Not a member? Sign up now
San Francisco may outlaw circumcisions
By Brian FairbanksNovember 16th, 2010, 11:28 amComments (18)
It may not have a lot of traction (yet), but a ballot initiative that would outlaw circumcision in San Francisco could be a sign of an emerging and powerful movement against the ancient practice.
A man named Lloyd Shofield told the Daily News he believes that circumcision is "genital mutilation," which his proposal specifically bans. Of course, despite the fact that fewer babies are getting circumcised every year, that doesn't mean people will vote to ban the practice entirely. Some people are still convinced that the practice is "healthy," although these people could be stubbornly misguided and/or desperately clinging to pointless religious traditions.
Schofield told KCBS-TV... "It's a man's body and... his body doesn't belong to his culture, his government, his religion or even his parents. It's his decision."
Supporters of male circumcision say it leads to better hygiene. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has not come out for or against the practice, but statistics show that the practice has become less popular among parents.
The CDC reported that 32% of boys underwent circumcision in 2009, down from 56% in 2006, according to The New York Times. [NYDN]
Of all the subjects I've written about for Nerve, none has consistently sparked more flamewars in the comments than this one, but we can all be civil if we really try.
Commentarium (18 Comments)
I'm touched (if you'll all pardon the expression) with San Francisco's Concern For Circumcision, but I'm thinking that during the present financial crisis in California, the city fathers and residents might want to think about something else entirely more relevant - like funding. Or reducing funding. You know, something that might have just a tad more relevance than a religious practice.
Seriously? Let's all move to SF if this is the biggest problem that they have to deal with. No wonder the rest of the world think people in California are whack jobs. Hey SF, shut the fuck up and keep to yourselves will you? You're California's version of the neighbor with 70 cats that talks to the pigeons in the park.
The only reason circumsision has decreased is because many insurance companies stopped covering them forcing many parents to not have it done. I think that san fran should keep their concerns focused on more important issues than something like this and leave this issue as a personal one to be made by each individual and or family. The practice is definitely more hygenic and needs a lot more reinforcment to step forward!
more hygienic? can you not just teach your son how to properly wash his member AND use condoms? If you want to be circumcised, awesome, choose it as an adult. But I think forcing your baby son to lose a piece of his body and simultaneously enforcing that a little foreskin is somehow dirty, is abhorrent. We try to teach women that all bodies are beautiful; that should go for penises too.
@jackstraw: "...the neighbor with 70 cats..." Good one!
They love to smell their own farts
Except on the one hand, you have people like me. I'm glad that I'm circumcised, but I would never get a circumcision now if it hadn't been done to me as a child.
This ban couldn't come soon enough.
This ban couldn't come soon enough.
I'm generally against circumcision of children, but just to be fair, there actually ARE some health benefits, primarily decreased risk of STDs and decreased risk of penile cancer.
decreased risk of penile cancer? why don't you just cut the whole thing off and have no risk of it??
I'm so for this. Guys with foreskin don't know how to fuck. American guys will pound like hell with no regard for a lady's cervix or orgasm. I'm much happier now that I live (and fuck) in Europe. I wouldn't circumcise my son any sooner than I would circumcise my daughter. It's genital mutilation regardless of gender, and it's completely barbaric.
I'm so for this. Guys with foreskin don't know how to fuck. American guys will pound like hell with no regard for a lady's cervix or orgasm. I'm much happier now that I live (and fuck) in Europe. I wouldn't circumcise my son any sooner than I would circumcise my daughter. It's genital mutilation regardless of gender, and it's completely barbaric.
I agree with mssy. I think the hygiene argument is bs too. Women's genitals have folds and crevices, but we don't chop them off. Plus uncircumcised guys seem to be more sensitive. I don't think it's fair to do that to your child and rob them of ever having that experience.
What experience, Sarah? There is absolutely no correlation between the so-called "pound(ing) like hell" and circumcision. Maybe there are other effects here--like our overly Puritanical/sexually repressed culture driving men to pornography, which is a horrible indication of how to have sex. I am circumcized, and I love sex. I don't pound like hell (well, okay, sometimes, but my wife digs it). I really resent these ridiculous generalizations. I think this is a fine ordinance, with the caveat that people can choose to do it for religious reasons. I think the whole church-state clause goes both ways: churches out of government, government out of synagogues. This is such a ridiculous discourse. Bottom-line: there is absolutely no way to measure how much sensitivity or pleasure is lost, but I bet nearly ALL circumcized guys would say they still enjoy sex and orgasms.
LAP--perhaps there is "absolutely no way to measure how much sensitivity or pleasure is lost" for YOU because, presuming you were circumcised shortly after birth, you haven't experienced the alternative. However, women like myself (and perhaps Sarah) have experienced both circumcised and uncircumcised men, and at least for me, the difference is climaxing during penetrative sex, and not climaxing during penetrative sex and then, uh, faking the enthusiasm (ugh.) In other words, the difference is day and night. Sorry. But I'm glad your wife digs you, because we all have to work with what we got, whether it's a flat chest, a small penis, a lazy tongue, TMJ, Puritanical guilt, or cut genitals, or what have you.
Women like me have experienced both circumcised and uncircumcised men and think the correlation between sex and foreskin status is pure crap.
The difference between orgasm for me is how well my partner and I communicate. I recommend you take a more active role in your sexual experiences, rather than depend on superstitions about circumcisions.
The equivalent female procedure for male circumcision would be removing the clitoral hood. For many women, this would greatly enhance sensitivity. I think the sexual fetishes of future partners shouldn't be the deciding factor in this debate.
Thanks so much for your recommendation to communicate with my partner--that is absolutely fantastic advice. You should have an advice column. What works for me may not work for others. In any case, I still see no reason to cut off a part of the body when there isn't any conclusive evidence that there are "health benefits." STD transmission may be higher among those who aren't circumcised, but that number includes those in the developing world who happen to be uncut but also don't have ready access to condoms. If we were to compare STD transmission rates within the industrialized world, like say, US and Europe, those numbers don't stand up. In fact, Europe has a much lower STD transmission rate despite all the foreskin here.