You might have stumbled upon the real reason for this seemingly inexplicable delay in accepting that infants can feel pain: The circumcision industry. Presumably some doctors feared that parents would think twice about it if they knew that their son would be in agony (or need expensive painkillers) when undergoing that elective surgery.
https://www.endalldisease.com/baby-foreskin-in-cosmetics-the...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohel
Can you imagine a new cult starting today that behaved that way? How fast would everyone jump on them for child abuse?
1) It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just orthodox or ultra orthodox but a very small group, truly some hundreds of people, practice it. I don't have the data, probably no one does, but saying Jewish circumcisions involve this would be like suggesting all baptisms look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope. Comparing a key tenet of Judaism to a cult is both simplistic and demeaning.
2) I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge. My sons all began crying as soon as their diaper came off, and their crying was no more intense once the cutting occurred. By the way, it's not like they make a dotted line with marker and snip around the foreskin; whatI witnessed involved a metal device (a type of clamp I suppose) that is slid between the shaft and foreskin, and like a modified cigar cutter, the mohel cuts away the foreskin in one motion. There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm.
3) I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc.
It's not an easy topic, but I don't think it should be hard to talk about. Complicated or interesting to describe, maybe hard to judge or rationalize, but let's talk about it openly, let's avoid disparagement, and most of all let's bring some nuance to this conversation.
Most mohels, even among the Orthodox, do use a sterile pipette, avoiding direct oral-genital contact. In 2005, the Rabbinical Council of America, the main union of modern Orthodox rabbis, issued a statement urging the abandonment of direct suction. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a medical ethicist and dean of Yeshiva University’s (Orthodox) rabbinical school, was quoted in The JewishDaily Forward as saying: “There is no requirement to make metzitzah b’peh. The Talmud says plainly it is not part of the ritual but belongs to the medical, post-surgical component. There is no doubt that insistence on metzitzah b’peh is wrong. I firmly believe that making metzitzah b’pehis a criminal act.”
Do you have sources showing this practice is commonly accepted?
If you describe the practitioners of this as a "fringe group", on what basis do you consider the comparison (not even identification) above to a (hypothetical!) "cult" offensive? And do followers of small religions which have been stigmatized with the label "cult" not also deserve the same respect for their beliefs and protection from discrimination as other religions?
It's not bigoted to be against mutilating boys. Don't hide behind religion to justify barbaric practices. Most Americans don't mutilate because of religious reasons.
Somehow we all agree that female mutilation is horrible, but when it comes to boys it's controversial.
> Somehow we all agree that female mutilation is horrible, but when it comes to boys it's controversial
FGM is something that affects their body's function. What is the function of the male foreskin? What malfunction arises after circumcision?
Tell me I can cut off the tip of my daughter’s ear. Tell me anyone who opposes me is a bigot. Tell me I don’t need her permission, and I don’t need to wait to discuss it with her.
Or, more probable: find some little gotcha in my analogy so that you don’t have to confront it.
Yes, this seems to be acknowledged by all comments here. The initial comment you responded to said, "it is legal for them to suck the blood from the mutilated area with their mouth", which, in my interpretation, seems to cover both the direct contact version (no pipette), and the version which just adds a pipette in between. Both involve suction applied by the mouth. The latter version, as an aside, is hardly "fringe" in its prevalence. But I think the important part is the "it is legal", i.e. presumably anybody could add in a sucking part if they wanted to without breaking the law, which has nothing to to with how many actually do go through with it. Anyway, this discussion seems to be going in circles, but I will say, if you are serious in your stated desire for "nuance", there is a wealth of literature discussing the harms and morality (or lack thereof) of circumcision in general (although not necessarily specifically the religious versions), if you cared to look for it.
They didn't say it was common, they said it was legal. And the practice is known to have caused dozens of HIV cases in New York alone, so I suspect it's a little more than hundreds.
> To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope.
And yet the reason it remains legal is lobbying by organisations that represent the Jewish community (or at least claim to - if most Jewish people would support making this this practice illegal (something your post is not completely clear on), you should make that clearer to your representatives).
> There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm.
Those things don't involve permanent removal of body parts. My objections to nonconsensual circumcision have nothing to do with how painful it is in the moment.
> I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc.
To what standard, and how much legal enforcement is there of that?
Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back
> Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed?
Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations.
> Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge.
We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know").
> There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm.
I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body.
> It's not an easy topic,
It is a fairly easy topic. The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer.
It becomes complex when the addition of "But my beliefs, unsupported by any evidence, mind, require me to perform this operation."
The long and short of it is, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is showing that the pain is real, and severe, and the lifelong effects are real; you've done it based on a belief that supercedes mortal pain and suffering.
In other words, it doesn't matter what the facts are, because the conclusions by the proponents have already been made[1].
[1] Imagine, for a moment, that we are in the near future where we have a device that lets us quantitatively determine (on a scale of 1-10) how much pain is being experienced, with 1 = barely perceptible and 10 = just below the point of passing out, with 5 = minor surgery without anesthetic.
What number would religious proponents need to see before they say "that's too much"? Five? Seven? Three?
> Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations. How does circumcision affect sex in later life? If circumcision is amputation, what is removing an unsightly birthmark? Or as I've said, teeth, extra skin in one's mouth...
> We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. Being birthed causes extreme trauma. That's why doctors measure a baby's oxygen and heart rate. So clearly some amount of pain is worth it if the gain outweighs the pain, no? Then you have to ask what is gained through ritual circumcision. The gain is religious and cultural value, so it's hard to measure precisely. But, you know, Christians give alcohol to kids every Sunday and no one's complaining.
> If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know").
I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way.
> I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body. I am trying not to delude myself. I am trying to clarify one thing for myself and one thing for others. For others, I want them to understand oral suction during a bris is basically unheard of outside of a fringe group. For myself, I'm trying to clarify if circumcision results in long term pain (psychological or physical)
> It is a fairly easy topic.
I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it.
> The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer.
I think the question is based on a false premise. How can one measure the joy of sex, and even if you could how would you say "this person gets less out of sex than if he had his foreskin." How can you say what the same person would feel in a hypothetical scenario? I'll just point out this very argument dates back to antiquity. Plutarch has a piece about Jews and discusses ritual circumcision - iirc he takes the stance that circumcision leads to more sexual activity and depravity because the penis is always uncovered. Greeks and Romans thought uncircumcised penises were vulgar, gross, and a sign of overt sexuality. So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.
How could one have raised 3 kids and write there is nothing intrinsically good about clipping nails? Or even done manual labor? It is one of the most basic tasks a parent has to do with a baby unless they want a baby that makes itself bleed all the time. Cutting nails is just a practice, it has obvious practical benefits.
And comparing blood tests, vaccines, and cutting hair to genital mutilation makes me think either you are trolling or our realities are so incongruent that there is no purpose in conversing.
I do not know enough about tongue ties or frenectomy’s to comment. I have heard it is over diagnosed and might be done just so parents can feel something was done, but again, I have not delved into it much.
I have delved into cutting off foreskins, and that one, as you even claimed, is all about tribal affiliation. In other words, the procedure is not being done for the medical benefit of the person. At minimum, you would be causing unnecessary pain and risk of infection, but while I am not a urologist, I do know that foreskins have a role in providing lubrication.
Maybe it is mostly inconsequential. But that is irrelevant to the principle that people should be in control of their own body as much as possible. Obviously there is a ton that will not be, but cutting off the foreskin on penis to signify which tribe the male belongs to is a pretty easy one to conclude that violates that principle.
The lack of willingness of uncircumcised adult men to be circumcised should be a huge clue that there is in fact a benefit to bodily integrity.
We aren't talking about temporary and reversible body alterations, we're talking about amputations.
Amputated parts don't grow back.
Sure, but if you make extraordinary claims, then you have to provide extraordinary evidence. A claim of "amputation is no severe than drawing blood" is an excessively extraordinary claim, and you have yet to provide any evidence.
> I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it.
What factors? There's only one I am aware of - superstition.
> So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.
This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.
Besides, for at least 3 decades there's been a ton of papers correlating ED with circumcision.
The only people "just asking the question" are those who are not happy with the answers we already have. We already have the answers, we already have the research, it's a very widely researched thing due to the large number of amputations performed.
You may not like the answers, but they're out there, and they've been validated.
Now ...
You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. It is both unscientific and primitive to make claims and ask others to disprove them.
The fact that you are ignoring much of the evidence that is already well-known and then you go on to compare lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect makes it seem that you are willfully deluding yourself.
Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.
I keep returning to the same examples, but there are many "amputations" performed for non-medical benefits. Frenectomy; tooth extraction; mole/skin tag removal. I don't know if circumcision fits somewhere on this scale, I think it does, many believe it is of a different nature. I don't see how removing connective tissues in the mouth is any less injurious than removing connective tissues from the genitals. They both sound bad on paper, but in life this is a common occurrence with benefits (real or perceived seems to be up for debate)
> This isn't actually under contention, unless you contend that less feeling during sex is better.
I'm asking you genuinely how someone can tell. Is my kid going to enjoy food less just because his tongue tie is removed? I had a painful skin tag removed from my back, so yea I suppose I'm less sensitive there now but in a good way; it is less painful taking a shirt on and off. I am not making a broad based claim, I'm saying on an individual scale I've not suffered diminished sexual pleasure.
> You are proposing it as a fairly harmless procedure, you should be providing evidence that there is no harm. Ok, I think every male in my family is evidence that you can get circumcised and no ill effects come from it. No infections; no ED; no pain. It'd be fascinating to find data on ED etc in Jews compared to the rest of the world. I can't find anything, but if you can, please share.
> lifelong mutilation for a superstitious belief to a temporary pain with no negative permanent effect Is it not possible for both to be true? Lifelong mutilation to fulfill a belief can involve temporary pain with no negative permanent effect. I'm suggesting circumcision is just that. Are these necessarily contradictory?
> Circumcised men get less joy from sex. The only credible reports we have from consenting adults are those who get circumcised as adults, and the large majority did indeed get less joy from sex. A significant minority suffer from ED. A small minority never have sex again.
I'm not debating adult circumcision, we have to agree that is of a different nature than adult circumcision. Just like so many other procedures that have different risks/outcomes as an infant vs as an adult.
I'm not convinced me that circumcision is barbaric. If you are someone who believes a child cannot make their own informed decisions about their body, but that a parent is also not in a position to make such decisions, then you seem to be arguing that kids shouldn't have anything done to their body. Unless you're proposing there should be a committee or something to make decisions for kids? That seems kind of fascist though.
Since you asked the question, I’ll give what I think is the obvious answer: yes, of course it’s far worse than both of those things. By the way, I wouldn’t pierce a baby’s ears either, but at least that heals over and leaves minimal lasting damage. You can’t get foreskin back once it’s gone. This might be no big deal to someone who doesn’t know what they’re missing, but try applying that standard to any other part of the body.
What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want?
If you are assigning religious or cultural value to an act that needlessly mutilates your child’s body, you are missing the principle of freedom and letting people have ownership of their bodies. There are cultures that “value” binding feet, stretch out lips and earlobes, poke holes in various places, and face tattoos.
That has no bearing on the fact that people should not have a cosmetic alteration done to their body without their permission.
Maybe you mean a parent and child should decide together? I don't think a child has the capacity to make, or even weigh in on, decisions. Not just a newborn, even older children (most anyway) would have a difficult time making big decisions like if they should have a body part altered by surgical operation. Is it your position to postpone all non-emergency decisions regarding bodily alterations until the person is old enough to decide for themselves what happens to their body? If so, that doesn't seem practical. If you mean something else, please go on
But that is neither here nor there about this discussion, which is someone making an alteration to someone else’s body with zero medical benefit to the someone else.
But the same reasoning would apply. You should not alter someone else’s body for cosmetic reasons without their permission.
Indeed, and there is a long list of harms that humans have perpetrated on each other in the name of religious and cultural value. Ditching these superstitions and taking a human-centric evidence-based perspective is how we have progressed from valuable cultural practices such as foot binding, witch burning, pederasty… honestly, every evil deed in history’s entire rogues gallery has at some point been justified by the religious and cultural benefits that we would miss out on. I mean, a good witch burning surely did wonders for bringing the community together.
> I'm not sure I understand the physical or psychical harm done
That is apparent, and I wonder if it is truly possible for someone to understand the harm of losing something if they have no experience of what was lost.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/10/acc-is-infant-circumci...
The whole point of circumcision is to control the actions of the person later in life. This is extremely harmful, as you are removing another individual's agency for your own religious beliefs (or even worse, the mere notion "I was circumcized and I don't want my son to look different", which is pure vanity).
Genital mutilation is abhorrent. It should be illegal to perform on any infant or child unless there is a rare medical necessity to do so.
How so? According to Judaism, the whole point of circumcision is to bear the mark of the promise between God and Abraham. But if you ask me, a modern non-orthodox Jew, circumcision is a rite of passage just like Communion, or Bar Mitzvahs, or any other non-natural step in growing up. It's different for everyone and no one has asked me why it is important. But I think that's really what it comes down to, Circumcision in Judaism is a physical and indelible representation of our belonging to a community whose practices have shifted and adapted over the millennia. One of the very few practices that is described in the Torah and is also carried out today is the brit milah. So, it's carrying on tradition. It is a connection (membership?) to a rather diverse group of people. It transcends geography and time, culture and language. It may be arbitrary - maybe Jews could've figured out another way to achieve all this. But I still don't understand the harm caused by circumcision. At least, no more harm than is caused by a huge number of medical procedures all types of kids may undergo as minors.
> How so? … Circumcision in Judaism is a physical and indelible representation of our belonging to a community
You ask how circumcision controls a person, and you have provided the answer. The indelibility robs the person of the agency to choose not to belong to that community.
Could they leave anyway? Sure, the same way a person with gang tattoos can leave the gang.
Most males born in the US are circumcised regardless of religious affiliation. It's not like circumcision alone makes someone part of the Jewish community. As I revealed earlier, I am a circumcised Jew, but What authority is controlling me? I am free to observe (or not) Jewish practices and traditions as I deem fit. Now having a US passport, or a driver's license, or a mortgage, or student loan debt? Those definitely place me under under control (financial or otherwise) of an authority. Being circumcised? I don't see how or by whom I am controlled.
> Could they leave anyway? Sure, the same way a person with gang tattoos can leave the gang.
Comparing membership of Jewish to membership of a gang seems pretty judgey. Maybe you're just anti-religion, and that's cool, but lets not compare Judaism, a world religion with thousands of years of history, to a gang. Unless you think all Christians also belong to a gang? Or like the vast majority of the world?
I mention gangs not to equate them with any particular religion, but to highlight by example the difficulty of leaving a group identity when that group has permanently changed you.
Groups control their members through various means, the most insidious being engrainment of group attributes as identity. Once a person adopts an idea not merely as something they believe but as a core part of who they are, the idea becomes far harder to challenge as it starts to feel like personal attack rather than debate.
Identity is what controls you, when you cannot choose it. So I partly agree with your example - being a US citizen is not easy to choose (though not impossible), and your status and identity as a US citizen shapes many aspects of your life. If you could freely choose citizenship, it would be a far lesser part of your identity and you would be far less controlled by it.
That is why agency to choose, or not, to be circumcised, and thus agency to adopt that into your identity, is important.
Now imagine getting circumcized at 6 or 8, with scissors, without anesthesia by someone that isn't a doctor... this is the fate of many young boys in Africa.
It's as bad as FGM.
It's not elective. No infant has ever chosen to remove healthy body parts.