The growing anti-Semitic images and caricatures associated with the attempt to ban circumcision in San Francisco are disturbing. These include the highly inflammatory "Foreskin Man" comic, depicting a superhero saving innocent boys from evil circumcisers, which the Jerusalem Post reported to have been produced by Matthew Hess, "one of the central backers of the anti-circumcision measures." Indeed, the attempt to ban circumcision in San Francisco smacks of a nefarious campaign on the part of the ban's organizers to portray circumcision as genital mutilation that gives the lie that Judaism and Jewish practice would ever harm a child. I debated Lloyd Schofield, the main man behind the ban, on CNN. I later respectfully asked him to debate me in public where we would have more time and, after he penned a friendly email which curiously implied that there is not much difference between our two positions, he suddenly declined.
But if the case against circumcision is so clear-cut, and it is a grievous assault on a harmless infant, then why decline the debate? Perhaps it is because the organizers know that in any debate their attempt to correlate the excising of the male foreskin with the removal of the female clitoris -- a point they have repeatedly made -- will be shown up to be a malicious and absurd lie. Female circumcision is all about removing a woman's ability to have pleasure during sexual relations and is a barbarous act of mutilation that has no corollary to its male counterpart. In my book Kosher Sex I demonstrated conclusively that Judaism celebrates the sexual, intimate, and erotic bond between husband and wife and the attempts to malign circumcision as a method of denying a man's sexual pleasure are ignorant and biased.
San Francisco is supposed to be the city of live-and-let-live even as it now betrays a curious attachment to the male foreskin, with its ludicrous attempt to punish its large Jewish community with a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail for simply honoring the oldest of all Jewish practices and rituals.
When I lived in Western Europe for 11 years it was common to hear attacks on circumcision and shechita coming together, as if there was some correlation between the humane slaughtering of an animal with the cutting of a child's foreskin. Sweden has a reputation of being a pretty laid-back nation but it stiffens in the face of circumcision. In 2001 when it enacted a draconian law requiring a medical doctor or an anesthesia nurse to accompany a registered circumciser and for an anesthetic to be applied to a baby beforehand. Swedish Jews and Muslim banded together to object and the World Jewish Congress condemned the law as "the first legal restriction on Jewish religious practice in Europe since the Nazi era."
All this, of course, belies the medical facts. Circumcision has been proven as the second most effective means -- after a condom -- to stop the transmission of HIV-AIDS, with the British Medical Journal reporting that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the infection. Circumcision removes Langerhans cells in the foreskin with special receptors that may grant the virus access into the body.
Circumcision also significantly reduces the transmission of other STD's like genital herpes and syphilis and also reduces the risk of urinary-tract infection, and men who are circumcised have 100 percent immunity from contracting penile cancer.
Male circumcision is much healthier for women, significantly reducing the risk of cervical cancer by at least twenty percent according to an article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002. Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus which can thrive under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse.
So why the effort to ban circumcision? Simple. Radical secularists for whom Judaism is a target of choice wish to portray religion as so barbarous that it excises any pleasure in sex, reducing copulation to a cold and sterile act of baby-making.
The lie that religion frowns on sexual pleasure is widespread. In fact, deeply fulfilling, ecstatic, and climactic sex is a must in Jewish law which makes it a sin for a man to have sex with his wife without pleasuring her first. Judaism insists that sex be accompanied by exhilaration and pleasure as a bonding experience that leads to emotional connection and intimacy.
Indeed, we Jews could teach even the highly sexually adventurous people of the Golden Gate City a thing or two about great sex, the proof of which is that we alone, among all the nations of the world, are still here after thousands of years, due to the fact that our circumcised ancestors were pretty good at doing it.
Had Messrs. Schofield and Hess canvassed Jewish husbands and wives before they got the attempted circumcision ban on the ballot, they would have discovered that we Jews are doing just fine in the sexual department and could really do without their bothersome assault on our ancient rituals and the privacy of our sexual connection. Circumcised Jewish men are great lovers and I would strongly advise Schofield and Hess to keep their nose in their own business and maybe even read my other two books The Kosher Sutra and Kosher Adultery to receive some great Jewish advice for take-me-to-the-moon-and-back sex which might rescue them from their own repression that necessitates their peering into other people's bedrooms.
Shmuley Boteach, "America's Rabbi," is the international best-selling author of 25 books which have been translated into 17 languages and is currently working on "The Sexually Extinguished Wife." Follow him Twitter @RabbiShmuley.
Follow Rabbi Shmuley Boteach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiShmuley
Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman: Why Judaism Embraces Science
S.R. Hewitt: The Importance of Circumcision in Jewish Law
John Shore: Captain Israel vs. Foreskin Man
In any case, whether it's altruism or breaking the cycle of violence, the principle motivation is opposition to any form of sexual repression due to human rights and Constitutional objections - rather than antisemitism. Antisemitism is a red herring in this debate. It's not about the parents - it's about the baby boys.
It may have been the case in ancient Judea that parents owned their chlldren, however, in 21st century America, that is not the case.Children (even tiny babies) are separate people from their parents. Children have rights of their own and are entitled to special protection during their minority. A child can decide for himself if he wants a circumcision when he is of age.
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow one to harm another in the practice of one's religions. That is black-letter law.
Circumcision is a harmful operation from which Jewish and gentile boys sometimes die. There is good reason for a temporary-halt to circumcision until a boy grows up.
Circumcision also significantly reduces the transmission of other STD's like genital herpes and syphilis and also reduces the risk of urinary-tract infection, and men who are circumcised have 100 percent immunity from contracting penile cancer.
Male circumcision is much healthier for women, significantly reducing the risk of cervical cancer by at least twenty percent according to an article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002. Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus which can thrive under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse.
I could care less whether someone has their son circumcised or not. It's not my business and it's not Schofield's or anyone else's business either.
I believe that if a boy is not circumcised, he'd not be able to be bar-mitzvahed at 13.
Keep posting, and make your decisions for your own children, with your own inalienable rights as a parent. You cannot ever infringe on our right to freely exercise our religion.
Roll drum....
"Are the Circumcision Opponents Anti-Semitic or Sexually Repressed?"
It would be funnier if there really were a god.
But removing a small fold of skin for a minor possible medical benefit is awful, horrible, and tragic. It'd be like poking holes in your ears for decorations or something... nobody would ever mar god's perfection is such a way.
Wait... I may be missing something. Why is the male foreskin so precious it (and only it) gets treated this way while other removals or adjustments of non-essential folds of skin are not attacked? Is it just because it's on my Penis? I mean sure I think my penis is pretty cool, but I don't believe it's somehow magical or special that I need to treat it with different medical consideration than my mouth or any other body part.
Curious? The attachment of the foreskin is perfectly natural. It's the wish to detach it from someone else that is curious, not to say bizarre.
Not once do they ever say why it shouldn't be the child's. Not "it should be theirs" but why it shouldn't be his. Not once.
Of course, we all know the reason why that is. The answer to that question would reflect poorly on them; not just as parents but as human beings.
The answer is "Because he might say 'no'."
It has to be done before they can object. Has to be. Given the option, I wouldn't have done it. I doubt a lot of people currently circumcised would. Some still would, but either they have to have it done or they have other reasons.
The practice would come close to dying out in a single generation. And when you've invested that much in it it makes complete sense why they defend it. If it's wrong, if it's hurtful, if it's unnecessary, and defending it keeps them from having to re-evaluate themselves, of course they'll do it. And everyone who says otherwise must hate them, right? Real reasons need evaluation and that could shatter the illusion.
1) Parents make choices for their children every day, if not every minute. This is just one of the MANY decisions to make.
2) Circumcision has been shown to benefit those under the age of 18 with certain issues such as UTIs and posthitis. As the mother of two boys, I can assure you it is hard enough to get them to brush their teeth and lift the lid of the toilet seat, let alone remind them to wash their unit every night.
3) The procedure is much easier on an infant, there is little to no pain because the area is quite small and not nearly as vasculated as it is at age 18. In addition, at 18 men have a longer recovery time, must deal with erections, and it is much more expensive.
4) For those who choose to circumcise for religious reasons, such as Jews, the law is to have it done at 8 days after being born.
I get that this is a sentitive issue for many on this board. So my solution is to be like La Leche and spend your time and money for education, not legislation. Circumcision is falling in the United States, so why let those that have strong opinions, usually for religious reasons continue to make that choice for themselves.
(2) Circumcision has virtually no health benefits on those under 18 (and dubious at best benefits for those older than that). Statistics have shown that in order to prevent a SINGLE uti infection, over 400 circumcisions would have to be performed. Urinary tract infections are highly treatable with modern antibiotics, on the other hand there are many demonstrable dangers from circumcision, not to mention the great reduction in sexual pleasure. For this reason no health body in ANY country recommends that doctors routinely circumcise children, while the health services of many countries such as Holland recommend that doctors stronly discourage parents from having their children circumcised.
(3) The only reason the procedure is 'easier' on an infant is because the child cannot express either its wish to not have the procedure performed or the degree of pain it causes. This is one of the main reasons I and many others consider circumcision child abuse.
I want to know why the child can't make the decision. Answer that question or don't respond to my posts.
Maybe that is why I find this whole bru-ha-ha so strange- because I have seen with my own eyes how simple and quick the whole thing is. So my question to those of you who really believe it is butchering is this: have you ever been to a bris? If not, I really think you should go to one or maybe even check them out on YouTube. And then compare the ceremony to getting your children vaccinated because the babies seem to cry much more from getting a vaccination then for the bris. I doubt it will change your mind on the subject, but at least you can say your opinion comes from personal experience, not just from what you read online.
I certainly have.