young lady friend of his was like a clumsy oaf with filo pastry. Riiiiiip!
Ow, sounds like he needs a new banjo string
Other Comments by BillySands
34. Comment #50720 by Shuggy on June 19, 2007 at 4:17 pm
AdrianB wrote:It's a meme pure and simple.Neither pure nor simple, it has elaborated itself into a memeplex:
http://www.circumstitions.com/meme.html
See especially the diagram
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/meme-c-6.jpg
Other Comments by Shuggy
35. Comment #50740 by Converse02 on June 19, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Circumcisions are immoral and non censual. For the parents here, even if it does reduce HIV transmission or you think if may oddly increase his chances with the ladies (give me a break), it does not give YOU the right to mutilate your child's genitals. Let HIM decide when he grows up if he'd need the extra HIV protection or "charm" bonus.
Most uncut guys are happy with their foreskins and glad their parents left it alone.
Other Comments by Converse02
36. Comment #50770 by AdrianB on June 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Shuggy, thanks in advance for the links. I will check them out later when I'm not at work.I suspect the employer's Internet Police might get me with links like that!
Other Comments by AdrianB
37. Comment #50792 by Shuggy on June 20, 2007 at 2:27 am
AdrianB wrote:I suspect the employer's Internet Police might get me with links like that!
That site always gives you warnings before it shows you any NSFW pictures, but it does use words like p*n*s and f*r*sk*n.
Other Comments by Shuggy
38. Comment #50800 by melisande on June 20, 2007 at 2:40 am
Comment #50637 by gibodeanYou're assuming your son wants his oral sex from women...
;^P
And it only looks really different from a circumcised one when it's flaccid, so there shouldn't be that much of a problem, I just don't get it.
And the whole HIV study was skewed pro-circumcision, besides the obvious answer to cutting down HIV transmission being education and condom usage!
Other Comments by melisande
39. Comment #50859 by PrimeNumbers on June 20, 2007 at 8:21 am
Yes, bad science (having a pre-determined outcome in advance) and bad methodology (not taking into account number of sexual encounters) bad medicine (not having lab experiments that show the lack of foreskin vector for HIV, and indeed, other studies showing that the foreskin cells have a protective effect) and bad statistics (stopping experiment early, calling the change of 2% in rates a 60% change by dividing one by the other) etc. etc. Bunk from beginning to end.And it's not peer reviewed....
Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
40. Comment #50876 by Rosemary on June 20, 2007 at 9:31 am
Some have commented on what women might prefer.Speaking only for myself, I have had both intact and circumcised partners, and I find the intact penis much easier to play with.
Other Comments by Rosemary
41. Comment #50915 by hellgill on June 20, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I know this is slightly off topic, but I couldn't help it!At the end of the tax year, the Tax Office sent an inspector to audit the books of a synagogue.
While he was checking the books he turned to the Rabbi and said: "I notice you buy a lot of candles. What do you do with the candle drippings?" Good question," noted the Rabbi. "We save them up and send them back to the candle makers, and every now and then they send us a free box of candles."
"Oh," replied the auditor, somewhat disappointed that his unusual question had a practical answer. But on he went, in his obnoxious way. "What about all these biscuit purchases? What do you do with the crumbs?"
"Ah, yes," replied the Rabbi, realizing that the inspector was trying to trap him with an unanswerable question. "We collect them and send them back to the manufacturers, and every now and then they send a free box of holy biscuits."
"I see," replied the auditor, thinking hard about how he could fluster the know-it-all Rabbi.
"Well, Rabbi," he went on, "what do you do with all the leftover foreskins from the circumcisions you perform?"
"Here, too, we do not waste," answered the Rabbi. "What we do is save up all the foreskins and send them to the Tax Office, and about once a year they send us a complete prick ".
Other Comments by hellgill
42. Comment #50944 by Nails on June 20, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Oh well, if we're doing jokes....Far away in the tropical waters of the Caribbean, two prawns were swimming around in the ocean, one called Justin and the other called Christian. The prawns were constantly being harassed and threatened by sharks that inhabited the area. Finally one day Justin said to Christian,
"I'm fed up with being a prawn; I wish I was a shark, and then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten."
A large mysterious cod appeared and said, "Your wish is granted." Lo and behold, Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate. Time passed (as it invariably does) and Justin found life as a shark boring and lonely. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them. Justin didn't realize that his new menacing appearance was the cause of his sad plight.
While swimming alone one day he saw the mysterious cod again and he thought perhaps the mysterious fish could change him back into a prawn. He approached the cod and begged to be changed back and lo and behold, he found himself turned back into a prawn. With tears of joy in his tiny little eyes Justin swam back to his friends and bought them each a cocktail (the punch line does not involve a prawn cocktail - it's much worse than that).
Looking around the gathering at the reef he realised he couldn't see his old pal. "Where's Christian?" he asked. "He's at home, still distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy & became a shark," came the reply. Eager to put things right again and end the mutual pain and torture. He set off to Christian's abode. As he opened the coral gate memories came flooding back. He banged on the door and shouted: "It's me, Justin, your old friend, Come out and see me again." Christian replied, "No way man, you'll eat me. You're a shark now, not my friend and I wont be tricked into being your dinner." Justin cried back "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed........."
(You're going to love this.....)
"I've found Cod.
I'm a Prawn again Christian."
Other Comments by Nails
43. Comment #51038 by Linda on June 21, 2007 at 8:18 am
Ritual Child Abuse … your cut off point is?I can see from the comments here that most of you have not read 'god is not Great, How Religion Poisons Everything.
Paraphrasing Hitchens, Chapter 'a Note on Health, page 49:-
How would good people react on hearing that a 57-year-old man was observed sucking a baby's penis? Surely common good sense would suggest that such an act is wicked and the perpetrator indicted from child abuse. Ah but not quite when it comes to mohel work.
A mohel is an appointed circumciser and foreskin remover. The job description taken from ancient primitive myths commands the mohel to take a baby's penis, cut around the prepuce and follow that up with sucking off the foreskin spitting out the amputated flap with a mouthful of blood and saliva. Yeah who isn't repulsed by the thought? The unhygienic not to mention weird and cruel practice is part of Hasidic (Othodox) Jewish rites. Segue on to New York City where yes thanks to a dirty infected mohel passing on genital herpes to defenseless babies 2 infants died. There was a call in New York to outlaw the practice but sadly that happened during municipal elections and Mayor Bloomberg refused to protect children from physical (and emotional) abuse by deranged clerics.
---
Is there any evidence of religion being the foundation for good in any society when clearly in a modern city such as New York theists continue to bully with their wicked ways? There should be no problem if consenting adults wish to act out bizarre and dangerous rituals yet the cut off point should be when it comes to involving children who do not give consent.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545756
Segue some more to the upcoming possibly violent protests in Israel by the same group that engage in the barbaric ritual genital mutilation based on Stone Age Science Fiction myths and see that yes once again religion inspires violence in the community:
"Police in Jerusalem were preparing for violent protests from hard-line religious groups today during a planned Gay Pride march through the streets of the city centre.
Police have faced violent skirmishes in ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods of the city since approving the march a week ago. More than 100 people have been arrested, according to police."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2108200,00.html
That group (Othodox Jews) and all religious fundamentalists should never be allowed to infect children with their tawdry, violent, anti-social etc. ways. They are also the wrecking havoc in Palestine seeking to kick start Armageddon boosted with the financial endorsement of the fundamentalist American End Timers. They are as dangerous to cultural emotional good health as the Hamas Kindergarten:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1231,Hamas-Kindergarten-Graduation-Ceremony,Castupnet
Some are whining about Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, Grayling and Onfray each of whom has given some light to the movement to rid society of ritual child abuse and marginalize religion. It is funny that five little books are causing so much vile antagonism towards the authors who are simply pointing out the obvious. To-date non of us Atheists have done anything to harm others physically unlike the violence perpetrated by those who invoke Stone Age Science Fiction to justify perpetrating assaults on others.
BTW when I read about the mohel method of circumcision and after grabbing an airsick bag to gag have decided to really rile friends with the re-telling of the facts at parties. Thanks Christopher Hitchens ~ god is not Great, How Religions Poisons Everything ~ for giving me even more ammunition with which to ridicule superstition and the peddlers of untruth.
So once again to re-cap – religion is not moral in fact it is the foundation of immorality, disharmony, violence, hatred of the other, cruelty, misogyny, slavery, war etc. Dawkins, Hitchens and the others quite rightly point out that No child should ever be labeled with religion as not one is born believing in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
I can't leave the Vatican a get out of jail free card on the subject of child abuse so if you missed Sex Crimes and The Vatican:
"A Manual for Pedophiles by a Brazilian Priest:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a01p_DiaryBrazilianPriest.html
Oh and what about the perpetuation of sexual dysfunction that characterizes religion what makes so many afraid of their bodies?
To those shallow people who have been conditioned to hate their bodies intact perhaps taking courses on Human Anatomy and Human Sexuality would help.
Disclaimer on Sadomasochism - Consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever kinky acts that amuses but please leave the kids alone!
Other Comments by Linda
44. Comment #51043 by Benjamin Michael on June 21, 2007 at 8:54 am
Good post Linda.As someone with vast experience with these crazies, I concur with your comments regarding the child abuse inherent in hassidic and orthodox jewish observance. The only caveat is that most people in the world who would identify themselves as "orthodox jews" do not observe circumcision rituals in this way - this is pretty much limited to what you would term "ultra-orthodox" and "hassidic". Still, sans the sucking and spitting, the circumcision ritual of all jews, orthodox or otherwise, is child abuse regardless. I only point this out from a nomenclature point of view; that strictly speaking, "orthodox" are not part of the "fundamental" subset of judaism and more of a middle ground between moderate and fundamental.
Other Comments by Benjamin Michael
45. Comment #51054 by Linda on June 21, 2007 at 9:50 am
Benjamin Michael - Dawkins consistently raises the point that it is the moderates that facilitate & protect the fundamentalists thereby perpetuating abuse of defenseless children.Would it be appropriate for Hell's Angels to brand their kids from birth with club tattoos and then to send them to schools dedicated to that cause?
We have been conditioned to believe that religion is benign which it is not. IMO all faith schools must be abolished and parents can no longer infect kids with the religion mind disease.
Anything that consenting adults get up to however is none of our business.
Other Comments by Linda
46. Comment #51060 by Benjamin Michael on June 21, 2007 at 10:21 am
100% agree. - As Harris so eloquently states, moderates are a huge problem in all this for the reasons you state.
- Religion is most definitely not benign for the reasons so eloquently stated by Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris et al
- All faith schools should most certainly be abolished in my view - in fact, any institutionalised indoctrination (or even passive recognition) of in-group/out-group mentality should be abolished.
- actions of consenting (and legally competent) adults are nobodies business so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others.
We agree Linda. I just wanted to point out a possible nomenclature error in that most people who call themselves "orthodox jews" would not approve of orally facilitated circumcision - only the subset of ultra-orthodox and hassidic would.
Other Comments by Benjamin Michael
47. Comment #51093 by davidstvz on June 21, 2007 at 12:34 pm
I just wanted to say that the New Testament (Paul in particular) is very clear that circumcision of gentiles (non Jews) is completely unnecessary. He says that was part of the old covenent and you can forget about it now.Other Comments by davidstvz
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Audio Books
The God Delusion
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
The Ancestor's Tale
Read by
Richard Dawkins &
Lalla Ward
On the Origin of Species
Read by
Richard Dawkins
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
Richard Dawkins
"Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense."
Voltaire
"I think it is not helpful to apply Darwinian language too widely. Conquest of nation by nation is too distant for Darwinian explanations to be helpful."
Richard Dawkins
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Genome
Matt Ridley
Darwin's Dangerous Idea
Daniel C. Dennett
Parenting Beyond Belief
Dale McGowan (Editor)
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD (PAL Region 2 ONLY)
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #50539 by Linda on June 18, 2007 at 5:05 pm
How infuriating that even today in modern Western countries babies continue to be mutilated and inducted into religious tribes without giving their consent.Other Comments by Linda