Rabbi Sucks Baby's Penis And Gives Him Herpes

[Father Heathen]

I heard they use something like an Easter egg now, where the top part comes down and catches the skin and just severs it off, unlike the old days of using a knife and slicing away.

Point being?

 

[rosends]

So what's wrong with the title?

"Rabbi Sucks Baby's Penis And Gives Him Herpes"
​

There are only two components here:

1) Rabbi Sucks Baby's Penis
2) (Rabbi) Gives Him Herpes​

That you think that there are only 2 components here shows a real ignorance of how language and communication work. Writing about a lifeguard that he "forceably open-mouth kissed an unconscious woman" is no less accurate by your reckoning. The language of "sucks baby's penis" especially as it motivates your labeling it pedophilia shows that it isn't about the simple words. A perception is created. You can keep your blinders on all you want. As for claim 2, there has been some response to it, but none that I find persuasive.

And, according to many sources some rabbis do indeed suck the penises of baby boys.*

Again, a wording which stacks the deck. Some mohels (who need not be rabbis, by the way, some are doctors) use oral suction to cleanse a wound and/or apply a topical anesthetic. Would you describe a four year old who is nursing as "underage boy licks mother's nipple"? The mohel uses suction at a wound site. This is no more pedophilia than it is vampirism.​

Obviously you need help in reading. I didn't "label it as pedophilia," but *sigh* said "it smacks of justifiable pedophilia."

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of smack of
: to seem to contain or involve (something unpleasant)
​

In other words, it seems to justify pedophilia.

No, only in your mind. This is something which was not in the article unless you read it a certain way, so the label was introduced by you and you chose the exact quote which prompted that label. Saying "seems to" doesn't change that had you not introduced it, it wouldn't have been there.

Now you may not think so, which is irrelevant, but I do. You have your opinion and I have mine. Don't like my opinion? So be it.

At least now you admit that it is your opinion. Well done.

Nope, but does it really mean squat if I can't? No it doesn't.

It just means that you made a claim and a claim about me neither of which is supportable or accurate and it shows the intellectual dishonesty of your post. If that doesn't bother you, so be it.

Not going to bother with your irrelevant "as opposed to an interpretation of a required or mandated thing," but simply address the "good thing" aspect, which comes down to the question: If such mohels don't feel sucking a baby's penis is good why would they do it? I simply surmise they wouldn't, so conclude they must feel it is good.

You aren't going to bother with defining your terms? Do you think that a doctor thinks it is a good thing to cause pain to a patient? And yet, sometimes a doctor has to as it is how he believes he can heal the patient. Necessary and good aren't the same. Sorry you can't understand that.

This topic and this argument are nothing new. The attempt to turn it into something more than a concern about hygiene and the place of a particular tradition in the day and age of updated medical procedures is indicative of a need to reinvigorate an old debate by recontextualizing it with words like pedophilia.

 

[Cooky]

Point being?

There is no point.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least the Rabbi uses some common sense

Saliva has antibacterial stuff in it and heals wounds

Nobody knows that anymore?

That isn't the whole picture.
Ref...
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/does-saliva-have-health-risks-3-ways-germs-can-spread/
The open wound created by circumcision is
what makes the penis sucking act dangerous.
Of course, even without the wound, it's a very
troubling act.

 

[dybmh]

That isn't the whole picture.
Ref...
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/does-saliva-have-health-risks-3-ways-germs-can-spread/
The open wound created by circumcision is
what makes the penis sucking act dangerous.
Of course, even without the wound, it's a very
troubling act.

... and extremely rare.

 

[Revoltingest]

... and extremely rare.

Not so rare that medical types recommend against sharing
toothbrushes. The reason is that micro-trauma allows
another person's contagions to enter one's bloodstream.
Notice that it's a legal requirement for your dentist &
orthodontist to wear rubber gloves.

 

[dybmh]

Not so rare that medical types recommend against sharing
toothbrushes. The reason is that micro-trauma allows
another person's contagions to enter one's bloodstream.
Notice that it's a legal requirement for your dentist &
orthodontist to wear rubber gloves.

No one I know has ever had a Mohel apply suction directly like this. Even the ultra-orthodox Chassidic Jews...

 

[Revoltingest]

No one I know has ever had a Mohel apply suction directly like this. Even the ultra-orthodox Chassidic Jews...

Oh....you meant that was rare.
It should be extinct.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Classic example of new information (in this case, germ-theory of disease) being flagrantly ignored in favor of ridiculous, unnecessary old-world "traditions" that, in this case, PUT BABIES AT RISK.

Can anyone deny that this practice is COMPLETELY unnecessary? Anyone? Are there better methods known to get this "job" done here? Yep. Yes there are. Can these foolish, backward religious morons claim that they just don't know of these better methods, and that they therefore feel they have to just keep on using their mouth to clean other people's wounds? Can they? What the hell do these people think is going to happen if they don't do this "the old way?" Would any of them claim that God wants these babies to be at risk? Would any of them have the balls to claim that it was "God's will" that those babies contracted Herpes or DIED? Let's not kid ourselves here... this is asinine. Anyone who defends something like this even slightly, or tries to ameliorate the situation with little quips like "Oh, but that's not exactly what they do", or "You're mischaracterizing the situation a little" or "Sucking the baby's penis isn't the goal of the procedure" is out of their minds in my opinion. Get right - realize this is just dumb. Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

 

[BilliardsBall]

.

"There’s a disturbing practice in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish culture known as metzitzah b’peh in which a rabbi (mohel) sucks the blood from a baby boy who has just been circumcised.

I repeat: The rabbi sucks the baby boy’s penis post-circumcision… because religion.

If that wasn’t disgusting enough, some of the mohels have had herpes simplex, passing the virus on to the children. Since 2006, 19 infants have contracted herpes in this manner. At least two have died.

The NYC Department of Health now says there’s a brand new case in an alert to doctors and scientists in the area.

A child diagnosed with neonatal herpes following ritual Jewish circumcision was reported to the Health Department in early September 2019. This is the first case of neonatal herpes related to DOS during ritual Jewish circumcision reported to the Health Department since March 2017. The infant was circumcised on the eighth day of life by a mohel who performed DOS. Ten days later, the infant developed a rash on his genitals, groin, and buttocks…
…
In this case, the child’s caretakers were not aware of the signs and symptoms of neonatal herpes nor the risk of herpes transmission associated with DOS, resulting in a delay in the child presenting for care.
​

All of this is an example of religious freedom gone too far. When that phrase becomes an excuse for harming other people — whether it’s refusing to provide comprehensive health insurance to employees, or not taking kids to a doctor because you think prayer will heal them, or denying gay couples a marriage license, or refusing to bake lesbians a cake, or passing along herpes to a newborn baby — it must be stopped. Religious freedom can’t be an excuse to get away with something that would never be tolerated outside of the religious bubble."
source​

Boy! just the thought of it all gives me the willies. Harmful or not, to me it smacks of justifiable pedophilia.

How about you people. What do you think?

.

.

Can we suppress atheists who take their freedoms too far, or just the religious? And should we throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights also? How about that pesky 14th amendment, you know, the one abortion rights hides behind?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I used to be pro-circumcision simply because I was circumcised, but once we had a son on the way, my wife and I gave it a lot of thought and decided against it. My in-laws weren't too thrilled about our decision, but we weren't going to have his penis sliced and diced just because of completely arbitrary and irrational social/cultural expectations.

Wonderful. I just think male bodies deserve the same protection as female bodies (or intersex bodies, for that matter). If they want it done when they're mature enough to decide for themselves, that's their business, but children should be left alone.

 

[dfnj]

.

I repeat: The rabbi sucks the baby boy’s penis post-circumcision… because religion.
How about you people. What do you think?​

.

This is enough to make me want to be an atheist!

 

[dfnj]

Can we suppress atheists who take their freedoms too far, or just the religious? And should we throw out the rest of the Bill of Rights also? How about that pesky 14th amendment, you know, the one abortion rights hides behind?

So you are supporting religious pedophilia?

I think think you can justify this superstitious nonsense under religious freedom. It's just sick on every level.

 

[stvdv]

That isn't the whole picture.
Ref...
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/does-saliva-have-health-risks-3-ways-germs-can-spread/
The open wound created by circumcision is
what makes the penis sucking act dangerous.
Of course, even without the wound, it's a very
troubling act.

Wow, that took awhile before the first reply came

But still, you are groping now;

1: If it was really dangerous then you think, that only 2 out of thousands (maybe millions) of "penis sucked babies" would have died?
2: Do you have the stats about the number of babies who died when they would NOT have had this special treatment, (by God revealed).

(remember this tradition is very old, there were no super speciality hospitals at that time)

Saliva contains cell-derived tissue factor, and many compounds that are antibacterial or promote healing. ... Nitrates that are naturally found in saliva break down into nitric oxide on contact with skin, which will inhibit bacterial growth.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wow, that took awhile before the first reply came

But still, you are groping now;

But unlike others, I grope with permission first.

1: If it was really dangerous then you think, that only 2 out of thousands (maybe millions) of "penis sucked babies" would have died?
2: Do you have the stats about the number of babies who died when they would NOT have had this special treatment, (by God revealed).

I provided a cromulent article.

(remember this tradition is very old, there were no super speciality hospitals at that time)

Some old traditions need to die, eg, genital mutilation,
slavery, honor killings, sucking on infant penis wounds.

 

[stvdv]

But unlike others, I grope with permission first.

Very true. But what took you so long?

Sometimes you reply to me, before I even finished posting it
(some of you guys really surprise me, how fast you can reply; but then again your stats/experiences are much higher than mine)

I provided a cromulent article.

Very true. And what a beautiful word (very accurate here). First time I heard it. Thanks for teaching me a nice new word
I do have plenty of arguments that "if they cut penis" this is probably the best remedy to undo harm (in those old days)
But as you said below, certain religious habits are for certain times, and better not use them nowadays maybe (priests having sex with boys etc)

Some old traditions need to die, eg, genital mutilation,
slavery, honor killings, sucking on infant penis wounds.

Now you have a very valid point. Hurting others, especially in name of "Loving God" should not be done.
At age 10 I told my parents those killing/hurting parts in the Bible were crap and probably age 12 I knew it must have been meant figuratively

But I do have 1 question left for you

Your Religion states: "Revoltingest"
I think you understand as no one else, why "God" in the Religion "Revoltingest" would grant humans "baby penis sucking techniques"

Edit:
My mistake: "Revoltingest" is name only, not religion. Still, see you call yourself Revoltingest, I could not not imagine "baby penis sucking techniques" to be on the top of your "to do list"

 

[Revoltingest]

V
But I do have 1 question left for you

Your Religion states: "Revoltingest"
I think you understand as no one else, why "God" in the Religion "Revoltingest" would grant humans "baby penis sucking techniques"

Actually, my stated religion is currently Bokononist.
Skiving & sucking tiny penises is not a tradition.
I go so far as to call it evil.

 

[nPeace]

.

"There’s a disturbing practice in the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish culture known as metzitzah b’peh in which a rabbi (mohel) sucks the blood from a baby boy who has just been circumcised.

I repeat: The rabbi sucks the baby boy’s penis post-circumcision… because religion.

If that wasn’t disgusting enough, some of the mohels have had herpes simplex, passing the virus on to the children. Since 2006, 19 infants have contracted herpes in this manner. At least two have died.

The NYC Department of Health now says there’s a brand new case in an alert to doctors and scientists in the area.

A child diagnosed with neonatal herpes following ritual Jewish circumcision was reported to the Health Department in early September 2019. This is the first case of neonatal herpes related to DOS during ritual Jewish circumcision reported to the Health Department since March 2017. The infant was circumcised on the eighth day of life by a mohel who performed DOS. Ten days later, the infant developed a rash on his genitals, groin, and buttocks…
…
In this case, the child’s caretakers were not aware of the signs and symptoms of neonatal herpes nor the risk of herpes transmission associated with DOS, resulting in a delay in the child presenting for care.
​

All of this is an example of religious freedom gone too far. When that phrase becomes an excuse for harming other people — whether it’s refusing to provide comprehensive health insurance to employees, or not taking kids to a doctor because you think prayer will heal them, or denying gay couples a marriage license, or refusing to bake lesbians a cake, or passing along herpes to a newborn baby — it must be stopped. Religious freedom can’t be an excuse to get away with something that would never be tolerated outside of the religious bubble."
source​

Boy! just the thought of it all gives me the willies. Harmful or not, to me it smacks of justifiable pedophilia.

How about you people. What do you think?

.

.

His god told him he must do it. Just like those who mutilate little girl's breast and genitals. Just like those who produce porn, and destroy, or further corrupt minds...

Seems like the only way to solve these problems is to get rid of these gods. Saying, 'Bad god. Bad god." won't get us very far, so I don't know what suggestions you have.
I have one, but I don't know you will like it though, because it's found in the Bible, and comes from... the true God.

 

[stvdv]

Actually, my stated religion is currently Bokononist.
Skiving & sucking tiny penises is not a tradition.
I go so far as to call it evil.

Right. I was on my smartphone, and unfortunately don't see these words about Religion (Bokononism)
I got them mixed up. Then my reply makes no sense at all.

I have been wondering why you have this word "Revoltingest"? ...
I mean Revolting gives a kind of yak feeling; so you might understand my thought flow before

So, I always thought "Bokononist" was another crazy word invention on RF. Now I googled it.
I like it much better than the word "Revoltingest", esp. thinking of "baby dick sucking priest, because God allegedly told them so"

Especially
"The primary tenet of Bokononism is to "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy"

Could have been Sai Baba telling me this
He actually did say "Be Happy, Others will be Happy, All will be Happy, God will be happy. That is the way to God"
And He also said
"God (as people describe God) does not exist, it is just a figment of your own imagination"

After all, our beliefs don´t differ so much maybe

Bokononism is based on the concept of foma, which are defined as harmless untruths. A foundation of Bokononism is that the religion, including its texts, is formed entirely of lies; however, one who believes and adheres to these lies will have peace of mind, and perhaps live a good life. The religion's bible, The Books of Bokonon, begins: "Don't be a fool! Close this book at once! It is nothing but foma! All of the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies." The primary tenet of Bokononism is to "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy."

 

[Revoltingest]

Right. I was on my smartphone, and unfortunately don't see these words about Religion (Bokonism)
I got them mixed up. Then my reply makes no sense at all.

I have been wondering why you have this word "Revoltingest"? ...
I mean Revolting gives a kind of yak feeling; so you might understand my thought flow before

So, I always thought "Bokononist" was another crazy word invention on RF. Now I googled it.
I like it much better than the word "Revoltingest", esp. thinking of "baby dick sucking priest, because God allegedly told them so"

Especially
"The primary tenet of Bokononism is to "Live by the foma that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy"

Could have been Sai Baba telling me this
He actually did say "Be Happy, Others will be Happy, All will be Happy, God will be happy. That is the way to God"
And He also said
"God (as people describe God) does not exist, it is just a figment of your own imagination"

After all, our beliefs don´t differ so much maybe

There is a decade old history behind my moniker.
I've given it in one of those threads about how they were chosen.
The short story....
Many other names lead to Revolting, which became
Revoltinger, which finally became Revoltingest.