Penis sucking rabbis cause stir in NY
 

any jews here get sucked off by a rabbi ? would you let your child be mutilated then sexually assaulted ? shame on the wierdo's that continue this sick cultlike behaviour.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/...mcision_ritual

NEW YORK - For thousands of years, rabbis performed a simple procedure to cleanse the wound during a ritual circumcision: Like outdoorsmen treating a snake bite, they sucked blood from the cut and spit it out.

That age-old procedure is now the subject of a clash between religion and science in modern-day New York.

Prompted by a child's death from an infection, the state Health Department is drawing up its first set of safety guidelines governing the practice, which was abandoned by most Jews long ago but has survived among the ultra-Orthodox in a few Hasidic communities.

Doctors have long been concerned that the procedure ? called "metzitzah b'peh" in Hebrew ? could spread disease. But their argument became urgent last year when New York City health officials said the practice had given a baby a fatal infection.

The illness was caused by herpes simplex type 1, the common virus in saliva that causes cold sores. Usually harmless to adults, it can be deadly to newborns.

The death was believed to be the first in the United States to be associated with metzitzah b'peh, but the city said it had linked four other herpes infections since 1988 to two mohels, as those who perform ritual circumcisions are called. Two more cases were reported in 2005, including one in which a child suffered brain damage.

Efforts to curtail the practice have met with resistance from some Hasidic leaders, who say the act is commanded by Jewish law. They threatened protests after the city's health commissioner recommended that infants not undergo the procedure.

The state guidelines will stop short of a ban but will include voluntary precautions that could reduce the chances of infection during a bris, as a ritual circumcision is called, said state Health Department spokesman Robert Kenny.

Rabbis will probably be asked to inform their congregations about the risks, and parents will be advised to seek prompt care from a pediatrician if their baby develops a fever or rash. Steps will also be taken to "ensure that mohels have full knowledge of their health status" before performing the ritual, Kenny said.

He declined to discuss details, saying the guidelines were still being developed. But several religious leaders have suggested that mohels be asked to rinse their mouths with alcohol, undergo regular testing for disease and refrain from doing circumcisions if they have a cold sore.

The guidelines are likely to displease some doctors.

Dr. Jonathan M. Zenilman, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, said that while infections have been rare, the potential for harm is substantial enough to justify a ban.

"This is something that is pretty much counter to all of the infection-control measures that we have," Zenilman said.

Asking mohels (the word is usually pronounced MOY-il) to police themselves could be ineffective, he warned. As many as 70 percent of all adults have herpes simplex 1, and it is difficult to detect periods when the virus is contagious.

It is unclear how the Hasidic community will react to the guidelines.

Rabbi David Niederman of the United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburg, a Brooklyn neighborhood with a large number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, has argued for no government action, saying there is too little medical evidence to justify a public warning about a ritual performed safely thousands of times a year.

"Parents have been alarmed unnecessarily," he said, adding that he has received calls from worried mothers.

"We are not fanatics," Niederman said. "If there is evidence that this practice is not safe, we will not do it. We will be the first ones to act. That is embodied in the same Torah that tells us to make a bris for a child."

Rabbi J. David Bleich, a professor of both Jewish and secular law at Yeshiva University, said the debate over metzitzah b'peh began in Europe during the mid-19th century, when suspicion arose that it was spreading tuberculosis. Ever since, there has been disagreement over whether the practice was required under Jewish law or simply recommended for medical reasons.

A majority of Reform and modern Orthodox mohels decided it was recommended, and now clean a circumcision wound with sterile gauze, a sponge or a glass tube.

But a century and a half of debate has not resolved the argument, and Bleich suggested that actions by health authorities would not settle the issue either.

"Whatever changes are going to come are not going to come because of government pressure," he said. "If you want to change the way rabbis are doing things, the way to do it isn't to threaten them."

circumcision is a barbaric practice that belongs in the stone age:2 cents:

No comment

Geez, I am not sure what to say. I used to feel strongly that a man was always to be circumsized but my opinion has changed as of late. I really feel as if they should wait until the child is a young teen and let HIM decide what he wants done to it. Don't know if that would help or not but...

its a silly practise that needs to be stopped. Theres no scientific/medical reason to have it done, so the only thing left is religion. And if someone seriously believes "GOD" wants men to chop off a flap of skin for some unknown reason that we aren't capable of understanding , is a moron who should have their childrens brains removed along with their foreskin so they cant possibly pass on such an idiotic trait.

There are actually three medical reasons that I know of. Maybe others can add more.

1. A greatly lowered HIV infection rate since it is now believed HIV can enter through the glands of the in-tact foreskin. The rate is 4 times less, I believe.

2. Diminished chance of penile cancer.

3. Some uncircumcised men can't pull the foreskin back and must consider corrective surgery. I know someone who recently had this done, and he was in horrific pain for 3 days straight.

lol @ thread title

1. there are medical reasons
2. it's not about religion, it's about tradition. not everything that was originally taken from religion, is actually being done by a large group of non-religious people for fulfilling god's will...
for example: most non religious jews, get married according to the religious way, with a rabbi and everything...
they don't do it because they really believe god wants them to, because it says so in the Torah. they do it because it's a jewish tradition, and it makes them feel a part of the jewish (non religious) people.

That's Juicyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

#1 there is no medical reason.. dont ask the interweb or your rabbi about medical things, ask a real doctor , someone who went to medical school , they will tell you the truth.

#2 traditionally when we were cavemen we ate raw meat and dragged our women around by their hair.. we have grown up since then.. so should the jewish "traditionalists"

so an adult wraps his mouth around a babys dick and you people argue the pro's and con's of extra skin? interesting:eek7

Someone watches Penn and Teller.

I'm happily circumcised :thumbsup

Its all about risk ..

You mention 3 very valid reasons, but they dont hold weight under scrutiny

FACT "some" uncut men cant pull their foreskin back ( true )
THE REAL FACT is MANY MANY MANY more are horrificaly scarred FROM the circumcision, and end up with NO sexual function

FACT diminished penile cancer
THE REAL FACT while statistically this MAY be correct we dont really know the full scope of what is involved anymore than we did with tonsils

MYTH decreased rate of hiv..
FACT the nu,bers are actually fairly close from what i have seen , and suprising since "cut" men would naturally have more access to medical care as it used to be a routine medical operation along with birth , and probably higher income etc etc

Thats just the icing on the cake.. obviously the context is important..

i bet you werent so happy at the time :) many babies slip into a coma from the intense pain..

I have nothing against people who are cut , or even their parents at the time , because they werent informed , but anyone who does it nowadays has something loose in the noggin..

I think its a strange practice to continue with in this day and age. The rabbi sucking part especially. Its one thing to need to clean the wound, but I highly doubt that God said specifically "you need to suck that penis once you've cut the skin off". Putting ANY child at risk like that for the sake of tradition is absurd.

i concur :2 cents:

muhahaha, total bullshit

1. If you chop off your dick you'll reduce your chances of getting infected by HIV to about 0.0000001% so go ahead......

2. Good point, removing my left lung will reduce the chance of lung cancer by 50%.

3. O'rly? The horrific corrective surgery you're talking about is as dangerous as a haircut....

damn!!! I thought you said 'rabbits' :1orglaugh

Don't know what sort of shit doctor your friend went to, but I've had it done and it didn't hurt at all.
After all, it is a simple cut in the forskin to widen it.

If your friend was in horrific pain for 3 days after that, imagine how the newborns feel getting it completely chopped off, often with out any anesthetic!

time for this thread again? Anyway, I like both in practical use but preffer natural. It is far more common over here anyway.

1 in a million :1orglaugh

does a sucking rabbi count as your first blow job?

you had NO say in it at the time, how do you know you would'nt be happier with your dick all intact ??? You have nothing to compare it to:2 cents:

The sucking of the baby is fucking gross and should stop IMO.

But I would definitely have my boy circumcised because it's cleaner. It's just like a girls with huge pussy lips, shit get's caught in there and stays in their. I believe, as Eric taught me this morning of what they call that, it's smegma. NASTY!!!!! (Google it for pictures)


I would not have sex with a guy who was not circumcised.

I am an atheist, it has nothing to do with religion, a cock is more attractive with out that skin IMO and it's cleaner. Just as a girl with big ole? roast beef. Her pussy collects smegma and I am more than positive that smegma doesn't taste good nor smell good.

I do smell an attitude towards circumcision in this thread and I am curious as to why the hate for it? To each their own, some guys like girls with big ass pussy lips and some guys like no lips.

Also doing the circumcision when the male is a baby is better, he won't remember it. And adult male getting it done is so pain full and miserable. I had a friend who did it and he was so pissed his fucking parents didn't pull their head out of their ass and get it done when he was young.

But this is all just my opinion, I prefer a nice pink cock with a beautiful shaped head to lick around and pop out of my mouth. hehe

Here we go again, the never lasting debate on circumcision...

Did you know that the same Dr. Kellogg also behind Kelloggs cornflakes was behind the movement that started widespread circumcision in the United States? He believed it was a sin for young boys to masturbate. Google it up...

It's all about what you are used to... In this country since a higher percentage of boys are circumcised, that's what "looks better". Go to Europe where it's the complete opposite and see what people prefer... I grew up in Norway and don't recall anyone being circumcised. Looks like we're all doing fine.

I'm so sick of these uncut fucking idiots trying to find every excuse in the book to end circumcision. Look, we're sorry you have an ugly dick but find another subject to harp on.

Glad I wasnt the only one. lol :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I'm not trying to end circumcision, sounds like you're the one who's upset about your genitals...

Here's what Dr Kellogg has to say:

heard about it before


plain sick

lol all day i swore this thread title said penis sucking rabbits lol

For similar reasons that I am against female circumcision.

I have said this many times before on here but the men that I have been with that are uncut have been the cleanest men I have been with. If a man is unclean then it doesn't really matter if they are cut or not.

When they are both at 'attention' you can't even really tell anyway but that extra bit of sensitivity makes being with a responsive partner that bit better for me.

Ever looked at the goo inside your pussy ? same stuff , its there for a reason, go ask a doctor about it.. Its like earwax, it may not be pleasent stuff but it serves a very usefull purpose..
No offense but if you would not have sex with someone over something so trivial its A) your loss , and B) not suprising as they likely wouldn't have sex with you beacause of your superficiality
Well i cant change your opinion , i can just tell you that you haven't seen all cocks.. i like the smooth stump of a woman who has lost a limb, but i certainly wouldnt make it a prerequisite for sex :)

people get a bit peeved over child mutilation..

I hope your kidding.. how many grown men slip into a coma from getting cut ? Babies do it all the time, and thats the LEAST of the complications that could happen
Cant blame you for that . if you close your eyes i bet you could barely tell :)

thatd be great if i could go back in time like that show quantam leap and become the infant at that time. id grab that fucker rabbi by those stupid curls and face fuck him

duke

me to, i got out my credit card and threw my fleshlight away. fuck

I would do it out of tradition and the fact it is the norm. From the girls I've talked to and know, they find un-circumcized penis pretty fucking gross. My son will get laid regularly.

dragging women around by their hair is "traditional" too.

And the "norm" nowaadays is to NOT get it done..

but if you feel like possibly killing your son so his dick will look neat to a bunch of superficial twats , then by all means..

Bullshit. I'm circumcised. My son is. And any future sons will be. And I'm not Jewish, either.