Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 03/01/2026 20:33

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 20:32

Yes...😢 As you can see, there's debate about this and this has increased in modern times. But that's traditionally how it was seen...

Apparently in modern ceremonies now forms of anaesthetic are often used. I hope this becomes more common...

So you hope this barbaric abuse continues rather than ceases?

callmej · 03/01/2026 20:35

But I'm not sure anyone is calling for a total ban on circumcision, just a ban on enforced circumcision and mutilating children's genitals. If someone, male or female, wants to get it done that is entirely up to them as far as I'm concerned. Once they are old enough to consent. Nobody has any right to force their religion on someone else, let alone start chopping bits off them to make covenants to a god they may or may not grow to believe in. You wouldn't be allowed to tattoo 'I love Jesus' on your baby, even though that could be reversed and wouldn't even have any physical impact on them. If an adult wants to prove their loyalty to their god by chopping up their genitals, fair enough. Judaism, Islam etc can absolutely keep it as a main tenet, and it would surely mean a great deal more if a grown adult was doing it willingly.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 20:35

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 03/01/2026 20:33

So you hope this barbaric abuse continues rather than ceases?

No, I wish it would stop! But it is very unlikely that will happen right now, sadly.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 20:38

Here's more info on the ceremony, again some is very distressing...

the neonatal stage, the inner preputial epithelium is still linked with the surface of the glans.[58] The mitzvah is executed only when this epithelium is either removed, or permanently peeled back to uncover the glans.[59] On medical circumcisions performed by surgeons, the epithelium is removed along with the foreskin,[60] to prevent post operative penile adhesion and its complications.[61] However, on ritual circumcisions performed by a mohel, the epithelium is most commonly peeled off only after the foreskin has been amputated. This procedure is called priah (Hebrew: פריעה), which means 'uncovering'. The main goal of "priah" (also known as "bris periah"), is to remove as much of the inner layer of the foreskin as possible and prevent the movement of the shaft skin, what creates the look and function of what is known as a "low and tight" circumcision.[62]
According to Rabbinic interpretation of traditional Jewish sources,[63] the 'priah' has been performed as part of the Jewish circumcision since the Israelites first inhabited the Land of Israel.[64]
The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that many Hellenistic Jews attempted to restore their foreskins, and that similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued. The writers of the dictionary hypothesize that the more severe method practiced today was probably begun in order to prevent the possibility of restoring the foreskin after circumcision, and therefore the rabbis added the requirement of cutting the foreskin in periah.[65]
According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, the Torah only commands milah.[66] David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of priah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins: "Once established, priah was deemed essential to circumcision; if the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient to comply with God's covenant", and "Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations."[2]

Metzitzah
edit
note: alternate spellings Metzizah[67] or Metsitsah[68] are also used to refer to this.
In the Metzitzah (Hebrew: מְצִיצָה), the guard is slid over the foreskin as close to the glans as possible to allow for maximum removal of the former without any injury to the latter. A scalpel is used to detach the foreskin. A tube is used for metzitzah in addition to milah (the initial cut amputating the akroposthion) and p'riah and subsequent circumcision, mentioned above, the Talmud (Mishnah Shabbat 19:2) mentions a third step, metzitzah, translated as suction, as one of the steps involved in the circumcision rite. The Talmud writes that a "Mohel (Circumciser) who does not suck creates a danger, and should be dismissed from practice".[69][70] Rashi on that Talmudic passage explains that this step is in order to draw some blood from deep inside the wound to prevent danger to the baby.[71] Kabbalists, Rabbi Shalom Sharabi and Rabbi Isaac Luria, have written that he that performs metzitzah ought to cognizantly endeavor to draw away the 'evil inclination' that lay within the blood that is extracted.

There are other modern antiseptic and antibiotic techniques—all used as part of the brit milah today—which many say accomplish the intended purpose of metzitzah; however, since metzitzah is one of the four steps to fulfill the mitzvah,[72] it continues to be practiced by Orthodox Jews.[73] while traditional Karaites and Beta Israel never practiced it due to never incorporating the Talmud.[74][75][67]

Hatafat dam brit
edit
A brit milah is more than circumcision; it is a sacred ritual in Judaism, as distinguished from its non-ritual requirement in Islam. One ramification is that the brit is not considered complete unless a drop of blood is actually drawn. The standard medical methods of circumcision through constriction do not meet the requirements of the halakhah for brit milah, because they are done with hemostasis, i.e., they stop the flow of blood. Moreover, circumcision alone, in the absence of the brit milah ceremony, does not fulfill the requirements of the mitzvah. Therefore, in cases involving a Jew who was circumcised outside of a brit milah, an already-circumcised convert, or an aposthetic (born without a foreskin) individual, the mohel draws a symbolic drop of blood (Hebrew: הטפת דם, hatafat-dam) from the penis at the point where the foreskin would have been or was attached.[124]

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 20:46

Here's some info on the Islamic practice (Wiki again)

The Quran itself does not mention circumcision explicitly in any verse.[1][4][2][7] In the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, both male and female circumcision were carried out by Pagan Arabian tribes,[1][2][7] and male circumcision was performed by the Jewish tribes of Arabia for religious reasons.[2][10][page needed] This has also been attested by the classical Muslim scholar al-Jāḥiẓ,[7][11] as well as by the Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus.[2][7][12]

According to some ḥadīth reports, Muhammad was born without a foreskin,[1][2][7] while others maintain that his grandfather, ʿAbd al-Muṭṭalib, circumcised him when he was seven days old.[6][13] Some ḥadīth report that Heraclius, Emperor of the Byzantine Empire, had referred to Muhammad as "the king of the circumcised".[1]

Some ḥadīth reports mention circumcision in a list of practices known as fitra[1] (acts considered to be of a refined person). Abū Hurayra, one of the companions of Muhammad, was quoted saying: "five things are fitra: circumcision, shaving pubic hair with a razor, trimming the mustache, paring one's nails and plucking the hair from one's armpits" (reported in the ḥadīth of Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim).[1] However, there are other ḥadīth which do not name circumcision as part of the characteristics of fitra.[2] Hence, the different hadiths do not agree on whether circumcision is part of fitra or not.[2]

Muhammad's wife Aisha supposedly quoted Muhammad as saying that "if the two circumcised parts have been in touch with one another, ghusl [ritual purification] is necessary."[1][7][14][15] According to some other ḥadīth reports, Muhammad supposedly circumcised his grandsons, Ḥasan ibn ʿAlī and Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, on the seventh day after their birth.[16] Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim also quote Muhammad saying that Abraham performed his own circumcision at the age of eighty.[2] It is also reported by Abū Dāwūd and Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal that Muhammad stated that circumcision was a "law for men and a preservation of honor for women".[1]

According to historians of religion and scholars of religious studies, the Islamic tradition of circumcision was derived from the pagan practices and rituals of pre-Islamic Arabia.[7] Circumcision was introduced to many lands of the Middle East and North Africa for the first time through Islam itself following the early Muslim conquests under the Rāshidūn Caliphate, whose commanders were the companions and contemporaries of Muhammad. For example, the Persians practiced neither male nor female circumcision before the advent of Islam.[7] Post-Islamic converts such as Afshin were found guilty in trials of remaining uncircumcised.[7][17]

Islamic scholars have diverse opinions on the obligatory nature of male circumcision, with some considering it mandatory (wājib), while others view it as only being highly recommended (sunnah).[18] Shīʿīte traditions, however, such as those practised in Iran, have the most stringent requirements for male circumcision, since it is seen as a ritual of purification akin to Christian baptism rather than an initiation to adulthood.[19]

Sunnī Islam
edit
In the Sunnī branch of Islam, the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence have different opinions and attitudes towards circumcision:[1] some state that it is recommendable, others that it is permissible but not binding, while others regard it as a legal obligation.[2] Amongst Muslim legal scholars (Ulama), there are differing opinions about the compulsory or non-obligatory status of circumcision in accordance with Islamic law (sharīʿa).[4][2] The Shāfiʿī school of Ḥanafī jurists also consider circumcision to be recommendable exclusively for Muslim males on the seventh day after birth.[2] Some Salafis have argued that circumcision is required in Islam to provide ritual cleanliness based on the covenant with Abraham, while the purpose of female circumcision for Muslim women is to "regulate" and reduce their sexual desires.[20]

Shīa Islam
edit
Within the Shīʿīte branch of Islam, some but not all Shīʿīte denominations regard the practice as obligatory. They rely on sayings that come from classical Shīʿīte Muslim scholars.[21] In one narration Muhammad was asked if an uncircumcised man could go to pilgrimage. He answered "not as long as he is not circumcised." They quote ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib as saying: "If a man becomes Muslim, he must submit to circumcision even if he is 80 years old."[22] Another narration from Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, the 6th Shīʿīte Imam, says: "Circumcise your sons when they are seven days old as it is cleaner (athar) and the flesh grows faster and because the earth hates the urine of the uncircumcised."[23] It is also believed that the urine of the uncircumcised is impure, while if one prays with unclean genitals their prayer may not be considered as acceptable, even of those who have been circumcised, meaning that it may have to be repeated again at a time when the believer has purified themselves and removed the impurity. Another hadith attributed to Muhammad states: "the earth cries out to God in anguish because of the urine of the uncircumcised", and that "the earth becomes defiled from the urine of the uncircumcised for forty days."[24]

Alevism
edit
While most Alevis living in Turkey have been circumcised due to social pressure, the new generation of modern Alevis reject the practice viewing it as unnecessary and foreign to them.[25][26]

Procedure
edit

Traditional procession after the Islamic circumcision ceremony of a child in the Dutch East Indies, 1915–1918
Circumcisions are usually carried out in health facilities or hospitals, and performed by trained medical practitioners.[3] The circumciser can be either male or female,[3] and is not required to be a Muslim but must be medically trained.[6] There is no fixed age for circumcision in Islam,[2][3][4][7] and the age when boys get circumcised, and the procedures used, tends to change across countries, cultures, families, and time.[3] In some Muslim-majority countries, circumcision is performed on Muslim boys after they have learned to recite the whole Quran from start to finish.[6]

Time of circumcision
edit
Islamic scriptures do not fix a particular time for circumcision.[2][3][4][7] Therefore, there is a wide variation in practice among Muslim communities around the world, with children often being circumcised in late childhood or early adolescence,[3] depending on family, region, and country.[3] The preferred age is usually seven, although some Muslims are circumcised as early as on the seventh day after birth and as late as at the commencement of puberty.[2][4][6]

In the Western Balkans, circumcision of Muslim boys is performed mostly from age three to seven.[27]

Imo, this should be easier to regulate as the requirement the person must be a baby or child is not so strict. There's no requirement it has to be done in a particular ceremonial way which also makes it easier, at least in theory.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:06

callmej · 03/01/2026 20:35

But I'm not sure anyone is calling for a total ban on circumcision, just a ban on enforced circumcision and mutilating children's genitals. If someone, male or female, wants to get it done that is entirely up to them as far as I'm concerned. Once they are old enough to consent. Nobody has any right to force their religion on someone else, let alone start chopping bits off them to make covenants to a god they may or may not grow to believe in. You wouldn't be allowed to tattoo 'I love Jesus' on your baby, even though that could be reversed and wouldn't even have any physical impact on them. If an adult wants to prove their loyalty to their god by chopping up their genitals, fair enough. Judaism, Islam etc can absolutely keep it as a main tenet, and it would surely mean a great deal more if a grown adult was doing it willingly.

I agree that a choice to do so as an adult would be far more meaningful, as well as ethical. As I said, this might work for Islam as there is no strict mandate to circumcise as a baby or child.

Unluckily, the Jewish scriptures explicitly say it must be done as an 8-day-old baby. This will be harder to get around, at least for branches who adhere very strictly to the text.

'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. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

— Genesis 17:10–14[25]
Leviticus 12:3 says: "And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:12

I have Muslim relatives. In their community it is done with a group of children so the ages vary between 3 and 8 (I think that's roughly the age range). The boys are sort of bribed to agree, big party and presents and having it done with your mates so a sort of bonding thing I suppose. I'm not sure what happens if a boy doesn't agree. Must be horrible to be at the back of the queue and see it happening to the other boys.

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:16

If a man converts is he circumcised or as he's missed the deadline is he excused?

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:19

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 20:29

I'm not Jewish but I am planning to undergo conversion to Masorti Judaism. I will definitely criticise issues in the Jewish community strongly, no group should be above criticism. I don't agree with infant circumcision.

But it is extremely wrong imo to imply that the practice began out of a desire to sexually abuse baby boys,,and that all mohels who historically did that were doing it out of a desire to sexually abuse. Evidence suggests it began as a way to use saliva to try to prevent infection. Obviously this is totally outdated and wrong for many reasons but implying it began as a sexually abusive custom & that's generally been the motive is very wrong.

I don't care why it was started, an adult man taking a baby's penis in his mouth is sexual abuse. It isn't about intent it is about what is being done to the baby.

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 03/01/2026 21:24

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:19

I don't care why it was started, an adult man taking a baby's penis in his mouth is sexual abuse. It isn't about intent it is about what is being done to the baby.

This and stop with the batshit ‘how very dare you! Of course an adult male doing this to a baby’s genitalia is doing it because they are so kind and caring…’ how depraved!!

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:29

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 03/01/2026 21:24

This and stop with the batshit ‘how very dare you! Of course an adult male doing this to a baby’s genitalia is doing it because they are so kind and caring…’ how depraved!!

Well, the fact is this was unfortunately the traditional way it was done since the start of the religion. It was changed for most in the 20th century, although as I said the ultra-Orthodox Haredim still do it ☹️

So by your logic, it was written in the Talmud out of an intention to sexually abuse, and the countless mohels who did it since then wanted to sexually abuse baby boys. That isn't the kind of statement I wish to make, nor do I think it's backed up by evidence.

This doesn't mean I support this terrible custom at all (or the practice of infant circumcision itself) but I think this kind of claim is too much. That's not 'batshit'.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:30

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:19

I don't care why it was started, an adult man taking a baby's penis in his mouth is sexual abuse. It isn't about intent it is about what is being done to the baby.

Yes, the procedure itself is terrible whatever the motive is!

IcedPurple · 03/01/2026 21:33

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 19:37

Biblically, the infant's father (avi haben) is commanded to perform the circumcision himself.[citation needed] However, as most fathers are not comfortable or do not have the training, they designate a mohel or mohelet. Mohalim are specially trained in circumcision and the rituals surrounding the procedure. Many mohalim are doctors or rabbis (some are both) or cantors, and today are required to receive appropriate training, both religious and medical.

Traditionally, mohalim use a scalpel to circumcise the newborn. Today, doctors and some non-Orthodox mohalim use a perforating clamp before they cut the skin. The clamp makes it easier to be precise and shortens recovery time. Orthodox mohalim have rejected perforating clamps, arguing that by crushing and killing the skin it causes a great amount of unnecessary pain to the newborn, cutting off the blood flow completely, which according to Jewish law is dangerous to the child and strictly forbidden, and also renders the orlah (foreskin) as cut prior to the proper ritual cut.[8][9][10]

Mohel book from Hegenheim (F), dated between 1805 and 1849. Today in the Jewish Museum of Switzerland's collection.
Under Jewish law, mohalim must draw blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohalim do it by hand with a suction device,[11][12][13][14] but some follow the traditional practice of doing it by mouth. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a warning in 2012 about the health implications of the latter practice, citing eleven cases of neonatal herpes simplex virus (HSV) and two recorded fatalities.[15] A 2013 review of cases of neonatal HSV infections in Israel identified ritual circumcision as the source of HSV-1 transmission in 31.8% of the cases.[16]

So in typical cases a mohel will have appropriate medical training, or may actually be a doctor.

It IS rare for things to be done by a backstreet circumciser as happened with the poor baby a few days ago 😢.

But medical issues remain...the rejection of the perforating clamp by Orthodox mohels sounds questionable.

It IS rare for things to be done by a backstreet circumciser as happened with the poor baby a few days ago

Rare, but not unheard of.

And you're still subjecting an innocent baby to bodily mutilation which he cannot consent to.

Can you imagine any other context where it would be considered acceptable to cut off part of a healthy baby's anatomy? And the person doing so might or might not have any formal medical training?

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:34

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:12

I have Muslim relatives. In their community it is done with a group of children so the ages vary between 3 and 8 (I think that's roughly the age range). The boys are sort of bribed to agree, big party and presents and having it done with your mates so a sort of bonding thing I suppose. I'm not sure what happens if a boy doesn't agree. Must be horrible to be at the back of the queue and see it happening to the other boys.

Yes... 😬Presumably he's strong armed into it...

Not sure if maybe that's even worse- I mean a 7yo has more awareness and will remember. Is there any pain relief??

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:36

IcedPurple · 03/01/2026 21:33

It IS rare for things to be done by a backstreet circumciser as happened with the poor baby a few days ago

Rare, but not unheard of.

And you're still subjecting an innocent baby to bodily mutilation which he cannot consent to.

Can you imagine any other context where it would be considered acceptable to cut off part of a healthy baby's anatomy? And the person doing so might or might not have any formal medical training?

I agree it's terrible! Atm we MUST push for any circumcision to be done with formal medical training, and the Haredi must stop the sucking ritual..

I agree infant circumcision should not happen, I just don't think a ban will be feasible rn. But maybe that's too pessimistic...

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:36

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:25

Yes, traditionally they are- if they've already been circumcised, apparently a symbolic drop of blood is taken. The 8 day thing isn't a precise deadline as it may be delayed if it's thought to put the baby in danger due to health issues, but it is seen as the ideal traditionally.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&rct=j&url=www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-covenant-of-circumcision/%23:~:text%3DMale%2520converts%2520to%2520Judaism%2520are,By%2520Anita%2520Diamant&ved=2ahUKEwinyO3rpvCRAxXbVUEAHfEaEBwQ1fkOegQICRAd&opi=89978449&cd&psig=AOvVaw0HKz5u20FYyAbKVScZ4lDI&ust=1767561768387000

So it could wait. All seems very flexible if it suits the adults. Poor babies.

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:38

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:34

Yes... 😬Presumably he's strong armed into it...

Not sure if maybe that's even worse- I mean a 7yo has more awareness and will remember. Is there any pain relief??

I honestly don't know about pain relief. I think in some Muslim communities they are older, late teens. It seems to vary a lot.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:41

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:36

So it could wait. All seems very flexible if it suits the adults. Poor babies.

Yes...I mean I suppose the rationale used is that if you're born Jewish it has to happen at 8 days, and that converts are choosing to join as adults so have to do it later, but that's not ideal. Anyhow it's clearly wrong to do it to babies, but how to change this?

The Reform movement in the mid 1800s originally protested it, but it seems they fave up as they wouldn't have gained traction otherwise. ☹️

The Reform societies established in Frankfurt and Berlin regarded circumcision as barbaric and wished to abolish it. However, while prominent rabbis such as Abraham Geiger believed the ritual to be barbaric and outdated, they refrained from instituting any change in this matter. In 1843, when a father in Frankfurt refused to circumcise his son, rabbis of all shades in Germany stated it was mandated by Jewish law; even Samuel Holdheim affirmed this.[148] By 1871, Reform rabbinic leadership in Germany reasserted "the supreme importance of circumcision in Judaism", while affirming the traditional viewpoint that non-circumcised Jews are Jews nonetheless. Although the issue of circumcision of converts continues to be debated, the necessity of britot milah for Jewish infant boys has been stressed in every subsequent Reform rabbis manual or guide.[149] While the Reform movement does not require the circumcision of adult male converts, it is increasingly acknowledged and practiced by many Reform communities as an important part of the conversion process.[150]

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:43

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:29

Well, the fact is this was unfortunately the traditional way it was done since the start of the religion. It was changed for most in the 20th century, although as I said the ultra-Orthodox Haredim still do it ☹️

So by your logic, it was written in the Talmud out of an intention to sexually abuse, and the countless mohels who did it since then wanted to sexually abuse baby boys. That isn't the kind of statement I wish to make, nor do I think it's backed up by evidence.

This doesn't mean I support this terrible custom at all (or the practice of infant circumcision itself) but I think this kind of claim is too much. That's not 'batshit'.

Edited

You don't get it, it doesn't matter what the motivation is a child's genitals are being sucked. If you saw a man doing that to a child would you think that might not be sexual abuse because men in his family/community have been doing it for generations? I don't think so.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:44

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:38

I honestly don't know about pain relief. I think in some Muslim communities they are older, late teens. It seems to vary a lot.

I hope so..🙏

Yes...the texts are at least less strict on age and it's not unquestionably a mandate, at least not in all views. I hope theoretically this might mean it's easier to adapt to something late adolescents or adults can choose.. As you say, some are that age already.

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:45

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:41

Yes...I mean I suppose the rationale used is that if you're born Jewish it has to happen at 8 days, and that converts are choosing to join as adults so have to do it later, but that's not ideal. Anyhow it's clearly wrong to do it to babies, but how to change this?

The Reform movement in the mid 1800s originally protested it, but it seems they fave up as they wouldn't have gained traction otherwise. ☹️

The Reform societies established in Frankfurt and Berlin regarded circumcision as barbaric and wished to abolish it. However, while prominent rabbis such as Abraham Geiger believed the ritual to be barbaric and outdated, they refrained from instituting any change in this matter. In 1843, when a father in Frankfurt refused to circumcise his son, rabbis of all shades in Germany stated it was mandated by Jewish law; even Samuel Holdheim affirmed this.[148] By 1871, Reform rabbinic leadership in Germany reasserted "the supreme importance of circumcision in Judaism", while affirming the traditional viewpoint that non-circumcised Jews are Jews nonetheless. Although the issue of circumcision of converts continues to be debated, the necessity of britot milah for Jewish infant boys has been stressed in every subsequent Reform rabbis manual or guide.[149] While the Reform movement does not require the circumcision of adult male converts, it is increasingly acknowledged and practiced by many Reform communities as an important part of the conversion process.[150]

It isn't 1843, many things have changed since then and this should change as well.

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:52

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:43

You don't get it, it doesn't matter what the motivation is a child's genitals are being sucked. If you saw a man doing that to a child would you think that might not be sexual abuse because men in his family/community have been doing it for generations? I don't think so.

There's no reason for a man to suck a child's genitals in normal life. So I would instantly be extremely suspicious. In this case, the texts originally stated a medical reason, and it was established as a ritual thing, so there is an legible motive for it to happen without a man wanting to sexually abuse a child, since it's seen as a medical procedure. Medical practices today involve doctors touching intimate areas that would normally be completely inappropriate to touch- the difference is that there are legitimate reasons for these, and that procedure carries no benefit medically and a lot of risk, as well as simply being very disturbing.

I fully agree that the practice is terrible for multiple reasons.

And obviously there surely are people historically and today among the Haredi who choose that role for evil motives...

Carla786 · 03/01/2026 21:53

TheignT · 03/01/2026 21:45

It isn't 1843, many things have changed since then and this should change as well.

I agree...even the Reconstructionist movement, the most liberal who don't believe in God as such and see Judaism as a way of life not a religion, have only recently begun to question it seriously!

https://evolve.reconstructingjudaism.org/we-should-reconstruct-brit-milah/

PennyLaneisinmyheartandmysoul · 03/01/2026 21:56

@Carla786 are the genitals of the adult males being sucked as part of the ritual?