Yuku free message boards

^ Not really; if Jewsih parents wish to appoint Godparents, they can do so, but it's purely an honorific title and doesn;t have the same (theoretical) responsibilities as in Christianity.

snip-and-fold ritual?

I will never understand why the mutilation of boys is seen as acceptable and normal.

Well, I'm sort of on the fence on this one; I think that it is, on balance, not right to perform such an operation/action on a child who cannot give his consent, but on the other hand, I don't really agree with the use of the term 'mutilation', given it's highy emotive and perjorative connotations. Male circumcision doesn't have any major impact on the ability to give and receive sexual pleasure (unlike most forms of FGM) and the resulting change in the physical appearance of the penis is not so dramatic, and, in any case, in most modern cultures, the penis spends most of it's time hidden away from public view and is only seen by a select few. The immediate health risks from a well-performed circumcision, such as infection, medical shock, etc. even on a very young infant - are minimal, (again, unlike FGM). In terms of longer term public health interests, there are actually definite arguments in favour of circumcision; Several studies show that female partners of circumcised men tend to have lower rates of cervical cancer, and it is well documented that circumcised men are far less likely to contract HIV (and, for that matter, syphilis and gonorreah) from unprotected vaginal sex - indeed, quite a few public health officials urge widespread male circumcision as one of the key preventive measures that could be taken against HIV in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Still, the benefits don't entirely resolve the dilema of whether or not it should be performed on a child without his being able to give meaningful consent. ( I use the qualifier entirely because we perform other medical procedures on children without their meaningful consent for both individual and public health concerns, so one could argue that the public health interest in circumcising boys trumps their individual rights to make that decision at a later stage). When it's so closely identified with religious identity I can see both sides of the argument; on the one hand, wait until the child is old enough to make his own decision, but on the other, if the laws and customs of the religion (as stated in the holy texts of that religious tradition) require circumcision as one of the signifiers of faith-membership, if you don't circumcise the child, then you are also making a decision without his consent about his religious liberty of conscience by denying him that signifier and concurrent 'full' membership of the faith; and if he decides at a later stage to have it done it's a slightly more challenging prospect after puberty (although from all I know, it's not - certainly if one has access to reasonable medical facilities and a skilled doctor - that painful a procedure even for adults).

On a purely personal note, I'd have to say that whilst of course it's not necessary, it's certainly desirable. For me, obviously, as a central part of my faith; that eclipses any other concerns or issues with it. But I have to say, although it's never a deal-breaker, I have to admit that when a guy shucks his CK's, my heart sinks a little if he hasn't been circumcised. But that's just my preference, and, to be honest, underwear shedding in my presence (apart from at the gym changing rooms where it doesn't count) is such a rare occurence I can't afford to be picky .

Oi vey - awake and writing about circumcision at 2.30 in the morning. The joys of insomnia !