I refer you to pages 1-39 :)
The financial cost of the procedure differs depending on location. Sometimes it is covered by public healthcare and sometimes it is not. The gross financial cost of a neonatal circumcision in the first world is usually hundreds of dollars. Circumcision in the USA is a billion-dollar-a-year industry.
However, I take from your use of inverted commas that you are not referring to financial cost but to the negative effects of the procedure. In this regard, the cost of circumcision is a loss of sensitivity, sensation and sexual function. The foreskin is removed and, with it, thousands of nerve-endings. The glans, a biologically internal organ, is permanently exposed leading to keratinisation of its surface. And the penile shaft skin is, depending on how much skin is removed, rendered largely or sometimes even wholly immobile. This affects the sex act for all parties involved, male and female.
The circumcision procedure causes trauma and pain to the baby and thusly affects the brain and mind. How this affects each individual is probably unique, but it is arguably one of the most damaging things to do to such a fragile and impressionable nervous system and psyche. The experiences we have as fetuses, infants, children and adolescents, affect us for life. And it is likely that the younger we are, the greater is the effect of a positive or negative experience.
How society is affected by generations of traumatised males is open to debate. There is a possibility that genital mutilation and other such barbaric child-rearing practices feed into a patriarchal culture that values aggression and war, and devalues emotions and sensitivity.
The additional cost of botched jobs is that many babies die and thus many parents lose their sons. Equally as bad, or perhaps worse, is that many males have their sex lives destroyed; botched jobs can damage the penis beyond repair: sever vital nerves, sever the penis, or leave the penis so horribly scarred or deformed as to seriously affect self-esteem.
All of this can be prevented and avoided by simply leaving the baby as he is born. We do this for girls and it is about time that boys were shown the same respect. If a male or female wants to have their genitals or any other body-part surgically altered for cosmetic or other reasons then they should be free to do so when they come of age. Such decisions should be left in the hands of the 'owner' of the body because they have to live with it.
I was ,"cut" when I was four years old.
they yanked my tonsils at the same time, so I was sore at both ends.
I have not yet forgiven my mom for having it done.
And I do not plan to do so
yep tonsil removal, another medical myth. Mine were yanked at age 7... to stop my cough! Needless to say, that didn't make a difference... Both my parents smoked 3 packs a day. yuk. Stupid doctors.
has anyone ever done the research and found the ANSWER to why circumcision even came into existence?
in my OPINION it is not barbaric to circumcise a male child...( vs circumcising a male adult...ouch )
i am not circumcised, and neither is my father...
not sure bout grand dad lol
now forget about ME and forget about YOU and lets analyse WHY circumcision came about...
in ancient texts it is said that the foreskin of some males would continue to grow, and or be too excessive, sometimes closing over itself...
to prevent this from occuring
circumcision became common place for the people of that REGION..
religious beliefs generally are based on SCIENTIFIC PHENOMENON that knuckledraggers observed and couldnt comprehend.
they didnt just spring out of nowhere...
thus discarding information just because its "religious" is juvenile.
the ancients had a saying:
science is visible spirituality
and spirituality is unseen science....
this schism between logic/science and spirituality is quite recent....
There ARE only religious reasons for the origins of circumcision.
The very earliest examples of circumcisions were for religious/ritualistic reasons.
"In 10,000 BCE Aboriginal tribes in central and desert regions of Australia introduce circumcision of boys as puberty rite...
6000 BCE Circumcision (male and female) practised as puberty rite by tribes in north-eastern African and Arabian peninsula...
3100 BCE Egypt invaded from the south, perhaps by African tribes bringing circumcision with them.
Herodotus (485-420 BCE) observes and deplores circumcision among the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones, as well as the Egyptian priestly caste. He criticises the fanatical ritual cleanliness of the Egyptian priests: "They [even] practice circumcision for the sake of cleanliness, considering it better to be clean than handsome" - a perverse sacrifice in Greek eyes..."
And don't start thinking that 'cleanliness' necessarily means in terms of health. There is also the idea of 'spiritual cleanliness'. Let's not forget that pigs and some shellfish are/were considered unclean. And why's that? ...because god said so...
I think circumcision was always meant as some kind of sacrifice. The same way that people sacrificed a goat/person/% of their crops for the sake of the following years' crop or the welfare of the tribe. You give a bit of yourself to demonstrate humility and humbleness in the hope that, in return, you will receive special treatment from the gods.
This sacrifice concept worked its way up into Christianity and ultimately culminated in the concept of the crucifixion - the supposed 'sacrifice for the welfare of the whole of mankind'.
Jesus is basically one big metaphorical foreskin.
in my OPINION it is not barbaric to circumcise a male child
Tell that to the Jewish kids that died of herpes virus because the rabbi that circumcised them drew the blood out of their penises with his infected mouth. This isn't in ancient history, this is happening now in NYC and no doubt elsewhere.
In summary: barbaric ignorant superstitious crap invented by barbaric ignorant primitive people.
I suspect that life in a desert environment (previous to any Jesus myth), where water to wash oneself was rare, it is not impossible that circumcised babies were lower maintenance. Maybe such an observation became a moral, which got written up. Homo sapiens have not evolved for desert environments, we are temperate creatures, who can only successfully survive other climes through great modification of self or said environment. Once removed from the sub optimal environment, there is simply no justification to continue this barbaric practice.
Absent some myth-based reason to avoid touching the genitals, I doubt that having a foreskin is a liability in any climate. Sterile urine exiting the body flushes any space within the foreskin to a hygenic (health-inducing) state. For easily retractable intact adults to benefit from this flush, they may need to grip the skin tube during urination to cause some back pressure. IF a) your myth says it's taboo to contact bodily fluids, and b) you're in a desert with no wash water, THEN hygiene for adults may be easier with no foreskin and died out mucosal surfaces.
Quite possible indeed. Multiple causes surely coexisted.
Under no circumstances should we ever compare the practice of female genital mutilation to the male circumcision of boys. While I agree that in western countries it is not commonly required for medical and hygienic purposes, it serves many functions in reducing both sexually transmitted diseases and infections and the practice is not done solely for religious purposes. In addition, male circumcision does not reduce the sexual function of the male and reduces minimal pleasure compared to the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation which serves absolutely zero function.
Let's not compare oranges with apples. It makes one appear blatantly ignorant, uneducated, or an Islamic apologist by trying to compare acts which have no moral equivalency with one another.
You overlook that studies have found female genital mutilation correlates with reduced HIV incidence.
You overlook that the most common form of FGM is non-amputating slitting of the prepuce, which is categorically less destructive than male prepuce amputation.
You overlook that 94% of the world's females live under laws (though rarely enforced) forbidding even a pin-poke to draw one ceremonial drop of blood, with no religious exemption.
I think the comparisons are quite constructive to the debate.
"Under no circumstances should we ever compare the practice of female genital mutilation to the male circumcision of boys."
It is useful to compare the two as there is a massive amount of ignorance attached to the subject of male circumcision. Where it is easy for people to judge FGM (female genital mutilation) as a "bad" practice that infringes on people's rights, it can sometimes be difficult for people to apply the same standard to male circumcision.
"it serves many functions in reducing both sexually transmitted diseases and infections"
So if it was shown that removing breasts from infants would diminish the chance of breast cancer we would start chopping of baby breasts? Just because something could potentially be an issue in the future does not give right to remove a body part. Besides the fact that this is mostly a bogus claim that is not proven by scientific evidence.
Also if STD's and infections are the problem, hygiene and education are the answer, not the preventive removal of the foreskin.
Male circumcision does reduce the sexual function of the male, people that are circumcised might not feel always feel that way, but do they really have something to compare it too? Removing a part of the penis that has a huge number of nerve endings does have an effect on how a male experiences sex.
Circumcision is a touchy subject, not a lot of men would be happy to admit that their body has been mutilated by the people that should've protected them from harm. Even more so, that this mutilation was done for the wrong reasons is also something that can be difficult to stomach.
Some sexual facts about being circumcised:
- Male circumcision removes a part of the body that contains a lot of nerve endings and removing this part does have an effect on how a circumcised male experiences sex.
- Removing the foreskin removes the flap of skin that normally protects the head of the penis, a circumcised male tends to have less feeling in his genitalia then compared to an intact male.
- The foreskin acts as a "cock-ring" during intercourse, ribbed for her pleasure, so to speak.
Ergo, male circumcision does adversely affect the way in which a male experiences sex.
We do not remove any other body part as a preventive measure (AFAIK) to prevent against an infection, we do not remove the appendix or tonsils as a preventive measure against infection, so why do we do it with the foreskin?
Does anybody realize how silly this looks when you look at this from a culture where this is not routine practice?