'(UN)CUT': Jeffrey Braverman's Film To Explore Circumcision's Complexities

Filmmaker and photographer Jeffrey Braverman takes a deeper look at San Francisco's recently proposed circumcision ban in a promising new documentary entitled (UN)CUT. Braverman is raising funds on Kickstarter to finish the project.

Braverman's photography focuses primarily on portraiture and his work has appeared in Esquire, Newsweek and Time, among other publications, and his previous films, The Box and Song Girl, have been screened at festivals in North and South America.

The program's Kickstarter page cites shifting beliefs on the practice of male circumcision -- a key tenet of both Islam and Judaism -- and a growing intactivist movement as the inspiration for the film. The film promises as "personal and sometimes humorous look at what happens when religious freedoms intersect with modern law and collide head-on with infant rights."

Whether or not the narrator's claim reveals a pro-circumcision bias has yet to be determined, but we think the documentary looks intriguing. Then again, maybe we just can't dislike a movie that uses the band Ratatat in its trailer.

What do you think, readers? Are you pro- or anti-circumcision, and would you see this film?

Comments

[Amy Tolliver]

04:39 PM on 02/04/2012

If we Jews want to circumcise, we will. If it becomes illegal we will take out boys to a place it is legal. It is a commandment, and we will follow the commandment. The only time it will change is when all Jewish parents refuse to do it, and as long as there are practicing Jews there will be circumcision. Go into a temple on Friday night and ask how many boys and men are upset they were circumcised. I would be shocked if any were.

[intactive]

12:50 AM on 02/05/2012

Be shocked. Some are. But a temple might not be the right place to look if they are so upset they have given up going there.

[RicardoD]

06:33 PM on 02/22/2012

And even those who are there are not likely to make true feelings known, considering the venue and likelihood that there would be many Amys around them to attack them as self-hating Jews. Maybe Amy needs to get some perspective from the Internet www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org www.jewishcircumcision.org and/or www.beyondthebris.com Maybe she doesn't know that in Michigan, the son of a rabbi, Norm Cohen, is an active leader in state functions of two mainstream genital integrity organizations: www.nocirc.org www.norm.org

[field north]

09:47 PM on 04/18/2012

It's your choice to be a Jew. So allow your son's to have the same choice and when they're 18 they can choose to be circumcised... it's they're body and the laws should protect them just like females. Who in many countries it's illegal to circumcise women.

[Kalone K Baker]

10:26 AM on 02/04/2012

I will never ever circumcise my boys. I don't even know why the practice survived this long into the modern era? Circumcision and those who support it are a mystery to me.

[Charlotte H]

07:17 AM on 02/04/2012

It's no more true that opposing circumcision is anti-Semitic than that support gay rights is anti-Semitic. Yes, Jewish tradition generally supports circumcision, just like orthodox Jewish tradition opposes homosexuality, but there are many faithful Jews who support gay rights, and there is a growing number of enlightened Jewish believers who oppose routine infant circumcision.

[MIKEinNYC]

08:37 AM on 02/03/2012

The premise that circumcision is done for the sake of hygiene is clearly false. If hygiene was the motive then we would also remove our fingertips, our toes, our hair, our teeth, our bellybuttons and all of the other bits that require attention.

That said you want to circumcise your newborn, I'm not going to stop you.

[myviews]

02:22 PM on 02/02/2012

Cutting a newborn's penis is child abuse. I would never do that to my sons. No way!

[Wendyg33072]

10:52 PM on 02/02/2012

oh please! circumcision has been around since the Bible....it's a routine procedure that is a personal choice for parents...there are so many worse things to worry about than this!

[intactive]

02:25 AM on 02/03/2012

So has slavery been around since the bible. Sure there are worse things - there are ALWAYS worse things. How about a personal choice for the person most directly concerned - in fact the ONLY person directly concerned?

[ramp613]

08:03 AM on 02/09/2012

It IS a personal choice. It is the choice of the person actually attached to the penis in question.

[MarcEdward]

08:48 AM on 02/02/2012

Oh threads like this are the best;
Passion, outrage, hyperbolic charges of religious bigotry, charges of bad parenting, and of course circumcision jokes!
Best of all, nobody will have their mind changed because neither side can give an inch. Like the superbowl, an emotional but meaningless waste of time

[Gonzo36]

10:08 PM on 02/01/2012

Jesus was circumcised.

[intactive]

02:26 AM on 02/03/2012

And (reportedly) crucified. Both, believers say, so that we need not be.

[JackieNO]

10:00 AM on 02/01/2012

What parent would want to cut nerve connections to the brain and harm the sensory system of their newborn? Well that is what is involved with cutting penis parts of boys. Male circumcision is nerve damage -- a cutting off about 20000 fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings and removing a source of pleasure from the male FOR LIFE. The dynamics and function and pleasure from sex and masturbation of the penis is harmed for good. The only touch organ possessing as rich erogenous innervation as the foreskin is the clitoris. Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and the glans. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. This is a creepy thing to do to a baby.

[myviews]

02:25 PM on 02/02/2012

We would not do it to our girls, why do some do it to their boys?! Tradition?! It was once a tradition to beat kids until they bled. Thank goodness someone got some sense into them. Well, they are still cutting newborn male penis' and you better believe they bleed. And the babies howl. So would you. Parents are delusional if they think the babies don't mind. Take a knife and see for yourself. Cuts hurt!

[Wendyg33072]

10:59 PM on 02/02/2012

so would you not vaccinate your kids because it makes them cry from pain? It takes all of 2 minutes to circumcise a newborn penis, and there is very little bleeding. they brought both my boys to me within 30 minutes of them being circumcised and it was red and a little swollen for a couple of days, they didn't even cry when I changed their diaper and put vaseline on it, after about 10 days you can't even tell they had a procedure done...

[HermaO]

07:33 AM on 02/01/2012

A parent should have no right to remove a functionnal body-part for a non-therapeutic reason. If a boy agrees with whatever reasons his parents wants him to get circumcised for, or if he has reasons of its own, he can take the decision for himself when he is 18.

As for the religious argument, being anti-circumcision is not being anti-religion. But parents should think that when they get their sons circumcised, they imprint forever on his body his appartenance to one faith. And, guess what, sometimes those kids convert, or they become full-fledged atheist, and they might resent the fact that their body expresses a faith they no longer share.

Unless it is for a therapeutic reason, the decision concerning one's body should be no one else's decision but his own. If parents can oppose their children getting a tattoo or a piercing before they are 18, why shouldn't the kids also have a say concerning one of their body parts they may regret later?

[accelerando]

10:05 PM on 01/31/2012

If you are a female and someone mutilates your genitals without your consent, you can claim asylum. If you are a male and someone mutilates your genitals without your consent and you object, you are labeled anti-semitic.

Nothing in the Bible says when it has to be done: I say let people make up their own minds when they become legal adults. Just as with tattoos or piercing or cosmetic surgery.

[Gonzo36]

10:05 PM on 02/01/2012

Wrong.

"And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, that is not of thy seed"

Eight days.

[MarcEdward]

08:51 AM on 02/02/2012

And if the kid disrespects you, stone him to death.
Holy Books written thousands of years ago for a stone age nomads that have been translated over and over again - that is the best guide to how to live in the modern world!

[Leland Traiman]

08:02 PM on 01/31/2012

When the religious rites of the parents oppose the human rights of their infant, who should win? Infant circumcision is a violation of human rights. Period. It is illegal to tattoo a minor but perfectly legal to remove part of their genitals. Clearly, there is something wrong with our laws which allow this and wrong with our culture which encourages it.

[bellaono]

05:16 PM on 01/31/2012

HP PLEASE do your homework. This is not the first documentary to tackle circumcision. "PARTLY PRIVATE" 2009 Tribeca Film Festival winner for Best New York Documentary. On the other hand, this seems to be more geared toward the actual ridiculousness of a circumcision ban... Will be interesting none the less and the trailer does leave the door of interest open....

[JewishPhysician]

12:47 PM on 01/31/2012

Mohels make sense. Intactivists calling themselves names like "family penis" on twitter and other places make no sense.

[Rodrigo Girao]

03:05 PM on 01/31/2012

Being a mohel is the perfect job if you are a sadistic pedophiliac vampire.

[JewishPhysician]

05:47 PM on 01/31/2012

Have fun in the future. I imagine there are no mohels where you are going!

[SaneUSA]

08:06 PM on 01/31/2012

Insanity, isn't something to be proud of.

[altoplano]

05:19 PM on 01/31/2012

Apart from fulfilling a need in the Jewish community, how, exactly, do mohels "make sense"?

[john martlioni]

12:03 PM on 01/31/2012

As far as I can tell the scientific evidence says it confers negligible health benefits at a negligible risk to health. Besides a few anecdotes, it doesn't affect sexual functioning or sensation. So really it's not a scientific debate, it's a parent's rights v. self determination debate.

If you were completely for self determination I don't see how you can (1) justify abortion (2) justify cosmetic procedures like braces which are preformed on children w/o consent.

Circumcision is safest when preformed on a baby, so if you wait until the child is grown, you're exposing them to additional health risks.

I don't understand the comparisons to FGM at all. If anything, a circumcision is akin to removing a female's hymen - an unnecessary flap of skin. I can see the arguments on both sides, but the hyperbole and outright indignation present in so many anti-circ posts is really appalling. Why not honestly debate an issue instead of calling one side mutilators of children? I guess b/c there isn't supposed to be any debate, and everyone is just supposed to robotically parrot your outrage.

Also, so many posters harp on how this is a US anomaly and that by population most of the world isn't circumcised. The single Muslim country of Indonesia has a population nearly equal to Western Europe. There are around 1 billion Muslims and 300million US citizens, so I fail to see how the practice is rare or odd. That's a very Euro-centric view.

[Rodrigo Girao]

01:04 PM on 01/31/2012

Your ignorance shows through and through.

> Circumcision is safest when preformed on a baby

Circumcision is safest when NOT performed.

> I don't understand the comparisons to FGM at all.

Let's hear it from someone who knows it: writer/activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a female who is mutilated, thinks male circumcision is every bit as bad than female circumcision.

>If anything, a circumcision is akin to removing a female's hymen - an unnecessary flap of skin.

That was the worst. Does the foreskin rip off with normal sexual activity?

> I can see the arguments on both sides, but the hyperbole and outright indignation present in so many anti-circ posts is really appalling.

There is indignation because there is no hyperbole. The foreskin is more than half the penile skin, and in fact the most sexually sensitive part of it. To call circumcision a mutilation is absolutely honest, because that is exactly what it is.

That is why a debate is pointless: there is no middle ground to reach. When you realize that routine/ritual infant circumcision is seriously harmful and absolutely immoral, nothing but a total ban will do.

[jamielee79]

01:25 PM on 01/31/2012

Well said Rodrigo!

[john martlioni]

01:39 PM on 01/31/2012

(1) Actually some men are born without a foreskin (THE HORROR). Some women retain their hymen into adulthood. Some women are born without a hymen. It's a good analogy. FGM is not. That's hyperbole. Also, the foreskin can tear from normal sexual activity, and it's very painful if it does.

(2) The foreskin is not the most sensitive part of the organ.

(3) With all respect to Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- why is her opinion on male circumcision more valid than anyone else's?

(4) You prove my point. This is like debating a diehard pro-lifer. They believe that abortion is murder in the same way you believe that circumcision is mutilation. Sadly, screaming at people via comments isn't going to convince anyone of anything, other than that you're convinced of the superiority of your beliefs. Which is actually helping to undermine your cause -- If you engaged in reasonable debate you might actually convince someone - as it is now you're purposely alienating anyone who happens to not share your view -- as well as ignoring any scientific data that doesn't support your view.

[Hdaryl01]

04:41 PM on 01/31/2012

"As far as I can tell the scientific evidence says it confers negligible health benefits at a negligible risk to health."

Then why strap down a 12-48 hour old neo-natal male infant and permanently and irreparably forcibly amputate his foreskin (prepuce) without consent, and without anethesia in a non-medically indicated surgical procedure conducted in direct contravention of the Hypocratic Oath-"first, do no harm"?

"I don't understand the comparison­s to FGM at all."

Becoming informed may be a good start. Link to the full 2008 report on Female Genital Mutilation by a multitude of UN Agencies: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241596442_eng.pdf

On page 30 you'll find the "Modified 2007 Typology" which provides a four type breakdown with a few sub-parts of Female Genital Mutilation practices conducted worldwide. Read Type I(a): "Removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce ONLY". This practice is considered FGM. Now, please explain how "removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce ONLY" in female children is different from removal of the foreskin or prepuce ONLY in male children. In fact, these two practices are exactly analogous. The same clinical term-PREPUCE is even used to describe the female clittoral hood, and the male foreskin. A US parent of twins-a male and a female-can currently "choose" to have his or her male son's prepuce (foreskin) amputated, by is prohibited by law from choosing to have his or her female daughter's prepuce (clittoral hood) amputated.

Dichotomy?

[thedragonclaw]

12:00 PM on 01/31/2012

I stopped taking the anti circumcision crowd seriously when the Foreskin Man comic book came out. It was insane, and definately anti semetic (curiosity got the best of me when I found a copy...but men in traditional Jewish attire taking children's foreskins for their own pleasure while Foreskin man tries to stop them was just waaaay too over the top). I was circumsized as a baby and see it as absolutely no big deal and I think the government has MUCH bigger issues than foreskin to deal with.

[Rodrigo Girao]

01:25 PM on 01/31/2012

In the first issue, he fought a monster doctor, and no one said the comic was 'anti-doctor'. But when he fights a monster mohel... actually, the only problem is that, in the USA, any criticism of judaism, Israel, or anything related, is not politically correct. No matter how justified, you do it and they pull the anti-semitism card.

[Locuta de Bjorg]

05:10 PM on 01/31/2012

The Foreskin Man comic is the product of one guy. ONE.
It is hardly appropriate to dismiss a group of people from all walks of life who recognize genital cutting on children to be a human rights violation because of one guy. The intactivist movement has been active in the U.S. for over 40 years and is getting stronger as more and more people learn the truth and do their own thinking.