Why is it so hard for Jesse to understand that it would suck to have somebody waltz into your store in masks and steal shit, knowing you are completely powerless to stop it? YOU JUST GOT ROBBED. That’s gonna make you feel crappy, ripped off, dehumanized, unsafe.
Yeah, it’s not “your” stuff, it doesn’t come out of your paycheck, but it’s a place where you spend a huge chunk of your waking hours. Even if the job sucks, it feeds your family. You’re probably at least sort of friends with your coworkers, and maybe some of your regulars. And a gang of assholes just showed up and showed they have less than zero respect for you. I’m an antisocial cynic but even I am not so feeling-less as to just shrug my shoulders and let that pass.
If somebody came into your office and took a huge dump on the carpet, you wouldn’t care at all unless you were the janitor?
(None of this is meant to say that retail workers should be OBLIGATED to defend store property. But if they have the feeling that they should, I totally understand that)
Jesse's take on this bums me out. Often I forget Jesse is one of the elites he's often criticizing because he "gets it" (usually). On this issue it feels like he doesn't understand what it's like to take pride in what you do, regardless of how inconsequential it may seem.
Oh he understands what it would be like for him to take pride in what he does. He just doesn't understand why a lowly retail worker would take pride in their job I guess? It's honestly a baffling take from him
Generally he's an empathetic dude and I give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I just suspect he doesn't know what it's like to work retail like that and feel a sense of pride for the store despite the fact that it's a corporate business.
When I worked retail probably most of my coworkers didn't care at all but I have always tried to take pride in what I do and do it right.
100% this. I worked at a bagel shop as a teen and I'm still proud of the work I did giving the good people of southwest Virginia a proper NYC bagel. Yeah I'm just putting a shmear on a toasted everything for six hours and then delivering bagels in the van, but I did it good! Man I haven't had a good bagel in so long. Anyway what were we talking about?
I felt the same way waitressing at Golden Corral a thousand years ago as my very first job when I was 15. I’ve carried that through my whole life and it has served me very well. I was the best damn pinafore and scarf wearing, buffet plate slinging, table bussing, silverware rolling, sweet tea refiller in the business. The construction guys fought to sit in my section at lunch because I was so fast. I can still smell the yeast rolls in my hair ;)
So if someone robbed the bagel shop, you would've tried to prevent it even if your boss said don't try to prevent it? Probably not because taking pride in that work has nothing to do with thwarting robberies.
Dunno. I think he’s just digging in. You’d have to be a little dense not to “get it”.
You see an old lady fall down at the bus stop. Some people (too many) are like “none of my business, moving on”. Some are like “something’s not right, wonder if they need help” and stop.
But I’d hope both groups were capable of empathizing with why the other acted the way they did.
I feel like he’s been digging in more. Like with his response to the semi-backlash on his take about the citi bike Karen story. I’m starting to feel like A) his New York centered big city liberal elitism is showing more and B) he doesn’t take criticism or opposing views very gracefully.
I feel like this is new for him and I’m not particularly liking it. Or maybe I haven’t noticed it before? Or maybe these are outlying cases. Not a good look, whatever it is.
Because he and Katie are affluent members of the media class and they’re just as blind to working class issues as their peers. I’m sorry if this is insulting to them but it’s the simple truth.
Weren’t both of her parents professors though? That’s far from “my parents were terd farmers” (to use an old Colbert line about presidential candidates back when he was funny).
Yes, but she still gets it. She's proven multiple times that she understands to a pretty good degree how the working class feels. She's a real one who actually does care about genuine people more than how well she fits in with her segment of society. I fucking love Katie. Not sexually. She looks like my nephew.
It's certainly not a simple truth, more like a complex lie. But anyway, Jesse is saying establishment workers should not try to thwart robberies in keeping with their bosses wishes. This is probably because the workers could get killed, it is against the company policy, and they are personally not getting robbed.
I suppose he should be calling on workers to fight thieves and take responsibility for any losses. Then he would not be blind to working class issues? Very confusing.
From what I can tell, Jesse's sole non-media job was a brief stint delivering pizzas in undergrad. He grew up in the extremely affluent town of Newton, MA, and both of his parents were lawyers. I think it's fair to posit that he is not working class and does not have any meaningful handle on the issues of same.
Everything else you've written is seemingly prompted by something that I didn't say, so I don't feel the need to respond to it.
No one suggests retail workers should be obligated to confront thieves. The debate is on firing workers who try to stop a criminal act. The “bosses’ wishes” should not come into play because these policies are not designed to protect people--it is to protect money. The downstream impact for the workers is not hard to imagine and ignored by these non-confrontation policies. Here are a few.
Half the store is locked up, so workers are summoned when anyone wants Tide or Claritin or shampoo. There are constant reminders that you work for low wages while others steal indiscriminately; workers can’t take anything resembling civic action to make the place where they spend a sizable amount of their waking hours more safe and less chaotic; workers are afraid to act virtuously; people like Katie find out you and your store are marks ready for exploitation; the good of the company outweighs the good of the community; workers can’t try to do something to make their community more safe without being fired; the social contract is inverted, which creates dissonance and mistrust of other vestiges of society. ...I don’t want to belabor the point.
Loss of product via theft is the cost of doing business, and the ramifications of that policy on the well being of the workers or the community don’t matter to the company. Jesse sides with the company; anyone who doesn’t want to work in a place that attracts junkies and low-lifes is unfathomable to him.
I think you’re right. It’s a disgust mechanism and highlights a class distinction he establishes between him and his audience that has been increasingly pronounced as of late.
He sees retail as a job you have when you are young or a job you have when you have no other options due to educational/historical circumstances. I think he is imprinting his own experiences delivering pizzas twice and how little he valued the gig.
When I worked in a deli in the Bronx in the late 90s, I took an immense sense of pride when the second or third thing the boss showed me the first day was the baseball bat under the counter. I felt like I was part of a tribe and this was our territory. It wasn’t my deli, but you can get a contact high of ownership when you defend something.
Granted, this did not stop me from burying myself in stolen cigarettes from the establishment, but so it goes.
I had a friend during the summer of 2020 scold me for stating the insane opinion that riots aren’t good by saying “greg, that’s what insurance is for.” I know two people who had an optometry office in Santa Monica and had their store burned down. They were pretty upset about it but it’s like guyyyyyys hello? Insurance?
Anyone who thinks insurance is some magical force that undos all misfortune has never actually had to file an insurance claim, nor have they had the joys of seeing premiums hiked as a result of increased risk.
It's funny because nobody would insist that the medical insurance or car insurance industry are wonderful to engage with, and somehow it's like, no, yeah, it's awesome to deal with your insurance agency after rioters smashed your windows.
My husband's business was robbed. He filed that one claim, and was told that if he ever filed another, he'd lose his coverage. But he couldn't just let it go because he couldn't legally operate without insurance. That's what insurance does.
Okay, first of all your husband's business wasn't robbed. Some brave comrades were doing the work and redistributing wealth. YOU WANT TO ARREST THEM FOR BEING HUNGRY!
While I did not watch the video or videos, taking pride in your job, whatever the job, has nothing to do with thwarting robberies in progress at one's workplace. You literally could get killed and that's why your boss said don't do it. I could see ensuring cameras are setup inside and outside and working to get the criminals busted, or maybe quitting and a becoming a local cop and going after them. But that's not their current job and they shouldn't do it.
They weren’t wrestling the robbers to the ground or really physically confronting them in any significant way. Just yelling at them to stop and following them out the door to get more video of them for evidence.
It’s the dichotomy of literally firing someone for taking a fairly milquetoast stand against thievery, vs essentially ignoring repeated crime. Whether the policy is ultimately wise or not, you have to see how that will get the hackles up.
I don't think that Jesse understands that people who work low-wage jobs can still like their employers. Sure, there are some low wage employees who are cynical, but there are also a lot that care about the place they work. Many people work at a specific store precisely because they like it.
Yes, there are plenty of people who work somewhere only because it was the first place that hired them. There are also people who specifically choose to work at a sporting goods store because they love sports or a bookstore because they love to read, people who like working at a bodega because it's a hub for their community, line cooks who want to gain enough knowledge, experience, and reputation to open up their own restaurant one day. In the previous episode's comment section I mentioned the horrible story of the Lululemon murder. The employee who was murdered after she caught her coworker shoplifting was passionate about yoga and athletic apparel design and was in the process of applying to corporate positions at Lululemon. Even the ones who aren't all that interested in what their company does still don't want to be out of a job.
Most low-wage employees just don't want their workplaces burned to the ground.
Well also the hugely corrosive nature of you being stuck there working for say $15/hr and then some assholes come in and walk out with $800 of stuff. You feel like chump. That is absolutely the type of thing which slowly destroys society.
I really like Jesse but 100% agree here. He doesnt understand how someone working a "normal job" can take it serious and have some pride in doing it well.
The more safe, stable, secure, orderly, and respectful a work environment is, the more comfortable most people are going to feel working there (at any pay level!)
If given the choice between working for minimum wage at a business where you'd have to deal with break-ins, looting, and/or robbers (who could be armed!) versus a similar business that had none of those issues, I think most of us would prefer the latter. Even people who don't make a lot of money want to work in a decent environment.
Yep, someone I grew up with switched from loss prevention at Walmart to the same job at Kohl's and is much happier, simply because less theft happens and fewer thieves are confrontational at the Kohl's in his town.
(I'm not making any claims about these chains in general, just relaying his experience at two specific stores.)
Not to mention that if the store closes, or has to cut your hours, or even just moves location due to rampant shoplifting, that’s going to affect your life in a negative way.
I worked in retail, from high end to corner shops, and shoplifting made life even more miserable than the everyday nonsense. We had extra paperwork to fill in every time it occurred and we had the indignity of being "suspect" ourselves if stock was missing. In the high end retail places, we had to basically do a stock take every bloody morning and evening. It's very unsettling as almost everyone has already said; items may not literally be your belongings, but one does have a sense of propriety over the shop so people stealing feels like a violation of a space that belongs to you and your workmates. Work environments matter a great deal, perhaps more so in a job which is poorly paid, is simultaneously tiring but also tedious and regarded by some of the middle classes as low status. Harrumph!
I think I agree with Jesse here. I was a janitor and a bouncer, and many other "inconsequential" jobs. I think part of taking pride in your work is adhering to policy that has clear reasoning.
I think your office analogy actually supports my position. Someone shitting in office would be hilarious, and I do take pride in my work. You think I would get in an altercation with a guy who took a dump on an office floor?
Ok but let’s say the office pooper doesn’t show up one time, but every week. And he’s physically intimidating people. And your bosses don’t do anything to make it stop. And finally your favorite coworker gets fed up and tells the cubicle crapper to fuck off, so your boss finally acts - by firing your coworker!
You can’t see why that would be disheartening? I actually agree with the non confrontation policy from a practical and liability standpoint, but it needs to be paired with some sort of indication that you have your employees’ backs, that, if you’re going to force them to be passive in the face of criminals ransacking their workplace, you’ll at least do something to try to stop that from happening.
Shoplifting is antisocial behavior, stopping shoplifting is prosocial behavior. The optics here are terrible because Lululemon is very publicly expressing that they care more about suppressing prosocial behavior than punishing antisocial behavior.
The analogy has become tortured. It has lost all explaining power. In shop lifter scenario they have an explicit policy that they hopefully train employees on that says no intervening in shoplifting. There is no such thing in the second analogy.
I can see in general why working at a store that has lots of blatant shoplifting would be disheartening.
The office pooper thing was clearly an absurd joke and you’re the one who came in here taking it seriously, I was just responding in kind.
Lululemon had a policy. Neither you nor I knows how well they actually train people on it, or how evenly it’s actually enforced.
But I would hazard to guess that the policy has as much to do with covering their ass for liability insurance as any interest in employee wellbeing. Certainly it does not appear to be tied to any matching policy to protect employees from potentially dangerous criminals.
LMAO, bit of a bait and switch going on. I would not want to work in a place were people frequently shit on the floor. I am saying that a single occurrence of somebody taking a number two would be funny.
I suppose in your office you guys would rush the pooper like the people on the third air plane and hold his cheeks together?
At the sawmill my dad told me a story about someone shitting in the hard hat of a superintendent nobody liked. They figured it had to be two people, one shitting and one holding the hard hat, because it had a swirl. I always kind of figured that he was confessing.
And also it’s not fair. Idc how childish it sounds but I don’t make a ton of money and I don’t steal shit. So why should you? Was at an antique shop where I purchased the items I wanted, got in car, friend’s sister pulls a bunch of little knickknacks out of her pockets. Whyyyyyyyy?!
Another thing that grinds my gears is when we're told shoplifting is to be ignored because poor people need things. Like all poor people are criminals but it's ok, it's just what they do. I have had bouts of poverty and didn't steal. Know people who have very limited incomes and don't steal, it's just a ridiculous thing to say.
It’s perplexing. Jesse takes huge pride in his own work and has certainly forgone a lot to produce his heterodox content. I think he’s just had too much of the “online leftist” takes that suggest that unless you’re literally a member of the bourgeoise, there’s no reason to care about your place of work
If I can engage in some mindreading, I think it comes down to Jesse liking the little guy and really really not liking corporations. It looks from the outside like the corporation and not the little guy is being hurt here, so why should the little guy take corporate's side?
^This. They're not "rewarding" these employees for this vigilantism; on the contrary, they don't want a lawsuit/spectacle and need to know exactly whom to trust to it.
I agree somewhat, but I think the blind spot is assuming that shoplifting can only hurt “the little guy” through direct financial nefariousness on the part of their bosses.
Also I may be overreacting because a sort of lazy, reductive anti-corporatism was really common among the liberals I went to school with, and I’ve always found it obnoxious.
lol i knew people would be outraged about this. i’m with jesse, it’s gay as hell to care personally about shoplifters at your crappy retail job. some of us are just working these to survive/fund non-lucrative hobbies and projects we actually care about. no one’s getting paid enough to run after a shoplifter
it also is funny that anyone is trying to make this out to be a class issue when it’s clearly just a matter of personality. for example i have found that the type of person whining about shoplifters is usually also humourless and overly sensitive in other areas of life. which aligns, no offense, perfectly w my impression of most people who comment in these threads and the subreddit lol
Even just on the level of the flight or fight response it would trigger I can’t see being at a retail job, having someone barge in and start grabbing stuff and my response being to just yawn and scroll instagram.
I lost my shit at some rich touristy customers who were being obnoxious once in a health food store I worked in (hazy memory, I think they broke a bottle of juice but weren’t remorseful at all and reacted like it was funny). Should’ve called my manager upstairs but I went all townie on them & ended up leaving my job (it was okay, I was underemployed so it freed up a job for someone who needed it more).
This 10000%. I worked as a cashier for both large box stores and mom and pop shops. There is a comradery that is developed with both. Even if the shift manager is an ass, he or she is your ass, and its your store in your neighborhood that your friends and family shop in. You're there to work and its important to take pride in what you do. When a brazen act of theft occurs its a stain on something you hold dear. I agree with corporate policies, the insult or stain is not as valuable as your life and safety but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. It hits differently when you witness a theft out of need versus a theft of opportunity and disregard and the latter sucks big time.
As someone who worked retail for ten plus years, this exact thing has happened to me a handful of times, even as a manager. I didn’t care then and I don’t care now, so I see exactly what Jesse is speaking to. I have worked a few times at mom n pop shops and they don’t tend to get racked the same way, but I might feel different about that. I managed an American Apparel in New Orleans that was racked almost weekly and I could not have possibly cared less. Getting held at gun point sucked though.
Circumcision is such an insanely inflamed topic in moms-of-baby-boys circles that, as someone who neither buys the medical arguments for circumcision nor thinks that circumcising infant boys is a terrible ethical breach, I've spent years trying to avoid the topic online. So I thoroughly enjoyed this episode's deep dive into Internet Bullshit: The Circumcision Edition. Great research and presentation, Jesse. And this was probably Katie's funniest sign-off ever.
When I was still hospitalized after the birth of my baby boy, my Southern mom asked me if I was going to have him circumcised. (Circumcision was nearly universal among white Southerners when I was growing up, I'd guess for reasons that started with 19th-century beliefs about hygiene and turned into a "Let the boy look like his father" tradition over time.) I said no, I wasn't, and she said, "You know he'll always have terrible recurrent infections until you circumcise him." I wanted to ask her if she thought that ~70% of the world's men and boys were going around getting recurrent penile infections all the time, but I chickened out and just said, "My baby, my decision."
Fast-forward a few weeks to my attempt to meet other moms at the local La Leche League meeting in my lefty town. Somebody asked if I'd had my baby circumcised, congratulated me for not having done it, and added, "Men who don't have foreskins lose sensitivity and thrust more violently during sex." I guess I could have asked her if she thought ~30% of the world's men were going around having violent sex all the time, but I chickened out and got the hell out of there.
Thank goodness my kids are older and I can now talk to the other parents about uncontroversial issues like sex ed and gender identity.
While I really wanted a son, I stopped short of forming a full opinion on this and counted it as a small blessing that along with "The Football Question" I'd probably never have to make this decision. (I ended up with a house full of girls and an entirely different bucket of concerns)
However, I do lean a bit towards "if there's not overwhelming evidence, leave well enough alone" when it comes to body modification for, supposedly, medical reasons and particularly with something as critical to well being as genitals.
The one thing that really gets under my skin though is when the Intactivists (god, what a great word) try to compare circumcision with FGM / clitorectomy. They are not even remotely the same and I feel it trivializes the severity of the later by comparing to something as minimally impactful on life as circumcision seems to be.
FGM/clitorectomy is more akin to penectomy or castration.
It's worth mentioning that there is more than one form of FGM and one of the more common forms is the removal of the clitoral hood which is very similar to make circumcision.
Additionally, botched circumcisions where part or all of the glans are removed or where severe infection leads to even more severe damage, do happen. Probably about as frequently as the most severe forms of FGM given how common circumcision is. In some countries, like South Africa, death and infection leading to the loss of the penis is common as a result of ritual circumcision.
So yeah FGM is often a horror show that can be far more severe than a successful circumcision performed in a western hospital, but that discounts A: unhygienic, unskilled forms of male circumcision, and also the thousands of botched procedures done in hospital. When you perform millions of circumcisions, even a small error rate maims an awful lot of people in really horrible ways for really no reason.
So I don't think you're making a fair comparison here.
There are 4 classifications of FGM defined by WHO. The most common, 1-3, include clitorectomy and significant alteration of labia. The 4th is a catch all. WHO lists examples of this category, but doesn’t mention hoodectomy.
Circumcision complications like you speak of are in the .04% range. I agree even that is too much if there’s no medical benefit.
However, your description of FGM implies the harm is mainly due to not being performed professionally and if so would be closer to circumcision.
This is fundamentally incorrect. FGM procedures are intrinsically harmful. They permanently eliminate the ability to orgasm, cause life long problems with urination, pain, and medical issues. Not due to complications…due to the direct consequences of the changes made.
This seems like a willful misinterpretation of what I said.
>However, your description of FGM implies the harm is mainly due to not being performed professionally and if so would be closer to circumcision.
Literally nothing I said would lead any reasonable person to think I was implying that the harm of FGM was in the unprofessional nature of the needless maiming.
>FGM procedures are intrinsically harmful.
Yes, as is male circumcision, even if not to the same extent on a case by case basis.
>Circumcision complications like you speak of are in the .04% range.
Assuming that figure is correct, which it may be in the most developed countries in the world, but absolutely nowhere close to reality in places like the Philippines or South Africa, it's 0.04% of an extremely large number. Hundreds of millions of people X 0.04% is a massive number of people. Hence my point about raw numbers of extremes like the loss of the glans, the penis itself, or lack of function or death.
>There are 4 classifications of FGM defined by WHO. The most common, 1-3, include clitorectomy and significant alteration of labia. The 4th is a catch all. WHO lists examples of this category, but doesn’t mention hoodectomy.
Clitoridectomy in the data is not distinguished from the removal of the clitoral hood. Both are covered in type 1, even though one or the other may be performed. The removal of the clitoral hood is analogous to male circumcision.
The most severe forms of FGM are also the most commonly practiced in many countries. This is betraying a serious lack of knowledge about the extent and damage of FGM.
That's not even accurate. The most common forms are pricking, the removal of the clitoral hood, and the partial or complete removal of the clitoris. The prevalence of the latter three is only known collectively because that's how the data is collected. The most severe form, where the vaginal canal is sewn shut, is by far the least common procedure.
In any case, I'm strongly opposed to all of it and think it's all barbarous. What I am saying is, that a lot of FGM is not totally distinct from male circumcision in terms of harm. Even the most severe forms have their analogue with male circumcision, though not intentionally. But in developing countries it's shockingly common for boys to have part of their glans removed, or lose their penis to severe infection. Is losing your penis less bad because it wasn't on purpose but instead the outcome of a totally unnecessary procedure? Or do you think it's about the same for the person without a penis?
That's clearly a straw man. You made a claim, that the "most" severe forms of FGM were the most prevalent. This is not correct. That doesn't therefore mean I don't think the removal of the clitoris is serious. I consider all genital mutilation serious, and have stated that very clearly already.
The most common form of FGM is Type I, which includes type IA, which is analogous to male circumcision, and type IB, which is the full or partial removal of the clitoris. The problem with your claim, even if this was the most severe form, which it isn't, is that the data doesn't distinguish between type IA and IB in terms of prevalence. We don't actually know which of these two is the most common. It's either a procedure that is nearly identical to male circumcision, which completely undermines your entire point, or it's a more severe procedure, which at best is basically a red herring in the context of whether it's ethical to surgically alter baby's genitals electively. If people were amputating arms in China for a cleaner look, that wouldn't make male circumcision okay just because by comparison, it's less severe.
It also doesn't help that there are a lot of different forms of FGM. With some of the more mild forms, where a small amount of tissue is taken from the clitoral hood or even where the vulva is cut with nothing removed yeah, I can see the comparison. But for ones that remove the clitoris and sew the labia together? Obviously a different thing.
I always had angst over circumcision (and football) when thinking about my hypothetical future sons. It's medically unnecessary, but it's culturally encouraged and cultural expectations aren't nothing. I'm almost certain that I'd circumcise my sons if I were Jewish or Muslim. Luckily (?) for me, I married a guy who has said "no circumcision and no football." And I'm fine with that for my hypothetical future boys.
Even if you limit the comparison to the most severe forms of FGM, there are reasonable comparisons to be made, just not in terms of intent. Nobody is aiming for these outcomes with male circumcision, but some of them are nonetheless horrendous.
The most severe forms of FGM are intentional. The most severe forms of male circumcision, aren't, though are probably more numerous because the procedure is orders of magnitude more common. Nobody intentionally removes the glans in part or in full, but it happens because of botched procedures. Nobody amputates the penis altogether, but it happens because of infection. When you perform tens of millions of circumcisions, this happens. When it comes to ritual circumcision or some of the less hygienic but not totally primitive versions practiced in Asia and Africa, the rates of serious complications are astronomically high.
Fair. I tend to focus on the intent piece, since bad outcomes are always a risk with any surgery. But I can see an argument that intent is less important when you're talking about the number of individuals who could be hurt.
Intent matters in terms of how you treat the perpetrator, it's almost irrelevant to the victims of whatever the act is. So I would agree if the context was what ought to be done about people performing FGM vs male circumcision, that intent was really important. But the context is the effects on the people who are being circumcised, so I think overall harm in terms of outcome is more relevant to that side of the issue.
I feel more certain about no football than I do circumcision. I played football my entire life, but the evidence is just too significant at this point...
Oh my goodness, moms/mom groups are a total minefield! When my friend was pregnant with her first child, her OBGYN gave her two pieces of great advice. The first was just to neutrally agree with whatever parenting advice gets thrown at you and then do whatever you want.
"Letting your baby cry it out is barbaric!"
"Yeah, I've heard that"
"The only way your child will ever sleep is if you use the cry it out method"
"Yeah, I've heard that"
The second piece of advice was to imagine that she had an umbrella over her and envision all the unsolicited noise about parenting as raindrops dripping off the umbrella.
In the 1990’s we just avoided in general talking about these divisive subjects that always make people feel defensive by asking our doctors, discussing it with the father’s of the children and in general deferred to the father’s opinion unless the doctor had really good arguments on the other side. I asked my three grown sons later if they were glad they were circumcised and they all answered in the affirmative. I definitely thought about it and researched the topic and knew that there were good arguments on both sides of the issue. Like everything in life, it was a very nuanced topic with no clear cut answer. But we just didn’t hyperventilate over the decision. “Our baby, our decision”!
How is unnecessarily removing part of an infant's sex organ not a "terrible ethical breach" if there Is not medical justification?
Like sure, it's not as bad as amputating a limb, but in the absence of some health benefit, which you acknowledge isn't likely to be present, it's highly unethical.
Being around crime is unsettling. I was legitimately confused by Jesse's response in the original podcast. You don't even have to like your job, have pride in the company, or be a shareholder to be impacted by an antisocial, chaotic, and oftentimes aggressive act, especially when it's repeated! Then you're required to clean up the mess, restock the shelves like nothing happened, and I'm sure fill out some sort of paperwork. Also, employees at these stores have now been given opportunity to steal themselves and blame it on the thieves.
Yeah I was in a CVS the other day and a guy was just shoveling stuff into a bag. I'm extremely nonconfrontational and don't talk to strangers but even I had to restrain myself from going up to him and saying something. Like I just don't want to live in a world where people do stuff like that. Jesse is being really weird and obtuse about this.
I’ve been listening back through the archives and Jesse has been worried about “audience capture” since literally episode one. I do think this sometimes manifests itself as being a little “too cool for school” if it means taking the “conservative” side on anything he hasn’t personally deeply researched.
I am not a thief and I don’t steal because I think it corrodes your sense of self. You become what you do. But seeing that guy at CVS, did it make you feel like a fool for paying?
That's not how I would describe the feeling. I mean it definitely feels unfair. But he was obviously on drugs and homeless so it's not like I thought I was dumb and he was doing the right thing. It's more like it made me feel like society is hanging by a thread and the only thing keeping out the wolves is people voluntarily deciding to pay.
It's weird because in some ways it seems more upsetting than the murder rate going up even though murder is a far worse crime. Stuff like this is so much more ubiquitous than murder so you frequently see people just deciding that basic rules of society are negotiable and you wonder what other basic social rules are out the window.
I experienced this in DC and NYC over the past year, and I didn't feel like a sucker, it felt surreal, like we were living in two different movies, one where I have to pay for my Zyrtec/bag of chocolate almonds and one where it was totally ok for him to shovel an entire shelf of stuff into his jacket/into her bag. And it's weird, I still feel like I'd get stopped or face consequences if I brazenly stole something - maybe the type of person who just confidently steals is sort of shameless and wouldn't be subject to any of the social forces that make me feel like I have to pay for stuff.
I don't usually feel the fool. More aggravation and knowing that that nonsense is baked into the price I pay so that in a very real, direct way I'm paying for that asshole's shit.
I vote for Jesse/Katie/Trace to do some research on words that gross people out the most. Surely there is a body of research on this topic... somewhere.
I was struck by the mention of how removing the foreskin reduces natural lubrication. I have limited experience with uncircumcised dicks. Do uncircumcized penises become...(trigger warning) moist penises when aroused?
I had to confront my US circumcision-bias, because wet (moist) vaginas are generally considered hot, but a moist penis can take a hike.
Hehe love your question. I guess the pro-foreskin people say that the foreskin collects and holds the woman's natural lubrication better. But I don't know how this can help unless he's pulling out all the way out before going back in? I dunno. Seems like a silly argument, if there are lubrication issues, what's wrong with using extra lube from a bottle? Lots of people do that.
That's not it. there's no need for artificial lubrication because the tip of the penis, which is very sensitive, is protected by the foreskin so vaginal lubricant is sufficient for comfortable sex. Men also don't need any lube for masturbation.
The foreskin doesn't create a moist penis, no. It slides smoothly over and protects the sensitive tip of the penis and acts as a lubricant would, so vaginal lubricant is sufficient for comfortable sex, and no artificial lubricant is generally necessary for male masturbation either. Although some of the intactivists are insane, I think they do have a point. The foreskin contains a lot of nerve endings and sex is likely better and easier with it intact.
Agreed but along this theme, I find the word "dank" to be unnerving. If something, be it a cave or body part is dank, it goes beyond the typical moist status.
I’ve noticed a pattern when parenting or adult/child interactions are involved K&J seem to fall into a black pit of “I don’t get it”.
Probably just due to a complete lack of experience with young kids or something.
Genitals are a recurring topic for young kids. Caretakers have to be prepared to discuss ANYTHING. My daughter was convinced she was a boy for like a year because she discovered she had a tiny penis and figured it would grow as she got older. So…time to talk about clitoris. Yeah. You have to take kids into the bathroom stalls when you got to go. Especially if you have runners (control the exits!!). Little boys are fascinated by their penis. And if they notice differences. There are questions. You have to teach them how to stand to pee (boys raised by only women often insist on sitting and can be intimidated by urinals).
They would absolutely want to know why dad’s penis is different. Couple that with circumcised men having a whole set of hygiene practices that uncircumcised men do not and I get why a guy might favor circumcision. …..even if they awkwardly explain all of it with “so they look like me”.
Especially if you believed the procedure wasn’t a big deal (accurately or not). And when you reflect on your life as a circumcised male and realize there doesn’t seem to be a single problem you’ve suffered as a result.
The “Oh my God, how weird to think of your kids genitals!” Reaction is naive. Let me tell you, once you have kids your entire existence is largely defined by shit and piss and genitals and the occasional awkward question about genitals…..at least the first few years.
Then you have to worry about them getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. So. More genitals. And I guess today, you might have to worry about double mastectomies or voluntary castration. So more genitals.
The hugs and pictures are really sweet though. I dig story time too.
The head of my circumcised penis can get a little dry and cracked at times, not often, but when it does it’s not amazing. I suspect that is a side effect of the skin there not technically being evolved as external.
The main downside I can think of is when "violent thrusting" was mentioned. After I heard that, a few things clicked for me. I'm definitely less sensitive down there than I should be, and there are some feelings I've had that could easily be explained by "a lot less sensitive than it should be."
I don’t understand why Jesse felt the need to pull, entirely out of his ass, a fake statistic that “aside from Israel” the US is an outlier in terms of circumcision rates.
I haven’t finished listening yet so maybe it gets better, but the near-complete erasure of the Muslim world in this episode is pretty annoying, again aside from a single sentence of Jesse bullshitting the historical background of circumcision in Islam, which he clearly doesn’t actually know. Point being, circumcision is near universal in Muslim countries, which make up a healthy chunk of the world’s population.
Even aside from Judaism and Islam, circumcision is just as widely practiced in South Korea, the Philippines, and many African and Pacific Islander traditions.
The point is, circumcision is not just Some Weird Jewish Thing, and the fact that Jesse even felt the need to bring up the practice of Metzitzah B’peh (the oral suctioning thing), which is practiced by a vanishingly tiny minority and is often misrepresented as being the norm, speaks to the obnoxious ignorance of their own religion you often see in secular Jews, ignorance that often seems to border on anti-Semitism.
Sorry, this episode bugged me a lot. You guys are better than this.
He did qualify that with "Western", and while Israel is in the middle east, it is heavily populated by Jews of European descent, and operates in a decidedly western manner. So it is accurate that the US is the only western culture that does widespread circumcision. European penises tend to have foreskin (just throwing them a bone here!)
> He did qualify that with "Western", and while Israel is in the middle east, it is heavily populated by Jews of European descent, and operates in a decidedly western manner
The majority of Jews in Israel aren't of European descent, and as someone who spends 4 months/year in Israel, it doesn't seem that Western to me (though it is true that there are many people whose immediate ancestors came from Europe and the FSU).
It constantly annoys me how naive Jesse is when it comes to Israel and all thinks Jewish, and how he foolishy and unintentionally, flirts with antisemitic tropes.
I’m with you. The way he felt the need to call metzitzah b’peh “grotesque” was extremely off-putting. No need to be okay with it, but maybe disagree with it in less inflammatory language.
Erm. I dunno. I’d say to 95% of people a religious figure sucking the blood off an infants’ recently cut penis with his mouth is objectively pretty grotesque???
I had never heard of this and it definitely turned my stomach. Of course I understand that People do a lot of weird and grotesque things
Why should you avoid being inflammatory about a practice where an adult man sucks on the genitals of a baby, on an open wound no less, with his dirty bacteria filled mouth?
Just to be clear, hoping my interpretation is incorrect: you're saying that you're going to unsubscribe to a podcast because the host said that a grown man sucking a baby's dick is grotesque?
He was nicer about it than was necessary. It's a fucking disgusting, barbaric practice that would be shocking to find in the most backwards developing country, let alone a borough of the richest city in the world. Absolutely revolting.
The entire episode ends up being about a bunch of anti semetic intactivists (and one non).
It is true that the US is THE one massive outlier among majority European nations. And like they said it’s mostly due like he said to non Jewish quacks like Kellog and subsequent cultural transmission, plus our Jewish AND Muslim populations.
I listened to the rest of the episode, and while I appreciate the look at "intactivists" (I maintain that Harvard ragecase is just mad at his dad and if it weren't circumcision it'd be something else), I still came away from it feeling like this was a poor choice of topic for this particular podcast. For one, neither Jesse nor Katie seems particularly interested in the topic. Katie makes sense, but Jesse begins the episode by saying he'd never really thought about circumcision and ends it by saying he doesn't get it. As a result of this lack of curiosity, basic information was just...not there.
For example, sorry Jesse, but if you actually want to talk about this topic you should put on your big boy pants and watch a medical video (or, hey, some porn!) to get a sense of the physical difference of a circumcised penis versus and uncircumcised one. That utterly bizarre remark about an uncircumcised dick looking like an artichoke heart -- dude, you're almost forty, what the hell are you talking about?
Also, this is partially a religious topic, so it might have behooved Jesse to talk to an observant Jew or Muslim to get a sense of the cultural importance of circumcision. Limiting that discussion to reading a couple verses of Genesis and offhand mention of theories as to the practical utility of circumcision in pre-modern times is just piss-poor analysis.
One other thing that leapt out at me was Jesse's statement that circumcision can wait until adulthood. Really, dude? Five minutes on Google will teach you that that adult circumcision is a risky, complex, and painful procedure with a very long convalescence. Infant circumcision is not.
So yeah, the number of times Jesse said "I don't know" in this episode, in response to queries it would have been trivial for him to learn the answer to, was to me indicative of shallow and uncurious research. But hey, metzitzah b'peh is gross and weird, so let's talk about that!
> and offhand mention of theories as to the practical utility of circumcision in pre-modern times is just piss-poor analysis.
Right. I hate it when people try to justify a commandment. There's no need to justify any of them. Not all of them are for us to understand.
It is outrageous that he calls out the metzitzah b'peh. I'm quite proud of the fact that I was welcomed into the world and given my name "Reuven" this way.
It's pretty odd. Global prevalence is like 38% with global Jewish population being around 0.2% (assuming males are 0.1%).
So 0.3% (0.00256) of all circumcised people are jewish.
And a quick wikipedia scan says the practice goes back to possibly over 10,000 years....which, even if we take biblical writings as truth, was about 6,000 years before the father of the Judaic religions (Abraham).
So probably more accurate to say this is one of the many pagan practices incorporated into Judaic tradition (and many other traditions) rather than Judaism being responsible for it's broad modern day usage.
My husband and I had a baby boy 8 months ago - when I found out I was pregnant with a boy, I initially wanted him circumcised because I believed it was healthier, and honestly, just more attractive (in my opinion as a woman who likes dicks).
My husband was VERY against it. He is circumcised, but has come to the belief that it is a barbaric practice, the health benefits are based on bad science, it can sometimes go very badly, etc.
Since my opinion was not as strongly held, I let him decide for our son.
Having learned a lot more about it, I'm glad we didn't get him circumcised.
Thank you, Jesse and Katie, for discussing this issue - it's a weird thing to be an activist about, but it really is important.
It can go very badly, which is something that's not often discussed, especially in the context of the supposed health benefits. The rate of infection for example, is way higher than the rate of avoiding a UTI. And while severe infections are rare, they do happen, as does death and fucking up the procedure badly and cutting off too much tissue, sometimes part or all of the glans.
I think the health benefits would have to be significant to justify just the risk, let alone all of the other ethical considerations, and they're not.
I am of the opinion that circumcision should not be recommended for newborns in general, but should be allowed for religious communities that practice it as a religious rite. Is that too spicy a take?
I am extremely uncomfortable with the movements to ban circumcision in some European countries. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not exactly for the practice personally, but it seems to me that the principle of religious freedom should be upheld in all but the most extreme circumstances. I don't think anti-circumcision activists have demonstrated that the harm of circumcision is so great as to justify legal bans.
It’s not an accident that the same countries which have been banning circumcision are the same countries which have been banning kosher and halal slaughter. It’s the same kind of xenophobia that leads to chants of “Jews will not replace us” and attacks on the existence of Muslims in western countries, but filtered through “progressive” ideas about “protecting the vulnerable”
This also upholds my point that Americans don’t know what “real” bigotry looks like. Travel to Europe where the racism runs deep and goes back way further than a few hundred years.
Yep, not to mention periodic movements for mandatory (not opt-in universal, but mandatory) preschool for kids in Muslim neighborhoods. Can't have those kids being raised by their moms to speak a first language other than the one they'll learn in school.
This is exactly how you DON'T want to behave if you're trying to persuade people of the righteousness of your cause.
As someone who has lived in both Europe and the US, the thing that makes the US better than Europe is the core assumption that being an American doesn’t mean changing your culture. The great myth of America is that the “melting pot” is this horrible homogenizing process when it is actually a way by which new Americans share some of their culture with the rest of the country, and adopt some of our country’s culture as their own. Europeans don’t do that.
I agree, that’s why I didn’t say there was a straight line between laws against circumcision and shooting people over ditches or shipping them to extermination camps.
Well...I do think there's a pretty straight line between marching in the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" and gas chambers. (if said demonstrators are able to gain political power)
So equating anti-circumcision beliefs with that kind of aggressive anti-semitism would imply, to me, such a relationship exists.
I didn’t actually reply to this earlier because you annoyed me by not reading what my comment actually said but anyway having racist mob do racist protests about Jews and Muslims is the same basic xenophobic energy as passing laws that make it impossible for Jews and Muslims to maintain their cultural identity and live in your country.
The Nazis didn’t do the Shoah because they got together and had a nice “Jews will not replace us” party that accidentally led to them getting power so they could kill Jews. It took nearly twenty years of escalations to get from the Beer Hall Putsch to the first mass shooting actions in Polesye. So yes, racist mobs are a long way from gas chambers and it’s profoundly dishonest to claim otherwise.
Religious freedom is for the individual, it's not something you should be able to impose onto a child who cannot consent. For the child, that's the opposite of freedom.
This is not how medical and other parenting-related ethics work in the U.S. There are narrow areas where medical consensus trumps a parent's religious preferences (e.g., if the child needs an emergency blood transfusion). But parents do indeed have the right to make medical decisions that others, including the child's doctors, think are wrong. And in the U.S. you don't even need to state a religious reason for circumcision, as I'm sure you know. You just get to be "wrong," as with vaccines and much more serious decisions like whether to continue pediatric cancer treatment in most situations.
How something happens to "work" in any given society has no bearing on whether that particular thing is morally right or not. We're cutting off a part of a child's body before they can consent for no other reason than that it's basically a meme. Seems wrong to me, whatever justification might be given at the time.
Yep, granting your premise momentarily, we allow individuals to do lots of things that are morally wrong, because the alternative (legislating and enforcing morality on any but the most widely agreed-upon questions) would lead to a level of authoritarianism most Americans find unacceptable.
And, as I keep suggesting, such policies would also be counterproductive. Mandate stuff, and you're asking for organized resistance to your policies, however well intentioned they may be.
I don't think it's really authoritarian to say we shouldn't chop bits off children's bodies without asking their permission. We have a lot of laws that limit personal freedom, and many of those laws are about what we're not allowed to physically do to another living person, rather than what we are allowed to do to our own bodies. I consider cutting a child deliberately, without any sort of urgent medical reason, to be a physical assault, and it's hard to see how anyone could argue that it isn't.
It's definitely the most pragmatic and aligns with my own position. If you ban it for religious communities, they end up doing it underground and unregulated which makes everything way worse.
It's the most based take, but also wrong. Either it is an entirely neutral procedure like cutting your hair, purely aesthetic and with zero negative side effects, in which case it should be an option for everyone OR it is the removal of a useful part of one's body, with some potentially negative consequences, in which case it shouldn't be permitted at all and both the aesthetes and the religious fundamentalists can just wait until age of consent. Agreeing it's bad but giving the zealots an exception to do it anyway seems like the worst possible compromise.
We allow parents to make all sorts of decisions about their kids' bodies on issues ranging from corrective surgery to vaccines to skin-tag removal. So the question is, Where is circumcision on that spectrum? Based on discussions with a urologist I know, I tend to think it's more on the inconsequential end of the spectrum medically. But reasonable people will disagree, and if there's reasonable disagreement, I don't think we should be going for legal bans as a method of persuasion. It's not going to work.
I don't think that's really equivalent. Ear piercing doesn't remove an actual body part. If you leave the holes long enough, they skin just grows back in.
Well...if I were to draw a line I'd put everything you provide as an example would seem to clearly be in the positive outcome side of the scale.
I haven't dug into the research on this one. But the point of the podcast seemed to be that there's not good evidence of any positive outcome. Which would put it on the other side of the above line.
The judgment calls about surgeries for complicated conditions can be very difficult, even with the guidance of the fanciest doctors, and there can be bad downstream effects ranging from infection to death. Yet we allow parents to make these decisions all the time. Circumcision, whether you're pro or con, isn't nearly as weighty an issue.
That may be, but the surgery is meant to fix an actual problem, even if the risk benefit isn't totally clear. Being born with a functioning foreskin isnt a problem.
I concede that you're right that my position isn't rationally consistent, but maybe I also don't care? As a snipped lad myself, in a society of mostly circumcised men, I've never heard those men complaining about how much they hate sex and how painful and awful it is, so if religious communities want to practice it, I don't think it creates so much harm that it needs to be stopped.
I fully recognize it's not a fully rational policy position, but I'm personally fine with that in this case.
I'm agnostic about the issue as well (and while I am often dickish, do not have a dick) so I have no problem with carrying on as is! My only quibble was with the hypothetical double standard *IF* it was deemed harmful (which isn't yet the case, not conclusively anyway). In that case, I don't think anyone should get exceptions just because their God/Spaghetti Monster said so.
A lot of religions are about praxis as much as they're about belief. Sometimes praxis is more important, as when some Jews stay observant even though they don't believe in traditional theism. So I don't think you can have religious freedom if you make some extra-religious distinction between belief and praxis.
It’s perfectly fine to allow it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it ought be recommended for newborns. If Americans want to be a country that circumcises, let them do it because they want to rather than on the recommendation of the AAP.
Your missing the actual truth. It’s a basically harmless process that has minor health benefits and is ascetically pleasing to more people than one that’s not done.
This is exactly the policy of the NHS (UK). It’s pretty shocking to compare the uS AAP claiming the benefits outweighs the risks to NHS saying there’s no good reason to do it unless your religion demands it (and then they’ll support you)
Why should you get a pass on the ethics because of religious tradition. Either there is a medical justification and it should be allowed, or there isn't and you shouldn't have the right to surgically alter your child's genitals.
I was like...that has nothing to do with circumcision? How are they this clueless? They look down on flyover country but then say shit that makes me think they grew up in Amish Pennsylvania.
I am guessing most non-Jewish Americans have pretty indifferent feelings about circumcision. Like the episode mentioned, at some point (and based on bad science) it became, "Oh the doctors said we should do this, so OK." And then generations go by and everyone is circumcised, so then it's the norm and no one questions it. At this point, I think it's mostly perpetuated by aesthetics. Do new parents just want their sons to fit in when it comes time to show that bad boy off during sex?
I have seen some comparisons to female 'circumcision'- aka mutilation. They are not even close to comparable. Male circumcision, outside of the religious symbolism, seems to be a pretty much pointless endeavor. FGM is intended to disfigure and cause pain to women and make sexual encounters miserable for them. While I do not have a penis, I have encountered zero men who have had sexual dysfunction associated with circumcision.
On another note: Why are Alt Right people so obsessed with pedophilia? They will equate literally any behavior with pedophilia. I guess it's like their version of Leftists calling everything they dislike racist?
I’ve actually heard it makes sex slightly less pleasurable for men, but honestly that seems like a plus instead of a minus. Sex is already way way way too pleasurable for polite society.
I let my husband decide for our son, and his #2 reason for wanting to do it (#1 being that where we live it’s still the norm and he didn’t want our son to be embarrassed about his appearance later in life) was that he said he thinks it probably benefitted him to not have what is said to be the most sensitive part of his penis when he was an adolescent. He said he was already way too horny as a teenager and was glad he didn’t have a body part that would have made that worse 😂
Then nut up. If you’re worried your son “might get made fun of” that’s a bizarre reason. And a little simple. My mom didn’t care about that shit. I was born in 81 and it was almost automatic to get circumsized. And my mom said no. And I did get made fun of in gym from time to time.
But you know what? When I got to adulthood I didn’t care because I wasn’t so shallow as to carry all that petty kid shit into adulthood.
This is just not true. Your glans are exposed all the time, unlike before. You'd be more sensitive flaccid and walking around until the glans became calloused, but nothing about circumcision that increases sensitivity. And your glans are exposed when erect anyway.
Circumcision is actually really popular among many Christian groups, especially in certain American regions. It's declining in popularity in recent years, but most people still go with whatever option the dad has, so you still get higher rates in the South and lower ones in the West, for example.
Jesse addresses that on the pod. He says the data behind that idea is very shaky (and he’s one of the best journalists out there when it comes to analyzing medical data). There has been a big shift in the last 10-15 years in what is considered good evidence, and a lot of old data is being re-evaluated. The CDC has been a political football for years, and was especially impacted by Trump’s budget cuts, so I doubt they’ve caught up on this.
So that's what I had always heard was a justification. Foreskin harbors bacteria that makes STD transmission more likely, but on the pod they said that the science behind that was questionable... At the end of the day, I think circumcision is largely a neutral act. The benefits are probably not substantial, and complications are exceedingly rare.
It's like the COVID vaccine! Almost always safe, but has little benefit.
(Disclaimer- I got the COVID vax. I am not an anti-vaxxer. It's a joke. But seriously...)
The first course of COVID vaccine has a very clear benefit, it massively reduces death rates even if it can’t prevent infection. It’s the boosters that are much less clear.
The way this works. Is that you do something socially for a long time. Then people start questioning it. You in a backtracking way start coming up with weak reasons to keep doing it. So over the last 50 years a lot of sloppy shit had some Out about circumcision mostly in defense of the practice.
It’s very much like when Christian’s try and use “science” to “prove” god exists.
All they’re doing is trying to make their archaic rituals “fit” because otherwise they have to wake up and think “oooh. Maybe we shouldn’t have done that to billions of young boys”. And it’s way easier to run a shitty study and to avoid that cognitive dissonance.
FGM is a horror show, but that's not really an accurate portrayal. It's also a mostly unquestioned cultural practice in places where it's performed, and the most common forms are either less severe, or similar to circumcision, like pricking and the removal of the clitoral hood. So I don't think that people who practice FGM are likely to think of it much differently than a lot of the people who practice male circumcision for reasons other than the claimed medical benefits.
It’s silly to talk about the problem of modernity vs traditional religion insofar as tradition is not something we preserve because it makes some logical sense in an enlightened rational way. The argument I find compelling about the origins of circumcision and its dispersal around the world (ancient Israelites, some tribal groups in subsaharan Africa, the Philippines) is that people before hygiene was really a concept had some smegma problems which turned out to be solved by not having foreskin so they turned it into a ritual practice to explain why this was good. Now it’s an anachronism, and maybe people in the future will be horrified by the way that we were so blasé about it. At the same time, attempts to compare it to FGM are gross, because FGM is genuinely horrifying.
I’m Jewish and any son(s) I have are going to be circumcised absent very significant changes in the available evidence. I can’t provide a nice rational argument that explains it because I don’t really think that there is anything particularly rational about attachment to tradition. These things often come up with people who do apologetics work and try to explain why you should not be secular and stop eating pork and cheeseburgers by trying to prove how wonderful and helpful and rational the Torah is. People will make grand claims about how pigs have higher rates of worms, which is why people were right to never eat pork, or that eating meat with dairy is bad for your digestion but they aren’t really true. Pigs are more likely to have parasite problems, yes, and that was an actual risk before we had much better meat handling processes, but long-term pathogenic threats are generally not things that influence human consumption pattern because it’s hard to associate one with the other without modern medicine. Meat and dairy isn’t great for our people, but that’s because our people are notoriously not good at eating dairy, not because we shouldn’t eat meat with dairy. Kashrut doesn’t exist because of how it was an amazing food-safety standard (though the practice of using salt to draw out all blood probably has that effect), it exists according to many traditional sources, for the sole reason of making Jews different from other people groups. That’s where circumcision comes from too, almost certainly.
Yes, our excellent hosts are many good things, but they tend to have a huge blind spot IMO around Chesterton’s fence and tradition of any sort; they are solidly in the “new must mean it’s better” camp, which is probably why they can swim upstream on some cultural issues but then it also leads to a total lack of understanding for how some very human decisions get made.
Thank you for introducing me to Chesterton's fence! I frequently make the same argument, but didn't know there was a term for the philosophy behind it.
Ehh I think the smegma problem is fairly easily solved by the invention of showers and running water. As a European woman with a modest body count, all of my partners have been uncut and I've never noticed a problem with buildup. They just roll the foreskin back and wash it.
Though I understand people don't see the issue, the foreskin actually has a lot of nerve endings and does protect the head of the penis from overstimulation. It's likely that sex is better and more comfortable with it. I do question whether it's right to take that from a baby who has no choice in the matter, especially when there's a small but real chance of complications. For example, if a child has congenital webbed penis or a buried penis, removal of the foreskin can make correction harder or can cause the penis to disappear further into the surrounding tissue. It's not a neutral act to remove a child's necessary body part without their consent.
That’s nice, but has nothing to do with cultural practices which developed before we decided that washing our genitals is a good idea. And as for the rest, there is basically no good evidence that really show’s significant difference in sexual function between people with and without foreskin. As for the rest, the great thing about pluralism is that you don’t have to circumcise your kids, so don’t.
The point is, that if the thing that led to the cultural practice is no longer an issue, why keep going with the cultural practice? At that point, it's basically just following dogma for the sake of it. Why potentially harm your kids when you could just... not?
When people talk about men having lost purpose as breadwinners, I feel like they are overlooking the value of driving downtown (and over bridges), killing bugs, and changing hard-to-reach light bulbs. These things are highly valuable in long-term relationship.
Why do they post a *circumcision* episode on Shabbos? Are they trying to make sure no Jews weigh in?
I haven't listened to the episode yet. Just turning things back on after Shabbos. So here's my un-informed two-cents.
The male "intactivists" I've run into always veered into anti-semitism. This is probably less true for the granola-mommy types that avoid phthalates, feed their kids organinic carrot sticks, and delay or space out their kids vaccines. I think, from the comments here, those are the people that K&J focused on.
However, I don't see any reason for circumcision, unless you're Jewish and commanded to do so. If you're not Jewish, be uncut! Let your foreskin flap in the wind!
That being said, I'm always wary of groups that want to limit or regulate it, simply because I don't want to remove access for Jewish people. It's just like I've been opposed to the California ballot propositions for free-range eggs, outlawing veal and Foie gras, because the next thing they'll decide is that Kosher slaughter is cruel and outlaw that (as has already happened in some EU countries -- even though they'll permit Halal slaughter).
My elderly mother read an anti-circumcision article in the New Yorker a couple of years ago (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/a-botched-circumcision-and-its-aftermath) and felt bad about the fact that I had one! She sent me an email apologizing. I told her not to read the New Yorker, that I'm very proud of my circucision, and that I would feel awful if I didn't have one as a Jewish person.
They argue that the animal should be stunned first. (Of course, they don't outlaw hunting! You can shoot as many reindeer as you wish.)
Sweden has a terrible anti-semitism problem. I've gone to Jewish services in Stockholm, and the synagogue is one of the most fortified ones I've seen. I had to pass two sets of armed guards (Israeli ones--I don't think they trust local security) and was interrogated befre I could enter. There's a real threat of attacks.
I would bet most Jews in Sweden are ex pat Israelis or the descendents of Holocaust survivors who ended up in Sweden or escaped there. Are there any actual Swedish Jews?
My sense is that Sweden is a place where hardcore anti Zionism has veered into anti semitism.
A the people I met in the Swedish synagogues were Jews from either Israel or the Disapora who are temporarily working in Sweden, etc. There was no Swedish spoken in the synagogues! All Hebrew or English.
I was hoping there would be _something_ swedish, like sining Adon Olam to the tune of "Dancing Queen".
Because it requires that you slice the throat of the animal and bleed them, which isn't as painless, fast or as unscary as it can be for the animals. Most modern slaughter is done by stunning and then bleeding the animal, or by plunging a steel bolt into their brain, which is instant. More industrialized halal and kosher slaughter also involves walking the animals into a large steel cylinder that has a screw blade mechanism in one end. The whole drum rotates to cut the throat and the animal bleeds out. The whole process is more stressful than it needs to be.
Regular slaughter isn't impressively humane either, so I don't think it's fair to say that kosher or halal slaughter is necessarily wildly cruel by comparison, but it is more cruel by some measure than most modern methods.
The purpose of religious slaughter was also to reduce suffering, which made sense in a time where cutting the throat and trying to bleed the animal quickly was a pretty good method. But using a more humane means when they're available isn't exactly in conflict with either religion if you're considering the spirit of the religious law. But most of what is prohibited on Shabbat also isn't work, it's often more work to avoid things like driving, using an elevator or telephone, so the spirit doesn't always win with religions.
If the intactivists actually wanted to achieve anything, rather than just screaming childishly and making fools of themselves, they would focus on ending hospital circumcision as a default practice and educating non-Jewish or -Muslim parents-to-be on the subject. I would be totally in favor of the US being like Europe, Latin America, etc. I’m a big fan of foreskin--on other guys.
I just think it’s bizarre that some people, including a lot of self-hating Jews, get so worked up about it. I’m Jewish. I’m circumcised. And I could not possibly give less of a shit. My penis functions just fine. It looks fine. Maybe there are some people who would be more into me if I were uncut. But there are also people who prefer it cut, so it’s kind of a wash. I really just do not care even a little bit, and anyone who gets on a stage and throws a temper tantrum because daddy gave him a bris needs to grow the fuck up.
Some research on vaccines found that parents were more likely to vaccinate their kids if the pediatrician DIDN'T make the case for why they should. Since then, a lot of pediatricians are presenting it very casually as a normal part of the appointment instead of explaining why it's beneficial. (Obviously, they have to do it very carefully, because parents do have the right to decline.)
But basically, the theory is that a lot of people will vaccinate unless you highlight for them the fact that childhood vaccines are a controversial issue. So one might want to do a little research before assuming that anti-circumcision campaigns in hospitals would decrease the rate of circumcision. I could see a lot of parents digging in their heels.
This may depend on where you live (?). No one ever recommended circumcision to me, other than my mom! We had a European pediatrician who was completely chill, and the hospital just asked what we wanted and wrote it down.
IIRC, the research on vaccines you referred to was about HPV. HPV vaccination rates were much higher before there was a public health push to "counter negative narratives" about the vaccine.
I always assumed everyone preferred circumcised (I’m un-). I guess it’s just negativity bias where we always manage to glom onto any negative messaging that is out there in the ether.
I'd put money on it being entirely a factor of what is perceived as "normal".
In societies where there's like an 80%+ rate of circumcision most people will think uncircumcised looks odd. Flip the numbers and most will think circumcised is odd.
The thing about male circumcision is that it seems like such a non-issue for people to get upset about. It's a wierd thing to do, but people and cultures do weird things all the time. It doesn't seem to have much of a long term impact assuming no complications - it isn't like circumcised guys are unable to enjoy sex or something. Maybe there is a small risk, but that risk seems pretty small.
For me the most relevant factor is that inactivism is used as a way to demonize Jews, which is bad. This isn't a reason to get your own kid circumcised, but perhaps it's a reason not to support getting too worked up over an issue that seems to really not be a big deal.
I may have equivocation over what to do personally if I had a son. Fortunately, I had a daughter so I didn't have to address this as a personal decision.
If it were a "Native American" custom (or just believed to be one, like "Two Spirit" nonsense), then the Left would be all about it, and they'd fly out to New Mexico to sit in a hot box and get circumcised. But because it's seen as "Jewish" (even though a billion more Moslems do it!) it has to be criticized. As I said before, I can see no good reason for a non-Jewish male to be circumcized. But for educated Jews, it's non-negotiable.
You are likely mixing groups here. I suspect (somewhat borne out by the episode) that opposition to circumcision comes from 1) anti-religion people/new atheist/skeptics; and 2) right-wing antisemites. Neither are likely to be particularly sympathetic to Native American rituals.
The alteration doesn't alter the functioning (or at least does not do so enough thst it's measurable) and isn't disfiguring in the usual sense (it's common enough that people may even have more of an aversion to an uncircumcised penis). It's pretty much a nothing burger. Might as well get upset about people getting their little girls' ears peirced.
I could cut most of your ear off without significantly impacting the function. Do you think that would be a fine thing to do to babies? So fine that you'd oppose any agitation about it by calling it a "non-issue"? Can I assume you're down for legalizing the removal of the clitoral hood? NBD, just like an ear piercing?
And if we were piercing foreskins rather than permanently removing them, along with the frenulum, and risking error and serious infection, you might have more of a point that it's just like piercing ears. Also, if the price to be paid to end this practice is that we need to prohibit piercing children's ears against their will, I think that's a fine trade.
Cutting an ear off is clearly disfiguring. It might not be if most people did it but they don't. Removal of the criteria hood clearly impacts function. Male circumcision is neither.
How is the removal of the cartilage and skin around the ear disfiguring but the removal of the foreskin not? What is the definition of "disfigure" you're using here?
And in what way does the removal of the clitoral hood impact function any more or less than the removal of the foreskin?
Merriam-Webster defines "disfigure" to mean "to impair (as in beauty) by deep and persistent injuries." If (as is the case in thebUS) circumcised penis are somewhere between asthetically equally acceptable and preferred to uncircumcised penises, they have not been "impair[ed] (as in beauty)." This isn't just wordplay, thier is a big difference between something that impairs and something that just changes.
Re cliteral hood, I may be misunderstanding what that entails. If it doesn't impair function, and is culturally acceptable, I'm not particularly bothered by it for the same reason I'm not particularly bothered by male circumcision.
The anti-jewish connection seems odd to me here. Just by the sheer numbers, most anti-semites in the west would also be circumcised. And I've not seen anyone connect circumcision to jewishness until this barpod.
Seems like it'd make an interesting research study to measure the overlap.
Why is it so hard for Jesse to understand that it would suck to have somebody waltz into your store in masks and steal shit, knowing you are completely powerless to stop it? YOU JUST GOT ROBBED. That’s gonna make you feel crappy, ripped off, dehumanized, unsafe.
Yeah, it’s not “your” stuff, it doesn’t come out of your paycheck, but it’s a place where you spend a huge chunk of your waking hours. Even if the job sucks, it feeds your family. You’re probably at least sort of friends with your coworkers, and maybe some of your regulars. And a gang of assholes just showed up and showed they have less than zero respect for you. I’m an antisocial cynic but even I am not so feeling-less as to just shrug my shoulders and let that pass.
If somebody came into your office and took a huge dump on the carpet, you wouldn’t care at all unless you were the janitor?
(None of this is meant to say that retail workers should be OBLIGATED to defend store property. But if they have the feeling that they should, I totally understand that)
Jesse's take on this bums me out. Often I forget Jesse is one of the elites he's often criticizing because he "gets it" (usually). On this issue it feels like he doesn't understand what it's like to take pride in what you do, regardless of how inconsequential it may seem.
Oh he understands what it would be like for him to take pride in what he does. He just doesn't understand why a lowly retail worker would take pride in their job I guess? It's honestly a baffling take from him
Generally he's an empathetic dude and I give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I just suspect he doesn't know what it's like to work retail like that and feel a sense of pride for the store despite the fact that it's a corporate business.
When I worked retail probably most of my coworkers didn't care at all but I have always tried to take pride in what I do and do it right.
100% this. I worked at a bagel shop as a teen and I'm still proud of the work I did giving the good people of southwest Virginia a proper NYC bagel. Yeah I'm just putting a shmear on a toasted everything for six hours and then delivering bagels in the van, but I did it good! Man I haven't had a good bagel in so long. Anyway what were we talking about?
I felt the same way waitressing at Golden Corral a thousand years ago as my very first job when I was 15. I’ve carried that through my whole life and it has served me very well. I was the best damn pinafore and scarf wearing, buffet plate slinging, table bussing, silverware rolling, sweet tea refiller in the business. The construction guys fought to sit in my section at lunch because I was so fast. I can still smell the yeast rolls in my hair ;)
Btw I’ve never wanted a bagel more ;)
So if someone robbed the bagel shop, you would've tried to prevent it even if your boss said don't try to prevent it? Probably not because taking pride in that work has nothing to do with thwarting robberies.
You gotta be hard up to rob a bagel shop.
The hole in the centre of Jesse's soul.
Dunno. I think he’s just digging in. You’d have to be a little dense not to “get it”.
You see an old lady fall down at the bus stop. Some people (too many) are like “none of my business, moving on”. Some are like “something’s not right, wonder if they need help” and stop.
But I’d hope both groups were capable of empathizing with why the other acted the way they did.
I feel like he’s been digging in more. Like with his response to the semi-backlash on his take about the citi bike Karen story. I’m starting to feel like A) his New York centered big city liberal elitism is showing more and B) he doesn’t take criticism or opposing views very gracefully.
I feel like this is new for him and I’m not particularly liking it. Or maybe I haven’t noticed it before? Or maybe these are outlying cases. Not a good look, whatever it is.
Because he and Katie are affluent members of the media class and they’re just as blind to working class issues as their peers. I’m sorry if this is insulting to them but it’s the simple truth.
Katie is not blind to that. Listen to her Special Place in Hell episode.
Weren’t both of her parents professors though? That’s far from “my parents were terd farmers” (to use an old Colbert line about presidential candidates back when he was funny).
Yes, but she still gets it. She's proven multiple times that she understands to a pretty good degree how the working class feels. She's a real one who actually does care about genuine people more than how well she fits in with her segment of society. I fucking love Katie. Not sexually. She looks like my nephew.
(Terd or turd?)
Sure, I'll concede that of the two hosts, Katie has far and away a broader perspective on most issues.
It's certainly not a simple truth, more like a complex lie. But anyway, Jesse is saying establishment workers should not try to thwart robberies in keeping with their bosses wishes. This is probably because the workers could get killed, it is against the company policy, and they are personally not getting robbed.
I suppose he should be calling on workers to fight thieves and take responsibility for any losses. Then he would not be blind to working class issues? Very confusing.
From what I can tell, Jesse's sole non-media job was a brief stint delivering pizzas in undergrad. He grew up in the extremely affluent town of Newton, MA, and both of his parents were lawyers. I think it's fair to posit that he is not working class and does not have any meaningful handle on the issues of same.
Everything else you've written is seemingly prompted by something that I didn't say, so I don't feel the need to respond to it.
No one suggests retail workers should be obligated to confront thieves. The debate is on firing workers who try to stop a criminal act. The “bosses’ wishes” should not come into play because these policies are not designed to protect people--it is to protect money. The downstream impact for the workers is not hard to imagine and ignored by these non-confrontation policies. Here are a few.
Half the store is locked up, so workers are summoned when anyone wants Tide or Claritin or shampoo. There are constant reminders that you work for low wages while others steal indiscriminately; workers can’t take anything resembling civic action to make the place where they spend a sizable amount of their waking hours more safe and less chaotic; workers are afraid to act virtuously; people like Katie find out you and your store are marks ready for exploitation; the good of the company outweighs the good of the community; workers can’t try to do something to make their community more safe without being fired; the social contract is inverted, which creates dissonance and mistrust of other vestiges of society. ...I don’t want to belabor the point.
Loss of product via theft is the cost of doing business, and the ramifications of that policy on the well being of the workers or the community don’t matter to the company. Jesse sides with the company; anyone who doesn’t want to work in a place that attracts junkies and low-lifes is unfathomable to him.
I think you’re right. It’s a disgust mechanism and highlights a class distinction he establishes between him and his audience that has been increasingly pronounced as of late.
He sees retail as a job you have when you are young or a job you have when you have no other options due to educational/historical circumstances. I think he is imprinting his own experiences delivering pizzas twice and how little he valued the gig.
When I worked in a deli in the Bronx in the late 90s, I took an immense sense of pride when the second or third thing the boss showed me the first day was the baseball bat under the counter. I felt like I was part of a tribe and this was our territory. It wasn’t my deli, but you can get a contact high of ownership when you defend something.
Granted, this did not stop me from burying myself in stolen cigarettes from the establishment, but so it goes.
I had a friend during the summer of 2020 scold me for stating the insane opinion that riots aren’t good by saying “greg, that’s what insurance is for.” I know two people who had an optometry office in Santa Monica and had their store burned down. They were pretty upset about it but it’s like guyyyyyys hello? Insurance?
Anyone who thinks insurance is some magical force that undos all misfortune has never actually had to file an insurance claim, nor have they had the joys of seeing premiums hiked as a result of increased risk.
It's funny because nobody would insist that the medical insurance or car insurance industry are wonderful to engage with, and somehow it's like, no, yeah, it's awesome to deal with your insurance agency after rioters smashed your windows.
wondering, are these the same people who tell you "you can just have/get another" after a miscarriage or your dog dies?
My husband's business was robbed. He filed that one claim, and was told that if he ever filed another, he'd lose his coverage. But he couldn't just let it go because he couldn't legally operate without insurance. That's what insurance does.
Okay, first of all your husband's business wasn't robbed. Some brave comrades were doing the work and redistributing wealth. YOU WANT TO ARREST THEM FOR BEING HUNGRY!
Not to mention the basic question: Where do they think the money comes from to pay those claims??
While I did not watch the video or videos, taking pride in your job, whatever the job, has nothing to do with thwarting robberies in progress at one's workplace. You literally could get killed and that's why your boss said don't do it. I could see ensuring cameras are setup inside and outside and working to get the criminals busted, or maybe quitting and a becoming a local cop and going after them. But that's not their current job and they shouldn't do it.
They weren’t wrestling the robbers to the ground or really physically confronting them in any significant way. Just yelling at them to stop and following them out the door to get more video of them for evidence.
It’s the dichotomy of literally firing someone for taking a fairly milquetoast stand against thievery, vs essentially ignoring repeated crime. Whether the policy is ultimately wise or not, you have to see how that will get the hackles up.
I don't think that Jesse understands that people who work low-wage jobs can still like their employers. Sure, there are some low wage employees who are cynical, but there are also a lot that care about the place they work. Many people work at a specific store precisely because they like it.
Yes, there are plenty of people who work somewhere only because it was the first place that hired them. There are also people who specifically choose to work at a sporting goods store because they love sports or a bookstore because they love to read, people who like working at a bodega because it's a hub for their community, line cooks who want to gain enough knowledge, experience, and reputation to open up their own restaurant one day. In the previous episode's comment section I mentioned the horrible story of the Lululemon murder. The employee who was murdered after she caught her coworker shoplifting was passionate about yoga and athletic apparel design and was in the process of applying to corporate positions at Lululemon. Even the ones who aren't all that interested in what their company does still don't want to be out of a job.
Most low-wage employees just don't want their workplaces burned to the ground.
Well also the hugely corrosive nature of you being stuck there working for say $15/hr and then some assholes come in and walk out with $800 of stuff. You feel like chump. That is absolutely the type of thing which slowly destroys society.
I really like Jesse but 100% agree here. He doesnt understand how someone working a "normal job" can take it serious and have some pride in doing it well.
He doesn't realize the elite bubble he inhabits.
The more safe, stable, secure, orderly, and respectful a work environment is, the more comfortable most people are going to feel working there (at any pay level!)
If given the choice between working for minimum wage at a business where you'd have to deal with break-ins, looting, and/or robbers (who could be armed!) versus a similar business that had none of those issues, I think most of us would prefer the latter. Even people who don't make a lot of money want to work in a decent environment.
Yep, someone I grew up with switched from loss prevention at Walmart to the same job at Kohl's and is much happier, simply because less theft happens and fewer thieves are confrontational at the Kohl's in his town.
(I'm not making any claims about these chains in general, just relaying his experience at two specific stores.)
Not to mention that if the store closes, or has to cut your hours, or even just moves location due to rampant shoplifting, that’s going to affect your life in a negative way.
And also, if the employees are paid on a commission, and the thefts deter paying customers, they'll make less money!
Which has happened as we’ve seen in San Francisco and is even happening in the bad area of my state too.
I worked in retail, from high end to corner shops, and shoplifting made life even more miserable than the everyday nonsense. We had extra paperwork to fill in every time it occurred and we had the indignity of being "suspect" ourselves if stock was missing. In the high end retail places, we had to basically do a stock take every bloody morning and evening. It's very unsettling as almost everyone has already said; items may not literally be your belongings, but one does have a sense of propriety over the shop so people stealing feels like a violation of a space that belongs to you and your workmates. Work environments matter a great deal, perhaps more so in a job which is poorly paid, is simultaneously tiring but also tedious and regarded by some of the middle classes as low status. Harrumph!
I don’t even see it as a matter of taking pride in your job. It’s demeaning and it’s scary.
I think I agree with Jesse here. I was a janitor and a bouncer, and many other "inconsequential" jobs. I think part of taking pride in your work is adhering to policy that has clear reasoning.
I think your office analogy actually supports my position. Someone shitting in office would be hilarious, and I do take pride in my work. You think I would get in an altercation with a guy who took a dump on an office floor?
Those jobs aren’t inconsequential. DEI bureaucrats are inconsequential. Having a clean office and getting rid of potentially violent drunks is useful.
Ok but let’s say the office pooper doesn’t show up one time, but every week. And he’s physically intimidating people. And your bosses don’t do anything to make it stop. And finally your favorite coworker gets fed up and tells the cubicle crapper to fuck off, so your boss finally acts - by firing your coworker!
You can’t see why that would be disheartening? I actually agree with the non confrontation policy from a practical and liability standpoint, but it needs to be paired with some sort of indication that you have your employees’ backs, that, if you’re going to force them to be passive in the face of criminals ransacking their workplace, you’ll at least do something to try to stop that from happening.
Shoplifting is antisocial behavior, stopping shoplifting is prosocial behavior. The optics here are terrible because Lululemon is very publicly expressing that they care more about suppressing prosocial behavior than punishing antisocial behavior.
The analogy has become tortured. It has lost all explaining power. In shop lifter scenario they have an explicit policy that they hopefully train employees on that says no intervening in shoplifting. There is no such thing in the second analogy.
I can see in general why working at a store that has lots of blatant shoplifting would be disheartening.
The office pooper thing was clearly an absurd joke and you’re the one who came in here taking it seriously, I was just responding in kind.
Lululemon had a policy. Neither you nor I knows how well they actually train people on it, or how evenly it’s actually enforced.
But I would hazard to guess that the policy has as much to do with covering their ass for liability insurance as any interest in employee wellbeing. Certainly it does not appear to be tied to any matching policy to protect employees from potentially dangerous criminals.
LMAO, bit of a bait and switch going on. I would not want to work in a place were people frequently shit on the floor. I am saying that a single occurrence of somebody taking a number two would be funny.
I suppose in your office you guys would rush the pooper like the people on the third air plane and hold his cheeks together?
I don't desire that someone poops on my office floor I am only saying that somebody doing so would be so obscene that it would be funny.
I am invested in the upkeep of my office. I get annoyed when people throw trash in the clearly labeled recycling bin.
The whole point is that the analogy sucks.
I think he said he wouldn’t confront them not that he would want to share an office with them.
At the sawmill my dad told me a story about someone shitting in the hard hat of a superintendent nobody liked. They figured it had to be two people, one shitting and one holding the hard hat, because it had a swirl. I always kind of figured that he was confessing.
fecal gumshoery by soft-serve analogy
And also it’s not fair. Idc how childish it sounds but I don’t make a ton of money and I don’t steal shit. So why should you? Was at an antique shop where I purchased the items I wanted, got in car, friend’s sister pulls a bunch of little knickknacks out of her pockets. Whyyyyyyyy?!
Agreed.
Another thing that grinds my gears is when we're told shoplifting is to be ignored because poor people need things. Like all poor people are criminals but it's ok, it's just what they do. I have had bouts of poverty and didn't steal. Know people who have very limited incomes and don't steal, it's just a ridiculous thing to say.
It’s perplexing. Jesse takes huge pride in his own work and has certainly forgone a lot to produce his heterodox content. I think he’s just had too much of the “online leftist” takes that suggest that unless you’re literally a member of the bourgeoise, there’s no reason to care about your place of work
If I can engage in some mindreading, I think it comes down to Jesse liking the little guy and really really not liking corporations. It looks from the outside like the corporation and not the little guy is being hurt here, so why should the little guy take corporate's side?
(Also hi gbdub!)
^This. They're not "rewarding" these employees for this vigilantism; on the contrary, they don't want a lawsuit/spectacle and need to know exactly whom to trust to it.
Jesse “Former NYTimes Writer and Substack Partner” is for the little guy!
Hi Nick!
I agree somewhat, but I think the blind spot is assuming that shoplifting can only hurt “the little guy” through direct financial nefariousness on the part of their bosses.
Also I may be overreacting because a sort of lazy, reductive anti-corporatism was really common among the liberals I went to school with, and I’ve always found it obnoxious.
lol i knew people would be outraged about this. i’m with jesse, it’s gay as hell to care personally about shoplifters at your crappy retail job. some of us are just working these to survive/fund non-lucrative hobbies and projects we actually care about. no one’s getting paid enough to run after a shoplifter
“Gay as hell”
Let me guess, you’re 20 years old?
it also is funny that anyone is trying to make this out to be a class issue when it’s clearly just a matter of personality. for example i have found that the type of person whining about shoplifters is usually also humourless and overly sensitive in other areas of life. which aligns, no offense, perfectly w my impression of most people who comment in these threads and the subreddit lol
You sound like so much fun.
you actually do sound like fun to me lol
Even just on the level of the flight or fight response it would trigger I can’t see being at a retail job, having someone barge in and start grabbing stuff and my response being to just yawn and scroll instagram.
I lost my shit at some rich touristy customers who were being obnoxious once in a health food store I worked in (hazy memory, I think they broke a bottle of juice but weren’t remorseful at all and reacted like it was funny). Should’ve called my manager upstairs but I went all townie on them & ended up leaving my job (it was okay, I was underemployed so it freed up a job for someone who needed it more).
This 10000%. I worked as a cashier for both large box stores and mom and pop shops. There is a comradery that is developed with both. Even if the shift manager is an ass, he or she is your ass, and its your store in your neighborhood that your friends and family shop in. You're there to work and its important to take pride in what you do. When a brazen act of theft occurs its a stain on something you hold dear. I agree with corporate policies, the insult or stain is not as valuable as your life and safety but that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. It hits differently when you witness a theft out of need versus a theft of opportunity and disregard and the latter sucks big time.
As someone who worked retail for ten plus years, this exact thing has happened to me a handful of times, even as a manager. I didn’t care then and I don’t care now, so I see exactly what Jesse is speaking to. I have worked a few times at mom n pop shops and they don’t tend to get racked the same way, but I might feel different about that. I managed an American Apparel in New Orleans that was racked almost weekly and I could not have possibly cared less. Getting held at gun point sucked though.
Circumcision is such an insanely inflamed topic in moms-of-baby-boys circles that, as someone who neither buys the medical arguments for circumcision nor thinks that circumcising infant boys is a terrible ethical breach, I've spent years trying to avoid the topic online. So I thoroughly enjoyed this episode's deep dive into Internet Bullshit: The Circumcision Edition. Great research and presentation, Jesse. And this was probably Katie's funniest sign-off ever.
When I was still hospitalized after the birth of my baby boy, my Southern mom asked me if I was going to have him circumcised. (Circumcision was nearly universal among white Southerners when I was growing up, I'd guess for reasons that started with 19th-century beliefs about hygiene and turned into a "Let the boy look like his father" tradition over time.) I said no, I wasn't, and she said, "You know he'll always have terrible recurrent infections until you circumcise him." I wanted to ask her if she thought that ~70% of the world's men and boys were going around getting recurrent penile infections all the time, but I chickened out and just said, "My baby, my decision."
Fast-forward a few weeks to my attempt to meet other moms at the local La Leche League meeting in my lefty town. Somebody asked if I'd had my baby circumcised, congratulated me for not having done it, and added, "Men who don't have foreskins lose sensitivity and thrust more violently during sex." I guess I could have asked her if she thought ~30% of the world's men were going around having violent sex all the time, but I chickened out and got the hell out of there.
Thank goodness my kids are older and I can now talk to the other parents about uncontroversial issues like sex ed and gender identity.
While I really wanted a son, I stopped short of forming a full opinion on this and counted it as a small blessing that along with "The Football Question" I'd probably never have to make this decision. (I ended up with a house full of girls and an entirely different bucket of concerns)
However, I do lean a bit towards "if there's not overwhelming evidence, leave well enough alone" when it comes to body modification for, supposedly, medical reasons and particularly with something as critical to well being as genitals.
The one thing that really gets under my skin though is when the Intactivists (god, what a great word) try to compare circumcision with FGM / clitorectomy. They are not even remotely the same and I feel it trivializes the severity of the later by comparing to something as minimally impactful on life as circumcision seems to be.
FGM/clitorectomy is more akin to penectomy or castration.
It's worth mentioning that there is more than one form of FGM and one of the more common forms is the removal of the clitoral hood which is very similar to make circumcision.
Additionally, botched circumcisions where part or all of the glans are removed or where severe infection leads to even more severe damage, do happen. Probably about as frequently as the most severe forms of FGM given how common circumcision is. In some countries, like South Africa, death and infection leading to the loss of the penis is common as a result of ritual circumcision.
So yeah FGM is often a horror show that can be far more severe than a successful circumcision performed in a western hospital, but that discounts A: unhygienic, unskilled forms of male circumcision, and also the thousands of botched procedures done in hospital. When you perform millions of circumcisions, even a small error rate maims an awful lot of people in really horrible ways for really no reason.
So I don't think you're making a fair comparison here.
There are 4 classifications of FGM defined by WHO. The most common, 1-3, include clitorectomy and significant alteration of labia. The 4th is a catch all. WHO lists examples of this category, but doesn’t mention hoodectomy.
Circumcision complications like you speak of are in the .04% range. I agree even that is too much if there’s no medical benefit.
However, your description of FGM implies the harm is mainly due to not being performed professionally and if so would be closer to circumcision.
This is fundamentally incorrect. FGM procedures are intrinsically harmful. They permanently eliminate the ability to orgasm, cause life long problems with urination, pain, and medical issues. Not due to complications…due to the direct consequences of the changes made.
They simply are not in the same category at all.
This seems like a willful misinterpretation of what I said.
>However, your description of FGM implies the harm is mainly due to not being performed professionally and if so would be closer to circumcision.
Literally nothing I said would lead any reasonable person to think I was implying that the harm of FGM was in the unprofessional nature of the needless maiming.
>FGM procedures are intrinsically harmful.
Yes, as is male circumcision, even if not to the same extent on a case by case basis.
>Circumcision complications like you speak of are in the .04% range.
Assuming that figure is correct, which it may be in the most developed countries in the world, but absolutely nowhere close to reality in places like the Philippines or South Africa, it's 0.04% of an extremely large number. Hundreds of millions of people X 0.04% is a massive number of people. Hence my point about raw numbers of extremes like the loss of the glans, the penis itself, or lack of function or death.
>There are 4 classifications of FGM defined by WHO. The most common, 1-3, include clitorectomy and significant alteration of labia. The 4th is a catch all. WHO lists examples of this category, but doesn’t mention hoodectomy.
Clitoridectomy in the data is not distinguished from the removal of the clitoral hood. Both are covered in type 1, even though one or the other may be performed. The removal of the clitoral hood is analogous to male circumcision.
The most severe forms of FGM are also the most commonly practiced in many countries. This is betraying a serious lack of knowledge about the extent and damage of FGM.
That's not even accurate. The most common forms are pricking, the removal of the clitoral hood, and the partial or complete removal of the clitoris. The prevalence of the latter three is only known collectively because that's how the data is collected. The most severe form, where the vaginal canal is sewn shut, is by far the least common procedure.
In any case, I'm strongly opposed to all of it and think it's all barbarous. What I am saying is, that a lot of FGM is not totally distinct from male circumcision in terms of harm. Even the most severe forms have their analogue with male circumcision, though not intentionally. But in developing countries it's shockingly common for boys to have part of their glans removed, or lose their penis to severe infection. Is losing your penis less bad because it wasn't on purpose but instead the outcome of a totally unnecessary procedure? Or do you think it's about the same for the person without a penis?
Sorry, if we're not considering removal of the clitoris severe FGM I think we're done here.
That's clearly a straw man. You made a claim, that the "most" severe forms of FGM were the most prevalent. This is not correct. That doesn't therefore mean I don't think the removal of the clitoris is serious. I consider all genital mutilation serious, and have stated that very clearly already.
The most common form of FGM is Type I, which includes type IA, which is analogous to male circumcision, and type IB, which is the full or partial removal of the clitoris. The problem with your claim, even if this was the most severe form, which it isn't, is that the data doesn't distinguish between type IA and IB in terms of prevalence. We don't actually know which of these two is the most common. It's either a procedure that is nearly identical to male circumcision, which completely undermines your entire point, or it's a more severe procedure, which at best is basically a red herring in the context of whether it's ethical to surgically alter baby's genitals electively. If people were amputating arms in China for a cleaner look, that wouldn't make male circumcision okay just because by comparison, it's less severe.
It also doesn't help that there are a lot of different forms of FGM. With some of the more mild forms, where a small amount of tissue is taken from the clitoral hood or even where the vulva is cut with nothing removed yeah, I can see the comparison. But for ones that remove the clitoris and sew the labia together? Obviously a different thing.
I always had angst over circumcision (and football) when thinking about my hypothetical future sons. It's medically unnecessary, but it's culturally encouraged and cultural expectations aren't nothing. I'm almost certain that I'd circumcise my sons if I were Jewish or Muslim. Luckily (?) for me, I married a guy who has said "no circumcision and no football." And I'm fine with that for my hypothetical future boys.
Even if you limit the comparison to the most severe forms of FGM, there are reasonable comparisons to be made, just not in terms of intent. Nobody is aiming for these outcomes with male circumcision, but some of them are nonetheless horrendous.
The most severe forms of FGM are intentional. The most severe forms of male circumcision, aren't, though are probably more numerous because the procedure is orders of magnitude more common. Nobody intentionally removes the glans in part or in full, but it happens because of botched procedures. Nobody amputates the penis altogether, but it happens because of infection. When you perform tens of millions of circumcisions, this happens. When it comes to ritual circumcision or some of the less hygienic but not totally primitive versions practiced in Asia and Africa, the rates of serious complications are astronomically high.
Fair. I tend to focus on the intent piece, since bad outcomes are always a risk with any surgery. But I can see an argument that intent is less important when you're talking about the number of individuals who could be hurt.
Intent matters in terms of how you treat the perpetrator, it's almost irrelevant to the victims of whatever the act is. So I would agree if the context was what ought to be done about people performing FGM vs male circumcision, that intent was really important. But the context is the effects on the people who are being circumcised, so I think overall harm in terms of outcome is more relevant to that side of the issue.
I feel more certain about no football than I do circumcision. I played football my entire life, but the evidence is just too significant at this point...
Oh my goodness, moms/mom groups are a total minefield! When my friend was pregnant with her first child, her OBGYN gave her two pieces of great advice. The first was just to neutrally agree with whatever parenting advice gets thrown at you and then do whatever you want.
"Letting your baby cry it out is barbaric!"
"Yeah, I've heard that"
"The only way your child will ever sleep is if you use the cry it out method"
"Yeah, I've heard that"
The second piece of advice was to imagine that she had an umbrella over her and envision all the unsolicited noise about parenting as raindrops dripping off the umbrella.
Genius OB/GYN. I'm stealing this advice for my younger friends.
Obligatory:
Only rule you'll ever need to learn in parenting: The "Don't Do Fucked Up Shit" Rule of Parenting.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/03/parenting-doesnt-matter-that-muchas-long-as-you-dont-do-anything-super-weird.html
In the 1990’s we just avoided in general talking about these divisive subjects that always make people feel defensive by asking our doctors, discussing it with the father’s of the children and in general deferred to the father’s opinion unless the doctor had really good arguments on the other side. I asked my three grown sons later if they were glad they were circumcised and they all answered in the affirmative. I definitely thought about it and researched the topic and knew that there were good arguments on both sides of the issue. Like everything in life, it was a very nuanced topic with no clear cut answer. But we just didn’t hyperventilate over the decision. “Our baby, our decision”!
How is unnecessarily removing part of an infant's sex organ not a "terrible ethical breach" if there Is not medical justification?
Like sure, it's not as bad as amputating a limb, but in the absence of some health benefit, which you acknowledge isn't likely to be present, it's highly unethical.
Flagrant violation of the Hippocratic oath is a fairly obvious severe ethical breach.
Jesse, a dog bar mitzvah is called a bark mitzvah, obviously. What kind of Jew are you?
Being around crime is unsettling. I was legitimately confused by Jesse's response in the original podcast. You don't even have to like your job, have pride in the company, or be a shareholder to be impacted by an antisocial, chaotic, and oftentimes aggressive act, especially when it's repeated! Then you're required to clean up the mess, restock the shelves like nothing happened, and I'm sure fill out some sort of paperwork. Also, employees at these stores have now been given opportunity to steal themselves and blame it on the thieves.
Yeah I was in a CVS the other day and a guy was just shoveling stuff into a bag. I'm extremely nonconfrontational and don't talk to strangers but even I had to restrain myself from going up to him and saying something. Like I just don't want to live in a world where people do stuff like that. Jesse is being really weird and obtuse about this.
I think Jesse might low key be trying to break up with the audience.
I’ve been listening back through the archives and Jesse has been worried about “audience capture” since literally episode one. I do think this sometimes manifests itself as being a little “too cool for school” if it means taking the “conservative” side on anything he hasn’t personally deeply researched.
I am not a thief and I don’t steal because I think it corrodes your sense of self. You become what you do. But seeing that guy at CVS, did it make you feel like a fool for paying?
That's not how I would describe the feeling. I mean it definitely feels unfair. But he was obviously on drugs and homeless so it's not like I thought I was dumb and he was doing the right thing. It's more like it made me feel like society is hanging by a thread and the only thing keeping out the wolves is people voluntarily deciding to pay.
It's weird because in some ways it seems more upsetting than the murder rate going up even though murder is a far worse crime. Stuff like this is so much more ubiquitous than murder so you frequently see people just deciding that basic rules of society are negotiable and you wonder what other basic social rules are out the window.
I experienced this in DC and NYC over the past year, and I didn't feel like a sucker, it felt surreal, like we were living in two different movies, one where I have to pay for my Zyrtec/bag of chocolate almonds and one where it was totally ok for him to shovel an entire shelf of stuff into his jacket/into her bag. And it's weird, I still feel like I'd get stopped or face consequences if I brazenly stole something - maybe the type of person who just confidently steals is sort of shameless and wouldn't be subject to any of the social forces that make me feel like I have to pay for stuff.
I don't usually feel the fool. More aggravation and knowing that that nonsense is baked into the price I pay so that in a very real, direct way I'm paying for that asshole's shit.
I’m not really bothered by “moist” or “penis”, but “moist penis” is definitely a contender for least favorite phrase.
Does anyone actually have a problem with the word "moist" or is that just a meme of some kind? I can't say I understand this issue.
I have one friend who legitimately hates the word moist. I feel like it's mostly a meme, though. Women don't like the word "moist," cue laugh track.
I vote for Jesse/Katie/Trace to do some research on words that gross people out the most. Surely there is a body of research on this topic... somewhere.
I was struck by the mention of how removing the foreskin reduces natural lubrication. I have limited experience with uncircumcised dicks. Do uncircumcized penises become...(trigger warning) moist penises when aroused?
I had to confront my US circumcision-bias, because wet (moist) vaginas are generally considered hot, but a moist penis can take a hike.
Hehe love your question. I guess the pro-foreskin people say that the foreskin collects and holds the woman's natural lubrication better. But I don't know how this can help unless he's pulling out all the way out before going back in? I dunno. Seems like a silly argument, if there are lubrication issues, what's wrong with using extra lube from a bottle? Lots of people do that.
While I still don't fully get the mechanics of this explanation, it is less upsetting than the idea of the foreskin weeping natural lubrication.
...and if the woman's juices just aren't there, the foreskin trap has nothing to catch. Yes, just reach for the bottle of KY!
That's not it. there's no need for artificial lubrication because the tip of the penis, which is very sensitive, is protected by the foreskin so vaginal lubricant is sufficient for comfortable sex. Men also don't need any lube for masturbation.
The foreskin doesn't create a moist penis, no. It slides smoothly over and protects the sensitive tip of the penis and acts as a lubricant would, so vaginal lubricant is sufficient for comfortable sex, and no artificial lubricant is generally necessary for male masturbation either. Although some of the intactivists are insane, I think they do have a point. The foreskin contains a lot of nerve endings and sex is likely better and easier with it intact.
Slacks. Hideous word.
Okay that actually made my stomach do a little flip. Well done.
Agreed but along this theme, I find the word "dank" to be unnerving. If something, be it a cave or body part is dank, it goes beyond the typical moist status.
I strongly associate the word “dank” with marijuana, where it has positive connotations for some reason!
yeah...when I hear dank my brain's autocomplete immediately goes to "weed".
I’ve noticed a pattern when parenting or adult/child interactions are involved K&J seem to fall into a black pit of “I don’t get it”.
Probably just due to a complete lack of experience with young kids or something.
Genitals are a recurring topic for young kids. Caretakers have to be prepared to discuss ANYTHING. My daughter was convinced she was a boy for like a year because she discovered she had a tiny penis and figured it would grow as she got older. So…time to talk about clitoris. Yeah. You have to take kids into the bathroom stalls when you got to go. Especially if you have runners (control the exits!!). Little boys are fascinated by their penis. And if they notice differences. There are questions. You have to teach them how to stand to pee (boys raised by only women often insist on sitting and can be intimidated by urinals).
They would absolutely want to know why dad’s penis is different. Couple that with circumcised men having a whole set of hygiene practices that uncircumcised men do not and I get why a guy might favor circumcision. …..even if they awkwardly explain all of it with “so they look like me”.
Especially if you believed the procedure wasn’t a big deal (accurately or not). And when you reflect on your life as a circumcised male and realize there doesn’t seem to be a single problem you’ve suffered as a result.
The “Oh my God, how weird to think of your kids genitals!” Reaction is naive. Let me tell you, once you have kids your entire existence is largely defined by shit and piss and genitals and the occasional awkward question about genitals…..at least the first few years.
Then you have to worry about them getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. So. More genitals. And I guess today, you might have to worry about double mastectomies or voluntary castration. So more genitals.
The hugs and pictures are really sweet though. I dig story time too.
The head of my circumcised penis can get a little dry and cracked at times, not often, but when it does it’s not amazing. I suspect that is a side effect of the skin there not technically being evolved as external.
That’s the main downside I can think of.
The main downside I can think of is when "violent thrusting" was mentioned. After I heard that, a few things clicked for me. I'm definitely less sensitive down there than I should be, and there are some feelings I've had that could easily be explained by "a lot less sensitive than it should be."
This has never happened to me. (not denying or anything, but I wonder if this is common or not)
It’s a thing, I have seen it on and discussed it with other men, but I have zero idea how prevalent. I just know it is “some”.
I don’t understand why Jesse felt the need to pull, entirely out of his ass, a fake statistic that “aside from Israel” the US is an outlier in terms of circumcision rates.
I haven’t finished listening yet so maybe it gets better, but the near-complete erasure of the Muslim world in this episode is pretty annoying, again aside from a single sentence of Jesse bullshitting the historical background of circumcision in Islam, which he clearly doesn’t actually know. Point being, circumcision is near universal in Muslim countries, which make up a healthy chunk of the world’s population.
Even aside from Judaism and Islam, circumcision is just as widely practiced in South Korea, the Philippines, and many African and Pacific Islander traditions.
The point is, circumcision is not just Some Weird Jewish Thing, and the fact that Jesse even felt the need to bring up the practice of Metzitzah B’peh (the oral suctioning thing), which is practiced by a vanishingly tiny minority and is often misrepresented as being the norm, speaks to the obnoxious ignorance of their own religion you often see in secular Jews, ignorance that often seems to border on anti-Semitism.
Sorry, this episode bugged me a lot. You guys are better than this.
He did qualify that with "Western", and while Israel is in the middle east, it is heavily populated by Jews of European descent, and operates in a decidedly western manner. So it is accurate that the US is the only western culture that does widespread circumcision. European penises tend to have foreskin (just throwing them a bone here!)
I believe he said “developed,” which would include a lot of Muslim countries, as well as Korea and maybe the Philippines.
> He did qualify that with "Western", and while Israel is in the middle east, it is heavily populated by Jews of European descent, and operates in a decidedly western manner
The majority of Jews in Israel aren't of European descent, and as someone who spends 4 months/year in Israel, it doesn't seem that Western to me (though it is true that there are many people whose immediate ancestors came from Europe and the FSU).
It constantly annoys me how naive Jesse is when it comes to Israel and all thinks Jewish, and how he foolishy and unintentionally, flirts with antisemitic tropes.
That's the good portion of coastal secular Jews for you, unfortunately.
I know many secular Jews who still have a strong sense of Jewish identity. Sadly, Jesse is lacking this.
What bothered me most about this episode is that Jesse (or Trace) didn't bother to look up what is done with the foreskin after a bris.
I’m with you. The way he felt the need to call metzitzah b’peh “grotesque” was extremely off-putting. No need to be okay with it, but maybe disagree with it in less inflammatory language.
Erm. I dunno. I’d say to 95% of people a religious figure sucking the blood off an infants’ recently cut penis with his mouth is objectively pretty grotesque???
I had never heard of this and it definitely turned my stomach. Of course I understand that People do a lot of weird and grotesque things
An Argumentum ad Populum? On MY heterodox podcast?
This is often done today through a glass pipe and no direct contact is done. See: https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/safe-bris.page
Of course, some staunch traditionalists will insist on it.
Why should you avoid being inflammatory about a practice where an adult man sucks on the genitals of a baby, on an open wound no less, with his dirty bacteria filled mouth?
What about that practice justifies soft language?
I haven't heard the whole episode yet--just turning back on after shabbos. If he said this, I can't in good conscience remain a BARPod subscriber.
Just to be clear, hoping my interpretation is incorrect: you're saying that you're going to unsubscribe to a podcast because the host said that a grown man sucking a baby's dick is grotesque?
He was nicer about it than was necessary. It's a fucking disgusting, barbaric practice that would be shocking to find in the most backwards developing country, let alone a borough of the richest city in the world. Absolutely revolting.
The entire episode ends up being about a bunch of anti semetic intactivists (and one non).
It is true that the US is THE one massive outlier among majority European nations. And like they said it’s mostly due like he said to non Jewish quacks like Kellog and subsequent cultural transmission, plus our Jewish AND Muslim populations.
I listened to the rest of the episode, and while I appreciate the look at "intactivists" (I maintain that Harvard ragecase is just mad at his dad and if it weren't circumcision it'd be something else), I still came away from it feeling like this was a poor choice of topic for this particular podcast. For one, neither Jesse nor Katie seems particularly interested in the topic. Katie makes sense, but Jesse begins the episode by saying he'd never really thought about circumcision and ends it by saying he doesn't get it. As a result of this lack of curiosity, basic information was just...not there.
For example, sorry Jesse, but if you actually want to talk about this topic you should put on your big boy pants and watch a medical video (or, hey, some porn!) to get a sense of the physical difference of a circumcised penis versus and uncircumcised one. That utterly bizarre remark about an uncircumcised dick looking like an artichoke heart -- dude, you're almost forty, what the hell are you talking about?
Also, this is partially a religious topic, so it might have behooved Jesse to talk to an observant Jew or Muslim to get a sense of the cultural importance of circumcision. Limiting that discussion to reading a couple verses of Genesis and offhand mention of theories as to the practical utility of circumcision in pre-modern times is just piss-poor analysis.
One other thing that leapt out at me was Jesse's statement that circumcision can wait until adulthood. Really, dude? Five minutes on Google will teach you that that adult circumcision is a risky, complex, and painful procedure with a very long convalescence. Infant circumcision is not.
So yeah, the number of times Jesse said "I don't know" in this episode, in response to queries it would have been trivial for him to learn the answer to, was to me indicative of shallow and uncurious research. But hey, metzitzah b'peh is gross and weird, so let's talk about that!
> and offhand mention of theories as to the practical utility of circumcision in pre-modern times is just piss-poor analysis.
Right. I hate it when people try to justify a commandment. There's no need to justify any of them. Not all of them are for us to understand.
It is outrageous that he calls out the metzitzah b'peh. I'm quite proud of the fact that I was welcomed into the world and given my name "Reuven" this way.
Any apologists for religion reading this? This is what you're defending.
It's pretty odd. Global prevalence is like 38% with global Jewish population being around 0.2% (assuming males are 0.1%).
So 0.3% (0.00256) of all circumcised people are jewish.
And a quick wikipedia scan says the practice goes back to possibly over 10,000 years....which, even if we take biblical writings as truth, was about 6,000 years before the father of the Judaic religions (Abraham).
So probably more accurate to say this is one of the many pagan practices incorporated into Judaic tradition (and many other traditions) rather than Judaism being responsible for it's broad modern day usage.
My husband and I had a baby boy 8 months ago - when I found out I was pregnant with a boy, I initially wanted him circumcised because I believed it was healthier, and honestly, just more attractive (in my opinion as a woman who likes dicks).
My husband was VERY against it. He is circumcised, but has come to the belief that it is a barbaric practice, the health benefits are based on bad science, it can sometimes go very badly, etc.
Since my opinion was not as strongly held, I let him decide for our son.
Having learned a lot more about it, I'm glad we didn't get him circumcised.
Thank you, Jesse and Katie, for discussing this issue - it's a weird thing to be an activist about, but it really is important.
It can go very badly, which is something that's not often discussed, especially in the context of the supposed health benefits. The rate of infection for example, is way higher than the rate of avoiding a UTI. And while severe infections are rare, they do happen, as does death and fucking up the procedure badly and cutting off too much tissue, sometimes part or all of the glans.
I think the health benefits would have to be significant to justify just the risk, let alone all of the other ethical considerations, and they're not.
I am of the opinion that circumcision should not be recommended for newborns in general, but should be allowed for religious communities that practice it as a religious rite. Is that too spicy a take?
I am extremely uncomfortable with the movements to ban circumcision in some European countries. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not exactly for the practice personally, but it seems to me that the principle of religious freedom should be upheld in all but the most extreme circumstances. I don't think anti-circumcision activists have demonstrated that the harm of circumcision is so great as to justify legal bans.
It’s not an accident that the same countries which have been banning circumcision are the same countries which have been banning kosher and halal slaughter. It’s the same kind of xenophobia that leads to chants of “Jews will not replace us” and attacks on the existence of Muslims in western countries, but filtered through “progressive” ideas about “protecting the vulnerable”
This also upholds my point that Americans don’t know what “real” bigotry looks like. Travel to Europe where the racism runs deep and goes back way further than a few hundred years.
Yep, not to mention periodic movements for mandatory (not opt-in universal, but mandatory) preschool for kids in Muslim neighborhoods. Can't have those kids being raised by their moms to speak a first language other than the one they'll learn in school.
This is exactly how you DON'T want to behave if you're trying to persuade people of the righteousness of your cause.
As someone who has lived in both Europe and the US, the thing that makes the US better than Europe is the core assumption that being an American doesn’t mean changing your culture. The great myth of America is that the “melting pot” is this horrible homogenizing process when it is actually a way by which new Americans share some of their culture with the rest of the country, and adopt some of our country’s culture as their own. Europeans don’t do that.
I don't think there's straight line between thinking irreversible body modification for babies might be a bad idea and gassing jews.
For example, I'd have similar reservations to body scarification of babies...even if it had a religious or cultural significance.
I agree, that’s why I didn’t say there was a straight line between laws against circumcision and shooting people over ditches or shipping them to extermination camps.
Well...I do think there's a pretty straight line between marching in the streets chanting "Jews will not replace us" and gas chambers. (if said demonstrators are able to gain political power)
So equating anti-circumcision beliefs with that kind of aggressive anti-semitism would imply, to me, such a relationship exists.
I didn’t actually reply to this earlier because you annoyed me by not reading what my comment actually said but anyway having racist mob do racist protests about Jews and Muslims is the same basic xenophobic energy as passing laws that make it impossible for Jews and Muslims to maintain their cultural identity and live in your country.
The Nazis didn’t do the Shoah because they got together and had a nice “Jews will not replace us” party that accidentally led to them getting power so they could kill Jews. It took nearly twenty years of escalations to get from the Beer Hall Putsch to the first mass shooting actions in Polesye. So yes, racist mobs are a long way from gas chambers and it’s profoundly dishonest to claim otherwise.
K cool whatever u think.
Kosher and halal slaughter is often inhumane compared to modern methods. It's not hard to see why there's a push to prohibit it.
Religious freedom is for the individual, it's not something you should be able to impose onto a child who cannot consent. For the child, that's the opposite of freedom.
This is not how medical and other parenting-related ethics work in the U.S. There are narrow areas where medical consensus trumps a parent's religious preferences (e.g., if the child needs an emergency blood transfusion). But parents do indeed have the right to make medical decisions that others, including the child's doctors, think are wrong. And in the U.S. you don't even need to state a religious reason for circumcision, as I'm sure you know. You just get to be "wrong," as with vaccines and much more serious decisions like whether to continue pediatric cancer treatment in most situations.
You are the slave owner the day before the start of the civil war. "Well... Precedent tells us... until we know for sure otherwise..."
No. Prove to me that cutting part of a baby's dick off is medically necessary. Until then, stop cutting parts of babies off.
How something happens to "work" in any given society has no bearing on whether that particular thing is morally right or not. We're cutting off a part of a child's body before they can consent for no other reason than that it's basically a meme. Seems wrong to me, whatever justification might be given at the time.
Yep, granting your premise momentarily, we allow individuals to do lots of things that are morally wrong, because the alternative (legislating and enforcing morality on any but the most widely agreed-upon questions) would lead to a level of authoritarianism most Americans find unacceptable.
And, as I keep suggesting, such policies would also be counterproductive. Mandate stuff, and you're asking for organized resistance to your policies, however well intentioned they may be.
I don't think it's really authoritarian to say we shouldn't chop bits off children's bodies without asking their permission. We have a lot of laws that limit personal freedom, and many of those laws are about what we're not allowed to physically do to another living person, rather than what we are allowed to do to our own bodies. I consider cutting a child deliberately, without any sort of urgent medical reason, to be a physical assault, and it's hard to see how anyone could argue that it isn't.
It's definitely the most pragmatic and aligns with my own position. If you ban it for religious communities, they end up doing it underground and unregulated which makes everything way worse.
More pragmatic is to maintain the status quo where those who want to can do it, regardless of their motivation. Like abortion.
It's the most based take, but also wrong. Either it is an entirely neutral procedure like cutting your hair, purely aesthetic and with zero negative side effects, in which case it should be an option for everyone OR it is the removal of a useful part of one's body, with some potentially negative consequences, in which case it shouldn't be permitted at all and both the aesthetes and the religious fundamentalists can just wait until age of consent. Agreeing it's bad but giving the zealots an exception to do it anyway seems like the worst possible compromise.
We allow parents to make all sorts of decisions about their kids' bodies on issues ranging from corrective surgery to vaccines to skin-tag removal. So the question is, Where is circumcision on that spectrum? Based on discussions with a urologist I know, I tend to think it's more on the inconsequential end of the spectrum medically. But reasonable people will disagree, and if there's reasonable disagreement, I don't think we should be going for legal bans as a method of persuasion. It's not going to work.
Wait 'til these folks find out about how early Hispanic families pierce little girls' ears.
Pretty sure it's done with a staple gun on the way home from the hospital.
I jest, but it's pretty early.
If the practice of "circumcision" meant poking a hole in a piece of the foreskin, you'd hear a lot less complaining about it.
A closer but still not accurate analogy would be mothers cutting ear lobes off of their daughters entirely.
I don't think that's really equivalent. Ear piercing doesn't remove an actual body part. If you leave the holes long enough, they skin just grows back in.
Well...if I were to draw a line I'd put everything you provide as an example would seem to clearly be in the positive outcome side of the scale.
I haven't dug into the research on this one. But the point of the podcast seemed to be that there's not good evidence of any positive outcome. Which would put it on the other side of the above line.
The judgment calls about surgeries for complicated conditions can be very difficult, even with the guidance of the fanciest doctors, and there can be bad downstream effects ranging from infection to death. Yet we allow parents to make these decisions all the time. Circumcision, whether you're pro or con, isn't nearly as weighty an issue.
That may be, but the surgery is meant to fix an actual problem, even if the risk benefit isn't totally clear. Being born with a functioning foreskin isnt a problem.
I concede that you're right that my position isn't rationally consistent, but maybe I also don't care? As a snipped lad myself, in a society of mostly circumcised men, I've never heard those men complaining about how much they hate sex and how painful and awful it is, so if religious communities want to practice it, I don't think it creates so much harm that it needs to be stopped.
I fully recognize it's not a fully rational policy position, but I'm personally fine with that in this case.
I'm agnostic about the issue as well (and while I am often dickish, do not have a dick) so I have no problem with carrying on as is! My only quibble was with the hypothetical double standard *IF* it was deemed harmful (which isn't yet the case, not conclusively anyway). In that case, I don't think anyone should get exceptions just because their God/Spaghetti Monster said so.
I think defending other people's right to their spaghetti monsters is the only viable way forward in a pluralistic society.
Sure, I will defend their right to believe in the spaghetti monster but not their right to do everything the spaghetti monster tells them to.
A lot of religions are about praxis as much as they're about belief. Sometimes praxis is more important, as when some Jews stay observant even though they don't believe in traditional theism. So I don't think you can have religious freedom if you make some extra-religious distinction between belief and praxis.
Thank God (or Spaghetti Monster) the First Amendment isn’t on your side. And by the way, not every Jew, Muslim, and whoever else is a “zealot.”
It’s perfectly fine to allow it, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it ought be recommended for newborns. If Americans want to be a country that circumcises, let them do it because they want to rather than on the recommendation of the AAP.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with them having recommended COVID vaccines for children.
Your missing the actual truth. It’s a basically harmless process that has minor health benefits and is ascetically pleasing to more people than one that’s not done.
This is exactly the policy of the NHS (UK). It’s pretty shocking to compare the uS AAP claiming the benefits outweighs the risks to NHS saying there’s no good reason to do it unless your religion demands it (and then they’ll support you)
Why should you get a pass on the ethics because of religious tradition. Either there is a medical justification and it should be allowed, or there isn't and you shouldn't have the right to surgically alter your child's genitals.
Anybody else notice Jesse bizarrely thinking “just the tip” is a circumcision joke instead of the real way it’s used in common nomenclature?
yeah, I was like... that's not? about circumcision? Oh well, I bet I have ton of slightly wrong misunderstandings that simply don't get aired.
This reminds me of the first joke I ever invented in sixth grade, thanks to lots of reading the bible:
What did the leper say to the prostitute? keep the tip!
Yeah but it’s fun to make fun of Jesse!
absolutely!! just reminding myself why I shouldn’t start a podcast
I got excited, thinking it was about one of my favorite youtube series: https://www.youtube.com/@tipswithkatyandkatie
Hahahahaha, thank you. I was like... 😶
I was like...that has nothing to do with circumcision? How are they this clueless? They look down on flyover country but then say shit that makes me think they grew up in Amish Pennsylvania.
I thought it was a wildly inappropriate double entendre...and, thus, an exactly appropriate episode name for BarPod.
Though...now that you point it out...he probably got confused when having gay sex and thought they were making fun of his circumcised penis.
I am guessing most non-Jewish Americans have pretty indifferent feelings about circumcision. Like the episode mentioned, at some point (and based on bad science) it became, "Oh the doctors said we should do this, so OK." And then generations go by and everyone is circumcised, so then it's the norm and no one questions it. At this point, I think it's mostly perpetuated by aesthetics. Do new parents just want their sons to fit in when it comes time to show that bad boy off during sex?
I have seen some comparisons to female 'circumcision'- aka mutilation. They are not even close to comparable. Male circumcision, outside of the religious symbolism, seems to be a pretty much pointless endeavor. FGM is intended to disfigure and cause pain to women and make sexual encounters miserable for them. While I do not have a penis, I have encountered zero men who have had sexual dysfunction associated with circumcision.
On another note: Why are Alt Right people so obsessed with pedophilia? They will equate literally any behavior with pedophilia. I guess it's like their version of Leftists calling everything they dislike racist?
Ugh.
I’ve actually heard it makes sex slightly less pleasurable for men, but honestly that seems like a plus instead of a minus. Sex is already way way way too pleasurable for polite society.
I let my husband decide for our son, and his #2 reason for wanting to do it (#1 being that where we live it’s still the norm and he didn’t want our son to be embarrassed about his appearance later in life) was that he said he thinks it probably benefitted him to not have what is said to be the most sensitive part of his penis when he was an adolescent. He said he was already way too horny as a teenager and was glad he didn’t have a body part that would have made that worse 😂
Then nut up. If you’re worried your son “might get made fun of” that’s a bizarre reason. And a little simple. My mom didn’t care about that shit. I was born in 81 and it was almost automatic to get circumsized. And my mom said no. And I did get made fun of in gym from time to time.
But you know what? When I got to adulthood I didn’t care because I wasn’t so shallow as to carry all that petty kid shit into adulthood.
Have more faith in you son.
My mom was apparently lectured to by the doctor about not circ my brothers. Gross
Lol. Probably benefits you, too!
This is a terrible reason. I was circumcised as an adult, and my penis was much more sensitive afterwards than before.
This is just not true. Your glans are exposed all the time, unlike before. You'd be more sensitive flaccid and walking around until the glans became calloused, but nothing about circumcision that increases sensitivity. And your glans are exposed when erect anyway.
Circumcision is actually really popular among many Christian groups, especially in certain American regions. It's declining in popularity in recent years, but most people still go with whatever option the dad has, so you still get higher rates in the South and lower ones in the West, for example.
Circumcision (male) reduces HIV transmission. They're encouraging it in parts of Africa for this reason. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html
Jesse addresses that on the pod. He says the data behind that idea is very shaky (and he’s one of the best journalists out there when it comes to analyzing medical data). There has been a big shift in the last 10-15 years in what is considered good evidence, and a lot of old data is being re-evaluated. The CDC has been a political football for years, and was especially impacted by Trump’s budget cuts, so I doubt they’ve caught up on this.
So that's what I had always heard was a justification. Foreskin harbors bacteria that makes STD transmission more likely, but on the pod they said that the science behind that was questionable... At the end of the day, I think circumcision is largely a neutral act. The benefits are probably not substantial, and complications are exceedingly rare.
It's like the COVID vaccine! Almost always safe, but has little benefit.
(Disclaimer- I got the COVID vax. I am not an anti-vaxxer. It's a joke. But seriously...)
The first course of COVID vaccine has a very clear benefit, it massively reduces death rates even if it can’t prevent infection. It’s the boosters that are much less clear.
The way this works. Is that you do something socially for a long time. Then people start questioning it. You in a backtracking way start coming up with weak reasons to keep doing it. So over the last 50 years a lot of sloppy shit had some Out about circumcision mostly in defense of the practice.
It’s very much like when Christian’s try and use “science” to “prove” god exists.
All they’re doing is trying to make their archaic rituals “fit” because otherwise they have to wake up and think “oooh. Maybe we shouldn’t have done that to billions of young boys”. And it’s way easier to run a shitty study and to avoid that cognitive dissonance.
FGM is a horror show, but that's not really an accurate portrayal. It's also a mostly unquestioned cultural practice in places where it's performed, and the most common forms are either less severe, or similar to circumcision, like pricking and the removal of the clitoral hood. So I don't think that people who practice FGM are likely to think of it much differently than a lot of the people who practice male circumcision for reasons other than the claimed medical benefits.
It’s silly to talk about the problem of modernity vs traditional religion insofar as tradition is not something we preserve because it makes some logical sense in an enlightened rational way. The argument I find compelling about the origins of circumcision and its dispersal around the world (ancient Israelites, some tribal groups in subsaharan Africa, the Philippines) is that people before hygiene was really a concept had some smegma problems which turned out to be solved by not having foreskin so they turned it into a ritual practice to explain why this was good. Now it’s an anachronism, and maybe people in the future will be horrified by the way that we were so blasé about it. At the same time, attempts to compare it to FGM are gross, because FGM is genuinely horrifying.
I’m Jewish and any son(s) I have are going to be circumcised absent very significant changes in the available evidence. I can’t provide a nice rational argument that explains it because I don’t really think that there is anything particularly rational about attachment to tradition. These things often come up with people who do apologetics work and try to explain why you should not be secular and stop eating pork and cheeseburgers by trying to prove how wonderful and helpful and rational the Torah is. People will make grand claims about how pigs have higher rates of worms, which is why people were right to never eat pork, or that eating meat with dairy is bad for your digestion but they aren’t really true. Pigs are more likely to have parasite problems, yes, and that was an actual risk before we had much better meat handling processes, but long-term pathogenic threats are generally not things that influence human consumption pattern because it’s hard to associate one with the other without modern medicine. Meat and dairy isn’t great for our people, but that’s because our people are notoriously not good at eating dairy, not because we shouldn’t eat meat with dairy. Kashrut doesn’t exist because of how it was an amazing food-safety standard (though the practice of using salt to draw out all blood probably has that effect), it exists according to many traditional sources, for the sole reason of making Jews different from other people groups. That’s where circumcision comes from too, almost certainly.
I want to like your comment but also report it for using the S word which is far worse than moist or penis (or even moist penis).
I recognise and share your pain. However, I find the clinical term to be the least offensive of the many different terms for that horrific substance.
Yes, our excellent hosts are many good things, but they tend to have a huge blind spot IMO around Chesterton’s fence and tradition of any sort; they are solidly in the “new must mean it’s better” camp, which is probably why they can swim upstream on some cultural issues but then it also leads to a total lack of understanding for how some very human decisions get made.
Thank you for introducing me to Chesterton's fence! I frequently make the same argument, but didn't know there was a term for the philosophy behind it.
Yes! People talk about them having a blind spot when it comes to conservativism and this is the perfect example.
Don’t know that I can disagree.
Ehh I think the smegma problem is fairly easily solved by the invention of showers and running water. As a European woman with a modest body count, all of my partners have been uncut and I've never noticed a problem with buildup. They just roll the foreskin back and wash it.
Though I understand people don't see the issue, the foreskin actually has a lot of nerve endings and does protect the head of the penis from overstimulation. It's likely that sex is better and more comfortable with it. I do question whether it's right to take that from a baby who has no choice in the matter, especially when there's a small but real chance of complications. For example, if a child has congenital webbed penis or a buried penis, removal of the foreskin can make correction harder or can cause the penis to disappear further into the surrounding tissue. It's not a neutral act to remove a child's necessary body part without their consent.
That’s nice, but has nothing to do with cultural practices which developed before we decided that washing our genitals is a good idea. And as for the rest, there is basically no good evidence that really show’s significant difference in sexual function between people with and without foreskin. As for the rest, the great thing about pluralism is that you don’t have to circumcise your kids, so don’t.
The point is, that if the thing that led to the cultural practice is no longer an issue, why keep going with the cultural practice? At that point, it's basically just following dogma for the sake of it. Why potentially harm your kids when you could just... not?
My wife has driving anxiety and it’s how I keep her trapped and married to me.
When people talk about men having lost purpose as breadwinners, I feel like they are overlooking the value of driving downtown (and over bridges), killing bugs, and changing hard-to-reach light bulbs. These things are highly valuable in long-term relationship.
Or killing hornets. Or listening to stories that aren’t told in order.
I don't understand why basically all the women I know didn't "get" Memento.
That last one is so funny, and explains why my husband seems to have trouble following my train of thought sometimes.
You forgot mind reading
Why do they post a *circumcision* episode on Shabbos? Are they trying to make sure no Jews weigh in?
I haven't listened to the episode yet. Just turning things back on after Shabbos. So here's my un-informed two-cents.
The male "intactivists" I've run into always veered into anti-semitism. This is probably less true for the granola-mommy types that avoid phthalates, feed their kids organinic carrot sticks, and delay or space out their kids vaccines. I think, from the comments here, those are the people that K&J focused on.
However, I don't see any reason for circumcision, unless you're Jewish and commanded to do so. If you're not Jewish, be uncut! Let your foreskin flap in the wind!
That being said, I'm always wary of groups that want to limit or regulate it, simply because I don't want to remove access for Jewish people. It's just like I've been opposed to the California ballot propositions for free-range eggs, outlawing veal and Foie gras, because the next thing they'll decide is that Kosher slaughter is cruel and outlaw that (as has already happened in some EU countries -- even though they'll permit Halal slaughter).
My elderly mother read an anti-circumcision article in the New Yorker a couple of years ago (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/10/11/a-botched-circumcision-and-its-aftermath) and felt bad about the fact that I had one! She sent me an email apologizing. I told her not to read the New Yorker, that I'm very proud of my circucision, and that I would feel awful if I didn't have one as a Jewish person.
I do not know that Jesse understands what Shomer Shabbat is. In all seriousness I was kinda stunned when it dropped on a Saturday
Why is kosher slaughter considered cruel?
There is a cult of activists that claim it's cruel. Sweden and Belgium have managed to ban it.
https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/wjc-bulletin
They argue that the animal should be stunned first. (Of course, they don't outlaw hunting! You can shoot as many reindeer as you wish.)
Sweden has a terrible anti-semitism problem. I've gone to Jewish services in Stockholm, and the synagogue is one of the most fortified ones I've seen. I had to pass two sets of armed guards (Israeli ones--I don't think they trust local security) and was interrogated befre I could enter. There's a real threat of attacks.
I would bet most Jews in Sweden are ex pat Israelis or the descendents of Holocaust survivors who ended up in Sweden or escaped there. Are there any actual Swedish Jews?
My sense is that Sweden is a place where hardcore anti Zionism has veered into anti semitism.
A the people I met in the Swedish synagogues were Jews from either Israel or the Disapora who are temporarily working in Sweden, etc. There was no Swedish spoken in the synagogues! All Hebrew or English.
I was hoping there would be _something_ swedish, like sining Adon Olam to the tune of "Dancing Queen".
I have a feeling any Swedish Jews left for other countries.
I think sadly in much of Europe the only languages in spoken in shul are Hebrew or English.
Dancing Queen, huh? We could also say the Shema to the tune of, like.Hello from the Book of Mormon
Because it requires that you slice the throat of the animal and bleed them, which isn't as painless, fast or as unscary as it can be for the animals. Most modern slaughter is done by stunning and then bleeding the animal, or by plunging a steel bolt into their brain, which is instant. More industrialized halal and kosher slaughter also involves walking the animals into a large steel cylinder that has a screw blade mechanism in one end. The whole drum rotates to cut the throat and the animal bleeds out. The whole process is more stressful than it needs to be.
Regular slaughter isn't impressively humane either, so I don't think it's fair to say that kosher or halal slaughter is necessarily wildly cruel by comparison, but it is more cruel by some measure than most modern methods.
The purpose of religious slaughter was also to reduce suffering, which made sense in a time where cutting the throat and trying to bleed the animal quickly was a pretty good method. But using a more humane means when they're available isn't exactly in conflict with either religion if you're considering the spirit of the religious law. But most of what is prohibited on Shabbat also isn't work, it's often more work to avoid things like driving, using an elevator or telephone, so the spirit doesn't always win with religions.
If the intactivists actually wanted to achieve anything, rather than just screaming childishly and making fools of themselves, they would focus on ending hospital circumcision as a default practice and educating non-Jewish or -Muslim parents-to-be on the subject. I would be totally in favor of the US being like Europe, Latin America, etc. I’m a big fan of foreskin--on other guys.
I just think it’s bizarre that some people, including a lot of self-hating Jews, get so worked up about it. I’m Jewish. I’m circumcised. And I could not possibly give less of a shit. My penis functions just fine. It looks fine. Maybe there are some people who would be more into me if I were uncut. But there are also people who prefer it cut, so it’s kind of a wash. I really just do not care even a little bit, and anyone who gets on a stage and throws a temper tantrum because daddy gave him a bris needs to grow the fuck up.
Some research on vaccines found that parents were more likely to vaccinate their kids if the pediatrician DIDN'T make the case for why they should. Since then, a lot of pediatricians are presenting it very casually as a normal part of the appointment instead of explaining why it's beneficial. (Obviously, they have to do it very carefully, because parents do have the right to decline.)
But basically, the theory is that a lot of people will vaccinate unless you highlight for them the fact that childhood vaccines are a controversial issue. So one might want to do a little research before assuming that anti-circumcision campaigns in hospitals would decrease the rate of circumcision. I could see a lot of parents digging in their heels.
They should stop recommending it by default at least, which is the current practice. I’d prefer they not bring it up at all and let parents opt in.
This may depend on where you live (?). No one ever recommended circumcision to me, other than my mom! We had a European pediatrician who was completely chill, and the hospital just asked what we wanted and wrote it down.
Oh I would imagine it does vary. But it shouldn’t happen at all imo.
I wonder if areas with lots of religious Jews are probably much less likely to push in hospital circumcision, since we always decline it.
IIRC, the research on vaccines you referred to was about HPV. HPV vaccination rates were much higher before there was a public health push to "counter negative narratives" about the vaccine.
I always assumed everyone preferred circumcised (I’m un-). I guess it’s just negativity bias where we always manage to glom onto any negative messaging that is out there in the ether.
I'd put money on it being entirely a factor of what is perceived as "normal".
In societies where there's like an 80%+ rate of circumcision most people will think uncircumcised looks odd. Flip the numbers and most will think circumcised is odd.
The thing about male circumcision is that it seems like such a non-issue for people to get upset about. It's a wierd thing to do, but people and cultures do weird things all the time. It doesn't seem to have much of a long term impact assuming no complications - it isn't like circumcised guys are unable to enjoy sex or something. Maybe there is a small risk, but that risk seems pretty small.
For me the most relevant factor is that inactivism is used as a way to demonize Jews, which is bad. This isn't a reason to get your own kid circumcised, but perhaps it's a reason not to support getting too worked up over an issue that seems to really not be a big deal.
I may have equivocation over what to do personally if I had a son. Fortunately, I had a daughter so I didn't have to address this as a personal decision.
If it were a "Native American" custom (or just believed to be one, like "Two Spirit" nonsense), then the Left would be all about it, and they'd fly out to New Mexico to sit in a hot box and get circumcised. But because it's seen as "Jewish" (even though a billion more Moslems do it!) it has to be criticized. As I said before, I can see no good reason for a non-Jewish male to be circumcized. But for educated Jews, it's non-negotiable.
As I cited above, something like 0.2% of all circumcised men are jewish.
You are likely mixing groups here. I suspect (somewhat borne out by the episode) that opposition to circumcision comes from 1) anti-religion people/new atheist/skeptics; and 2) right-wing antisemites. Neither are likely to be particularly sympathetic to Native American rituals.
It’s creepy that medical professionals are still recommending it for everyone though, and sometimes in variously coercive ways.
It’s not creepy. It’s not scientific, but also not creepy.
Yeah, it's just cultural. "Creepy" implies some ulterior motive that pretty clearly isn't there.
A lot of people, unsurprisingly, don't think surgically altering the genitals of infants for no good reason is a "non-issue".
The alteration doesn't alter the functioning (or at least does not do so enough thst it's measurable) and isn't disfiguring in the usual sense (it's common enough that people may even have more of an aversion to an uncircumcised penis). It's pretty much a nothing burger. Might as well get upset about people getting their little girls' ears peirced.
I could cut most of your ear off without significantly impacting the function. Do you think that would be a fine thing to do to babies? So fine that you'd oppose any agitation about it by calling it a "non-issue"? Can I assume you're down for legalizing the removal of the clitoral hood? NBD, just like an ear piercing?
And if we were piercing foreskins rather than permanently removing them, along with the frenulum, and risking error and serious infection, you might have more of a point that it's just like piercing ears. Also, if the price to be paid to end this practice is that we need to prohibit piercing children's ears against their will, I think that's a fine trade.
Cutting an ear off is clearly disfiguring. It might not be if most people did it but they don't. Removal of the criteria hood clearly impacts function. Male circumcision is neither.
How is the removal of the cartilage and skin around the ear disfiguring but the removal of the foreskin not? What is the definition of "disfigure" you're using here?
And in what way does the removal of the clitoral hood impact function any more or less than the removal of the foreskin?
You seem to just be making this all up as you go.
Merriam-Webster defines "disfigure" to mean "to impair (as in beauty) by deep and persistent injuries." If (as is the case in thebUS) circumcised penis are somewhere between asthetically equally acceptable and preferred to uncircumcised penises, they have not been "impair[ed] (as in beauty)." This isn't just wordplay, thier is a big difference between something that impairs and something that just changes.
Re cliteral hood, I may be misunderstanding what that entails. If it doesn't impair function, and is culturally acceptable, I'm not particularly bothered by it for the same reason I'm not particularly bothered by male circumcision.
The anti-jewish connection seems odd to me here. Just by the sheer numbers, most anti-semites in the west would also be circumcised. And I've not seen anyone connect circumcision to jewishness until this barpod.
Seems like it'd make an interesting research study to measure the overlap.