I’m not accusing you of crimes against humanity. Obviously, the context here is religious freedom, not death. But the quote still applies. First some practices that you think of as far-out and absurd are restricted, but you don’t speak in their defense because you don’t see the need for them. But eventually, other, more mainstream practices will be attacked. And then, the freedom of preaching one’s beliefs will be attacked.
If your personal distaste (NOTE: I am not pooh-poohing the issue of potential herpes transmission, I’m talking specifically about the general attitude that the opponents have displayed in this thread, which is the basis for the pedophilic-sounding term that has been used in most of these posts) for a practice is your yardstick for which religious freedoms are worth defending, then eventually, the freedoms you enjoy that others find distasteful will be threatened.
Trinopus:
It’s not done for symbolic reasons, it’s done for the baby’s health. The intention is to make sure that blood will flow out of the wound and thereby allow the wound to heal properly rather than the blood pooling under the skin. In ancient times, the most effective way of creating that suction was believed to be directly by mouth. In more modern times, some have updated this procedure with other modes of suction, but there are those who will insist that tradition is never wrong. That said, my point is that it’s not a metaphor or a “G-d said so” matter - it’s meant as a health measure (however misguided or antiquated you might perceive it to be).
Reyemile:
To be technically accurate, the intention is to draw out the blood (as per my answer above), not to stop the blood.
No, it’s the exact opposite. It is as if a doctor was saying “I perform colonoscopies” and some idiot was insisting “no, you jam things up assholes! Stop hiding behind an innocuous euphemism! Stop trying to mold the debate over this controversial and offensive ass-jamming with your choice of language!”.
To prove the point: how many doctors performing the procedure, or parents having the procedure performed, are ever (as in your example) going to say “I had to go to the doctor to get my babies cock cut”? The more natural choice of term would be “I had to (or I wanted to) get my child circumcised”. It isn’t either an obscure technical medical term or a euphemism: it’s simply the common English word for this activity, understood by everyone and commonly used.
This is not what I am saying. I am saying that you cannot hand-wave your way out of defending a controversial practice by sanitizing the language of the debate. No one is saying that we should replace the generally-agreed word “circumcision” with “baby dick-cutting” in all discourse. But we should accept that when we defend circumcision, we are defending something pretty graphic. People who object call it the cock mutilation that it is. It is kind of outrageous, and if you defend it, own it.
There isn’t even a generally-agreed term for metzitzah b’peh. Most people don’t know this practice exists. Why should they use some recondite rabbinic term in a language they don’t know to describe something antiquated, disgusting and of questionable applicability even among extreme circumcizers? It’s kind of pretentious, too. I guess we could use the next closest term, “oral suction.” But that’s kissing cousin to “sucking dick,” so I’m not really seeing a net gain.
Though I think you’re beyond help, I keep trying. Parents who genuinely think about circumcision as mutilation probably don’t get their kids circumcized. So the answer to your unhelpful hypothetical is “probably zero,” though it does not prove what you think it does.
I’m defending nothing here but the proper use of language. There is nothing “sanitizing” about calling circumcision, circumcision. Even people who are hard-core opponents of circumcision still generally call it “circumcision” and don’t, in general, insist on using terms like “cock multialtion”. Because no-one fails to know what “circumcision” is, and insisting on replacing that term with stuff like “cock mutilation” sounds all kinds of crazy.
I guess it has escaped your notice I haven’t said even one word about this practice?
cmkeller,I will accept your assertion that orogenital contact is “for the baby’s health.” Orogenital contact increases the risk of herpes infection 3.4 times over boys who are circumsized without orogenital contact: Doesn’t this trigger an obligation for mohelim to avoid orogenital contact?
Also, I don’t understand how this is an attack on religion. How does requiring mohelim to inform parents that a bris will involve orogenital contact attack the practice? How does informing parents that their sons face an increased risk of death or serious injury attack the practice? If the practice is for the health of the boy, why resist providing this information?
Finally, New York identified one mohel who infected at least two boys with herpes. The state ordered him to stop performing this procedure. Does he have a religious obligation to stop orogenital contact if he is a confirmed risk to boys’ health? If he also performs the procedure in New Jersey, but still practices orogenital contact, does he have any religious obligation to inform parents that he presents a risk to their sons’ health?
Why don’t you respond to Mapache? I made no accusations of pedophilia; I asked how you could make a categorical statement without direct evidence, and pointed out that the NYT article makes it clear that even if there were mohels molesting babies they are unlikely to be denounced by the ultra-orthodox community.
No one in this thread has done that. It’s been the exact opposite. We’ve been using loose language – sucking baby dicks – and idiots have been accusing us of using unfair language. You’re the ones trying to change what we’re saying.
Really? Because that quote has a very obvious context. Or does ‘context’ only work when people are possibly being accused of pedophilia?
So: Honor killings. For or against? Remember the slippery slope you’ve constructed here. Or can you suddenly see a massive, obvious reason why maliciously endangering and/or ending lives is different from other religious freedoms?
Except none of my freedoms involve the risk of damaging infant brains, possibly killing them.
You’re using *sexually charged *language to describe a disgusting but *asexual *practice. “Loose” doesn’t cut it; your choice of language is entirely and intentionally misleading.
This has taken on a life of its own. I honestly don’t think we disagree all that much. Nor do I even think I am saying anything particularly controversial. I know I am not going nuts, because other people clearly get what I am trying to say here.
I note in passing that the word circumcision itself just means “cut around.” This leaves out what I think are probably the most important aspects of the procedure. Colonoscopy, “having a good look in your colon,” confronts what it does head on, as does “clitoridectomy.”
Admittedly I have not read the whole thread so if someone brought this up before apologies for the repeat.
That said it would seem to me this is simple.
The mohel putting his mouth on the penis is unsanitary. Simple.
Hell, anyone putting their mouth on your penis is unsanitary and carries a risk (one that feels really, really good though). I would think that risk is greater when there is an open wound involved.
In the US I do not think religious freedoms override basic health concerns such that a mohel doing this to an infant is reasonable. I cannot imagine how the mohels defend this practice.
We’ve known about germ theory for about 150 years now (give or take). I think it is well settled fact.
Even if the risk is minimal statistically why the hell would anyone roll the dice on this? It’s your baby! If you want it circumcised then fine but do so with someone professionally trained to do it and do it as cleanly as possible.
It seems eminently reasonable to at least require the mohel to inform the parents of ALL parts of the ceremony including sucking on the baby’s penis. Leave it to the parents to decide once they are informed of the process.
My ignorance of the fine art of circumcision has been vanquished. I had no idea that the application of a mouth to a penis is part of the Jewish tradition.
The instant that I read Bricker’s first post in this thread, I understood what he was objecting to. I also knew the direction this thread has taken. Bricker’s point was correct.
I have said exactly nothing about this ultra-Orthodox practice. My comments were entirely directed at the use of “circumcision” versus “cutting baby dicks” or “cock mutilation”. The suggestion was made that using circumcision was ‘unfair use of language’ because it was a ‘euphamism’ that hid the ghastly reality of the practice and molded the ‘debate’.
My point was (and remains) that this is very silly, for the simple reason that no-one on earth is in the least confused by the term - circumcision is the common English term for the practice. It is not a “euphemism”. It is not intended to mold the debate. Even those who are against the practice use the term.
So - I have in no way, shape or form attempted to “change what you are saying”. I have said not one word about “sucking baby dicks”.
On that topic - to my mind, that use of the term “sucking baby dicks” isn’t misleading, it is simply sniggering. I have nothing against sniggering at the unhygenic follies of the ultra-Orthodox, though it is somewhat adolescent. It is sorta remeniscent of a slapstick routine in a movie in which a cowboy is bitten on the ass by a rattlesnake and can’t get anyone to suck the poision out because no-one wants to ‘kiss his butt’. [Yes I know sucking out snake poision doesn’t really work, but it was a staple of cowboy movies]. But what is this forum for, if not to snigger?
I do note that a few posters here have gone beyond sniggering and are apparently seriously proposing that it can’t be disproved ultra-Orthodox types use the practice beacause they secretly get off on it. This, too, is silly. The ritual pretty obviously developed, like many ultra-Orthodox rituals, at a time when conducting the ritual made sense in light of contemporary knowledge (sucking on a wound was considered first-rate medicine in the 17th century), and fossilized in that form.
