Teen dies in Kenya after self-FGM

[Sexy Beast]

FGM = Female Genital Mutilation (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5109094.stm)

She was apparently teased non-stop about not being circumsised, so she did it herself, and lost her life as a consequence. Glad to see they at least get the correct word for circumcision, ie. mutilation. Now I want to see that applied to male circumcision.

[Parklane64]

Besides stopping hemophilia in it's tracks, hygiene, or Religious reasons there is no reason for this in men. Even less in women.

:1bonk1:

[agogoboots]

It's cosmetically more attractive. And I can also think of other reasons.

[Dr. Arcane]

Besides stopping hemophilia in it's tracks, hygiene, or Religious reasons there is no reason for this in men. Even less in women.


Clearly there is a religious basis for this in Judeo-Christian men. However, the original article makes it sound like this is more of a social convention in Kenya than a religious ritual. I have to admit, I know very little about African religions.

Athough there are still conflicting reports on the hygiene aspect of circumcision, the last I heard most doctors said it made no difference.

What does circumcision have to do with hemophilia? I guess cutting up children who don't heal would quickly remove them from the gene pool, I can't picture what you mean by that.

[mivona]

It's cosmetically more attractive. And I can also think of other reasons.

I assume you are talking about men's circumcisions rather than FGM?

That's a matter of preference, I think. I prefer uncircumcised. There's more to play with.

[agogoboots]

Yes, male. I've only ever seen one uncircumcised male before. Visually just doesn't do much for me in comparision. Not that it would matter if you loved someone.

[agogoboots]

Ok, I admit it kind of completely freaked me out. I had no idea.

But I could probably overcome it for the right reasons.

[agogoboots]

Female is a completely different thing in my opinion, as it removes the ability to feel pleasure. And of course at the age of 15, without anethesia, would be horrible! I don't even see a comparison with infant circumcision.

[agogoboots]

http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/2-ch/412-circumcision.htm
Thirty years ago, up to 90% of American newborn baby boys were circumcised; currently, around 60% are circumcised. On the west coast, this figure has gone as low as 40%, and in parts of Canada, 25% and less. Worldwide, the uncircumcised penis is clearly the norm: 85% of the world's male population has "intact" (uncircumcised) penises.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
Wikipedia has a visual. Caution.

[agogoboots]

I don't mean to be particularly fixated on this topic. It's just something akin to discovering life on mars.

[mivona]

I understand... I was fascinated when I learned about foreskins too...

[Dr. Arcane]

OK, now on to a related question on MALE circumcision. Jews are circumsized because it's part of their law, and there are no exceptions among Jewish "denominations."

Why is Christian circumcision so common? How about Muslims, do they do it too?

I'm guessing it was because of perceived health benefits, but there may be more to it than that. Any thoughts?

[tabbinosity]

Yes, Muslims do it as well, and also for religious reasons. The origin of male circumcision among Muslims predates Islam. Reread the story of Abraham and you will find what's possibly the earliest written explanation for it (at least as would be readily available to the typical Western reader).

Ask any observant Jew or Muslim why, and their answer will have nothing to do with "perceived health benefits." (Unless your concept of "perceived health benefits" is a synonym for "the consequences of disobeying a commandment from God.")

I don't know why Christians do it. I do know that a lot of Christians don't do it. It rather depends on what part of the world they come from.

[tekobari]

In the early times of Christianity, to be a Christian, one had to be an observant Jew first, before converting to Christianity. Therefore, all Christian males were circumcised as a result. I don't know in what century they dropped the requirement that you had to be an observant Jew.

There is no scientific or medical reason for circumcison in males unless they have medical problems.

[Dr. Arcane]

In the early times of Christianity, to be a Christian, one had to be an observant Jew first, before converting to Christianity. Therefore, all Christian males were circumcised as a result. I don't know in what century they dropped the requirement that you had to be an observant Jew.


It was dropped VERY early on. This was the big debate between Peter and Paul around the year 65-75. Paul, who wanted more new Gentile converts, wanted to drop the circumcision requirement; apparently it wasn't popular among the adult male converts. Who'da thunk it?

So maybe it was requirement for about 30 years. Maybe longer in certain areas. As far as official "doctrine" goes, it was not ore than one or two decades.

Which is why I said I don't understand why it is still so common among Christians!

[mivona]

It is largely because men want their sons to look like them, I think. Men don't like the idea of having to teach their son how to deal with their foreskin, when they haven't got one to demonstrate with. It is just "easier"...

Completely daft, but so often the basis of continued things like this, and presumably something to do with the foothold that FGM has.

[Toy Ranch]

Ok, I admit it kind of completely freaked me out. I had no idea.

But I could probably overcome it for the right reasons.



If the "norm" were uncircumcised, and you found yourself looking at a circumcised penis, you'd be completely freaked out about that. As in "uhhh.... what happened to the REST OF IT????? YOU CUT IT OFF????!!!!"

[moonrise]

Guys ... I can kind of see for hygiene reasons. Easier to keep things nice and tidy, and it doesn't really affect the normal "function" of things ...

Girls ... OMG!!! That's HORRIBLE!!! :1cryhard:

[tekobari]

Thanks, Dr. Arcane. I knew it was early on, but I thought it was at least a hundred, hundred-and-fifty, years or so.

No, there's no reason for anyone to do it except Jewish doctrine. I wonder if the Reform movement will reconsider? And I wonder what impact that would have on the Jewish right of return to Israel? We're talking something extremely important in Jewish law. I've read of cases where having the circumcision ritual done improperly (the ritual not carried out correctly, that is) who were denied the right of return.

[tabbinosity]

There is no scientific or medical reason for circumcison in males unless they have medical problems.

Yup, though in the US, for a large part of the 20th century, circumcision was believed to provide health benefits to both men and their female partners. Even as recently as this year, there is some evidence that male circumcision can reduce the risk of HIV transmission between serodiscordant partners, regardless of which partner has HIV. Article here. (http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/02_08_06.html) (Not that I would suggest male circumcision as a primary techique of risk/harm reduction.)

It is largely because men want their sons to look like them, I think. Men don't like the idea of having to teach their son how to deal with their foreskin, when they haven't got one to demonstrate with. It is just "easier"...


Likely a contributing factor of some significance.

Guys ... I can kind of see for hygiene reasons. Easier to keep things nice and tidy, and it doesn't really affect the normal "function" of things ...

What could be "easier" than washing regularly?

Girls ... OMG!!! That's HORRIBLE!!! :1cryhard:

Especially when you consider that female "circumcision" usually involves more than removal of the prepuce -- we're talking clitoridectomy here. With a sharp, unsterilized, non-surgical instrument, and no anesthesia.

[tabbinosity]

[...]

No, there's no reason for anyone to do it except Jewish doctrine. I wonder if the Reform movement will reconsider? And I wonder what impact that would have on the Jewish right of return to Israel? We're talking something extremely important in Jewish law. I've read of cases where having the circumcision ritual done improperly (the ritual not carried out correctly, that is) who were denied the right of return.

I don't think Muslims circumcise their boys because of "Jewish doctrine."

I wouldn't be surprised if the Reform movement hasn't already reconsidered male circumcision in some circles. They pissed off a lot of their co-religionists when they ditched the concept of matrilineal descent as a defining requirement for "who is a Jew," and the full effects of that decision have yet to be seen.

One's rights under the Law of Return (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Immigration/Text_of_Law_of_Return.html) should not be affected by how or if one was circumcised, since circumcision has nothing to do with whether or not a man was born a Jew. Furthermore, the Law of Return does not apply only to those who are defined as Jews according to Jewish law.

A circumcision which was ritually improper can have other consequences, but it's relatively easy to correct the ritual impropriety, thus eliminating any religious issues.

[tekobari]

Nevertheless, tabbi, it's been adjudicated that way in certain cases. I think it may have to do with wanting to keep certain people out (criminals here, et al.) rather than allowing certain Jews in, KWIM? It might also depend on the tribunal hearing the case, since Talmud is a growing, fluid document, subject to change, just as Supreme Court decisions are.

[tabbinosity]

Well, Tek, what you're saying doesn't make sense according to Halacha, which is what would apply here. I'd be interested in some links to info about men being denied their rights under the Law of Return for this specific reason, whether exclusively or in conjunction with other factors.

"Talmud is a growing, fluid document, subject to change" -- according to whom? The Jerusalem Talmud was closed in the fifth century and the Babylonian Talmud was closed to further additions about 500.

[tekobari]

Oh, dear, tabbi. You'd have me get my "ancient" :2gamecock (I've been out of college for 30 some years) texts out, and god help me--I don't even think I have them any more. I took two semesters of Jewish Though and Religion as a class then, taught by a Conservative (mainstream) Jewish rabbi, and then studied with him privately another two years. I'm really sorry, but I have no internet links. Surely if I find them, I'll direct you to them. I'll direct us both to them. It's been so many years, I can't rely on my memory alone.

Halachic law doesn't change with the new arm of Judaism (Orthodox), but it does change with standard (old) Judaism. (So many people think that Orthodox Judaism is the oldest form I thought I'd point that out. I'm sure you know, so it's no slap at you, I promise.) Slowly, with "fights" (different interpretations by very conservative men who are monumentally educated). But it does change. Not by leaps and bounds, certainly, but by slow increments. It's always been so, since they've all been taught by different halachic scholars.

That's all I meant. And yes, I have have read of the right of return being turned down due to a circumcision's being done improperly. I have no reason why, for instance, Meyer Lansky was refused. Now, I imagine that it can be corrected by the man's going through the ritual again using the proper procedure. It just seems logical to me. And halachic law seems nothing if not sensible/logical to me.

You know, I'm thinking I do have some books around here on halacha which I would never throw away (unlike my textbooks) went we went through our recent clean-out-the-books-frenzy. We haven't put the books back into order yet, but I still might be able to find them. I don't know how long it will take, but I'll give it a try.

[tekobari]

Oops! I should preview. I meant Jewish Thought and Religion.

[tekobari]

And we did kind of get off the topic here. Female genital mutilation. It has nothing to do with circumcision, and I was so glad to see that the term FGM was used rather than female circumcision, I can't tell you.

[tabbinosity]

Oh, dear, tabbi. You'd have me get my "ancient" :2gamecock (I've been out of college for 30 some years) texts out, and god help me--I don't even think I have them any more. I took two semesters of Jewish Though and Religion as a class then, taught by a Conservative (mainstream) Jewish rabbi, and then studied with him privately another two years. I'm really sorry, but I have no internet links. Surely if I find them, I'll direct you to them. I'll direct us both to them. It's been so many years, I can't rely on my memory alone.

We've been out of college somewhere around the same amount of time, Tek. I don't know as I'd call Conservative "mainstream" without a more specific definition of "Conservative," but we're already pretty far afield as it is.

Halachic law doesn't change with the new arm of Judaism (Orthodox), but it does change with standard (old) Judaism. (So many people think that Orthodox Judaism is the oldest form I thought I'd point that out. I'm sure you know, so it's no slap at you, I promise.) Slowly, with "fights" (different interpretations by very conservative men who are monumentally educated). But it does change. Not by leaps and bounds, certainly, but by slow increments. It's always been so, since they've all been taught by different halachic scholars.

Having engaged in some low-level pilpul myself from time to time, I'm well aware of these "fights" over interpretation. But when we're talking R. Hillel v. R. Shammai, or R. Hillel v. R. Yose haGalili, we know whose interpretation prevailed.

That's all I meant. And yes, I have have read of the right of return being turned down due to a circumcision's being done improperly. I have no reason why, for instance, Meyer Lansky was refused. Now, I imagine that it can be corrected by the man's going through the ritual again using the proper procedure. It just seems logical to me. And halachic law seems nothing if not sensible/logical to me.

Lansky was not refused his rights under the Law of Return because of an improperly performed circumcision. The reasons for his refusal are fairly clearly spelled out in the text of the Law of Return (link in a prior post). I think it would have been easy to make a case for Lansky presenting a risk to the security of the state, and even easier to establish that Lansky was "a person with a criminal past, likely to endanger public welfare."

It's a simple matter to fix a ritually incorrect circumcision -- it doesn't even require anesthesia, according to men I know who have undergone it. But the Law of Return was written to assure the possibility of sanctuary for anyone who would have been persecuted under the Nuremberg Laws, so I'm at a loss to understand the relevance of circumcision at all here.

[Dr. Arcane]

If any group of Jews could be considered "mainstream," I'd vote for the Reform Jews, not the Conservative or Orthodox.

Jewish doctrine CAN be changed, but only up to a point. They can decide to allow music in their worship services; they can allow men and women to sit in the same room; they can decide on whether or not driving a car on the sabbath is work, etc.

However, something as basic and foundational as circumcision is NOT going to change anytime soon. I don't know that any Jewish group has even discussed the IDEA of not requiring it.

[BookMastered]

Holy crap! I really have no reply. I don't think anyone should be shamed, bullied, or forced into something like that. That is just wrong.

[tabbinosity]

If any group of Jews could be considered "mainstream," I'd vote for the Reform Jews, not the Conservative or Orthodox.

Jewish doctrine CAN be changed, but only up to a point. They can decide to allow music in their worship services; they can allow men and women to sit in the same room; they can decide on whether or not driving a car on the sabbath is work, etc.

However, something as basic and foundational as circumcision is NOT going to change anytime soon. I don't know that any Jewish group has even discussed the IDEA of not requiring it.

What? You wouldn't even consider the Reconstructionists as being in the running for your vote?

The changes you describe are not changes to doctrine; they are choices to depart from doctrine, disguised as "modern interpretation" of the law. In the 20th century alone, such changes have already caused major rifts. The Reform movement dispensing with the notion of matrilineal descent has caused a stir of monumental proportions -- it's to the point now where genealogical research is performed to insure that a couple can marry in accordance with the requirements of religious law.

I also don't know that any Jewish denomination has discussed dropping the requirement for circumcision, but after their decision to drop matrilineal descent, I wouldn't be surprised if that were the next shocker to come from the Reform movement.

[tekobari]

No, no, no. I just woke up and will be a little more sensible later. I knew that Lansky wasn't refused the right of return due to improper circumcision. I kind of think everyone knows that. I'm sorry if I implied that.

I'll be back later since this is great. But what do we do with FGM? That's a truly important topic and we shouldn't ignore it, especially since it's importance has caused many women (girls) to die, not just this self-done one.

[tekobari]

Sorry about the "it's". As I said, it's early for me.