BaalChatzaf

Male Circumcision: Mutilation or Modification?

Recommended Posts

Surely if your case is so sound Ba'al Chatzaf why don't you just let your male child decide for himself once he reaches an age of reasonably informed consent. Funny though I've never heard of uncircumsized males going as adults to voluntary get circumcisions.

He might get cancers of the glans before he reaches maturity. Hey! Why don't I let my children decide if they want vaccinations when they reach their maturity. Why don't I let my child decide whether to go to the dentist and even get his teeth drilled when he reaches maturity. Why don't I let him decide if he wants to go the doctor or not when he is not feeling well. Here is the answer: I assume responsibility for my child's welfare and safety prior to his majority. After his majority he makes the decisions. It is called being a responsible parent.

If you want to neglect the health of your children, go right ahead. It is not my problem.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Yes there are lots of 'mights' and of course getting measles, polio, or hepatitis are quite a bit different than the chance of getting cancer from not washing under your foreskin, considering there is no valid scientific link between these. You could just go the whole way and make him a eunich, then he definitely wont get Aids or penile cancer, course, he could get Aids from drug use or anal sex, not sure how you'll prevent those.

To compare getting a cavity removed or a childhood vaccination with an imaginary health fear based on a superstition is completely disingenuous, which of course you know. If you are so uneasy about the vestiges of your religious preferences that you need to cloak them in thinly veiled pseudoscience, perhaps you should spend a bit of time on personal introspection and integrating your values. Just come out and acknowledge this is your religious (or even aesthetic preference) and stop with the half hearted scientific explanations. Next thing you know, you'll be proving the scientific benefit of long curly hair and yamakas.

Either way, here is a nice gift for you

smegma.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some folks regard circumcision of the human male organ as mutilation. Others regard it as a useful modification.

I favor the latter. Forget the nonsense of the Lord commanding it. If I were Abraham I would have asked God why he made penises with foreskins in the first place, if it is a good idea to remove the foreskin.

Male circumcision is a good idea. It promotes cleanliness, it removes the ugliness of smegma (ugh!) and it turns out to have beneficial side effects, to wit, it lessens the risk of cancer of the glans and apparently lowers the rate of HIV infection.

Circumcision is no more mutilation than is plastic surgery, removal of adenoids and tonsils and removal of polyps. Also the removal of vestigial digits of of polydactylic folks and the correction of hare-lip (which is just ugly and not life threatening).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Here is the medical case for circumcision of males (surgical removal of the foreskin). The benefits have nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the nature of cancer and infections.

Look, read and LEARN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

The statistics are pretty strong in favor of circumcision.

If you heathens don't want to circumcise your sons then don't. They will suffer the consequences of your blindness. No one is forcing you.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, read and LEARN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

The statistics are pretty strong in favor of circumcision.

Bob,

OK. I didn't see many statistics, but I did see this (from the article):

The British Medical Association, states “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[49] Cost-benefit analyses have varied. Some found a small net benefit of circumcision,[67][68] some found a small net decrement,[69][70] and one found that the benefits and risks balanced each other out and suggested that the decision could "most reasonably be made on nonmedical factors."[71]

I decided to go to the referenced Wikipedia article Medical analysis of circumcision. Here is an entire section from that article.

Positions of major health organizations

United States

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommended using analgesia as a safe and effective method for reducing pain associated with circumcision, and that circumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.[1]

The American Medical Association (1999) defined “non-therapeutic” circumcision as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. It noted that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada did not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns. It supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [2]

The American Academy of Family Physicians (January 2007) recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering circumcision for newborn boys.[3]

The American Urological Association (May 2007) noted the results of the recent randomized controlled studies in Africa and stated: "While the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits.." [4]

Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[5] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed," (a statement with which the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs,) and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[6]

United Kingdom

The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”[7]

Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision (emphasis as in the original). It states, "If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment" [8]

It sounds like the medical profession in general does not actively endorse the procedure across-the-board, but merely when needed for a specific malady or for religious, cultural or other subjective reasons (especially of the parents).

So I have read and I have learned. What have you learned from this?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I have never been with an uncircumcised man, so I have no basis for comparison. But some years back, I did get involved in a discussion of the horrors of circumcision on another BBS. Some of the men were quite angry that circumcision was considered "normal" in Western society. They felt they had been robbed of their birthright.

Besides the horror stories of little boys losing part (in some cases most or all) of their penises, there were claims made that the human penis isn't meant to be dry, that it is meant to have its own lubrication, and that this affects sex for both male and female. Supposedly there is greater sensitivity on the part of the man, so that he doesn't have to "bang" his way to an orgasm. Among the tidbits I read on the subject, years ago, was the claim that sex was better for both male and female with an uncircumcised penis.

Again, I don't know from direct experience; and not to get too graphic here, but: I have heard from at least one other woman that if the guy isn't squeaky clean, oral sex (performed on the man) is rather unpleasant from the woman's point of view.

But I don't see why little boys and men can't learn to clean their own genitals... especially if the payoff might be better (and more) sex (down the road, if not immediately). As a medical transcriptionist, every once in a while I type up a report for circumcision which is done for medical reasons--that is, if the tip of the penis and/or the foreskin gets inflamed, or if the foreskin is too tight, then the guy (whatever his age) comes in to have it snipped.

There are all sorts of websites which discuss this issue. Some of the men, in their postings, wanted to blame women for the evils of circumcision, but then it was pointed out that doctors are often the ones pushing circumcision, and most doctors are still men. Also, some fathers want their sons' penises to look just like their own.

Personally, I am of Jewish descent... but my main concern with this issue is the man's cleanliness, not the ancient religious covenant.

Edited by Pam Maltzman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis the 18th of France was circumcised because of the problem Pam mentions. A urologist told me that he did a lot of circumcision on older men. He said it was an extremely painful operation.

Edited by Chris Grieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I have never been with an uncircumcised man, so I have no basis for comparison. But some years back, I did get involved in a discussion of the horrors of circumcision on another BBS. Some of the men were quite angry that circumcision was considered "normal" in Western society. They felt they had been robbed of their birthright.

Besides the horror stories of little boys losing part (in some cases most or all) of their penises, there were claims made that the human penis isn't meant to be dry, that it is meant to have its own lubrication, and that this affects sex for both male and female. Supposedly there is greater sensitivity on the part of the man, so that he doesn't have to "bang" his way to an orgasm. Among the tidbits I read on the subject, years ago, was the claim that sex was better for both male and female with an uncircumcised penis.

Again, I don't know from direct experience; and not to get too graphic here, but: I have heard from at least one other woman that if the guy isn't squeaky clean, oral sex (performed on the man) is rather unpleasant from the woman's point of view.

But I don't see why little boys and men can't learn to clean their own genitals... especially if the payoff might be better (and more) sex (down the road, if not immediately). As a medical transcriptionist, every once in a while I type up a report for circumcision which is done for medical reasons--that is, if the tip of the penis and/or the foreskin gets inflamed, or if the foreskin is too tight, then the guy (whatever his age) comes in to have it snipped.

There are all sorts of websites which discuss this issue. Some of the men, in their postings, wanted to blame women for the evils of circumcision, but then it was pointed out that doctors are often the ones pushing circumcision, and most doctors are still men. Also, some fathers want their sons' penises to look just like their own.

Personally, I am of Jewish descent... but my main concern with this issue is the man's cleanliness, not the ancient religious covenant.

Well put. I am Italian and my parents elected to have me circumcised. Thankfully, I had none of the medical nightmares that I have heard about and that you referred to. However, it did help quite a bit with the father's of the Jewish ladies that I dated, since I had to change my name to Kaplan just to get in the door, but I always told my dates that they did not have to worry, I could pass for Jewish at the country club shower if I was playing golf with daddy dearest.

My lady friends that have had known who have been with uncircumcised men also had good and bad stories and they all revolved around either good or bad basic hygiene. Therefore, based on their testimony nothing significant could be concluded.

However, your point is well taken that it is the predominantly male doctors that suggest circucision. It is one of the reasons why hysterectomys led the list for the most unnecessary surgeries conducted in the USA. Apparently, this has begun to drop with the increase in female gynecologists in the profession.

Good points throughout your post though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go. Those with sensitive constitutions can stop reading now.

...

You've been warned.

One of the big issues here seems to be the offensiveness of human smegma. I've never encountered it. Can someone describe it for me?

I HAVE encountered horse smegma. Horses, unlike dogs, do not have flexible backbones and cannot keep themselves clean. Accordingly, at least once a year, owners of geldings and stallions have to undertake the process known as "sheath cleaning", in which one buries one's arm up to the elbow in the horse's belly and cleans out equine smegma with one's hands and the help of a special soap. Inside the urethra a little ways is a little blind pocket perpendicular to the channel in which it builds up to a substantial degree to form what is commonly called a "bean", which is a hard, pebble-like bit of smegma which, if allowed to get too big, can interfere with urination and must be removed with a fingertip. Since we're dealing with a sensitive area here, many gentleman horses don't take too kindly to having this procedure performed. Some people wear rubber gloves when they do it, but considering the sensitivity and tact required, I prefer not to do so, since with bare skin I can better tell what I'm doing (one can't see what one is doing; it's all done by touch) and be able to tell in an instant if the 1,500 pound gentleman in question is becoming offended so that I can instantly STOP doing whatever he may find offensive. Sometimes the gentleman finds the process a bit TOO enjoyable, which can make things rather crowded to get the job done. All in all it's a long, time-consuming, difficult, dirty process in which one gets soaked with water and sweaty and, if one doesn't wear gloves, ends up with horse smegma firmly embedded in one's cuticles (although "Excalibur" sheath cleaning soap is amazingly effective at removing it; don't know what I'd do without it).

Here's the thing. Horse smegma is ...

...is...

...is...

...not all that offensive. It's black and kind of gritty and smells sort of like old tires dissolved in some solvent. The bean is kind of a silver color and extremely hard, and I'm sure gentleman horses are very glad to have it gone.

So: now you know something about the equine world.

What's the story on human smegma?

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, here we go. Those with sensitive constitutions can stop reading now.

...

You've been warned.

One of the big issues here seems to be the offensiveness of human smegma. I've never encountered it. Can someone describe it for me?

I HAVE encountered horse smegma. Horses, unlike dogs, do not have flexible backbones and cannot keep themselves clean. Accordingly, at least once a year, owners of geldings and stallions have to undertake the process known as "sheath cleaning", in which one buries one's arm up to the elbow in the horse's belly and cleans out equine smegma with one's hands and the help of a special soap. Inside the urethra a little ways is a little blind pocket perpendicular to the channel in which it builds up to a substantial degree to form what is commonly called a "bean", which is a hard, pebble-like bit of smegma which, if allowed to get too big, can interfere with urination and must be removed with a fingertip. Since we're dealing with a sensitive area here, many gentleman horses don't take too kindly to having this procedure performed. Some people wear rubber gloves when they do it, but considering the sensitivity and tact required, I prefer not to do so, since with bare skin I can better tell what I'm doing (one can't see what one is doing; it's all done by touch) and be able to tell in an instant if the 1,500 pound gentleman in question is becoming offended so that I can instantly STOP doing whatever he may find offensive. Sometimes the gentleman finds the process a bit TOO enjoyable, which can make things rather crowded to get the job done. All in all it's a long, time-consuming, difficult, dirty process in which one gets soaked with water and sweaty and, if one doesn't wear gloves, ends up with horse smegma firmly embedded in one's cuticles (although "Excalibur" sheath cleaning soap is amazingly effective at removing it; don't know what I'd do without it).

Here's the thing. Horse smegma is ...

...is...

...is...

...not all that offensive. It's black and kind of gritty and smells sort of like old tires dissolved in some solvent. The bean is kind of a silver color and extremely hard, and I'm sure gentleman horses are very glad to have it gone.

So: now you know something about the equine world.

What's the story on human smegma?

Judith

Well, some of us have flexible backbones.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judith, I've heard about horse smegma and its removal before. I have never owned a horse, so I have never had to deal with it.

I don't know if horses perform oral sex on one another... I have seen dogs and cats licking each others' private parts many times over the years, though. What I was told was that for many ungelded horses, the way they keep their sheaths clean is to have sex.

Regarding human smegma: Without getting TOO graphic here, if a guy doesn't keep himself clean, I can well imagine that it could be unpleasant for a woman to perform oral sex on him.

I have read/heard that the natural lubrication of an uncircumcised man's penis makes sex feel better for both partners--but again, I have no direct experience with an uncircumcised man.

Regarding cutting off body parts because they MIGHT get diseased, somewhere down the road: I regard this as barbaric. And yes, I have typed up reports for women who have undergone "prophylactic" removal of breasts or ovaries because of the fear of cancer.

But then, I also regard most modern-day treatment of cancer as downright barbaric anyway.

I mean, why the hell not cut off my head, right here and now? I just MIGHT get brain cancer someday!

Okay, here we go. Those with sensitive constitutions can stop reading now.

...

You've been warned.

One of the big issues here seems to be the offensiveness of human smegma. I've never encountered it. Can someone describe it for me?

I HAVE encountered horse smegma. Horses, unlike dogs, do not have flexible backbones and cannot keep themselves clean. Accordingly, at least once a year, owners of geldings and stallions have to undertake the process known as "sheath cleaning", in which one buries one's arm up to the elbow in the horse's belly and cleans out equine smegma with one's hands and the help of a special soap. Inside the urethra a little ways is a little blind pocket perpendicular to the channel in which it builds up to a substantial degree to form what is commonly called a "bean", which is a hard, pebble-like bit of smegma which, if allowed to get too big, can interfere with urination and must be removed with a fingertip. Since we're dealing with a sensitive area here, many gentleman horses don't take too kindly to having this procedure performed. Some people wear rubber gloves when they do it, but considering the sensitivity and tact required, I prefer not to do so, since with bare skin I can better tell what I'm doing (one can't see what one is doing; it's all done by touch) and be able to tell in an instant if the 1,500 pound gentleman in question is becoming offended so that I can instantly STOP doing whatever he may find offensive. Sometimes the gentleman finds the process a bit TOO enjoyable, which can make things rather crowded to get the job done. All in all it's a long, time-consuming, difficult, dirty process in which one gets soaked with water and sweaty and, if one doesn't wear gloves, ends up with horse smegma firmly embedded in one's cuticles (although "Excalibur" sheath cleaning soap is amazingly effective at removing it; don't know what I'd do without it).

Here's the thing. Horse smegma is ...

...is...

...is...

...not all that offensive. It's black and kind of gritty and smells sort of like old tires dissolved in some solvent. The bean is kind of a silver color and extremely hard, and I'm sure gentleman horses are very glad to have it gone.

So: now you know something about the equine world.

What's the story on human smegma?

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selene, I don' t know for sure if female doctors perform unnecessary hysterectomies any less often than male doctors would. Not to carp on it, but just as most doctors are still male, most medical school professors are probably still male.

I have typed up many operative reports for hysterectomies which are performed by female doctors.

Without bashing men too much here, I can imagine that a guy might not be as sensitive to what a woman might be going through with a hysterectomy... but then again, I might not be as sensitive if a guy were undergoing radical prostate surgery either, simply because it's not my body.

Good for you that your personal hygiene is up to snuff. :) Actually, I'm serious.

I once was a member of a Toastmasters Club where one of the older guys went everywhere smelling like a barnyard animal. He would come to a meeting and hug and rub himself on the women. People delicately told him this was a problem, but he just couldn't understand. I remember watching him rub himself on one of the best-dressed women in the group, and I could well imagine her taking that outfit straight to the dry cleaner's the very next day.

I can't even imagine any woman wanting to have sex with someone who smelled that bad. He just couldn't pass the smell test.

____

I once did some temporary office transcription work for a radiology group in another state. Nowadays, when you undergo a biopsy, if you have NOT already consented to further surgery in the same setting, any further surgery must normally occur at a different time and have a separate consent for that. But it apparently was not always like that.

Apparently some women would be anesthetized and go to sleep expecting a breast biopsy, but wake up minus a breast (or maybe minus both breasts). Surprise!! Yikes!!

Anyway, this one one radiologist was ranting and claiming that there was a higher "cure" rate in the good old days, when they might not have had to get separate consent for a mastectomy.

I felt like asking the guy how he would feel if he went to sleep expecting a testicular biopsy but instead woke up having had an orchiectomy (removal)!! I think he would sit up and notice. What can I say? The guy was a total schmuck!!

Personally, I have never been with an uncircumcised man, so I have no basis for comparison. But some years back, I did get involved in a discussion of the horrors of circumcision on another BBS. Some of the men were quite angry that circumcision was considered "normal" in Western society. They felt they had been robbed of their birthright.

Besides the horror stories of little boys losing part (in some cases most or all) of their penises, there were claims made that the human penis isn't meant to be dry, that it is meant to have its own lubrication, and that this affects sex for both male and female. Supposedly there is greater sensitivity on the part of the man, so that he doesn't have to "bang" his way to an orgasm. Among the tidbits I read on the subject, years ago, was the claim that sex was better for both male and female with an uncircumcised penis.

Again, I don't know from direct experience; and not to get too graphic here, but: I have heard from at least one other woman that if the guy isn't squeaky clean, oral sex (performed on the man) is rather unpleasant from the woman's point of view.

But I don't see why little boys and men can't learn to clean their own genitals... especially if the payoff might be better (and more) sex (down the road, if not immediately). As a medical transcriptionist, every once in a while I type up a report for circumcision which is done for medical reasons--that is, if the tip of the penis and/or the foreskin gets inflamed, or if the foreskin is too tight, then the guy (whatever his age) comes in to have it snipped.

There are all sorts of websites which discuss this issue. Some of the men, in their postings, wanted to blame women for the evils of circumcision, but then it was pointed out that doctors are often the ones pushing circumcision, and most doctors are still men. Also, some fathers want their sons' penises to look just like their own.

Personally, I am of Jewish descent... but my main concern with this issue is the man's cleanliness, not the ancient religious covenant.

Well put. I am Italian and my parents elected to have me circumcised. Thankfully, I had none of the medical nightmares that I have heard about and that you referred to. However, it did help quite a bit with the father's of the Jewish ladies that I dated, since I had to change my name to Kaplan just to get in the door, but I always told my dates that they did not have to worry, I could pass for Jewish at the country club shower if I was playing golf with daddy dearest.

My lady friends that have had known who have been with uncircumcised men also had good and bad stories and they all revolved around either good or bad basic hygiene. Therefore, based on their testimony nothing significant could be concluded.

However, your point is well taken that it is the predominantly male doctors that suggest circucision. It is one of the reasons why hysterectomys led the list for the most unnecessary surgeries conducted in the USA. Apparently, this has begun to drop with the increase in female gynecologists in the profession.

Good points throughout your post though.

Edited by Pam Maltzman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I once was a member of a Toastmasters Club where one of the older guys went everywhere smelling like a barnyard animal. He would come to a meeting and hug and rub himself on the women. People delicately told him this was a problem, but he just couldn't understand. I remember watching him rub himself on one of the best-dressed women in the group, and I could well imagine her taking that outfit straight to the dry cleaner's the very next day.

I can't even imagine any woman wanting to have sex with someone who smelled that bad. He just couldn't pass the smell test.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it?

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judith, I didn't mean to insult barnyard animals. What I meant was that the guy's hygiene was gross. He didn't seem to wash either himself or his clothing very often, and he smelled gross nearly every time I ran into him. I can't imagine wanting to have sex with someone who smelled bad.

Pam

I once was a member of a Toastmasters Club where one of the older guys went everywhere smelling like a barnyard animal. He would come to a meeting and hug and rub himself on the women. People delicately told him this was a problem, but he just couldn't understand. I remember watching him rub himself on one of the best-dressed women in the group, and I could well imagine her taking that outfit straight to the dry cleaner's the very next day.

I can't even imagine any woman wanting to have sex with someone who smelled that bad. He just couldn't pass the smell test.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it?

Judith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another weird thing I had read somewhere over the years about circumcision. There was a claim made that the mohels (religious person performing circumcisions) had a lower rate of "mistakes" and "complications" than did regular medical doctors. Just throwing this out there; I don't have any statistics at my fingertips to back it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another weird thing I had read somewhere over the years about circumcision. There was a claim made that the mohels (religious person performing circumcisions) had a lower rate of "mistakes" and "complications" than did regular medical doctors. Just throwing this out there; I don't have any statistics at my fingertips to back it up.

Mohels are good at what they do for the same reason podiatrists are good. Practice makes perfect. If you want your corns and bunions removed or an ingrown toenail fixed, you go to a podiatrist, not to a brain surgeon. If the only surgery one does is foreskin removal, then one becomes good at it or is pushed out of the business. Mohels get their assignments by word of mouth. Mohels who cut on the bias generally do not get many gigs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Judith, I didn't mean to insult barnyard animals. What I meant was that the guy's hygiene was gross. He didn't seem to wash either himself or his clothing very often, and he smelled gross nearly every time I ran into him. I can't imagine wanting to have sex with someone who smelled bad.

Pam

I once was a member of a Toastmasters Club where one of the older guys went everywhere smelling like a barnyard animal. He would come to a meeting and hug and rub himself on the women. People delicately told him this was a problem, but he just couldn't understand. I remember watching him rub himself on one of the best-dressed women in the group, and I could well imagine her taking that outfit straight to the dry cleaner's the very next day.

I can't even imagine any woman wanting to have sex with someone who smelled that bad. He just couldn't pass the smell test.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it?

Judith

I hate to be the egalitarian in this thread, but does not hygiene apply equally to women. I am sure some of us have testimony as to the "smell test" referred to above. However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road?

That was a spoof on the diamond cutter add. The "real" add shows a diamond cutter in the back seat of a luxury car riding over a rough road. If the car jiggles too much the diamond cutter may end up shattering the diamond into a lot of small relatively worthless pieces.

The interesting thing to note is that the diamond cutter may also be a mohel. Diamond cutting is perceived as a "Jewish" trade. There are a disproportionate number of Jews in the diamond business including cutting the stones.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the SNL sketch about the circumcision the back seat of the luxury car.

In Christopher Hitchen's atheism book he makes a comment about mohels being responsible for infections caused by circumcisions. Somebody about putting the mohel's mouth on the boy baby penis. Any comments.

Edited by Chris Grieb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road?

That was a spoof on the diamond cutter add. The "real" add shows a diamond cutter in the back seat of a luxury car riding over a rough road. If the car jiggles too much the diamond cutter may end up shattering the diamond into a lot of small relatively worthless pieces.

The interesting thing to note is that the diamond cutter may also be a mohel. Diamond cutting is perceived as a "Jewish" trade. There are a disproportionate number of Jews in the diamond business including cutting the stones.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Realizing that facts have no effect on your judgments, there was a second spoof with a baby, a moiel and the mom which capitalized on the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selene, OF COURSE both men and women should practice good personal hygiene whenever possible. Neither men nor women should expect to jump into bed with the opposite sex if they smell bad. I never meant to imply that only men got funky.

When I was in high school, a Moroccan girl transferred in to my English class. She dressed fashionably in short skirts, but she always smelled like a bag lady!

IMO, it's a good idea for both men and women to bathe before sex. 'Nuff said.

Judith, I didn't mean to insult barnyard animals. What I meant was that the guy's hygiene was gross. He didn't seem to wash either himself or his clothing very often, and he smelled gross nearly every time I ran into him. I can't imagine wanting to have sex with someone who smelled bad.

Pam

I once was a member of a Toastmasters Club where one of the older guys went everywhere smelling like a barnyard animal. He would come to a meeting and hug and rub himself on the women. People delicately told him this was a problem, but he just couldn't understand. I remember watching him rub himself on one of the best-dressed women in the group, and I could well imagine her taking that outfit straight to the dry cleaner's the very next day.

I can't even imagine any woman wanting to have sex with someone who smelled that bad. He just couldn't pass the smell test.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it?

Judith

I hate to be the egalitarian in this thread, but does not hygiene apply equally to women. I am sure some of us have testimony as to the "smell test" referred to above. However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road?

Edited by Pam Maltzman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Selene, OF COURSE both men and women should practice good personal hygiene whenever possible. Neither men nor women should expect to jump into bed with the opposite sex if they smell bad. I never meant to imply that only men got funky.

When I was in high school, a Moroccan girl transferred in to my English class. She dressed fashionably in short skirts, but she always smelled like a bag lady!

IMO, it's a good idea for both men and women to bathe before sex. 'Nuff said.

Judith, I didn't mean to insult barnyard animals. What I meant was that the guy's hygiene was gross. He didn't seem to wash either himself or his clothing very often, and he smelled gross nearly every time I ran into him. I can't imagine wanting to have sex with someone who smelled bad.

Pam

I once was a member of a Toastmasters Club where one of the older guys went everywhere smelling like a barnyard animal. He would come to a meeting and hug and rub himself on the women. People delicately told him this was a problem, but he just couldn't understand. I remember watching him rub himself on one of the best-dressed women in the group, and I could well imagine her taking that outfit straight to the dry cleaner's the very next day.

I can't even imagine any woman wanting to have sex with someone who smelled that bad. He just couldn't pass the smell test.

Forgive my pushy curiosity here, but I'm still in the dark. By "barnyard animal", do you mean that he smelled like old rubber tires? If not, is there anything to which you can compare it?

Judith

I hate to be the egalitarian in this thread, but does not hygiene apply equally to women. I am sure some of us have testimony as to the "smell test" referred to above. However, on a lighter note, does anyone remember the great Saturday Night Live spoof of the Mohel [moiel] performing a circumcision in the back seat of a luxury car bouncing over a potholed road?

Pam, let me introduce you to the concept of satire. My point was you ladies jumping on the penis...oops there goes that satire again. It reminds me of the old joke of the blind man walking by the Fulton fish market in NY City in the early morning. He stops and tips his hat and says "Good morning ladies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, read and LEARN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

The statistics are pretty strong in favor of circumcision.

Bob,

OK. I didn't see many statistics, but I did see this (from the article):

The British Medical Association, states “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[49] Cost-benefit analyses have varied. Some found a small net benefit of circumcision,[67][68] some found a small net decrement,[69][70] and one found that the benefits and risks balanced each other out and suggested that the decision could "most reasonably be made on nonmedical factors."[71]

I decided to go to the referenced Wikipedia article Medical analysis of circumcision. Here is an entire section from that article.

Positions of major health organizations

United States

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) found both potential benefits and risks in infant circumcision. It felt that there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, and recommended that parental decisions on circumcision should be made with as much accurate and unbiased information as possible, taking medical, cultural, ethnic, traditional, and religious factors into account. The AAP also recommended using analgesia as a safe and effective method for reducing pain associated with circumcision, and that circumcision on newborns only be performed on infants who are stable and healthy.[1]

The American Medical Association (1999) defined “non-therapeutic” circumcision as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. It noted that medical associations in the US, Australia, and Canada did not recommend the routine non-therapeutic circumcision of newborns. It supported the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [2]

The American Academy of Family Physicians (January 2007) recommends that physicians discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering circumcision for newborn boys.[3]

The American Urological Association (May 2007) noted the results of the recent randomized controlled studies in Africa and stated: "While the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits.." [4]

Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004,[5] and "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed," (a statement with which the Royal Australasian College of Physicians concurs,) and the 2004 advice to parents says it "does not recommend circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."[6]

United Kingdom

The British Medical Association's position (June 2006) was that male circumcision for medical purposes should only be used where less invasive procedures are either unavailable or not as effective. The BMA specifically refrained from issuing a policy regarding “non-therapeutic circumcision,” stating that as a general rule, it “believes that parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices.”[7]

Australasia

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision (emphasis as in the original). It states, "If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment" [8]

It sounds like the medical profession in general does not actively endorse the procedure across-the-board, but merely when needed for a specific malady or for religious, cultural or other subjective reasons (especially of the parents).

So I have read and I have learned. What have you learned from this?

Michael

So BaalChatzaf, Since the scientific opinion does not seem to jive with yours, will you come out and just admit this is an aesthetic / religious preference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So BaalChatzaf, Since the scientific opinion does not seem to jive with yours, will you come out and just admit this is an aesthetic / religious preference?

The medical evidence is clear. Circumcision (properly done) is long term beneficial to the circumcised male. Circs have a lower rate of cancer of the glans penis and less infection from STD. That is clear as can be. There is virtually no down side to the procedure (properly done in infancy) and great potential benefits. It is as beneficial (at least) and no more dangerous than the removal of warts, polyps or the surgical separation of webbed fingers and toes.

And yes, I do find smegma (ugh!) ugly, disgusting and repulsive and even if I were brought up as an atheist or a heathen I would have my sons circumcised. Smegma (ugh!) is an Abomination.

Fortunately for the uncircumcised, there exist females who have a taste for cottage cheese. There is simply no way to account for taste in a rational manner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So BaalChatzaf, Since the scientific opinion does not seem to jive with yours, will you come out and just admit this is an aesthetic / religious preference?

The medical evidence is clear. Circumcision (properly done) is long term beneficial to the circumcised male. Circs have a lower rate of cancer of the glans penis and less infection from STD. That is clear as can be. There is virtually no down side to the procedure (properly done in infancy) and great potential benefits. It is as beneficial (at least) and no more dangerous than the removal of warts, polyps or the surgical separation of webbed fingers and toes.

And yes, I do find smegma (ugh!) ugly, disgusting and repulsive and even if I were brought up as an atheist or a heathen I would have my sons circumcised. Smegma (ugh!) is an Abomination.

Fortunately for the uncircumcised, there exist females who have a taste for cottage cheese. There is simply no way to account for taste in a rational manner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's amazing how you allegedly argue. "The evidence is clear." No source, date, study just your mere assertion. I would not have accepted this from my rhetoric students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So BaalChatzaf, Since the scientific opinion does not seem to jive with yours, will you come out and just admit this is an aesthetic / religious preference?

The medical evidence is clear. Circumcision (properly done) is long term beneficial to the circumcised male. Circs have a lower rate of cancer of the glans penis and less infection from STD. That is clear as can be. There is virtually no down side to the procedure (properly done in infancy) and great potential benefits. It is as beneficial (at least) and no more dangerous than the removal of warts, polyps or the surgical separation of webbed fingers and toes.

And yes, I do find smegma (ugh!) ugly, disgusting and repulsive and even if I were brought up as an atheist or a heathen I would have my sons circumcised. Smegma (ugh!) is an Abomination.

Fortunately for the uncircumcised, there exist females who have a taste for cottage cheese. There is simply no way to account for taste in a rational manner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

It's amazing how you allegedly argue. "The evidence is clear." No source, date, study just your mere assertion. I would not have accepted this from my rhetoric students.

Read this and be still

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/.../full/118/1/385

There are dozens more like this. Use Google to find them.

Circumcision, properly done, has long term benefits and virtually no short term deficits. And it saves the male children from the Curse of Smegma (ugh!).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...