To cut, or not to cut.

[Lidless]

Ignore health benefits for now. What may or may not work in Niger is not applicable to the rest of the world.

Forget FGM as everyone seems hung up on the clitoral removal which GBG is not talking about.

OK, how about this. A (religious) culture adheres, and has done for 3,000 years to the principal that a series of small v-shaped nicks be made in the labia of baby girls aged 8 days old to show their covenant with their god. A ridiculous concept of course because the baby had nothing to do with it.

All OK with that?

(Even St Paul copped out and said, in the Bible, that the Bible was wrong on the physical circumcision as a sign of the covenant. He had to - how many male adults would have converted to the new religion had they had to suffer what baby boys do? One wonders how successful this new religion would have been...)

[yovargas]

OK, how about this. A (religious) culture adheres, and has done for 3,000 years) to the principal that a series of small v-shaped nicks be made in the labia of baby girls aged 8 days old to show their covenant with their god. A ridiculous concept of course because the baby had nothing to do with it.

All OK with that?

I wouldn't be interesting in making that illegal, no.

[Maria]

Not OK with that, Lidless!

Urine burns wounds! No wounding on parts of babies that get pee-soaked regularly! It's torture.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Ignore health benefits for now. What may or may not work in Niger is not applicable to the rest of the world.

Actually that's an interesting point.

The study, if you can call it a study, only showed a reduction in risk if an HIV negative man is having sex with an HIV positive woman. Only in that scenario. Not in any other.

That compares interestingly to Europe versus the USA. In the USA, both HIV and circumcision rates are higher.

OK, how about this. A (religious) culture adheres, and has done for 3,000 years) to the principal that a series of small v-shaped nicks be made in the labia of baby girls aged 8 days old to show their covenant with their god. A ridiculous concept of course because the baby had nothing to do with it.

All OK with that?

No, I would not be ok with that either. I would be interested in making it illegal for anyone not able to consent.

[Impenitent]

One of the reasons that circumcision reduces the possibility of HIV infection (other than the change in the microbial environment quoted above) is that the foreskin can and does suffer tiny tears during coitus which then allow blood transfer.

Tearing of the foreskin is more likely if the partners are not adequately lubricated. It is not widely spoken of, but "dry sex" (when the vagina is dried out before sex using a variety of methods, including the use of methylated spirits, or herbal combinations) is common in sub-Saharan Africa. It is very uncomfortable for the woman, but apparently it is sought by their partners. While the men may enjoy it, the practice results in more tears/lacerations to the foreskin (and also to the woman) during coitus - and therefore greater risk of HIV and other STDs.

In a purely practical sense, circumcision reduces the incidence of tears in those circumstances.

"Dry Sex":

http://www.thebody.com/content/art2762.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sex

edited for typo

[JewelSong]

Impy, that is really interesting. "Dry sex" can occur simply because the woman isn't physically ready or for other reasons, but I didn't realize that this would be something that men might deliberately seek. Sounds dreadful.

The reason HIV spread so quickly in the gay community is similar - anal sex, even with proper lubrication, can result in small tears inside the anus, which is what allows the blood and fluids to be transferred.


Okay, stupid question time. As I said before, I have never been with an uncircumcised man and the only "up close and personal" uncircumcised penises I have seen have been either on babies or in pictures.

What happens to the foreskin during intercourse? Doesn't it, like, get in the way?

[yovargas]

When the penis lengthens, the foreskin doesn't, so it is essentially pulled back. At that point, it can look pretty much like a circumcised penis does.

[JewelSong]

Hm. Well, is there any difference in how it feels to the woman? (If this is TMI, feel free not to respond! I have just always wondered what the big deal is!)

[Impenitent]

Nope, feels no different to the woman (at least, no more different than two men are different in any case. Trying to say what I mean while remaining as discreet as possible.)

[nerdanel]

This article describes circumcision in subsaharan Africa as an aspect of US foreign aid directed at the region. Quite timely in view of our discussion.

The article's focus is on a new generation of young high-profile HIV activists, which it states are primarily politically-active students focusing on global health studies. But it was interesting to me that Rahm Emanuel was quoted as discussing circumcision in conclusory terms as an anti-HIV mechanism funded by the US overseas.

[quote]Inside the White House, Dr. Emanuel, for one, is not impressed. He says the students are serving up tired arguments about dollar amounts that ignore the Obama administration’s emphasis on spending money more efficiently and offering services, like circumcision, that can reduce the spread of H.I.V. While Mr. Bush emphasized AIDS and malaria, Mr. Obama is promoting a six-year, $63 billion “global health initiativeâ€

[nerdanel]

Update: San Francisco will be voting on this measure in November. Not sure whether I'll get to vote, as (despite the temptation to live in SF), it would require a noticeable commute to work. I still am not 100% clear on how I would vote, but - as my belief in the importance of physical autonomy/consent has deepened considerably - would probably lean towards the ban. The only reason for me not to do so would be my affection for Judaism, but I feel awkward about allowing that "affection" (which is based on a long-standing, but not rationally explicable, emotional draw) to compromise what I would otherwise believe are absolute, rational principles. If Judaism, or any other religion, believed itself entitled to modify the bodies of girl-children without their consent, in a manner that any percentage of those girls later regretted, I would believe a ban was a moral imperative. So I don't think I can reach a different conclusion here. My view would potentially change if there were demonstrable health benefits, but the evidence seems too contradictory to say this has been established. None of this reasoning admits any analogy to FGM, which (spurious) analogy detracted from our earlier discussion, as Alatar repeatedly tried to highlight at the time.

If the measure were to pass, it would likely be enjoined by the Northern District of California and Ninth Circuit pending the outcome of inevitable litigation. I think the ban could thus spark valuable dialogue whilst not having an immediate practical effect on religious communities. Whatever we conclude that our Constitution requires (assuming litigation), I am proud of San Francisco for forcing this soul-searching.

ETA wow, this view is hugely different in both tone and content from my original post in this thread! This is what a year of studying human rights will do to you...

[axordil]

whilst

You've been in the UK too long. Come home.

[nerdanel]

Ha, I thought I explained myself in Bag End a while ago - I have to hono(u)r my time in England by taking home 1+ Britishisms. So far, I've picked "whilst," "cheers" (not clearly only British, but certainly used much more here than in the US), and spellling words with Ss rather than Zs if I think I can get away with it without being labeled pretentious. I think the S spellings look so much more civilised.

I also say "hella" to honor NorCal, "y'all" to honor Virginia, and drink tea to honor Massachusetts (because I'm just not going to say "pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd..." - sorry, Holby!)

PS I've noticed that Eru now says "whilst" too, so I'm not alone! It just has a je ne sais quoi that "while" does not.

[axordil]

Eru has to blend in, she's doing deep cover.

spellling words with Ss rather than Zs if I think I can get away with it without being labeled pretentious.

Moi? Pretentious?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I won't say what I think of that SF initiative as it would be difficult to do so under the rules of this forum.

[nerdanel]

I won't say what I think of that SF initiative as it would be difficult to do so under the rules of this forum.

Although that's your prerogative, it has the regrettable effect of (1) making people who would tentatively support the initiative feel that their position must be unspeakably objectionable while (2) depriving them of the benefit of your views that might help to change their minds.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

This may startle people, but as a libertarian I support the San Francisco initiative.

If the government is to have any purpose at all, it is to defend the rights of those within its jurisdiction. Especially the rights of those not able to defend themselves. If a guy (or even a gal) wants to be circumcised, let that guy say so when he is old enough to make that sort of irreversible unnecessary procedure.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I challenge anyone to read this link, and then say that the San Francisco anti-circumcission initiative is not motivated by anti-Semitimism:

Campaign against circumcision evokes images of anti-Semitism

Words escape me.

[nerdanel]

He seems like the scum of the earth. Those "cartoons" sound somewhere between disgusting and chilling.

But it seems to me that the merits of the law, or lack thereof, must be distinguished from the views of any individual proponents or detractors. No matter what the cause or the right at stake, people will support or oppose it for a number of reasons. For instance, one could imagine an anti-Semite who favored a ban on non-religious, non-medically necessary circumcisions with a religious exemption - to make Jews easier to identify. Although that point of view would be noxious (perhaps even chilling, depending on the intent of the anti-Semite), it wouldn't mean that the result supported: medical or religious circumcisions only, was necessarily the wrong one, or could only be supported by people who were anti-Semitic. (I'm told by friends in the City that some left-leaning Jews either support, or do not oppose, this ban on the same autonomy-physical integrity grounds that others have cited. Their views do not make them anti-Semitic, to state the obvious.)

ETA I'll endorse what the ADL has said on this:

"This is a sensitive, serious issue where good people can disagree," the ADL statement said. "It is one thing to debate it, is another thing to degrade it."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

(I'm told by friends in the City that some left-leaning Jews either support, or do not oppose, this ban on the same autonomy-physical integrity grounds that others have cited. Their views do not make them anti-Semitic, to state the obvious.)

Is that so obvious? Is it impossible for a Jew to be anti-Semitic? I'm really not so sure that that is true.