Mastodawn

PhenomenalPancake May 19

If it's not for religious purposes or because of a specific medical issue, there's no real reason to circumcise your baby.

https://lemmy.world/post/47060112

If it's not for religious purposes or because of a specific medical issue, there's no real reason to circumcise your baby. - Lemmy.World

Studies are conflicted on whether it reduces risk of diseases, but what’s definitely true is that removing the foreskin removes most of the nerves associated with pleasure for the penis. Of course it doesn’t take away all sexual pleasure, but people who get circumcisions later in life report that their sexual pleasure from sex and masturbation is greatly reduced from before the circumcision. This likely also applies to babies, although there’s no conclusive evidence to support that since people who were circumcised at birth report “normal” amounts of sexual pleasure, though it’s unknown if they and uncircumcised people have the same “normal”. The reason circumcision became popular in the Western world outside of Jewish and Muslim culture is because of John Harvey Kellogg, the inventor of Corn Flakes, founder of the Kellogg cereal company, and activity against “immoral” sexual activity like masturbation. He invented Corn Flakes as a food to deter masturbation, as he believed that a cause of “unnatural” sexual appetites was flavorful food, so he made a blander source of nutrition to combat the urge to masturbate. He also heavily advocated for circumcision for both children and adults because he believed that it would decrease sexual pleasure for the penis, which would also discourage masturbation. Take it from a Jew who’s been jerking the gherkin since he was 12: It doesn’t work. Don’t circumcise your baby unless it’s for a religious reason, or if the baby is born with a condition that requires it. Oh, and among people who both enjoy sex with people with penises and care about whether or not it’s circumcised, it’s pretty evenly split about which variety they actually prefer, with the biggest factor in the preference being that individual’s culture. Edit: There are a lot of non-Jews criticizing the practice in Judaism. I completely understand, and your criticisms are valid. All I can speak for is my own experience and what I’ve been able to look into. In my case and the case of many Jewish men that I’ve talked to, both religious and non-religious, the rates of resentment for circumcision are much lower among them than among non-Jews who have been circumcised. I understand if you still believe it to be wrong, but do not put out hate speech in the comments. This includes name-calling and generalizations about any particular cultures. If you still believe that it’s wrong for Jews and Muslims to do it, and that religion doesn’t justify it, you are entitled to your opinion. Just please be respectful about it.

Such a great write up!

Last I checked about 10 years ago, circumcision rates had dropped to about 50% of newborn boys in the US. Not low enough, but it’s awesome that it’s starting to swing the other way.

PhenomenalPancake May 19

Yeah, I’d go so far as to argue that if it’s not for a religious or specific medical reason, it’s an unnecessary mutilation, and immoral.

Ricky Rigatoni May 19

It’s unnecessary and immoral when it’s for religious reasons, too. Religion isn’t a free pass for human rights violations, no matter how much the abrahamic pigs try to convince us it is.

Edit: Yes, religions that promote stoning women to death for not covering their entire bodies and mutilating children are full of pigs. Cry about it.

Edit 2: I was circumcised as a catholic infant so yes I do have the right to be angry and hateful about the family of religions that wronged me.

PhenomenalPancake May 19

I left this comment unremoved as an example of what not to do when talking about this topic.

So people shouldn’t be angry and disgusted that people are mutilating children’s genitals because a fictional story told them to?

PhenomenalPancake May 19

You should be angry and disgusted that people are doing it without the necessary context and background of having the culture that necessitates it. Only Jews can speak for the Jewish experience of having been circumcised as a Jew, and unfortunately, the experience of non-Abrahamic people having been circumcised is often negative. However, the Jewish perspective on their own experience of it tends to be more positive for reasons that you just can’t explain to someone who doesn’t have that context. That’s why even if we’re not religious and don’t believe that Abraham spoke to God and formed a covenant with him, we still do it; it connects us in a way that’s simply not gonna be the case for non-Jews. I can’t speak for Muslims though.

I can’t say this enough: If you’re not Jewish or Muslim, please don’t do it. You don’t have the cultural context that we have.

Edit: I left the comment up but banned the commenter because their comment was a hateful attack directed at Jews and Muslims, calling us “Abrahamic pigs” as a form of hate speech, which will not be tolerated here. Resorting to name-calling is not the kind of discourse that is welcome here. I understand people’s moral objections to circumcisions, and have struggled with them myself, but please don’t attack us because of our culture, religious beliefs, or ethnic background.

Another edit: I didn’t mean to say that our culture necessitates circumcision even if a lot of Jews and Muslims feel that way, but the fact that we are Jewish inevitably adds that into the conversation on the pro-circumcision side.

Courtney (she/her/they) May 19

A “culture that necessitates” mutilation of babies SHOULD BE CRITICIZED and no amount of “but I’m from a religious family and I’m a mod so it’s okay” will change that.

PhenomenalPancake May 19

I was wrong to imply that our culture necessitates circumcision itself. What I should have said was that the culture necessitates further discussion for an individual family to know if it’s right for them. That was my fault for using misleading language.

The problem is not that a culture necessitates further discussion. The problem is that the infant is *never included in the discussion".

PhenomenalPancake

This is a true and valid component of the decision that Jews like me struggle with.

I think it’s OK to abandon tradition when irrefutable evidence of harm emerges. We did a LOT of things differently in the past.

I am not Jewish myself but I grew up in one of the most Jewish parts of the US and I am very much a “fan” of Judaism. One thing I have massive respect for is the importance Judaism places on learning and adapting to new information so for me, the contradiction is confusing. If in the face of overwhelming evidence of the negative affects your only hangup is emotional (tradition), lean on the other things you were taught.

Sometimes you have to just realize that the way many things were done was often barbaric by today’s standards - even if they were acceptable at the time. Christians used to kiss everyone on the mouth at gatherings baptize people (kids and adults alike) in public completely nude. Islam used to allow slavery.

PhenomenalPancake May 19

And yet, the majority of Jews see that evidence and, even if they’re not religious, make the conscious decision to circumcise because they want their children to experience what they did, and are aware of what it meant for them. That’s what circumcision does for the experience of being Jewish.

This is called generational trauma and you have the choice to break the cycle. Jews have suffered enough throughout history, there is no reason to add to it yourselves.

“I suffered so my kids should suffer” is never a reasonable opinion. It’s especially unreasonable when that suffering is permanent for the child

PhenomenalPancake May 19

You’re choosing to interpret what I said as passing down suffering. This shows that you don’t actually want a Jewish perspective and want to assume that circumcision causes us to suffer and that we just want to pass that down. You don’t actually want to listen to what I have to say.

I’ll try anyway. Many Jews, both secular and religious, circumcise their children because they themselves did not experience suffering from the circumcision. Some do, sure, but the vast majority of circumcisions are without complications, and those done on Jews do not cause the same level of resentment on the same scale as when non-Jews do it because non-Jews don’t have the cultural context or connection that circumcision provides Jews. That’s what circumcision is for: It’s never to cause suffering. It’s to connect Jews to Judaism in a way that only we understand because there is an inherent, intrinsic, inextricable quality to being born a new that cannot be explained to someone who isn’t Jewish, just like there is with any other culture. If you’re black, there are things about the black experience that you understand but will never be able to get me to understand. Same with being a woman, or gay, or trans.

I’ll also add this: Ask your Jewish friends if they were traumatized by their circumcision. Then all your non-Jewish circumcised friends. I guarantee that there will be some differences in their answers. In the case that a Jew was, in fact, traumatized by their own circumcision, they’ll be much less likely to do it for their own kids.

I’m the modem day, you’ll find that among secular Jews, rates of circumcision are much closer to those of religious Jews than of non-Jews. Why do you think that is?

I didn’t know how else to describe it and figured the opposite of pleasure was suffering. Circumcision causes nerve damage in adults and infants alike which denies them the feeling they were born to experience. To be clear, I don’t believe the goal of circumcision is to cause harm. I believe that harm is the byproduct of circumcision. At the very least, can we agree that removing a piece of skin causes physical damage?

I understand that it helps some people connect with their culture but what about the others? It’s a permanent procedure regardless. If a Jew converts religions, becomes an agnostic/atheist, or even just stops practicing, they will never get full feeling back in their johnsons.

I have had this conversation COUNTLESS times with them over the years so I don’t feel the need to bring it up again. You’re right that Jewish people are less likely to be upset about it but that’s no surprise…They are more likely to have been raised in an environment where it’s commonplace.

PhenomenalPancake May 19

It’s not just that it’s commonplace, it’s that they understand what it means. Also, a Jew will never not be a Jew even if they convert to another religion. They can stop identifying as religiously Jewish, but ethnically they’ll still be part of the tribe.

It means your parents branded you with a symbol of their religion before you were old enough to decide if you wanted to a permanent reminder of their religion. Not a big deal if you want to be reminded of their religion. Kind of a big deal if you don’t.

Do the people who don’t want a reminder not matter?