4 ms·
There is a more common version which uses a glass pipette for the suction stage, in order (presumably) to avoid direct contact between mouth and wound, but cruc
by prvc 4y ago
There is a more common version which uses a glass pipette for the suction stage, in order (presumably) to avoid direct contact between mouth and wound, but crucially, this offers little or no hygiene advantage compared to the full-on ritual. The prevalence of either version, however, is of little consequence, considering that they are both legally permitted and widely defended.
- natroniks 4y agoNot all mohels use the pipette, but what make you think using a sterile glass instrument is less hygienic than using one's mouth? And again you say both practices are widely defended. Who is defending oral suction outside of this fringe enclave of Ultra Orthodox Jews?
- prvc 4y ago>Not all mohels use the pipette Yes, this seems to be acknowledged by all comments here. The initial comment you responded to said, "it is legal for them to suck the blood from the mutilated area with their mouth", which, in my interpretation, seems to cover both the direct contact version (no pipette), and the version which just adds a pipette in between. Both involve suction applied by the mouth. The latter version, as an aside, is hardly "fringe" in its prevalence. But I think the important part is the "it is legal", i.e. presumably anybody could add in a sucking part if they wanted to without breaking the law, which has nothing to to with how many actually do go through with it. Anyway, this discussion seems to be going in circles, but I will say, if you are serious in your stated desire for "nuance", there is a wealth of literature discussing the harms and morality (or lack thereof) of circumcision in general (although not necessarily specifically the religious versions), if you cared to look for it.