Thanks, Pearl, for jumping in. You said most of what I wanted to
say, but I would like to make a few points.
Phyllis raises many good points against circumcision for the non-
Jew. Especially of concern for Americans, as I understand the
present climate, is the issue of not getting the infant's
consent. However, I get somewhat upset when circumcision is
compared to female genital mutilation, especially as described by
Kathy D. (thanks for warning us, Kathy!). There are NO health
benefits to the female and none to her male partner. There is NO
sexual pleasure for the female.
Now I'm going to venture into really murky (for me) waters. I
would question Phyllis' contention that the foreskin is "sexually
sensitive". When the foreskin is removed and the supersensitive
glans is exposed to constant "stimulation" (via clothing, for
example), I have heard that the man is able to postpone
ejaculation during the sex act for a longer time (as
compared to an intact man), thereby pleasuring the woman. At
Jewish weddings, the groom is exhorted to "make the bride happy"
or "pleasure the bride", and I don't think that the ancients were
talking about a charge account at Sak's.
If sequelae of not getting the infant's consent to the surgery is
really an issue, I don't think that very many Jewish males are
upset with greater "sexual prowess" at being able to bring their
mates to orgasm successfully.
And yes, the timing is vital. If I
had to cope with a culture that circed males at 1 or 2 days of
age, I'd probably be raging too. Judy Knopf, lucky to live in a
wise culture (well, sometimes it's wise.....)