h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just wondering if the word is allowed, what with the new moderation and all, since basically the most important aspects of the naming ceremony for Jewish males is when something very dear to many other men is removed, the end of their penis (ooh, I said it - giggle, giggle), their foreskin. Something to do with marking oneself out as Jewish, but I'm sure someone who was paying more attention can tell you about that. What I want to tell you about is the reason I wasn't paying attention - namely the common theme throughout all Jewish ceremonies: Smoked Salmon.

It is utterly impossible (even for the poorest families) to have a Jewish ceremony, be it a Britmitzvah (male naming ceremony / penis chop), Bar(/t)mizvah, Marriage of Death, without Smoked Salmon. Like a constant, whilst people may change, grow up, get married, have children and die, there will always be Smoked Salmon. Frequently found adorning bagels, crackers can also be used, or even bread (especially the Jewish favourite - challa), and cream cheese often accompanies too. This is brilliant - not only does it sort the boys from the men (who've learnt to eat the stuff), but it tastes nice, and generally draws in the required crowds of random relatives that you hardly ever see, which can't be bad.

Oh, and chopped herring (/gefilter-fish) and taramasalata (I've never been able to spell that) also make frequent appearance, but don't appear to actually be required.

Since your post hasn't been altared at this point, I would say that yes the word 'penis' is okay. Disallowing all words for this part of the anatomy would be censorship, and out of all the ones out there 'penis' gets the most respect for being clinical and relatively nondescriptive.

Just don't start up with a list of synonyms.

I wondered if perhaps this thread might lead to a discussion of other genital 'mutilations' in religious and cultural ceremonies and rites of passage. If it is allowed, such a discussion might at least give me a new word other than 'mutilations' to describe a fairly universal phenomenon. I find the word to be so negatively value-laden as to prohibit any one from saying anything positive about such practices. Surely this cannot be the case. There must be some positive aspect to it. otherwise it would not be so common in so many cultures.
By calling these acts 'mutilations', those who oppose such activity, weigh their argument heavily in their favour. I understand they are primarily concerned that these acts are a violation of individual rights or child abuse, but let us hear from those who do not have such a prejudged agenda.

I saw a documentary once about ceremonial snipping for young boys. I find such 'tribal culture' documentaries dubious, though, because the documentary producer frequently has an axe to grind. And this was no different. The narrator went on and on about how women have their adulthood marked with menstruation while boys don't, so therefore boys felt a 'communal need' to mark their adulthood with blood also. And perhaps this is so. But a single culture doesn't prove it.

The 'mutiliation' as such was quite mild, basically a symbolic cut. I would say that circumcision is much more extensive. And those rare men who have had a piercing done on their penis have probably felt the same amount of pain.

There are, of course, legitimate worries about 'mutilation' also. The real worries come when a) there has been no consent for the procedure, and b) there are longterm physical consequences for the subject.

Female mutilation, for example, frequently involves complete removal of the clitoris. This is enough to prevent most women from achieving sexual satisfaction. And indeed, this is part of the reason it is done. A woman who doesn't enjoy sex is less likely to commit adultery. In a male-dominated society, it may seem to certain leaders like a good trade-off.

There is even some small concern about circumcision on babies these days. Most babies are not anaesthetized during circumcision because it is often considered dangerous to anaesthetize small babies. The risk of overdose and unintended effects is higher. So the baby usually does experience pain during circumcision, even though they will not remember it as an adult.

Recent scientific studies show that babies under 6 months who are exposed to high levels of pain become more sensitive to pain for the rest of their lives. Their brain literally creates an unusually high number of pain receptors. And these appear to remain intact well into adulthood. Some doctors now feel it is better to wait for some period of time before performing a circumcision, rather than doing it shortly after birth.

So perhaps circumcision should go back to what it originally was -- a mark of passage into adulthood for Jewish boys. Really, is circumcision so different from the 'mutilation' of teenage boys people get all upset about?

Wow, "circumcision", "penis", all in the same posts, and no one has yet cut them short.

Wait, wait, poor choice of words.

I mean to say, cut them off.

Um, that came out wrong.

Hacked them up ...

Errr ...

I think if you go much beyond "dangly bits" and delve into slang you may find yourselves facing the dreaded BBC scissors of doom. They would be nipping it in the bud, so to speak.

Two points that everyone appears to have missed. (I may only have noticed since I was brought up in a Jewish family)

1) The reason circumscision was not mentioned in the item on Barmitzah (I know my spelling is terrible) is because it has nothing to do with it. Circumscision happens about a month (I think) after birth in another celebration called a Bris (I'm sure smoked salmon is also involved, as is strudel) Barmitzah happens about 13 years later. Therefore it happens before the infant really knows what is going on. If it happened at 13, do you really think the boy's going to agree? You've obviously not been watching South Park enough.

2) You talk about it as "Mutilation" as if it was an actual removal of a large amount of tissue. I'm not defending the practise which is a bit strange in my opinion but I think you are overreacting. It's only a tiny bit of extra skin. a peircing would do more damage.

3) I know I only said two points but you might wish to know that in Canada "all" males are circumscised whatever their religion because it removes the chance of men carrying the virus that causes Ovarian Cancer in women.

That last bit sounds like an "old wives' tale" (I'm sure that could be moderated if it's considered derogatory towards elderly married ladies). What virus could the foreskin contain that spreads ovarian cancer?

I'm not sure if it is true but I've heard it from about three different sources and why else would they do it if their wasn't some medical reason?
It's actually been research that the majority of the original 613 commandments have some basing in medicine, hygene or health that was not known about at the time. I suppose the best way to sustain a religion is to make sure that your followers are less likely to die of something nasty (other than war and racism which most religions appear to promote.)
I don't rate any religious practises against each other unless they are good for you. I consider all organised religion a big joke.
Religion is a personal belief. When it becomes social it creates conformity and fascism and destroys the entire point in the first place. Usefull for starting your own cults though.

Actually circumcised males are much less likely to get AIDS too. It's something to do with the type of skin the inner surface of the foreskin is (if that made sense). It grabs viruses and pulls them in so they can be investigated by the body's defences and this is exactly what HIV needs.
This was discovered because the researchers were wondering why HIV is endemic in some African tribes and not others and someone came up with a totally off the wall suggestion, which turned out to be correct.
So there may well be some truth in the Ovarian cancer aspect. I remember reading, too many years ago, that one of the main factors was a virus which could be transmitted between women by men. That's why women who were sexually active at an early age and/or had several partners are more at risk.

The epidermal Langerhans cells (ELC) play a role in the recognition and processing of antigens in order to present them to either lymphocytes and/or macrophages. They may represent the first contact of viral antigens with the cellular immune system of the skin and squamous mucosa as found in the human prepuce.

Jewish circumcision is an ancient practice and its precise origins will probably never been known. However, for Jews it is the 'outward mark of an inner reality', i.e. it reminds Jews of the Covenant created between Abraham and God more than 4000 years ago. Although some liberal Jews no longer practice circumcision, most Jews do. It is interesting to note that only males have to carry a physical reminder of their obligations before God. This probably stems from the fact that in most patriarcal societies, it is the male head of the family who carries the responsibility of ensure religious observance by the members of his household.

According to Jewish custom the ceremony of Brit Milah takes place eight days after birth, unless the child is too ill. During the ceremony, the boy is circumcised by the Mohel who may also be a Rabbi.The child is held by the Sandek, a male friend of the family who is chosen as a role model for the boy as he grows up - something akin to the role of Godparent in Christianity. Prayers are said and the boy recieves his Hebrew name. It is also customary for women to be absent during the actual circumcision. Afterwards the family will celebrate together and at this point the wine and smoked salmon will appear.

Another interesting point is the fact that the foreskin is not simply discarded but receives a dignified burial, being part of a unique individual who, according to Jewish beliefs, was created by God.