I'm reading Kafka these days not just for the incredible pleasure of it but because Kafka lived in a very similar Jewish moment to ours, which he recognized as transitional. Jews were included as never before. They had important jobs in urban society. Yet they were still a vibrant and distinct subculture that told a liberation story-- Zionism--and for good reason, antisemitism. Kafka was attracted by Zionism, but never got there, in a word, because of western individualism. He was immersed in Jewish culture and Yiddish literature but also in German and Czech literature. He thought that Jewish culture was inevitably dying out through intermarriage and assimilation.
In 1911 he attended his nephew's circumcision. The description in Kafka's diaries is famous, you can read it here (just search for "perforated" metal disc). But the next paragraph is Kafka's interpretation.
Anyone who's been to a circumcision can tell you that the exact same thing happens today, 100 years later. Only a couple of people in the room know exactly what is going on. Not everyone knows the prayers, people are riveted and then bored, and have little patience for the historical explanations. Someone in the corner argues about whether it is healthful or not. At bottom--sorry--it is really a ritual about difference. And my wife--and I imagine countless other gentiles married to Jews, and many of them with a son at stake--believe that it's barbaric, and about "style" not health; and my marriage is the reason that Dershowitz wrote a whole book called The Vanishing American Jew.
So circumcision/Jewish ritual seems as obsolete today as it did to Kafka. He was wrong. Are we?
As a Gentile married to a Jewish woman who is, of course, the mother of my children, I wanted to accommodate and celebrate my wife's beautiful culture in every way I could.
When my son was circumcized, I was horrified by the ritual. It was so barbaric, in fact, that my tne-twentysomething Jewish brother-in-law fainted at the sight. I was not able to tolerate the second circumcision ritual, so we had it done in the hospital, and had people over for the prayers, etc.
It is a stunningly barbaric ritual that has no rhyme or reason in modern day society, Phil. Kafka and you were right. It is a ceremony of differences, and that day, I never felt further apart from my wife's beliefs, or my in-laws (who insisted on the ritual).
I was raised Catholic and thought only Jews were circumcised. Looking at my own equipment, I wondered exactly what part they'd lop off. It was only later I learned that I was circumcised too for the "style" reason even though my own father was not.
If I had had a choice, I think I would have left it "factory equipment" as I heard that the overall sensations are reduced.
In Arthur C. Clarke's "3001: The Final Odyssey", women of the future recoiled in disgust over astronaut Frank Poole's "maimed" equipment. I think it will probably be like that someday except for those who view mutilations as 'chic' (like piercings, and those lumpy bead implants and such).
"He was wrong"? Look at the state of the Jewish community today with 94% of Israelis supporting the Gaza invasion and 80% of American Jews supporting it. The Jewish community is morally challenged, they are a shell of a people, all frosting, no cake. Kafta was wrong? I think not.
BTW Phil, a traditional Jewish circumcision ritual with the Rabbi sucking reminds one of Christmas egg blowing…only worse.
Its a commitment adopted.
If you personally don't want to adopt it for your children (which you don't have), then don't.
I describe an experience at a bris in Israel in Joachim Martillo used to do business in Israel; now he supports Divestment.
One commenter addressed the bris on my blog.
This is a most fascinating anthropological subject, not in small measure because this is an issue that is very important for both the Jewish and the Muslim communities..
As long as circumcision (the act itself) remains a sign that generates concepts of self, of identity, of gender, of social belonging, it doesn't matter that those present at the ritual don't know exactly what is going on. It is the meaning of the act itself that matters not the details of the ritual, and most of the understanding about what is going on occurs at a subconscious level:
Only now, unlike during Kafka's time, questions are being asked. See, for example, The sorcerer's apprentice and in particular Male circumcision": [...] beyond the biomedical aspects of routine medical circumcision lie complex societal issues that affect core elements of masculinity. Medical literature tends to avoid or obscure this via its more reductionistic clinical approach.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
In Biblical times, circumcision was likely a ritual compromise that made it possible to ban human sacrifice while keeping the element of a blood sacrifice.
In that sense, it was a remarkable achievement in developing an understanding of a God who demanded obedience to Law, rather than blood appeasement.
One of the qualities I love about Judaism is that its archaic rituals reflect a deep understanding of human nature.
Consider how eagerly after 9/11 Americans renounced the lawful pursuit of Al Quaida (for which we had the full support of the UN, Iran, and the rest of the world), and instead decided that the offense against "Freedom" could only be appeased by the blood sacrifice of "evildoers," and thousands of our own soldiers.
I thought that the sacrifice scene in Mel Gibson's *Apocalypto* was a pretty good illustration of what we resembled from 2003-08. As one reviewer observed, the high-priest's speeches (in Yucatec Mayan) in between cardiectomies were very like those of Bill Kristol and George Bush.
Human nature has not changed very much, if at all, since the writing of the Torah. We are still tempted by idols, although we now call them ideologies, and the power they promise in return for blood offerings.
Many Jewish families are choosing an alternative ceremony for their children called Bris Shalom. This ceremony retains everything about a Bris Milah, but not the cutting.
jewsagainstcircumcision.org
jewishcircumcision.org
Some commenters have beat Phil to the punch discussing circumcision on one of the threads pursuant one of his articles posted yesterday. I forget which one. They mention that the USA is the only Western
country that has not opted to not circumcise routinely, that there has been an ever escalating trend away from routine circumcision which was pervasive up until the late 1970's under the false claim that it was for health reasons and the secret reason that it would void the pants-down test as to who is a jew. And that foreskins are sold to make face creams, very profitable for hospitals, who also charge for the useless surgery. They also mention that the foreskin is chuck full of erotic cells and nerve endings, as is the clitoral hood–in some tribal regions the hood is circumcised routinely. Bottom line is such mutilations are tribal customs, and American boys will one day have all their original equipment as European boys do now.
I can relate to Conscientious Objector because my situation and POV was identical–but when it came to circumcision, after reading up on the pros and cons, I held the line. This was hard to do as my wife's whole extended Jewish family lived nearby. But my boy grew up with all his equipment, as did I. We left the choice up to him. Today both my wife and my son are happy I didn't succumb to the pressure back in the day.
The commenter who raised the question of circumcision yesterday was:
PhilosemiticKulture | March 21, 2009 at 05:37 PM
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/yesterday-i-went-on-press-tv-to-talk-about-the-israel-lobby-with-elazar-barkan-and-dan-fleshler-whose-book-on-the-israel-lob.html#comments
Thanks, Phil and PhilosemiticKulture, for raising this topic. My husband and I thought that cutting anything off a kid's body is–like religion–a decision that needs to be left up to the kid himself. And of course we were aware that the chances were that no teenager would voluntarily cut off so sensitive a part of his bod. And that very consciousness confirmed to us that if the guy himself wouldn't deprive himself of his foreskin, we shouldn't have it done for him.
We also read about the accidents that sometimes happened and I eventually joined No-Circ for a while.
Our baby doctors forecast disease and pariah-status for our two boys, but we decided that we all could cope. We felt that if we didn't focus on it, our boys having foreskins wouldn't be a big deal. (Though having the skin might be a "big" deal to the guys themselves.) One doctor did show us how to pull the foreskin roughly back for cleaning–which may itself cause injury!–, but that seemed ridiculous to us, so we didn't and soon found a more sensible doctor.
Imagine our lack of surprise when, after we never made a fuss about the kids' whole penuses, the boys gradually discovered that roughly half their friends hadven't been cut either, and no one in the sleepovers or locker rooms judged either choice.
The 50/50 American boy situation is current, down from 90% cut around the end of WW2 until the late '70's, when grass roots Americans begin to question boy circumcision as a spin-off from the feminist movement which had look into female circumcision and worse customs, especially in Africa. As one of the commenters said under Phil's article on philo-semitic culture generally. As another commenter on that thread, if memory serves, we need a new Seinfeld episode on this subject. Or at least, on Curb Your Enthusiasm. BTW, intact penis get naturally self-lubricated much more quickly than the cut boys. When its hard, there's no turtleneck, just an extra erotic band at the head–another pointed out.
If I ever have a boy, he's getting a circumcision. I don't seem anything barbaric about it. Where do you draw the line into assimilation? Why don't the Christians and the non-religious assimilate some of the religious/cultural practices of Judaism and or Islam such as circumcision? Why does it always have to be the other way around?
I'm all for assimilation.But not when it comes to my religious practices though. I may not choose to practice all of them but no one should be lecturing me about the "barbaric" practices.
First of all, why are you conflating "Circumcision/Jewish ritual"? Circumcising is not in the same league as saying a brocha over a glass of wine.
But there is the problem with circumcision. What is it supposed to accomplish. Look, I find it very hard to believe that people in those days, with no antibiotics, no anaesthetics, went cutting body parts off their first-born unless they expected results of one type or another. What were they? Oh God, never mind, I just read the rest of the letters.
I'll saee you all later and shalom. This is not what I need on a Sunday morning. Besides, what if my wife sees it and draws invidious conclusions about our marital life?
Run, Mooser, run!
BabyBoy also raised the question of circumcision before Phil, on yet another comment thread to the article by Phil yesterday entitled in part "this item feels Jim Crow."
Seems like circumcision history in the USA and in Jewish culture overlap, huh?
Interesting that Christianity differs from Judaism and Islam in this very core subject, tribal mutilation, spiritual justification, etc. The AMA looks rather slow in recognizing health science in this area. Wonder what proportion of AMA members are Jewish?
I'm still not understanding one facet of this discussion. The removed foreskin is useful for rhino-plasty ? C'mon, what are you trying to do to me, here? Where is Kafka when you need him? So a little Jewish boy in Weimar Berlin boy grows up to become obsessed with this girl, see, follows her around, falls in love, stalks her, the obsession eventually drives him to murder! Turns out, that was the girl who got his fore-skin for her nose job! Throw in a lotta class angles, he's a poor Sephardi, she's a rich Ashkenazi, a banker's daughter. It can't miss! I could give you a script which will flop in every dingy art-cinima and never even get to DVD, if some producer would advance me 500Gs for research. I'd fly to Berlin, and just keep on going.
i have run into the problem of being accused of being a jew for being circumcised. christ, that was mortifying and humiliating.
Saleema: "Why don't the Christians and the non-religious assimilate some of the religious/cultural practices of Judaism and or Islam such as circumcision? Why does it always have to be the other way around?"
Please don't misunderstand this issue as a tribalistic battle. Not circumcising isn't a tenant of Christianity, as many Christians have assimilated the practice, most notably in the US. Furthermore, a quick glance at the Jewish Encyclopedia shows it was common in the ancient world outside of Judaism, and there debate within Judaism in regard to the practice is long standing.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=514&letter=C&search=circumcision
I am a man of faith, though spending a good potion of my life studying all the major religions of the world and many less common ones, I do not adhere to any one doctrine but rather am a student of many teachers. Hence, I am careful to distinguish theology from dogmatism, and from that perspective I figure the concept of circumcision was based in practical considerations of the time. Put simply, lacking modern hygiene it would be best to clip the tip, lest God will be more likely to bring suffering upon one's member.
That said, before you go having anyone else's genitals mutilated, I hope you you will carefully consider the ethic of reciprocity.
"i have run into the problem of being accused of being a jew for being circumcised. christ, that was mortifying and humiliating."
Posted by: Pissed I Was Mutilated
What country was that in? Cause it sure as hell wasn't America.
No wait, my Spidey-sense say "the hasbara is strong in this one!"
Put simply, lacking modern hygiene it would be best to clip the tip,
Sure, sure. Ever notice how all over the world, in societies which exist under primitive conditions and don't circumcise, the guy's dicks fall off? Nasty and painful.
Male genital mutilation! I guess I am agnostic about whether or not this is an abusive (that is, because it is not "voluntary") practice.
However, it is the height of cynicism for Zionist activists to rail against the cultural practices of certain peoples to engage in "female circumcision" as a way of stirring up anti-Muslim hysteria.. This is not a Koran-sanctioned practice and exists in some Muslim and non-Muslim societies, not all.
On the other hand, male circumcision is scripture-based COMMAND to Jewish faithful, as it is to Muslims. If Jews didn't do it, we would be hearing a lot about this "barbaric" practice male genital mutilation in Islam.
Mooser: "Sure, sure. Ever notice how all over the world, in societies which exist under primitive conditions and don't circumcise, the guy's dicks fall off? Nasty and painful."
I am using "modern" in a global sense, and in contrast to the ancient times when the practice of circumcision was first conceived. Furthermore, I know of many recent cases in first world countries were poor hygiene has resulted in infections in many parts of the body, under the foreskin of an uncircumcised member included.
Jaffr: "On the other hand, male circumcision is scripture-based COMMAND to Jewish faithful…"
That is debatable, see the Jewish Encyclopedia for more information if you like.
Posted by: kylebisme
Those infections you speak of are caused by insufficient masturbation.
Saleema, when you cut a piece off of a normal, healthy infant's body, and they have no choice in the matter, it comes under the heading of "barbaric", for sure.
And there are circumcisions and then there are circumcisions, and depending how enthisiastic and/or drunk the mohel is, the results are different. Big difference from a guy just giving it a quick nick, and a mohel who decides he's gonna do genital surgery.
And Israel has a birth-rate problem? Hmmmm…
If I ever have a boy, he's getting a circumcision.
Saleema
Just be sure to put a fresh blade in the X-acto knife. They dull fast when you do a lot of scrapbooking.
If I ever have a boy, he's getting a circumcision. I don't seem anything barbaric about it. Where do you draw the line into assimilation? Why don't the Christians and the non-religious assimilate some of the religious/cultural practices of Judaism and or Islam such as circumcision? Why does it always have to be the other way around? I'm all for assimilation.But not when it comes to my religious practices though. I may not choose to practice all of them but no one should be lecturing me about the "barbaric" practices. Posted by: Saleema | March 22, 2009 at 02:18 PM
This is a misuse of the word "assimilation". And you give no reason, Saleema, why we shouldn't criticise the practice as "barbaric', though you make the false claim that we are lecturing you specifically about this.
Not all Jewish people believe in circumcision. Brit Shalom is an alternative naming ceremony to celebrate the birth of baby boys to Jewish families. These sites are all run by Jewish people opposed to circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
link to jewsagainstcircumcision.org
link to circumcision.org
My grandfather was circumcized. My father was circumcized. So was I. And know what? For a time I felt almost guilty about my decision that if I ever had a boy I wouldn't have him circumcized.
But when the time of truth arrived, I said "Hell, no!," and my son's member was left intact. Now it's one of the things I'm most proud of.
I just have to say one thing: Bald is beautiful!
And male circumcision is not barbaric. It does not stop men from having orgasms. Female genital mutilation does stop one from enjoying sex. It hurts during childbirth too. That's barbaric.
Oh well, my future son can hate me when he grows up but for now I say it again: Bald is beautiful!
Bald is beautiful? Is that supposed to be funny, Saleema?
"And male circumcision is not barbaric. It does not stop men from having orgasms. Female genital mutilation does stop one from enjoying sex. It hurts during childbirth too. That's barbaric.
Women that have had FGM (female circumcision) say the sex is great and do orgasim. Men that are cut don't know what they are missing but they certainly would enjoy the sensation from being natural.
The male has the most sensitive part of his genitals removed. Some FGM does not do that. The male is subject to possible premature ejaculation problems (yes cut scar causes PE)and ED at a youger age. The parts lost have over 10,000 fine touch nerve endings — more than the clitoris are lost. The parts are connected to the glans so therre is a ripping apart of tissue and a cutting off of the fine touch nerves. What a way to be welcomed into the human community.
In Kafka's time, there were more Jews numerically than there are now. As a percentage of world population, there are far fewer Jews than before the European destruction. Are you the reason for the Vanishing American Jew? I don't know, but your wife and others think it "barbaric" because they have no real connection to the Jewish world and you don't have enough of an education in Jewish civilization to inform her of anything other than the basics. Is it as "barbaric" as a nose job, which is a much more invasive surgery. As barbaric as a breast enhancement? A face lift? A labial piercing? A tramp-stamp tattoo? All of these, except perhaps the penultimate one (but navel piercing is still a big one), are commonplace in American and European society.
How about the billion or so Muslims who undergo circumcision? Are they barbaric for this? Or is that just peachy because they are a "world culture"? How about the Shiite tradition of male circumcision at the age of 13? More barbaric than at 8 days?
Annon wrote: "Wonder what proportion of AMA members are Jewish?"
It's not the AMA that constructed the policy on circumcision, it is the American Acadamy of Pediatrics. They conviened a Taskforce on circumcision in the late 1960's to formulate a policy statement and issued the first in 1973. Since the early 1980's, the membership of The Taskforce has been between 60% and 88% Jewish.
Kylebisme wrote: "Not circumcising isn't a tenant of Christianity" That is not true. Aside from the scriptures in The New Testament, there are papal bulls against circumcision. Circumcision was the dividing line between early Christians and Jews.
Saleema wrote" "Female genital mutilation does stop one from enjoying sex." You might want to read this: link to fgmnetwork.org
If female circumcision prevented enjoyment of sex, the women would become highly resistant to engaging in sex and the practice would quickly end. There seems to be no problem with sex among circumcised women as the birth rate is fairly high among these populations.
@ Mooser
"I'm still not understanding one facet of this discussion. The removed foreskin is useful for rhino-plasty?"
No, for cosmetic facial creams.
"I'm all for assimilation.But not when it comes to my religious practices though. I may not choose to practice all of them but no one should be lecturing me about the "barbaric" practices.
Posted by: Saleema"
No problem. Your little baby boy won't feel a thing, and never will miss what he had for such a short time.
In Africa some tribes cut off the clitoral hood, as some commenter mentioned, in others, much more cutting is done on the vagina itself–the tribes like it that way, it fits into their belief system. However,
as a state funded operation in the USA, or as paid for by higher charges for those with private insurance–spread the cost–such faith and customs violate the First Amendment and there are better ways to spend the money of taxpayer citizens.
@ Saleema
"And male circumcision is not barbaric. It does not stop men from having orgasms. Female genital mutilation does stop one from enjoying sex"
The male foreskin is heavily loaded with erotic cells and nerve-endings and also greatly enhances natural lubrication. People with lobotomies also continue to function, somewhat.
Harry Fenton, we understand you don't miss those 10,000 sexual nerve endings any more than all those Muslims you mention. Ignorance is bliss. Enjoy!
Citizen – Don't get snipped. But from your hostile and racist posts it seems like you're not getting enough bliss. No one is forcing you or any Jewish or Muslim parent to circumcise. But don't pretend to be Muslim or Jewish if you don't participate in the practice.
And Ron, you are right, "people with lobotomies . . . continue to function, somewhat". They continue to post anti-Semitic drivel on this website.
People with circumcisions, however, account for a huge segment of the Nobel Prize winning population.
Maimonides, Moses
The Guide of the Perplexed
Translated by Shlomo Pines
The University of Chicago Press, 1963
(Many scholars consider this to be
the most authoritative translation to date.)
Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.
p. 609.
So Harry, what is the point? These people have lost a great source of sexual sensation so now they have the time and the freed up brain cells to work on Nobel Prize winning as opposed to being focused on SEX?
The parts of the foreskin give such great pleasure. Please feel free to amputate those parts of your own body, but don't take them away from someone else. Please especially don't take them away and claim you are doing them some favor.
Thanks Cindy! I'm very fond of Maimonides' analysis of circumcision. I was thinking about posting it but didn't get around to it. I'm glad you did.
"People with circumcisions, however, account for a huge segment of the Nobel Prize winning population."
And they account for an equal huge segment of gross criminal conduct, check out the macher killers of goys/Christians in the
former fledgling and regular USSR (until Stalin got rid of them), and the early right-wing Zionists in Israel.
Check again, before Putin kicked them out to Israel. Check out the neocons too. We should be thankful?
Where's my Nobel Prize?!? (or at least a Purple Heart). I tend to agree with the side that says it's genital mutilation and should be discouraged, if not banned outright (for children). It's a choice that should be left to the adult male who chooses to have one for himself.
Contact details for celebrants of Brit Shalom are at http://shalom.notlong.com.
The problem is that if infant circumcision accually does cause more harm to the mental state of society than its alleged individual health benifits, this would knock out the entire cornerstone of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic beleif systems. This would mean that the voices in Abraham's head were his own, and not from the Singularity. You must look into the causes of audio and visual hallucinations related to the prepuce to figure out what went wrong.
No one is forcing you or any Jewish or Muslim parent to circumcise. But don't pretend to be Muslim or Jewish if you don't participate in the practice. Posted by: Harry Fenton | March 23, 2009 at 11:44 AM
At last, we have a categorical determination of who has the right to call themselves either 'Muslim' or 'Jew' — from a man who gets his pseudonym from Star Trek!
p.s. Maimonides' explanation is admirably frank: we think sex is dirty, and anti-God, so we want to make it as unpleasurable as we can. Thank you, Mr. Maimonides.