Actor Russell Crowe rants against circumcision on Twitter

Australian actor Russell Crowe of Gladiator fame went off against circumcision on his Twitter account Thursday, calling it "barbaric and stupid".

A Crowe follower told the Australian celebrity that he was expecting a son soon, and asked for his input on whether he should have his baby circumcised.

Crowe responded harshly, saying that "circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature? Is it real that GOD requires a donation of foreskin?"

The actor added that "babies are perfect" when they are born. Crowe later said that he "will always stand for the perfection of babies, I will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires."

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/actor-russell-crowe-rants-against-circumcision-on-twitter-1.366975

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:bounce::popcorn::bounce:

:popcorn:

And to anticipate the inevitable divide-and-conquer critique: of course it's not as bad as what's done to girls in many parts of the world, and all forms of such involuntary surgery should be banned for children. Adults who want to perform it without coercion may snip whatever they like.

Why the hell would any one ask an actor’s option on such a personal matter? Lol


Macoy

there is no need for circumcision...

teach their boys how to bathe properly, which I guess seems to be a lot of parents who don't want to do that part of their parenting responsibilities.

not a big learning curve...

the idea that there is some significant additional level of maintenance required is wrong IMHO. If a kid's not being bathed or bathing themselves regularly, they're going to have a bunch of issues; not just with a foreskin.

Why is that? Never been able to figure that out.

Is that because circumcised men (and their wives) with poor personal hygiene think EVERYONE has poor personal hygiene? ???

I think once people (and esp. new parents of baby boys) move beyond 'it's what we're supposed to do' and 'it's what "God" wants us to do' and 'I had it done, so...' and really think about having their newborn cut for vague, spurious or nonexistent reasons, people not inclined to side with their heart and/or gut against convention will usually experience some cognitive distress.

But plenty of cultures do it. You could make that same argument about a myriad of practices.

as a child getting circumcized. I wouldn't make that comparison with genitalia.

Since I don't have pierced ears. But I am circumcised, though I can't comment on the pain from that either as i was a tiny baby when it happened. I'm sure it did hurt, but I managed to get over it.

On edit: Why would the fact that ears are visible be relevant?

which have been pierced for hundreds if not thousands of years. Also, I have had my ears pierced and I can tell ya, it did not hurt at all. People are not cosmetically having their geniatlia circumcized for the purposes of vanity or for the public to see.

Circumcision is mainly an outdated cultural thing that probably had a purpose a long long time ago... today it is not a necessity, so in that respect, they could be comparible I suppose.

Oh, and I agree that piercing ears is not important either. The ear I pierced is all closed up now.

But I'm not going to tell an observant Muslim that he should eat a sausage hoagie because I have deemed his religious practice no longer necessary. I'll just eat it myself and refrain from telling him how he should practice his religion.

need to do as I say...

not eating a particular food to me is very different from circumcision, but whatever...

Hence this can be seen as a religious issue.

no....

..and Catholics too

Do you believe that there should be laws banning circumcision? If not, then I'm barking up the wrong tree. If so, I think that brings up thorny religious issues. If you're just saying 'I don't like circumcision,' then it's just an opinion and everyone is entitled to those, of course.

I wouldn't have my son circumcised but I believe that should be up to the parents and/or child when they are old enough. I do not believe in meddling or legislating what religions can and can't do. I was just stating an opinion which could rub someone the wrong way but never would I force a religion to ban it.

Many people who are Jews choose to circumcise their children. A very large proportion, still.

Many people who are Jews, a growing minority, do not circumcise their children.

No one is forced to do it by virtue of religion or identity.

Ear piercing does not affect functioning of the ear or your hearing.

Other than there being absolutely no basis whatsoever for considering ear-piercing of children as a moral or physical equivalent to the amputation of an extremely sensitive nerve-rich body part that can never again be replaced, it's a great comparison!

I would welcome the replacement of circumcision by ear-piercing. That would be wonderful news for boys in the future.

It feels like they do.

Point being: In no way can ear-piercing be compared to foreskin removal.

I'm simply agreeing with the suggestion that neither is justified in infants.

pierced. You always have the choice when you grow up of not wearing earrings and letting the holes grow back together closing them up. I don't think boys have the same choice about their foreskins although I did read about a surgery practiced in the ancient world in Palestine where a foreskin of some sort was sewn onto circumcised boys. It was the practice in the Greco-Roman world to exercise naked in the gymnasia. Jewish boys stood out. So often they had the surgery so they could also exercise unnoticed alongside their uncircumcised peers.

I know in this day and age school-age girls like to get their ears pierced, and that is fine - if it something they ask their mom and dad to do.

I'm not big on people who get their baby's ears pierced. What if the child doesn't want pierced ears? I think voluntary body modification should always be a choice of the person who's body is being modified.

they did in the country I was born in. I never had a problem with it and loved shopping for new earrings with my mom even when I was a toddler. However, the principal of one of my schools told my mother the earrings were barbaric and that I was not to wear them in school. So how does being denied choice to wear earrings fit into your freedom of choice scenario?

My ears were pierced as a baby because that's what they did in the country I was born in. I never had a problem with it and loved shopping for new earrings with my mom even when I was a toddler. However, the principal of one of my schools told my mother the earrings were barbaric and that I was not to wear them in school. So how does being denied choice to wear earrings fit into your freedom of choice scenario?

I think you are talking about two different issues.

I don't think you should perform body modifications, especially permanent body modifications, on people who cannot give consent. At least with ear piercing if the child grows up and decides not to wear pierced earrings then the ear holes will usually close up.

As for school dress codes, I figure if you don't like them you can try and change the system, or if you feel strongly enough you can always find another school or home school.

I mean, I remember not to long ago hearing about some school that banned little multi-colored plastic bracelets because they were being used by the kids as code for the kind of sexual acts they had done or were willing to do or somesuch. Seems kind of stupid to ban colored bracelets but what can you do?

wore little lockets and bracelets. I believe since I was the only Latina kid in the school, it was a direct affront to the culture. If I had chosen after all not to wear earrings, my mother wouldn't have made me do so. So I did have a choice. Also, ear piercing is not permanent. If you don't wear earrings, the holes close. There is a tiny pin prick scar left, hardly worthy of having the vapors over.

my grandmother put in a pair given to her by her great grandchildren. I haven't worn earrings in 24 years, yet last year I checked to see if the holes are still open--and they are. I know several women middle-aged and older (I am 60) who don't bother with earrings, but whose ear piercings are still perfectly functional when they try them out again after many years--or even decades--of not wearing earrings.

A pierced tongue will normally close up I believe (my son's did fairly quickly), and perhaps even pierced noses normally do (my friend's did). But a pierced earlobe doesn't--at least not the ones I have known of firsthand. I suspect the parts that close up do so because they are richly supplied with blood vessels.

earrings in years, had to have them pierced again when they wanted to wear earrings again. Even so, did it really make a difference in your life having tiny holes in your ear? It's hardly the same as circumcision.

Which a lot of us want to do, and which male circumcision does.

I've not seen the data, but my guess is that using a condom like you should be doing dwarfs any protection you get from circumcision.

So there were are, I guess.

If you choose to have unprotected sex and come up snake-eyes, I guess that's just tough luck, then.

Where we have access to the tools we need to learn about and prevent STD infection. But it's not always like that in other parts of the world, especially those with high HIV infection rates. Not saying all those people are totally clueless about sexual health, but it is a different environment there.

But yeah, I agree with you when it comes to Westerners. We all know the risks and if you choose to ignore them, you may face serious consequences.

where they don't know about STD prevention and don't have access to condoms, tell me how they are going to know enough about sterilization techniques to make circumcision safe?

Just as is immunization of children.

I don't have much sympathy for people who contract STDs through unprotected sex.

Yes, I am aware that some people contract HIV through non-sexual and non-drug-related means. Those people have my sympathy.

society in general, not just the person with the std.

I agree with you that the bad choices these individuals make is bad for society in general.

I am still not very sympathetic to people in first-world countries who contract STDs through unprotected sex or drug use.

Male circumcision decreases the chances of that.

My understanding is that circumcision provides some measure of protection against STDs to the male, but does nothing to protect females.

If you are talking about male victims of rape, than that is something else altogether. I'm sure circumcised victims of rape will be glad that they are at a somewhat lower risk of contracting an STD from their rape.

Blaming the victims of HIV sounds... not exactly compassionate.

Even condoms aren't perfect.

I don't reserve my sympathy for only those who do everything right.

Neither do I. But I usually do withhold it from Darwin-award recipients and runners-up.

Blaming the victims of HIV sounds... not exactly compassionate.

I'm very compassionate and hold blameless victims of HIV. But when you do it to yourself you aren't a victim, in my opinion.

Even condoms aren't perfect.

People who contract HIV or other STDs in spite of using a condom have my complete sympathy.

Especially teenagers.

Rarely warrants a death sentence, IMO.

I would imagine if there were numbers for every person who ever got drunk or stoned or horny and did something they look back on as sexually-stupid, it would include a relatively large number of people I can only imagine. I don't have a hard time feeling sorry for them. Regular people make mistakes. If you can't have sympathy for regular people...

Just an example, but I'm a pretty smart guy, and I had unprotected sex during a monogamous relationship with my girlfriend(ex now) of 3 years when I was younger. I took her at our word that neither one of us had any serious sexual experience previously. So if I were to find out I had aids, would I fall in the "brought it on himself" category, or the "deserving of sympathy" category? Maybe it's not quite so black-and-white?

HIV is a deadly disease. People who have it are victims.

(I tried to find an interesting reference from the social sciences that states that people often make irrational decisions, but I can't remember enough to google it. :( So just pretend I had some really deep quote/citation about it here. I'll just make up my own example: Bush Jr. got 8 years in office :))

Another point:

From a strictly selfish perspective, it is in our best interest that less people have HIV, as that lessens our chances of contracting it, either due to accident or negligence.

-Andy

Especially teenagers.

Rarely warrants a death sentence, IMO.

Ever hear of the Darwin Awards?

I would imagine if there were numbers for every person who ever got drunk or stoned or horny and did something they look back on as sexually-stupid, it would include a relatively large number of people I can only imagine. I don't have a hard time feeling sorry for them. Regular people make mistakes. If you can't have sympathy for regular people...

Just an example, but I'm a pretty smart guy, and I had unprotected sex during a monogamous relationship with my girlfriend(ex now) of 3 years when I was younger. I took her at our word that neither one of us had any serious sexual experience previously. So if I were to find out I had aids, would I fall in the "brought it on himself" category, or the "deserving of sympathy" category? Maybe it's not quite so black-and-white?

I'm also a pretty smart guy, and I never once had unprotected sex before marriage. I knew from about 10 years old, or maybe earlier, that there were disastrous consequences from unprotected sex. If I knew this, coming up through public schools, then I'd expect pretty much everyone else to know this also. People who choose to roll the dice in the face of that knowledge...well, them's the breaks, I guess.

HIV is a deadly disease. People who have it are victims.

To me, a victim is someone who has something happen to them through no fault of their own. If you contract HIV through unprotected sex, you can hardly claim it is not your fault. Thus you are not a victim, in my view.

From a strictly selfish perspective, it is in our best interest that less people have HIV, as that lessens our chances of contracting it, either due to accident or negligence.

Absolutely.

Ever hear of the Darwin Awards?

Yes I have. I was not aware there was any connotation of the Darwin awards that implied the people involved deserved death, only that through their own stupidity, they were involved in causing it. Big difference between cause and deserve, IMO.

Also, Darwin's theory is (supposed to at least) refer to survival in the natural world, and should not really have any bearing on what is supposedly an advanced civilized society. We don't allow large people to beat up small people and steal their possessions, just because they can. We would not call that justified, deserved, etc. But that is law of the land under Darwin, when applied to the natural world. Hell, they eat each other. Nothing I would base my morality on.

I'm also a pretty smart guy, and I never once had unprotected sex before marriage. I knew from about 10 years old, or maybe earlier, that there were disastrous consequences from unprotected sex. If I knew this, coming up through public schools, then I'd expect pretty much everyone else to know this also. People who choose to roll the dice in the face of that knowledge...well, them's the breaks, I guess.

I can tell you are a smart guy, this has been an interesting exchange to me, hope the feeling is mutual.

Is marriage the standard? If I married her, I would be deserving of sympathy but I didn't so I brought it on myself? I've never been married, is an STD test standard practice in marriage these days? I don't know, maybe for you it is, and that's probably not a bad idea, honestly.

I have certain problems with the institution of marriage, which to me means dragging the church and the government in to your personal life, and I'm not real huge on either. I could see myself living a lifelong monogamous relationship with the right woman, but have strong reservations about marriage.

To me, a victim is someone who has something happen to them through no fault of their own. If you contract HIV through unprotected sex, you can hardly claim it is not your fault. Thus you are not a victim, in my view.

Again, I think this is the difference between cause and deserve. There are millions of Africans causing themselves to be HIV positive. Do I believe they deserve it? Hell no. There are people who commit suicide... Do they deserve death? or have they merely caused it? I have compassion for such people.

---snip---
Absolutely.

Cool, we agree on something. :) Maybe more than we might think.

-Andy

Yes I have. I was not aware there was any connotation of the Darwin awards that implied the people involved deserved death, only that through their own stupidity, they were involved in causing it. Big difference between cause and deserve, IMO.

To be clear here, I don't think anyone deserves to contract an STD, nor do people who earn Darwin Awards deserve to die. This is about my emotion of sympathy for such people, not whether or not they deserved to die or not.

Also, Darwin's theory is (supposed to at least) refer to survival in the natural world, and should not really have any bearing on what is supposedly an advanced civilized society. We don't allow large people to beat up small people and steal their possessions, just because they can. We would not call that justified, deserved, etc. But that is law of the land under Darwin, when applied to the natural world. Hell, they eat each other. Nothing I would base my morality on.

I agree. However, I did not name the Darwin Awards.

Again, I think this is the difference between cause and deserve. There are millions of Africans causing themselves to be HIV positive. Do I believe they deserve it? Hell no. There are people who commit suicide... Do they deserve death? or have they merely caused it? I have compassion for such people.

Again, to be clear, I don't think they deserve their fate, but it's hard for me to feel sorry for people who know the risks, choose to play the odds, and then lose.

A good friend of mine had a son who overdosed on morphine. Went to a friend's house on his 18th birthday where someone lived dying of cancer. Thought it would be cool to try the patient's morphine. Went to sleep and never woke up. Went to the ER where is mom was on duty in the ER. I have a lot of sympathy for his parents, and I have a profound sense of ... disappointment ... in the potential that was thrown away. But I can't say that I actually feel sympathy for the boy who died. Strangely the first emotion I have to hearing of such things is anger.

Your logic is kind of silly.

And consequently I'm even more sympathetic to people who acquire diseases through truly no fault of their own, like through blood transfusions.

but that's not what it's about.

The 2005 study in South Africa that already prompted all the publicity (including from Clinton) was a transparent sham.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5332212&mesg_id=5336085

Recent thread in which the latest claims about circumcision and AIDs are debated. It's clear that the independent variable is condom use, not circumcision, and that the lie about circumcision may in fact encourage men to circumcise and then think they're protected, thus stop using condoms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1230622

For centuries the practice has been justified in terms of false health claims, always tailored to each era's different fears of disease.

If parents just did their jobs and taught their children to wash the foreskin every day, you'd take care of most all the problems mentioned by proponents of this practice.

but not so much hotel clerks.

Jews and their "funny little hats"?


blech

Think about it - "we are going to cut off part of your penis"

And I still think that FGM is horrible and circumcision is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labiaplasty

and yes I know women who have "elected" to under go this surgery.

The term FGM has been distorted greatly for political gain by some and to save lives by others. To suggest any surgery involving the female genitalia is mutilation is a lie to say the least

Not saying I condone this procedure - just saying .....

...sex unpleasurable. Elective plastic surgery on the lady bits specifically attempts to AVOID such nerve damage, while FGM is specifically meant to make the act of sex painful and thus something to avoid except to bare children. FGM is all about oppressing women. With circumcision, at least from the Jewish perspective, no such thing is meant. Rather, it's meant to give of one's male-self (is there a physiological female equivalent in Jewish tradition?) a part to God much like with Catholics receiving the body and blood of Christ. I don't know if lessening the sensitivity of the genitals was ever meant to be an intentional part in the Jewish tradition (do other religions have this practice?) but with FGM it most certainly is. People screaming about the ban on religious grounds need to stop approaching the issue from that angle and start arguing from a medical perspective. Demonstrate the medical necessity to do this to infants. Better yet and easier to settle the matter, let the decision to get circumcised be a voluntary personal choice later in life as a rite-of-passage declaring one's devotion to God. It shouldn't be some... er, trying not to be offensive but probably failing... terribly unsettling screaming bloody baby spectacle because while "screaming baby" triggers annoyance, "screaming bloody baby" triggers a deep-rooted natural survival instinct in Humans that says, "ONE OF OUR YOUNG IS DAMAGED FIX IT FIX IT FIX IT BEFORE THE SCENT OF BLOOD ATTRACTS A PREDATOR." It's very much instinctual to be upset by the sight of a bleeding child, so being appalled by this practice doesn't originate in hate, it originates from a time when we most certainly were NOT at the top of the food chain and survival was less a matter of being able to pay your bills and more a matter of not getting eaten by a large predator. Not so much an issue now on most parts of the planet, but that's where it comes from. And yes, there are anti-Semites who blah blah blah fuck them who cares what they have to say? Seriously, their opinions on the matter are irrelevant, ignore them. Regardless of all this and back to the matter of choice, an infant can't declare herself to God, an older child might and an adult certainly can. While FGM is certainly far more egregious than religious wiener sniping (sorry, had to) they both still fall on the "This is wrong to force on someone against their will" spectrum.



Not arguing against you FDJ, just weighing in on your point. I get the different sides of the debate, have my own opinions obviously, was sniped soon after birth by a doctor (not on religious grounds and the medical debate remains unsettled, but either way still against my will), but mostly just glad it's not something that affects me much. Well, other than a bit of sensitivity loss...

Male circumcision may be pointless (no pun intended), but it really doesn't do any damage. Female "circumcision" is a euphemism for a horrific, unsanitary and debilitating practice.

You're right, it's not the same: It's less damaging than the common forms of female genital mutilation, which are particularly horrible.

But here's another difference, in the United States:

Almost everyone condemns female genital mutilation, which is perpetrated only in very few cases in the US. But many people condone male genital mutilation, which is perpetrated on the majority of males in the US. Not only that, people seek to trivialize the practice by saying it's not as bad as the (most common) forms of female genital mutilation, as though being against a greater evil means you should not care about a different kind of evil.

We win nothing by divide-and-conquer.

All forms of genital mutilation of children should be banned. Adults can make such decisions on their own.

...it's just that there are so many more urgent matters in the world, like the horror of FGM, for example.

B-)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

AFAIC that's enough to justify it for me.

It also has the benefit of not requiring genital surgery without the consent of the person said genitals are attached to.

I honestly can't believe people defend the practice, just on the consent issue alone.

I don't see any reason to hack off part of a man's genitals.

By that logic you shouldn't hand out condoms, either.

If you actually want to argue a case, you should stay away from absurdities that discredit possibly sounder points you may have to make.

If baby boys come that way, I'm inclined to side with nature and evolution. I don't give a shit what The Bible sez.

like the way a cut gentleman looks much better than an uncut man. Don't know how other ladies feel. To paraphrase Megan Fox's character in the Diablo Cody film Jennifer's Body, uncut looks like a sea cucumber.

the fact that you personally prefer circumcised men should have any bearing on anything here.

Other people will feel differently. But the reduction in STD risk is well-known. OF course, condoms do work even better (and abstinence as Bush would say), but as other posters have noted, there are many societies that resist condom use (sad but true).

As Warren pointed out upthread, for most people, cutting STD transmission seems to be a rationalization for a pre-existing condition/bias. Have a nice weekend. :)

sea cucumber .... :rofl:

I am FOR circumcision and this subject is just another race baiting subject just as
always.

Why are people so gullible.

I am circumcised. My father is also. Myself, I saw no reason to do it to our son. As far as I am concerned it is a completely unnecessary procedure, done mostly as a result of religious practices and habit.

Yes, you have to work harder to keep your penis clean. No big deal. Yes, there is some benefit to contracting STDs, but my guess is that this benefit is dwarfed by the benefit of wearing a condom.

But most of all, there is nothing stopping any man from getting his penis circumcised any time he wants to. If my son decides at some point in life that he wants to be circumcised, he will be free to do that by making his own choice.

Maybe the real issue isn't circumcision; it's risky sexual behavior.

nt

That ultimately, transmission of STD's hinges on what level of responsibility is involved.

See - "Abstinence Education" to be enlightened on the reality of relying on voluntary prevention of risky sexual behavior to prevent stds and unwanted pregnancies in a population.

Anyone's opinion, actor or otherwise, should be judged on the merits of the opinion, not by the person or their profession.

If so, then yes I value his opinion about anything. Expecially if he phrases it as a rant.

So, no circumcision for baby Crowe.

:hi:

and DU rallies 'round him?

I wonder if Gawd made flipper babies "perfect."

Subtle difference, but still the same topic. ;)

Babies are perfect? So they shouldn't repair a heart defect? Come on....

Good for Russell.

You should have a doctor do that stuff. Or a mohel.

mikey_the_rat

He's better when he reads other people's words though.

Or he would know that babies aren't perfect.

Circumcision is not a straight up right or wrong issue. There are sound medical reasons for doing it
but it is not required - lots of men do fine without being circumcised. However if it is going to be done there is little doubt that it is better done at birth and obviously the child will have no say in the matter at that age. So it is reasonable that parents and medical staff make the decision.

In Europe, Australia and Canada, circumcision rates are way lower than in the US. It's viewed as much more 'unnecessary' than it is in the US. For many of us non-Americans, that view (why cut off part of a perfectly good penis?) is pretty normal. :shrug:

This whole "God makes everyone perfect" thing just seems kind of silly.

I realize it's not a perfect comparison to circumcision, but what about the fact that God "naturally" made me with crooked teeth and too many teeth for my mouth?

Should I hold a grudge against my parents for making me get teeth pulled and making me wear braces from age 13-16? Like some of the anti-circ posters on here claim regarding that practice, were my parents taking away my freedom and "choice" by not waiting until I was eighteen to *choose* whether or not I wanted to deal with my teeth overcrowding problems and choose whether or not to get braces?

I mean, I could've tried to run away from home or something... And I could complain to them incessantly about denying me my "freedom of choice" (which I did) but, basically, when my parents decided it was essential for me to have braces, I was going to have to have them.

oh, but babies don't feel pain! phfffft

circumcised, both had problems. The first was the boy next door, when I was growing up. He had to have a circumcision when he was 12, it was talked about the reason why, except that it was doctor ordered.

The second guy was a 21 year old from The Netherlands. He was still a virgin because his foreskin was not elastic enough for him to have sex. His foreskin could not be contracted when erect, and because he was in the US, he did not have the money for the operation to correct the problem.

So, for me, when my son was going under anesthesia anyway for a hernia, I chose to have him circumcised.

zalinda

You heard about two guys who were uncircumcised because they had problems with their foreskins.

These are surely not the only two guys you know who are uncircumcised.

They merely are the only two whom you knew to be uncircumcised, for obvious reasons.

Go to a nudist colony or Europe. In the latter, you will have a chance to meet millions of men who are uncircumcised, have no problems as a result, and are happy with it.

By the way, do you know anyone who ever had cancer? Why didn't they remove the organ that got cancer before it happened?

who have breast cancer running in their family that do opt to have their breasts removed BEFORE they get cancer. There also have been many people who have had a genetic disease run in their family, and have chosen NOT to have their own biological children because of it.

I actually don't care whether men are circumcised or not. I chose to do my son because he had already had a lot of physical problems, and I wanted to prevent one more, if I could.

And as far as a foreskin is concerned, it was probably very necessary when we wore few clothes, and the skin covering provided a protection. But just as the appendix has lost it's usefulness, the foreskin probably has gone the same way.

zalinda

As for the foreskin, it is full of nerve endings and absolutely is "useful." It's just that certain ideologies consider feeling the full pleasure of the body nature gave you to be a dirty and shameful thing, and that certain superstitions play on our fears in the name of "medicine" or "hygiene."

This was a little TMI, but she wanted my husband to know why they decided to go with the knife in his case as it was not a family tradition.

talked about the problems. One in particular was really disgusting, involving a "splitting" of the skin on an almost regular basis. The pain and meds really weren't worth it to him. I'll leave it at that.

Three "who admitted it," eh? What's to "admit"? Because it's so embarrassing?

You can go to Europe or Asia and meet a few billion people who "admit it" and are quite happy with having their nerve endings intact and unamputated, most of whom never develop problems as a result.

Enough of the anecdotes.

"The only person I ever knew who admitted to having a foreskin died by spontaneous combustion!"

Just that all the issues seem to be with the men who didn't have the surgery.

I mean physical and psychological, as we were discussing below, re:anger.

fortunately, they aren't data. I know many uncut men who have never had a problem at all and a few cut ones who had serious issues stemming from being circ'ed (including one who had a small part of his penis accidentally amputated). Guess what. Doesn't matter. It's ANECDOTAL.

And, yes, we're relating ANECDOTAL stories here. Conversation frequently includes the grave offense of sharing stories. Shocking.

It also seems like many uncircumcised men (and their girlfriends, wives, etc.) get extremely angry over this topic. I think most wish it had been done.

Edit: Cut it down to two billion, to stay on the safe side with my estimate.

About 3.5 billion of earth's human population is male, right?

It's always an angry conversation on their part. Interesting.

How come you acknowledge the anger of those who actually have no reason to complain (since they can still be circumcised) but without acknowledging that those who cannot possibly reverse what was done to them as infants may have a better reason for anger?

As are you.

And within this issue, the angry ones are always the ones who are uncircumcised.

Your experience is different? Hey, great! Diversity rocks.

This is about hundreds of millions of people being deprived of part of their body at a time when they cannot possibly consent, and a system of ideology that trivializes and justifies this barbaric practice. To make it about any one person's "experience" is lazy and self-serving.

You need to realize that the subject of my thread was the psychological angle. Again, it's always the uncircumcised men who are angry when people like me bring up the fact that a) there are health reasons for doing so, and b) there are LOTS of women who find the uncircumcised penis absolutely revolting. THAT'S where the anger comes from, I think. This may be a good topic for a thesis in a psychology course.

might be how this minority of women of whom you speak have been conditioned to prefer the unnatural to the natural. Keeping in mind that they may even be a majority of women in the US, but that US women are 5 percent of women in a world where most men are uncircumcised and most women think nothing of it. It's a fascinating subject! Have at it.

But why is one preference shallow?

A guy wants a girl with big tits. So what?

A girl wants a guy without a turtleneck. So what?

Really.

Psst! Not everything natural is good.

People think what they've grown up thinking of as normal is therefore universal. See similar attitudes to facial hair (in women and men) or armpit or other body hair (in women). Culturally dependent, it is.

Your approach here is transparently juvenile, and it is parallel to men talking about their preference in boobs as bemildred points out, although obviously more socially acceptable. It has no place in this argument except as a point of mockery, however.

Please explain that.

You can call me juvenile if it makes you feel better. Or, hell, call me whatever you want.

There's nothing wrong with personal preferences. No need to get defensive.

The vast majority of us don't actually care. Damn near all of us are fine with it.
No, it's always y'all screaming like a street preacher about how we're mutilated and freakish.

How is your stated happiness with an outcome you personally cannot change an argument in favor of continuing to perform an irreversible, unnecessary and objectively damaging procedure (lost nerve endings are an objective measure) involuntarily (obviously) on newborn infants? I'm all for you being happy with your own no-longer alterable state, the question is why you're happy with continuing to perpetrate this on others?

come on Russell

I wish I'd known. I'd have made a little something.

And if we've fallen behind can we just make 2012 the Year of the Vagina?

I would love to see Time Magazine's Vagina of the Year issue. I know Margaret Cho's vagina would inevitably win, but still...

PB

I wish that prominent people who actually speak their mind on important, yet hot-button issues, would have the cajones to stand by what they say. Of course we live in an age of thought police, so I guess they threatened to ruin his career if he didn't back down.

Free speech? No...believe it or not, somebody is always monitoring you. Always.

Rather scary, actually.