Any Jews having a tough time with circumcision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that this is not exactly what you are getting at, butI am extremely bothered by all the negativity. It is intrusive and disrespectful while masquerading as a free-to-be-you-and-me mentality.

1. The people who say we are mutilating our children's genitals and use the term "intact" bother me immensely. My child is not incomplete in some way because he is circumcised. your kid is not circumcised, he is not "intact".

2. The people who say that we should leave the child to grow up and make his own decision. This makes no sense to me. What other decisions should we leave to our child? Is he allowed to hit his friends? Can he just stay awake all night watching movies? Decide what he wants to eat even if it is a 100% sugar diet? No! We are the parents. We decide things for our children all the time and yes a lot of them are permanent and last throughout their lives. We get to raise our children how we choose. that means we can discipline, form family traditions, celebrate holidays and circumcise our sons.

I have to ask those people who say we should let our children grow up and decide what religion to be if they force Christmas presents on their children before they are 18?

3. I did not dwell on the health benefits or the risks. We are Jewish and we had a bris and circumcised our son. I fully support parents making decisions for their children. And I expect everyone else to butt out.

Sorry, dictionary wanna be, but you don't get to police the language. My kid is intact. your kid is, by definition, not intact. You may use a euphemism if you like, but you can't force me to do the same so you feel better about what you did. And yes, I stand behind my belief that no parent should be forcing elective surgery on a newborn for cosmetic reasons or because their "god" tells them to. How ridiculous.

Here's the problem I have with the term "intact". It's not nice. Just say, your child is not circumcised. That's fine. The term intact is loaded with the implication of superiority. Are you teaching your child that circumcised children are incomplete? How will that play out in the school yard? Not well I imagine. What's funny is that circumcised children don't walk around talking about being circumcised. It's the people who didn't have their children circumcised that seem hell bent on finding out the situation in everyone's pants.

Sigh. Circumcised children ARE incomplete, or rather their penis is. I am very glad that my son has his whole penis. To be circumcised is to not have your whole penis. This is just basic anatomy.

I sure hope you don't have any piercings.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state this again and state it clearly. Female circumcision is NOT ALWAYS about slicing off the clitoris. It is most commonly about cutting the clitoral hood, which is exactly the same as male circumcision and has exactly the same purpose as the foreskin. I am not minimizing it. I think it is a horrific tradition even in the more minimal form. However, I also believe that male circumcision is horrific. That is where we differ. You need to read up and understand the cultural background of them both and how female circumcision is COMMONLY performed in order to understand and that's why I suggest that you read that blog which I assume you haven't done. If you did read that or read thoroughly on the topic you would understand that there are vast differences in the way that female circumcision is performed AND that the justifications are commonly the same for boys or girls depending on which culture you are a part of.

What I find horrific is telling an 8yo girl that you're taking her to a party in her honor, then leading her into a shed where some old lady with no medical training, no anesthetic, and unsanitary tools slices off her clitoral hood (or does any other form of FC/FGM under the same conditions).

Honestly, if they wanted to remove the clitoral hood (or less) at infancy, with anesthetic and a doctor in a hospital, and valid scientific evidence showed that the risk was less than or at least roughly equal to any medical benefit--no, I would not have a problem with that.

But the two procedures are so far different from each other that there is just no comparison, and it's offensive to suggest there is.

PLEASE READ THIS: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html READ IT NOW!

Sorry for yelling, but seriously please read it and then come back and debate it. What you seem to not understand is that in many cases female circumcision takes place in medical or hospital settings on newborns - JUST LIKE WITH BOYS.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% Jewish and wouldn't hear of my DS being circumcised. We did an alternative bris that brought him into the fold without mutilating his manhood! I always figured if he wants to get circumcised when he is old enough to make the decision, more power to him. I'll leave it up to him.

Guess what Ms. 100% Jewish? Your DS isn't Jewish. Who performed this "alternative bris"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state this again and state it clearly. Female circumcision is NOT ALWAYS about slicing off the clitoris. It is most commonly about cutting the clitoral hood, which is exactly the same as male circumcision and has exactly the same purpose as the foreskin. I am not minimizing it. I think it is a horrific tradition even in the more minimal form. However, I also believe that male circumcision is horrific. That is where we differ. You need to read up and understand the cultural background of them both and how female circumcision is COMMONLY performed in order to understand and that's why I suggest that you read that blog which I assume you haven't done. If you did read that or read thoroughly on the topic you would understand that there are vast differences in the way that female circumcision is performed AND that the justifications are commonly the same for boys or girls depending on which culture you are a part of.

What I find horrific is telling an 8yo girl that you're taking her to a party in her honor, then leading her into a shed where some old lady with no medical training, no anesthetic, and unsanitary tools slices off her clitoral hood (or does any other form of FC/FGM under the same conditions).

Honestly, if they wanted to remove the clitoral hood (or less) at infancy, with anesthetic and a doctor in a hospital, and valid scientific evidence showed that the risk was less than or at least roughly equal to any medical benefit--no, I would not have a problem with that.

But the two procedures are so far different from each other that there is just no comparison, and it's offensive to suggest there is.

PLEASE READ THIS: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html READ IT NOW!

Sorry for yelling, but seriously please read it and then come back and debate it. What you seem to not understand is that in many cases female circumcision takes place in medical or hospital settings on newborns - JUST LIKE WITH BOYS.

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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 100% Jewish and wouldn't hear of my DS being circumcised. We did an alternative bris that brought him into the fold without mutilating his manhood! I always figured if he wants to get circumcised when he is old enough to make the decision, more power to him. I'll leave it up to him.

Guess what Ms. 100% Jewish? Your DS isn't Jewish. Who performed this "alternative bris"?

Wow. What a C.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let me state this again and state it clearly. Female circumcision is NOT ALWAYS about slicing off the clitoris. It is most commonly about cutting the clitoral hood, which is exactly the same as male circumcision and has exactly the same purpose as the foreskin. I am not minimizing it. I think it is a horrific tradition even in the more minimal form. However, I also believe that male circumcision is horrific. That is where we differ. You need to read up and understand the cultural background of them both and how female circumcision is COMMONLY performed in order to understand and that's why I suggest that you read that blog which I assume you haven't done. If you did read that or read thoroughly on the topic you would understand that there are vast differences in the way that female circumcision is performed AND that the justifications are commonly the same for boys or girls depending on which culture you are a part of.

What I find horrific is telling an 8yo girl that you're taking her to a party in her honor, then leading her into a shed where some old lady with no medical training, no anesthetic, and unsanitary tools slices off her clitoral hood (or does any other form of FC/FGM under the same conditions).

Honestly, if they wanted to remove the clitoral hood (or less) at infancy, with anesthetic and a doctor in a hospital, and valid scientific evidence showed that the risk was less than or at least roughly equal to any medical benefit--no, I would not have a problem with that.

But the two procedures are so far different from each other that there is just no comparison, and it's offensive to suggest there is.

PLEASE READ THIS: http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/circumcision-is-child-abuse-picture.html READ IT NOW!

Sorry for yelling, but seriously please read it and then come back and debate it. What you seem to not understand is that in many cases female circumcision takes place in medical or hospital settings on newborns - JUST LIKE WITH BOYS.

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.

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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I've got two other kids and married a non-Jewish guy. Don't worry - I'm all ABOUT upsetting my family. Don't need to watch a video; have been to many brises. Was raised Orthodox, remember? But don't need to upset my parents with this one; I am comfortable with American doctors' research and competence in this area to trust that my baby would be fine. Will totally be ashamed before the aliens who arrive in their spaceship to watch the bris, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a movement amongst some Jews to not circumcise. I was under the impression that it was not a requirement...at least no more than keeping Kosher is.

Pretty observant Jew here - I'm going to choose to ignore the ridiculous conversation going on about circumcision and female genital mutilation and just focus on this misunderstanding.

Circumcision is absolutely a requirement in Judaism - it is the very basis of our covenant with God.

From the Torah: "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and thy descendants after thee, every male among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised on the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations (Genesis 17:10-12)."

Not circumcising is considered to be breaking the covenant with God. The very foundation of Judaism.

This is not the same as not keeping kosher - because kashrut laws are arguably rabbinical interpretations of much more obscure references in the Torah.

Simply put, uncircumcised boys are not considered Jewish, by any rabbi, tradition, or Jewish law.

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.

[Anonymous]

You just have a party, call in the expert and snip, snip, snip its all over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You just have a party, call in the expert and snip, snip, snip its all over.

How perverse to be so flippant about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I've got two other kids and married a non-Jewish guy. Don't worry - I'm all ABOUT upsetting my family. Don't need to watch a video; have been to many brises. Was raised Orthodox, remember? But don't need to upset my parents with this one; I am comfortable with American doctors' research and competence in this area to trust that my baby would be fine. Will totally be ashamed before the aliens who arrive in their spaceship to watch the bris, though.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You just have a party, call in the expert and snip, snip, snip its all over.

... And don't forget about the food. That's the best part!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know that this is not exactly what you are getting at, butI am extremely bothered by all the negativity. It is intrusive and disrespectful while masquerading as a free-to-be-you-and-me mentality.

1. The people who say we are mutilating our children's genitals and use the term "intact" bother me immensely. My child is not incomplete in some way because he is circumcised. your kid is not circumcised, he is not "intact".

2. The people who say that we should leave the child to grow up and make his own decision. This makes no sense to me. What other decisions should we leave to our child? Is he allowed to hit his friends? Can he just stay awake all night watching movies? Decide what he wants to eat even if it is a 100% sugar diet? No! We are the parents. We decide things for our children all the time and yes a lot of them are permanent and last throughout their lives. We get to raise our children how we choose. that means we can discipline, form family traditions, celebrate holidays and circumcise our sons.

I have to ask those people who say we should let our children grow up and decide what religion to be if they force Christmas presents on their children before they are 18?

3. I did not dwell on the health benefits or the risks. We are Jewish and we had a bris and circumcised our son. I fully support parents making decisions for their children. And I expect everyone else to butt out.

Sorry, dictionary wanna be, but you don't get to police the language. My kid is intact. your kid is, by definition, not intact. You may use a euphemism if you like, but you can't force me to do the same so you feel better about what you did. And yes, I stand behind my belief that no parent should be forcing elective surgery on a newborn for cosmetic reasons or because their "god" tells them to. How ridiculous.

Here's the problem I have with the term "intact". It's not nice. Just say, your child is not circumcised. That's fine. The term intact is loaded with the implication of superiority. Are you teaching your child that circumcised children are incomplete? How will that play out in the school yard? Not well I imagine. What's funny is that circumcised children don't walk around talking about being circumcised. It's the people who didn't have their children circumcised that seem hell bent on finding out the situation in everyone's pants.

Sigh. Circumcised children ARE incomplete, or rather their penis is. I am very glad that my son has his whole penis. To be circumcised is to not have your whole penis. This is just basic anatomy.

I sure hope you don't have any piercings.

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.

You are "incomplete" if you have piercings.