Circumcision is mutilation [Archive]

Valley Oak

08-02-2007, 01:15 PM

Circumcision is barbaric Mutilation !

...and it needs to stop asap. European countries don't mutilate their babies like we do here in the U.S. Circumcision is only practiced in Muslim countries, the United States, the Philippines,<sup> </sup>South Korea, and Israel.

Try soap and water for a change and keep what nature gave you and our children. The nerve sensitive parts of your brain that receive the pleasure signals from the male's foreskin are there for good reasons and purposes. Those brain cells were put there to receive sexual arousal messages during copulation and provide excitation and gratification. Even if there is no sensory deprivation, men and women should keep their physical integrity.

Wide spread circumcision in the U.S. is the male equivalent to the misogynistic clitorectomies practiced throughout the African continent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitorectomy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitorectomy%29).

If you are against circumcision or want more information you can visit:
www.nocirc.org (https://www.nocirc.org).

Dixon

08-02-2007, 08:18 PM

Right on, Roble!

Even though she was just a 16-year-old farm girl when she gave birth to me, my mom showed she loved me by resisting the pressures to let me be
circumsized. I love ya, Mom!

NOCIRC looks like a cool organization. Here are a few facts from a NOCIRC flyer given to me at the S.R. farmers' market recently:

"Not one national or international organization in the world" [I assume they mean medical organizations] "including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommends routine infant circumcision."

"Circumcision permanently diminishes sexual feelings for both the male and female."

"The foreskin contains tens of thousands of specialized sensory nerve endings, provides immunological functions, and covers and protects the meatus, the opening of the sterile urinary tract."

"The United States is the only country that circumsizes the majority of its male infants without a medical or religious reason." [Not that it would be justifiable to mutilate children's genitals for a religious reason!]

All parents-to-be, please show love for your kids by refusing to engage in this barbaric ritual.

Dixon

Circumcision is barbaric Mutilation !

...and it needs to stop asap. European countries don't mutilate their babies like we do here in the U.S. Circumcision is only practiced in Muslim countries, the United States, the Philippines,<sup> </sup>South Korea, and Israel.

Try soap and water for a change and keep what nature gave you and our children. The nerve sensitive parts of your brain that receive the pleasure signals from the male's foreskin are there for good reasons and purposes. Those brain cells were put there to receive sexual arousal messages during copulation and provide excitation and gratification. Even if there is no sensory deprivation, men and women should keep their physical integrity.

Wide spread circumcision in the U.S. is the male equivalent to the misogynistic clitorectomies practiced throughout the African continent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitorectomy) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitorectomy%29).

If you are against circumcision or want more information you can visit:
www.nocirc.org (https://www.nocirc.org).

ThePhiant

08-03-2007, 07:09 PM

"Circumcision permanently diminishes sexual feelings for both the male and female."this is the most interesting unsupported statement coming from you in a long time, Dixie!
who is comparing what to what?:wow:
comparing one person's feelings to another's and then ascribing it to circumcision, I'd like to see your science on this one!!!!!

"The foreskin contains tens of thousands of specialized sensory nerve endings, provides immunological functions, and covers and protects the meatus, the opening of the sterile urinary tract." a few weeks ago, they published a report stating that circumcision helps to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa . I am sure some one can google it for you

All parents-to-be, please show love for your kids by refusing to engage in this barbaric ritual.I understand that if you are not circumcised, that thing tends to look bigger and fatter...................
that's what guys want, right?
is that Barbaric too?
:wow::jawdrop: :wow::jawdrop: :wow:

Dixon[/quote]

lifequest

08-04-2007, 04:21 PM

I'm with you on this one Phiant... There were also hygienic reasons behind the practice. I for one have no regrets for having it done to me and appreciate the continuity going back 4000 plus years. I'll get bashed for referring back to the covenant/bond reasons for the practice but so what. Back in WW2 days the simplest way the Nazis could identify a male Jew was to have him drop his pants. I'd have been happy to oblige...

Sabrina

08-04-2007, 10:51 PM

I should share our personal experience around this. 15 years ago when my son was born, I, of course was completely against circumcision. The message from some medical people in my life at that time was that it was not medically necessary to circumcise boys anymore, due to its being mostly religious based practice, and not anything founded in science for our modern day culture. So, my son was not circumcised, after my "winning" the argument with my husband who's from Africa and wanted his son circumcised. I told him at the time that if he could provide me with valid, even cultural reasons why our son should be circumcised, I would be open to it. In his culture the boys were circumcised normally at the age of about 13, as a right into manhood. so I wanted to know why would he have a baby circumcised when it has no understanding of the pain, etc. etc. I said that if it were to happen, I almost prefered the child to be a teen and not a baby so that he would at least have some understanding of what was going on. He said that it was modern knowledge that babies don't feel as much pain as an older boy, so this was protecting him. Well, I could'nt buy that, so the boy was not circumcised.

But I was also not properly trained, nor had it drilled into me, nor explained properly, the process, or what have you have to do to actually really make sure that the boy knows how to clean under the foreskin, etc. Well, we took plenty of baths, and I thought, "hey god gave 'im a foreskin, the water'll naturally get in there and clean. My husband wouldn't have a part of it, since it was not his choice to do things this way. Anyway, to make this very long story a little shorter, as my boy grew to be about 12 1/2, his thingy started getting painful due to the fact that the foreskin had adhered to the shaft! He could not pull it back. It turned that it became medically necessary for him to have the proceadure done! Then at that time the doctor was surprised that I had not been told how important it was for him to learn how to regularly pull the skin back to clean and make sure it stays unadhered. Well, to make this even shorter...I guess he almost got his traditional right into manhood, almost in that he was the right age...but it was in a medical facility rather than in the jungle somewhere. And, he was kind of pissed at me that this was happening to him at his tender age of embarrasment and prepubescents. (I know my spelling is awful here, sorry, no time for spell check). Also, the doctor said it would take a week to heal, but it took more like a month, and believe me, he was in PAIN. He's fine now though.

I'm with you on this one Phiant... There were also hygienic reasons behind the practice. I for one have no regrets for having it done to me and appreciate the continuity going back 4000 plus years. I'll get bashed for referring back to the covenant/bond reasons for the practice but so what. Back in WW2 days the simplest way the Nazis could identify a male Jew was to have him drop his pants. I'd have been happy to oblige...

Valley Oak

08-05-2007, 03:27 AM

So if you had it to do over again, would you circumcise your baby boy or would you teach him to clean himself properly? Or?

I should share our personal experience around this. 15 years ago when my son was born, I, of course was completely against circumcision. The message from some medical people in my life at that time was that it was not medically necessary to circumcise boys anymore, due to its being mostly religious based practice, and not anything founded in science for our modern day culture. So, my son was not circumcised, after my "winning" the argument with my husband who's from Africa and wanted his son circumcised. I told him at the time that if he could provide me with valid, even cultural reasons why our son should be circumcised, I would be open to it. In his culture the boys were circumcised normally at the age of about 13, as a right into manhood. so I wanted to know why would he have a baby circumcised when it has no understanding of the pain, etc. etc. I said that if it were to happen, I almost prefered the child to be a teen and not a baby so that he would at least have some understanding of what was going on. He said that it was modern knowledge that babies don't feel as much pain as an older boy, so this was protecting him. Well, I could'nt buy that, so the boy was not circumcised.

But I was also not properly trained, nor had it drilled into me, nor explained properly, the process, or what have you have to do to actually really make sure that the boy knows how to clean under the foreskin, etc. Well, we took plenty of baths, and I thought, "hey god gave 'im a foreskin, the water'll naturally get in there and clean. My husband wouldn't have a part of it, since it was not his choice to do things this way. Anyway, to make this very long story a little shorter, as my boy grew to be about 12 1/2, his thingy started getting painful due to the fact that the foreskin had adhered to the shaft! He could not pull it back. It turned that it became medically necessary for him to have the proceadure done! Then at that time the doctor was surprised that I had not been told how important it was for him to learn how to regularly pull the skin back to clean and make sure it stays unadhered. Well, to make this even shorter...I guess he almost got his traditional right into manhood, almost in that he was the right age...but it was in a medical facility rather than in the jungle somewhere. And, he was kind of pissed at me that this was happening to him at his tender age of embarrasment and prepubescents. (I know my spelling is awful here, sorry, no time for spell check). Also, the doctor said it would take a week to heal, but it took more like a month, and believe me, he was in PAIN. He's fine now though.

Sabrina

08-05-2007, 08:30 AM

I think I would teach him to clean it properly, and if it was still going to be a right of passage at an older age, the boy would also be properly prepared for that so that he wouldn't be angry at anyone when it finally happened. Now, it would be interesting to ask anyone who was circumcised later, if they noticed a difference in sexual feeling after circumcision.(my son would probably only answer this question to his peers with no one like Mom or Dad around to hear...maybe when he's an adult he'd be more open to talk about it)

I mean, I know a man who's not circumcised and he boasts that "oh, he has so much more feeling than other men" but how would he know?

So if you had it to do over again, would you circumcise your baby boy or would you teach him to clean himself properly? Or?

Neshamah

08-05-2007, 09:44 AM

As long as there is any doubt about the medical justification for circumcision, it certainly should not be routine. However, there are many religions and cultures that require it. Ultimately, the decision should be up to the parents, just as decisions about diet and schooling are made by the parents. No one should prohibit a family from raising their children according to their own traditions.

As for it being barbaric mutilation, I personally feel the same way about tatoos and pierced ears, but I certainly do not think there should be any laws against it. It's just culture.

Juggledude

08-05-2007, 09:56 AM

No one should prohibit a family from raising their children according to their own traditions.

As for it being barbaric mutilation, I personally feel the same way about tatoos and pierced ears, but I certainly do not think there should be any laws against it. It's just culture.

If you are speaking of tattoos and pierced ears on babies, I wholeheartedly agree. Seems to me most of those are personal choice issues, as opposed to tradition. Body modification is not my thing either, though I would not stand in the way of anyone who wanted it for themselves. This assumes an adult mind and an informed decision however.

You agree with the genital mutilation of young females in Africa, based on their traditions? You agree with the ritual infanticide of female children in other cultures? If not, where do you draw the line?

Royce

"Mad" Miles

08-05-2007, 12:27 PM

https://www.aegis.com/news/misc/2005/TT050201.html

Note the comments, almost near the end of the article, about claims of less sexual sensitivity for circumcised men. I'd seen a recent news article about that (a just published study that disproves it. Urban Legends die hard.) but this is what came up after googling "Circumcision and Sexual Sensitivity". I only skimmed it as I'm pretty familiar with the debate.

One note, female circumcision in Central Western and North Africa and the Middle East is not a corollary to male circumcision. Unless you think that male circumcision is equivalent to clitorectomy? Which anyone even vaguely familiar with human genital anatomy can tell you, is a bogus comparison. Unless circumcision involved removing the head of the penis and the nerves in the shaft! As far as I can tell that is not the case.

And yes, I know, not all "female circumcision" as practiced in some traditional Central Western and North African and Middle Eastern cultures includes clitorectomy, but from my superficial knowledge, for the most part, it does.

(One of the rare cases in which a lack of knowledge is something I'm grateful for! Usually I do not celebrate ignorance. I mean, the quote on my card is, "Where everything is bad, it must be good to know the worst." But in this instance, I'm down wit'it.)

I for one am completely opposed to female "circumcision" of any kind.

That's a pretty easy call from the perspective of a white, heterosexual, vocational middle class (But I'm a class traitor who sides with the proles!) guy from the center of white middle class male heterosexual comfortable privilege. Does it make me some kind of feminist? I'll cop to that!

As a cut guy (no, my parents didn't wait for me to come of age and give my permission/consent) I may have some unconscious bias. I've checked myself for a "They did to me so it must be OK to do it to others." attitude. But I've also read the debate as it came up in the eighties and since.

I think the information to make an informed decision as a parent (which I am not) is contained in the overview article linked above.

Don't let the explicit descriptions of some of the "icky" practices of traditional moyels (hey, it freaks me out too!) turn you off to the comprehensive information in the article.

An ex-girl-friend of mine described to me in the late nineties the groups of Ndebele/Matabele male youths standing around town in rural areas of South Africa, after their manhood rituals when they were supposed to go on "walkabout" or "vision quest" (or whatever the Ndebele equivalent term and practice is.) She specifically told me about their suppurating sores that resulted from their unanaesthetized and unsterile circumcisions. It sounded pretty horrific to me!

As for "whole" men. I remember when "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex *but were afraid to ask" came out in the early seventies. It contained lots of interesting information for a guy in his mid-adolescence.

One area of note (gross-out warning, if you're not strong-of-stomach stop reading this immediately!!!) was the issue of Smegma. We were all circumcised, so that bit of arcana held abject fascination for us. We'd never heard of smegma, and its attending hygiene issues, before!

A whole new category of insult followed! Smegma Breath, Smegma Face, Smegma Head, etc. What a joy it was to learn a new dirty word, one that had nothing to do with us as circumcised young men, but that could be applied to anyone we chose. Life was nasty and good!!!

Cheers,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

:new:

I'm sure many others have noticed the phallic aspects of this particular "smilie" or am I the only one here with a "dirty" mind?

Valley Oak

08-05-2007, 02:07 PM

Great piece, Miles, as always. But although you were crystal clear about your position on female circumcision I was not able to tell as clearly your position on male circumcision.

Best,

Edward

https://www.aegis.com/news/misc/2005/TT050201.html

Note the comments, almost near the end of the article, about claims of less sexual sensitivity for circumcised men. I'd seen a recent news article about that (a just published study that disproves it. Urban Legends die hard.) but this is what came up after googling "Circumcision and Sexual Sensitivity". I only skimmed it as I'm pretty familiar with the debate.

One note, female circumcision in Central Western and North Africa and the Middle East is not a corollary to male circumcision. Unless you think that male circumcision is equivalent to clitorectomy? Which anyone even vaguely familiar with human genital anatomy can tell you, is a bogus comparison. Unless circumcision involved removing the head of the penis and the nerves in the shaft! As far as I can tell that is not the case.

And yes, I know, not all "female circumcision" as practiced in some traditional Central Western and North African and Middle Eastern cultures includes clitorectomy, but from my superficial knowledge, for the most part, it does.

(One of the rare cases in which a lack of knowledge is something I'm grateful for! Usually I do not celebrate ignorance. I mean, the quote on my card is, "Where everything is bad, it must be good to know the worst." But in this instance, I'm down wit'it.)

I for one am completely opposed to female "circumcision" of any kind.

That's a pretty easy call from the perspective of a white, heterosexual, vocational middle class (But I'm a class traitor who sides with the proles!) guy from the center of white middle class male heterosexual comfortable privilege. Does it make me some kind of feminist? I'll cop to that!

As a cut guy (no, my parents didn't wait for me to come of age and give my permission/consent) I may have some unconscious bias. I've checked myself for a "They did to me so it must be OK to do it to others." attitude. But I've also read the debate as it came up in the eighties and since.

I think the information to make an informed decision as a parent (which I am not) is contained in the overview article linked above.

Don't let the explicit descriptions of some of the "icky" practices of traditional moyels (hey, it freaks me out too!) turn you off to the comprehensive information in the article.

An ex-girl-friend of mine described to me in the late nineties the groups of Ndebele/Matabele male youths standing around town in rural areas of South Africa, after their manhood rituals when they were supposed to go on "walkabout" or "vision quest" (or whatever the Ndebele equivalent term and practice is.) She specifically told me about their suppurating sores that resulted from their unanaesthetized and unsterile circumcisions. It sounded pretty horrific to me!

As for "whole" men. I remember when "Everything You Wanted To Know About Sex *but were afraid to ask" came out in the early seventies. It contained lots of interesting information for a guy in his mid-adolescence.

One area of note (gross-out warning, if you're not strong-of-stomach stop reading this immediately!!!) was the issue of Smegma. We were all circumcised, so that bit of arcana held abject fascination for us. We'd never heard of smegma, and its attending hygiene issues, before!

A whole new category of insult followed! Smegma Breath, Smegma Face, Smegma Head, etc. What a joy it was to learn a new dirty word, one that had nothing to do with us as circumcised young men, but that could be applied to anyone we chose. Life was nasty and good!!!

Cheers,

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

:new:

I'm sure many others have noticed the phallic aspects of this particular "smilie" or am I the only one here with a "dirty" mind?

"Mad" Miles

08-05-2007, 06:17 PM

"although you were crystal clear about your position on female circumcision I was not able to tell as clearly your position on male circumcision.

Best,

Edward"

Read the Aegis article, make up your own mind.

I'm already cut. I have no son(s). What I think is irrelevant.

If I did have a son I would consult with his mother, other interested parties and try and decide the best thing for him.

Given the proven effectiveness of circumcision in preventing disease (see the article), I lean towards circumcision, but since I am not in the position to have to decide, I remain on the fence.

In a sense it's a lifestyle choice. I just hope the parents who choose not to have it done to their sons are informed enough to clean under the prepuce and teach their sons to do it for themselves when they're at the point they're capable of doing so.

For all you "complete" men and boys, Smegma is not your friend!!!

Cheery bye!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

Valley Oak

08-05-2007, 09:27 PM

Thank you, Miles. You are one of the few people on this forum who speak straight (unlike a few others we know), well informed, and with reasoning. I appreciate this greatly, especially because they are traits that need to be much more common in debate forums.

As a mutilated male, my well informed decision is clearly and strongly against circumcision. If I had a son(s) I would not mutilate any of them. The cultural prejudice in favor of male genital mutilation in the U.S. is mind boggling. All you have to do is travel to Europe and see how strongly the vast, almost unanimous majority of people in those countries is against circumcision. The truth is that there is no hard, medical evidence in favor of circumcision. The Europeans don't practice it at all unless there is some incredible exception.

The truth is that it is practiced routinely here in the U.S. and therefore it is a subject for debate even though people don't know the reasons why. Americans who argue in favor of circumcision don't realize that they do so primarily out of cultural bias.

To all of this, I would like to add the words of reflection of a friend of mine:

"The fact is Foreskin has the largest number of nerve endings than anywhere else on the human body! The glads or head of a Cut Penis dries out. The hardening of the head results in what the bottom of your feet look like. Very dry, crusty, and rough to touch. And, very little to no feeling. The Foreskin keeps the glads nice on moist - just like the inside of your mouth... pink n' moist! Try keeping your mouth open on a fast moving motorcycle you'll see how a dry mouth is. Yuk. Or even dry eyes? Just think if we started Circumcise eyelids? Eyelids are a useless flap of skin - right?
If the foreskin wasn't ment to be there then it wouldn't be there in first place. Do you chop off some of your fingers because you don't use them that often? Or cut your nose off because it's hard to clean?
Leave the Penis alone - men can decide when they are ready and if they want a large knife cutting on their manhood. I guessing few men love the idea of a large knife sawin' away at their Johnson! Who would like to stand up and drop their pants to feel a knife sawin' away at the penis? Doesn't sound like fun to me? I love my Foreskin - Amazing how great sex is! What a feeling! Wow... I know how great the clit feels for a woman when she cums.
Love the skin - it's the only way to go."
Sincerely,

Edward

"although you were crystal clear about your position on female circumcision I was not able to tell as clearly your position on male circumcision.

Best,

Edward"

Read the Aegis article, make up your own mind.

I'm already cut. I have no son(s). What I think is irrelevant.

If I did have a son I would consult with his mother, other interested parties and try and decide the best thing for him.

Given the proven effectiveness of circumcision in preventing disease (see the article), I lean towards circumcision, but since I am not in the position to have to decide, I remain on the fence.

In a sense it's a lifestyle choice. I just hope the parents who choose not to have it done to their sons are informed enough to clean under the prepuce and teach their sons to do it for themselves when they're at the point they're capable of doing so.

For all you "complete" men and boys, Smegma is not your friend!!!

Cheery bye!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

loi

08-05-2007, 10:05 PM

Hello

I just have to say something here. I have done a lot of research on circumcision and I can't imagine how they could say that it helps to stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. How? I would imagine that it is more likely that AIDS would spread in the circumsized as men who are have to push harder to get the same sensations and need more lubrication (because they don't have their own naturally) which may cause tearing and therefore blood mixing.

Also as long as the boy is taught how to clean (as Sabrina's story illustrates), there should be no problems with it. Boys who are circumsized are more likely to have infections initially than those who are not. And the stories of botched circumcisions could make your hair stand on end (or your penis tilt). Some have been so bad, that the doctors amputated the penis totally. I am not kidding.

Really the main reason not to do this is that it hurts an innocent child. There are some who believe that sets up men to blame their mothers for this initial trauma unconsciously (but I won't go into that here). As someone else mentioned, it is a different thing if the man chooses to become circumcized but we are supposed to protect our children, not harm them.

There should be no reason to inflict this kind of pain on anyone, and as a parent (which I am), I could never imagine doing this to my child. Not for religious reason (they are now doing a bris which does not cut) or any other. Besides, Jews initially were marked in this way as slaves and then they took it over and made it their own (yes, I am Jewish) so the basis for this practice religiously is not clean anyway.

And the body stores and remembers the pain, just as the neural pathways are formed and set in for future responses (increasing sensitivity and decreasing pain thresholds).

Ok, I've rambled enough but I just hope that one point is clear - there is NO MEDICALLY JUSTIFIABLE REASON for circumcision and therefore why do something that inflicts such pain?

By the way, there is a very interesting book titled "Sex As Nature Intended It" which talks a lot about this subject.

Neshamah

08-06-2007, 07:33 PM

Juggledude

08-06-2007, 10:42 PM

Royce,

I think we agree that there is a presumption against doing anything unnatural to the body. I take it your position is that a person's personal choice about what to do with es own body can override that presumption, but that barring clear medical reasons or other extraordinary circumstances, no one can make that choice for someone else, not even a parent for a child.

I claim that aside from personal choice, tradition and culture can also override the presumption, though the magnitude and permanence of the unnatural alterations make a difference. Circumcision certainly presents a high threshold, but I think in many families, tradition meets that threshold. (A tradition can meet the threshold if it provides benefits that outweigh its possible harms.) If circumcision is integral to a boy's culture, and the boy benefits from inclusion in that culture, he'll be glad he was circumcised. Female "circumcision" on the other hand removes a far more integral part of the body and in my view, presents a threshold too high for any tradition to overcome. My understanding is that the cultures that practice female "circumcision" also include so many other oppressive traditions that females do not benefit at all from membership. Of course, infanticide does not provide any benefit at all to the infant. Though there was a case in France a few years ago of a disabled man suing his parents for allowing him to be born. Maybe there is an exception to everything.

Of course not every child wishes to remain in the tradition in which they were raised, but I think parents can still decide that the rewards of including their children in their traditions outweighs the risk that the child will break with tradition and resent the circumcision, (or their difficulty digesting meat, or their irrational fears of life after death, or however it is they were raised.)

The threshold you speak of is very subjective, as is your interpretation of "integral" body parts. I consider my foreskin to be pretty damned integral, thank you very much. Also, you mention "clear medical necessity" and while I have not done the reading, the summaries I see here seem to indicate that with proper hygiene, no medical necessity exists, let alone a clear one.

The point you raise regarding inclusion in a culture strikes closer to home with me, as a socially ostracized youth, I can relate the the importance of inclusion and cultural integrity. Looking at the society we live in, however, with the increasing globalization, the increasing communication, awareness, integration and even homogenization of culture, the "threshold" by which this is measured must be continually reevaluated.

Any issue so complicated that there is no clear answer should be left to individuals. Some people will get it right and some will get it wrong. If a state or government or some other organization, however well-meaning, imposes an answer, there's a chance that everyone gets it wrong.

~ Neshamah

Clarity is hard to achieve when dealing in the wholly subjective realms of "right" and "wrong". The judgmental viewpoint implied by the very existence of those words is highly disturbing to me, even though it is a cornerstone of the prevalent morality in our society. While, I, personally am against circumcision, I would not presume to legislate your right to circumcise yourself. When talking about infant mutilation, however, it brings the discussion into the realm of societal responsibility. I imagine there are laws against clitorectomy in the good old USofA, and I know that infanticide is legislated against. This is done in the imperfect manner of our governing process, where the majority, or the empowered minority, imposes their mores upon the rest. Were a visiting dignitary from a culture that practices ritual infanticide to deliver and dispose of their progeny here, it would take the full weight of diplomatic immunity to keep them free, and then most likely only if the popular press didn't get hold of the story. The mere fact that you, personally hold a certain viewpoint or threshold does not make it any more valid than that of another, even barbaric by our standard, viewpoint.

The fact that religious viewpoints play largely into our legislative process is probably one very salient point when pondering why circumcision is legal here, and other forms of infant genital modification are not.

Royce

Valley Oak

08-07-2007, 06:00 AM

The idea of "cultural threshold" or "cultural integrity" vs. "physical integrity" is an important point. Even though I disagree with it a justification for practicing circumcision it's strongly related to why any culture practices its traditions.

The scientific community in the U.S. has failed miserably to debunk the cultural tradition of circumcision. Science must be used as a tool to destroy superstition and barbaric practices, no matter how strongly those beliefs are held in a society. Science is a light in the darkness of barbarism, ignorance, and cultural tradition. When a nation knows better then it needs to stop behaving as if it didn't know any better, and we do know better in the U.S. Don't we lead the world in scientific and medical research as well as other things? Shouldn't "America lead?"

What happens to the circumcised man the moment he steps outside of his culture to learn that other societies don't practice this barbaric act? What if he chooses to live in the new, more enlightened culture? He cannot undue the mutilation that he was subjected to. He didn't have a CHOICE!

Edward

The threshold you speak of is very subjective, as is your interpretation of "integral" body parts. I consider my foreskin to be pretty damned integral, thank you very much. Also, you mention "clear medical necessity" and while I have not done the reading, the summaries I see here seem to indicate that with proper hygiene, no medical necessity exists, let alone a clear one.

The point you raise regarding inclusion in a culture strikes closer to home with me, as a socially ostracized youth, I can relate the the importance of inclusion and cultural integrity. Looking at the society we live in, however, with the increasing globalization, the increasing communication, awareness, integration and even homogenization of culture, the "threshold" by which this is measured must be continually reevaluated.

Clarity is hard to achieve when dealing in the wholly subjective realms of "right" and "wrong". The judgmental viewpoint implied by the very existence of those words is highly disturbing to me, even though it is a cornerstone of the prevalent morality in our society. While, I, personally am against circumcision, I would not presume to legislate your right to circumcise yourself. When talking about infant mutilation, however, it brings the discussion into the realm of societal responsibility. I imagine there are laws against clitorectomy in the good old USofA, and I know that infanticide is legislated against. This is done in the imperfect manner of our governing process, where the majority, or the empowered minority, imposes their mores upon the rest. Were a visiting dignitary from a culture that practices ritual infanticide to deliver and dispose of their progeny here, it would take the full weight of diplomatic immunity to keep them free, and then most likely only if the popular press didn't get hold of the story. The mere fact that you, personally hold a certain viewpoint or threshold does not make it any more valid than that of another, even barbaric by our standard, viewpoint.

The fact that religious viewpoints play largely into our legislative process is probably one very salient point when pondering why circumcision is legal here, and other forms of infant genital modification are not.

Royce

Valley Oak

08-07-2007, 06:28 AM

Also, I wanted to comment on the "cultural integrity" idea that a female friend of mine asked her brother if she should circumcise her son. He said that other boys will make fun of him if he's not circumcised so she went ahead and circumcised her poor baby son based on this faulty reasoning. This reasoning is clearly an example of "cultural integrity." Now she is very sorry she had her son circumcised and would not do it if she had another son.

Her husband is thinking about undergoing reconstructive surgery to correct his own (the husband's) circumcision.

Edward

The threshold you speak of is very subjective, as is your interpretation of "integral" body parts. I consider my foreskin to be pretty damned integral, thank you very much. Also, you mention "clear medical necessity" and while I have not done the reading, the summaries I see here seem to indicate that with proper hygiene, no medical necessity exists, let alone a clear one.

The point you raise regarding inclusion in a culture strikes closer to home with me, as a socially ostracized youth, I can relate the the importance of inclusion and cultural integrity. Looking at the society we live in, however, with the increasing globalization, the increasing communication, awareness, integration and even homogenization of culture, the "threshold" by which this is measured must be continually reevaluated.

Clarity is hard to achieve when dealing in the wholly subjective realms of "right" and "wrong". The judgmental viewpoint implied by the very existence of those words is highly disturbing to me, even though it is a cornerstone of the prevalent morality in our society. While, I, personally am against circumcision, I would not presume to legislate your right to circumcise yourself. When talking about infant mutilation, however, it brings the discussion into the realm of societal responsibility. I imagine there are laws against clitorectomy in the good old USofA, and I know that infanticide is legislated against. This is done in the imperfect manner of our governing process, where the majority, or the empowered minority, imposes their mores upon the rest. Were a visiting dignitary from a culture that practices ritual infanticide to deliver and dispose of their progeny here, it would take the full weight of diplomatic immunity to keep them free, and then most likely only if the popular press didn't get hold of the story. The mere fact that you, personally hold a certain viewpoint or threshold does not make it any more valid than that of another, even barbaric by our standard, viewpoint.

The fact that religious viewpoints play largely into our legislative process is probably one very salient point when pondering why circumcision is legal here, and other forms of infant genital modification are not.

Royce

AquaGyrl

08-11-2007, 04:00 PM

:omg: Not to diminish the thread... but I am SO GLAD that I DO NOT have a penis, nor do I have penis-envy (doubly-so after reading this thread!) :yossam:

Instead, I proudly own the state of my genetalia!

Also, I wanted to comment on the "cultural integrity" idea that a female friend of mine asked her brother if she should circumcise her son. He said that other boys will make fun of him if he's not circumcised so she went ahead and circumcised her poor baby son based on this faulty reasoning. This reasoning is clearly an example of "cultural integrity." Now she is very sorry she had her son circumcised and would not do it if she had another son.

Her husband is thinking about undergoing reconstructive surgery to correct his own (the husband's) circumcision.

Edward

ThePhiant

08-11-2007, 05:20 PM

honey, they are not talking about passing them out,
they is talking about actually USING that thing

:omg: Not to diminish the thread... but I am SO GLAD that I DO NOT have a penis, nor do I have penis-envy (doubly-so after reading this thread!) :yossam:

Instead, I proudly own the state of my genetalia!

AquaGyrl

08-11-2007, 05:49 PM

Well, if I want to USE that thing I can go to "Good Vibrations" and buy a Feeldoe - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeldoe (circumcised, of course - afterall...who'd want an uncircumsized sextoy-penis?).

So, see... they ARE handing them out (sort of... and at a price) and they're uncircumsized and now anyone can have a penis without having the hassel of dealing with the foreskin issue.

:thumbsup:

I love you ThePhiant!

honey, they are not talking about passing them out,
they is talking about actually USING that thing

"Mad" Miles

08-11-2007, 07:15 PM

After enjoying Aquagirl's interventions, I wish to respond to some claims in the last week, a few posts back.

"The glads" (Sic.) "or head of a Cut Penis dries out. The hardening of the head results in what the bottom of your feet look like. Very dry, crusty, and rough to touch. And, very little to no feeling."

Wah? What kinda freaks you been doing?

"I love my Foreskin - Amazing how great sex is! What a feeling! Wow... I know how great the clit feels for a woman when she cums.
Love the skin - it's the only way to go."

So, I take it you know the difference between how it feels with a foreskin and without? How, pray tell, have you accomplished this feat?

The only means I can imagine involve way too much surgery to seem plausible and compatible with the general claims made by you.

"the circumsized as men who are have to push harder to get the same sensations and need more lubrication (because they don't have their own naturally) which may cause tearing and therefore blood mixing."

WTF? So how does a foreskin provide lubrication, or the lack of need for it?

And who the F*@& is doing it without sufficient lubrication. Have they not gotten around to reading "OBOS"? (See below)

Oh yeah, maybe this is an example of some of the subtextual racism that appears periodically on this board. People in Africa don't know s#(^ about sex. They don't read. They don't learn anything from their elders. They do it without enough lube.

Oh, wait! I see, they're the uncircumsized, therefore providing plenty of lubrication "naturally."*

*!? Please elaborate, I'm a voracious reader of things sexual, and otherwise, and have NEVER seen this claim made anywhere else!

And if they were cut, they'd be doing it hard and rough, "tearing and therefore blood mixing".

OMFG!!!!

I'm not even going to touch the "blood mixing" implications. As for natural lubrication from uncircumcized and lack of lubrication from circumcized peni. (Hah!)

Geez! Don't you people watch any porno?! Not that that's a very good way to learn about sex, but at least the need for lubrication has been well demonstrated there.

What the hell does being cut, or uncut, have to do with it! Lube, that is....

I do love this thread, because it allows me to write things like the above and my favorite contribution, "Smegma is not your friend!"

Where else could I make that claim and not sound like a total, uh, Wacko?

"Mad" Miles

Yeah, I save it up for when I can find the time!

:burngrnbounce:

OBOS = Our Bodies, Ourselves

Valley Oak

08-11-2007, 08:11 PM

Miles!

I laughed out loud several times when I read your post. My wife even asked me what was so funny. You have razor sharp logic.

The quotes you made from my post in bold come from another person and although I do not agree with everything he said (the person I originally quoted) I still accept responsibility for having published it in my message to the community.

Nonetheless, I reassert that I am strongly against circumcision. It is wrong to systematically mutilate people at an age where they cannot decide for themselves. When a circumcised male grows up and realizes that he doesn't agree with circumcision or that he doesn't want it for himself, he also realizes that there is nothing that can be done to reverse someones else's choice about a very personal part of his body.

A male friend of mine and I have discussed the possibility of reconstructive surgery to rehabilitate our foreskins. But even this is grossly unfair because the social assumption is that all male infants must continue to be circumcised and if some day they are enough of a "crackpot" to do reconstructive surgery then that's "their problem and their expense."

The physical damage is permanent even with reconstructive surgery because the flesh that was removed forever continues to have nerve counterparts in the brain for signals that will never be received. Nature put all of that there for a reason and all of the arguments in favor of circumcision will never be able to refute that.

Circumcision is purely cultural and purely unjustifiable.

Sincerely,

Edward
Mutilated male

After enjoying Aquagirl's interventions, I wish to respond to some claims in the last week, a few posts back.

"The glads" (Sic.) "or head of a Cut Penis dries out. The hardening of the head results in what the bottom of your feet look like. Very dry, crusty, and rough to touch. And, very little to no feeling."

Wah? What kinda freaks you been doing?

"I love my Foreskin - Amazing how great sex is! What a feeling! Wow... I know how great the clit feels for a woman when she cums.
Love the skin - it's the only way to go."

So, I take it you know the difference between how it feels with a foreskin and without? How, pray tell, have you accomplished this feat?

The only means I can imagine involve way too much surgery to seem plausible and compatible with the general claims made by you.

"the circumsized as men who are have to push harder to get the same sensations and need more lubrication (because they don't have their own naturally) which may cause tearing and therefore blood mixing."

WTF? So how does a foreskin provide lubrication, or the lack of need for it?

And who the F*@& is doing it without sufficient lubrication. Have they not gotten around to reading "OBOS"? (See below)

Oh yeah, maybe this is an example of some of the subtextual racism that appears periodically on this board. People in Africa don't know s#(^ about sex. They don't read. They don't learn anything from their elders. They do it without enough lube.

Oh, wait! I see, they're the uncircumsized, therefore providing plenty of lubrication "naturally."*

*!? Please elaborate, I'm a voracious reader of things sexual, and otherwise, and have NEVER seen this claim made anywhere else!

And if they were cut, they'd be doing it hard and rough, "tearing and therefore blood mixing".

OMFG!!!!

I'm not even going to touch the "blood mixing" implications. As for natural lubrication from uncircumcized and lack of lubrication from circumcized peni. (Hah!)

Geez! Don't you people watch any porno?! Not that that's a very good way to learn about sex, but at least the need for lubrication has been well demonstrated there.

What the hell does being cut, or uncut, have to do with it! Lube, that is....

I do love this thread, because it allows me to write things like the above and my favorite contribution, "Smegma is not your friend!"

Where else could I make that claim and not sound like a total, uh, Wacko?

"Mad" Miles

Yeah, I save it up for when I can find the time!

:burngrnbounce:

OBOS = Our Bodies, Ourselves

ThePhiant

08-11-2007, 08:43 PM

Geez! Don't you people watch any porno?! Not that that's a very good way to learn about sex, but at least the need for lubrication has been well demonstrated there.

"Mad" Miles

:histerics:hahahahaahahah:histerics:hahahahahahha:histerics:
miles is exposing himself,
:histerics:hahahhahahahahahahahahaahahha:histerics:

so now your new motto is lube it like a pornstar
:xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh::xtrmlaugh:

do you lube when alone?

a very curious LuLu

AquaGyrl

08-12-2007, 12:28 AM

And let me add this to the mix... I've had many uncircumcised lovers and let me tell you something... if that thing AIN'T clean it STINKS like a Fuk*@g FISHMARKET on a HOT DAY! Smega is NOT your friend! :doctor:

:histerics:hahahahaahahah:histerics:hahahahahahha:histerics:
miles is exposing himself,
:histerics:hahahhahahahahahahahahaahahha:histerics:

so now your new motto is [B]lube it like a pornstar
[/do you lube when alone?

a very curious LuLu

ThePhiant

08-12-2007, 08:09 AM

But I've never met a pussy that didn't like the smell of fish

:CatMilk:

And let me add this to the mix... I've had many uncircumcised lovers and let me tell you something... if that thing AIN'T clean it STINKS like a Fuk*@g FISHMARKET on a HOT DAY! Smega is NOT your friend! :doctor:

Looksgood

08-13-2007, 11:03 PM

As an uncircumcised male, and very happy with that fact, I would like to comment on some of the aspects of this important topic.

There was talk (met with some derision) about lubrication. Perhaps the problem is that lubrication was the wrong word to use. The foreskin maintains the head of the penis in a slightly moist state, similarly (though not identically) to the way the eyelids maintain the eye in a moist state. If you remove someone’s eyelid, the eye has a much greater tendency to become dry, and the head of the penis is the same, only more so. In the case of the penis, the foreskin (when left intact) covers and protect the glans most of the time. When it is absent the glans is most of the time in contact with clothing or bedding that tends to absorb moisture. One might suppose that if a body part is naturally kept moist, drying it might have some deleterious effect.

Removal of the foreskin also exposes the glans to much more friction (again, clothes and bedding). Now we know that increased stimulation tends to desensitize nerve endings over a period of time, so again it might be reasonable to suppose that circumcision might lead to a glans that is less sensitive to touch, and would therefore require more stimulation to achieve the same effect. I suspect that this is the theory behind statements that uncircumcised men are more sensitive.

As far as the cultural argument is concerned, I can have some small amount of sympathy for practicing Jews facing the pressure of their religious heritage. Even so I would hope that they, and all non-religious Jews, would find the strength to resist this pressure for the sake of their sons. As more and more male children are left intact, there will be less and less tendency for uncircumcised boys to feel different. I grew up in England, where in my childhood only about 50% of boys were circumcised, so there was no question of one being normal and the other abnormal. There will always be “outcasts” among children, and the particular “difference” that is adduced for this will vary with circumstances, so attempting to make your child proof against teasing is a futile task, and in my opinion not a valid reason for cutting off part of their bodies.

I understand that recent statistical evidence appears to show that circumcision lessens the chances of female to male transmission of AIDS. This seems to me to be the only good reason for choosing to be circumcised, but one that can form the basis for a voluntary choice, since the risk is not even an issue until the age of sexual maturity. It is certainly not a reason for automatic circumcision of infants. Men who choose instead to lessen their risk of infection by behavioral choices are then free to preserve their bodies as nature seems to intend, rather than having the choice made for them without their consent.

While the expression “female circumcision” is in fact a shameful euphemism for an even worse form of genital mutilation involving the removal of the clitoris, male circumcision might be considered similar to the removal of the labia of a woman. I cannot help wondering what kind of outcry would ensue if it were suggested that this should be routinely done to infant girls.

Finally I would suggest that the burden of proof should be on the interventionists rather than on those who favor leaving the natural state unchanged. This is especially so when it is quite feasible to have oneself circumcised at any stage in life, whereas if it was done to you already, it is impossible to reverse.

Patrick Brinton

MiriamAva

08-15-2007, 09:02 AM

Jewish mother of two male sons - left the way God or Goddess gave them to me - now ages 27 and 31. If they have complaints, I haven't heard them.
(That's a joke - I don't think the subject is up for discussion.) :wink:

On the other hand, i have sent them articles about AIDS and circumcision. I figure nature knows how to make a body, hair, eyes, a heart, none of which i or anyone else can do - that nature can figure out the right way to make genitalia too. OTOH, I have no issue with Jewish people practicing circumcision.
And no, what they do to women in some Muslim and African countries is NOT comparable.

Juggledude

08-15-2007, 10:28 AM

And no, what they do to women in some Muslim and African countries is NOT comparable.

Oh, but it is comparable, as witnessed by the fact that we are comparing it. Granted, the matter of degree leaves a wide gap, but it's still body modification to a being incapable of making that choice for themselves, and on that basis, it is eminently comparable.

Royce

Looksgood

08-15-2007, 11:23 AM

Ah, semantics! I think what Miriam intended was to say that they are not equivalent; of course you are strictly correct to say that they are indeed comparable, but I find it more useful to look beyond the wording to the obvious meaning.

Patrick

Oh, but it is comparable, as witnessed by the fact that we are comparing it. Granted, the matter of degree leaves a wide gap, but it's still body modification to a being incapable of making that choice for themselves, and on that basis, it is eminently comparable.

Royce

Juggledude

08-15-2007, 11:41 AM

Ah, semantics! I think what Miriam intended was to say that they are not equivalent; of course you are strictly correct to say that they are indeed comparable, but I find it more useful to look beyond the wording to the obvious meaning.

Patrick

Indeed, Patrick, and while my meaning might not have been so obvious, I was insidiously trying to insinuate that the gap was not as wide as some might believe, thereby promoting my own argument and viewpoint that circumcision is, indeed, barbaric mutilation.

Of course, we'll all have different opinions, especially on a subject as close to our hearts... er, belts... as this one, and this diversity of opinion and the joy of experience in examining the wonderful aspects of ourselves is part of why I love Wacco so much!

Onward, into the fog!

Royce

Looksgood

08-15-2007, 12:08 PM

About WACCO and diversity of opinion, long may they thrive. About the difference in degree between removal of the clitoris (which is done with the aim of reducing a woman's capacity for sexual pleasure) and removal of the foreskin (which is done for several stated reasons, none having to do with reduction of the capacity for sexual pleasure) I have to agree with Miriam, that the former is several orders of magnitude worse. As I said in my former post, perhaps of female genital mutilation were confined to the labia one might find some equivalency, but as it is the difference in the degree of barbarity is so great that talking of them in the same terms does not help your argument, in my opinion.

Having said all that, on your basic contention regarding circumcision, I am right there with you.

Patrick

Indeed, Patrick, and while my meaning might not have been so obvious, I was insidiously trying to insinuate that the gap was not as wide as some might believe, thereby promoting my own argument and viewpoint that circumcision is, indeed, barbaric mutilation.

Of course, we'll all have different opinions, especially on a subject as close to our hearts... er, belts... as this one, and this diversity of opinion and the joy of experience in examining the wonderful aspects of ourselves is part of why I love Wacco so much!

Onward, into the fog!

Royce

Dynamique

08-18-2007, 12:32 PM

The NoCirc folks have literature that addresses all of these issues -- even a pamphlet on resisting pressure from medical people to circumcize after infancy/childhood. It seems like there is a sizable group of allopaths who really are looking for a reason to lop that thing off. It seemed to me that there is something threatening about an intact penis that they need to "fix."

There is a medical term for the "sticking" problem that your son experienced. If my memory serves correctly, the NoCirc literature indicated that circumcision is NOT needed to correct the problem. This is one of the "when in doubt, cut it out" solutions that allopathy likes to peddle.

If a boy can learn to brush his teeth, he can learn to clean his foreskin! Unfortunately, nobody bothered to inform you, much less show you how to do it so you could teach him. As more and more boys/men remain intact, this should become less of a problem because there will be a dude around to pass along the knowledge.

The NoCirc lit also has info on the experiences of men who were circumcised after sexual maturity and having had sexual experience. They liked being intact a whole lot better.

I think I would teach him to clean it properly, and if it was still going to be a right of passage at an older age, the boy would also be properly prepared for that so that he wouldn't be angry at anyone when it finally happened. Now, it would be interesting to ask anyone who was circumcised later, if they noticed a difference in sexual feeling after circumcision.(my son would probably only answer this question to his peers with no one like Mom or Dad around to hear...maybe when he's an adult he'd be more open to talk about it)

I mean, I know a man who's not circumcised and he boasts that "oh, he has so much more feeling than other men" but how would he know?

Valley Oak

08-18-2007, 03:24 PM

Excellent post, Dynamique!

Taking in mind your observation that allopaths seem to have an obsession with "cutting it off," part of what sparks my curiosity is if they are really and truly thinking one thing (hidden agenda) but saying something entirely different in public in order to continue justifying this primitive practice.

What would that hidden agenda be? A secretly religious one? An effort to keep men more chaste or faithful to their wives? Other?

Edward

The NoCirc folks have literature that addresses all of these issues -- even a pamphlet on resisting pressure from medical people to circumcize after infancy/childhood. It seems like there is a sizable group of allopaths who really are looking for a reason to lop that thing off. It seemed to me that there is something threatening about an intact penis that they need to "fix."

There is a medical term for the "sticking" problem that your son experienced. If my memory serves correctly, the NoCirc literature indicated that circumcision is NOT needed to correct the problem. This is one of the "when in doubt, cut it out" solutions that allopathy likes to peddle.

If a boy can learn to brush his teeth, he can learn to clean his foreskin! Unfortunately, nobody bothered to inform you, much less show you how to do it so you could teach him. As more and more boys/men remain intact, this should become less of a problem because there will be a dude around to pass along the knowledge.

The NoCirc lit also has info on the experiences of men who were circumcised after sexual maturity and having had sexual experience. They liked being intact a whole lot better.

wildflower

08-19-2007, 09:09 AM

My boys are "UN".......
and at 35 and 24 years of age, I believe they are gonna stay that way.

Best
wildflower

Valley Oak

01-26-2008, 08:29 PM

Right on, Wildflower! And this is excellent for your two sons, of course (and all of their girlfriends and wives). I certainly wish my parents had been as illuminated as you are.

Edward

My boys are "UN".......
and at 35 and 24 years of age, I believe they are gonna stay that way.

Best
wildflower

shellebelle

01-27-2008, 09:35 AM

My father is not circumcised but has very little foreskin so probably the reason since his brothers were and my brother is.

I have two sons 20 and 5.5 and a grandson 6mos. All are circumcised. 2 of them for the same reason. My oldest son and his son are both circumcised because his cousins were not and to this day have issues from it that we and then he wanted to avoid.

My youngest is circumcised by informed decision. We made a choice that we felt was best based on our personal criteria. His doctor did it and also happened to have mohel experience.

I love the penis passionately! That said - my spouses are all circumcised - now for me this is where it gets interesting - I choose to be involved with circumcised men. I have tried the uncircumcised version and never had much enjoyment from it. The why I don't know - they were wonderful men who I would definitely refer. The sex just wasn't what I enjoyed, loved, desired etc.

I am very very visual so for me maybe its that when its uncircumcised I can't see the penis and really I want to.

But I think it needs to be a informed decision either way and neither is wrong. So EDUCATE yourself parents!

Oh yeh against the so called girl version.

theindependenteye

01-27-2008, 06:20 PM

Since I don't have any experience with being uncircumcised, I can't speak to that experience. We chose not to have that for our son, and he's never expressed any opinion on the matter, so I can't speak to that either.

Only thing I can speak to is the tenor of the subject line. Whatever the subconscious trauma that's subsequently destroyed my capacity for a full sensuous life, I don't really want to feel that I'm the subject of a barbaric mutilation. Speak for yourself, not for me. I'm all for the idea of discouraging the practice of circumcision, but I don't buy the extremity of the view that parents & doctors who participate in it are de facto vile beasts and that the babies will inevitably grow up "mutilated," as the phrase implies.

People suffer much worse things on a regular basis and survive. Let's keep our traumas in perspective.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

shellebelle

01-27-2008, 06:29 PM

Good point and agreed!

Only thing I can speak to is the tenor of the subject line. Whatever the subconscious trauma that's subsequently destroyed my capacity for a full sensuous life, I don't really want to feel that I'm the subject of a barbaric mutilation. Speak for yourself, not for me. I'm all for the idea of discouraging the practice of circumcision, but I don't buy the extremity of the view that parents & doctors who participate in it are de facto vile beasts and that the babies will inevitably grow up "mutilated," as the phrase implies.

People suffer much worse things on a regular basis and survive. Let's keep our traumas in perspective.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

Braggi

01-27-2008, 09:51 PM

... and that the babies will inevitably grow up "mutilated," as the phrase implies.

People suffer much worse things on a regular basis and survive. Let's keep our traumas in perspective.
Conrad

Generally speaking, I agree Conrad. However, the procedure is pretty awful and unnecessary. And factually speaking, it is mutilation, by definition.

Society would be a lot better off without it, in my opinion.

-Jeff

nurturetruth

01-27-2008, 10:28 PM

My passion so far has been : "loving to understand love" .

I am not sure what the percentage is of parents who DO NOT feel love or loving feelings towards their "new born" , and did what they felt was in the best interest...... and with what they felt was a "healthy intention" .

I know of no parents and no stories of any parents who wish to or intended to mutilate their kids , unless tribal ritual.

And i think there is alot to say regarding "power of belief"
or "intentions".

We all are aware of both the reasons and the disadvantages as well as advantages regarding the tribal/ religious reasoning or trend/pattern of Circumcision.

As a female and from being an observer / listener amongst other females..it has been my experience to hear that many women do prefer Circumcised men --- for whatever rhyme/reason/preference.
There are also plenty of us out there..who don't care , but the latter group has not been the majority, it seems.

The actual health benefits or dangers of the acts of circumcision versus being un-circumcised is debate-able.. and needs more research done by the "expecting parents" .

As far as the very real and potential trauma that can and often IS associated with the procedure of being Circumcised (sometimes the memories of our trauma are on a cellular in depth level),

I feel there ARE MANY different healing methods made available for ANY trauma we experience in our journey through life if we are willing to receive healing and are willing to experience and "move through" all the feelings of the victim-rescuer-persecutor "drama cycle" .

I also have friends who are Jewish whose religion supports the ritual of circumcision.

Interestingly enough, I have recently discovered that these grown up men have less "cellular memory trauma/pain/damage" associated with the procedure because they were babies that were held in a nurturing way...while the procedure was taking place. The babies were not strapped down/ held down, etc..like they are in the hospitals. Not sure if this made a difference or not.

I will always continue to support the Freedom of Choice !

And that also means giving the new baby the gift of choice...by allowing them to have the chance to make their own decision when they reach the age of maturity / understanding. :thumbsup:

.

nurturetruth

01-27-2008, 10:50 PM

Hey Jeff !!

Again.. if a person - tribe - religion - community does not support the belief that they are mutilating a child through the process of circumcision... then are they truly mutilating ? if there intent was: to not mutilate? Perhaps the intent was more of a sacred ritual....

Mutilation is a form of physical injury, accident, torture, punishment. I looked up mutilation in encyclopedia and I did not observe the word "circumcision".

Even though , I DEFINITELY can understand the perception that it is mutilation.

Plus.. are you implying that "society would be better off without the Freedom to Choice ?

Society would be a lot better of without a lot of things...

I would say our Freedom to Choice is one thing, I am NOT willing to give up... for any reason... which is why I am Pro-Choice , even on the topic of abortion.
I might not personally agree , support or practice such concepts...but why take away the Freedom of Choice from others?

Who am I to judge what is healthy or unhealthy for another being?

P.s.. hope all is well in YOUR magickal world! :heart:

Generally speaking, I agree Conrad. However, the procedure is pretty awful and unnecessary. And factually speaking, it is mutilation, by definition.

Society would be a lot better off without it, in my opinion.

-Jeff

Braggi

01-29-2008, 08:45 AM

...if a person - tribe - religion - community does not support the belief that they are mutilating a child through the process of circumcision... then are they truly mutilating ? if there intent was: to not mutilate? Perhaps the intent was more of a sacred ritual....

If a religious group sacrifices a baby with the intent that its spririt would go to Heaven and avoid Hell does that mean they didn't commit a murder? Remember, they had no intent to murder because they believed it wasn't murder. Bottom line is, the baby is dead. Intention doesn't matter.

...
Mutilation is a form of physical injury, accident, torture, punishment. I looked up mutilation in encyclopedia and I did not observe the word "circumcision".

Even though , I DEFINITELY can understand the perception that it is mutilation.
:heart:

To the person who was mutilated, it's not a perception, it's a fact. Circumcision meets the California penal code definition of mayhem. That's a felony with a 20 year sentence.

Permanently altering a person's physical body is mutilation. A tattoo, for instance, is a mutilation. Your opinion of whether that's a good thing or not may vary.

...
Plus.. are you implying that "society would be better off without the Freedom to Choice ?

I would say our Freedom to Choice is one thing, I am NOT willing to give up... for any reason... which is why I am Pro-Choice ...:heart:

I agree that freedom of choice is very important. I think all adults should have the freedom to alter their bodies in any way they want to.

With that in mind I think childhood circumcision is child abuse and should stop. I think the foreskin should be protected by law until a person reaches the age of majority. Parents and "professionals" should keep their cutting tools away from their children unless medical necessity calls for it.

It's worth noting that no professional medical group recommends routine circumcision for any reason. Recent "studies" that state circumcision protects men from AIDS were fatally flawed and are now discredited or at least seriously called into question.

I agree that no child should be denied the freedom to choose to keep his foreskin or her clitoris. Freedom of choice is paramount in this discussion.

-Jeff