Religion and culture: Difference between revisions

Line 5:

== Culture ==

In some cultures, non-therapeutic circumcision is a social norm, recommendation, or even a requirement. In some cultures, circumcision is viewed as a rite of passage, and a male may not be considered a privileged adult until he has undergone circumcision. In others, it is seen as "unclean" not to be circumcised, and consider the circumcised penis to be more aesthetically pleasing.

In some cultures, non-therapeutic circumcision is a social norm, recommendation, or even a requirement. In some cultures, circumcision is viewed as a rite of passage, and a male may not be considered a privileged adult until he has undergone circumcision. In others, it is seen as "unclean" not to be [[circumcised]], and consider the circumcised penis to be more aesthetically pleasing.

=== America ===

Line 80:

|publisher={{UNI|Cornell University|CU}} Press

|year=1967

}}</ref> In some African societies, a man who has not been circumcised is seen as a child, and unfit to take on the duties of a "man" (IE, someone who has been circumcised), such as positions of office and authority.

}}</ref> In some African societies, a man who has not been [[circumcised]] is seen as a child, and unfit to take on the duties of a "man" (IE, someone who has been circumcised), such as positions of office and authority.

Boys and men are circumcised at different ages depending on the African society. Practices obviously vary. Among the Ehing of Senegal, the major idea of the ritual is to "spill sexual blood," and with the very young just the tip of the [[skin]] is considered sufficient for them to have entered the initiation. Children whose wounds have closed too completely were subjected to repeat operations, with the second cutting being much more extensive.<ref name="Schloss 1988"/> Among the Gisu of Uganda, only youths aged eighteen to twenty-four are eligible for circumcision, which is perceived as a crucial test of masculine bravery and endurance. The youth must stand absolutely still while first their foreskins are being cut and then stripped from around the glans penis. They are required to display total fortitude under the knife, betraying no signs of fear, not even involuntary twitching or blinking. The Gisu describe the pain as "fierce, bitter, and terrifying."<ref name="Heald 1989"/>

Line 138:

===United Kingdom===

Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys was a practice in the [[United Kingdom]] prior to about 1948. The National Health Service did not offer non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, so the practice was abandoned. Abandonment of non-therapeutic circumcision was encouraged by [[Douglas Gairdner]] whose landmark 1949 paper pointed out the lack of benefit and risks of non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref>{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> Dave et al. (2003) reported a declining incidence of circumcision in Britain.<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal

Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys was a practice in the [[United Kingdom]] prior to about 1948. The National Health Service did not offer non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, so the practice was abandoned. Abandonment of non-therapeutic circumcision was encouraged by [[Douglas Gairdner]] whose landmark 1949 paper pointed out the lack of benefit and risks of non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref>{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> Dave et al. (2003) reported a declining incidence of circumcision in Britain.<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal

|last=Dave

|first=Sangreta S.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 == Culture ==
-In some cultures, non-therapeutic circumcision is a social norm, recommendation, or even a requirement. In some cultures, circumcision is viewed as a rite of passage, and a male may not be considered a privileged adult until he has undergone circumcision. In others, it is seen as "unclean" not to be circumcised, and consider the circumcised penis to be more aesthetically pleasing.
+In some cultures, non-therapeutic circumcision is a social norm, recommendation, or even a requirement. In some cultures, circumcision is viewed as a rite of passage, and a male may not be considered a privileged adult until he has undergone circumcision. In others, it is seen as "unclean" not to be [[circumcised]], and consider the circumcised penis to be more aesthetically pleasing.
 === America ===
@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
   |publisher={{UNI|Cornell University|CU}} Press
   |year=1967
-}}</ref> In some African societies, a man who has not been circumcised is seen as a child, and unfit to take on the duties of a "man" (IE, someone who has been circumcised), such as positions of office and authority.
+}}</ref> In some African societies, a man who has not been [[circumcised]] is seen as a child, and unfit to take on the duties of a "man" (IE, someone who has been circumcised), such as positions of office and authority.
 Boys and men are circumcised at different ages depending on the African society. Practices obviously vary. Among the Ehing of Senegal, the major idea of the ritual is to "spill sexual blood," and with the very young just the tip of the [[skin]] is considered sufficient for them to have entered the initiation. Children whose wounds have closed too completely were subjected to repeat operations, with the second cutting being much more extensive.<ref name="Schloss 1988"/> Among the Gisu of Uganda, only youths aged eighteen to twenty-four are eligible for circumcision, which is perceived as a crucial test of masculine bravery and endurance. The youth must stand absolutely still while first their foreskins are being cut and then stripped from around the glans penis. They are required to display total fortitude under the knife, betraying no signs of fear, not even involuntary twitching or blinking. The Gisu describe the pain as "fierce, bitter, and terrifying."<ref name="Heald 1989"/>
@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 ===United Kingdom===
-Non-therapeutic circumcision of boys was a practice in the [[United Kingdom]] prior to about 1948. The National Health Service did not offer non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, so the practice was abandoned. Abandonment of non-therapeutic circumcision was encouraged by [[Douglas Gairdner]] whose landmark 1949 paper pointed out the lack of benefit and risks of non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref>{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> Dave et al. (2003) reported a declining incidence of circumcision in Britain.<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal
+Non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of boys was a practice in the [[United Kingdom]] prior to about 1948. The National Health Service did not offer non-therapeutic circumcision of boys, so the practice was abandoned. Abandonment of non-therapeutic circumcision was encouraged by [[Douglas Gairdner]] whose landmark 1949 paper pointed out the lack of benefit and risks of non-therapeutic circumcision.<ref>{{GairdnerDM 1949}}</ref> Dave et al. (2003) reported a declining incidence of circumcision in Britain.<ref name="dave2003">{{REFjournal
   |last=Dave
   |first=Sangreta S.