Letters to the Editor
-
like little lemmings
From the male perspective, the arguments against circumcision are overwhelming and undeniable. It must be very difficult for circumcised men to hear these. One doesn't want to know they are mutiliated or missing out, but it's important to not punish future generations for the fathers' problems in coming to terms with this.
I am an American woman, and in addition to agreeing with all that harms men in being circumcised, I would also like to add the female perspective: manual stimulation of circumcised men is awkward and nearly impossible if there's no lubricant on hand; intercourse feels significantly better for a woman (based on my and friends' experiences) if the man is intact; and giving oral sex is more pleasurable if he is intact. I feel so strongly about this that I would never enter a serious relationship with a circumcised man.
It's irresponsible and reckless to say there are no medical benefits to keeping a child intact. Is the love of your own body not a medical benefit? What about sexual pleasure? The truth is, circumcised men can never be aware of what detriment was done to them if they were operated on at birth. It is inhumane to rob boys of the choice.
It's well past time we stop this vicious cycle and our ignorant view of the human body as something that needs any help or modification. Circumcision is wrong.
-
Oh, and another thing
Not once in sixteen years has my son ever looked at my dick to see if he is like me, so spare me that excuse for circumsision.
-
response
Does challenging Jewish self-righteousness and supersition make me a bad person?
Given that you're going to have no impact on the decisions parents make, and aren't changing the law to ban circumcision, it just makes you someone dicking around on the Internet insulting random people you'll never meet.
Maybe you think this makes you part of a noble crusade, but really, it just makes you an obnoxious jerk. You haven't saved a single child from being horrendously mutilated by hook-nosed, clannish Jews by posting anonymous letters to Salon.com.
-
There are broader issues in the decision
I have four boys. All circumcised. All had a traditional bris in the home, eight days after birth. Only one cried at all and it was because I was instructed not to feed him an hour before the procedure and he was hungry. My moile was also my pediatrican and the child was given a novacane type injection prior, which is what hurt the most.
On more than one occasion nurses in the hospital told me a religious circumcision was the ONLY one they approved of, as it gave the baby eight days to start eating and the blood actually does not fully clot until the eighth day. I witnessed one in the hospital and the baby was strapped to a table with no family and screaming. It is notihing like that in the home.
There is a broader issue at hand. If one is planning to raise the child Jewish in any way, if they do not circumcise I can promise you the child will experience far more trauma. Boys at Jewish camps brag about their circumcised pricks. One cannot have a Bar Mitvah or marry in a synagouge unless it has been done. Even beyond that, we have a gentile friend who says all his sons were circumcised because when his father was in the Navy it was traditional, if it had not been done to do it on the ship and then throw the guy into the salt water. It had happened to his father and his father vowed it would never be done to any son of his. Now I'm certain these types of practices no longer exist, but you can't take away something that isn't there. There have been gentile men who have undergone this procedure as adults when they convert to Judaism. I knew a boy from Russia who wanted a Bar Mitzvah at camp. He had it done by the horse doctor in town at the age of 13. If that doesn't make you a man, I don't know what will.
If they have a son who may someday on his own choose to embrace his Judaism, they have created a sceanario in which he may do it any way and at that time, it certainly will be far more painful and possibly dangerous.
This mother was incredibly sanctimonious and probably caused her child more grief because of it. Doing it on the eighth day, surronded by loved ones with a trained professional, and the child sucks on a little wine on his pacifer, it really isn't that traumatic folks. I cried with everyone of my boys, it was harder on me than them. I can promise you my boys appreciate that they look like every other boy they go to camp with. They would be humiliated to undress other wise.
-
What about the rights of the child?
I'm surprised to see so little discussion in this thread about the rights of the child in this matter. Is the child not entitled to bodily integrity, to protection from unnecessary pain and suffering?
I find this discussion appallingly hypocritical, in that I can't imagine anyone posting in this thread defending the practice of infantile female genital mutilation - so why do attitudes change so radically when it's a baby boy being cut up for no good reason? Is it just because OUR (European-Judeo-Christian) barbarity is more acceptable than THEIR (African-Arab-Muslim) barbarity?
Bottom line - infantile circumcision provides no medical benefits that outweigh the risks (ask any doctor). No-one, in a democratic society, has the right to inflict unnecessary pain on their child, thereby violating the child's democratic rights. The procedure may be performed later in life, if the young adult involved decides they want it (making the decision much more meaningful to the young religious adherent) - so why hasn't this barbarity been outlawed?
-
What's the big deal?
Wow, what a lot of histrionics over nothing--on the writer's part as well as all these commentaries. One thing hardly anyone is bringing up is that having a circumcision done by a mohel is NOTHING like how they do it in the hospital; the baby is 8 days old and considerably stronger than a baby that has been breathing air for less than 24 hours. We've had two sons circumcised by mohels at 8 days and there was minimal fuss, no horrible pinning down, no harsh lighting, in the comfort of home, not a big deal at all.
My husband and I are atheists (I guess I am "culturally" Jewish but I do not practice religion; my husband is not Jewish, so I guess I have to cop to an "intermarriage" although we are not "interfaith" as we are both "faithless"); BUT my parents and grandparents are Jewish and wanted the ritual circumcision. We did it because it was no big deal and it made them happy. So what?
I can't believe the hand-wringing over nothing. And equating male circumcision with female circumcision is way, way off-base, so don't accuse those who defend male circumcision with supporting FGM, that is ridiculous.