Jump to content
IGNORED

Baby dies After Rabbi/Oral suction Post-Circ {merged}


Sinister Rouge

Recommended Posts

Ok, then let's compare a timeout to kidnapping!

Is an adult forcing the child to be in a place he doesn't want to be? Yes.

Can the child consent? No.

Is the child suffering negative feelings as a result? Yes.

Gosh, they must be so similar!

Okay, here we go.

I'm directing this at everyone in general, not specifically Beeks.

It seems a lot of people here (or at least the most vocal ones) are absolutely anti-spanking. (There's no real difference between spanking once a month and daily beatings, occasional spanking is abuse, etc.) One comparison that often comes up is "If your husband hit you when you did something he didn't like, would it be okay?" The comparison to time-out that sometimes comes up as rebuttal seems to usually be ignored. Why shouldn't it be ignored here?

I can't tell if I'm misinterpreting what I see (on the surface of these discussions) for what is there. Are there a lot of anti-circumcision people here who stay silent and edge away when the topic comes up, but more vocal anti-corporal-punishment people? Or are there really a large number of people who are against smacking (to the point that they'll argue against it), but okay with circumcision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

219c2gi.gif

I know a number of men who did not grow up circumcised and were circumcised as adults, when they decided to convert to Judaism. Every last one of them said they didn't notice any difference in sensation or performance, and aside from spending a week with a bag of frozen peas on their crotch, it wasn't that big a deal.

As Lexiloumarie said, Judaism is never going to give up circumcision. I've seen the Jews Against Circumcision, and the percentage of Jewish people who would identify that way is probably comparable to the percentage who practice the stuff that started this thread in the first place. We're talking about the very, very left fringe of Reform and Renewal Judaism here. And looking at their page arguing the religious permissibility of ceasing the practice of circumcision, I find it very unconvincing, and I'm not what anyone would call a theologian (or particularly invested in circumcision one way or the other, beyond the religious aspect). They're also being really misleading to potential converts about the larger implications of opting out of circumcision as part of the conversion process, which isn't cool with me, either. Judaism isn't going to abandon circumcision on any large scale. It's just not going to happen, which is why these debates are invariably fruitless, and no one's mind gets changed. And with that, I'm stepping out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infibulation is incredibly rare. The most common form of FGM is the removal of the prepuce aka FORESKIN (more commonly called the clitoral hood). The exact same tissue is removed and the removal for most girls is done with anesthetic (something over 95% of baby boys aren't lucky enough to get) in sterile conditions. So yes, male circumcision can easily be compared to the most common forms of FGM. But even a prick with a needle is illegal if it's to a girl, but this is legal to do to baby boys. (warning, very graphic) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... sion&hl=en and this is what is lost http://www.norm.org/lost.html

And for those who say it's different because male circumcision is for cleanliness....you really don't know your history, do you? The main reason for circumcision of girls & boys in North America was it was believed it would prevent masturbation. In countries where circumcision of boys is rare or unheard of, there isn't an epidemic of "unclean" men. And "having to be circumcised" happens to less than 0.5% of men.

ETA I'm curious what those who say Jewish people will never give up circumcision think of jewsagainstcircumcision.org?

Oh darn, I ran too early too. I'm going to take a look at the link you provided, it looks interesting. I find groups like this really interesting where people speak out against common practices within their own religion. Another interesting groups is Catholics for Choice, who are for abortion, birth control, and I am pretty sure they are also for same sex marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the practice of male circumcision, I don't understand how it's mutilation unless the surgery is botched.

You don't see how removing a healthy, functional body part from a non-consenting person could possibly be seen as mutilation?

Many men who are not religious have had it done, and many adult men have it done for non religious reasons.

Many adult women have had breasts cut off for breast cancer (some even preventatively), but that doesn't mean I'm lining up to have the procedure done for me.

Every male sexual partner I have had, with one exception, was circumcised.

You happen to live in a culture where, until recently, the majority of baby boys were circumcised. That something is popular is no proof that it is valuable.

I have never heard any circumcised male complain of sexual dysfunction or loss of sensation because of the procedure.

Most of them were circumcised as infants and have no basis for comparison. (However, trust me, there are whole communities online of men who wish they hadn't been circumcised or that the choice had been left up to them.)

At any rate, to criticize their circumcision would be to criticize their parents. Many people are unwilling to consider that their parents, good people who loved them, might have made a very bad mistake. That'd be a lot like saying their parents were BAD PEOPLE. And who wants to do that?

Again, how does that compare to the known effects of FGM?

Well, there are many many women who have undergone FGM and don't complain about it. They are fine with the way their parts look, and don't realize that sex could be any different than it is. They believe that their families made the right choice in pushing the procedure on them. Back in the days of footbinding there were no doubt women who were happy with the way their feet looked. If it's culturally normative, you're going to find a lot of people buying into it, even if people outside the practice can point out the flaws.

Are there vast communities of men disfigured and shamed by circumcision?

Yes.

How is this "mutilation"?

You are making a PERMANENT decision about a FUNCTIONING part of the body for your NON-CONSENTING child.

BTW, I would agree that the practice of cleaning the wound with the mouth is a health risk and no longer culturally acceptable to most people, but I would not characterize it as sexual abuse.

Circumcision is not culturally acceptable to many people worldwide. If we're using "A lot of people think this is okay" as our barometer, we're going to get some weird results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here we go.

I'm directing this at everyone in general, not specifically Beeks.

It seems a lot of people here (or at least the most vocal ones) are absolutely anti-spanking. (There's no real difference between spanking once a month and daily beatings, occasional spanking is abuse, etc.) One comparison that often comes up is "If your husband hit you when you did something he didn't like, would it be okay?" The comparison to time-out that sometimes comes up as rebuttal seems to usually be ignored. Why shouldn't it be ignored here?

I can't tell if I'm misinterpreting what I see (on the surface of these discussions) for what is there. Are there a lot of anti-circumcision people here who stay silent and edge away when the topic comes up, but more vocal anti-corporal-punishment people? Or are there really a large number of people who are against smacking (to the point that they'll argue against it), but okay with circumcision?

Okay, I'll bite.I'm against both, but would edge away from anti-circ discussions because I don't view circumcision as mutilation- just unnecessary cosmetic surgery. I don't like that it's the de-facto norm and wish that more parents would think about the consequences more carefully, but the issue here is definitely more to do with safe practices and not to do with circumcision itself. Then again. I'm not so against corporal punishment that I would view it's rare application as a sign of systematic child abuse, either- just ineffective and unfortunate (systematic corporal punishment is different, IMHO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of them were circumcised as infants and have no basis for comparison. (However, trust me, there are whole communities online of men who wish they hadn't been circumcised or that the choice had been left up to them.)

All I know is that when I was in the military adult men lined up to get circumcised. At that time we were seeing more gonorrhea in uncircumcised men.

Circumcision in infancy also appears to reduce the incidence of penile cancer in adulthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't care about circumcising that much. It's not a hot button issue for me because I don't have a penis, or a son. It doesn't make much sense (Are we cutting off the hood of a woman clit? No, we are not.)

However, that is some Typhoid Mary shit, and they need to keep that Rabbi from infecting small children! I also agree that it's fucked up to think that sucking on a small child's penis is ok as long as a bunch of people are watching, and it's religious. WTF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also against both. I consider circumcision to be mutilation. I shy away from circ convos because people inevitably get into the "which is worse fgm vs. male circ" thing that makes me rage OR people on "my side" start in about how circ'd males are all numb in the dick and aren't good in bed. I don't think EITHER of these arguments are useful. I think telling circ'd men that their dick doesn't work is a good way to make them defensive (and rightly so!) and thus is unproductive. Obviously circ'd men can fuck or we wouldn't have so many people in America. Whether or not they can feel as much is immaterial at this point as we can't put their foreskin back.

I think circumcision should be only for males who need it for medical reasons. I don't believe it's okay to do it for religion. I realize this is an "extreme" view.

I heard somewhere that some Jews were just pin pricking the penis now instead of removing the foreskin. I feel like this is slightly more amenable but still not good as sticking a pin into a baby is not very nice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circumcision in infancy also appears to reduce the incidence of penile cancer in adulthood.

Appendectomies in infancy would dramatically reduce the incidence of appendicitis in adulthood, but, again, nobody is lining up for that.

With that said, the studies that compare rates of penile cancer in circumcised and intact males contradict each other. Some show that there's a definite correlation. Others show that countries with a low circumcision rate, such as Japan and Sweden, have the same penile cancer rate as countries, such as the US, with a high circumcision rate.

It's known to be associated with smoking, AIDS, and HPV. Anti-smoking campaigns, condoms, and the HPV vaccine could make a big dent in the numbers.

At any rate, even among intact males the rate of penile cancer isn't really that high.

All I know is that when I was in the military adult men lined up to get circumcised. At that time we were seeing more gonorrhea in uncircumcised men.

I've seen people line up to get into Episode 1 at theaters. Just because something is rumored to be a good thing, or is in high demand, it doesn't follow that it actually IS a good thing. Searching for "gonorrhea circumcision" brings me several studies showing that there is not, in fact, a connection. (Admittedly most from anti-circ sites - but I didn't find ANY showing there IS a connection, and you'd think there would be some if there was.)

Even were there a connection, again, safe sex practices such as limiting your sexual partners and using condoms would probably be more effective. After all, we already KNOW they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never ever understand why people think saying circumcision 'may' prevent any STD is grounds for advocating for the procedure. You know what is 100% guaranteed way more effective at preventing every STD out there? CONDOMS. They also prevent pregnancy, which circumcision absolutely does not, and which is why every teenager (circumcised or normal) should be taught how to use them properly and encouraged to use them every single time they have sex. Relying on circumcision as protection against STDs is insanely risky as the studies showed that any potential protection was minimal anyway. Also, there is zero risk of your newborn dying of complications if you choose to leave his little body as-is and teach him actual ways to protect himself when he's old enough for it to even be relevent.

Just sayin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on the rabbi for knowing he had herpes and doing something he knew could spread it. He should be prosecuted.

On the circ debate. My first son was circ'ed. I went along with it because my husband insisted that his son would have a complex if dad was circ'ed and he wasn't . Note, my husband refused to attend the circ, I did. Since then I have been emphatically against it. If I had been better educated before they started in, there was NO WAY I would have let them do it. As it was I still have guilt about it. My second son, to my ex's dismay is not circ'ed. My eleven year old son asked me about it and I was honest. I told him that I had come to believe that circumcision was wrong, and why I felt it was wrong. After reaching that conclusion, I couldn't perpetrate it on his brother even if it made him the odd man out. My son then said, "You guys did it I didn't get to choose for myself. I don't think it would have bothered me to have a different penis than Dad, and I can't really miss something I've never had, but it does kind of bother me that I didn't get a say. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even were there a connection, again, safe sex practices such as limiting your sexual partners and using condoms would probably be more effective. After all, we already KNOW they work.

This was in the late 60's - early 70's. The term safe sex wasn't in use yet. Condom education wasn't available, some men used them but not large numbers. And soldiers, sailors, and Marines on R & R from Viet Nam had no interest in limiting their sexual partners. I would guess the military today doesn't do as many circs as we were doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? In complete seriousness, could you as a male please explain this? Every other man I have had this conversation with were either glad to be, or or indifferent to the fact they were circ'ed. Why do you feel otherwise?

I am only chiming in to answer this, because I am not touching the circ/no circ debate with a ten foot pole. Bu I know lots of men who aren't so thrilled and lots of men who are indifferent and lots of med who are totally glad. All Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never ever understand why people think saying circumcision 'may' prevent any STD is grounds for advocating for the procedure. You know what is 100% guaranteed way more effective at preventing every STD out there? CONDOMS. They also prevent pregnancy, which circumcision absolutely does not, and which is why every teenager (circumcised or normal) should be taught how to use them properly and encouraged to use them every single time they have sex. Relying on circumcision as protection against STDs is insanely risky as the studies showed that any potential protection was minimal anyway. Also, there is zero risk of your newborn dying of complications if you choose to leave his little body as-is and teach him actual ways to protect himself when he's old enough for it to even be relevent.

Just sayin'.

And in a country with a high HIV transmission rate but a low condom use rate? Circumcision is a good idea. I realize this might be unpopular, especially because of my personal feelings re circ. but it is true, lives are saved by it, women's lives too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never ever understand why people think saying circumcision 'may' prevent any STD is grounds for advocating for the procedure. You know what is 100% guaranteed way more effective at preventing every STD out there? CONDOMS. They also prevent pregnancy, which circumcision absolutely does not, and which is why every teenager (circumcised or normal) should be taught how to use them properly and encouraged to use them every single time they have sex. Relying on circumcision as protection against STDs is insanely risky as the studies showed that any potential protection was minimal anyway. Also, there is zero risk of your newborn dying of complications if you choose to leave his little body as-is and teach him actual ways to protect himself when he's old enough for it to even be relevent.

Just sayin'.

And condoms can't prevent all stds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GODDAMN FUCKITTY FUCKIN ASS OF A PARROT FU--- (Long string of creative swear words)

This shit makes me SO FREAKIN MAD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in a country with a high HIV transmission rate but a low condom use rate? Circumcision is a good idea. I realize this might be unpopular, especially because of my personal feelings re circ. but it is true, lives are saved by it, women's lives too!

I completely agree, and I'm rather anti-circumcision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard any circumcised male complain of sexual dysfunction or loss of sensation because of the procedure.

I've had TWO boyfriends who've suffered lifelong injuries from their circumcisions. One, due to scar tissue, isn't able to get fully erect. By the time he's halfway erect, the scar tissue has started causing painful pulling and bending, and he loses the erection. The other has so much verne damage that his penis is completely non-responsive to touch.

You do know that 100 boys a year die from circumcisions, right? And more actually lose their penises entirely due to complications?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Circumcision in infancy also appears to reduce the incidence of penile cancer in adulthood.

Penile cancer is extremely rare, about 800 cases of penile carcinoma a year. Breast cancer is common. An estimate 1 in 6 to 1 in 8 women, plus men who aren't in that count. So how about we start removing breast tissue from our infant daughters to prevent the chance of breast cancer? You know as well as I do that that would cause an uproar. So the argument that circling appears to reduce the risk of a rare cancer somewhat isn't a valid argument.

Over 100 babies a year die from circumcision, with more cases believed to be likely since not every baby who dies from a cause related to circumcision will be reported as having died from it. Every single one of these deaths is avoidable because circumcision, except for a rare case with medical need, is elective. Why does no one this this is important? Yet how many people think it's child abuse to not vaccinate child in America against Polio, despite the FACT that it is eradicated in EVERY first world country? And parents do it because of the nearly non-existent chance that someone from one of the THREE countries with reported polio cases over the last year decides to travel to America and actually has polio. Why are people more concerned about polio than about baby boys who die on average one every three days?

Back to penile cancer. It isn't a guaranteed killer. Not by a long shot. Many go into remission, some lose their penises (guess what - it happens to baby boys too), and some die (as already stated, so do baby boys). The benefit in no way outweighs the risks. And even if it did, the removal of a body part preemptively needs to be the decision of the person whose body it is, especially when the cancer is so rare few people even realize it exists until someone brings it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen people line up to get into Episode 1 at theaters. Just because something is rumored to be a good thing, or is in high demand, it doesn't follow that it actually IS a good thing.

I read this and laughed hard. Read it again and laughed again. It's the funniest thing I've read all night. Episode 1 sucked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never ever understand why people think saying circumcision 'may' prevent any STD is grounds for advocating for the procedure. You know what is 100% guaranteed way more effective at preventing every STD out there? CONDOMS. They also prevent pregnancy, which circumcision absolutely does not, and which is why every teenager (circumcised or normal) should be taught how to use them properly and encouraged to use them every single time they have sex. Relying on circumcision as protection against STDs is insanely risky as the studies showed that any potential protection was minimal anyway. Also, there is zero risk of your newborn dying of complications if you choose to leave his little body as-is and teach him actual ways to protect himself when he's old enough for it to even be relevent.

Just sayin'.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame on the rabbi for knowing he had herpes and doing something he knew could spread it. He should be prosecuted.

On the circ debate. My first son was circ'ed. I went along with it because my husband insisted that his son would have a complex if dad was circ'ed and he wasn't . Note, my husband refused to attend the circ, I did. Since then I have been emphatically against it. If I had been better educated before they started in, there was NO WAY I would have let them do it. As it was I still have guilt about it. My second son, to my ex's dismay is not circ'ed. My eleven year old son asked me about it and I was honest. I told him that I had come to believe that circumcision was wrong, and why I felt it was wrong. After reaching that conclusion, I couldn't perpetrate it on his brother even if it made him the odd man out. My son then said, "You guys did it I didn't get to choose for myself. I don't think it would have bothered me to have a different penis than Dad, and I can't really miss something I've never had, but it does kind of bother me that I didn't get a say. "

Share your story far and wide. A common argument in favor of circling is a boy would feel weird looking different (Though really, how many boys are comparing themselves to their dads, and for those who peek, why can't it be explained that all penises have different looks to them?) Your son is evidence that it's harmful to a boy to be disrespected in this way, but a meh think to look different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

treemom wrote:

Sinister Rouge wrote:

I will never ever understand why people think saying circumcision 'may' prevent any STD is grounds for advocating for the procedure. You know what is 100% guaranteed way more effective at preventing every STD out there? CONDOMS. They also prevent pregnancy, which circumcision absolutely does not, and which is why every teenager (circumcised or normal) should be taught how to use them properly and encouraged to use them every single time they have sex. Relying on circumcision as protection against STDs is insanely risky as the studies showed that any potential protection was minimal anyway. Also, there is zero risk of your newborn dying of complications if you choose to leave his little body as-is and teach him actual ways to protect himself when he's old enough for it to even be relevent.

Just sayin'.

And in a country with a high HIV transmission rate but a low condom use rate? Circumcision is a good idea. I realize this might be unpopular, especially because of my personal feelings re circ. but it is true, lives are saved by it, women's lives too!

I completely agree, and I'm rather anti-circumcision.

Do you mean making circumcisions available to adult men who are concerned about HIV? Or are you talking about a policy of routine infant circumcision? I'm 100% in support of making safe circumcisions available to adult men who can consent to the surgery. I'm not in favor of throwing up our hands and saying "they won't use condoms anyway so we might as well circ them as babies" which is what WHO and the Gates Foundation seem to be doing......(not saying you guys agree with that, but for me non-consent is a deal breaker, and infants can't consent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as anti circumcision as they come (and yes my husband has major issues from being cut). It's about consent. If men, or women consent to the procedure, they can fill their boots with all the circs they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.