It used to be that the Jewish male’s early sacrifice of his foreskin was meant to prevent trichinosis. No, wait a minute: Preventing trichinosis was the purpose of avoiding pork. Circumcision had no parallel scientific rationalization.
Its appeal (as distinguished from its status as commandment) was more aesthetic than scientific. Its aesthetic appeal was getting rid of smegma, a perennial candidate for inclusion on the list of the ugliest words in the English language. (In the opinion of some, smegma leads that list.)
But aesthetic appeal is an insufficient reason to mutilate the genitalia of Jewish baby boys. Moreover, an insult to aesthetics is hardly an adequate explanation for a procedure that long antedates the invention of the insulting word. “Smegma” was still only a gleam — more accurately, a mote — in the eye of its coiner when circumcision was introduced. And its introduction surely had nothing whatsoever to do with aesthetics nor even with science.
Its entire formal justification, at least so far as Jews are concerned, is, of course, cultural and theological. Circumcision is a signifier of membership. (Modify the member, maximize the membership.) That is why it is not properly classified as a form of mutilation.
Except, that is, by its never-say-snip opponents, who must now recast their persistent and annoying argument. As it happens, two studies recently published in The Lancet concluded that medically supervised circumcision offers men powerful protection against HIV, reducing the rates of infection by 50% to 60%. This revelation (we’re talking theology, aren’t we?), joined as it has been with a recommendation for adult male circumcision as an AIDS preventive, is plainly a setback to the pro-foreskin camp. And, writing as a Jewish male — as what they, in fact, call a “non-intact” Jewish male — I may say it is a pleasure to witness their comeuppance.
Google “circumcision” and you will see why. Learned paper after learned paper informs us that we’ve been irreparably traumatized by our experience; that circumcised infants exhibit behavioral changes after circumcision; that some circumcised men have strong feelings of anger, shame, distrust and grief about having been circumcised; that circumcision disrupts the mother-infant bond, and that some mothers report significant distress after allowing their sons to be circumcised.
You’ll find, as well, fervid argument that the real purpose of circumcision, in its origin, was to inhibit sexual pleasure, to depress the urge to masturbate. Jews, according to that line of reasoning, were early Puritans.
Balderdash. The dogma that there is no stigma to smegma — and if there’s no foreskin, there’s no smegma — appears now much shakier.
But: Read the literature, and you’ll learn that those who defend the practice of neo-natal circumcision are typically described as “culturally biased,” which may or may not be a code term for “Jewish.” Read the literature of a militant anti-circumcision group called the Circumcision Resource Center and you’ll learn that a majority of its board of directors is Jewish, as are a third of its Professional Advisory Board, inevitably inviting the question of whether they, too, are culturally biased. Angry with their parents for having had them circumcised?
Okay. I am not qualified to judge the continuing medical controversy or the motives of those engaged in it. I can’t even say that “intact males” — that really is the term — have more fun. (The use of the term “intact males” sounds to me pretty much like “partial-birth abortion,” a term that is technically true but coined in order to win the argument by stigmatizing those who disagree.)
But this is clearly not merely a medical controversy. The role of Jews in life and in literature has often been sexualized. The “Jewess” as temptress, for example, was a common theme in European literature; perhaps it suited those who themselves yearned to be tempted to imagine Jewish men as erotically wounded.
In America, the European stereotype underwent major transformation. Stereotypes of Jewish men in America (decisively non-sexual, especially in the absence of liver) and of Jewish women (the princess syndrome, sexually frigid) are not merely offensive, they are wounding. They may be a kind of X-factor in prompting intermarriage.
A scientific finding that circumcision is a useful AIDS preventive doesn’t directly affect all that. But if the pro-foreskin camp now relents and even retreats from its insistent claim that we Jewish males don’t know what we’re missing — or that we do know, and that is why we are so neurotic, displacing our reduced libidinal energy onto such asexual concerns as poverty, war, politics and such — well, the study will have helped not only the population on whom it focused, African men, but also serendipitously American Jewish men as well.
Do I sound defensive here? Am I merely expressing resentment because deep down I am among the traumatized? I suppose that’s possible.
I don’t remember my own circumcision very well at all, but then my memory isn’t as sharp as it used to be. (And another thing: My memory isn’t as sharp as it used to be.) Maybe I winced; I know I’ve winced more in recent years when I’ve been a guest as our newest male arrivals have been inducted.
Or maybe mine was an early learning experience in stoicism. My older brother claims no memory of the occasion; my hunch is that he and my father were dawdling in the kitchen at the time.
The ones who oppose circumcision — call them the “right to foreskin” crowd — say that removing the foreskin is pretty much like extracting a tooth that is perfectly healthy. I think it is more like removing a cataract. And I think that what’s really bothering them is circumcision envy.
"Circumcision envy"!? If I wanted to be circumcised, I could go right ahead and get it done. But guess what, I don't want the most sensitive part of my [word deleted] removed. That's right, the most sensitive part - it's not just there to protect the glans. The point is that it's MY body, and it should be MY choice. If someone wants to get circumcised, that's fine, but no-one should be cutting parts off their genitals without their permission. You don't have to be anti-semitic to be anti-circumcision - many Jewish people believe that circumcising people without their consent is wrong: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org http://www.jewishcircumcision.org http://www.circumcision.org (majority of directors are Jewish)
This is not an attack on Jewish people, it will actually save Jewish lives. Death from circumcision is very rare, but it does happen. A baby Jewish boy died in London after a bris in February this year, and one boy has died and another has suffered brain damage in New York following metzitzah b'peh. We give blood transfusions against parents' religious wishes, so there are limits to the first amendment, and I believe that the Jewish baby's rights override those of the parents. Equating being anti-circ with being anti-semitic is one of the ways that people stifle discussion on this subject. This is far better left to the Jewish intactivists. Did you look at the websites? http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org http://www.jewishcircumcision.org http://www.circumcision.org (majority of directors are Jewish)
Mark, if your [word deleted] is gloriously untouched, that's wonderful, but why do you have to make a crusade about destroying an ancient Jewish rite? - The idea that one "chooses" one's faith is an idea that does not fit well with Jewish culture. I remember it being pointed out to me in Hebrew school, by way of a question - Is Judaism a race or a religion? - that, from the perspective of an outsider, it has aspects of both. But, from an insider's perspective, ritual and faith are seamlessly united into a whole, and you can't attack the one without implicitly attacking the other. That's why it's offensive for you to suggest that Jews haven't got the right to practice their faith in America, a right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment.
"Its aesthetic appeal was getting rid of smegma" Retract, Rinse, Replace. This isn't rocket science. Did you know women have smegma, too? What parts do you recommend cutting off of them? smeg·ma –noun a thick, cheeselike, sebaceous secretion that collects beneath the foreskin or around the clitoris "“Smegma” was still only a gleam — more accurately, a mote — in the eye of its coiner when circumcision was introduced." smegma : from Latin, from Greek. smegma "a detergent," from smekhein "cleanse" Origin: 1810–20; < L < Gk smêgma unguent, soap, cleansing medicine "Circumcision is a signifier of membership. That is why it is not properly classified as a form of mutilation. Female circumcision is also a signifier of membership, and not considered mutilation amongst the African tribes that still perform it. That does not stop it from being called Female Genital Mutilation. "The Lancet concluded that medically supervised circumcision offers men powerful protection against HIV" Great. Let each guy make the choice for himself if he chooses to partake in risky sexual practices. P.S.: Condoms still required. "plainly a setback to the pro-foreskin camp" Not really. I don't know a single anti-circumcision advocate that does not support an individual's right to choose circumcision. The anti-circ movement is about giving all guys a choice. No infant is at significant risk of sexually transmitted disease. "Google “circumcision” and you will see why." Yes, everyone should educate themselves on this subject. The routine circumcision of infants is not recommended by any major medical organization in the United States. "Jews, according to that line of reasoning, were early Puritans." No, that would make your God a Puritan (at least in a metaphorical sense). You do believe your God is Puritan-like, don't you? What is Judaism if not strict religious discipline seeking high morals? How long is the list of rules you are to follow... over 700, right? "Read the literature of a militant anti-circumcision group called the Circumcision Resource Center and you’ll learn that a majority of its board of directors is Jewish" So? It is a single organization out of many. Specifically, it is a Jewish group promoting a kinder, friendlier form of bris. I applaud them. "Do I sound defensive here? Am I merely expressing resentment because deep down I am among the traumatized?" You tell us... do you know what you are missing? The April 2007 BJU describes the foreskin as the most sensitive part of the [word deleted]. The foreskin has several functions which I doubt you have experienced. "The ones who oppose circumcision — call them the “right to foreskin” crowd — say that removing the foreskin is pretty much like extracting a tooth that is perfectly healthy. I think it is more like removing a cataract." That seems completely illogical. Upon what basis do you draw such an absurd conclusion? A cataract is a diseased lens limiting a once completely function organ. A normal foreskin is not diseased in any way and is quite functional. How is the unnecessary removal of the foreskin more like removing a cataract than removing a healthy tooth? "And I think that what’s really bothering them is circumcision envy." Really? Ya, that's it, I want the most sensitive part of my [word deleted] cut off. ;) This is more like a 4th grade insult than anything else: "Oh ya, well you wish YOU had part of YOUR [word deleted] cut off, too!" Whatever.
"why do you have to make a crusade about destroying an ancient Jewish rite?" Brad, for the same reasons we oppose tossing virgins into the volcano to please an imaginary God, and for the same reasons we oppose ritualistic cutting of a girl's genitals. It is an unnecessary violation of a person's right to autonomy and security of person. "The idea that one "chooses" one's faith is an idea that does not fit well with Jewish culture." Fine, but let the boy choose his faith and decide if he wants to get circumcised. Specifically, what part of unnecessarily cutting off part of an infant's [word deleted] is about giving him a choice? "from an insider's perspective, ritual and faith are seamlessly united into a whole, and you can't attack the one without implicitly attacking the other." Great. I have no problem attacking any religion or cultural action that results in unnecessary harm to infants. I don't care if you are African, Jewish or Muslim, that's not what this is about. "That's why it's offensive for you to suggest that Jews haven't got the right to practice their faith in America, a right guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. ”" First of all, no one is stopping *you* from practicing *your* faith for you. The issue is that this religion is being forced on children at knife-point. It's great if you want to teach them about the religion so they can decide if they want to be a part of it, but First Amendment rights are not a free license to cause unnecessary harm to infant boys. "Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not permit children to be harmed through religious practices, nor do they allow religion to be a valid legal defense when an individual harms or neglects a child" - Walker vs. Superior Court, 763 P2d 852,860 (Calif 1988)
John, you bring a positively missionary zeal to your conviction that there is no God. Jewish tradition recounts the story of Abraham, who was called to sacrifice his child, Isaac, on the altar of his faith. (“The issue is that this religion is being forced on children at knife-point.”) This ought to give you some indication of the strength of the faith you are up against. Ironically, your passion seems rather wasted on such a small surgical procedure as a Jewish circumcision really entails. You would think we were putting the small child’s eternal soul in danger.
"Jewish tradition recounts the story of Abraham, who was called to sacrifice his child, Isaac, on the altar of his faith." I find it incredibly sad that this loving God would ask that of a father. What a sick and twisted mind He must have. Such a God must be patently evil to request such a thing. Perhaps that is how circumcision came to be a part of Judaism... this God is actually evil and enjoys watching suffering. That would explain much about this world. "This ought to give you some indication of the strength of the faith you are up against." I don't doubt the strength of anyone's faith... I see it in action all the time. All that does is show people have faith... not that what the have faith in is reality based. "Ironically, your passion seems rather wasted on such a small surgical procedure as a Jewish circumcision really entails." Again, I see it as an issue of the rights of the child being unnecessarily violated. The fact that such an archaic practice is still going on in the 21st century boggles my mind. "You would think we were putting the small child’s eternal soul in danger." Well, that is not my concern as I don't detect an eternal soul. Infant circumcision itself is bad enough for me.
And what does the great Jewish sage Maimonides have to say? "Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision." "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." Circumcision envy? Hardly.
The answer is that Jewish males should be forced to be circumsized, but that gentiles should be offered the option (by the doctor), and not in any way pressured into doing so. The ancient rite of circumcision is far from being a Jewish thing, though. It was found everywhere in primitive cultures, wasn't it?
Cutting off foreskin is like clipping your nails. Anyone who compares it to female circumcision or carving out your eyes is against it for some other reason, whether it is political or psychological.
"Two studies recently published in The Lancet concluded that medically supervised circumcision offers men powerful protection against HIV, reducing the rates of infection by 50% to 60%." And what worth is a conclusion that is contradicted by the real world? Rates of circumcision as of 20 years ago: USA--85% Ethiopia--~100% Finland--
Rates of circumcision as of 20 years ago: USA--85% -- Ethiopia--~100% -- Finland--
Sorry, no idea why most of my posts are not being posted. But the numbers in the real world clearly show that this hypothesis is not scientifically sound. Reality trumps any flawed study
Well, John, if you hold the Jewish God to be "evil," then where does your notion of "good" come from? I would suggest you read Friedrich Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morals, if you haven't already. The philosopher Immanuel Kant agreed with you, and said that no one who could issue such a command as that a father should sacrifice his son could be a good God. The problem is that, after the Holocaust, those who want to think of good and evil in terms of opposition to irrationality such as is found in the Jewish tradition have to contend with Nazi evil, as well, which consisted in opposition to Judaism. This conundrum has prompted the Church to rethink its stance, which had formerly been that it constituted the "New Israel," a brotherhood based on love alone, and without any of that icky stuff like cutting [word deleted]es or not eating shellfish. Since this stance had arguably contributed towards the environment that made the Holocaust possible, the Church reversed its stance, and adopted an attitude toward Israel that had more of a protective than a destructive character. This, I think, is why recent pontiffs have emphasized the value of faith as a corrective to reason, because reason, left to its own devices, tends to run off the rails in frustration at the irreducible particularity of the human experience. If we're all the same, why do some people have to be different? That is where you get well-intentioned human rights groups saying things like the Jews don't deserve to have a state, because it is... militaristic, based on blood and attachment to the land, all these things that we associate with the Nazi regime. Yet it was the Jews who were (among) the primary victims of the Nazis. Therefore, when people say, "You can be anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic," it is puzzling, because their anti-Zionism condemns the Jews in terms that would properly be reserved for those who had persecuted them. It ignores the particularity of the Jewish people, and in its rush to universalize the lessons of the Holocaust, tramples upon them. The situation is the same with regard to circumcision, I think. Paul said it is more important to be circumcised of the heart than of the flesh, and some people take this commendation so zealously to heart that they forget that, if it weren't for circumcision of the flesh, there could be no circumcision of the heart. The metaphor of universal human love and brotherhood depends upon the reality of the Jewish faith, and circumcision is a mainstay of that faith, as are other irrational rituals and commandments that, at the very least, make for interesting study, if not a set of guidelines for how to live a life.
"Cutting off foreskin is like clipping your nails." Really? In what way (besides your obvious opinion that a foreskin is useless)? Is a foreskin alive or dead when attached to the [word deleted]? Does a foreskin transmit nerve sensations? Does a foreskin grow back after it is cut? Your analogy sucks. The only similarity I see is that the foreskin helps protect the glans, as fingernails help protect the fingers. "Anyone who compares it to female circumcision or carving out your eyes is against it for some other reason, whether it is political or psychological." And why is that? Why do girls deserve protection from unnecessary genital cutting and boys do not?
Well said, John. The ignorance of Mr Fein would be laughable if it wasn't so pitiful. 'Circumcision envy', that must be it. I know when I read about similarly mutilated African women I cross my legs with sheer envy. No pesky prepuce to protect the glans of my clitoris! How have I managed this long to stand it? I'm grateful that my husband's common sense and compassion for his sons outweighed any potential defensiveness, and didn't lead to mutilating their genitive organs to make himself feel better about what was done to him. That is the definition of a mensch.
"this stance had arguably contributed towards the environment that made the Holocaust possible" No, the holocaust was possible because, as with religion, people abdicated power and reason to a higher authority. Of course, Hitler was at least a real, tangible being, while God is most likely just a conceptual creation of man, but the root problem is the same. I suppose the same concept can be applied to abdicating unusual power to Bush today. "This, I think, is why recent pontiffs have emphasized the value of faith as a corrective to reason" Faith as a corrective to reason? Whose faith do you suggest be the benchmark for that? The one who's God directs the unnecessary genital cutting of infant boys (among other atrocities)? "That is where you get well-intentioned human rights groups saying things like the Jews don't deserve to have a state, because it is... militaristic, based on blood and attachment to the land, all these things that we associate with the Nazi regime." I suspect the Middle East would be better off if there were not Gods competing for the same "Holy" land? "Yet it was the Jews who were (among) the primary victims of the Nazis." This would not be the first group to go from victim to victimizer. It happens all the time with abused children. It is like a disease. "Paul said it is more important to be circumcised of the heart than of the flesh" Paul? Oh yes, the delusional victimizer turned victim... what a refreshing change. I take what is attributed to him with a grain of salt. "if it weren't for circumcision of the flesh, there could be no circumcision of the heart." No big loss. "The metaphor of universal human love and brotherhood depends upon the reality of the Jewish faith" And why is it dependant on that? Are you suggesting the best qualities of human love were only expressed through Judaism? "circumcision is a mainstay of that faith" Oh, so that rationalizes unnecessary genital cutting? How do you quantify ritualistic FGM? "as are other irrational rituals and commandments that, at the very least, make for interesting study, if not a set of guidelines for how to live a life." Study to your heart's content, but leave the boys alone.
I should have also addressed this: "if you hold the Jewish God to be "evil," then where does your notion of "good" come from" It comes from the same place as my notion of evil... from within me. My morals are based on my desires and how I see the best way to get them fulfilled. That involves a system of cooperation that also best helps others to get their desires fulfilled. I have no problem judging your God (or Hitler) as being evil based on a standard of morality that I have developed over my lifetime. Let's hope the Judaic God is not the absolute standard of Good and Evil... I think we can do much better than that.
"I thought we were in a fair fight, but apparently you feel it's appropriate to insinuate homosexual inneundo into the conversation. Brad... that thought had never crossed my mind, but perhaps you have brought up a relevant point. The issue is specifically men (and occasionally a woman) cutting up a boy's genitals. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
John, I thought we were in a fair fight, but apparently you feel it's appropriate to insinuate homosexual inneundo into the conversation. "Study to your heart's content, but leave the boys alone." That's OK; I know when I'm casting pearls before swine. If you would like to have the last word in our conversation, I won't stop you.
Do you also favor removing all female breasts to prevent occurance of breast cancer?
Circumcision precedes the Jewish religion (as does monotheism, the other very questionable contribution to human society). Ancient Egyptians were snipping their foreskins and, for a period, worshipping a monogod. It's also an Islamic rite, and probably a rite of other lesser known groups. All that aside, I don't care whether or not any other man has a foreskin (I do not). I do care that it was removed from me without my consent. Is it complete coincidence that men generate nearly all the violence in human society, and men are the ones having their foreskins cut from them? Hmmm, one can at least ponder this. And finally, for all its status as a rite, it's a pretty stupid one. If god wants our foreskins he can take them when we're dead.
The answer is that Jewish males should be forced to be circumsized, but that gentiles should be offered the option (by the doctor), and not in any way pressured into doing so. The ancient rite of circumcision is far from being a Jewish thing, though. It was found everywhere in primitive cultures, wasn't it?
BEING BORN A MALE IS NOT A DISORDER REQUIRING ANY FORM OF GENITAL ASSAULT MUTILATION ! BEING CIRCUMCISED IS LIKE HAVING EYES BUT NO SIGHT OR COLOUR OR EARS BUT NO SOUND ! CIRCUMCISION IS A DISGUSTING DEFORMING DENUDING ABUSE OF MALE BODY RIGHTS ! UNETHCAL BIZARRE VIOLATION OF MALE BODY RIGHTS ! LEAVE MALE BABIES ALONE SERVES NO PURPOSE
And what does the great Jewish sage Maimonides have to say? "Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision." "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." Circumcision envy? Hardly.
And what does the great Jewish sage Maimonides have to say? "Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision." "It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him." Circumcision envy? Hardly.
Removing something that is there naturally is not the same as removing a malignant growth. I think that your comparison to cataracts is very far off. As for the HIV prevention, the rate of prevention is not as high as the numbers you listed. Also, it must be said that the prevention percentages are only applicable to the studies that were conducted; in which circumcision was used because no other methods of prevention were available. The best method of prevention is still to use a condom or abstain from sex; and in addition to that, the circumcision benefit is only descriptive of heterosexual sex.
Wow you people are verbose. Upshot, it's not really a "choice" when you are an adult. Duh. Circumcisionophobes are just jealous because they don't have the balls to get cut.
Overheard: "It's my baby and I'll cut off any piece of it that I want to."
Overheard: "It's my baby and I'll cut off any piece of it that I want to."
Generally speaking, Mother Nature knows best. No doubt there is a function and evolutionary purpose for the foreskin, even if we're not entirely aware of it. And, somehow, the idea of a god who considers snipping off a foreskin a Good Thing (or necessary) is as absurd as the idea of a god who considers mixing flax with wool (or whatever it is in Leviticus) an "abomination." Surely we can discard primitive ideas and practices, perhaps leaving them entirely to those fellows who like to dress in black 17th century Polish garb and wear funny hats. More for social reasons she claimed than anything else my wife insisted that my son be circumcised and before I could really protest it had been done in hospital. I still think that it was not only wrong, but silly.
Surprising that uterine cancer has not been mentioned in this discussion. It's far less frequent in females whose male partners have been circumcised.
I would suggest that any woman who chooses to partake in risky sexual practices (multiple sexual partners, unprotected sex, etc) consider the Gardasil vaccination against HPV. Unnecessarily cutting off part of the [word deleted] of all males is not a solution. Let's carry your logic a little further... if you really want to curb STDs why not recommend removing the entire [word deleted]?
What is this depraved fetish perversion in the USA to mutilate and butcher infant males while protecting f emale genitalia ? Gross unethical abuse and unconstitutional action. Leave the male [word deleted] alone. Being born a male is not a DISORDER REQUIRING any FORM OF MALE MUTILATION
For another point of view, there is a letter from a non-non-intact Jew, or one might say from an intact, non-circumcised Jew: "Although uncircumcised, I am a very proud Jew, with a very strong sense of Jewish identity, and never hesitate to affirm my Jewish identity, to Jew and non-Jew alike, but particularly to myself. I can assure you that having a foreskin has not made me less of a Jew than those without one, and in fact has given me additional reason to think about it. I would rather be an uncircumcised self-affirming Jew than a now too common circumcised self-deprecating Jew." Please see: http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/calijbulletin1985.htm
Correction: it's not surprising. The belief that there is a causitive link between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer is apparently based on an invalid study. See: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
The tooth metaphor is a total loss. Most people have their wisdom teeth removed although the teeth are perfectly fine. It is their position that creates problems. Hey! maybe it is a good metaphor.
I'm glad people are willing to discuss this. Thanks to an online posting years ago I found out how to grow about an inch of new skin per year. Intimacy since I restored is worlds better.
To Racheli: Two of the cases I mentioned were due to metzitzah b'peh or oral suction, the other one was not. Children die following circumcision, even when performed in "the typical sterile circumcision setting in the US". It happens more often than you think - just google "death circumcision". Google "David Reimer" too, just one of the cases of "[word deleted] ablatio" or amputation of the [word deleted].
I can't imagine my boyfriend being any more into it than he is.
The reference to an infant death related to circumcision had nothing to do with the circumcision itself, but with the uncommon practice of touching mouth to wound. This created an infection impossible in the typical sterile circumcision setting in the US.
First off I don't have any problems with people being circumcised. Second, in America I feel like some kind of freak just becuase I'm not circumcised. If you could hear the way women or other men talk about the uncircumcised you'd cringe too(that being if you had foreskin). It's unfortunate, but I'm not going to get circumcised just to fit in. I don't care really as long as I can find one woman who won't think I'm disgusting. Wish me luck.
Someone please respond to my comment. Thanks.
WAITE UNTILL THE BOY IS 21 YEARS OLD THEN GIVE HIM THE OPTION OF HAVING HIS PENIS SKIN AMPUTATED .. ADDITIONALLY ENSURE THE FELLOW HAS HAD LOTS OF SEXUAL EXPERIANCE.
ALL YOUR OUT DATED, OUT MODED , RHETORIC AND DOGMAS DEFENDING UN-NEEDED CIRCUMSISION. LET THE SKIN GROW AND HAVE ADULT CHOICE DECIDE WHETHER TO CHOP OR NOT!
The fate of bris must, of course, be decided within the Jewish community. The 25 year controversy re American routine infant circumcision (begun by Edward Wallerstein, a secular Jew, and Rosemary Romberg, married to a Jew) was about circumcision being imposed on gentile American baby boys by an overenthusiastic medical profession. For a Jew and Moslem, there is a reason for the foreskin's absence: tribal identification and solidarity. For other Americans, there was no defensible reason, which has led to sorrow and anger in some quarters. AIDS is not a reason for sacrificing the foreskin. If being circumcised protected residents of advanced nations from AIDS, why is AIDS more common in the cut USA than in uncut Europe? AIDS in Africa is heterosexually transmitted; in our world, it is passed around by anal intercourse and injected drugs. Different strokes... Smegma? Utterly trivial to wash away. American maternity wards have mostly stopped pushing circumcision on dutiful gentile parents, most of whom are in as much awe of doctors as we Jews are. Nevertheless, about 55% of American baby boys exit the maternity ward shorn of their foreskins. Why? Because, as was spoken on Seinfeld, the uncut [word deleted] is Alien. Parents fear that boys will ridicule their sons in the locker room, and that young women will do so in the bedroom. Mom and Dad don't want to be reminded of the foreskin every time they change their boy's diaper. Best to cut it off and not go there...
The fetish for circumcision Americans and Jews seem to have is kind of weird. It's like you enjoy cutting off the most sensitive and pleasure giving parts of your own childrens genitalia. Some sick fetish it is. But i guess in sex hating cultures such as yours it's acceptable to cut off pleasure giving organs.
Where do you get the idea that Jews are sex-hating, Drealgrin? My experience has been the exact opposite.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.