"Regina and I were thinking about not circumcising Elijah..."

From "The Unkindest Cut," an excerpt from Neal Pollack's new book Alternadad on salon.com:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/01/09/pollack_circumcision/

...

It's hard to describe exactly what my mother's voice did at that moment, but "convulsed" is probably the closest word I can find.

"No, oh, no no no Neal. Don't say that to me. We're prepared to take anything. But you have to circumcise him."

Prepared to take anything, I thought. What did that mean?

"Regina did this research. And..."

"I don't care about Regina's research. She's not Jewish."

"But we were thinking..."

My mother began to openly weep on the phone.

"Oh my God, Neal! I can't believe you're doing this to me! You have to circumcise! You have to!"

"My wife..."

"Your wife is immaterial here. You can't betray six thousand years of Jewish tradition."

Suddenly, my generation's sin of intermarriage lay fully on my back. The fate of the entire diaspora rested on my decision. I saw a God I didn't particularly believe in waving an angry finger at me. An innocent medical inquiry had turned into Sophie's Choice.

"You can't forsake your people," my mother said. "Promise me." I began to quiver.

"I promise, Mother," I said.


...

And she knows she's wrong. You married a shikseh. Your kid AIN'T Jewish.

in Mosaic law, the child's religion is determined by the mother.

And that is part of the reason his mother feels so strongly about circumsision. This is exactly why so many Jewish families don't like their sons marrying non-Jewish girls. They will not have Jewish grandchildren.

In this case, it's bad enough her son married outside the faith, now he is totally betraying it.

Hey, I'm not saying I agree with her. I'm not saying its logical. But, it is understandable.

WTF?

You know, if the "tradition" and "religious practice" was to cut off the clitoris of a female rather the foreskin of a male, would you be just as understanding?

It's still something I don't want to have any truck with.

the female for removing the labia. There have now been three large scale, well controlled studies conducted in Africa that show -- even after accounting for sexual practices and condom use -- that circumcision reduced HIV transmission by more than 50%.

It has no bearing on why I'm not smitten with the practice. Skinning an infant's dick is analogous to clipping an infant's labia. Is removing skin from a female's genitals before she's old enough to consent okay with you? Reduction in AIDS transmission is a just post hoc defense for a practice that's rooted in religious and cultural norms. At one time it was hygiene. At another it was cancer. At another, lesser STDs. Today, AIDS. What was your position on circumcision before the AIDS studies? I'll guess it wasn't against circumcision of babies. I'm certainly not against circumcision -- as an elective by someone old enough to make the choice for himself.

I know circumsistion reduces the feeling in the glans. Still, I've known lots of circumsized men, and I haven't known one who felt that the removal prevented him from enjoying sex. In fact, in some clods, the reduction in sensitivity of the glans is necessary for his female partner to have enough time to enjoy herself before he finishes.

In a female, circumsision (removal of clitoris or labia) will very likely not just reduce her ability to enjoy sex, but eliminate it all together.

Holdovers from some silly religious belief or other. Utterly moronic that anyone would defend this by citing "health studies"... Once the individual (boy or girl) reaches the age of majority, then if they want to mutilate their bodies for whatever reasons, then fine, do whatever you want. But with this, you are taking the decision out of the hands of the person that lives with it for the rest of their lives.

I usually am not on the anti-circumcision train, but when I read this, for the first time I saw the total insanity of clipping the foreskin just because of "6,000 years of history." What a fuckin' guilt trip that is! Just be a robot and clip your kid or betray Your People and 6,000 years worth of Ancestors.

That's not a Jewish baby and not a Jewish mother. The Momma is trying to sneak the baby into the faith, but it ain't a Jewish baby.

kids ought be allowed to make that decision for themselves.

ritual mutilation of babies should be a crime.

Msongs
www.msongs.com

to male circumcision?

Even now after large-scale, well-controlled studies conducted by the World Health Organization have found that -- after other factors , including condoms and sex practices, are controlled for -- a man with a circumcision has a greatly reduced (50-60%) chance of developing AIDS?

Keyword for me is "man." It's never too late to have a circumcision... if you want it, that is.

because he knew several adult men who had had to go through circumcision and they all wish they had had it done as babies.

Orthodox standards) so why should he have part of his schmekkie cut off? Clipping his schmekkie will not make Elijah a Jew. IF his parents are going to raise him in one faith and IF that faith is Judaism, then Elijah will still need to convert when he gets older. IF Elijah decides to become Jewish and he undergoes a Conservative or Orthodox conversion, he will still have to have a "symbolic" cirumcision.

Bottom line: other than Reform Judaism....if mom isn't Jewish, the kid isn't Jewish so why is bubbie getting all upset?

It's the covenant of Abraham, isn't it?

(In my opinion, while I'm not fanatically anti-circumcision, I have finally had it driven home to me, courtesy of this piece, that that covenant is pure superstition.)

strict Jewish law, that means the child isn't either.

to the faith for boys with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers to be circumcised, as a "sign" of keeping the covenant.

For me, it's pure superstition, but it's a different story for most Jews--even non-observant Jews. Circumcision is a a sign of ethnic Jewishness, many believe, with some reason--though less and less in the modern world, in which circumcision also has acquired a purely (allegedly) hygienic purpose. Actually, it's become more true that *non-circumcision* is a sign of *non-Jewishness*--*ethnic* non-Jewishness as much as--or maybe even more than--mere religious non-observance.

These are guys. We've seen their underwear. Who knows what's breeding in that tiny teeny turtleneck?

Dramatically cutting the incidence of AIDS and other STDs is a good thing, e.g.:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0726_050726_circumcision.html

You'll feel a pang of guilt when your son yelps - he'll feel better in a minute or two. But how bad would you feel if you didn't circumsize, and he contracted AIDS later?

Also for ease of hygiene. Fortunately, I didn't have to make that choice.

There was no ceremony that I remember. We were Catholic. Thought it was done to every boy!!!

Decades ago (depending on the area of the country), it was done routinely to almost every boy.

DU Health Forum thread
Note the posts by Touchdown

of two other large scale, well-controlled studies in Africa that were designed to account for varying sexual practices and condom use. Both of those studies confirmed the results of the "flawed study." In fact, the results were so definitive that the researchers ended the studies early and offered all the participants a free circumcision.

The United Nations and the World Health Organization are now working to see how the research can best be implemented to reduce the incidence of AIDS in Africa. The best results would occur if men both had circumcisions and used condoms and other safe-sex practices, and that is what they are promoting.

http://www.healthnews-stat.com/?id=257&keys=HIV-circumcision-NIH

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced an early end to two clinical trials of adult male circumcision because an interim review of trial data revealed that medically performed circumcision significantly reduces a man's risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual intercourse. The trial in Kisumu, Kenya, of 2,784 HIV-negative men showed a 53 percent reduction of HIV acquisition in circumcised men relative to uncircumcised men, while a trial of 4,996 HIV-negative men in Rakai, Uganda, showed that HIV acquisition was reduced by 48 percent in circumcised men.

"These findings are of great interest to public health policy makers who are developing and implementing comprehensive HIV prevention programs," says NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. "Male circumcision performed safely in a medical environment complements other HIV prevention strategies and could lessen the burden of HIV/AIDS, especially in countries in sub-Saharan Africa where, according to the 2006 estimates from UNAIDS, 2.8 million new infections occurred in a single year."

"Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protecting against HIV acquisition," notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "We now have confirmation -- from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials -- showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse."

SNIP

Both trials reached their enrollment targets by September 2005 and were originally designed to continue follow-up until mid-2007. However, at the regularly scheduled meeting of the NIAID Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) on December 12, 2006, reviewers assessed the interim data and deemed medically performed circumcision safe and effective in reducing HIV acquisition in both trials. They therefore recommended the two studies be halted early. All men who were randomized into the non-intervention arms will now be offered circumcision.

SNIP

Results of the first randomized clinical trial assessing the protective value of male circumcision against HIV infection, conducted by a team of French and South African researchers in South Africa, were reported in 2005. That trial of more than 3,000 HIV-negative men showed that circumcision reduced the risk of acquiring HIV by 60 percent. The trial was funded by the French Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida (ANRS) ().

SNIP

Publish Date: 12/13/2006

you would have a GREAT REDUCTION of AIDs transmission.

As for reproduction, the men can still reproduce with in vitro (collection would entail inserting a needle into a testicle and removing sperm). Really, men don't have any need for a penis. Why stop at the foreskin.

World Health Organization with your suggestions.

:sarcasm:

You have any links to studies showing that circumcision reduces HIV more than condoms?

The studies released in December 2006 controlled for condom use and other variables such as sexual behavior.

The research showed that the lowest HIV transmission rates were among men who BOTH used condoms and were circumcised. In other words, circumcision plus condoms provides significantly more protection than condoms alone, at least among the African, largely heterosexual populations that were studied.

The researchers debated how best to present the results because they did NOT want anyone to think they could have a circumcision and then not use condoms. They've stressed the importance of using safe sex practices. On the other hand, the additional benefit from being circumcised was clear enough that it has now become the official recommendation of the UN and the WHO, at least in areas where HIV is prevalent.

In GD, this would've bloomed into a 400-post slugfest before you could make a sandwich.

For the record, I'm circumcised, my son isn't. Fortunately, I have no religious concerns and my wife regards it as unnecessary as I do. What I was completely unprepared for though, was how many friends and acquaintances asked about it over the years and told me I'd done my boy a disservice. The imperative for circumcision in a large part of this country is creepy.

in the newborn nursery. I thought: "They must be snip-happy around here". His father (Greek Cypriot) had said "He's not a Turk and I won't have him circumcised" and I agreed. Later with my next two sons (different father) I saw no reason for unnecessary surgery either. (My daughter wasn't circumcised either :-) )

I certainly wouldn't do it. But many of my friends, close friends, have been strong believers and born-againners. Their concern for my son's welfare, being the child of an infidel and all, probably overrode their worries about impertinence. They'd always start in with warnings about hygiene and STDs, but I'd get them to admit it was at root, a matter of doing right by God. But hey, they loved and worried about me, so it didn't bother me much. I just really had no idea how dreadfully important the matter of circumcision was to some people, even religious people. On the other hand, I was taken aback plenty by workmates who had the nerve to ask and offer their opinions.

My dad and his brothers (as well as my grandfather) were not circumcised. I was the first grandson, and they clipped me - it was the common practice at the time (for "health" reasons). My dad is now 65, and has had no troubles. I don't know about my male cousins, not having the inclination to find out... I wish they had left me pristine, but there's not much I can do about it now. And BTW, I'm not buying any of this bullshit about circumcision and AIDS prevention - there are way too many other variable involved to make that case. I'm not really bitter about it, I just think that I should have been allowed to make that decision for myself. I'm just a little disappointed that my little guy doesn't have a turtleneck to keep him warm and protected.

the studies. They are large scale studies conducted by the World Health Organization, and they are extremely well controlled -- for such "variables" as sexual practices, condom use, etc.

why don't you point me in the right direction?

Edit: If you are really a "mom" - what gives you the right to determine what happens to a little boy's parts? What if I said that it was my right (as a male) to determine whether or not you should be allowed to have an abortion? BTW, I personally believe that it is not my right to determine what you do with your own body - that's what make me a Democrat. How about you?

I myself was ambivalent; my best friend had chosen not to circumcise her son, and more and more of my friends were making the same choice.

But my husband never had any doubts about the procedure. He had relatives who had lived in many places where typical American hygiene is impossible.

And we read the research then available on the lowered incidence of urinary tract infections on boys who were circumcised. That was relevant because our first child, a girl, had had a symptomless UTI that led to permanent kidney damage. We knew that we would regret it forever if a son developed the same problem and it might have been avoided with a circumcision.

Here is an article that gives an overview of the studies:

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2006/12/13/studies_circumcision_could_dramatically_slow_hiv_spread_in_africa/?p1=MEWell_Pos4

In the two studies, researchers in Kenya and Uganda enrolled thousands of uncircumcised men to determine if the procedure could reduce HIV transmission among heterosexuals, with some men having their foreskin removed and others remaining intact. Preliminary results so overwhelmingly favored circumcision that US health authorities overseeing the project said they were ethically obligated to stop the trials and offer circumcision to all the men.

The trial in Kenya, involving nearly 2,800 participants, found that the circumcised men were 53 percent less likely to contract HIV. The Ugandan study, with nearly 5,000 men, showed a 48 percent reduction.
The research results emerge a year after a South African study reached a similar conclusion. Africa shoulders 63 percent of the global burden of HIV, with 25 million adults and children infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

SNIP

For more than a decade, African physicians had observed that circumcised men seemed less susceptible to HIV. There are biological explanations for that: The skin of the penis of circumcised men is thicker and less prone to penetration by HIV. Conversely, cells in the foreskin of uncircumcised men are especially welcoming to the virus.

SNIP

Failure to cite relevant sources is duly noted.

Edit: Your husband's vote doesn't count. It's up to your son. It's his body, after all.

2nd edit: Is your son being raised in current American hygiene practices? Then this is a moot issue.

Unfortunately, the link mentions absolutely nothing about condom usage, which sadly negates your entire argument.

Thanks for playing.

Edited for spelling.

Do you honestly think that these HIV experts aren't as capable as you of interpreting the data from these studies and determining that circumcisions reduces HIV transmission whether or not condoms are used? Do you think they just haven't heard of condoms? Well, no, they urged all study subjects to use condoms throughout the study (read the last sentence).

http://www.healthnews-stat.com/?id=257&keys=HIV-circumcision-NIH

"Many studies have suggested that male circumcision plays a role in protecting against HIV acquisition," notes NIAID Director Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. "We now have confirmation -- from large, carefully controlled, randomized clinical trials -- showing definitively that medically performed circumcision can significantly lower the risk of adult males contracting HIV through heterosexual intercourse. While the initial benefit will be fewer HIV infections in men, ultimately adult male circumcision could lead to fewer infections in women in those areas of the world where HIV is spread primarily through heterosexual intercourse."

SNIP

The co-principal investigators of the Kenyan trial are Robert Bailey, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and Stephen Moses, M.D., M.P.H., University of Manitoba, Canada. In addition to NIAID support, the Kenyan trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and included Kenyan researchers Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola, M.B.Ch.B., and Kawango Agot, Ph.D., M.P.H. The Ugandan trial is led by Ronald Gray, M.B.B.S., M.Sc., of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. Additional collaborators in the Ugandan trial were David Serwadda, M.Med., M.Sc., M.P.H., Nelson Sewankambo, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med.M.Sc., Stephen Watya, M.B.Ch.B., M.Med., and Godfrey Kigozi, M.B.Ch.B., M.P.H.

Both trials involved adult, HIV-negative heterosexual male volunteers assigned at random to either intervention (circumcision performed by trained medical professionals in a clinic setting) or no intervention (no circumcision). All participants were extensively counseled in HIV prevention and risk reduction techniques.

It's really too bad that you need to challenge my abilty to interpret the given data. You know absolutely nothing about me, which gives you absolutely no right or reason to question my interpretations.

My son could get drafted, the same as some of his relatives. War isn't the best place for maintaining hygiene. It was in World War II that doctors first noticed that recruits without circumcisions were much more likely to get infections, and that's when infant circumcision here started to become common practice. Yes, you could wait till a man was an adult with an infection before advising circumcision; but it is a much more serious procedure to have one as an adult. My father had had more than one friend who needed the operation as an adult, so he was also adamantly in favor of infant circumcision.

And yes, we know people in a very isolated, rural part of the country -- yes, right in the U.S.A. -- who don't have hot running water or electricity. Visiting them is like camping.

I don't know if he had any infections. It was not my business. I thought it was a little strange to have it done as an adult. I was under the impression that I was done to a boy as an infant.

Um, I don't think there's been a draft in the US for quite some time now (I registered with Selective Services in 1982, as required by law, but there was no draft in place at the time), unless you're one of them furriners...

What still mystifies me is why some folks (and I'm sorry, but it's usually women) can't wait to start snipping some little boy parts.

I understand why some families want baby to look just like daddy. I don't buy it, but I understand it. Are daddies too uncomfortable to explain hygiene to babies who pee-pees are different than their own? I honestly don't ever recall receiving instruction from my parents about penile-specific cleanliness - when I was a toddler, it was my mother who gave me baths, and when I was a bit older, I took a few showers with my dad. After that, I was on my own. All I remember from those days was that dad had pubic hair, and I didn't, even thought I was circumcised, and he wasn't.

I think the real issue about hygiene is teaching boys where and where not to put their penises, but we Americans are so ashamed about sex that we can't even talk about it rationally with our sons and daughters. Fortunately, I wasn't raised in one of those familes.

And if you are concerned about your relatives who live in rural areas without running hot water, you may find it interesting that both of my parents grew up on farms in the rural midwest in the 40s. Neither of them had anything but a hand pump in the kitchen and an outhouse in the backyard, and none of them seem to have had any problems with proper hygiene. I visited both of their homesteads as a child, and my sister and I learned the basics of a sponge bath - first, you wash up as far a possible, then you wash down as far as possible, and then you wash "possible". Are you trying to tell me that your family is a bunch of hicks who don't understand the principles of basic hygiene? Nope, I didn't think so.

I totally agree with you that war zones are not the best places to be worrying about hygiene, but I'm guessing that our boys and girls in Iraq are more interested in staying alive, than proper hygienic practices...

:wtf:
seriously.
w.t.f.

Still trying to square that in my mind...

I've been thinking and I posted too soon. After some rethinking I of course understand why Grandma wanted the little guy circumcised... I don't agree w/ circ for any infant, personally, but I see her POV. Luckily I have no traditions to uphold...

One daughter circumcized her son. The other did not. Nobody in our family is Jewish so the decision to cricumcize or not really was made on their research on health issues, and the research is not all pro or all con. I took a parenting class at Kaiser because I was going to be the caregiver for one of the boys. Kaiser was definitely pushing not circumcizing at that time (2002).

had any type of infection, urinary or otherwise. I suppose if your going to raise your son to be dirty and irresponsible, then feel free to cut up his dick.

As to religious reasons for circumcision...what can I really say. I mean, I've already made my list of 631 reasons religion is incredibly fucking stupid. Circumcision for traditions sake made it to number 236.

You better also raise a son who never gets drafted. War tends to interfere with good hygiene practices. Among other good things.

They'll need antibiotic gobstoppers inserted just in case, y'know, they find themselves serving in wartime in the midst of their enlistment.

And coupled with a cultural/religious imperative, it's unstoppable. For a better tomorrow.

(charlie mounts a wind-swept promontory, strikes a bold pose, faces future heroically)

But I think that maybe we should remove their lungs when they are babies just in case. That way, NOBODY will get cancer. Your absolutely brilliant, my dear lady. I had never thought of that before!

And drafted...why, we could avoid that to. Lets just cut off the trigger finger of every baby! Without a trigger finger, you can't shoot a gun and your no good in a war, right? And you can still sort of grab things with the rest of the fingers, anyways. Plus, its one more finger in which you can't get cancer.

DU is a great think tank...man, we should rule the world, pnwmom. Me and you...think off all the great body parts we can cut off together.

On edit: I just realized how stupid I am! Babies need lungs to breathe...we can't just cut them out! HAHAHA. But...hear me out. What if we just remove their lips?...its probably hard holding on to smokes in your mouth without lips. Besides, who really needs lips anyways. Just useless folds of skin, as far as I'm concerned.

Because the wives died from the second-hand smoke. Their wives got the cancer.

To transfer to the smoker's brouhaha press 1.
For the SUV donnybrook, press 2.
For the DLC imbroglio, press 3.
If you're not sure, stay on the line and an associate will be by to insult you shortly. Thank you :)

Maybe in A/A would be safer. I'm sure we could finalize the list there.

Twenty years ago, when my son had his, it was harder to find a doctor who used local anesthesia, but we found one. Now, it's easy. Most doctors here use a local.

...let his mother get into their immediate family business? His wife is not Jewish, she was uncomfortable with the procedure and she did not want it done to her son (who is not even Jewish and does not require the brit milah). The mother didn't even want the brit milah (which is the actual tradition) she wanted a circumcision.

What a pussy! The decision should be up to the two of them as the parents and his mother should have been told to fuck off.

By the way, the procedure does not require pain so a local anesthetic can be applied. Treating it is pretty simple and healing is fast if you keep it clean and apply some vasiline so it does not stick to the diaper. It took less than a week for my son's to completely heal.

I'm sure many people here (who are not Jewish and live in the US) had their son circumcised at the hospital before going home and had to treat it and know what I am talking about.

comparing wienies is hard enough. I think there is enough evidence on both sides that either choice is okay. So I go with what Daddy has.

but in my case, baby didn't look like daddy - I'm snipped, and he's not. Whaddup widdat?

Or is he old enough to have noticed? My husband was not, so son was not. My son-in-law was (or so I'm told) so his first child was.

However, I will say that a good friend had to go to Mayo and have the thing redone and it wasn't any fun for anyone. The original was done during a religious ceremony.