devarim

Sefardim perform circumcisions?

1 - Why wouldn't they?

2 - Need we go over this again? My husband is as ashkenazi as possible.

3 - Stop with the fake homepage URLs. Deleting them is getting annoying. If necessary, I will retrain my spam filter to ban you (as it so brilliantly wanted to do in the first place).

-=-

(another comment from Amshi was deleted)

4 - That's it, Amshi. You're out. I do have a sense of humor, but it doesn't revolve around vulgarity and rude cracks about my spouse. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Uncircumcised men have higher rates of penile cancers.
Female partners of uncircumcised males have higher rates of cervical cancer.
And uncircumcised males have higher rates of STDs, as do their partners, male and female.
The thinking goes that the skinfold created by the foreskin allows for longer contact with microorganisms that lead to disease, including viruses that lead to cervical cancers.
It may be *possible* for an individual uncircumcised man to keep his penis as clean as a vulva (although the vagina is a self-cleaning organ in a way that a penis is not) but the statistics show us that this doesn't actually happen in populations.

Hey Shanna. Though I circumcised all my boys without a second thought, I too am ambivalent about the actual concept. I can wrap my brain around the religious meaning behind the act, it's just the execution of the act that gets me. I commented on DB about this today. I guess we were thinking along the same vein. As I said on DB, I wouldn't know where to begin if asked to defend the practice to a nonbeliever.

I don't buy into any of the arguments against doing this. I don't harbor anger or resentment because of this and neither does my son.

I have been told that sex is more pleasurable with a foreskin, but have never felt deprived and without telling tales can say that I know a little something here.

The medical arguments for and against never quite trump one/another.

"Uncircumcised men have higher rates of penile cancers.
Female partners of uncircumcised males have higher rates of cervical cancer.
And uncircumcised males have higher rates of STDs, as do their partners, male and female."

After accounting for the fact that many (even most) circumcised males are Jewish, and a certain percentage practice Taharat HaMishpacha (family purity laws) and the others are just far less likely to be involved in random sex with strangers/multiple partners, etc? (I don't mean unlikely, but I believe that even those Jews who are completely unreligious/unobservant, which are different things, are less likely to engage in casual "hook-up sex" and that could contribute to a lower incidence of STDs, due to a lower risk category.)

I know of the connection between lower risk of cervical cancer and observing the family purity laws (related to abstinence during the week after a woman's period ends, when the cervix is basically a healing wound and more susceptible to disease being introduced. Most cervical cancers are caused by a specific virus, so this isn't just conjecture), and those women who observe these laws generally have circumcised husbands. I highly suspect that the rest is also not a causal relationship.

That said, Shanna, as long as you find a mohel trained by a mohel (not trained by a doctor), Jewish circumcision does remove a much smaller portion of skin than "standard" hospital circumcision. When it's relevant, I might be able to recommend one.

Also, on your general premise, I mostly agree. I don't think there's any reason anyone not having a Torah mandate should be removing random body parts from their children. Ritual bris milah aside, I don't think circumcision should be standard at all.

Quoth Miriam P: "many (even most) circumcised males are Jewish"

Not even close. As of 1999, more than 65% of male American infants were circumcised. The Jewish population of the U.S. is hard to pin down, but something like 1.4%. Add in another .5% or so for the Muslims, and the overwhelming majority of circumcisions in the U.S. have nothing to do with religion. Which frankly devalues the whole thing, if you ask me. There isn't supposed to be any medical benefit to it; it's supposed to be a potent symbol of a covenant with God.

(Sources: CDC on circumcision, which seems to be down, so here's Google's cache; and religious identification among U.S. adults.)

Two random comments:
1. I went through a bunch of these arguments before i decided to err... snip years ago. I really can't think of a more "close to home" way to identify self as a Jew. So if not for religious reasons, one (Jew) might want to do it simply to be part of the gang. Sure beats getting a tatoo on your forehead.
2. The American circumcision fashion
could be caused by a misconception similar to kosher-certified food being somehow "healthier". The 65% figure is relatively recent, isn't it?

Yes, postdoc, that U.S. figure is fairly recent...it used to be much higher. Circumcision came into fashion among Christians as a way to stem sexual desire and prevent masturbation.

And I'm not sure it does beat getting a tattoo on your forehead.

Shanna,
i don't follow your reasoning:
AFAIK, circumcision is *much* less prevalent outside of U.S. (i don't have the statistics) even in predominantly Christian countries. Is this chumra limited to American Christians?

As a matter of fact, yes. It's not a religious thing; it's a cultural thing. It was promoted in English-speaking Western countries in the late 1800s for many reasons, including disease prevention and reduction of masturbation. There was a big upswing with Graham in the US, as I recall. The European downtrend started earlier than it did in the U.S., and I'm pretty sure rates in Canada and Australia also went down earlier than they started going down in the U.S.

If you ask most non-Jewish/non-Muslim parents who choose to circumcise their infant sons about their reasons, an overwhelming number will say, "We want him to look like Daddy," or, "We don't want him to get made fun of in the locker room," or some other such thing. Some may say, "It's easier to keep clean." Only a few will cite substantive medical research in favor of male infant circumcision. I don't think any will say, "We want to be just like the Jews."

In this country, Shmuel, I grant you that. I guess what I was asking is when are her statistics from (and I didn't see any actual numbers there, Eliana, do you have any? As well as dates/years? Or is it anecdotal evidence?)

I have heard that the cervical cancer link has been shown to not be a causal relationship, that the original connection was noticed back before the US trend towards circumcision among non-Jews, and that rates of cervical cancer among partners of circumcised males have gone up roughly along with the trend toward non-Jewish circumcision and the decrease in the observance of Taharat HaMishpacha (with the burgeoning of the Conservative and Reform movements, many of whom are ignorant of or apathetic towards the family purity laws.)

I was wondering how much of the rest was perhaps a similar relationship... that circumcised males tend to be in a lower risk category. Or tended to be, if the statistics no longer show this relationship.

Shanna, I thought that was funny... I can't imagine anyone non-Jewish practicing circumcision "to be more like the Jews." Except perhaps in ancient Sh'chem or Egypt. But I think "looking like Daddy," which is the most common excuse I've heard, isn't a good one. My Daddy is blind, but my parents didn't have my eyes put out or have me undergo an operation to produce scar tissue over my eyes so that I would "look like Daddy." My mother is shorter than I am, but they didn't purposely stunt my growth so that I would "look like Mommy." And no, I don't think that's an absurd parallel to draw.

"(I don't mean unlikely, but I believe that even those Jews who are completely unreligious/unobservant, which are different things, are less likely to engage in casual "hook-up sex" and that could contribute to a lower incidence of STDs, due to a lower risk category.)"

I can't imagine why you say this. Jews tend to be urban, liberal, overeducated...all things associated with relative sexual looseness.

And family-centered, which is associated the other way. Maybe my personal experience isn't useful here, but I wasn't raised Orthodox... somewhere closer to "Conservative/Traditional," in a middle to upper class suburban neighborhood on LI. Very Jewish, very non-observant. I went to public school and evening Hebrew school, didn't keep Shabbos, mostly kept kosher... wore whatever I wanted to. Central in my life, however, was my family. I knew my parents valued certain things far above others, and would not approve of "casual sex." My friends as well, while not necessarily waiting for marriage, as I decided for myself early on, also felt the need to at least be in a committed relationship of some sort. Not every person I knew, certainly, but the majority.

"Relative sexual looseness..." is this picking up a different partner in a bar every night (I know this happens, although my knowledge is third hand), or getting drunk and/or high among groups with questionable morals (and leaving yourself open to sexual experiences you may not even remember afterwards) or just being willing to sleep with a current boyfriend? Because those first two are a very different risk category from the third.

I still suspect those correlations may be very out-of-date, and I'd like to see when they're from, and actual numbers. And I'm extremely wary of drawing conclusions based on a correlation.

All of which is really a moot point for me... all my sons are and will be circumcised, by a mohel, not by a doctor. (Hospital circumcisions are usually done by the obstretrical residents, by the way! The mohel is much more experienced and skilled.) And I still see no reason to recommend the procedure for the rest of the world.

So many comments, saying so little. Check out my blog. Why would any Jew use a hospital instead of a mohel? My sexual desire and masterbation levels didn't seem to be affected.