By Kjeld Koplev, Radio Host / Journalist
(Full translation of article published in Danish daily Politiken 07/18/2012)
Translated and published by Lena Nyhus / IQvixen with permission from the author
Circumcision is an interference into the sex life of the Jewish man and should be stopped immediately.
The signature Anders Jerichouw (AJ) writes in the editorial of Politiken 07/15/2012 that circumcision of Jewish boys is the family’s way of passing on love.
I find that it is pure torture! Cocksure, AJ claims that the circumcision causes no harm. I say, that the torture I was exposed to when a Rabbi cut off my foreskin without anaesthesia – and without medical experience or training – inflicted lifelong psychological trauma on me.
The Rabbi who yielded the knife also inflicted a castration anxiety that has stayed with me ever since.
I cannot in any way see that circumcision has the least to do with love. Parents who love their children do not mutilate them.
A mother and a father who cares for their newborn boy do not inflict massive pain on a medically completely unnecessary basis.
The circumcision is not an act of love. It is a selfish act, wherein some people – in misunderstood religious zealousness – abuse and brand an infant boy. Not more nor less. Any other opinion is simply a rationalisation.
AJ ought to consider how the very way in which the circumcision is carried out bears witness to the barbaric origins.
The séance is rooted in a dark and primitive mindset where Jewish men assume the right to disfigure another human being.
As opposed to many others outside the Jewish community AJ knows exactly how a circumcision takes place. That makes his responsibility by recommending it so much greater.
To the non-initiated I can explain that there has to be 10 men present in the room where the circumcision takes place. the mother brings in the baby boy and is then shoved out again. Circumcision is the work of men.
Here, women are not allowed to be present. Just as women are excluded from many other parts of Jewish life. The Rabbi, who is primarily trained to interpret the Tora, yields the knife.
Without any medical knowledge and without anaesthesia he cuts the foreskin off the newborn boy while the 10 men, who constitutes the congregation of today, recite the relevant prayers. It bleeds violently. The penis is a very blood filled limb.
The boy screams and is now branded for real. He is stigmatized for the rest of his life.
The circumcised is for ever separated from the society he is to grow up in. The 10 men have taken his foreskin pledge.
However, the pledge can never be undone. All throughout posterity the circumcised boy must account for his otherness every time he undresses in public for instance when attending swimming lessons or during PE. This at an age where all you dream of is to be just like everyone else.
It is hard to be segregated and painful to have to be different. The first timid and shy sexual meeting between a man and a woman is never easy and uncomplicated. And it certainly doesn’t become any easier when the man is circumcised and the woman not Jewish. Another matter is the actual physical changes on the baby boy’s penis. The lack of foreskin calluses the glans now that it’s completely unprotected. That makes for instance masturbation difficult and over time decreases pleasure during intercourse. Thus, the circumcision is an interference into the sex life of the Jewish man performed by 10 random men in a living room somewhere in Denmark. In addition AJ does not think that the circumcision creates physical or psychological problems.
He owes the readers well documented scientific evidence. To my knowledge, the consequences of circumcision has never been studied. A lot has been spoken and written about the harmful consequences of circumcision of girls, but when it comes to the boys the silence has been deafening.
To me it is incomprehensible that AJ can still advocate the punishing boys with circumcision by the year 2012.
It is beyond belief that he claims the right to brand another person for life. In my view it is an obvious human rights violation. And it most certainly is an out-right violation of the UN’s Convention on Rights of the Child which is amongst others about the child’s right to bodily autonomy and protection against abuse.
I must request the decorum that my attitude towards circumcision not be interpreted as anti-Semitism as AJ does in this Sundays editorial. Naturally, my opposition has nothing to do with hate towards Jews.
One cannot postulate – as AJ does – that opposition towards circumcision of boys is linked to the Nazi eradication of Jews during World War II.
That postulate is simply not worthy of AJ. Just as the opposition to circumcision of girls is not an expression of hate towards Islam, the opposition towards circumcision of boys has nothing in the least to do with anti-Semitism.
Neither Jews, nor Muslims or Christians can support the mutilating cutting of children in good conscience.
It is an unbecoming custom and it would suit the practitioners to end it before legislation does.
First presented here on ‘Just a Snip’ 5th December 2012, see more here.