Yes, it is us, who don't want childrens penises to be mutilated, who are the weirdos.
A friend cut me off over my stance against circumcision
- Thread starter Liquid Plejades
- Start date
It is an utterly pointless procedure that is ONLY widespread because of religious and extreme conservative roots.
Since you wrote a detailed and respectful response and I forgot to unfollow the thread, I'll reply:
1)I'm not defending the act, I'm defending the people who commit this act because they're my entire community and family? And I understand why it's important to them. I'm trying to make you understand the value of this act so that you could understand why someone would do it, or have it be important to them - Since it's crucial to the discussion to understand how important and integral it is to Jewish people (Which people here are consistently refusing to do, basically choosing ignorance.)
2) A Law like that would 100% open to door to further persecution against Jewish people, since most practicing Jews would refuse to follow it (as has been done in the past. Hell, the story goes that the Maccabee revolt started because a ban on Brit Milah.) Denying that such a law would unfairly persecute Jewish people is wilful ignorance.
3) The "bigoted reasons" were the same as the ones in this thread TBH - It was never just "let's screw over the Jews", for the greeks it was all about preserving the body, for example. But good intentions don't make the end result right, and in the end they chose to outlaw rather than try more nuanced approaches or dialogue with the Jewish community this would effect - Which was exactly what made them bigoted.
The only other time I encountered people with the same level of vitriol against the act, they were white-supermacists (Truly not implying anything here, but it should be noted, this is how low the bar is in this thread right now), and they were also talking only about medical data and morality, nothing about Jewish people at all. It simply helped them paint the picture of how ruthless Jews are, by blowing the act into something akin to rape.
So, let's be frank - It's not about cleaving off arms. It is causing harm to someone without their consent, but the harm is minimal all things considered.
I agree it shouldn't happen, but a lot of things shouldn't happen, and we still understand it will take time to change them and don't go around thinking they should be outlawed immediately. IDK, like people eating meat for example. (Please don't bother telling me how both of them are different, it's a metaphor for a reason - Take from that that I don't think being circumcised is so cruel that you need immediate and ruthless action to stop this act everywhere.)
What's more, I'm really having a hard time thinking of a good-faith reason to blow this out of proportion as it is in this thread, and this is why this thread is hostile towards anyone who comes from a Jewish background.
Last edited:
You ARE defending the act... this is literally what you are doing here.
There is no defense. It does need to be ended. Calling people toxic for being rightly angry here is defense. Drumming up tbe reasons you are is defense..
STOP dropping the "hostile to Jewish people". Being of a certain culture and/or religion does not excuse invasive archaic practise.
Yeah, in most countries, performing a genital mutilation on female children with no medical justification is a felony, no matter the reasons. I don't see what the difference is with male infants, beyond the fact that the practice is traditionally more common in Western countries, while FGM is circumscribed to Sub-Saharan Africa.
Religious and extreme conservative tradition.
That's it.
Exactly, I just find it extremely hypocritical that the people who defend the religious and extremely conservative tradition of circumcision then get outraged at FGM and think it's barbaric. Either both practices are barbaric or none of the two is.
Did you though? Or was it done at birth?
I also didn't say your parents specifically brainwashed you, but you have absolutely been brainwashed by society as a whole to think that a dick is ugly until a part of it is surgically removed, which is messed up.
Last edited:
Honestly, sure I get that some have a religious reason for doing it, but I don't buy it. Your mutilating your child. And honestly, if where you are it is illegal, and your religion controls you to the point where you'd risk the health/safety of your child to mutilate their genitals.
I think religion needs to catch up, and maybe, not chop parts of the penis off. Because we all know it was introduced to stop kids from masturbating right? No matter what the reason given, that's the real reason.
I think religion needs to catch up, and maybe, not chop parts of the penis off. Because we all know it was introduced to stop kids from masturbating right? No matter what the reason given, that's the real reason.
It wasn't.
Something something I didn't scrub my dick enough, I don't know what else I was supposed to do to it though, and then the cut came after doctors advice (in a western 1st world country where it's not common though) to which i consented and still think it's a 100% right decision to do. No regrets.
So, after living with both I feel it's not that big of a deal and can't understand the outrage but I'm probably in the minority of having it not getting done at birth. Would I do it to my child? For moral reasons thats a definitive no. I just don't see that huge of a deal of that piece of skin missing.
It's a personal choice and you sound awfully judgmental.
I have a couple friends who have had it done both are gay and one of them did it for esthetic reasons but there are also medical reasons such as Phimosis. Most men in the USA are circumcised.
I don't have any strong feelings for or against circumcision (like I don't see any real point to a campaign to ban even if it's a practice I do not find has a real point) but I don't possibly see how anyone can have this discussion in an honest way with how you are framing it.
This is essentially a debate between differing moral and ethical codes. If someone strongly feels that this is mutilation of a participant without the ability to consent then their natural response is that they are going to think it shouldn't be allowed. I don't see how that opinion (which I think is fair even if I don't really feel the same) and your opinion (which I think is mostly sound) can exist if the end result is it is called anti semetic. Education and trying to reduce circumcision through other means don't solve people's core ethical and moral issues with it.
These are going to be 2 conflicting dogma, I don't see any way around it. I can see value in both as a person with no personal stake in it. The religious and/or cultural reason for it are certainly something that has to be acknowledged seriously though. What a lot of people are suggesting will have negative consequences if we just ignore the portion of the world this is important to. It will be done anyway, probably in less safe environments and there will definitely be issues with persecution and targetting. That's just undeniable fact.
Last edited:
The argument that it would be even worse for the children if Jewish and Muslim people were "forced" to perform the procedure themselves is pretty bad in my opinion; ideally it should not be done in the first place, and the fact that if circumcision were banned some parents would still decide to do the procedure themselves despite greater risks for their children shows just how hypocritical the "principles over actual living people" accusation earlier in this thread really was.
Circumcision is not an expression of freedom of religion, no matter how many here might claim it is a sacred act or an integral tenant of faith. Not to mention that most of the criticism in this thread was targeted at people who circumcise their children for non-religious reasons.
Banning infant circumcision would overall obviously lead to a drastic reduction in circumcisions, which is a net-positive in my opinion. The fact that some parents would still do it anyway despite greater risks is appaling enough and not a good argument against banning it.
No one is saying that people without foreskin are in any way lesser or enjoy life less. Any adult is free to modify their body in any way they want and for whatever reason. And that it sometimes has to be done for medical reasons goes without saying.
Most people here only have a problem with the fact that it is mainly done to infants or young children, who can neither consent nor protest.
Getting it done because you were advised by a doctor, as an adult, is totally different. No one here is arguing against that.
That doesn't change the fact that thinking yours or anyone else's body is ugly and can only be fixed by having part of it removed by surgery is messed up.
Its not a big deal when an adult makes the decision to do it themselves, but it's a problem when parents are making that decision for their newborn children. Would you be fine with me deciding to cut off my child's earlobes at birth because I think it looks better?
It may have been addressed in the thread, but I wonder if that can be the only reason? Circumcision is huge in the US, and most Americans are of non-Jewish descent.
For my piece I think just not offering it as part of the childbirth "suite" of services would go a huge distance here. Make it a separate, post-delivery service and watch the numbers drop. No need to ban anything or wrestle with topics of discrimination.
It really is one of the main reasons of how it started:
Karen Erickson Paige said:
Wikipedia said:
Most people here don't allow religious thinking to justify cutting off parts of infant's genitalia
So we moved from the hygiene "argument" to the religious one, cool. Next we'll go into tradition territory and we'll probably end in the "it didn't screw me up!". Or maybe we passed through that, it's hard to keep track sometimes.
How does that acknowledgement should take place, if not by understanding outlawing the practice is not going to solve anything?
And I didn't call anyone anti-Semetic, but I am saying that when you blow out of proportion the ruthlessness/barbarity/savagery/whatever of the procedure, you're making the discussion actively hostile to anyone who comes from a Jewish background. When you try to make a discussion friendly to minorities, sometimes it means putting people over principles - within reason of course, but I think it's hard to argue circumcision is so cruel it's out of reason to accept that it should be minimised through education and dialogue, considering the limited harm (which I never denied exist, but again - It's limited) it has on the person it's being performed on.
I'm incredibly judgmental of people who are lock stock with circumcision purely based on bullshit religion. Yes.
Actual medical or personal preference, go nuts. But lets not pretend the absolute majority of circumcisions are done for reasons other than resulting from a long history of barbaric ignorance, where parents accepted their children have been born flawed and need to be fixed.
I literally don't know. That's why I'm saying these two conflicting dogma aren't going to see eye to eye.
No but the same way you and a few others are arguing framing, it's pretty hard to not reach that this is the natural conclusion of the criticism. If someone believes circumcision is body mutilation and it shouldn't be allowed, I don't know how you are not going to eventually reach the point where you're ethical and moral beliefs are in direct conflict with people's religious and cultural beliefs. And at that point, we all know where the discussion is going to lead. I don't think this is an unreasonable observation.
I personally think people are going beyond the reasonable means of describing this practice based on my knowledge and experience of the topic (which is decidedly limited I plainly admit) but I also recognize that in parts of the world where circumcision is pretty well none existent like Asia, they're probably going to have a wildly different interpretation of this practice and that's fair too. I just don't think any of us have a strong basis to tell people who are passionate about this to simmer down. That's just me though. I'm not the one calling it savagery or barbaric or whatever because I don't think it serves argumentation well but some people here are not interested in discussion and I mean, there are a lot of topics on Era that we just accept are not open for discussion even if we have a thread on them so idk, shrug.
I mean, not that I disagree with you but what is the basis you are using to decide it isn't cruel? I have seen this point raised but I don't particular understand the basis for it. A baby can not consent or express whatever pain they are experiencing and a very young child will not remember most things in their childhood. Is it not a big deal because they will never know any better when they get to an age where they can ask?
At the end of the day for me, I don't really see a point in the practice but it's pretty neutral in end effect to the user at the end for the rest of their life so I don't see much point in opening the can of worms on it. Don't subsidize it through insurance and public money, educate on the true effects and other than that I'd just leave it be. It's certainly body mutilation and it's certainly something I feel should be made by a consenting individual as it's a literal part of their body but my personal ideology is not the end all be all and so I weigh the good and the bad and I think we should just leave it as is.
Last edited:
I have no problem with people who view this procedure as bad or a form of mutilation, since I agree with that. I've never attacked their morality since, again, I agree with it. The only thing I'm attacking, is their ignorance in understanding why people would do this, or what should be done to stop it (And I think I've already explained in length why I'm attacking both of these.) At the end of the day, I've outlined the concerns from a Jewish perspective for the way they chose to express themselves and the actions they think should be taken - In response, most people here chose to double down on their ignorance and attack me and at least another Jewish poster. That's not making the least amount of effort to have a conversation that is deeply complex for someone who is Jewish.
If someone in Asia, after I explained to them why Jews perform this act, and why it's important to them to perform this act, still choose to tell me "well then, you're a bunch of savages then and I don't care about anything you just said or the worries you've risen, your religion and culture simply need to step up and I don't care about any persecution you'll face along the way" - It has nothing to do with their interpretation of the practice, and everything to do with their ignorance.
On the basis that I have first hand experience - I've had this procedure done to me against my will, and while I'd rather it wasn't done - I wasn't disproportionately harmed or blocked from having a happy, full life. In this context, it is vastly different than FGM, and describing it in the words used in this thread is obviously hyperbolic and serves no purpose other than making this topic hostile.
I mean, it obviously is yes. Look at its roots, look at the fact the benefits for the vast majority are "maybes" and that there's no real need for it at all.
It's an archaic practise that has been normalized via consistency and misinformation regarding how necessary and beneficial it is.
it's ok to break with an old cultural and religious tradition, if said tradition objectively makes no sense and may even be actively harmful
nothing stops people from opting in to the procedure when they're adult and can give informed consent
nothing stops people from opting in to the procedure when they're adult and can give informed consent
Please explain how FGM, done for religious and cultural purposes is different than Jewish and Muslim peoples performing non-medical circumcision for cultural and religious purposes.
You are the hostile on call people ignorant for not accepting your religion belief on circumcision.
We are not ignorant- your facts, which are religious don't sway our moral beliefs and medical knowledge.
They can't explain that. They will not reply because they cannot. They will duck out because "toxicity" as a deflection.
To be super clear, my post was definitely not intended as a setup to defend circumcision.
My parents opted to NOT circumcise any of their sons, and my wife and I didn't have our recently born son circumcised either. So I'm firmly in the "against" camp, but was curious how a religious practice associated with a specific tradition got so widely disseminated in the US. The poster above who shared the info about Kellogg has me covered tho.
My main point is that when my wife was pregnant, we were asked on 3-4 separate occasions if we wanted to circumcise. A medical professional asking if you want a given procedure can sometimes (most times?) feel like advice. I also suspect they'd have been way less persistent if we had said yes the first time. That's not a good dynamic and I have no doubt it contributes to how common the practice still is.
I didn't take it that way, it read like a curious inquiry how it could have become widespread.
And it is as simple as stated above. And I agree with you. I have a chronic health condition and I followed the advice of my GP when I was diagnosed only to find out months later from a specialist that their advice was awful and very likely increased my symptoms and caused long term harm.
I didn't question it, people trust their health professionals. All of these reasons show us why this horrible practise perpetuates.
I wonder if you all still have your appendix. If I were you I would get it removed with or without it getting infected, cause I hear there's less of a chance of it getting infected if it's removed. My parents did it because, my dad got appendicitis, and although it's a very low chance I'll get it, "better safer than sorry!" My buddy got his removed because it was part of his spaghetti monster religion, and said he's gonna do it to his kids too to appease the spaghetti monster. I heard when surgeons open you up for surgeries and they also notice your appendix is still there they scoff because it's ugly and gross looking. Women have told me my loss of appendix is actually attractive to them and actually enhances sex. I no longer feel like a freak even though the rest of the world keeps their appendixes. I sure am glad I don't have mine!
In the US a large portion of the population is circumcised and live happy lives. I don't think the implication I made was ever that you can't have this procedure and live a fulfilled live. I've pretty well stated that because of the practical end effects I don't really think the practice needs to be wiped. The question I asked was how are you deciding that the action is "not" cruel to do to a child. Is it just because it happened to you and you're fine?
I know you are joking but it does highlight the absurdity of removing the foreskin as some insane move towards increased cleanliness.
Fingernails and toenails get much, much more dirt and crap under them but we don't rip them out of little babies 'just in case' do we?
What I find even more disingenuous is the attempted reversal of putting parents who circumcise their kids into the victim position:
"Oh no, infant circumcision has just been banned. Now I'm forced to do the procedure myself with even greater risks for my child. Poor old me."
Obviously it is us who want it banned that would "force" these parents and not their fundamentalist clinging to archaic traditions. Maybe I've missed it, but so far no one has actually defended the practice beyond calling it a tradition or a "sacred act", as if that by itself was somehow enough justification. I'm genuinely interested to hear why God wants infants to be circumcised.
First, things are not simply cruel or not cruel IMO, things need to be a bit more nuanced than that in order to have this discussion. As I understand the word "cruelty" - It means causing or being indifferent to suffering. So, what kind of suffering does circumcision cause? There's the pain and taking away your autonomy over your body before you can resist. Both bad things - But the pain is forgotten as an adult, and there is usually no long term suffering involved (mental or physical). So I'd say it's "somewhat cruel" since you can't deny that the autonomy over the person's body has been taken away and pain has been caused (also, there's the rare cases of complications, which shouldn't be overblown but can't be denied either). So I'm not saying circumcision is not cruel (never did), I'm saying it's not so cruel that you can argue it must be stopped by any means necessary (such as putting minority population at risk.)
This is in contract to acts like FGM that are unquestionably very cruel - in that case, there is ongoing suffering for the rest of the person's life (even in the mildest form of the practice), and must be stopped to protect people from this much harm. But I find the argument that circumcision cause nearly the same amount of harm to be highly disingenuous considering I know from first hand experience that's not the case.
It's so crazy to think the majority of men in the US are circumsized as babies for absolutely no reason. If I'm being super tolerant I can understand why jewish people would do it, but what are all the other parents thinking?
Here people only get circumsized for medical reasons, as it should be. If you take a baby to the doctor and asked them to do it, they would probably decline if they are a serious professional.
Here people only get circumsized for medical reasons, as it should be. If you take a baby to the doctor and asked them to do it, they would probably decline if they are a serious professional.
lol...so many things in the world to pray for, and you waste it on me?
I could pray for alot of things to happen to you, but it might come true....so I wouldn't want that feeling. so I'll use that energy for something else.
Would be hilarious if I endup marrying a sibling of yours. What are you gonna do come baby time? Stomp your feet? Call the Police? 😯
I don't think anyone is arguing that FGM and male circumcision are equivalent in harm, just that the arguments that proponents for one or the other use are very similar and that both ultimately violate the bodily autonomy of a child for no reason other than tradition and religion. I think if you want to be morally consistent you have to oppose both otherwise by extension you'd be okay with less invasive methods of FGM performed legally by doctors with aftercare in a hospital as a compromise, because that's arguably where we lead to if measuring harm and respecting religion and tradition are what we're interested in.
While I don't think banning the practice of male circumcision is viable, I don't think it should be accorded any respect and if equating it with FGM makes advocates uncomfortable, then so much the better; the cognitive dissonance required to be okay with one but not the other needs to be confronted.
Has anybody considered that in the future we'll probably be able to flick a switch and make our penises cut or uncut. Nanotechnological skin tissue regeneration inventions for the man who wants to have the benefits of both penises.
Like a fashion statement. Technology, bitch. Actually, that'd be pretty cool now that I think about it.
My god, this thread is a mess.
Like a fashion statement. Technology, bitch. Actually, that'd be pretty cool now that I think about it.
My god, this thread is a mess.
I wouldn't cut off a friend due to their opinion on this. I would feel weird we're talking about this instead of like the Super Bowl.
Your argument is highly disingenuous.
You've used slippery slope- "preventing circumcision leads to persecution of Jews."
You use anecdotal evidence - "When it was done to me and I'm fine."
You dismiss medical science from around the world, and cherry pick those who support your tradition.
You fall back it is my cultures tradition- it must not be question by ignorant outsiders
All genital mutilation is done for the following purposes:
Psychosexual: The controlling of sexual urges is males and females. Done a lot in America because sex is bad- leading unhealthy body image and mental issues dealing with sex for a life time.
Sociological and cultural: Rite of passage for youth into culture and adulthood- without the consent of the victim, therefore removing their choice
Hygiene and aesthetic: Self explanatory, but vast majority is done without any medical complications requiring the surgery.
Religious reasons: Support by Jews, Christian, and Muslims because their God says so
Socio-economic factors: Altering of one's genitalia is require in order to enter into culture, aka marriage and circumcision at birth.
The reason Jewish people do circumcision is the same reason is is popular in Africa among many religions and cultures.
You pretending your reasoning sound and untouchable is disingenuous. Your reasoning is hypocritical. The violation of male or female bodies for non medical reasons when they don't have consent is vile.
Hiding behind the guise of religious and cultural tradition does not give you carte blanche to violate human rights, sorry. Calling me anti-semitic is intellectually dishonest and just gross.
There have been many cultural and religious traditions that have had to be abandoned others over time as our understanding of human rights has grown. Prohibitions on divorce, slavery, polygamy, etc. were once defended under the guise of religious tradition.
Your position isn't even consistent -- the communities that practice FGM consider it a sacred part of their culture. For you to defend circumcision but deny their right to practice FGM is total hypocrisy and speaks to the fact that, deep down, you understand the issue -- people have a fundamental right to self ownership of their bodies.
If anyone wants to mutilate their genitals at the age of 18, for any religious or cultural reason or any reason at all, I fully support it. But to do it to an infant is the absolute height of barbarism and yes, you should go to jail.
Damn, I wonder if all those European women know what they're missing out on. /s
Are American men super popular with European ladies? Do they go wild over the circumcised aesthetic?
Last edited:
What's your definition of suffering? How do you know that the mildest form of FGM causes ongoing suffering? The largest advocates for FGM in the cultures that practice it are typically the women who had it done to them.
If your position is that circumcision is OK because parents have some rights to manipulate and disfigure their child's bodies, than I certainly don't agree. But I would at least understand it philosophically.
To say "this form of mutilation is OK because my people practice" but "this form of mutilation is not OK because my people don't practice it" is just narrow-minded ignorance.
No it's not. Also from: Wikipedia:
If there are three topics that never fail to capture a never ending cycle of stupid on this forum, it's circumcision, tipping and reclining on an airplane.
I had it done for medical reasons myself as a kid (my kidneys were all sorts of messed up) so I do find it very offputting to see some people essentially calling it "ugly" or "disgusting" (not so much here but I haven't read the whopping 11 pages, though "mutilate" is a strong word IMO if applied to people who consented). Like, the idea of circumcision becoming mocked or framed as something horrific is kind of terrifying. There are quite a few other misconceptions too. It really isn't the massive change some seem to think it is.
But at the same time I agree that in all other non-medical situations it should be the child's choice and not forced at a young age. I'd argue the same for baptism and other similar traditions that tend to be forced on children without consent.
From what I've heard the Silent Hill wiki of all places has a massive problem with circumcision talk, of all places. Can't escape it I guess.
But at the same time I agree that in all other non-medical situations it should be the child's choice and not forced at a young age. I'd argue the same for baptism and other similar traditions that tend to be forced on children without consent.
From what I've heard the Silent Hill wiki of all places has a massive problem with circumcision talk, of all places. Can't escape it I guess.
I didn't imply that they're the same, I simply explained how they are fundamentally different to illustrate why one is orders of magnitudes more cruel than the other. I never claimed that just culture and religions should be factors - But that they SHOULD be factors, together with the severity of the harm. I'm against circumcision being done, as I've said probably countless times - So I'm obviously not okay with invasive methods performed for religious or cultural reasons on people unable to consent. I'm simply also considering the amount of harm and the cultural significance of the act when I'm choosing how to react and minimize its use. I'm preferring people over principles. It should be basic inter-sectional logic to not work against communities.
It's not dissonance, it's simply a matter of approach. It's implied that you're OK with equating it to things that are vastly nonequivalent in harm (as we agreed), because you'd rather equate them based on principle alone rather than also taking into account the big cultural impact it has on the Jewish community and understanding that maybe a different approach is needed to curb this ritual. Maybe one that would involve work from within the community, and time. You said it's Ok to make people uncomfortable and alienate them rather than understand that maybe you can lower your offense to less than 110% (and comparisons to FGM feel like 110% to me) and simply say your disagreement with the act, without also calling anyone who does it "savage" or "barbaric" like some others did here? Or not argue to have it outlawed with disregard to the effect such a law will have on the community, such as some here have?
I think asking for nuance in a matter that is highly sensitive is quite reasonable. Pretending the discussion about circumcision is not sensitive and requires no nuance does not make you a better advocate against it, it just means you choose to ignore the realities.
I can't help you since I didn't say any of them is OK (I didn't say any of the other stuff either, but it feels pale in comparison.)
Last edited: