Even if all this were true, can you justify calling it “kissing” as the OP does? That is a word that also evokes pedophilia, and act is not a kiss, not even purely factually.
And yet again, Bricker shifts the goalposts. Really, it’s okay to admit that you’re wrong and that you’ve been acting like an asshole this entire thread. There’s no shame.
Whether or not someone will imagine something sexual does not change the fact that we’re discussing grown men sucking on baby penis because way-past-antiquated rituals tell them to.
“Oh, I was sucking on his penis in a non-sexual manner!” does not, I think, matter an iota of a damn.
But you could say, “putting oral suction on a circumcision to stop the bleeding.”
You don’t.
You say, “sucking on baby penis.”
Now, I’ll admit, the way I phrased it was wordy. But I don’t think your concern is conciseness. I think you’re intentionally using the precise words “sucking on baby penis,” because it suits you perfectly fine to phrase things in a way that viscerally evokes the worst abuses of organized religion and the worst fears of caring parents–even though those particular fears are completely unfounded in this particular case.
Am I wrong?
Here is my first post in this thread, with precisely the same goalposts:
Your argument boils down to semantic equivocation. And I doubt it’d fool anybody.
The act is objectionable whatever you call it. Call it “Ordering a pizza with extra cheese” if you really want. It’s still a man sucking a baby’s penis as part of a religious ritual. I’m not sure what’s so difficult about this concept. Perform the circumcision. Engage in whatever bits of pomp and circumstance you’d care to. Keep the infant’s penis out of your mouth.
I don’t really see how this is confusing.
You don’t see how using sexually charged language to describe an issue that’s really about hygiene and medicine might be confusing?
What’s your position on the sterile glass tube solution?
Is there a doctor in the house?
Does applied suction work to stop bleeding? IANAD, but it seems to me this is the worst possible thing you could do. You should clean the cut and apply light pressure until the bleeding slows. Then bandage it.
Suction? Bleeding? Doctor?
Dad always taught me that when I got a cut, I should squeeze it till it bleed–blood LEAVING the body forced debris and infection out of the wound. But this is folk advice, I am not a doctor.
That, unless I misread or missed something, it’s a hypothetical that isn’t germane to the actual practice that’s currently under discussion. Did I miss a quote somewhere? It’s clear that you think it’s somehow important to the discussion, but I can’t seem to figure out why exactly.
It is about neither. It’s about a religious ritual.
Please don’t be dishonest. (Honestly, hygiene and medicine? How many med schools do you think advise “oral suction by the doctor” as a treatment for minor wounds? How can you even type that with a straight face?)
It seems to be a rather common practice. Here is a cite, obviously relating to the story that inspired the OP. It’s about the middle of the article, and says that “The rest of Orthodoxy usually uses a sterile glass pipette or tube through which the mohel applies oral suction.”
Again, to me, it seems like a perfectly workable compromise. (It also seems to me to be a damn silly one, but the First Amendment should protect it.)
Of course they don’t recommend oral suction. Modern medicine prescribes more hygienic solutions.
Thus, the issue with the mohels is one about medicine and hygiene.
Thanks. It’s weird, silly, creepy, and anachronistic… but doesn’t seem to carry a risk of disease transmission so it should be protected under the 1st amendment.
Obviously. This is Bricker we’re talking about. He’s not going to feel shame for his behaviour until someone legislates otherwise.
Seriously, I can’t count the number of times people have repeated the phrase “sucking baby dick” in this thread, and BRICKER should feel shame?
My question for was: is it also fair to describe it with all the quasi-pedo language that’s been used above?
Good point. Why should Bricker be ashamed about your innumeracy?
And I’ll renew my question for all the chickenshits hiding behind the, “It’s technically accurate!” shield: while “suck” may indeed be a technically accurate phrase to use, what about “kiss?” How is this, even technically, a “kiss?”
I never thought I’d see a thread where Bricker is the one arguing against the use of technical accuracy.