Talk:Circumcision/Archive 3

message: Let's try and see where we agree first, and then describe the areas of disagreement.
*Clitoris - I think just about every Western man agrees that removing a girl's clitoris is "mutilation". It's an essential part of her sexual organs; removing it makes orgasm difficult or impossible, which in turn is highly likely to affect her relationship with her mate.
*Labia majora, labia minora - We're probably also agreed that removing or trimming the lips of the vulva is "mutilation". (Some may quibble that plastic surgery is okay if it makes them look prettier, but I don't think that's the issue here! :-)
*Foreskin - This is controversial, with advocates locked in an irresolvable conflict. 
**Many Jews (and Muslims?) and possibly some others regard removing the foreskin as a religious requirement. A significant number of believers within these faith traditions DISAGREES. I guess we better mention this disagreement.
**Hygiene - Some people advocate circumcision as an aid to male hygiene: the smegma is less apt to collect around the penis's tip, if there's no foreskin to keep it around. It smells bad (or attractive?), they say. I daresay some who have a religious motive for circumcision cite the hygiene aspect hoping to convince people who don't accept the religious reason -- can we mention this angle, or am I just speculating?
**Sexual function - There is considerable disagreement among fans of sexual intercourse about whether male enjoyment of sex is diminished or enhanced by circumcision. Perhaps puritans hope for diminishment?
I don't know if any of the above analysis helps. If not, then just consider this: 
* Some advocates regard all infant circumcision as "mutilation" and opposed it adamantly. (I think all of agree that this is a true statement, i.e., it's true that there are advocates who regard the matter this way.)
* Some advocates deny that circumcision of male infants constitutes "mutilation". (This is also correct, isn't it? I mean, there are advocates who promulgate this point of view.) --Uncle Ed 16:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mutilation controversy

message: ::If you're so adamant about including the "to cut off" meaning of "mutilate", then surely you have no objection to "amputate" - it means "to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (as a limb) from the body" , is used in medical texts describing circumcision, and carries considerably less POV baggage. - jredmond 22:04, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foreskin amputation" is one way to describe it.  "Amputate" could also go into the section describing the procedure itself - "the foreskin is separated from the glans, then amputated". - jredmond 16:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amputation 

message: A ritual where you simply cut the ridged band have been suggested as a more humane alternative to removing the entire foreskin. Perhaps this could also go into the article. // Liftarn
:Sounds like a plan, though I'm not sure where we'd put it under our current article structure. - jredmond 16:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another issue 

message: The Council of Florence is also viewed by many, including the Catholic Encyclopedia as cementing the rupture between Roman Catholicism and other Christian denominations, including Greek Catholics and Hussites. Exact opposite is true. The Council of Florence was last attempt of reconcialition of both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. There were no Greek Catholics at that time and since their establishing they were always in good terms with the pope. Hussites had nothing to do with Council of Florence. It was the Council of Basle they took part in. Since the orginal statement was meaningless, I've deleted it. -- Vít Zvánovec 12:52, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Florence