Are you seriously comparing a pierced ear to the removal of a baby boy's foreskin? This kind of idiotic comment shows that you have no idea what the foreskin is and why it is important. This is exactly why it should be illegal to mutilate your child in this way. You haven't got a clue. How about you compare it to cutting off the tip of his finger or his nose or even part of his tongue. Personally iv'e never used the word "intact" although it is a very clear description of my son's penis. I prefer "normal". I guess I could use "unmutilated" if I needed to distinguish it from some idiot who authorized a doctor to attack her child's genitalia for financial gain. |
No, you missed my point altogether. I certainly understand that some female circumcision takes place at birth in a hospital setting, just like most US male circumcisions, and that some male circumcisions take place under the horrifying conditions I described above. That's what I meant by "two procedures" - hospital/birth/minor removal vs. shed/adolescent/severe removal -- NOT male vs female. So I'll say it again more clearly--I think the hospital/birth/minor removal form of the surgery for boys OR girls is acceptable. I'm sure that makes me an outlier because so many people have such a visceral reaction to the topic of female circumcision due to the media focusing only on the horrific form (and rightly so, because I do think that should be stamped out). I'll admit that I still do feel a bit uneasy with the idea of female circumcision under even ideal conditions, but I can recognize that as a cultural bias--rationally, one has to accept both or neither. I'd be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. |
Guess what Ms. 100% Jewish? Your DS isn't Jewish. Who performed this "alternative bris"? |
I'm glad we have gotten to the bottom of this and found some common ground! What we disagree on then is that I feel that it should not happen in either case. My point in even discussing it was to mention the hypocrisy of supporting one and not the other and also so that people would understand that their support of male circumcision was purely cultural (or religious) and not based in science (just like with girls). I suspect that you are unusual in recognizing the hypocrisy of these two opposing positions, but thank you. |
Wow. What a C. |
I was raised Orthodox and consider my Jewish heritage and culture important, though I am not observant. DH is not Jewish, but is circumcised (as are a a good portion of non-Jewish men of our generation). I don't know yet if we are having a boy, but I feel very ambivalent about circumcision. DH is fine with it, since he is circumcised as are most of his non-Jewish friends, even though the ceremony seems strange - but he is not at all opposed. I know I will do it, because I don't feel strongly enough about it to make my family unhappy - my parents would be devastated if we did not circumcise a baby boy according to religious ritual. But I do agree with other posters who point out that at some point in the future we will all look back at this practice as barbaric and strange. Sure, we can justify it with the STD protection benefits, but that is NOT actually why we do it here in America; we do it either for religious reasons, or because it is considered "normal" in American culture. If you take a few steps back and think about it objectively - it is just straight weird and barbaric: we cut off a piece of little boys' penises! It may not be very painful to the infant, nor does it have lasting awful effects like female circumcision/genital mutilation. But it is still just as weird when you take a step back from the way it has been normalized in our culture. |
Watch a video. That's all I ask. Watch a video of them doing it under even the most favorable scenarios, with anesthesia, etc. They really suffer. I agree with everything you say and it sounds really level-headed, but I just beg you, if you don't personally feel strongly about it, don't put your baby boy on the chopping block for something you agree is barbaric to please your family. You will need to establish your own way of parenting and it will involve upsetting your family at times. This won't be the first or last time you'll need to stand up for what you think is right. |
Agreed - if both circumcisions, male and female, are performed on infants and are accompanied by the same amount of medical risk, reward, and non-effect on future health and sexual well-being, then either both practices are fine, or they are both ridiculously weird and barbaric. I tend to think the latter, and yet am the poster below who knows that if she has a son she will have a bris, because a bris IS culturally acceptable here in America, and I'll go along with that to satisfy my parents and extended Jewish family. But I KNOW the practice is weird and objectively barbaric. |
I've got two other kids and married a non-Jewish guy. Don't worry - I'm all ABOUT upsetting my family. ![]() |
This is incorrect. Raised Orthodox here, and very well-versed in Jewish law from many years of study. Traditional Jewish law (Orthodox, Conservative) considers a person Jewish if the mother is Jewish. Period. That said, brit milah is a VERY important commandment for Jewish people, and a conscious decision not to circumcise one's child is considered a serious violation of Jewish law. But it does not render the uncircumcised child a non-Jew. |
You just have a party, call in the expert and snip, snip, snip its all over. |
How perverse to be so flippant about this. |
I like your first post and am glad there are more Jews who recognize the practice as barbaric, but I really can't understand why you would go ahead with circumcision if you really feel the way you say you do, and if you are usually not squeamish about upsetting your family. Very odd. |
... And don't forget about the food. That's the best part! |
You are "incomplete" if you have piercings. |