Let’s get this out of the way right now. No one is sucking on the penises of newborn babies. If that were happening, this would be a totally different story. What is happening is religion, health, and politics all colliding, with some baby penises thrown in.
When a Jewish eight-day-old baby gets circumcised, a moyel (someone specialized in the art of slicing off foreskin) makes a small cut to do the thing he was hired to do. The cut is small, and is usually tended to by a very small bandage or the application of gauze. In the ultra-Orthodox community, there is a custom called metzitzah b’peh. According to tradition, the cut is helped heal by the moyel putting his mouth on the baby’s penis to pull blood away from the wound. Although really strange and pretty nasty, there’s nothing illegal about this practice. That is, there wasn’t, until the herpes reports came in.
According to the New York Times, New York City officials believe metzitzah b’peh is used in about 3,600 circumcision annually. Over 11 years time, from 2000 to 2011, 11 babies caught herpes from the ceremony. Of the 11 infected, 2 of them died. Then, during the spring, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared that the procedure created a risk for transmission of herpes and other pathogens and was decided to be “not safe.” Therefore, on last Thursday, in order to respect the Jews and do the right health thing, “the city’s Board of Health is scheduled to vote on a proposal that would require parents to sign a consent form indicating that they are aware of the risk of herpes transmission” when someone is about to circumcise their child.
No matter what your stance on circumcision is, nobody wants babies dying, especially from herpes. And even thinking about putting mouths on baby penises, even if that’s not what’s happening, is something that will keep anyone up at night. On the other hand, here’s a rabbi who explains the custom, and it kind of makes sense. Also, our country does think highly of the freedom of religion, and the government can’t forbid ultra-Orthodox Jews from performing their custom. Even if the waivers are just to legally cover the city’s butt, at least the parents of the children know what they’re getting themselves into.
The babies being circumcised could not be reached for comment on this story, since, you know, they’re babies.
[Image composite by Julia Berke]
What a quaint practice of ritualistic genital mutilation and pedophilic sodomy.
Freedom of religion is obviously worth protecting – but you have to actually consent to participating in that religious practice. Here, babies are victims, not participants, making this a practice valid to be restricted without impinging on first amendment freedom.
When that kid turns 14 and becomes a man, let THEM sign the consent form. Suck away, Moyel.
“nobody wants babies dying, especially from herpes”
Is that actually true? Does it really matter the cause?
Also,
@ Brett; What Ari said. Should families also not be able to bring babies to religious services? Not only is it unavoidable for parents not to have a permanent (and un-consenting) influence on their child (whether that be physical or not), but that influence is actually the foundation of the family unit as we know it.
“What a quaint practice of ritualistic genital mutilation and pedophilic sodomy.”
Not only is this statement pretentious and simply inaccurate, it is downright offensive.
There’s a marked difference between bringing a child to a religious service and permanently modifying their sexual organs.
Yes, it’s a ritual: they recite religious passages in a highly structured ceremony led by a religious figure on exactly the 8th day of life.
Yes, it’s genital mutilation. They cut off part of the baby’s penis.
Yes, it’s sodomy. Mouth on penis is sodomy.
Yes, it’s pedophilic. An adult man sodomizing an infant is pedophilic.
That statement SHOULD be offensive, because it’s an offensive practice — just like clitorectomies in Africa, which is defensible using the exact same religious / cultural argument that you’re using here.
You are right, there is a marked difference between religious services and circumcision: Taking your child to religious for 13 years will have a more formative and permanent effect on their views re: religion, life, etc. then whether or not they are circumcised.
“Quaint” – pretentious.
“mutilation” – you are not degrading any functions of the body- in fact you are medically improving them (see below)
“sodomy” – CPR /= making out. As the article implied, no one is performing oral sex.
“pedophilic” – see above.
Clitorectomies are specifically designed to deprive women of sexual pleasure, which we see as a human right (additionally it has far more negative health implications). The only thing circumcisions deny, is the right for a man to have a foreskin. Equating the two is gross.
It also has proven health benefits, and the only reason it is not advised to all parents is because of the cultural/religious issues at play: To quote the AAP:
“The new, stronger language is a result of emerging evidence that found links between circumcision and decreased risk of urinary tract infections, some kinds of cancer, HPV, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases.” http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/27/health/aap-circumcision-recommendation/index.html
*Note: my earlier comment didn’t make as much sense because the comment preceding it was removed*
This video will shock your conscience. Torture By Another Name: “Circumcision” http://tinyurl.com/9mhuhkz
I have become engaged in the German circumcision controversy and have reduced t it to a kind of stub – a stub onto which one could add back on the entire controversy relating to Anti-Semitism, and how guilt distorts German ways of handling matters of that kind, and various defenses made of the practice for reasons of “inscription of the law onto the body,
and which is manifested in its multifariousness at the continuously updated
http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html
http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name
Kyle,
Really? You really believe all that?
First of all, male circumcision was invented for the purpose of denying men pleasure, exactly like female circumcision. The people who came up with that are the same people who don’t touch their penis even to pee, who can’t bear the sight of a skimpily dressed woman, who believe masturbation is a sin, birth control is a sin, oral sex is a sin, etc.
The person who invented the metzitzah b’peh was obviously a homosexual pedophile. There is no other explanation. At what point would it ever be acceptable, or even occur to any normal guy, to put his mouth on a baby’s penis. A non-pedophile man would rather die than do that.
Whether or not there happens to be a medical benefit isn’t relevant. You can prevent testicular cancer by cutting off your balls if you wish too. The fact is that is it is you are unnecessarily cutting off a part of a baby and unnecessarily putting your mouth on his penis (an act that is abhorrent to anyone except a pedophile).
Just because pedophiles have been doing it for a couple thousand years doesn’t make it right.
I’m a bit confused. You start the article by saying no one is suckign on babies’ penises but then you say that the unlta-Orthodox moyles put their mouths on the penis to draw blood away. These statements seem contradictory. Could you please explain? If you mean, no one is enjoying sucking on babies penises that is one thing as this practice was probably antibiotic when it came into use, but many orthodox theologians insist that you cannot know why God instructed these rituals and therefore you cannot decide when they are no longer relivant. If you mean the moyles use some sort of tool to withdraw blood and use their mouths to provide suction, that is another. But you aren’t saying either, you are making contradictory statements. Don’t mislead just to make your audience feel the way you do, use facts and explain the reasoning. Please explain what you mean by these statements.
Hey Kyle Zinn I would say that Mr. Chamberlins comments “What a quaint practice of ritualistic genital mutilation and pedophilic sodomy.” are actually exactly what is going on and I do not see where it is inaccurate. Also you are in the United States in a nation where a deaf child is suspended because when he signs his name and it looks like a gun…. you do not have the right to get offended by anything.