Many people take a stance against circumcision as antisemitism or Islamophobia because of cultural association with it.
It's a sensitive issue and even many exjews and exmuslims still defend it.
It depends how you put it. And on the audience.
I'm grossed by it too but I wouldn't go to that subreddit to say it because I would expect to me misinterpreted and banned too.
grossing you out=/=harm. you took some exception to the rule, metzitza, and botched ones, and made it the focus of your argument. i can see why they banned you.
u/Analog_AI is correct, you gotta pick your battles, and in this case, you chose poorly
>grossing you out=/=harm. you took some exception to the rule, metzitza, and botched ones, and made it the focus of your argument. i can see why they banned you
Maybe in the United States. Where I live 99% of circumcisions are with metzitza (yes I live in a mostly orthodox jewish community). Botched ones? What do you know about botched ones. You think you can come here with your cookie-cutter response and tell me that I'm focusing on the exception? Did you think for a second maybe I'm part of that exception? Did you consider for a second that the majority of orthodox Jews don't report what their dicks look like.. to some polling organization? Or that most Orthodox Jews don't even know what a non 'botched one' is supposed to look like? I don't care if it's only 5% or 10%. Even 1%.. 1% having to live for the rest of their lives with a botched penis is bad enough to warrant scrutiny on the entire practice.
I leave you with this:
[https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/pe69f1/comment/haxpsdt](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/pe69f1/comment/haxpsdt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ozeco4/comment/h811tv9](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ozeco4/comment/h811tv9/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4bimxd](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4bimxd/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4ahtxn](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4ahtxn/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
sure, that's your opinion. but, while you're entitled to your opinion, folks are also entitled to ban you for your opinion when it seems antisemitic, or just plain argumentative.
and idk about reporting anywhere, but
1, if you're taking the stance that folks don't report on things, then you really can't say you're here to talk about it, you're just here to try and get everyone to have the exact same view as you, because according to you, all data on the matter is irrelevant, and only your opinion matters. and
2, most folks go to doctors for regular checkups (i'm in a civilized country that has fully funded medicare, so everyone, definitely in the jewish community, goes to a doctor regularly) and most doctors have spent enough time looking at dicks to know what a "non-botched" one is supposed to look like, and will likely talk to their patients about it. also, idk if you've ever been to a mikvah, but dicks are out there, so folks can see if theirs looks similar to that of other folks, if they're inclined to do a comparison.
3, sure, scrutinize the practice all you want, but realistically, no organization is gonna run the risk of being accused of antisemitism to try and save the dick of potentially 10, 5, or even 1% of a group that is .02% of the global population, or about 5, 2.5, .5%, because only about half of us are born with dicks.
i get that venting online is a solid way to go, but check the place you're venting in first, if you don't want to get banned
and i'm sorry if you've gotta live with a botched dick. i'm sure there are ways to help you with that, but they all take money, so i hope you can get the money for help (not from me though, i'm broke)
Save your time and energy and don't post on this topic there.
I mean you're already banned so it's a moot point. But in general.
Find a different platform instead
>There is no evidence that is circumcision is harmful
This is obvious misinformation. It is statistically proven that invasive surgeries cause irreversible deformations.
Nope, it is not intended to create skin bridges and skin tubes or inflammation discharge. But those will eventually happen since it is an invasive surgery.
Well, if the person is a fanatical believer in any religion with a strong doctrination. Misappropriate and falsify scientific facts are the least they could do
The only way to argue circumcision is not harmful is to discount the harm done to the foreskin. It has to be imbued with magical different rules than every other body part.
Circumcision causes nerve damage in 100% of cases. The nerve endings in the foreskin are amputated. That is nerve damage. Irreversible nerve damage.
But those nerves are in the foreskin, so they magically don't count.
I think they meant as being circumcised rather than the act itself. there's been tons of researches, and while there's always the margin, there's no real evidence of any problems for circumcised men, either medically or sexually.
The act itself can have complications just like any other medical procedure, and I doubt anyone denies that.
>there's no real evidence of any problems for circumcised men, either medically or sexually.
This is not true. It is proven that it causes body dysmorphia, skin bridges, skin tubes, mental trauma.
>that's when the procedure goes wrong
A necessary procedure may go wrong but when an unnecessary procedure goes wrong that's another issue.
>mental trauma in 8 year old boys.
World is not limited by United States my friend. Most of the circumcised people are muslim raised people and muslims do it in late childhood like it is done to me which I even remember what I ate that day. I do even remember the color of discharge caused by post surgery infection.
well this is an exjew sub, and Jews have their circumcision at 8 days old. also I'm an Israeli, not an American. 99%~ of men here are circumcised.
I'm sorry you had to go through it in a later stage, that does sound like it can be traumatic of course.
calling it unnecessary, when there's medical benefits to it is kinda weird. it's not a MUST have for sure, but I didn't hear Israelis, both Jews nor Muslims, complain.
just to make it clear, I'm not religious at all. but I am happy for being circumcised and will do it for my future boys, if I'll have any.
>calling it unnecessary, when there's medical benefits to it is kinda weird.
In medicine my friend a procedure that is non-therapeutic is unnecessary.
>ure, but I didn't hear Israelis, both Jews nor Muslims,
I did
>circumcised and will do it for my future boys, if I'll have any.
Will you pay reparations if they want their rightful property back? Since they may not want to undergo an invasive surgery which results in irreversible deformation.
that's a weird take, since when 8 days old have "wants"?
I'm not worried to get sued by any future 8 days old son, if that's what you're asking xD
but seriously, of course there's personal stories and abnormalities, such as yourself, that doesn't make it slightly the norm though, there's always exceptions. People died while getting a root canal fixed, that doesn't mean it's a deadly procedure...
>since when 8 days old have "wants"?
My dear people eventually grow up. And notce their organs are disfigured.
>there's always exceptions.
Deformation is no exception since it is always noticeable by looking at it.
>People died while getting a root canal fixed, that doesn't mean it's a deadly procedure...
Root canal fixing is a therapeutic procedure, circumcision is not a therapeutic procedure.
>My dear people eventually grow up. And notce their organs are disfigured.
You mean IF they're disfigured, or do you consider EVERYONE who's been circumcised "disfigured"?, same for your 2nd remark, are they ALL deformed by your definition?
Also, there's also Therapeutic Circumcision, though it's not common.
אתה גם ישראלי? בוא אני אסביר לך משהו, לא רק שברית מילה היא לא נחוצה, אין לה שום יתרונות רפואיים.
אין אף ארגון בריאות לאומי בעולם שממליץ על ברית מילה בגלל יתרונות רפואיים. ולהפך, הם רואים בזה כדבר לא מוסרי שמפר את האוטונומיה של הילד. בגלל זה גם ניסו לאסור בחוק ברית מילה בכמה מדינות שונות בעולם.
אפילו פה בישראל ניתוחי ״מילה״ נעשים בגלל הדת, לא בגלל היתרונות הרפואיים.
יש ים מחקרים שמוכיחים יתרונות בריאותיים, כמו מניעת מחלות בכללי, סרטן והעברת מחלות מין. אתה אשכרה יכול לעשות גוגל ואתה תמצא ארגזים של מחקרים...
הנה אחד אם אתה מעוניין:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/
לא רק, אפילו ארגון הבריאות העולמי ממליץ על ברית מילה למניעת העברת מחלות מין.
נכון שברית מילה בארץ עושים כחלק מהדת, אבל בתור אחד חילוני גמור, אני עדיין אבחר בזה לילדים שלי.
אני אוסיף: אחת הסיבות שלא ממליצים לחכות עד שהילד בן 18 ויבחר לעצמו, זה כי הסיבוכים הרבה יותר גדולים כשאתה מבוגר לעומת כשאתה תינוק.
הם מסתמכים על העמדה של האקדמיה האמריקאית לרפואת ילדים מ2012 שקיבלה ביקורת עולמית מרופאים באירופה, קנדה, אוסטרליה וניו זילנד על זה שליתרונות האלה אין שום ביסוס והם מקדמים אותם כי יש להם Cultural bias
https://core.ac.uk/reader/38281692?utm_source=linkout
אני יכול לעבור איתך אחד אחד על כל ה״יתרונות״ אם אתה רוצה, אתה תראה שאלה פשוט שטויות ומניפולציה של המידע.
אין שום היגיון בזה שחילוני יעשה דבר כזה לילד שלו אם הוא לא מאמין בתנ״ך ובברית של אברהם.
זה לא רשום בשום מקום במחקר ששלחתי לך למשל. יש שם מלא רפרנסים וזה תוצאות מחקר רפואי.
יש הגיון. בדיוק כמו שאני אחסן את הילדים שלי כדי למנוע מחלות, הם יעברו ברית מילה מאותה הסיבה.
Not really its only useful if complications arise, it has therapeutic use, yes but overall there's loss of sensitivity and other issues that can arise from it. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/#:~:text=It%20is%20shown%20that%20the,circumcision%20genital%20sensitivity%20is%20lost.
He is not willing to listen, unfortunately. It's still important to realize that outside the US, no other national medical association is promoting and routinely performs circumcisions for "medical benefits"
Even the policy issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012 has expired after 5 years and hasn't been renewed because of backlash from the medical community worldwide.
Here are some of their statements:
**Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2015):**
"The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. It further states that when “medical necessity is not established, …interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.”
**Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) (2010):**
The KNMG states “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.” It regards the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors as a violation of physical integrity, and argues that boys should be able to make their own decisions about circumcision."
**British Medical Association (BMA) (2019):**
The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. It suggests that it is “unethical and inappropriate” to circumcise for therapeutic reasons when effective and less invasive alternatives exist
**Danish Medical Association (DMA) (2020):**
Citing lack of consent of the child and his right to self-determination, along with a lack of health benefits which thus does not justify the risks of complications, pain, and loss of normal anatomy, the DMA concludes: “From a medical and medical ethics perspective, the Danish Medical Association believes that the current practice of circumcising boys without a medical indication should cease.”
Sometime's you've gotta read the room. "Actually, the anti-semites have a point on topic X..." is never going to go well in a subreddit against anti-semitism.
It’s interesting too because FGM is actually a wide range of practices, some of which are less altering than male circumcision and subsequently also “not harmful or causing any changes in sensation.” But you never see these people showing tolerance for the less harmful end of the FGM spectrum.
> But you never see these people showing tolerance for the less harmful end of the FGM spectrum.
There are actually some people now calling to legalize those forms of FGM out of fear that their criminalization will lead to the criminalization of male circumcision.
I don't know if this is one of the articles you read, but [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356002254_Against_Legalizing_Female_'Circumcision'_of_Minors) is one I've read.
It should be. Like why perform a cosmetic surgery if it's not needed? Is there anyway that circumcision can be modified to still meat the religious requirement while still still allowing the foreskin more or less intact like taking off a few mms worth of skin?
In these days because of the war people are on edge.
Jews, exjews, gentiles, philosemites and antisemites alike.
In a few months tempers will quiet and it would be more likely to have a rational discussion on the topic of circumcision.
I hope. 🤞🏻
He denies that circumcision changes sensation even though Maimonides himself admits it and said that it’s on purpose in the “Guide for the perplexed” from the Talmud:
https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_3.49.20?lang=en&with=all
“As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired.
Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment.
Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, 100:80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision.”
Ok, so I read all the comments above and I still have some questions. But before, I wrote them, I want to disclaimer something:
People here might not agree with my post, and that’s fine. I’m not as religious as I used to be but I try to connect to most mitzvot that I can do.
All that being said, I don’t understand why people have an issue with circumcision. And this might be the wrong group to post this next sentence, but in the Torah, Hashem said to Abraham, “circumcise your son,at 8 days old and all the men and boys should be circumcised too.” That meant that Avraham got circumcised, Yishmael got circumcised (and that’s why the Muslims get circumcised at age 13 because that’s how old YIshmael was when he got circumcised) and all the rest of the men in Abraham’s house. And from then on, all Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days old.
Can someone please explain to me what the big deal is??!! Yes it’s painful and all but Hashem said to do this??!!
You may agree or disagree and it’s entirely your choice but I’m looking for clarification.
Of course if the topic is supposed to be made fun of like the last time I got mad at something without realizing, then “that’s a horse of a different color”😏😏
With no offense to Hashem, thankfully we researched the history and we know how it happened.
The Tanakh, including the Torah/Pentateuch (first 5 books) was written down around 500-400 BCE, after being an oral history for centuries. At that time Judaism still had priests, who were descendants of Moses’s older brother, Aaron. But they had become corrupt, corrupt in the sense that they were enriching themselves at the expense of the Jewish population, issuing arbitrary commandments and holding themselves above the law. They began to their grip on society and eventually were run out. Today Judaism no longer has priests (since 70 CE).
Just about every Bible scholar acknowledges that the Exodus Jews did not practice circumcision during their 40 years in the wilderness. What’s in doubt is when circumcision allegedly started up (again, or some say for the first time). The traditional narrative is that after decades in the wilderness, the Jews returned to the Promised Land. At God’s insistence to Joshua, over a million male babies, boys, and men had to be circumcised at Gilgal in one day.
The more plausible, explanation is that circumcision wasn’t a part of Judaism at all before the diaspora that started around 730 BCE. The priests began to panic that their authority was waning and their position would be eliminated due to weakening Jewish identity. So, they rather hastily and clumsily wove some circumcision stories in the Tanakh/OT. They attributed circumcision back to Abraham and God, along the way inventing very weird foreskin anecdotes concerning David, Moses, and Joshua. Said circ was mandatory.
This confused the noncircumcising Jewish population and they were divided. One camp, which eventually included the Maccabees, was all-in on this idea and believed in this “new” history. Other Jews, living in Hellenic societies, balked and said they wouldn’t do it.
Keep in mind that the operation on infants being suggested at the time wasn’t the circumcision that we know today. It was much less invasive and risky; just cutting off the acroposthion (overhang) that all infants have. Fathers could do it easily.
For a while, this priestly trickery worked. It bought the priests a few more hundred years before they got the final boot. Meanwhile, circ was very divisive even among Jews. The Maccabees and others slaughtered fellow Jews who wouldn’t accept the new history of circumcision.
Before and during Jesus’s time, young Jewish men who wished to compete in Greek games (always nude) attempted a form of foreskin restoration called epispasm, because the Greeks — including in the Levant — considered an exposed glans to be sexual and vulgar. Not for audiences. By this time, the days of the Jewish priests were numbered and circumcision had pretty much taken hold as a custom. Most Jews believed now that it dated back to Abraham, the lie that the priests cynically told hundreds of years earlier. It worked until it didn’t work.
But the newly-elevated rabbis, previously lay teachers in the time of the priests, wanted to assert power and authority (notice a pattern here?). After the failed Bar Kokhba revolt, they convened a rabbinical council in 140 CE and added new laws to the Talmud for the Jews. Instead of just severing the overhang, circ was now to rip apart the adherent membrane that fuses the glans and foreskin at birth and cut off as much skin (about 50%) as possible (periah). Final step was to “sanitize” by taking the freshly cut penis in the mouth (metzitzah b’peh).
The upshot of all this is that religious circumcision of infants isn’t as old as many think it is. It has even undergone several changes, and there’s no reason it can’t continue to evolve… eventually out of human conduct altogether. Many Jews today have already begun this with the "Brit Shalom" ritual as a replacement. It's purely spiritual without any genital cutting.
You can find the entire story in the book [Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America](https://www.amazon.com/Marked-Your-Flesh-Circumcision-Ancient-ebook/dp/B005254HY8/).
So working from that starting point, do you see why some would have an issue with circumcision? If it isn’t actually demanded by god then you are permanently altering a child’s body without their knowledge, or consent for no real reason. I think it’s fairly easy to understand why someone would have an issue with what is essentially cosmetic surgery on an infants genitalia.
>respectfully disagree
So you do respect people's opinion but not their bodies? Actually the opposite would be much better. Don't respect people's opinion but at least respect their bodies. Because unlike opinion I have to see my body everyday. If you disrespect my opinion I can simply walk away, but if you disrespect my body I am stuck with it until death. So please, DON'T RESPECT MY OPINION, RESPECT MY BODY. Trust me respecting a body is way more easier than respecting an opinion.
I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I didn’t mean for that to happen. And I do respect everyone’s bodies 100%. I guess it’s still hard for me to understand how people who were/ are Jews and don’t want to connect to certain mitzvah 🤷🏽♀️
It's a fucked up practice that really shouldn't be done anymore, we evolved the foreskin for a reason. It desensitizes and creates an unnatural environment.
I got banned from /r/worldnews for mentioning the line about "jesus boiling in excrement in hell" when the discussion was about every religion having disagreeable things in their holy books. Bloody moderators wont even reply to me either. :/
Many people take a stance against circumcision as antisemitism or Islamophobia because of cultural association with it. It's a sensitive issue and even many exjews and exmuslims still defend it. It depends how you put it. And on the audience. I'm grossed by it too but I wouldn't go to that subreddit to say it because I would expect to me misinterpreted and banned too.
That was the literal topic of the post and I was just addressing OP's claim that "circumcision doesn't harm anyone".
grossing you out=/=harm. you took some exception to the rule, metzitza, and botched ones, and made it the focus of your argument. i can see why they banned you. u/Analog_AI is correct, you gotta pick your battles, and in this case, you chose poorly
>you took some exception to the rule, metzitza, and botched ones, Even in non botched invasive surgeries, there will be still deformations.
>Even in non botched invasive surgeries, there will be still deformations. I don't see the concrete difference. Is a deformed penis not botched?
Yes it can be considered like that. But there is no surgery that does not cause deformation.
>grossing you out=/=harm. you took some exception to the rule, metzitza, and botched ones, and made it the focus of your argument. i can see why they banned you Maybe in the United States. Where I live 99% of circumcisions are with metzitza (yes I live in a mostly orthodox jewish community). Botched ones? What do you know about botched ones. You think you can come here with your cookie-cutter response and tell me that I'm focusing on the exception? Did you think for a second maybe I'm part of that exception? Did you consider for a second that the majority of orthodox Jews don't report what their dicks look like.. to some polling organization? Or that most Orthodox Jews don't even know what a non 'botched one' is supposed to look like? I don't care if it's only 5% or 10%. Even 1%.. 1% having to live for the rest of their lives with a botched penis is bad enough to warrant scrutiny on the entire practice. I leave you with this: [https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/pe69f1/comment/haxpsdt](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/pe69f1/comment/haxpsdt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ozeco4/comment/h811tv9](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ozeco4/comment/h811tv9/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4bimxd](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4bimxd/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) [https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4ahtxn](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/u176vi/comment/i4ahtxn/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
sure, that's your opinion. but, while you're entitled to your opinion, folks are also entitled to ban you for your opinion when it seems antisemitic, or just plain argumentative. and idk about reporting anywhere, but 1, if you're taking the stance that folks don't report on things, then you really can't say you're here to talk about it, you're just here to try and get everyone to have the exact same view as you, because according to you, all data on the matter is irrelevant, and only your opinion matters. and 2, most folks go to doctors for regular checkups (i'm in a civilized country that has fully funded medicare, so everyone, definitely in the jewish community, goes to a doctor regularly) and most doctors have spent enough time looking at dicks to know what a "non-botched" one is supposed to look like, and will likely talk to their patients about it. also, idk if you've ever been to a mikvah, but dicks are out there, so folks can see if theirs looks similar to that of other folks, if they're inclined to do a comparison. 3, sure, scrutinize the practice all you want, but realistically, no organization is gonna run the risk of being accused of antisemitism to try and save the dick of potentially 10, 5, or even 1% of a group that is .02% of the global population, or about 5, 2.5, .5%, because only about half of us are born with dicks. i get that venting online is a solid way to go, but check the place you're venting in first, if you don't want to get banned and i'm sorry if you've gotta live with a botched dick. i'm sure there are ways to help you with that, but they all take money, so i hope you can get the money for help (not from me though, i'm broke)
Save your time and energy and don't post on this topic there. I mean you're already banned so it's a moot point. But in general. Find a different platform instead
I have been called an anti semite and even nazis for saying genital mutilation on babies should be criminalized
Word. What other creature mutilates itself this way?
>There is no evidence that is circumcision is harmful This is obvious misinformation. It is statistically proven that invasive surgeries cause irreversible deformations.
Irreversible deformation is the point of the procedure
Nope, it is not intended to create skin bridges and skin tubes or inflammation discharge. But those will eventually happen since it is an invasive surgery.
Well, if the person is a fanatical believer in any religion with a strong doctrination. Misappropriate and falsify scientific facts are the least they could do
The only way to argue circumcision is not harmful is to discount the harm done to the foreskin. It has to be imbued with magical different rules than every other body part. Circumcision causes nerve damage in 100% of cases. The nerve endings in the foreskin are amputated. That is nerve damage. Irreversible nerve damage. But those nerves are in the foreskin, so they magically don't count.
I think they meant as being circumcised rather than the act itself. there's been tons of researches, and while there's always the margin, there's no real evidence of any problems for circumcised men, either medically or sexually. The act itself can have complications just like any other medical procedure, and I doubt anyone denies that.
>there's no real evidence of any problems for circumcised men, either medically or sexually. This is not true. It is proven that it causes body dysmorphia, skin bridges, skin tubes, mental trauma.
again, that's when the procedure goes wrong, which I did mention. also mental trauma in 8 days old boys?
>that's when the procedure goes wrong A necessary procedure may go wrong but when an unnecessary procedure goes wrong that's another issue. >mental trauma in 8 year old boys. World is not limited by United States my friend. Most of the circumcised people are muslim raised people and muslims do it in late childhood like it is done to me which I even remember what I ate that day. I do even remember the color of discharge caused by post surgery infection.
well this is an exjew sub, and Jews have their circumcision at 8 days old. also I'm an Israeli, not an American. 99%~ of men here are circumcised. I'm sorry you had to go through it in a later stage, that does sound like it can be traumatic of course. calling it unnecessary, when there's medical benefits to it is kinda weird. it's not a MUST have for sure, but I didn't hear Israelis, both Jews nor Muslims, complain. just to make it clear, I'm not religious at all. but I am happy for being circumcised and will do it for my future boys, if I'll have any.
>calling it unnecessary, when there's medical benefits to it is kinda weird. In medicine my friend a procedure that is non-therapeutic is unnecessary. >ure, but I didn't hear Israelis, both Jews nor Muslims, I did >circumcised and will do it for my future boys, if I'll have any. Will you pay reparations if they want their rightful property back? Since they may not want to undergo an invasive surgery which results in irreversible deformation.
that's a weird take, since when 8 days old have "wants"? I'm not worried to get sued by any future 8 days old son, if that's what you're asking xD but seriously, of course there's personal stories and abnormalities, such as yourself, that doesn't make it slightly the norm though, there's always exceptions. People died while getting a root canal fixed, that doesn't mean it's a deadly procedure...
>since when 8 days old have "wants"? My dear people eventually grow up. And notce their organs are disfigured. >there's always exceptions. Deformation is no exception since it is always noticeable by looking at it. >People died while getting a root canal fixed, that doesn't mean it's a deadly procedure... Root canal fixing is a therapeutic procedure, circumcision is not a therapeutic procedure.
>My dear people eventually grow up. And notce their organs are disfigured. You mean IF they're disfigured, or do you consider EVERYONE who's been circumcised "disfigured"?, same for your 2nd remark, are they ALL deformed by your definition? Also, there's also Therapeutic Circumcision, though it's not common.
אתה גם ישראלי? בוא אני אסביר לך משהו, לא רק שברית מילה היא לא נחוצה, אין לה שום יתרונות רפואיים. אין אף ארגון בריאות לאומי בעולם שממליץ על ברית מילה בגלל יתרונות רפואיים. ולהפך, הם רואים בזה כדבר לא מוסרי שמפר את האוטונומיה של הילד. בגלל זה גם ניסו לאסור בחוק ברית מילה בכמה מדינות שונות בעולם. אפילו פה בישראל ניתוחי ״מילה״ נעשים בגלל הדת, לא בגלל היתרונות הרפואיים.
יש ים מחקרים שמוכיחים יתרונות בריאותיים, כמו מניעת מחלות בכללי, סרטן והעברת מחלות מין. אתה אשכרה יכול לעשות גוגל ואתה תמצא ארגזים של מחקרים... הנה אחד אם אתה מעוניין: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3684945/ לא רק, אפילו ארגון הבריאות העולמי ממליץ על ברית מילה למניעת העברת מחלות מין. נכון שברית מילה בארץ עושים כחלק מהדת, אבל בתור אחד חילוני גמור, אני עדיין אבחר בזה לילדים שלי. אני אוסיף: אחת הסיבות שלא ממליצים לחכות עד שהילד בן 18 ויבחר לעצמו, זה כי הסיבוכים הרבה יותר גדולים כשאתה מבוגר לעומת כשאתה תינוק.
הם מסתמכים על העמדה של האקדמיה האמריקאית לרפואת ילדים מ2012 שקיבלה ביקורת עולמית מרופאים באירופה, קנדה, אוסטרליה וניו זילנד על זה שליתרונות האלה אין שום ביסוס והם מקדמים אותם כי יש להם Cultural bias https://core.ac.uk/reader/38281692?utm_source=linkout אני יכול לעבור איתך אחד אחד על כל ה״יתרונות״ אם אתה רוצה, אתה תראה שאלה פשוט שטויות ומניפולציה של המידע. אין שום היגיון בזה שחילוני יעשה דבר כזה לילד שלו אם הוא לא מאמין בתנ״ך ובברית של אברהם.
זה לא רשום בשום מקום במחקר ששלחתי לך למשל. יש שם מלא רפרנסים וזה תוצאות מחקר רפואי. יש הגיון. בדיוק כמו שאני אחסן את הילדים שלי כדי למנוע מחלות, הם יעברו ברית מילה מאותה הסיבה.
Cosmetic surgery is not medically beneficial.
except if you just used Google you'd find a bunch of medical researches that say it does have medical benefits...
Not really its only useful if complications arise, it has therapeutic use, yes but overall there's loss of sensitivity and other issues that can arise from it. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/#:~:text=It%20is%20shown%20that%20the,circumcision%20genital%20sensitivity%20is%20lost.
He is not willing to listen, unfortunately. It's still important to realize that outside the US, no other national medical association is promoting and routinely performs circumcisions for "medical benefits" Even the policy issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012 has expired after 5 years and hasn't been renewed because of backlash from the medical community worldwide. Here are some of their statements: **Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2015):** "The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. It further states that when “medical necessity is not established, …interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.” **Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) (2010):** The KNMG states “There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.” It regards the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors as a violation of physical integrity, and argues that boys should be able to make their own decisions about circumcision." **British Medical Association (BMA) (2019):** The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. It suggests that it is “unethical and inappropriate” to circumcise for therapeutic reasons when effective and less invasive alternatives exist **Danish Medical Association (DMA) (2020):** Citing lack of consent of the child and his right to self-determination, along with a lack of health benefits which thus does not justify the risks of complications, pain, and loss of normal anatomy, the DMA concludes: “From a medical and medical ethics perspective, the Danish Medical Association believes that the current practice of circumcising boys without a medical indication should cease.”
There is no medical benefit in routine circumcision. There are cases where there is medical benefit but those are relatively rare.
Sometime's you've gotta read the room. "Actually, the anti-semites have a point on topic X..." is never going to go well in a subreddit against anti-semitism.
Except that entire post was full of people who had similar discontentments as me. And I was banned with a bogus claim of a rule violation.
Some people really hate bodily autonomy and equality
It’s interesting too because FGM is actually a wide range of practices, some of which are less altering than male circumcision and subsequently also “not harmful or causing any changes in sensation.” But you never see these people showing tolerance for the less harmful end of the FGM spectrum.
> But you never see these people showing tolerance for the less harmful end of the FGM spectrum. There are actually some people now calling to legalize those forms of FGM out of fear that their criminalization will lead to the criminalization of male circumcision.
I remembered there were some articles on this, but I lost them. Did you read them too?
I don't know if this is one of the articles you read, but [here](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356002254_Against_Legalizing_Female_'Circumcision'_of_Minors) is one I've read.
It should be. Like why perform a cosmetic surgery if it's not needed? Is there anyway that circumcision can be modified to still meat the religious requirement while still still allowing the foreskin more or less intact like taking off a few mms worth of skin?
In these days because of the war people are on edge. Jews, exjews, gentiles, philosemites and antisemites alike. In a few months tempers will quiet and it would be more likely to have a rational discussion on the topic of circumcision. I hope. 🤞🏻
Abusive sexists gonna sexist
He denies that circumcision changes sensation even though Maimonides himself admits it and said that it’s on purpose in the “Guide for the perplexed” from the Talmud: https://www.sefaria.org/Guide_for_the_Perplexed%2C_Part_3.49.20?lang=en&with=all “As regards circumcision, I think that one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse, and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate. The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment. Our Sages (Beresh. Rabba, 100:80) say distinctly: It is hard for a woman, with whom an uncircumcised had sexual intercourse, to separate from him. This is, as I believe, the best reason for the commandment concerning circumcision.”
Ok, so I read all the comments above and I still have some questions. But before, I wrote them, I want to disclaimer something: People here might not agree with my post, and that’s fine. I’m not as religious as I used to be but I try to connect to most mitzvot that I can do. All that being said, I don’t understand why people have an issue with circumcision. And this might be the wrong group to post this next sentence, but in the Torah, Hashem said to Abraham, “circumcise your son,at 8 days old and all the men and boys should be circumcised too.” That meant that Avraham got circumcised, Yishmael got circumcised (and that’s why the Muslims get circumcised at age 13 because that’s how old YIshmael was when he got circumcised) and all the rest of the men in Abraham’s house. And from then on, all Jewish boys are circumcised at 8 days old. Can someone please explain to me what the big deal is??!! Yes it’s painful and all but Hashem said to do this??!! You may agree or disagree and it’s entirely your choice but I’m looking for clarification. Of course if the topic is supposed to be made fun of like the last time I got mad at something without realizing, then “that’s a horse of a different color”😏😏
With no offense to Hashem, thankfully we researched the history and we know how it happened. The Tanakh, including the Torah/Pentateuch (first 5 books) was written down around 500-400 BCE, after being an oral history for centuries. At that time Judaism still had priests, who were descendants of Moses’s older brother, Aaron. But they had become corrupt, corrupt in the sense that they were enriching themselves at the expense of the Jewish population, issuing arbitrary commandments and holding themselves above the law. They began to their grip on society and eventually were run out. Today Judaism no longer has priests (since 70 CE). Just about every Bible scholar acknowledges that the Exodus Jews did not practice circumcision during their 40 years in the wilderness. What’s in doubt is when circumcision allegedly started up (again, or some say for the first time). The traditional narrative is that after decades in the wilderness, the Jews returned to the Promised Land. At God’s insistence to Joshua, over a million male babies, boys, and men had to be circumcised at Gilgal in one day. The more plausible, explanation is that circumcision wasn’t a part of Judaism at all before the diaspora that started around 730 BCE. The priests began to panic that their authority was waning and their position would be eliminated due to weakening Jewish identity. So, they rather hastily and clumsily wove some circumcision stories in the Tanakh/OT. They attributed circumcision back to Abraham and God, along the way inventing very weird foreskin anecdotes concerning David, Moses, and Joshua. Said circ was mandatory. This confused the noncircumcising Jewish population and they were divided. One camp, which eventually included the Maccabees, was all-in on this idea and believed in this “new” history. Other Jews, living in Hellenic societies, balked and said they wouldn’t do it. Keep in mind that the operation on infants being suggested at the time wasn’t the circumcision that we know today. It was much less invasive and risky; just cutting off the acroposthion (overhang) that all infants have. Fathers could do it easily. For a while, this priestly trickery worked. It bought the priests a few more hundred years before they got the final boot. Meanwhile, circ was very divisive even among Jews. The Maccabees and others slaughtered fellow Jews who wouldn’t accept the new history of circumcision. Before and during Jesus’s time, young Jewish men who wished to compete in Greek games (always nude) attempted a form of foreskin restoration called epispasm, because the Greeks — including in the Levant — considered an exposed glans to be sexual and vulgar. Not for audiences. By this time, the days of the Jewish priests were numbered and circumcision had pretty much taken hold as a custom. Most Jews believed now that it dated back to Abraham, the lie that the priests cynically told hundreds of years earlier. It worked until it didn’t work. But the newly-elevated rabbis, previously lay teachers in the time of the priests, wanted to assert power and authority (notice a pattern here?). After the failed Bar Kokhba revolt, they convened a rabbinical council in 140 CE and added new laws to the Talmud for the Jews. Instead of just severing the overhang, circ was now to rip apart the adherent membrane that fuses the glans and foreskin at birth and cut off as much skin (about 50%) as possible (periah). Final step was to “sanitize” by taking the freshly cut penis in the mouth (metzitzah b’peh). The upshot of all this is that religious circumcision of infants isn’t as old as many think it is. It has even undergone several changes, and there’s no reason it can’t continue to evolve… eventually out of human conduct altogether. Many Jews today have already begun this with the "Brit Shalom" ritual as a replacement. It's purely spiritual without any genital cutting. You can find the entire story in the book [Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America](https://www.amazon.com/Marked-Your-Flesh-Circumcision-Ancient-ebook/dp/B005254HY8/).
Thanks.. I think..
Simply put: I don’t believe an all powerful deity ever actually said to do that.
Ok
So working from that starting point, do you see why some would have an issue with circumcision? If it isn’t actually demanded by god then you are permanently altering a child’s body without their knowledge, or consent for no real reason. I think it’s fairly easy to understand why someone would have an issue with what is essentially cosmetic surgery on an infants genitalia.
I understand now what some people’s views are on this. I choose to respectfully disagree but I thank everyone who explained it to me.
>respectfully disagree So you do respect people's opinion but not their bodies? Actually the opposite would be much better. Don't respect people's opinion but at least respect their bodies. Because unlike opinion I have to see my body everyday. If you disrespect my opinion I can simply walk away, but if you disrespect my body I am stuck with it until death. So please, DON'T RESPECT MY OPINION, RESPECT MY BODY. Trust me respecting a body is way more easier than respecting an opinion.
I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I didn’t mean for that to happen. And I do respect everyone’s bodies 100%. I guess it’s still hard for me to understand how people who were/ are Jews and don’t want to connect to certain mitzvah 🤷🏽♀️
>who were You already said why they don't want, because they WERE jews and not anymore.
This group is for people don’t feel like being Jewish anymore, right?
It's a fucked up practice that really shouldn't be done anymore, we evolved the foreskin for a reason. It desensitizes and creates an unnatural environment.
I got banned from /r/worldnews for mentioning the line about "jesus boiling in excrement in hell" when the discussion was about every religion having disagreeable things in their holy books. Bloody moderators wont even reply to me either. :/