Tom, it's true that circumcision is unnecessary and probably harmful, and it's true that cosmetic surgery without informed consent is immoral. But I think that you err in ascribing the motivation of parents (or even physicians) to greed. That's way too cynical. Even though the procedure does not coincide with your modern worldview, or mine, it has an ancient religious meaning for both Jews and Muslims--even secularized ones.
Hi Paul - Thanks for your comment. Me? Cynical? LOL The last thing I would want to suggest is that parents are making the decision to circumcise based on greed. No way. The vast majority of parents are making this decision based on a lack of understanding of what is going on. They have no idea that the foreskin is an important part of sexual function and a number of other things that make this a problem. What I was trying to get across was that money was and is acting as a motivation for businesses to prefer the practice of circumcision of boys continue.
If people feel that this practice has deep Spiritual significance that is their thing and I wouldn't want to push them one way or the other. The reality in the US is that circumcision has almost zero Spiritual significance to most parents. (Aren't Jews and Muslims about 3% of the US population?) The surveys tell us that they tend to do this for reasons like insuring the son looks like the dad, or I want my son to look like other boys, or its what my family has always done, or the doctor said..... etc This is a far cry from a deep respect for a ritual.
I really respect your work, but I agree with and thank Paul for his interjection. Jeiwsh parents don't proceed out of greed, it is the defining element of being a jewish man, a central tenant in their jewish identity. It is for the vast majority a source of pride. It is not a gruesome act if done the way jewish tradition dictates. In fact, both of my sons suffered more when vaccinated. All around me I see jewish men living sexually fulfilled lives, so I reject strongly the equivalency drawn between female and male circumcision.
Thanks for offering your point of view. It seems both you and Paul picked up that I was somehow concluding that greed might be a motive for parents to decide to have their boys circumcised. When I did the video the thought I had was about businesses and their impact on the continuation of circumcision. Can you tell me what part of the video led you to think that I was claiming parents might be greedy to decide to have their son circumcised? I really can't see it and would love to know what you and Paul are seeing that I am not. Thanks.
Hi Paul - The circumcision vid is not subscriber only. You should be able to see that. Let me know if you can't. Send me a screen shot of the denial. Would love to know what you think.
Thanks, Tom. I did watch it. It's true that you say nothing there about the families and their motivations. But I'd still have made the same comment for precisely that reason. Religious Jews and Muslims (and they're not all religious) are a tiny minority of the population, but they're still moral agents. So, if you think that circumcision is evil, then that critique would apply to them as well. I think that circumcision is unedifying and primitive but not evil.
This is why the relation between male circumcision and female circumcision is not morally symmetrical. Jews and Muslims do not circumcise their sons in order to cause them pain or to deprive them of sexual pleasure (and I'm aware of no evidence that Jewish or Muslim men are less eager than non-circumcised men to seek sexual pleasure.) Some tribal societies do, however, circumcise their daughters for that very reason (and therefore to make it less likely that the daughters will seek sexual pleasure outside of marriage, which in turn makes them more desirable as brides).
Also, I think that your argument about infants feeling traumatized, let alone permanently traumatized, is highly debatable. It might make sense from the perspective of psychoanalysis, but psychoanalysis itself is highly debatable. That's partly because it relies on theory, not evidence. Infants do feel pain, as they do inside the womb, but it would be very hard to prove that the memory of this pain, if any, remains to afflict them later on.
I take your point about the industrialization of circumcision, but I think that other aspects of your argument (and those of some comments) could be more subtle.
Do you not also look around and see lots of genitally mutilated women leading sexually fulfilled lives? Many women actually choose to have 'excess' tissue trimmed from their vaginas for cosmetic reasons, or to have their clitorises and/or labia pierced as a sexual kink. Some men choose to mutilate themselves in the same way as a sexual kink.
The point is not that circumcision is always a medically disastrous procedure that ruins lives (although it certainly can be), and it certainly isn't about women worsting. It's that it's an obscene and grotesque violation of a child's bodily integrity in the absence of any sound medical need. This is just as true whether it's done to little boys or little girls but, in the Anglosphere, it's only done to little boys so it's kind of pointless to be 'fair and balanced' about it.
Besides, anti-FGM laws are, and always will be, Constitutionally untenable. SCOTUS already struck down the federal legislation in 1996 and kicked it back to the states. There's really no way for sex based discrimination on genital mutilation is ever going to pass constitutional muster, so if you really care about the poor little girls, you really need to suck it up and start caring about the little boys, too.
I hope I have misconstrued your meaning to be honest. I guess it was the title, the pictures, the not differentiating between different cases, and since parents have to give consent it’s assumed they are implicated in the motivation. Look, I would never have given mine unless there was an existential religious issue behind it and it was done with anesthesia as has become common practice in the orthodox circles I have moved in. I guess I would have wanted a more differentiated view on the topic.
I think it's always fair to ascribe greed to the motives of anyone who does anything for money. Doctor's are no less influenced by it than those in other professions, either, as is on prominent display with all the covid nonsense and the new research showing that vaccines have horrific health outcomes.
Tom, I don't claim that non-Orthodox Jews see anything spiritual in circumcision (or, for many of them, in anything at all). As Hannah says, however, most have a strong emotional need to foster cultural and even demographic continuity. Their children will probably ignore Judaism if they don't receive any Jewish education, but these children will at least grow up knowing (without resorting to DNA tests) that they're Jews. This leaves the door open for a reassertion of Jewish identity. The Nazis understood that, which made every circumcision a powerful act of defiance (in a country where very few non-Jews were circumcised).
It seems to me that you're argument is most useful in connection with the routine and medically unnecessary circumcision of non-Jewish and non-Muslim boys--that is, most boys by far. This argument allows for the democratic notion of religious freedom (circumcision being the exception, not the rule) but also for avoiding a double standard (concern for the integrity of female bodies, not for male bodies).
Yes, my interest is in the families that don't have a sense that this is an important spiritual ritual. I tend to try and stay out of the way of those who do. That is their business.
Hi Jamie - They both work for me. Not sure what the problem might be. I hope you can get them working. The Sandra Bullock one is worth a look. Maybe try a different browser??
thank you. When I click on my links in my comment they work now!!!
I was able to copy paste anyway,,,
I saw the Sandra Bullock interview and felt sick... she hardly blinked an eyelid about what she was doing.
But thank you for pointing out the money in selling these foreskins and 'cells'.. It was Sandra Bullock that made me think of any extra money earned.
Interestingly enough we have a friend here who works for a major Pharma company, Switzerland.. I've asked him at least once, maybe twice 'what do you do?'.
'Research' and he might babble something that I don't understand, in English.. but I get the feeling that he doesn't want to say what he actually does.. it might be very private but I often feel that 'he just doesn't want to say'.. and despite that I can search him on LinkedIn and the last time I looked it was something about 'in vitro'. I will let people who read this do their own research. I never speak to him about his job anymore but I have a distinct feeling that it is 'experimental' and edges on the use of 'cells'... I don't know... but it is his silence that irks me.. Nice guy, but.... when I think that 'foreskins' might be involved, I'm not happy....
I hadn't watched the video Tom.
I could scream... this device for strapping a male child down... this is disgusting...
Even justifying it as some religious ritual in 2024 I find disgusting...
Tom, it's true that circumcision is unnecessary and probably harmful, and it's true that cosmetic surgery without informed consent is immoral. But I think that you err in ascribing the motivation of parents (or even physicians) to greed. That's way too cynical. Even though the procedure does not coincide with your modern worldview, or mine, it has an ancient religious meaning for both Jews and Muslims--even secularized ones.
Hi Paul - Thanks for your comment. Me? Cynical? LOL The last thing I would want to suggest is that parents are making the decision to circumcise based on greed. No way. The vast majority of parents are making this decision based on a lack of understanding of what is going on. They have no idea that the foreskin is an important part of sexual function and a number of other things that make this a problem. What I was trying to get across was that money was and is acting as a motivation for businesses to prefer the practice of circumcision of boys continue.
If people feel that this practice has deep Spiritual significance that is their thing and I wouldn't want to push them one way or the other. The reality in the US is that circumcision has almost zero Spiritual significance to most parents. (Aren't Jews and Muslims about 3% of the US population?) The surveys tell us that they tend to do this for reasons like insuring the son looks like the dad, or I want my son to look like other boys, or its what my family has always done, or the doctor said..... etc This is a far cry from a deep respect for a ritual.
I really respect your work, but I agree with and thank Paul for his interjection. Jeiwsh parents don't proceed out of greed, it is the defining element of being a jewish man, a central tenant in their jewish identity. It is for the vast majority a source of pride. It is not a gruesome act if done the way jewish tradition dictates. In fact, both of my sons suffered more when vaccinated. All around me I see jewish men living sexually fulfilled lives, so I reject strongly the equivalency drawn between female and male circumcision.
Thanks for offering your point of view. It seems both you and Paul picked up that I was somehow concluding that greed might be a motive for parents to decide to have their boys circumcised. When I did the video the thought I had was about businesses and their impact on the continuation of circumcision. Can you tell me what part of the video led you to think that I was claiming parents might be greedy to decide to have their son circumcised? I really can't see it and would love to know what you and Paul are seeing that I am not. Thanks.
I replied to what you wrote, Tom, not what you said on the video. I can't see that, because I'm not a paying subscriber.
Hi Paul - The circumcision vid is not subscriber only. You should be able to see that. Let me know if you can't. Send me a screen shot of the denial. Would love to know what you think.
Thanks, Tom. I did watch it. It's true that you say nothing there about the families and their motivations. But I'd still have made the same comment for precisely that reason. Religious Jews and Muslims (and they're not all religious) are a tiny minority of the population, but they're still moral agents. So, if you think that circumcision is evil, then that critique would apply to them as well. I think that circumcision is unedifying and primitive but not evil.
This is why the relation between male circumcision and female circumcision is not morally symmetrical. Jews and Muslims do not circumcise their sons in order to cause them pain or to deprive them of sexual pleasure (and I'm aware of no evidence that Jewish or Muslim men are less eager than non-circumcised men to seek sexual pleasure.) Some tribal societies do, however, circumcise their daughters for that very reason (and therefore to make it less likely that the daughters will seek sexual pleasure outside of marriage, which in turn makes them more desirable as brides).
Also, I think that your argument about infants feeling traumatized, let alone permanently traumatized, is highly debatable. It might make sense from the perspective of psychoanalysis, but psychoanalysis itself is highly debatable. That's partly because it relies on theory, not evidence. Infants do feel pain, as they do inside the womb, but it would be very hard to prove that the memory of this pain, if any, remains to afflict them later on.
I take your point about the industrialization of circumcision, but I think that other aspects of your argument (and those of some comments) could be more subtle.
Do you not also look around and see lots of genitally mutilated women leading sexually fulfilled lives? Many women actually choose to have 'excess' tissue trimmed from their vaginas for cosmetic reasons, or to have their clitorises and/or labia pierced as a sexual kink. Some men choose to mutilate themselves in the same way as a sexual kink.
The point is not that circumcision is always a medically disastrous procedure that ruins lives (although it certainly can be), and it certainly isn't about women worsting. It's that it's an obscene and grotesque violation of a child's bodily integrity in the absence of any sound medical need. This is just as true whether it's done to little boys or little girls but, in the Anglosphere, it's only done to little boys so it's kind of pointless to be 'fair and balanced' about it.
Besides, anti-FGM laws are, and always will be, Constitutionally untenable. SCOTUS already struck down the federal legislation in 1996 and kicked it back to the states. There's really no way for sex based discrimination on genital mutilation is ever going to pass constitutional muster, so if you really care about the poor little girls, you really need to suck it up and start caring about the little boys, too.
https://theconversation.com/unconstitutional-us-anti-fgm-law-exposes-hypocrisy-in-child-protection-109305
I hope I have misconstrued your meaning to be honest. I guess it was the title, the pictures, the not differentiating between different cases, and since parents have to give consent it’s assumed they are implicated in the motivation. Look, I would never have given mine unless there was an existential religious issue behind it and it was done with anesthesia as has become common practice in the orthodox circles I have moved in. I guess I would have wanted a more differentiated view on the topic.
I think it's always fair to ascribe greed to the motives of anyone who does anything for money. Doctor's are no less influenced by it than those in other professions, either, as is on prominent display with all the covid nonsense and the new research showing that vaccines have horrific health outcomes.
Tom, I don't claim that non-Orthodox Jews see anything spiritual in circumcision (or, for many of them, in anything at all). As Hannah says, however, most have a strong emotional need to foster cultural and even demographic continuity. Their children will probably ignore Judaism if they don't receive any Jewish education, but these children will at least grow up knowing (without resorting to DNA tests) that they're Jews. This leaves the door open for a reassertion of Jewish identity. The Nazis understood that, which made every circumcision a powerful act of defiance (in a country where very few non-Jews were circumcised).
It seems to me that you're argument is most useful in connection with the routine and medically unnecessary circumcision of non-Jewish and non-Muslim boys--that is, most boys by far. This argument allows for the democratic notion of religious freedom (circumcision being the exception, not the rule) but also for avoiding a double standard (concern for the integrity of female bodies, not for male bodies).
Yes, my interest is in the families that don't have a sense that this is an important spiritual ritual. I tend to try and stay out of the way of those who do. That is their business.
Tom the following two links don't work 'easily' for me... !!!
https://bioscience.lonza.com/lonza_bs/US/en/Primary-and-Stem-Cells/p/000000000000184907/NHDF-Neo-%E2%80%93-Human-Dermal-Fibroblasts%2C
L'oreal Episkin http://episkin.com https://www.insider.com/sandra-bullock-talks-about-getting-penis-facial-2018-5
Hi Jamie - They both work for me. Not sure what the problem might be. I hope you can get them working. The Sandra Bullock one is worth a look. Maybe try a different browser??
thank you. When I click on my links in my comment they work now!!!
I was able to copy paste anyway,,,
I saw the Sandra Bullock interview and felt sick... she hardly blinked an eyelid about what she was doing.
But thank you for pointing out the money in selling these foreskins and 'cells'.. It was Sandra Bullock that made me think of any extra money earned.
Interestingly enough we have a friend here who works for a major Pharma company, Switzerland.. I've asked him at least once, maybe twice 'what do you do?'.
'Research' and he might babble something that I don't understand, in English.. but I get the feeling that he doesn't want to say what he actually does.. it might be very private but I often feel that 'he just doesn't want to say'.. and despite that I can search him on LinkedIn and the last time I looked it was something about 'in vitro'. I will let people who read this do their own research. I never speak to him about his job anymore but I have a distinct feeling that it is 'experimental' and edges on the use of 'cells'... I don't know... but it is his silence that irks me.. Nice guy, but.... when I think that 'foreskins' might be involved, I'm not happy....
Excellent!
Oh dear, I made a typo. That should read "your argument," not "you're argument."