Sandra's Shocking Favorite Moment With New Baby Louis — You'll Never Believe What It Is!

Wed, April 28, 2010 12:44pm EDT by 84 Comments

042810_PeopleCover051010

As strange it may sound, her favorite expeirence was baby Louis Bardo Bullock’s secret bris, a Jewish circumcision ceremony.

Though Sandra Bullock and her family had to be super secretive about the adoption of baby Louis Bardo Bullock, they did manage to share one special experience together — a private circumcision! “You have never seen adults more panicked about what was about to happen to their son, but the celebration and the amount of love we felt and the pride in the little man whom we love so, so much became the greatest moment I have ever had in my life,” she tells People. Wow… we never thought we’d get all misty-eyed over a circumcision, but Sandra just makes it sound so beautiful.

Of course, there is one curious thing Sandra says about her son’s procedure. It wasn’t just a standard doctor-performed circumcision — it was a full-on Jewish bris!

“A friend of ours helped arrange for a bris at the house, because we couldn’t go [to a hospital for the procedure]” Sandra tells People. “The mohel [a person trained in the practice] came to us.”

It is surprising that Sandra opted to have a bris, considering neither she nor her soon-to-be-ex-husband Jesse James are Jewish (not to mention Jesse’s apparent interest in Nazis, as captured in photographs.) The only Jewish person connected to Jesse, that we know of, is his godfather, who Jesse says gave him the Nazi hat he was photographed wearing.

.

.

Follow HollywoodLife.com on Twitter | Become a Facebook fan

.
.

XX

Leave a Reply

To comment, please fill in the fields below, enter your comment and select the Comment button.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

View Comment

Joseph Gabb

Posted at 8:05 PM on February 28, 2014  

She better not squeal “woman’s body woman’s right!”

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Christine

Posted at 12:34 AM on November 29, 2013  

Not to mention she adopted this baby from a friend who died from cancer, you would think she would respect the mother’s choice not to circumcise (if she wanted it, I’m sure it would have already been done) instead of carving her beliefs into this poor child.. and she is not even jewish.. what the hell are her reasons to do this in the first place!?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

James Fiddler

Posted at 8:59 AM on October 30, 2013  

How sad. There is a reason 90% of the men in the world are intact (myself included), and that the circ rate in the U.S.A. was only 32% in 2010 (and that the CDC states in 2014 intact males will be a clear majority in the U.S.): Circumcision does nothing but result in a truncated, thinner, less sensitive penis that is 400% more likely to experience ED and that fails to glide during sex as nature intended. I guess I should be thankful that my parents didn’t think it necessary for me to look Jewish or Muslim. We’re Christians, and the NT forbids circumcision. That is a blessing for me and my wife. And my intact son.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

joe russo

Posted at 7:37 AM on October 30, 2013  

Whose sex organ is it? Did she ever ask herself that? When did men lose their right to an entire sex organ, when did they give up that right? Circumcision is a legalised sex crime, nothing more nothing less than partial emasculation. In the 21st century men are having to justify their right to genital integrity, which has been legal for women since 1997, but boys and men are still deprived of this right?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Kalin

Posted at 1:59 PM on October 29, 2013  

If she wanted to have a ritual genital mutilation to show off her “respect for other cultures”, she should have gotten herself a sunat or something and left the poor boy out of it.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Shelley

Posted at 11:12 PM on October 28, 2013  

“The greatest moment I have ever had in my life” Sandra says. This is not about being Jewish or not. Which part of adult men holding down the limbs of a struggling newborn while they cut apart his penis as he screams is beautiful? Did they do a beautiful Jewish milah (adult men’s mouth’s sucking the blood off the baby penis too?) Curious if this was the other way around and she was the one being held down and her genitals were being cut apart, would this still be “beautiful?” This begs the question, why do we circumcise children? Easy….because they can’t say no and we damn sure can’t hold down a full grown one.

Please Google the 16+ functions of male foreskin. If you can’t name them, then don’t cut HIM.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

reahardjenni@live.com

Posted at 5:01 PM on October 28, 2013  

How disgusting. I cannot believe that she adopted a baby, and MUTILATED him! Ugh! That poor child should be taken from her, and given to someone who knows the value of the foreskin, and wont choose to lob anymore valuable pieces of body parts off of him. Nasty woman. Its a shame they didn’t shoot that movie in space. She should have floated away.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Cece

Posted at 6:43 PM on October 24, 2013  

Ugh omfg. Gross. Who the hell thinks it’s ok to mutilate a baby boys penis?!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lois B

Posted at 11:16 AM on October 24, 2013  

Disgusting. My favorite moment with my sons was probably nursing them, snuggling them, I certainly didn’t pay someone to strap them to a plastic board and cut apart their privates! Gross, just gross. I wonder how her son will feel about this when he’s grown? If he will be one of the many men who wish their parents had left their bodies as they were. I wonder if this baby would have been placed for adoption if his birth family had known what his fate would be… Exploited and splashed across tabloid covers. Disgusting behavior.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

acantholycosa

Posted at 11:16 AM on October 24, 2013  

There’s just nothing beautiful about cutting off part of a baby and having it bleed. It’s not even cleaner and it doesn’t have less problems and most of the world’s men don’t even bother with it.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Ted jordan

Posted at 2:34 AM on October 24, 2013  

I’ll never watch another of this child molester/mutilator again. She’s a pig.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Ian Cooper

Posted at 12:35 PM on July 19, 2011  

It’s disgusting. We’ve known for over 60 years that circumcision is severely harmful. One would think that someone in the public eye would have the knowledge and the common decency NOT to abuse and mutilate her son.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Linda

Posted at 3:14 PM on June 3, 2011  

Sandra did what most mothers of boys do, that is to have them circumcised. I had my son circumcised when he was born. I think boys are better off that way, cleaner and less problems.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Katy

Posted at 8:52 PM on November 10, 2011  

Rachel, please don’t take this the wrong way, because I know you made the choice you thought was best for your son, but circumcision is not “cleaner and less problems.” I promise.

Doctors in America don’t know anything about the foreskin except how to remove it. We are sadly misinformed on the normal development of the natural penis. There is nothing dirty or problematic about the foreskin.

A helpful rhyme to remember proper care of an intact infant is “if intact, don’t retract – only clean what is seen.” In the U.S., we’re told we have to pull the baby’s foreskin back to clean it. This is not true. The foreskin is fused to the head of the penis, so pulling it back is like pulling off a fingernail – painful, and opens them up to infection and scarring. If you use the “leave it alone” approach and only ever clean the outside (don’t pull the foreskin back!), you will have a normal, happy boy who didn’t have to suffer through an unnecessary surgery.

Boys who are circumcised obviously still (usually) grow up to be happy and healthy, but there is a growing movement toward foreskin restoration for men who were cut as boys and wish they hadn’t been. I firmly believe it’s best to leave our sons their natural bodies, since circumcision is irreversible.

I hope you’ll look into this! Thanks for listening!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Janicecz

Posted at 2:46 AM on October 24, 2013  

No, mothers of most baby boys do NOT have them mutilated shortly after birth. 80% of men around the world are intact – happily whole as nature intended. Outside the Muslim and Jewish countries, Routine Infant Circumcision is only still only popular in the United States – and ONLY because it is FORCED on helpless, non-consenting infants! Let each man choose for himself when he is 18 whether he wants to keep all of his healthy, functioning body parts.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jack

Posted at 9:22 PM on October 24, 2013  

You are dead wrong and obviously uninformed. All those outdated reasons have been debunked, if you had only done your research. Leave them as God made them. Later on, when they are old enough to make their own decisions, they can decide whether or not to be circumcised. By the way, did you know that an average of 117 boys DIE from this torturous mutilation each year in the US alone? Many more have botched procedures, resulting in other parts being cut off, sometimes entire penises? Please read up on circumcision before offering such casual comments based on hearsay and outdated beliefs.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Rachel

Posted at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2011  

When I read this I had to do a double take. I always thought Sandra Bullock had more sense than to mutilate a child. However, after reading that she’s a twisted baby cutter I refuse to support her films and other projects.

By the way, what is with her celebrating a Brit Milah when she isn’t even Jewish? It not only undermines the inhumane nature of circumcision, but is flat out disrespectful to the religious community. She doesn’t have any intentions of becoming Jewish, so why maim a child into keeping the whole law of Moses? On that note, why should any child be maimed as their’ parents religious persuasion?

I honestly don’t know how idiots like this are permitted to adopt. She should be stripped of her adoptive rights and sued by the state for endangering the life of an infant!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Cyn

Posted at 12:15 PM on March 15, 2011  

Yeah, when I read this last year, I was so disgusted. I wonder how she’d like it if she was held down while HER genitalia was flayed for no good reason. Sick.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Brooke

Posted at 2:55 PM on March 13, 2011  

This is aweful! Just aweful. Sick, in fact.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Carla

Posted at 11:20 PM on March 12, 2011  

Well, usually when primitive civilizations perform barbaric ceremonies, they do something to effect some kind of emotional high for the participants so that they don’t focus on the horror of what’s about to happen. In this case, a celebratory ritual atmosphere distracting from the mutilation of an infant’s genitals.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Katie P.

Posted at 8:39 PM on March 12, 2011  

Not one health organization in the world recommends circumcision. There are absolutely no health benefits to it. It is painful, unnecessary, and risky…not to mention in direct violation of that little boy’s human rights. Sandra Bullock is a big name actress, and what is sad here is that people follow celebs as though they are the example of how to do things. She is promoting the mutilation of little boys who deserve the same respect and protection we give our girls. EVERY little boy is born with a foreskin, it is not a birth defect and does not need to be corrected. It serves a purpose…to protect the glans of the penis, which is a mucus membrane. I haven’t been this disappointed in someone in a long time. She owes her son, her fans, and THEIR sons, an apology. It’s bad enough to disfigure your own son, but then to promote it, and call it her “favorite moment”?! She’s snuggled him and held him…and cutting off a body part was her favorite moment. What’s wrong with her?!
Not only will I never watch another movie she’s in, I’ll never purchase People magazine again. Of all the stories to write…and to put this on the cover…disgusting.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lexi

Posted at 6:59 PM on March 12, 2011  

That is sick. I will NEVER watch a Sandra Bullock movie again. Never. Mutilating and torturing a baby for NO reason? Not only that, but it’s her favorite moment with him? That is horrible. Would she do that to a daughter?

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lulu

Posted at 6:49 PM on March 12, 2011  

I’m so disapponted that Sandra decided to do this to her baby. When will people start to come out of the dark ages and realize that male circumcision is JUST AS WRONG as female circumcision?! Leave the poor babies alone!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jeanine

Posted at 6:39 PM on March 12, 2011  

Watching your son have part of his penis cut off is a “special moment?” Disgusting.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Sheila

Posted at 6:08 PM on March 12, 2011  

This would have so much nicer if the story was about her inducing lactation so she could breast-feed her adopted son– not about how she subjected him to removal of a perfectly healthy, functional organ that he might very well want to use one day! Her brownie points just went waaaaay down! :(

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Jennifer R

Posted at 6:14 PM on October 28, 2013  

Yes, exactly, instead of mutilating her adopted child, she could have been feeding him breast milk giving him a part of herself instead of taking away from him.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

AJ

Posted at 5:22 PM on March 12, 2011  

:-( I have to echo Lily! This was a completely unnecesary and risky cosmetic procedure! Why not enjoy your new baby as perfect as the day he was born! I Love Sandra Bullock, but this makes me sad!

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Lily

Posted at 11:23 PM on March 11, 2011  

What a sad story. Bullock is obviously oblivious ti the fact that this procedure is completely unnecessary and harmful.
She chose to rob her son of an important part of his anatomy.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Shelby

Posted at 11:07 PM on March 11, 2011  

Your birthing is complete when you give birth, not when you remove a part of your previously perfect son.

 Reply
Share this comment at Share with Twitter

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,552 other followers