Germany: Parents Cannot Get Boys Circumcised

Good riddance, there is a lot of lamenting about female circumcision (which obviously is much much much worse) but male circumcision has the same root and objectives. It should not be allowed. If you want to mutilate your penis do so when you are old enough to make that decision yourself.

 

On the other side of the coin, there are a group of MP's in Zimbabwe (I think) who have just got circumcised and are trying to convince others to do so as well as it is thought that it may help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS

 

Yeah, that one argument came up too. Preventing STD and such.
People are a funny bunch!

I personally don't care if some religious groups practice this kind of thing.
It just should not be conducted by doctors in secret.
On op of that, Germany has no tradition regarding circumcision, and doesn't need one!

 

My religion does not demand circumcision. I was circumcised for sanitary reasons -- as BTA mentioned, that's why many people in North America did it in the last century. I've heard that there are solid studies that have determined that it cuts down on STI transmission.

I do not believe that the root goal of male circumcision was ever to decrease sexual satisfaction. Lots of people have asserted that in the past, but I certainly don't see any evidence of that being a motive in the Old Testament. Of course, circumcision has been practiced by groups other than the Abrahamic religion, but insofar as the Jews and Muslims are concerned, I am pretty positive it's a sign of devotion to God.

 

Even if it would be "hygienic" which I highly doubt as evolution is fairly good at removing things that are negative for our health while adding things that are good (which I am fairly sure is the case with the foreskin) no one expects infants to engage in unprotected sex so again, let the adult male make that decision himself.

What is a fact is that a tip unprotected by a foreskin is vastly less sensitive than one with. Whether this is a good or a bad thing is up to each, less enjoyment but you will probably last longer which I guess your partner will appreciate. It also makes it much harder to masturbate, while growing up I never understood why there were so many lube jokes and whatnot in American comedies, why would you need lube to spank the monkey? You don't, unless you are circumcised. There are compelling arguments that what started for some reason by the Jews supposedly as some kind of religious devotion thing was hi-jacked by conservative religious fanatics in the US around the turn of the century or so (some recollection of Kolleg launching some major campaign or somesuch) with the claim of it being hygienic but the real reason being to make it harder to masturbate (as it is not allowed according to the bible and why I am sure this was the original reason that got the whole thing started. Probably something that started with some ascetic hermit who wanted to focus solely on god and couldn't cause he kept touching himself this last bit is my own private idea and patent is pending).

 

AFAIK only female circumcision (not the barbaric kind) provides -some- protection against STDs (statistics-wise, iirc) but only in countries where STDs are rampant in the first place.

In a country like Germany I doubt any kind of circumcision has any value besides religious/cultural/aesthetic ones.

 

This case is interesting. Legally, even a hair cut that hasn't been consented to is bodily harm. From that perspective the ruling is straightforward. It is also logical since in the west we usually don't accept circumcision for females - now why is it ok for boys but abhorrent for girls? The case also nicely illustrates the potential health risks involved in the procedure.

The very obvious possibility is that the court didn't fully take into account the basic right of religious freedom. The case can and will be made that they didn't. The case is also interesting in light of the limits it puts on parent's rights to make decisions for their children. I need to read the ruling before I write more.

It also probably isn't over yet. It was a verdict by the Landgericht. It is reasonably certain that it will be appealed in a higher court and that it will end up in the constitutional court if the higher court upholds the ruling.

 

If circumcision is the normal I think it is hard to accept that it would not be something positive. Most people do not want to think that their parents hurt them when they were infants or even that they themselves have hurt their male children. Norms are really hard to change, we are appalled that "less developed" parts of the world have what we see as barbaric traditions but it is the norm there and it is very hard to change. We find ripping out the clitoris to be not nice while it is perfectly normal in some parts of the world and people do not see it is as such a bid deal.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...mcision-social-sexual-psychological-realities

 

I think it's a very brave decision, especially in the light of Germany's history with the Jews.

The right to religious freedom should not cover circumcision. Arguing for the right of parents to mutilate their children is akin to arguing for the right of Muslim terrorists to blow up buildings. Both the parents and the terrorists are practicing their respective religion. If the child wants a circumcision, he should be able to get one after he reaches the age of majority.

As for the "I'm OK with my circumcision" objection, check out this video of women who grew up in a culture where FGM is prevalent:



Do they sound somehow familiar?

 

Good points, Joa.

What feminist women rights enthusiasts almost always overlook when they justifiably decry the barbaric practice of female circumcision in countries like Egypt is that this is not a matter of male dominance that imposes this on Woman. It wouldn't be as persistent a practice if the women (mothers, grandmothers) weren't in on it. To see it any other way means having serious delusions about the socio-cultural 'norm', as you call it, in Egypt.

They do it because they have always done it. Habits, retroactively justified by religion, are hard to break. Iirc the practise of female circumcision pre-dates Islam.

But anyway, the point remains - why is it abhorrent when done to woman while it is considered ok for men? I find it hard to justify the outrage over one but not the other. Why the double standard? There is no rational justification for that. Circumcision on males of females has about the same effects. One feels tempted to add that, unlike their critics, the Egyptians at least are consistent in that they circumcise both men and woman alike.

Those men who are circumcised will probably remark that the practice in no way impacts their 'performance' but as to the loss of sensitive tissue, it is impossible for them to tell because they haven't known it any other way. How can a blind man know what seeing is like? Probably, Egyptian woman who don't object to the practice similarly rationalise the consequences of female circumcision. Female circumcision of course is asserted to prevent sl*ttiness, and it is not a coincidence that circumcision was popularised in the US for instance, in order to prevent boys from masturbating. Of course, reducing sensitivity was the very point of the exercise.

IMO circumcision, male of female, is as silly a practice as getting a piercing, boob implants, docking a dog's ears and tail, or filing one's teeth sharp.

---------- Added 0 hours, 14 minutes and 20 seconds later... ----------

Preposterous, especially that bit that Islamist terrorists are practising their religion, Islam, when they commit acts of violence. Your also adding insult to idiocy since that implies that violence is part of the exercise of Islam.

The problem is that our view of circumcision as bodily harm is something very recent and modern that has developed in, say, the last 30 years, and it is challenging practices that have been in use for about four millennia in Judaism and were later adopted in Islam.

Anyone who expects the billion Muslims or so to change their minds over that over night, because of our well founded, differing views, is a deluded fool, who, like the egregious Tom Friedman, believes that 'the earth is flat' and that everybody basically is or wants to be like us awesome westerners.

Tell that the Afghans, where, as a result of a millennium of segregation of women in order to control a clan's bloodline, pederasty is a common phenomenon. "A women for children, a boy for love and a goat for a change" iirc is an Afghan proverb. Probably we just need to tell the Afghans that pederasty is bad and abhorrent and they will see the light and change their ways.

 

But wouldn't the reverse also be true? How can someone who isn't circumcised know to what affect the performance is affected of someone who is circumcised? Again, you either are or you aren't, and so naturally you are only going to have the experience one way or the other. What if the difference is so marginal that it makes no meaningful difference? Sure, guys that are circumcised may not know what it's like to experience sex uncircumcised, but that is equally true when applied in reverse.

That said, I do agree that the most sensible approach would be to not do it, at least until you're older, as the supposed benefits - lesser transmission of STDs - are of no concern to infants.

 

Aldeth,
of course, but, so what? The loss of nerve saturated tissue is something that has an impact. There is a reason why folks like Kellogg saw in that a way to keep boys from masturbating. Killjoy spoilsports that they were, they were trying to take the fun out of it.

 

WTF ... when circumcised the most sensitive part is exposed. The shaft and foreskin have some sensitivity but that's minor compared to the glans (especially the underside). Just because the skin of the glans is dry on circumcised men does not mean the concentration of nerve endings has been altered. I don't see how there could be any significant decrease in sensitivity.

Sil: I found the article very humorous. I always enjoy it when authors seek to promote an agenda (although the dryness issue was interesting ... but, come on, use a little KY or don't pull out all the way). They specifically left out one little thing I found on WebMD:

Penis cancer is very rare in the U.S. Circumcision decreases the risk of penis cancer.