Pages

Jump to bottom

248 comments

1 Flavia  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:28:07am

I wish he had made a slightly different statement. Merely stating that "it's important to us" sounds like the lame justification for clitorectemies. If he had said something more along the lines of "does not actual harm as our opponents allege", I would have been much happier.

2 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:41:10am

re: #1 Flavia

I wish he had made a slightly different statement. Merely stating that "it's important to us" sounds like the lame justification for clitorectemies. If he had said something more along the lines of "does not actual harm as our opponents allege", I would have been much happier.

The opponents of circ make outrageous claims that this is "torture" and "mutilation" and causes "extreme mental and physical distress." Let them prove these claims. Millions of men are walking around, enjoying perfectly normal sex lives and not experiencing any mental or physical distress.

3 Daniel Ballard  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:04:14am

This simply shows how the government has no ability to well regulate personal cultural choices like this. "Choice" is no just about women's rights or abortion. It's about people making their own decision on certain medical/cultural issues.

4 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:41:17am

I don't know about this really... It is, I would assume, the norm. I can't help but think that I'd at least have preferred to have a choice on the damn issue since it does happen to deal with my genitals for the rest of my life. I don't know (haven't researched) the effects of later year circumcision, but I know I'd not be getting one given the choice!

5 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:47:29am

I have a side question (and I am aware this is just a side issue). What would happen to people who traveled outside of SF, had it done to their baby boy, and then came back?

6 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:47:37am

re: #2 Alouette

Well -- yes, I enjoy a normal sex life. But I won't ever know how it could be different (possibly better) as an uncircumcised male.

I mean, in that same vein, could you not say that there are circumcised women that enjoy normal sex lives? I'm sure you could make the claim. But I'm also sure that there would be people jumping up and down screaming "MUTILATION!"

Why is this any different?

7 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:04:31am

re: #6 APox

I mean, in that same vein, could you not say that there are circumcised women that enjoy normal sex lives? I'm sure you could make the claim. But I'm also sure that there would be people jumping up and down screaming "MUTILATION!"

Why is this any different?

The answer is that "female circumcision" leaves a woman unable to experience sexual pleasure, including orgasm. In fact she may find having sex extremely painful, and may also experience problems with menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth. This is not the case with circumcised men. If there may be an additional "tickle" that men think they might be missing out on, this can in no way be compared to a woman's external genitals being removed.

8 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:17:43am

re: #7 Alouette

From my brief research I've found nothing that claims that women are (flat out) unable to experience sexual pleasure. There are also multiple types ranging from completely removal to partial. Many places that also practice this are in Africa where it isn't done by a surgeon in a sterile environment, and many times it is done to women at a much later age versus right at infancy.

I'm not arguing to support this mutilation. But I do find it interesting how we cling to social norms -- it's okay to support mutilation of boys because it is the socially acceptable thing to do.

"For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision—all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis. "

They also claim through the penile sensitivity mapping that as much as 60% sensitivity is lost. I guess you could discount that as a "tickle" but it seems awfully hypocritical to not draw at least a slight parallel to the stigma of FGM.

9 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:22:10am

It is not a "mutilation" and simply calling it a "mutilation" does not make it one.

10 ibob  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:28:26am

re: #6 APox

Well -- yes, I enjoy a normal sex life. But I won't ever know how it could be different (possibly better) as an uncircumcised male.

I mean, in that same vein, could you not say that there are circumcised women that enjoy normal sex lives? I'm sure you could make the claim. But I'm also sure that there would be people jumping up and down screaming "MUTILATION!"

Why is this any different?

There is a huge difference between male circumcision and female "circumcision". The first is the procedure performed on women is not actually a circumcision. The entire clitoris is removed, not just the clitoral hood. This is equivalent to removing the glands of the penis. I am not a man, but I can imagine your sex life would not be normal after that. Usually, however, that is not all that is done. The labia are either removed or sewn together, leaving only a small hole for urine and menstrual blood to escape.

I saw a woman in residency who had had this performed on her. You can not imagine the mutilation this caused. I could only get one finger in the vagina and I have small fingers. The urethra could not even be seen. It was found only by taking the smallest pediatric catheter made and blindly poking it in the general area until it went in.

I also feel I can respond to male circumcisions since I have performed literally hundreds of them (the pediatrians in our area now perform them). This is a very simple procedure that is performed with local anesthesia and takes less than five minutes. Now I can't respond to the idea of less sexual satisfaction after circumcision, but my husband has never complained, and the women I see have not said anything about their husbands not enjoying sex.

Also, I saw enough old men in the VA as a medical student and intern ( low man on the totem pole had to do the genital exam) with strictures, poor hygeine, etc. to decide that if I ever had a boy, he was going to cicumcised. However, I had girls and so didn't have to worry about it. I realize good hygiene keeps this from being a problem, but nursing home staff don't always clean the foreskin.

11 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:29:54am

"mutilate 1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect"

Involves cutting, and has been proven that it does alter sexual stimulation. Now maybe the religious interpretation is that by cutting it makes the penis perfect, but just reading studies on this there is a decrease in sensitivity, and from what the most recent study found seems to state -- dramatically.

I also find it interesting that past studies that claim no sensitivity decrease is found is based on men who had to have later life circumcisions because of medical problems.

"Some previous studies found that circumcision led to little, if any, decrease in penile sensitivity, but Sorrells and his colleagues say such findings are suspect because many are based on self-reports from men who were circumcised to correct medical problems. "

I know this is a personal issue and religion is at play in deciding this, but based on the actual reports counters what people influenced by said religion / cultural normals seem to say.

12 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:39:42am

re: #11 APox

I also find it interesting that past studies that claim no sensitivity decrease is found is based on men who had to have later life circumcisions because of medical problems.

And the studies which claim there is a great decrease in sensitivity are based on...if not interviews with men who have experienced both "before" and "after," then what exactly?

13 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:53:44am

re: #10 ibob

Thank you for the personal account. FGM truly sounds quite terrible, I would say that based on a quick review of the subject that there are different "levels" of these mutilations. The one you described sounds as though "Type III: infibulation with excision" of FGM, which is said to be the most "extensive form of FGM, and accounts for about 10% of all FGM procedures described from Africa."

There are actually four different types, however, and from examining them some types draw parallels to the male equivalent of circumcision.

I also said previously, that I do enjoy a normal sex life. I'm not saying circumcision leads to not enjoying / not having sex. I'm just saying that the practice does decrease sensitivity on the penis, and from what the study shows -- significantly, which would naturally lead to less satisfaction. Obviously other things come into play with sex, enjoying your partner, intimacy, etc. But it is still (to me) a mutilation that is done because of a religion, and I don't think it's right that it's done to infants who can't decide whether they want it done or not. (Again, a very personal thing)

As to the men "before" and "after" thing:

[Link: onlinelibrary.wiley.com...]

and

[Link: www.livescience.com...]

Were the article and study I was sourcing. The study did use participants but used pressure mapping to directly correlate sensitivity instead of some (in my opinion) bullshit personal retrospective opinion, on men who were having sexual dysfunctions in the first place.

All in all, I've enjoyed this discussion! It's something I've thought a lot about as a circumcised male, thanks for the inputs.

14 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:56:39am

And I guess I would also pose this question:

If this is not mutilation, and if it only decreases sensitivity slightly (or not at all), why not do circumcisions later in life -- say ages 13-18. Why not let the person actually having the circumcision done to them decide?

15 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:58:44am

re: #13 APox

It's something I've thought a lot about as a circumcised male

What do you think you are missing out on?

All the men in my life (1 husband, 6 sons, 2 son-in-laws, 13 grandsons) have not spent a bunch of time thinking about how much more fabulous their lives could be if only they had that little extra piece of skin.

16 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:58:45am

re: #8 APox

You are claiming one study as though it's the norm. In most studies, the skin that is circumcised is rated below every other part of the penis in terms of sensitivity, and just above the 'taint'.

17 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 8:59:30am

re: #14 APox

And I guess I would also pose this question:

If this is not mutilation, and if it only decreases sensitivity slightly (or not at all), why not do circumcisions later in life -- say ages 13-18. Why not let the person actually having the circumcision done to them decide?

Because Judaism requires that it must be done on the 8th day. The responsibility is on the father, not on the individual.

18 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:06:03am

re: #13 APox

What if the parent wanted it done because of the health benefits-- while knowing the health risks from it? Does that make it more likely for you to support it over doing it for religious reasons?

As for doing it at later ages; the person making that decision is not going to be doing so in an independent environment, so the actual results of that would be rather moot.

To engage, briefly, with the female genital mutilation argument-- while stressing that they are in no way similar-- if girls in that environment were given the 'choice' of "Do you want to have this adulthood ceremony done to you and become an adult, or would you rather be a weird outcast?" almost all of them would say to go ahead and do it. The women who have had it done are often the ones who are most supportive of it. You're acting as though the decision would be done by some objective person in an objective environment.

We allow parents to do any number of things to kids that are far more harmful to their health, like letting them eat unhealthy foods, letting them not exercise, or making them exercise in strenuous and damaging ways. We let them carry backpacks that cause skeletal damage, and we often inflict teeth-straightening on them that is painful, expensive, and permanent even though often the effect is cosmetic, and not meaningful.

Circumcision is singled out because it relates to sex and religion. It is not about an objective measure of harm to the child, at all, or about the choice of the individual.

19 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:26:20am

Excuse me but what does female circ have anything to do with this? Jews don't do that! Who does that? Anyone in western countries? Maybe some tribes in Africa?

And for goodness sake, do you have your ears pierced?? Do you have any tattoos?? What is all this bullshit about mutilation?

20 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:29:50am

re: #19 marjoriemoon

Excuse me but what does female circ have anything to do with this? Jews don't do that! Who does that? Anyone in western countries? Maybe some tribes in Africa?

And for goodness sake, do you have your ears pierced?? Do you have any tattoos?? What is all this bullshit about mutilation?

The anti-circs always bring up FGM to make their claim.

21 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:37:45am

re: #19 marjoriemoon

And the halacha is that Jews should not get tattoos.

On a related note, does anyone consult an chart of acupuncture points before getting pierced?

I'm just saying, other cultures have dictionaries too. And within Jewish scholarship, there are many discussions on what changes to the human body inhibit the ability to function within civilization, albeit a Jewish civilization. Needless to say, having a bris is not on that list.

22 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:41:44am

What it boils down to, is that most of the anti-circs are wild, ferocious, seething, frothing haters of religious practices in general. Their attitude is "I hate all religions and I want them all to be criminalized, but since that's not possible to accomplish all at once, let's start with the Jews."

23 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:45:47am

re: #22 Alouette

You have a good point. One thing that appears to be missing from their arguments--is an overriding love of all humanity.

24 zora  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:46:26am

Circumcision Saved My Life

San Francisco's proposed ban on the practice could lead to more HIV infections.

This is the story of how my husband's circumcision saved my life.

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

25 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:49:09am

re: #22 Alouette

If my posts came out as me saying I hate Jewish people or religion then I apologize. It was a personal opinion and less about religion than my personal preference. All cultures have norms, circumcision is an obvious one in the West.

"What do you think you are missing out on?

All the men in my life (1 husband, 6 sons, 2 son-in-laws, 13 grandsons) have not spent a bunch of time thinking about how much more fabulous their lives could be if only they had that little extra piece of skin."

Beyond seething hatred of religion, I'm also weird!

lol.

26 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 9:50:42am

re: #22 Alouette

What it boils down to, is that most of the anti-circs are wild, ferocious, seething, frothing haters of religious practices in general. Their attitude is "I hate all religions and I want them all to be criminalized, but since that's not possible to accomplish all at once, let's start with the Jews."

Well, there's also a large amount of perfectly well-meaning people who have not thought it through. There's a lot of people who say, "Wait a second, you're taking a baby and doing an unnecessary medical procedure. That seems wrong." They're not thinking of any context, they're not thinking of the many ways we allow parents to impact children's health. A circumcision is a definite act, it's very poignant, and something is different before and after.

A parent making their child get cosmetic braces isn't a big deal to them because it takes place slowly, over time. Likewise, a parent letting their child not exercise, or a parent making their child exercise excessively (which is very easy for children), isn't dramatic, so it generally passes by without comment.

27 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:00:26am

re: #26 Obdicut

There are coffee table discussions, and then there are organized, funded efforts to get laws passed that have a devastating effect on a religion or culture. The internal contradictions of their efforts are quickly dismissed--because of the overall, unstated goals. Yes, there are well meaning people who get caught up in the rapids. It never hurts to look around and see what other fish you are swimming with.

28 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:02:26am

re: #25 APox

I am not saying you, personally, but a lot of the people who are very dedicated to this cause have a big problem with religion in general, and with Judaism in particular.

However if you spend a great deal of time wondering what your life would be like if you had a little piece of skin attached to your penis, you are kind of weird.

29 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:09:39am

re: #27 Bob Levin

There are coffee table discussions, and then there are organized, funded efforts to get laws passed that have a devastating effect on a religion or culture. The internal contradictions of their efforts are quickly dismissed--because of the overall, unstated goals. Yes, there are well meaning people who get caught up in the rapids. It never hurts to look around and see what other fish you are swimming with.

The comments page at "Jewish Journal" which is unmoderated, just
like Fox News and Yahoo, was full of the most sickening and bigoted remarks, apparently an organized assault on the "Jewish Journal" by the pro-foreskin lobby.

30 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:14:53am

re: #26 Obdicut

or a parent making their child exercise excessively (which is very easy for children), isn't dramatic, so it generally passes by without comment.

Are you referring to competitive gymnastics, figure skating and ballet?

31 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:19:28am

re: #29 Alouette

Yep, just read it. Robotic arguments feigning concern for human rights, which surprisingly infer that Jews have no concern for human rights. Imagine that.

32 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:20:25am

re: #30 Alouette

Are you referring to competitive gymnastics, figure skating and ballet?

Yeah, ballet and figure skating most of all, with the damage it does to feet. But any repetitive strain on the joints can be bad for developing children, and a lot of parents do put their kids through it.

33 sliv_the_eli  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:20:26am

re: #18 Obdicut

What if the parent wanted it done because of the health benefits-- while knowing the health risks from it? Does that make it more likely for you to support it over doing it for religious reasons?

As for doing it at later ages; the person making that decision is not going to be doing so in an independent environment, so the actual results of that would be rather moot.

To engage, briefly, with the female genital mutilation argument-- while stressing that they are in no way similar-- if girls in that environment were given the 'choice' of "Do you want to have this adulthood ceremony done to you and become an adult, or would you rather be a weird outcast?" almost all of them would say to go ahead and do it. The women who have had it done are often the ones who are most supportive of it. You're acting as though the decision would be done by some objective person in an objective environment.

We allow parents to do any number of things to kids that are far more harmful to their health, like letting them eat unhealthy foods, letting them not exercise, or making them exercise in strenuous and damaging ways. We let them carry backpacks that cause skeletal damage, and we often inflict teeth-straightening on them that is painful, expensive, and permanent even though often the effect is cosmetic, and not meaningful.

Circumcision is singled out because it relates to sex and religion. It is not about an objective measure of harm to the child, at all, or about the choice of the individual.

Obdicut, you hit the proverbial nail right on the head. As with many things, and setting aside the anti-religion motivation which others have commented on, these ballot measures also raise a fundamental question about the level of intrusion that government should be allowed to have in the personal lives of its citizens. A government which outlaws a millenia-old ritual that causes no known physical harm (and an alleged inability to experience sex differently is not the same as harm) and, on the contrary, is known by modern medicine to have certain health benefits (even if that is not the reason it is performed), is also a government that can affirmatively interfere with what traditions and values we pass along to our children, how we feed our children, how we rear and raise them, and a host of other personal issues.
While I do not suggest that a ballot measure in one city seeking to prohibit ritual circumcision is a small step from those extremes, history teaches that it is the first step toward totalitarianism which is the hardest to take. That is why, IMHO, the rights embodied in the First Amendment are so critical to a well ordered society that balances the will of the majority with the rights of the minority. It is also why those rights are ensconced in the First Amendment.

Finally, it is almost ironic that this effort is directed against a ritual that has been practiced by Jews for millennia. It seems that, as with so many other matters, the Jews still serve as the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

34 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:24:09am

re: #33 sliv_the_eli

I live in a town that, years ago, many years ago, legislated that the normal public school week go from Tuesday to Saturday. The reason? Let's just say there weren't many mezzuzahs around town.

35 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 10:25:47am

I have to run now, must go get mutilated with acupuncture needles. Have a nice day all.

36 Randall Gross  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:04:48am

re: #22 Alouette

What it boils down to, is that most of the anti-circs are wild, ferocious, seething, frothing haters of religious practices in general. Their attitude is "I hate all religions and I want them all to be criminalized, but since that's not possible to accomplish all at once, let's start with the Jews."

I think you have it there. These same people are not trying to get tattoos, nose rings, and piercing outlawed.

37 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:18:01am

Does San Francisco allow religious/philosophical exemptions in their schools for parents who don't want to immunize their children?

38 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:38:51am

re: #36 Thanos

I'm done with this discussion now because people seemed to get a little bit too angry about it. But that's not even close to being equivalent. You don't think there would be outrage if you tattooed your newly born?

39 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:42:01am

re: #38 APox

I'm done with this discussion now because people seemed to get a little bit too angry about it. But that's not even close to being equivalent. You don't think there would be outrage if you tattooed your newly born?

What about ear piercing?

40 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:54:30am

Honestly I don't think circumcision should be legal at all. I also don't agree with the "no harm" analysis just as I would about clitoral circumcision. First of all there are nerve endings in the foreskin which are being chopped away. Secondly the inadvertent and accidental damage that can occur to what's left behind is more common that you might imagine.

I do not buy the whole "freedom of religion" argument when it comes to mutilating your children. Isn't not braces, it's not ear piercing, you are cutting away a part of the body and there's no going back.

41 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:55:13am

re: #39 Alouette

What about ear piercing?

What about lopping off the bottom part of the earlobe? Ain't doing much, after all. Parent's rights and all that!

42 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:56:00am

re: #41 Jimmah

What about lopping off the bottom part of the earlobe? Ain't doing much, after all. Parent's rights and all that!

Who lops off the bottom part of the earlobe?

43 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:56:18am

re: #42 Alouette

Who lops off the bottom part of the earlobe?

It's an example.

44 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:56:57am

re: #43 Locker

It's an example.

It's a stupid and irrelevant example of nothing.

45 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:57:34am

No, it isn't. It's the difference between piercing and cutting something away. Exactly on topic.

46 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:57:45am

re: #21 Bob Levin

And the halacha is that Jews should not get tattoos.

On a related note, does anyone consult an chart of acupuncture points before getting pierced?

I'm just saying, other cultures have dictionaries too. And within Jewish scholarship, there are many discussions on what changes to the human body inhibit the ability to function within civilization, albeit a Jewish civilization. Needless to say, having a bris is not on that list.

Indeed. Jews are not supposed to get tattooed and pierced, but I find it ironic and rather hypocritical that gentiles complaining about "mutilation" most likely have one, the other or both, PARTICULARLY in San Fran where oddity is the norm.

47 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:58:27am

re: #46 marjoriemoon

Indeed. Jews are not supposed to get tattooed and pierced, but I find it ironic and rather hypocritical that gentiles complaining about "mutilation" most likely have one, the other or both, PARTICULARLY in San Fran where oddity is the norm.

I do have one and it damn sure wasn't my choice.

48 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:59:06am

re: #38 APox

I'm done with this discussion now because people seemed to get a little bit too angry about it. But that's not even close to being equivalent. You don't think there would be outrage if you tattooed your newly born?

Tattooing is not a religious edict in America.

Circ for Jews and Muslims is 100% religious ritual. Based on health or sex or whatever else you want to come up with means nothing. It is a covenant, a bonding between man and God (I'm assuming it's the same for Muslims.). It has no other meaning. Outlawing circumcision is a swipe at religious beliefs. Period.

49 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:59:13am

re: #45 Locker

No, it isn't. It's the difference between piercing and cutting something away. Exactly on topic.

Except, people DO get their ears pierced, but nobody removes the bottom part of the ear. So it is not relevant to anything.

50 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:59:33am

re: #47 Locker

I do have one and it damn sure wasn't my choice.

So sue your parents then.

51 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:59:49am

re: #49 Alouette

Except, people DO get their ears pierced, but nobody removes the bottom part of the ear. So it is not relevant to anything.

Circumcision is removing. Duh.

52 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:00:03pm

re: #50 marjoriemoon

So sue your parents then.

How insightful.

53 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:00:05pm

re: #3 Rightwingconspirator

This simply shows how the government has no ability to well regulate personal cultural choices like this. "Choice" is no just about women's rights or abortion. It's about people making their own decision on certain medical/cultural issues.

And that's actually why I'm against infant circumcision. If an adult should choose to do so for religious or cultural reasons, he should not be denied that choice. But babies cannot make an informed choice at all - it is being made for them.

54 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:00:50pm

re: #53 Jimmah

And that's actually why I'm against infant circumcision. If an adult should choose to do so for religious or cultural reasons, he should not be denied that choice. But babies cannot make an informed choice at all - it is being made for them.

Parents make a lot of choices for their children.

55 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:00:57pm

re: #53 Jimmah

Exactly, I'm referring to involuntary procedures.

56 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:00:58pm

re: #52 Locker

How insightful.

Well, are you upset about your circumcision?

57 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:01:05pm

re: #42 Alouette

Who lops off the bottom part of the earlobe?

Hypothetical scenario. I'm asking if you would be opposed to it.

58 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:01:39pm

re: #53 Jimmah

And that's actually why I'm against infant circumcision. If an adult should choose to do so for religious or cultural reasons, he should not be denied that choice. But babies cannot make an informed choice at all - it is being made for them.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time. Why is this one different than any other religious or health reason?

59 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:01:43pm

re: #56 marjoriemoon

Your answer is already "sue your parents" so not sure where you are going with that.

60 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:01:58pm

re: #54 Alouette

Parents make a lot of choices for their children.

I know - I feel that deciding which parts of the child the child gets to keep shouldn't be one of them.

61 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:02:49pm

re: #58 marjoriemoon

Parents make decisions for their children all the time. Why is this one different than any other religious or health reason?

Because you are cutting away a piece of someone's body. Can you not see the difference? What if my religious believes dictate that I cut one of my children's ears off, or stone them if they flirt with a man, does that make it ok?

Is that the same as piercing and vaccinations? I can't believe so many normally rational people are playing stupid on this subject.

62 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:03:39pm

re: #59 Locker

Your answer is already "sue your parents" so not sure where you are going with that.

You seem to be upset that your parents circumcised you, I'm assuming when you were a little baby. You seem to wish it didn't happen. Then maybe you should sue your parents for doing something against your will when you were an infant.

Do you see how utterly stupid this argument is?

63 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:04:08pm

re: #62 marjoriemoon

You seem to be upset that your parents circumcised you, I'm assuming when you were a little baby. You seem to wish it didn't happen. Then maybe you should sue your parents for doing something against your will when you were an infant.

Do you see how utterly stupid this argument is?

Yes, I see you utterly stupid your argument is.

64 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:05:41pm

re: #61 Locker

Because you are cutting away a piece of someone's body. Can you not see the difference? What if my religious believes dictate that I cut one of my children's ears off, or stone them if they flirt with a man, does that make it ok?

Is that the same as piercing and vaccinations? I can't believe so many normally rational people are playing stupid on this subject.

Uh no because cutting off their ears would HURT THEM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

How does living without your foreskin hurt you? It's not even an orgasm issue. There may be more sensitivity with a foreskin, but it doesn't prevent men from enjoying sex without it.

Vaccinations save lives. What's your point again?

65 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:06:44pm

re: #64 marjoriemoon

Uh no because cutting off their ears would HURT THEM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

How does living without your foreskin hurt you? It's not even an orgasm issue. There may be more sensitivity with a foreskin, but it doesn't prevent men from enjoying sex without it.

Vaccinations save lives. What's your point again?

How the fuck do you know? Are you a man? Are you a man that's had a circumcision? Can I say that the only thing a woman is losing from her clit being removed is a "little tickle"? Who the hell are you to say that you are the be all end all and that it doesn't hurt anyone?

66 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:07:37pm

Look you don't want to circumcise your child, that's your right. Don't do it if you're against it, but why make a LAW to prevent others.

I thought you were all pro-life here. What is the difference between giving women the rights to their bodies and giving men the rights to theirs? Or you're just pissed off at Jews?

67 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:08:22pm

re: #65 Locker

How the fuck do you know? Are you a man? Are you a man that's had a circumcision? Can I say that the only thing a woman is losing from her clit being removed is a "little tickle"? Who the hell are you to say that you are the be all end all and that it doesn't hurt anyone?

I don't have to be a man to know the difference between male and female circ.

68 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:08:58pm

re: #66 marjoriemoon

Look you don't want to circumcise your child, that's your right. Don't do it if you're against it, but why make a LAW to prevent others.

I thought you were all pro-life here. What is the difference between giving women the rights to their bodies and giving men the rights to theirs? Or you're just pissed off at Jews?

So why are there laws against child abuse in general? Should we just abolish them and tell the kid who had his ass kicked all day that he wasn't really harmed and that it's for "religious reasons" and that it's "good for him" and that if he doesn't like it he can "sue his parents"?

This is child protection we are talking about here.

69 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:09:55pm

re: #65 Locker

How the [] do you know? Are you a man? Are you a man that's had a circumcision? Can I say that the only thing a woman is losing from her [] being removed is a "little tickle"? Who the hell are you to say that you are the be all end all and that it doesn't hurt anyone?

You have issues that are beyond the scope of this conversation.

70 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:11:56pm

re: #69 Alouette

You have issues that are beyond the scope of this conversation.

That's your opinion. After you and your buds fill this post with stuff about how it's harmless and it's just like piercing and vaccinations. Now you get a little push back and you want to bail.

That's your perogative but you aren't going to convince someone with first hand experience that you all understand it fine and that I just have issues.

71 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:12:05pm

re: #68 Locker

So why are there laws against child abuse in general? Should we just abolish them and tell the kid who had his ass kicked all day that he wasn't really harmed and that it's for "religious reasons" and that it's "good for him" and that if he doesn't like it he can "sue his parents"?

This is child protection we are talking about here.

Protection from what? Getting their asses kicked? So Jews shouldn't get circ because it would stop anti-Semitism. Well alrighty then.

There's really something wrong with you if you equate circ of babies to child abuse. Truly.

72 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:12:46pm

re: #71 marjoriemoon

Protection from what? Getting their asses kicked? So Jews shouldn't get circ because it would stop anti-Semitism. Well alrighty then.

There's really something wrong with you if you equate circ of babies to child abuse. Truly.

Protection from their dumb fuck parents permanently mutilating their children.

73 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:13:20pm

Locker you never answered my question.

Why do you want to tell me what to do with my child? You don't want your male child circumsized, then don't do it. Why pass the law?

74 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:13:48pm

re: #70 Locker

That's your opinion. After you and your buds fill this post with stuff about how it's harmless and it's just like piercing and vaccinations. Now you get a little push back and you want to bail.

That's your perogative but you aren't going to convince someone with first hand experience that you all understand it fine and that I just have issues.

What is your first hand experience? What specific do you remember about your first hand experience?

75 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:15:13pm

re: #64 marjoriemoon

Uh no because cutting off their ears would HURT THEM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.

How does living without your foreskin hurt you? It's not even an orgasm issue. There may be more sensitivity with a foreskin, but it doesn't prevent men from enjoying sex without it.

Vaccinations save lives. What's your point again?

Even though you are admitting that there may be consequences for him, you are denying him the right to seriously object to having a part of his body removed by someone else without his consent.

Think about that.

Obviously, I understand that circumcision is a particularly sensitive issue for religious people, both muslim and jews among them and I will always defend the right of individuals to make choices over their own bodies. But that is my whole point here. I think circumcision should be a conscious, informed decision by the person being circumcised.

76 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:18:31pm

re: #75 Jimmah

Even though you are admitting that there may be consequences for him, you are denying him the right to seriously object to having a part of his body removed by someone else without his consent.

Think about that.

Obviously, I understand that circumcision is a particularly sensitive issue for religious people, both muslim and jews among them and I will always defend the right of individuals to make choices over their own bodies. But that is my whole point here. I think circumcision should be a conscious, informed decision by the person being circumcised.

I am absolutely NOT denying him anything. I said twice now. He doesn't want to do it to his child, don't do it. If you're all for women's rights, that no one should be able to tell me what to do with my body, then why would you want to pass a law that tells me what to do with my child's.

He can't do anything about it now, so I suggested, since he seems so pissed off about it, to sue his parents. He could probably make a bundle.

77 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:18:46pm

re: #73 marjoriemoon

Locker you never answered my question.

Why do you want to tell me what to do with my child? You don't want your male child circumsized, then don't do it. Why pass the law?

Yes I did answer your question and you ignored it. It's illegal to beat your kids up, harm them, kill them, starve them but you think it's perfectly fine to chop off part of their body and that's some how different because you put a "religious" label on it.

There are LOTS of laws to protect children from harm because people are too stupid, negligent or responsible to do it themselves.

78 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:19:13pm

re: #74 Alouette

What is your first hand experience? What specific do you remember about your first hand experience?

The hostility that tends to be expressed towards men who object to having been circumcised as infants without their consent makes me think that there are probably a lot more of them than those we hear from.

79 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:19:41pm

re: #77 Locker

Yes I did answer your question and you ignored it. It's illegal to beat your kids up, harm them, kill them, starve them but you think it's perfectly fine to chop off part of their body and that's some how different because you put a "religious" label on it.

There are LOTS of laws to protect children from harm because people are too stupid, negligent or responsible to do it themselves.

You're a fucking idiot. Locker. Circ is not death. It is not child abuse in any way shape or form.

I'm done with this conversation. There's not point to continue it.

80 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:19:49pm

re: #76 marjoriemoon

I am absolutely NOT denying him anything. I said twice now. He doesn't want to do it to his child, don't do it. If you're all for women's rights, that no one should be able to tell me what to do with my body, then why would you want to pass a law that tells me what to do with my child's.

He can't do anything about it now, so I suggested, since he seems so pissed off about it, to sue his parents. He could probably make a bundle.

So you seriously expect me to believe that you can't tell the difference between the right to MY body and to MY CHILD's body? Give me a flipping break.

81 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:20:22pm

re: #79 marjoriemoon

You're a fucking idiot. Locker. Circ is not death. It is not child abuse in any way shape or form.

I'm done with this conversation. There's not point to continue it.

Fuck off. Lots of child abuse isn't death but it's still illegal. Go chop your kids up, I can't stop you but that doesn't make you any less of a butcher.

82 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:21:01pm

re: #78 Jimmah

The hostility that tends to be expressed towards men who object to having been circumcised as infants without their consent makes me think that there are probably a lot more of them than those we hear from.

None of the men in my family or in my range of acquaintance have these resentments so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

83 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:21:11pm

re: #74 Alouette

What is your first hand experience? What specific do you remember about your first hand experience?

I don't have to remember, my first hand experience is ongoing.

84 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:22:54pm

re: #83 Locker

I don't have to remember, my first hand experience is ongoing.

Compared to what? What exactly does your suffering consist of?

I agree that you are a seething mass of rage but that probably has nothing to do with missing some skin on your weiner.

85 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:23:02pm

re: #82 Alouette

None of the men in my family or in my range of acquaintance have these resentments so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I'm sure you know everything every man in your family and range of acquaintances feel about their circumcisions. Probably the normal dinner table conversation. On the other hand this could just be one giant, clueless assumption.

86 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:23:50pm

re: #76 marjoriemoon

I am absolutely NOT denying him anything. I said twice now. He doesn't want to do it to his child, don't do it. If you're all for women's rights, that no one should be able to tell me what to do with my body, then why would you want to pass a law that tells me what to do with my child's.

He can't do anything about it now, so I suggested, since he seems so pissed off about it, to sue his parents. He could probably make a bundle.

My argument, once again, is that parents rights should not include the right to choose which part of the child that the child gets to keep, just because of the parents beliefs or cultural preferences. That child may grow up not to share those beliefs or preferences.

And then of course, if he does, and has the gall to speak about it he'll be told to shut up and sue his freakin parents already.

87 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:24:12pm

re: #84 Alouette

Compared to what? What exactly does your suffering consist of?

I agree that you are a seething mass of rage but that probably has nothing to do with missing some skin on your weiner.

Why don't you give me your name, address, social security number and date of birth and I'll send my medical records right over. Let me translate, none of your business.

88 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:25:00pm

re: #85 Locker

I'm sure you know everything every man in your family and range of acquaintances feel about their circumcisions. Probably the normal dinner table conversation. On the other hand this could just be one giant, clueless assumption.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, the topic comes up frequently, especially when we are celebrating the bris of a new grandson.

89 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:25:13pm

re: #82 Alouette

None of the men in my family or in my range of acquaintance have these resentments so I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Whenever they show up here on LGF you are completely dismissive of their point of view. That's what I'm talking about.

90 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:26:28pm

re: #87 Locker

Why don't you give me your name, address, social security number and date of birth and I'll send my medical records right over. Let me translate, none of your business.

I thought you were suffering? So now you don't want to talk about it?

91 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:27:18pm

re: #89 Jimmah

Whenever they show up here on LGF you are completely dismissive of their point of view. That's what I'm talking about.

All I did was ask Locker to describe the details of his horrible suffering.

92 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:27:27pm

re: #88 Alouette

Yeah, as a matter of fact, the topic comes up frequently, especially when we are celebrating the bris of a new grandson.

Hey that's enough right? You know it all.. congratulations. I guess I don't fit into Alouette's universe. How will I cope?

93 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:27:33pm

re: #84 Alouette

Compared to what? What exactly does your suffering consist of?

I agree that you are a seething mass of rage but that probably has nothing to do with missing some skin on your weiner.

Here we go now with the comments that are intended to embarrass or humiliate.

Judging by your comments I'd say the rage is on your side.

94 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:29:00pm

re: #93 Jimmah

Here we go now with the comments that are intended to embarrass or humiliate.

Judging by your comments I'd say the rage is on your side.

I do get angry at people who are all into banning Judaism.

95 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:29:13pm

re: #93 Jimmah

Here we go now with the comments that are intended to embarrass or humiliate.

Judging by your comments I'd say the rage is on your side.

No shit. She didn't ask a goddamn thing. She tried to humiliate me , in question form, and then acts like it's a reasonable question.

96 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:29:48pm

re: #94 Alouette

I do get angry at people who are all into banning Judaism.

Yea ok, banning circumcision is banning Judaism. You feel no guilt at all about saying that?

97 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:30:26pm

re: #96 Locker

Yea ok, banning circumcision is banning Judaism. You feel no guilt at all about saying that?

Because it's true.

98 Aye Pod  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:31:01pm

re: #92 Locker

Hey that's enough right? You know it all.. congratulations. I guess I don't fit into Alouette's universe. How will I cope?

Somehow, we'll find a way ;) Off for dinner now- catch you later, bud.

99 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:31:09pm

re: #97 Alouette

Because it's true.

I can make shit up to. I can say it's true that you support child abuse because you support circumcision. Have fun with that one I can do this all day.

100 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:32:33pm

re: #99 Locker

I can make shit up to. I can say it's true that you support child abuse because you support circumcision. Have fun with that one I can do this all day.

You did say exactly that, do you want to scroll back up and read your own comments?

If my next grandkid is a boy, you are SO not invited to the bris.

101 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:33:20pm

So you support child abuse? Good for you! Parent of the year right here.

102 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:38:02pm

Circumcision "child abuse"

103 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:38:17pm

re: #102 Alouette

Circumcision DOES NOT EQUAL "child abuse"

104 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:38:50pm

yes it does

105 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 12:41:01pm

Let me see if I can follow this logic of yours...

Cutting off part of your child's body with a risky procedure that can cause harm and trouble through his entire life isn't child abuse.

Not wanting this to happen to you means you want to ban Judaism.

Right. I got it.

106 Locker  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:01:42pm

[Link: www.nocirc.org...]

No harm, my ass.

107 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:13:48pm

What a great thread!

108 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:24:48pm

Just a personal thought here:

If you want to ban circumcision, you might as well ban late-term abortions as well. Parents exercise a whole lot more physical force with much more dire consequences on a sentient being in the latter case.

Either ban would not end either practice. The result would mainly just make the cleaner, safer variants only available to wealthy people who can afford travelling abroad into other jurisdictions, while the illegal, back-alley variants would be the only ones available to the poor.

109 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:41:37pm

re: #94 Alouette

I do get angry at people who are all into banning Judaism.

They don't get it. I don't think they'll ever get it.

Locker, I shouldn't have called you a fucking idiot. I apologize for that. It wasn't nice, but you made me insanely angry. Anyway, no matter what I think about it, I shouldn't have said that.

It's an attack on Judaism because there is no other reason Jews do it other than for religious reasons.

110 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:45:53pm

re: #86 Jimmah

My argument, once again, is that parents rights should not include the right to choose which part of the child that the child gets to keep, just because of the parents beliefs or cultural preferences. That child may grow up not to share those beliefs or preferences.

And then of course, if he does, and has the gall to speak about it he'll be told to shut up and sue his freakin parents already.

So you don't believe in late term abortions? If a woman learns in her 3rd trimester that the child has a small chance of survival or that it will survive but will be severely handicapped, than the parents should be forced to have the baby anyway? Even if they have to keep it on machines its entire life? Or should we do that and than when the child is 18, ask it if it wants to keep living and if not, kill it?

111 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:46:27pm

re: #37 EmmmieG

I've heard it's even worse than that. Not only are there no exemptions, but if you take your boy out of town for a bris, that's illegal too. Pretty far reaching.

112 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:48:27pm

Just got back from being mutilated by many, many needles piercing my skin, and I feel very good. It was most beneficial.

113 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:48:45pm
114 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:50:30pm

My son called this afternoon just to chat, and I asked him if he felt resentful or angry at being circumcised as an infant without his consent.

He said, "I'd be very resentful if you hadn't done it!"

115 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:51:02pm

re: #38 APox

I don't like the idea that people get tattooed as adults, but what should I do, try to get a law passed to make it illegal? I don't think so. The idea wouldn't even enter my mind.

116 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:52:44pm

re: #111 Bob Levin

I've heard it's even worse than that. Not only are there no exemptions, but if you take your boy out of town for a bris, that's illegal too. Pretty far reaching.

The San Francisco ballot initiative has no mention of transporting an infant outside the jurisdiction.

117 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:54:46pm

re: #113 Alouette

I can post links too.

Pro-circ link.
Another pro-circ link.
Pro-circ from WHO.

Thanos posted an excellent video on the pros and cons. Death was nearly non-existent. Infection was way down on the list as well.

I can't find it on the Pages now. It was very good. Maybe he could repost it. I'll keep looking.

118 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:57:15pm

re: #52 Locker

She's saying that it's therefore a personal issue for you. You can deal with it however you wish. But, please don't tell me how to raise my family, let alone outlawing my rights to practice my religion.

119 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:58:20pm

The middle road is usually right for these things.

The anti-circ crowd is more than a little crazy, but you also can't take every single thing as an attack on your religion.

The people behind this really just don't care much about particular religions.

120 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 1:58:45pm

re: #116 Alouette

I read it on the last thread about this--so someone else is also mistaken. My bad.

121 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:02:41pm

re: #53 Jimmah

I'll repeat my question to you from the last time this was discussed. Do you believe that parents should make decisions on how they will raise their children? I mean, that's what a parent does.

122 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:12:06pm

re: #68 Locker

That's simply not true. If you know anything about child abuse, and I'm guessing that you might, there are serious side effects that point to abuse. One is abusive behavior towards others, the inability to foster close relationships, addictions, anti-social behavior, mental illness, and on and on. That's how you know it's abuse.

There have been, over the centuries, billions of Jewish and Muslim children that have had a bris or (Islamic term needed here), and do not, nor have they exhibited these symptoms.

123 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:12:50pm

re: #119 windsagio

The middle road is usually right for these things.

The anti-circ crowd is more than a little crazy, but you also can't take every single thing as an attack on your religion.

The people behind this really just don't care much about particular religions.

The problem is they indiscriminately lump both female and male circumcision together as infant mutilation without weighting them differently as should be done.

124 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:14:21pm

re: #70 Locker

I'm understanding your comments that you understand it fine and that we have issues--we being Alouette's buds. Is that what you're saying?

125 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:15:07pm

re: #119 windsagio

The middle road is usually right for these things.

The anti-circ crowd is more than a little crazy, but you also can't take every single thing as an attack on your religion.

The people behind this really just don't care much about particular religions.

What they don't realize is that there is no reason for a Jew and I assume a Muslim as well to circumcise other than religious reasons. So for us, it speaks directly to the religion.

126 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:19:12pm

re: #123 b_sharp

Oh totally, that part is more than a little messed up. And there are serious arguments FOR medical circumcision too. It's not a simple open-and-shut issue.

re: #125 marjoriemoon

I understand that, and that aspect being a primary reason that if by some miracle that law passes, it would never stand up.

Still, the siege mentality seems to me to be the wrong way to think about it. Educate and make a freedom argument, don't fight hyperbole with hyperbole.

127 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:22:17pm

re: #75 Jimmah

Even though you are admitting that there may be consequences for him, you are denying him the right to seriously object to having a part of his body removed by someone else without his consent.

He can object all he wants. This law isn't about personal objection, it's about legislating the way many of us raise our family, and in many cases, successfully raising our families. That is, the children are happy and productive, they express their talents, and in some cases, marry and start their own families. In other words, nothing bad happened. No abuse occurred.

128 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:22:50pm

re: #126 windsagio

Oh totally, that part is more than a little messed up. And there are serious arguments FOR medical circumcision too. It's not a simple open-and-shut issue.

re: #125 marjoriemoon

I understand that, and that aspect being a primary reason that if by some miracle that law passes, it would never stand up.

Still, the siege mentality seems to me to be the wrong way to think about it. Educate and make a freedom argument, don't fight hyperbole with hyperbole.

Just one more controversy where opinion is king, information is 'adjusted' and education is rejected.

And some people deny we're nothing more than smart chimps.

129 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:25:16pm

re: #77 Locker

Yes, there are laws. I used to be part of the apparatus to enforce those laws. A bris does not fall into any sphere of life that needs those laws.

130 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:28:46pm

re: #83 Locker

Sounds like you have the makings of a novel. Go for it.

131 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:30:18pm

re: #128 b_sharp

The people coming at it from the POV of their religion in a way make more sense to me.

At least I can understand the strong emotions ;)

132 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:30:53pm

re: #85 Locker

I think the lack of conversation about the topic and the eagerness to perform the ritual on our own children are indicators that we are cool with the tradition.

133 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:37:50pm

This boils down to a struggle between the rights of parents to make rational decisions for their children and the rights of a society to judge the actions of a parent with respect to those children.

Although a society has a right and an obligation to judge a parent unfit when there are obvious and/or proved dangers to children, the parent's judgment should be taken as ultimate authority in most other cases. Religion should not be a factor unless a religious practice is shown to contribute to the danger.

Female circumcision is an obvious danger. The question is - is male circumcision a danger? Further, is it a danger beyond reasonable expectations?

134 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:39:59pm

re: #133 b_sharp

The bad parallel (better than female circumcision imo) would be Faith healing parents.

For some reason this keeps happening in Oregon. That's a case of parents actively hurting their kids for their religion.

135 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:45:06pm

re: #134 windsagio

The bad parallel (better than female circumcision imo) would be Faith healing parents.

For some reason this keeps happening in Oregon. That's a case of parents actively hurting their kids for their religion.

I had that in mind.

136 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:49:29pm

re: #105 Locker

Do you think having a kid practice the violin intensely, do gymnastics, any form of contact sport, or ballet equates to child abuse, and should likewise be banned?

137 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:51:31pm

re: #136 Obdicut

Interestingly, I was made to run long distances from when I was three (did my first 10k then) to when my legs finally gave out in highschool.

It never seemed to me to be child abuse, because you know I was living it, and I'm probably healthier for it... but one can see the argument about why it was (and the argument was made to my mother many many times lol).

138 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:56:00pm

re: #137 windsagio

I really enjoyed boxing, but, in retrospect, I shouldn't have done it, knowing what I do now about the dangers of micro-concussions.

I don't happen to subscribe to the 'aquatic ape' theory, but it is true that the only exercise that one can really do without much fear of injury is swimming. Except, of course, if you get a cramp and drown.

I thought 10K at 3 was insane, then I read this.

[Link: articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com...]

139 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 2:59:31pm

re: #137 windsagio

Are you okay? What do mean that your legs gave out?

140 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:00:24pm

re: #115 Bob Levin

As I have told myself three times now that I'm done posting on this thread -- last time, I promise!

My simple point is this: I don't give a flying flip what you do as an adult. Tattoo yourself from head to toe, get circumcised, change sexes, whatever. I just called into question the idea that it is done to infants who have no say in the matter.

Now this goes back to what Obdicut said in previous posts, and I can understand his perspective (probably better than the religious aspect), but that's all I'm going to say.

As to the question about parents forcing children to do certain activities ... Yes, I believe it can border on child abuse. But after taking a couple of Family, Youth and Community classes in college just out of interest there is so much grey in family issues. Things have to be judged on a case by case basis, and more often than not taking children out of homes and into the foster care system can lead to even worse abuses. I'd (personal opinion) rather have a parent that's intensely interested in my development than a parent that just isn't there or doesn't care.

Anyways, this has been one of my favorite posts to read here!

Cheers :)

141 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:02:02pm

re: #136 Obdicut

Do you think having a kid practice the violin intensely, do gymnastics, any form of contact sport, or ballet equates to child abuse, and should likewise be banned?

You should listen to a conversation between kids who were put into competitive gymnastics as young children.

They can list off the lingering effects they still feel. I should probably check this before I post it, but I swear I heard one of them say (I have two cousins and a brother who were in this category) that they could dislocate their wrist at will.

142 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:05:37pm

re: #140 APox

Sorry to drag you back once more, but...

My simple point is this: I don't give a flying flip what you do as an adult. Tattoo yourself from head to toe, get circumcised, change sexes, whatever. I just called into question the idea that it is done to infants who have no say in the matter.

If this was some new fad, I think many Jewish families might have some misgivings. But we are now looking at a sample size of billions, over thousands of years, and I think I can speak for the collective here, we are ecstatic with the results. As Alouette's son said, we'd be upset if it weren't done. So, in a sense, as we do this for our children, we are making the decision as adults, that we wanted it done.

143 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:06:20pm

re: #142 Bob Levin

That argument isn't actually a very strong one, since you can't compare your experience with the experience of not having it done. Of the arguments to use, it's among the weakest.

144 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:07:18pm

re: #141 EmmmieG

Well, that's a good point too. There are bits of secular culture to which this line of argument could apply. But that's not happening, is it?

145 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:08:14pm

re: #141 EmmmieG

Oh, I do think that past a certain level, competitive gymnastics, ballet, or any number of other things are, in fact, child abuse.

But APox is very right when he talks about the grey area. If this law were actually to be passed-- with the part making it a crime to take kids out of the area to get it done-- it would most likely cause a lot more problems for kids than otherwise.

Hell, my parents taught me that sex was shameful and that masturbation was a terrible sin. This resulted not only in me getting rather depressed and thinking badly of myself (let alone that I was both sexually and physically abused, not by them, but by others) during my teen years, and, later, having much riskier sex because of my ignorance.

Does that amount to child abuse? It's certainly non-optimal. It both put my life in danger of suicide and caused me to engage in risky behavior. But I don't think it rises anywhere close to the level of abuse.

146 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:12:34pm

re: #143 Obdicut

Sorry, but it's the best I can do with the data I have. I would agree that there's nothing like empiricism here. I can make that argument about keeping kosher. Years ago we went out to a jazz club on New Year's Eve, and I had just begun to keep kosher both inside and outside the house--sort of. Anyway, I tried the cornbread, which was terrific. I asked someone what's in the cornbread--and they said the ingredients, one of which was ham.

Okay, well well. Looks like I'm about to be in an experiment, myself the guinea pig. I didn't like the results. So I learned to cook things better than the stuff I would eat at a restaurant, and I keep kosher both in and out of the home.

But I wouldn't dream of using my experiences on that night to tell you how to eat, much less make a law.

147 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:13:38pm

re: #145 Obdicut

I think that criminalizing circumcision, thereby turning an entire population into criminals, is entirely trivializing the very real problem of children who actually are abused. Calling circumcision "butchery" "torture" "mutilation" is just as hysterical as Tea Partiers claiming that they are suffering from a "Holocaust."

148 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:17:48pm

re: #147 Alouette

I'd agree that it's hyperbole, and I especially don't like the conflation of circumcision with female genital mutilation, which trivializes both the effects and the purpose of the latter.

Child abuse also fits into a pattern; child abusers do not, in general, hit their kids once when they're 8 days old and then never do it again.

Even if people do believe it's harmful, casting it under the shadow of 'child abuse' is highly counterproductive, and, as you say, trivializes real abuse.

149 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:17:57pm

re: #147 Alouette

That's the whole point of Antisemitism, to make the entire Jewish population criminals by outlawing some particular aspect of Judaism. What's more, the crime is a capital offense, punishable by death.

150 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:19:55pm

re: #149 Bob Levin

Um, what? This bill doesn't make it a capital offense.

And really, as an SF native, this is probably 1/8th antisemitism, 3/4ths bad logic (by my standards, of course, and 1/8th well-meaning-ness.

151 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:20:43pm

re: #147 Alouette

Because when most people think of what to do with child abusers, 30 days in the cooler is not what comes to mind.

152 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:25:18pm

re: #150 Obdicut

I think the battlefield for Antisemites has changed. It's moved to the mind, the universe of belief. For instance, Israel doesn't have to be physically obliterated, as was attempted in the 6 Day War. Although people still try. But they try harder to obliterate our history, the things that give us identity and purpose. It's gotten to be quite sophisticated.

153 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:36:09pm

re: #152 Bob Levin

Okay. But:

A) You said that the crime was a capital offense. It's not. I'm still kind of lost as to what the hell you meant by that.

B) Really, as a former-and-always San Franciscan, the main impetus of this is not at all anti-semitic. It's much more on the child-rights side of the spectrum. Locker, above, I am absolutely sure is not coming at this from any anti-semitic perspective.

It's important to point out anti-semitism, and things that have hidden anti-semitic effects. But this is one of the latter; I am sure many people are just of the "oh the poor babies" mindset, or the more mature and reasonable-- though I still disagree with-- "since it can have harmful effects they should wait until 18" mindset.

154 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:40:27pm

re: #142 Bob Levin

I never claimed that circumcision prevents males from enjoying sex. But from my research so far I have found many articles citing:

-Up to 66% decrease in sexual sensitivity on the penis
-Around 100 boys die a year from circumcision related complications

Now, I understand that religion and community might marginalize this because of an appreciation for tradition. It also just seems so incredibly clear to me how ethnocentric these discussions are. They are based solely around a communities beliefs. I have not seen any science posted on this thread above the "benefits" of circumcision and the only ones I have found is cleanliness (Yeah... I mean I guess if they cut off 70% of your foreskin it is easier to keep clean) but come on... really? I also saw someone claim that it reduces HIV transmission. Right. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't trust the ol' circumcision to get you out of an STD versus a condom.

And, it seems pretty clear how discounted the idea of FGM vs. circumcision idea is in this thread, but I'd still contend that each can be considered human rights violations. But I digress, FGM has clear negative impacts, and can vary in severity. From what I have read, though I still contest that certain types of FGM are very similar to that of circumcision in relation to sexual sensitivity.

I found a nice website here:
[Link: www.circumstitions.com...] that has a comparison.

I never really even considered the religious side of this in my initial postings -- more the human side of it. That's why I would still contend that it should just be done later when the young adult can choose for themselves as a rite of passage into that community. (Although, apparently, it has to be done within 8 days)

I really find the anthropological side of this debate interesting now. FGM doesn't really have a religion to call its own, so it is usually seen as a way to make women sexually subservient -- a taboo process in the West. And yet, when it is done to males, it is seen as "cleanly" and I assume there is some type of masculine bond formed (as Alouette pointed out in Judaism it is the job of the "father" to set this whole thing up).

---

An interesting article from the website I linked in this post:

Why Female Genital Mutilation Is More Severe

© Brandi Rhoades

Many people mistakenly believe that circumcision is the same whether done on a male or female. [Wrong: nobody says they are the same, except as human rights abuses.] Find out the differences.

Male circumcision still exists in many parts of the post-industrial world while female circumcision does not and is at the center of many inflammatory news articles. Some people argue the practices are the same [Hardly anyone puts it as simplistically as "the same"] and that circumcision done on girls is reviled only because it occurs primarily in Africa. [Or rather, because male circumcision is familiar but female genital cutting is perceived as "alien".] Learning more about the practices will help understand why the two practices are not equivalent.

One of the primary differences in the two practices is that while male circumcision happens around the world but is more common in Western nations, FGM is almost exclusively a phenomenon in Africa. [Wrong: Male Genital Cutting is prevalent only in the Muslim world, the US, the Philippines, South Korea, tribal Africa, Israel, eastern Polynesia and outback Australia. Female Genital Cutting is very common in Indonesia and Malaysia.] Most people in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which includes millions of people in the United States, believe in male circumcision to be done shortly after birth. [Wrong: Christianity has condemned circumcision from its beginnings.] In parts of Africa, FGM is a religious ritual, though its roots most often are cultural.

155 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:42:07pm

re: #139 Bob Levin

You run 6 miles a day for 10 years, especially as you're growing up, and add in races, past a certain point your knees give you the finger and say "NO MORE!"

I just can't run any more without pretty brutal pain.

156 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:43:16pm

re: #150 Obdicut

Do you really think 1/8th Anti-semitism? That doesn't really go with my understanding of the anti-circ movement (to coin a terrible term) at all >

157 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:45:45pm

re: #154 APox

I have not seen any science posted on this thread above the "benefits" of circumcision and the only ones I have found is cleanliness (Yeah... I mean I guess if they cut off 70% of your foreskin it is easier to keep clean) but come on... really?

Did you ignore Alouette's link to the WHO recommendation for circumcision as prophylacic against HIV for any specific reason when making this statement?

There are medical benefits, and a few medical risks. The studies that have done have, overall, come to no specific conclusion when analyzed in a group; some say there's some loss of sexual pleasure, others don't.

And, it seems pretty clear how discounted the idea of FGM vs. circumcision idea is in this thread, but I'd still contend that each can be considered human rights violations.

It's really tiresome to have FGM brought up when talking about male circumcision. It really does trivialize what FGM does, and why it's done. I would really suggest that if you want to have a rational conversation about male circumcision, you not compare it to a procedure it doesn't resemble in the least.


And yet, when it is done to males, it is seen as "cleanly" and I assume there is some type of masculine bond formed (as Alouette pointed out in Judaism it is the job of the "father" to set this whole thing up).

Is there any specific reason you're ignoring that male circumcision is not supposed to have any effect on the male sexuality?

158 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:46:09pm

re: #152 Bob Levin

re: #149 Bob Levin

And... yeah, there are a few things with these posts. First of all, its not retroactive, secondly, its not a capital offense, thirdly, it has a lot more to do with ignorance and indifference than hostility.

I think saying "But they try harder to obliterate our history, the things that give us identity and purpose. " Is both giving them way too much and way too little credit. Almost all of this is people who really just don't understand how important it is to you, and beyond that really don't much care (since you're 'mutilating children' natch)

159 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:47:11pm

re: #158 windsagio

and no I'm not saying that you're mutilating children, but that's the attitude ><

160 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:47:35pm

re: #156 windsagio

Do you really think 1/8th Anti-semitism? That doesn't really go with my understanding of the anti-circ movement (to coin a terrible term) at all >

Yep. This isn't scientific analysis or anything, and I'm not alleging howling, "String up the Jews!" antisemitism, but more "Why do they have to be icky and different? Why can't they just make their kids wear toe-crushing ballet shoes and have them play games where they get concussions and put braces on to straighten teeth just for cosmetic value?"

161 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:50:12pm

re: #160 Obdicut

Good logic there, more 'eww different and strange!' I totally get that >

162 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:56:29pm

re: #152 Bob Levin

I think the battlefield for Antisemites has changed. It's moved to the mind, the universe of belief. For instance, Israel doesn't have to be physically obliterated, as was attempted in the 6 Day War. Although people still try. But they try harder to obliterate our history, the things that give us identity and purpose. It's gotten to be quite sophisticated.

There are, and have always been, two kinds of Jew Hate (I really do not like the term "Anti-Semitism" which was invented by, a Jew Hater)

One kind is hatred of the Jews as a race, and the desire to exterminate them in a physical genocide like the nazis, or Haman in ancient times.

The other kind is hatred of the Jews as a unique people and faith, and the desire to force them to give up their religion and their national identity. This type of hatred is more widespread, and also takes the form of "Anti-Zionism" which is the denial of the national aspiration of the Jewish people. This form of Jew-hatred is what fueled the Greeks and Hellenizing Jews during the time of the Maccabees. The ancient Greeks also attempted to enforce a ban on circumcision, because it conflicted with their idea of the perfection of the human body.

163 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:57:51pm

re: #157 Obdicut

Did you ignore Alouette's link to the WHO recommendation for circumcision as prophylacic against HIV for any specific reason when making this statement?

No, I don't think I ignored it if we are talking about the same thing. I said that I understand that circumcision could lessen the the risk of HIV transmittal but in this day and age I wouldn't trust THAT as a benefit when there are clearly better ways to protect yourself from HIV and STDs (.. condoms).

There are medical benefits, and a few medical risks. The studies that have done have, overall, come to no specific conclusion when analyzed in a group; some say there's some loss of sexual pleasure, others don't.

Again, I have looked for different articles and I'll even ask for some studies to prove me wrong: I have found ONLY articles stating that there is most definitely loss of sensitivity through clear sensitivity tests. The only study I have found that says there isn't a loss of sexual pleasure was one other studies seemed to mock, because it was done to patients who had sexual dysfunctions and got circumcisions to try and alleviate the issues they were having in the first place.

It's really tiresome to have FGM brought up when talking about male circumcision. It really does trivialize what FGM does, and why it's done. I would really suggest that if you want to have a rational conversation about male circumcision, you not compare it to a procedure it doesn't resemble in the least.

Again, there are different types of FGM and some have no effect or a loss of partial sensitivity (which I would consider comparable based on aforementioned circumcision studies), as outlined in that link I posted.
Interesting


Is there any specific reason you're ignoring that male circumcision is not supposed to have any effect on the male sexuality

I dare say as a male that I could probably enjoy sex if I didn't even have a penis that felt anything at all... Regardless, again, my point is more towards genital cutting done to infants aren't even given the option, and because of the fact that everything I have found does say there are strong negative impacts when it comes to male sexual sensitivity... and also complications that can lead to death because of this practice 100 deaths a year in the US because of circumcision. I never once stated that people who have circumcisions can't be sexual.

--

And I guess, since everyone seems to be centered on the idea that this is an attack on their religion... I should clarify my position on the actual law:

I don't really think a straight ban on circumcisions is what is called for, and like others have said could make the procedure even more dangerous for people who decide to follow through on it.

I just don't understand why 80% of boys are circumcised in the United States. Do it if you follow Jewish or Islamic tradition, but why do it you aren't affiliated with those traditions.. Or I guess the word would be gentiles.

164 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:58:25pm

re: #162 Alouette

'as a race'?

And I think the later is more the force of conformism than anti-a-particular-anything.

165 APox  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 3:58:47pm

re: #162 Alouette

Sorry, but I think this is beyond paranoid.

166 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:02:26pm

re: #165 APox

Sorry, but I think this is beyond paranoid.

Sorry, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that nobody is out to get you.

The threat to eliminate the Jews by abolishing their religion, instead of outright genocide, has occurred too frequently throughout history to just shrug off.

167 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:05:34pm

re: #163 APox

No, I don't think I ignored it if we are talking about the same thing. I said that I understand that circumcision could lessen the the risk of HIV transmittal but in this day and age I wouldn't trust THAT as a benefit when there are clearly better ways to protect yourself from HIV and STDs (.. condoms).

It's not about 'trusting'. It's about risk reduction. Abstinence, after all, is superior to condoms, so why trust in condoms?

Again, I have looked for different articles and I'll even ask for some studies to prove me wrong: I have found ONLY articles stating that there is most definitely loss of sensitivity through clear sensitivity tests.

Then you haven't even read the Wikipedia article. Please do more than cursory research if you're going to spend this amount of time arguing a subject.

Again, there are different types of FGM and some have no effect or a loss of partial sensitivity (which I would consider comparable based on aforementioned circumcision studies), as outlined in that link I posted.

Those are the rarity. Female Genital Mutilation, in general, refer to the ones that are done with the acknowledged effect of lessening sexuality, as you yourself actually noted.

And what I meant by:

Is there any specific reason you're ignoring that male circumcision is not supposed to have any effect on the male sexuality

Is that the purpose circumcision in Jewish culture is not to affect the sexuality of the male. The purpose of FGM is in order to effect the sexuality of the woman.

168 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:06:06pm

re: #164 windsagio

You don't think people have hated Jews as a race?

169 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:07:13pm

re: #168 Obdicut

I just remember getting a CRAPTON of grief for referring to them as such ;)

170 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:09:30pm

re: #169 windsagio

I just remember getting a CRAPTON of grief for referring to them as such ;)

I really am lost as to what you're talking about.

The comment was:


One kind is hatred of the Jews as a race, and the desire to exterminate them in a physical genocide like the nazis, or Haman in ancient times.

The Nazis certainly hated the Jews as a race. This has no bearing on whether the Jews actually are a race, or whether 'race' has any coherent meaning. Which it doesn't.

Just because race doesn't exist, doesn't mean racism doesn't.

171 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:12:44pm

re: #170 Obdicut

Well in discussion you can use a term or not, but we're about to go into one of those ugly spiral arguments again, so lets agree to drop it.

The actual circumcision law subject is interesting enough.

172 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:14:38pm

re: #171 windsagio

Well in discussion you can use a term or not, but we're about to go into one of those ugly spiral arguments again, so lets agree to drop it.

No. I don't agree to drop it.

Do you acknowledge that the Nazis viewed the Jews as a race and wanted to exterminate them?

173 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:16:22pm

re: #172 Obdicut

Well naturally, it goes without saying doesn't it?

174 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:16:48pm

re: #173 windsagio

Well naturally, it goes without saying doesn't it?

Then what about this statement is wrong?

One kind is hatred of the Jews as a race, and the desire to exterminate them in a physical genocide like the nazis, or Haman in ancient times.

175 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:19:14pm

re: #174 Obdicut

the term 'as a race'. You can't have it both ways. As you said, the term 'race' is essentially meaningless, but the way she was putting it its pretty clear she thinks of it in those terms. I thought it was worth mention, since it was such a big deal before.

You're doing the question thing again, by the way :p

176 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:22:37pm

re: #175 windsagio

I really can't figure out what you're not getting about this.

A) How are you getting, from Alouette saying that some people hate the Jews as a race, that she thinks of Jews as a race? Since she also said: " a unique people and faith", why do you decide that she thinks of Jews as a race, and not as "a unique people and faith"?

B) Doing what question thing?

177 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:26:19pm

re: #176 Obdicut

A) Because she said it? It's just pretty clear to me that's what she meant, our lack of understanding is mutual on that particular point. My guess is that you think I'm fishing for something in particular and are trying to head me off.

B) Matt calls it 'Socratic Bingo'. Its a way of putting people on the defensive and making it all about them and their opinions while not putting yourself out at all.

178 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:28:50pm

re: #177 windsagio

*Damn, did it again. Matt being WUB. I really shouldn't do that >>

179 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:29:47pm

re: #177 windsagio

A) Because she said it? It's just pretty clear to me that's what she meant, our lack of understanding is mutual on that particular point. My guess is that you think I'm fishing for something in particular and are trying to head me off.

Dude, stop guessing. I don't think you're fishing for anything-- I don't even know what the hell you mean by that. What she said was two ways that OTHERS have viewed Jews. It said nothing about how she viewed them. Moreover, as I just thought I made really, really clear, she talked about two ways that Jews are viewed-- as a race, and as a people and unique faith. For whatever reason, you decided that the former is what she really thinks. I'm asking you to explain why.

B) Matt calls it 'Socratic Bingo'. Its a way of putting people on the defensive and making it all about them and their opinions while not putting yourself out at all.

You know, it is possible to over-analyze internet behavior. I ask questions because I honestly want the answers to those questions. I also put my views out there quite explicitly and often-- as I did in this thread. I also do my best to answer questions put to me.

180 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:30:47pm

re: #179 Obdicut

this is exactly why I wanted to get back on topic lol >

181 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:32:08pm

re: #168 Obdicut

You don't think people have hated Jews as a race?

He didn't say that. Certainly Jews have been the subject of horrible racism and genocide, but that doesn't easily translate to the circumcision question in the current thread.

You can say there may be an anti-Semitic effect in this bill, but racism has to be viewed in the context of intention. I don't think there is any intention for the bill to eliminate Jews as feared by Alouette, even if there are some in the movement that are anti-Semitic, unless you intend to claim guilt by association for everyone else in the movement.

182 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:32:33pm

re: #180 windsagio

this is exactly why I wanted to get back on topic lol >

This topic has been hashed and re-hashed over and over, and we're on comment 180. I don't think anything is being lost by me asking you to explain why you took Alouette's positing of the way the Nazi's thought about Jews as the way that she the thinks about Jews.

183 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:33:02pm

re: #181 b_sharp

. I don't think there is any intention for the bill to eliminate Jews as feared by Alouette, even if there are some in the movement that are anti-Semitic, unless you intend to claim guilt by association for everyone else in the movement.

Did you read any of my other posts before writing that?

184 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:34:06pm

re: #178 windsagio

*Damn, did it again. Matt being WUB. I really shouldn't do that >>

If you wanted to maintain WUBs anonymity, you shouldn't have mentioned the link.

185 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:34:35pm

re: #182 Obdicut

I don't know how else to say it, thats how it came across to me. Sometimes an impression is just an impression.

Why are you so intent on playing white knight? She can handle herself :p

186 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:34:55pm

re: #184 b_sharp

If you wanted to maintain WUBs anonymity, you shouldn't have mentioned the link.

Yes, it's true. WUB is:

Image: matt_damon.jpg

187 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:35:10pm

re: #184 b_sharp

I regret the confusion not the lost anonymity, the stalkers searched him out a while ago, so it doesn't matter.

188 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:35:24pm

re: #186 Obdicut

dude, he wishes.

189 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:36:35pm

re: #175 windsagio

the term 'as a race'. You can't have it both ways. As you said, the term 'race' is essentially meaningless, but the way she was putting it its pretty clear she thinks of it in those terms. I thought it was worth mention, since it was such a big deal before.

You're doing the question thing again, by the way :p

That's not what I said. ALOUETTE is not saying "Jews are a race" but that is what the nazis believed and what they acted on.

190 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:37:48pm

re: #189 Alouette

I'll take your word for it :)

191 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:38:26pm

re: #183 Obdicut

Did you read any of my other posts before writing that?

Certainly I did.
Am I not allowed to state views that roughly coincide with yours in my responses to you?

192 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:38:33pm

re: #190 windsagio

I'll take your word for it :)

*face palm*

193 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:38:45pm

re: #185 windsagio

I don't know how else to say it, thats how it came across to me. Sometimes an impression is just an impression.

That is really frustrating. She was positing the way Hitler viewed the Jews, and you're saying that's how she views the Jews. Internet psychiatry and psychic powers aren't any more impressive when done by you than by anyone else.

Furthermore, she also said a different group of people viewed the Jews as "a people and a unique faith". For someone reason, you decided the 'race' part was the important one. You can offer no actual explanation for this.

Why are you so intent on playing white knight? She can handle herself :p

Again with the casual insults. What the hell is up with you recently? Why can't you just have a conversation without me without starting to imply crappy shit about my motives and question why I'm doing stuff?

I've defended you against accusations of anti-semitism in the very recent past, when others were attempting to pile on. Because it's not true. That's the same reason I'm defending Alouette. Because it's not true.

194 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:39:29pm

re: #190 windsagio

I'll take your word for it :)

Do you realize that that came across as snide and sarcastic?

195 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:39:33pm

re: #192 Alouette

no I'm serious. I believe you when you tell me thats what you meant.

In this case, no snark implied.

196 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:39:41pm

re: #186 Obdicut

Yes, it's true. WUB is:

Image: matt_damon.jpg

No.

I thought he was Matt Groening.

197 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:39:50pm

re: #194 Obdicut

with hindsight, yes.

198 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:40:11pm

re: #196 b_sharp

Who he really wants to be is Matt Howarth.

199 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:40:12pm

re: #196 b_sharp

No.

I thought he was Matt Groening.

I was thinking Matt Stone.

200 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:40:46pm

re: #197 windsagio

with hindsight, yes.

Try to get that hindsight into foresight a little more often, dude. You're making yourself look like an ass on a regular basis for no damn good reason.

201 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:41:41pm

re: #195 windsagio

no I'm serious. I believe you when you tell me thats what you meant.

In this case, no snark implied.

I said there are two types of Anti-Semite, and I described each one. How would that make me any kind of an Anti-Semite? It does not follow.

202 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:46:05pm

re: #201 Alouette

I never in any way shape or form meant that you were any kind of anti-semite, the very idea is absurd (for clarity, the idea that you are anti-semitic, I mean). I'm just still butthurt over the whole 'race' thing from the other day, and felt the need to comment on the usage (since in a different circumstance that post would have been attacked)

For absolute clairty, I in no way think you're antisemitic.

203 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:46:32pm

re: #193 Obdicut

probably I'm frustrated, too, to be straightforward, and ironically feeling a little put-upon.

I saw that you defended me, and I appreciated it (altho' I couldn't do anything when I saw it being, well banned, at the time).

I just at the same time feel like you're having a tendency lately to jump in with both feet and especially with the 'do you believe X crazy thing, and if so why?' form which I find particularly maddening.


~~

So I'm annoyed, and you're annoyed, and we need some kind of reset.

204 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:47:45pm

re: #203 windsagio

In this case, it was "Do you believe that Alouette thinks of Jews as a race", and the answer was "Yes" up until just a few minutes ago.

Other than that, what crazy thing did I ask you if you believe?

205 Interesting Times  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:50:30pm

re: #197 windsagio

I believe you left yesterday's thread re land rights before seeing my response, so I'll repeat the gist here: sometimes, your posts can be kind of cryptic and confusing - you know what you mean, but others don't. You use expressions and memes very familiar to you, while others may never have heard of them. I think this contributes to certain "disputes" you repeatedly find yourself in - people don't understand what you're saying, and, while trying to figure it out, may come with a not-so-flattering interpretation.

Hope you don't feel I'm contributing to a "pile-on" by saying that - I usually agree with you, but also want to offer a (potentially accurate) perspective as to why you get certain types of push-back.

206 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:53:01pm

re: #205 publicityStunted

thank you for the post, no I hadn't seen it.

One of my rules is that if you say you're leaving you have to freaking leave.

I actually think this is exactly the problem. The rules of engagement are very different here, as are the reference points. It causes problems.

207 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:54:28pm

re: #202 windsagio

For absolute clairty, I in no way think you're antisemitic.

Glad to hear it.

208 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:55:19pm

re: #204 Obdicut

I really don't want to go back and look, but the one the other day in the thread that publiclystunted is referring to is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

I'll go find it, tho'.

209 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:56:44pm

re: #208 windsagio

No, I mean on this thread.

I mean, in the end, on this thread, you were wrong, right? You thought Alouette thought of Jews as a race, you weren't right, and it's better than you realize this-- and perhaps think about why you jumped to that assumption, right?

What did I do in this thread that makes you frustrated or otherwise angsty?

210 b_sharp  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:57:09pm

re: #205 publicityStunted

I believe you left yesterday's thread re land rights before seeing my response, so I'll repeat the gist here: sometimes, your posts can be kind of cryptic and confusing - you know what you mean, but others don't. You use expressions and memes very familiar to you, while others may never have heard of them. I think this contributes to certain "disputes" you repeatedly find yourself in - people don't understand what you're saying, and, while trying to figure it out, may come with a not-so-flattering interpretation.

Hope you don't feel I'm contributing to a "pile-on" by saying that - I usually agree with you, but also want to offer a (potentially accurate) perspective as to why you get certain types of push-back.

Did I miss something?

211 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:58:02pm

re: #209 Obdicut

rapid fire questions for one, that last post, all three sentences were questions.

212 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 4:58:59pm

re: #209 Obdicut

and seriously, this is the same discussion going over several days, or more like a week you can't seperate the context.

213 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:03:18pm

re: #211 windsagio

rapid fire questions for one, that last post, all three sentences were questions.

I'm not going to stop asking questions, dude. If that makes you angsty, I'm sorry, but questions are a pretty valid form of communication.


and seriously, this is the same discussion going over several days, or more like a week you can't seperate the context.

This is the thing: I can. Maybe it's the same discussion to you, but it's really, really not to me. I think that maybe, from what you've said, you convince yourself a little too often you really know what the mind of people you're talking to is, or what their motives are, or that they're employing some kind of tactic. Sometimes it's transparent when people are doing something or thinking a certain way. Sometimes it's not so much so. And when you're wrong, and you act on an incorrect assumption, it will seriously derail and damage any conversation.

If you want to have actual conversations, I'm happy to. But those are going to involve questions, and if you attempt to use internet psychiatry it's likely to just confuse me as to what the hell you're talking about-- leading to more questions.

214 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:03:32pm

re: #210 b_sharp

Did I miss something?

Yep. Better left un-re-hashed.

215 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:13:45pm

re: #213 Obdicut

'angsty' You're the one that asked man :p

~~

And see we've come here again.

I'll make it clear. Your attitude in posting substantially changed and became way more hostile after I called Alouette a racist (which was in of itself very bad judgement on my part, just to put it out there... also, yes you did a little defense when marjorie called me an anti-semite, but nevertheless).

You're pretending its not the case, because presumably you don't like to think of yourself that way, but it absolutely is. I don't know why its so important to you, or why it got so severely under your skin, but at some level you have to see it, if not actively admit it.

This thread is a perfect example, we were getting along great, and seem to actually almost totally agree on the actual topic, but I made a fairly typical (for me) response to a poorly used turn of phrase by alouette, and you felt the need to jump in with both feet.

All this stuff is old hat to me, and the pattern is not remotely new. It's not a case of overanalysis, but rather a case of pattern recognition.

~~~

So solutions. When you get like this, I'm gonna ignore you and not let you hijack. Hopefully we can still have fun and interesting discussions outside of this limited context, but each of these is 100% predictable, and 100% pointless... so I'm gonna opt out.

216 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:16:21pm

re: #215 windsagio

TMI

217 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:18:54pm

re: #215 windsagio

But I don't feel at all hostile towards you. That's you reading it into it. That's your assumption. I literally want to help you not stick your foot in your mouth and be clearer when posting. That's what I actually want.


You're pretending its not the case, because presumably you don't like to think of yourself that way, but it absolutely is. I don't know why its so important to you, or why it got so severely under your skin, but at some level you have to see it, if not actively admit it.

I don't get it. Why on earth are you so convinced that you know this absolutely? Even in person, with other people I know well, I don't approach that level of certitude of their motives and actions. Why on earth are you so certain-- so certain that you go to the amazingly insulting level that you're accusing me of having this deeper motive and lying about it?

All this stuff is old hat to me, and the pattern is not remotely new. It's not a case of overanalysis, but rather a case of pattern recognition.

That's an amazingly strange attitude, to me.


So solutions. When you get like this, I'm gonna ignore you and not let you hijack. Hopefully we can still have fun and interesting discussions outside of this limited context, but each of these is 100% predictable, and 100% pointless... so I'm gonna opt out.

Hijack what?

Why the hell are you ignoring that in this case, you made an assumption that turned out to be absolutely wrong, and if you'd listened to what the hell I'd saying, you could have said "Oh wait, Alouette was talking about the attitudes of others towards Jews, not her own attitude, my bad?"

I really don't get this. You were wrong, I told you that you were wrong and did my damndest to help you see it, and somehow that's proof I'm hostile to you. Somehow telling you that you're wrong-- while not implying anything bad about your motives, character, or otherwise-- is jumping on you with both feet.

I do not get it.

218 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:25:22pm

re: #215 windsagio

And, as a final coda:

Think about how closely your 'pattern recognition' argument matches up with the people who call you an anti-semite-- because you exhibit behavior that they associate with antisemitism.

And yet, you're not an anti-semite.

219 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:49:47pm

I'm voting against it and would have never signed to get it on the ballot if approached. We don't need stupid, invasive laws like this.

220 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:50:14pm

re: #153 Obdicut

Looks like I'm going to have to play catch-up. Bear with me.

You said that the crime was a capital offense. It's not. I'm still kind of lost as to what the hell you meant by that.

The effect on people's thoughts, once you become labeled as a child abuser. Again, in people's minds.

Really, as a former-and-always San Franciscan, the main impetus of this is not at all anti-semitic. It's much more on the child-rights side of the spectrum. Locker, above, I am absolutely sure is not coming at this from any anti-semitic perspective.

You may be right. He might be someone who types before they think it through. That's certainly a possibility. But this would be a conversation for the parties involved. He didn't cuss at me...this thread.

It's important to point out anti-semitism, and things that have hidden anti-semitic effects. But this is one of the latter; I am sure many people are just of the "oh the poor babies" mindset, or the more mature and reasonable-- though I still disagree with-- "since it can have harmful effects they should wait until 18" mindset.

Look, an opportunity to talk about Tarantino. First scene, Landa uses logic, logic that is only slightly twisted. So, one of the lessons of the Holocaust, which we as Jews have not yet addressed, has to do with logic, and the vigilance needed to keep it a tool for truth as opposed to a twisted tool of manipulation. Hence, the Talmud.

221 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:52:21pm

re: #220 Bob Levin

The effect on people's thoughts, once you become labeled as a child abuser. Again, in people's minds.

I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Capital offenses are capital offenses. Child abuse is not. Not even in people's minds. Not even a significant percentage of child abusers are killed, even in prison.

Look, an opportunity to talk about Tarantino. First scene, Landa uses logic, logic that is only slightly twisted. So, one of the lessons of the Holocaust, which we as Jews have not yet addressed, has to do with logic, and the vigilance needed to keep it a tool for truth as opposed to a twisted tool of manipulation. Hence, the Talmud.

You completely lost me.

222 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 5:59:42pm

re: #68 Locker

So why are there laws against child abuse in general? Should we just abolish them and tell the kid who had his ass kicked all day that he wasn't really harmed and that it's for "religious reasons" and that it's "good for him" and that if he doesn't like it he can "sue his parents"?

This is child protection we are talking about here.

It's not child protection, it's city government sticking its nose into people's private medical matters. It's pretty simple to me - don't like circ? Don't have one for your son. I don't want government resources of my city harassing Jews and Muslims under the guise of protecting children.

223 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:11:58pm

re: #116 Alouette

The San Francisco ballot initiative has no mention of transporting an infant outside the jurisdiction.

It doesn't. I don't know where the other person got that from -- anyone interested in the exact wording can go here [Link: www.sfmgmbill.org...] That's one of the things that makes it so idiotic, imo. All that means is more business for Seton in Daly City, which will probably be the first destination.

224 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:13:15pm

re: #154 APox

-Up to 66% decrease in sexual sensitivity on the penis

And still there is a need for baseball cards. I don't need to elaborate, do I? Besides, even if I have to, I won't.

-Around 100 boys die a year from circumcision related complications

Well, my first response is to make is safer. There are already halachic laws in place for when the bris should be delayed. If I were given these stats with the assignment that I fix the problem, I'd want to know more details about each case. For instance, how many were performed in a hospital? What were the nature of the complications, infection, something else?

Now, I understand that religion and community might marginalize this because of an appreciation for tradition.

There is no denying the existence of denial. But, really, if there are problems, I would favor trying to fix the problems. The bris itself is not the problem.

And, it seems pretty clear how discounted the idea of FGM vs. circumcision idea is in this thread, but I'd still contend that each can be considered human rights violations.

I don't think it's discounted. The Hebrew word is 'bris milah'. It is translated into English as 'circumcision'. So people associate the two, since FGM is called 'female circumcision'. I don't know who translated these two operations, but I think they made an error. The two operations are not related outside of the poor translation into English.

Jews perform this at the 8th day for many reasons, one of which, it is comparably painless at this point. Still, we were told to use baby aspirin if needed, and we did monitor the baby afterwards for several days. We are told that if this is performed on an adult it is extremely painful, for days. It seems as though both the commandment and wisdom are in tune on this.

I pretty much stay away from the science of this, because I really don't know enough. I had a hand operation a few years ago, there really is a lot to know medically when it comes to nerves and sensation.

225 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:16:02pm

re: #155 windsagio

I'm sorry. If this is any help, when my dad was very old he told me that doctors wanted him to get new knees, back when he was in his fifties. He didn't, and looking back, he said he wished that he did. Again, I'm really sorry you have to be in that kind of pain.

226 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:18:20pm

re: #225 Bob Levin

Thanks for the concern :) I don't really regret it tho', I can still walk thankfully.

227 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:19:15pm

re: #158 windsagio

I think we're both right, but talking about two different populations. Honest, there are those who think as I described.

228 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:39:03pm

re: #221 Obdicut

Then maybe it's just me. I spent quite a bit of time in a world where child abusers were thought to be worse than murderers. But that attitude might not be widespread. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

As to your second point. The way that people try to erase our history and criminalize our rituals is through a slightly twisted logic. This was shown, very clearly in a movie that we've discussed before. Logic can be used a way of finding truth, or it can be used to manipulate people. It's important to fight to keep it as a tool of uncovering truth.

229 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:40:59pm

re: #226 windsagio

Hold on to the info and open it again when you're pushing 60 years old.

230 Obdicut  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:41:53pm

re: #228 Bob Levin

Then maybe it's just me. I spent quite a bit of time in a world where child abusers were thought to be worse than murderers. But that attitude might not be widespread. I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

It's not, as is easily visible by the fact that child abuse is not, actually, a capital crime.


As to your second point. The way that people try to erase our history and criminalize our rituals is through a slightly twisted logic. This was shown, very clearly in a movie that we've discussed before. Logic can be used a way of finding truth, or it can be used to manipulate people. It's important to fight to keep it as a tool of uncovering truth.

Oh, right. Basterds really didn't make a big impression on me and is slipping away. I don't think it takes the Talmud to realize that we do quite a few things to kids that physically alter and potentially harm them for cultural reasons.

231 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:47:38pm

You all should have a look at this video Thanos posted awhile back.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It's long, but very informative on the pros and cons of circumcision. Seems to be accurate.

What I would be interested in are the same statistics with regard to mohels only, Jewish men (and women, too, btw) who preform the bris. I would imagine the incidents of mistakes, risks and infection would be less, mostly because this is what they do and are specifically trained to do. Oftentimes, mohels are doctors as well.

232 Sheila Broflovski  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:49:53pm

re: #231 marjoriemoon

You all should have a look at this video Thanos posted awhile back.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It's long, but very informative on the pros and cons of circumcision. Seems to be accurate.

What I would be interested in are the same statistics with regard to mohels only, Jewish men (and women, too, btw) who preform the bris. I would imagine the incidents of mistakes, risks and infection would be less, mostly because this is what they do and are specifically trained to do. Oftentimes, mohels are doctors as well.

I think that only a man should be a mohel. Even though a woman can be just as meticulous a surgeon, but "you should have one in order to give one." Just my opinion.

233 Bob Levin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:52:39pm

re: #230 Obdicut

I don't think it takes the Talmud to realize that we do quite a few things to kids that physically alter and potentially harm them for cultural reasons.

No, this is a tool to clean up your logic and consciousness. It's beyond brilliant, beyond words--in the disguise of perhaps the dullest set of books ever printed. No need to go into this today. I've just read through the whole thread. Time for a nap.

234 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:53:22pm

re: #229 Bob Levin

Good advice, I'm probably gonna need new ones sooner than I'd wish >

235 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:54:56pm

re: #231 marjoriemoon

It's weird that its become such a cause d'etre all of a sudden, too. (anti-circ that is)

236 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:58:17pm

re: #235 windsagio

It's weird that its become such a cause d'etre all of a sudden, too. (anti-circ that is)

It did seem to come out of the blue. There are a lot of control freaks here, trying to put all manner of crap on the ballot, every day. But I wasn't once approached by the anti-circ people with this nonsense. It makes me wonder just what parts of town they were in where they campaigned, because I'm all over town on a daily basis.

237 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 6:58:50pm

re: #236 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Your name is SO great by the way.

238 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:02:59pm

re: #166 Alouette

Sorry, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that nobody is out to get you.

The threat to eliminate the Jews by abolishing their religion, instead of outright genocide, has occurred too frequently throughout history to just shrug off.

Anyone who thinks what you said is "paranoia" simply is not paying attention, especially in this city where a lot of people have fallen for so-called "anti-Zionism". About 99% of it is just straight-up Judenhass that scapegoats Israel for all their personal woes. I dropped out of those antiwar rallies some time in 2003 because of it. FWICT it's only gotten worse.

239 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:04:38pm

re: #237 windsagio

Haha thanks.

240 What, me worry?  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:12:47pm

re: #235 windsagio

It's weird that its become such a cause d'etre all of a sudden, too. (anti-circ that is)

This is what cuts (har har) at the hearts of Jews (and I suspect Muslims), when people try to enact these laws.

Paranoid, as I was reading upthread, isn't the right word, but it certainly doesn't bode well and fear is definitely a factor at some level. We have to do that if we're going to say Never Again and mean it. That's not just for Jews, btw. It's anywhere where people are oppressed or are threatened with oppression. So when a red flag appears (this is a red flag) we take notice, particularly when justification for outlawing Judaism started in these ways.

I don't know if that specifically is behind this law. It may not be, but the world is a lot crazier than it was and I don't want to test theories.

241 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:27:47pm

re: #240 marjoriemoon


I don't know if that specifically is behind this law. It may not be, but the world is a lot crazier than it was and I don't want to test theories.

Man, ain't that freakin' true.

It's like somebody turned up the volume and broke the remote.

242 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:33:51pm

re: #240 marjoriemoon

This is what cuts (har har) at the hearts of Jews (and I suspect Muslims), when people try to enact these laws.

Paranoid, as I was reading upthread, isn't the right word, but it certainly doesn't bode well and fear is definitely a factor at some level. We have to do that if we're going to say Never Again and mean it. That's not just for Jews, btw. It's anywhere where people are oppressed or are threatened with oppression. So when a red flag appears (this is a red flag) we take notice, particularly when justification for outlawing Judaism started in these ways.

I don't know if that specifically is behind this law. It may not be, but the world is a lot crazier than it was and I don't want to test theories.

I look at it this way: it's going to disproportionately affect two religious minorities, i.e. two groups that have it done basically no matter what. The city is already cutting back on services in all sectors. So now it's supposed to start policing medical procedures? Load of bull.

I have not looked into the free exercise implications, but I doubt if it's even Constitutional.

243 windsagio  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 7:41:06pm

re: #242 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Thats the real truth, it has (imo) little chance of passing, and way less chance of standing up in court.

244 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:38:34pm

re: #116 Alouette

The San Francisco ballot initiative has no mention of transporting an infant outside the jurisdiction.

There's no way to put that in. You can't prevent someone from crossing county lines to do something legal.

245 SanFranciscoZionist  Wed, Jun 1, 2011 11:46:21pm

re: #5 EmmmieG

I have a side question (and I am aware this is just a side issue). What would happen to people who traveled outside of SF, had it done to their baby boy, and then came back?

Absolutely nothing. This wouldn't be enforced on any level if it were ever to pass. And there's no way to make it illegal to leave San Francisco, go to Oakland, and have your kid circumcised.

246 Michael Orion Powell  Thu, Jun 2, 2011 12:29:21am

This whole thing is a level of absurdity that is hardly believable. The state of California has enough budgetary problems to take the whole state under and they decide to focus in on babies' penises. The issue is not even worth actually discussing when there are so many actual issues at work.

247 Flavia  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 11:32:01am

re: #6 APox

Well -- yes, I enjoy a normal sex life. But I won't ever know how it could be different (possibly better) as an uncircumcised male.

I mean, in that same vein, could you not say that there are circumcised women that enjoy normal sex lives? I'm sure you could make the claim. But I'm also sure that there would be people jumping up and down screaming "MUTILATION!"

Why is this any different?

Because the male equivalent to FGM a penectomy.

I don't know anyone who seriously claims that it's the same for women after their clitoris has been removed. But I do know men who have said having a circumcision has helped their sex lives.

248 Flavia  Tue, Jun 7, 2011 12:10:41pm

re: #232 Alouette

I think that only a man should be a mohel. Even though a woman can be just as meticulous a surgeon, but "you should have one in order to give one." Just my opinion.

Strictly from a religious point of view, I'd have to agree w/you, since women aren't even supposed to watch a bris. Something our rabbi forgot to tell my mother, and all the other guests...

But I digress! Back to our regularly scheduled thread...


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
6 days ago
Views: 162 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 327 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1