To cut, or not to cut.

[nerdanel]

If "motive" means anything, then the Jewish practice is more "acceptable" to me than the practice of ensuring that sexual intercourse will always be basically pleasureless and very often extremely painful for a woman.

I don't think that "motive" is what makes the Jewish practice somewhat more defensible. If a religion believes sincerely that FGM (or any other morally problematic practice) is required by its god, that would not render the immoral practice (more) defensible. You cannot legitimize immorality by attributing it to your god. To me, the distinction is instead that the harm associated with male circumcision (or MGM, if it pleases GBG) is far less than the harm associated with FGM. However, because it is still not "no harm" - I was just chatting with a couple of Jewish mothers who reported watching their infant sons' suffering at their bris and found it somewhat traumatizing even to watch; another of my Jewish friends who is pregnant was tremendously relieved to learn she was carrying a girl, so that she would not have to schedule a bris - I have grave reservations about male circumcision and believe that Judaism should move towards replacing the practice with egalitarian naming ceremonies for both genders. If baby girls are truly being welcomed into the covenant with no infliction of physical pain and permanent bodily modification, then it seems that baby boys deserve no less kindness.

Despite my increasingly open atheism, I have and will always have tremendous love for Judaism. This does not mean that I can endorse every practice in the Torah as though there has been no evolution in religious or secular human understanding since its writing. Nor do most modern Jews believe that everything prescribed in the Torah is to be followed as written in the 21st century. There is severe disagreement as to whether the Torah's animal sacrifice commandments should be followed if the Temple could be reconstructed - or whether reconstruction of the Temple should remotely be a goal. Most modern Jews disavow niddah, the practice of viewing a woman as ritually unclean (and sexually inaccessible) for as much as two weeks out of every month. Both of these practices are textually mandated in the Torah. To me, there is no inconsistency between a tremendous respect and affection for Judaism and believing that a particular Jewish practice (even one that is textually mandated) should be set aside by modern Judaism. A practice that intrudes greatly on an unconsenting infant's right to bodily autonomy, to me, is sufficiently problematic to merit revisiting by modern Judaism. Whether the state should intervene on the children's behalf is, of course, the much more fraught question - particularly in light of many states' painful history of anti-Semitism and the unpleasant reality that many people who support state intervention here are also openly anti-Semitic.

One practice is a sacrament ordained by god, the other a mutilation ordered by men who hate and fear women, particularly women's sexuality. Often - and this is cute, don't you think? Often those men are also ritually circumcised.

I think that this is not always or even usually accurate, and in any event, depends on the specific tribe and/or country in question. FGM is often inflicted by women ... at the insistence of mothers or other female relatives of the girl on whom the practice is to be inflicted. In many cases, men seem detached from the practice, if not downright ambivalent. I saw one sociology study that indicated that in some tribes, men were not thrilled about the practice because it decreased their odds of sharing consensual intimacy with their spouses, since most (though not all) women to undergo the procedure do not enjoy sex as much thereafter.

If you have a few moments, Google and read about the women's secret societies of Sierra Leone, which inflict FGM on young girls. Women fiercely guard their domain over these societies and their practices, including FGM; men may not interfere.

[vison]

I have often been amazed/amused/bemused/puzzled/gobsmacked about the whole issue of circumcision.

Jews are famously not the only men who are circumcised, but many men are circumcised as youths or young adults rather than in infancy.

Why? Why do men get circumcised?

I have a sort of vague theory, and it IS vague and it's sort of a work in progress.

Forgive me for stating the obvious: a man's genitals - penis and testicles - are out there for all the world to see. The other male mammals with which I am familiar have partially hidden genitals: the ram, the bull, the stallion, dogs, cats, mink, etc. The testicles are often on display, but the penis is usually tucked up inside until it is required.

Men have large penises in proportion to their bodies, compared to most other mammals.

I've read that this is a sexual attactant to females, and perhaps it is, although most men don't go around now showing off. But there's a dominance factor at work, too - dominance over other men.

Men admire their genitals enormously, naturally enough. But, then what do they do? They cut bits off. Some Australian aborigines went much further, but I won't darken your day by explaining that . . .

But men admire toughness, too, and love to impress each other with manly deeds and proofs of their courage and endurance. I can picture Grod and his buddies sitting around bragging and maybe dipping into the fermented tiger milk or whatever and all of a sudden Grod says, "Hey! You think you're tough? Look at this!" and he takes up this obsidian blade and . . . the deed is done and all the other guys are just blown away by it all and the next thing, if you're going to be a MAN in this joint, you have to get that bit cut off.

Makes sense to me.

The word "testicle" and "testimony" have the same root, so I don't think my little scenario is too farfetched.

[Dave_LF]

I would add to that that circumcision makes plainly visible portions of the apparatus that are typically only revealed during arousal, which perhaps creates an impression of augmented potency among individuals who are accustomed to seeing things the other way.

[vison]

I think it was because it is hard and it is dangerous - threatening the actual "manhood" of the man who must endure it.

You survive intact, you made the team.

I suppose there are a lot of scholarly articles on the subject, but I don't really have the time to read them.

[Dave_LF]

It could be all of the above. But I don't care to read the articles either.

I think it was because it is hard and it is dangerous

[JewelSong]

vison, although your theory is interesting, I don't think that is why men and boys got circumcised.

Circumcision as a cultural tradition/norm is usually found in places that are hot. The glans -the area underneath the foreskin - can become more easily infected and harder to clean in hot and dry climates. People sweat and the foreskin can become difficult to retract. Water is not as readily available and the skin of the glans is very sensitive. An infected penis is not a laughing matter.

(There is an entire chapter in Levititus about how to treat an infected penis.)

I think that, like many instructions in the Old Testament, the instruction to circumcise the men/boys was a cleanliness/health issue. It was couched as a spiritual command because that is what people expected and obeyed at the time.

[vison]

If that was the case, it would be SOP in all hot climates and it's not.

I think the "testing" part of it is the important part. Marking you out from "the other" became important, and then it was codified and instead of being part of a "manhood ceremony" it became the way a Jewish man was identified as a baby. Still a manhood ceremony, but sort of pre-emptive.

Were the Hittites circumcised? The Philistines? The Egyptians? Africans in general? (Some yes, some no.)

You may well be right, but I don't think it was that simple.

[axordil]

It would be interesting to see if there is a cross-correlation between hot climates/wearing a lot of clothes/circumcision.

[vison]

Googled it. OK: there is one book that is listed dozens of times: The History of Circumcision from the Earliest Times to the Present, it was written years ago by an American doctor - who was, apparently, the Dr. Kellogg of circumcision. A weirdo, in other words.

Here is an article I found interesting:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/in ... 8&Itemid=0

No time to dig further.

[Túrin Turambar]

I don't have time for more than a drive-by post at present, but a Cologne court has ruled that circumcision without medical necessity amounts to the unlawful affliction of bodily harm.

ETA: More detailed article here.

[axordil]

Yeah, probably not the best country on the planet for that ruling to come out of.

[Alatar]

Yeah. While I personally agree with the ruling, its not the wisest political move.

[nerdanel]

I've been thinking about this idea, whether the identity of the speaker should play into the legitimacy of the content of their message. I'm not sure it should.

That is, if circumcision violates no human rights, then of course it is twice as offensive for Germany to reach a wrong or illegitimate conclusion on this because of their history of genocidal anti-Semitism. However, if circumcision does violate human rights, then Germany is as entitled - and indeed, obligated - as any other country to reach this conclusion.

[axordil]

And if the subject is wide open for debate? Which it manifestly is?

[Impenitent]

In the absence of medical evidence that there is harm done, only those who are circumcised can make that call.

[nerdanel]

In the absence of medical evidence that there is harm done, only those who are circumcised can make that call.

In this case there was medical evidence of harm, and this is what has led to this court case. As The Guardian describes:

The ruling followed a lengthy legal battle, sparked when a Muslim couple decided to have their son circumcised, specifically for religious reasons, by a Muslim doctor in Cologne. The doctor, identified only as Dr K, carried out the circumcision on the four-year old boy in November 2010, before giving the wound four stitches. The same evening, he visited the family at home to check up on the boy. When the boy began bleeding again two days later, his parents took him to the casualty department of Cologne's University hospital. The hospital contacted the police, who then launched an investigation. The doctor was charged with bodily harm, and the case was taken to court.

So, Ax, to answer your question: the German court had before it a specific case of a doctor who inflicted a medically unnecessary procedure on an unconsenting child (old enough to be aware of, and traumatized by, what was happening to him), and that child suffered medical complications. (I've looked through many major newspapers, and I can't find a better description than "medical complications" and "days of continuous bleeding" or "severe bleeding" - but serious enough that the hospital felt the need to report it to the police ... and presumably not on anti-Semitic grounds, as these folks were Muslims.) The German court had before it the specific question of whether this was legally acceptable. It was entitled to rule on the question according to European and German law.

[axordil]

A specific case of what may well be malpractice does not a broad human rights violation make. That said, this is an issue where time is of the essence, as contracts so often say. Performing a circumcision on an older child raises issues infant circumcision doesn't.

As to the religious identity of the family: doesn't matter. They can't very well make a ruling that applies to Muslims and not Jews, and thus touch one of the third rails of their own history.

[nerdanel]

A specific case of what may well be malpractice does not a broad human rights violation make. That said, this is an issue where time is of the essence, as contracts so often say. Performing a circumcision on an older child raises issues infant circumcision doesn't.

It seems as though one approach the German court might have taken is to rule specifically on the case of circumcising a non-infant for medically unnecessary reasons. In the US, this might have been viewed favorably as "judicial restraint" - resolving the case on narrow rather than broad grounds and avoiding the thorniest issue of all. Since Jewish practice is to circumcise eight days after birth, a narrow ruling would not have affected it.

I have not seen the original text of the opinion and am not sure whether it is available in English: this was a decision of the German District Court, the first-level felony criminal court, decreasing the odds of an English translation. But it would be helpful to read, to understand whether there is a legal reason that they elected the broadest possible resolution, rather than a narrow resolution that would have left Jewish practice unaffected and thus not implicated the country's history.

[Folca]

I for one am a function over form individual. If having something doesn't provide an inherent advantage, or it increases expenditure of time, effort or expense for maintenance, get rid of it. Based on that standard, and since circumcision doesn't adversely affect male performance, the real decision to have been made would be: why keep it? I shave my head so I don't have to comb it, and since I am going bald anyway, I'd give up all of the hair on my face except my eyelashes, eyebrows and nose hair at the snap of a genie's fingers if the opportunity presented itself. Guys are pretty simplistic by nature.

I think the roots of why the practice came about in various cultures are too ancient to really know why it exists. But, is not scarification (including tatooing) rooted in marking one's self to declare a form of identity? An act of separation from others? Consider African tribes who gauge ears and elongate necks, a variety of cultures that utilize piercings within their society, Maori face moko, and other acts of pain and disfigurement that do not fall into the realm of attractive or acceptable to others raised in distinctively different cultures.

In this day and age, I don't think there should be anything to prevent a parent from electing the proceedure for an infant, but if it isn't performed within the first few years, the decision should be left up to the male. Unless chronic in nature, all pain is temporary. The idea of pain is often just as galling as the experience. And once the pain subsides, the memory becomes another in a list of experiences in which all things pleasant are that much sweeter.

[Túrin Turambar]

Another issue is how much weight this decision (by a lower state criminal court) will have in Germany as a whole. I'm not familiar enough with either German federalism or civil law to comment, but it may be that this is a one-off decision based entirely on the facts of this particular case and not a ruling on circumcision generally.