Circumcision is mutilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk8bfpCADcA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsU...eature=related
https://video.foxnews.com/v/4070791/...r-circumcision
https://www.intactamerica.org
https://www.nocirc.org
Printable View
Damn. Too late for me.
Actually, I'm biased against it, but I don't really like to think of myself as "mutilated." Maybe in the head — from all those wacky pinko notions gleaned from the Christian gospels — but not down there.
Cheers—
Conrad
Or maybe many of us are wounded in the head, heart and soul as a result of trauma: a painful, terrifying experience that the infant mind can make no sense of. Imagine the impact on society - on relationships, health, etc. - of lifelong PTSD.
Any elective surgery that a person does not consent to should be considered a violation of human rights. If there were no statute of limitation on such violations, my guess is that they would stop very soon.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:
If I were not Jewish, there is no way I would circumcise my children; I could imagine even supporting outlawing it.
On the other hand, 4,000 years of tradition is a big deal to break. I support Jews who choose not to circumcise, and even stronger support the right to uphold this tradition. I got a pass (two daughters!) but I remember leaning towards circumcision at the time. Now I might choose not to.
I think that strong religious tradition (within individual families only, of course), should get a pass. What I oppose is the systematic circumcising of millions of baby boys every year nationwide by the healthcare industry. That has to stop asap.
There needs to be a formal, documented request filled out and signed by a family to circumcise their child as a requirement. And the medical establishment needs to hault performing circumcisions as a routine procedure.
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
This is bizarre "reasoning". You're saying that whether something makes sense, or whether it's right or wrong, depends on the religion or ethnicity of whoever's considering it? Something could be wrong if you're not Jewish but right if you are Jewish? If we allow ourselves that kind of ethnocentric, subjective, arbitrary moral "reasoning", then there's no basis for outlawing anything from the subjugation of women to human sacrifice to the gross genital mutilation that 6,000 girls per day in some Muslim cultures are subjected to. Your statement is not much different from saying "If I were not Nazi, there is no way I would support the eradication of the Jews, BUT..."Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Barry:
Bullshit! Someone has controlled your ideas/behavior by teaching you that, and you haven't yet grown up enough to liberate yourself from that programming. There is NO reasonable obligation to follow tradition except insofar as that tradition is reasonable. That's especially true if that tradition requires you to do things to others without their consent, such as subjecting helpless infants to agonizing, needless, irreversible body modifications.Quote:
4,000 years of tradition, on the other hand, is a big deal to break.
Traditions are groups of claims and practices which may be reasonable, stupid or even brutal. An enlightened approach to tradition would involve using standards of reason to separate the wheat from the chaff--keep the good parts, forget the stupid parts, and take a public stand against the brutal parts, including infant circumcision. As a friend who loves you, Barry, I challenge you to grow some balls, tell the traditionalists to go fuck themselves, and take the moral stand that you know is right--against all forms of ritual mutilation performed on anyone incapable of informed consent. "Tradition" is simply no excuse for ever doing anything to anyone without their consent.
So people have a "right" to subject other human beings to agonizing, needless, irreversible body modifications without their consent? Here's a news flash for you and all other parents: Children are not pieces of property belonging to their parents, objects to be used by parents to signify their religious beliefs; they are human beings with basic rights, including the sanctity of their own bodies. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a Jewish baby (in the belief sense, not the DNA sense), nor a Christian baby, a Moslem baby, an existentialist baby, or whatever. Babies cannot possibly be religious; they lack the mental capacity to have belief systems such as Judaism, Christianity, etc. If you think your babies are Jewish just because the parents are, you're treating them as objects, extensions of you, to be carved (literally) into shapes that meet your needs, instead of human beings with the very basic right to the physical integrity of their own bodies.Quote:
I support Jews who choose not to circumcise, and even stronger support the right to uphold this tradition...
The first circumcisions in the Jewish tradition were performed on Abraham and his tribesmen with their informed consent (though based on superstitious beliefs). You believe in circumcision? Fine! I'll join you in supporting it as an option for those old enough to give informed consent--guys at least 18 years old who have been exposed to arguments both for and against, and who've been taught basic principles of critical thinking to help them make this very important decision. How about it, Barry--can you join me in opposing infant circumcision and supporting it as an option for those old enough to give informed consent?
A related and even more serious problem: Every day, some 6,000 girls in numerous countries, including a few in the U.S.A., are subjected to gross genital mutilations, generally including removal of the clitoris and labia minora and sewing together of the vaginal opening, resulting, obviously, in lifelong deprivations, health problems both physical and emotional, and often death. There is a movement to outlaw this beastly practice worldwide. One of the biggest obstacles to eradicating this brutality is the continuing practice of male infant circumcision. Though there is a big quantitative difference--female circumcision is much worse in its consequences--the two practices are qualitatively pretty much the same: helpless babies or children, without the capacity for informed consent, being used as objects upon which adults practice painful and injurious rituals. How can we stamp out female circumcision worldwide while exempting the equally needless male circumcision? Certainly any self-respecting Moslem who practices female circumcision will laugh in our faces if we suggest she doesn't have the right to cut away parts of her children's genitals while Jews and others have the right to do so to their children.
An interesting point which I didn't realize until recently: In his book The Alphabet Versus the Goddess, Leonard Shlain points out that the Jewish adoption of circumcision as a central ritual was a huge step in the subjugation of women, reducing them to second-class citizens because they lacked the physical feature (a foreskin) necessary for the ritual that signified the Jewish covenant with God. (Women do have a homologous structure, the clitoral hood, but the structure of the female genitalia has been mostly ignored until very recently). Thus, women partook of the covenant with God secondarily, through their connection with men. Shlain suggests, I think rightly, that that particular body part was chosen for removal precisely for that reason--to exclude women. In case some of you haven't noticed yet, patriarchy sucks!
One more thing: As a former conservative Christian, now an atheist, I am very aware of what things reflect well on religion and what things reflect poorly on it. All forms of non-consensual mutilation fall squarely into the latter category. Atheists don't mutilate the genitals of helpless children; religionists do. In the words of Steven Weinberg: "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
I'm asking all of you good people who happen to be religionists to join me in publicly rejecting one of the evils of religion: infant circumcision.
Gee, Dixon, I did not that you are an atheist, just like me! Let’s get together and have an atheist party sometime.
;0)
I agree with everything you have to say (substance) but I disagree in form. There needs to be a transition to a better future, not just a Godzilla style stomp that forces everyone into the same, small room all at once. Transitions are a necessary event in life; just ask a lady who has a man that likes to rush into things without any foreplay.
;0)
First things first. Let’s protect the millions of baby boys who are systematically mutilated every year without a second thought. If there is a group out there that insists on circumcising their children for religious reasons, we best leave them alone because they will fight back hard and probably win. If you jump into something before it is ready, especially in politics, often time the result backfires and leaves you in a worse spot than before you did anything. That is not always the case but it does happen and I strongly suspect that it would happen with the circumcision issue.
Look at what happened with the prohibition of alcohol. There were far too many people who were against it, even if the majority of Americans might have been in favor of prohibition, there were too many that were not. This included powerful politicians, almost all police officers, judges, ordinary folks, etc. There was no practical way to enforce such a stupid law. And yes, prohibition was a very stupid law and never should have been enacted to begin with. And it was unenforceable, giving the mafia a great opportunity to grow out of hand.
If you try to force an unpopular law down people’s throats then they will usually rebel, creating a mess of things that should have been avoided, if possible. Most Americans are oblivious to the rising debate over circumcision. This means that people are not ready. Furthermore, who, when, and where is there going to be a law prohibiting circumcision? Really, where? California? When? This year? I seriously doubt it. Who? Will our publicly elected representatives pass such a law on their own initiative? I seriously doubt that too.
Look at the same-sex marriage (SSM) issue. Even though SSM was repealed in 2008, it was the right time for it to be legalized earlier that year. The whole issue of equality between the LGBTQQI community and the rest of society was ripe for unfolding. Now, there will be another state referendum sometime in the next 2 to 8 years, bringing back SSM. But this state of “maturity” is not the case with circumcision, not by a long shot.
I do not see any legal action being taken for at least another ten years. I hope I am wrong, though. Have you written your representative in Sacramento? You certainly seem passionate enough to have done so? Do you think that such a strident stance here on the little Wacco List is going to make the difference? Maybe, but I seriously doubt that as well.
For issues to be dealt with effectively, there has to be a maturation process and a transition. Otherwise, change is not going to take place. People will simply get annoyed and say nasty things to you. Which is alright, I guess, depending on what the circumstances are, but it is a lot like going nowhere fast.
The first big aim is to organize. The links I provided in my thread starting post have information about organizations that fight against circumcision. Why don’t you take all of that right-on anger and channel it by volunteering your time, donating your money to Nocirc, etc, and contacting legislators? You can set up a table the Progressive Festival in Petaluma and many other events, distribution information debunking circumcision for what it is.
But if you are going to propose establishing a law that starts next month making it illegal, instantly and for everyone, including Jews and Muslims, well, simply put, that is a plan for failure. Let people who have a religious conviction continue their practice. It is not practical to force everyone all at once into doing something that they don’t have enough information on, have not debated enough (if at all), and especially religious folks who are 100% determined to not allow their “right” to circumcise their babies. Most people will eventually agree but you have to reach them first. If you antagonize a powerful group of people, or enough people, they will use all of their resources to stop you, discredit you, and make Constitutional claims in court. Although it is a long shot, the Jewish community will undoubtedly sue the state based on the right to religious freedom. You do not want to do that. That would be an abysmal mistake. And it would set back the cause to drastically reduce circumcision for ALMOST all Americans.
Using transitions in life is a powerful and effective philosophy that works most of the time; indeed, it is necessary most of the time. Education will take care of most of the religious folks but forcing them into a corner is a very bad idea. Also, remember that the Jewish community has been mercilessly persecuted throughout all of history. This would be interpreted by most people, not just Jews, as another example of that persecution. Believe me, you do not want that. It certainly will not help the cause in which you are already so active. You could lose progress that has been hard won. In my opinion, a utilitarian philosophy is also essential here; whatever helps the most number of people is best (Jeremy Bentham paraphrased).
First, a campaign has to be launched, which it already has (the nonprofits I listed). Then inform the general public and gain more members to help out and donate. Lobby legislators for transitional laws, such as requiring legal release forms for parents to sign only after they request circumcision. And the prohibition of systematic circumcision of baby boys as a routine procedure. In other words, doctors will be prohibited from performing circumcision unless parents have clearly asked for this to be done. This would be a gargantuan first step and if achieved, then we could all sing kumbaya.
Sincerely,
Edward
Praise the Lor-- uh, I mean right on, Bro'!Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Regarding the rest of your post, Edward, I'll just say this: Contrary to your apparent interpretation of my screed, nowhere did I say or imply that I thought we were going to be able to illegalize child circumcision (male or female) any time soon. Of course I know that in the political/social sphere, and especially where religion is involved, appealing to people's empathy and reason in the face of countervailing forces such as tradition and "faith" (i.e. socially-reinforced closed-mindedness) is a long uphill slog with no guarantee of ever prevailing.
But that's no reason to dilute my message. If I were an antebellum abolitionist, I wouldn't be calling just for slave-owners to be kinder and gentler, or just for abolition in the more liberal slave-states; I'd be demanding total abolition, everywhere, NOW! Some of your post, Edward, reminds me of those folks back in the '60s who were saying "Civil rights for negroes? Sure, one of these years, but let's not be in too much of a hurry; these things take time. Maybe in another decade or two...blablabla..." Meanwhile, the suffering continues on a daily basis. Yes, these things do take time, but I intend to shorten that time as much as possible by trying to raise the consciousness of those around me through articulating the issues as compellingly and forcefully as I can. As with all social progress, some people will be hurt or angry about what I say and I will suffer some social consequences, but it's all worth the sacrifice if my passionate babbling ultimately helps to end the ritual abuse of children even one single day sooner than it would have otherwise stopped.
And yes, I know that you fear that my straightforwardly angry approach is likely to actually retard progress rather than hasten it. You could be right; there is no way of ever knowing for sure. But I do know this: As a person who's chosen childlessness (vasectomy at age 30 due to concerns about overpopulation among other things), I consider all the children of the world to be my children. I love my so-called "Jewish children" (i.e., children of Jewish parents) and my so-called "Muslim children" (i.e., children of Muslim parents) every bit as much as other children, and I will not "put them on the back burner". Even though you're certainly right in asserting that parents without a religious tradition of circumcision will be first to accept progress in this area, my urgency is the same for all children, as is my outrage, and I do not share the bigoted position that religious traditions "should get a pass", to use your term. Child abuse is child abuse regardless of whether it's "justified" by religious dogma.
Oh, really? Has it been your experience that most religionists can be educated out of their millennia-old dogmas? When Barry mentions "4,000 years of tradition" which STILL has some hold on him in spite of his intelligence and education, you don't get the implicit message? You're not aware that many millions of people in the 21st century believe that the theory of evolution is wrong, that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that women should be secondary to men, that it's perfectly OK to cut away parts of children's genitals, in spite of centuries-long attempts to educate them? Get it through your head, Edward: Religion is largely about RESISTING education, maintaining "faith" which is believing in something regardless of evidence or logic. Some of the more liberal, less devout factions of each religion can be educated, maybe even most of them if you can wait another 4,000 years while children are disfigured at the rate of thousands per day. If we'd tried to educate slave-owners out of slaving instead of just illegalizing it, the institution of slavery would still be alive and well. Perhaps we should try to educate thieves out of stealing, rapists out of raping, and Muslim fanatics out of flying airplanes into buildings? Better idea: illegalize all of these things, including child circumcision, and then we can have the luxury of spending the next few millennia on educating closed-minded religionists without the distraction of children's screaming in the background.Quote:
Education will take care of most of the religious folks but forcing them into a corner is a very bad idea.
Yes of course, closed-minded people use a huge arsenal of fallacies to resist having their cherished beliefs corrected. Various forms of the ad hominem attack (AKA "kill the messenger"), including unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism, are to be expected. If you can't take the heat, Edward, get out of the way and let me do the talking. I'll stick out my neck and take the heat, then you can step in and do the mop-up operations. We all have something to contribute.Quote:
Also, remember that the Jewish community has been mercilessly persecuted throughout all of history. This would be interpreted by most people, not just Jews, as another example of that persecution.
In any case, keep fighting the good fight in whatever way you see fit, Bro', and remember--at its root, it's all about love.
Yes, it is all about love. But in the US, “love” means different things to different people. This is why I prefer the terms, “solidarity,” “fraternity,” “equality” and the symbol of the red rose of the Social Democratic parties, which I became familiar with when I sojourned in Europe for a decade. There is no confusing the love in those representations. But alas, this falls on the deaf, ignorant, and bigoted ears of Americans.
Well then, you must be on the board of directors of one of these anti-circumcision organizations. I can see that you are so committed in your fight against circumcision that you need me to get out of your way. Consider it done. Have at it. I will not be an obstacle to justice. I look forward to seeing you speak in public at the next anti-circumcision rally.
I do not believe that religiosity is an adequate reason for mutilating babies. I do believe, however, that a slow change is practical strategy to make progress on specific areas rather than taking on 300 million Americans all at once. What? At the federal level? The California State level? Sebastopol? Think about this because right now the only thing you and I are accomplishing is having a philosophical chat online with little influence on reality. I did notice, however, that our thread has been viewed over 100 times and is climbing fast so that must mean that we have caught the interest of a few folks.
I too would be an abolitionist of slavery back in 19th Century, slave state America. But slavery and circumcision are two different things with significantly different gravities. Being circumcised is not anywhere nearly as bad as being a piece of someone else’s property your entire life. There is a very substantial difference and requires a different strategy.
Why don’t you present an outline for change? Try to keep in mind another important factor here: the great majority of Americans, unless I’m mistaken, do not have their sons circumcised for religious reasons. I believe, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that most Americans simply accept that circumcision is another medical procedure that is done whenever a baby boy is born; that’s all! By reaching this humongous percentage of the country’s population through outreach and education, circumcision would be eliminated permanently for the great majority of Americans, possibly two-thirds or even three-fourths, or so. That is a target that is more than worthwhile in pursuing, making it astonishingly foolish to go after 100% of the nation’s population immediately in order to eradicate circumcision.
Another reflection, among many others, is that with slavery in the US during the 19th Century, it was necessarily an all or nothing proposition. There were absolutely no slaves, to the best of my knowledge, which wanted to continue being slaves. (To this I might ponder the views of the “house slaves,” which Malcolm X referred to many times, who might possibly have held a different opinion about slavery, but this is idle speculation.) Look carefully at the passive acceptance of almost all Americans whose babies are circumcised, and also of the religious—an attitudinally and fundamentally different mindset. And now compare that to the horror in the minds and lives of 100% of African–Americans who were slaves, none of which wanted to be slaves.
You see, there really is relatively little comparison between the attitudes and experiences of slaves and the attitudes and experiences of circumcised people (and their parents, who are probably also circumcised). There is a critical involuntary versus voluntary dichotomy with circumcision, which is further complicated by the fact that babies cannot consent. A thorny issue all around. With slavery, I am going to assume that it was involuntary for 100% of the African-American population. But with circumcision, there are different layers of consent (of the parents, of the babies), and of culture and education (ignorance, custom, medical practice, awareness, religion, and conservative religious culture).
There are a multitude of variables that compound and complicate the issue of circumcision, whereas slavery was pretty much black and white, pardon the expression. You cannot ignore this matrix because reality will not allow you to, especially if Congress or the President were to try to pass a national law instantly prohibiting circumcision for everyone, without exception, all over the country.
For starters, most of the political establishment, which is still picking its noses over Gay Rights, will NOT support such a prohibition of circumcision. Furthermore, a more realistic strategy requires gradually building a movement, locally, until statewide circumcision laws can be passed. This will take about a decade or two before it happens.
Again, I agree with you almost 100% in substance. It is the form in which I disagree with you. I also agree with you that that religion is not an acceptable exception for allowing male genital mutilation. But from a “take action” perspective, it is not practical to try and force everyone to accept the prohibition of circumcision immediately; it will fail. As a general rule in life, you don’t make progress with big changes all at once. That is the “wisdom” of youth, who want big changes overnight. And things don’t normally work that way. Slavery is an obvious exception to this rule. But circumcision does not even come close to the tragedy of slavery and, therefore, falls in the pot with the rest of the things in life that require slow change in order to be achieved. We need to garner the elimination of circumcision through the great majority of Americans first and allow time, education, and enlightenment to work its way through the remaining communities.
If you are going to continue to harp about American Jews circumcising their sons, then let us take a closer look at the Jewish community here in the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews). The United States has a population of more than 310 million people, of which only 6.5 million are Jewish, approximately 2.1%! (If someone had asked me a few years ago what the percentage of the American population was Jewish, I would have responded, ignorantly, that it seemed to be about 15%.) Please take into account a simple but very important fact; the American Jewish community is very diverse. American Jews are NOT a solid block of people who all think and live alike, not by a long shot. Many of the most radical cultural and progressive leaders in American history have been and are Jewish. You need to take into account, also, all of the sub-groupings that compose the extended American Jewish community.
Of the 6.5 million Americans who identify as Jewish, only 4.3 million describe themselves as “strongly connected” to Judaism, in other words, those Jews who identify as religiously Jewish (remember that there is a crucial distinction between identifying as culturally Jewish as opposed to identifying as religiously Jewish). Furthermore, only 80% of those 4.3 million report being active in religious practice. A survey found that of those 4.3 million who identify as religiously Jewish, ONLY 46% belong to a synagogue (just under 2 million or a mere 0.7% of the total US population). Of those 2 million who attend a synagogue, 38% are members of Reform synagogues (which is a liberal denomination and could be more open to disavowing circumcision, or at least its individual members); 33% are members of Conservative synagogues (which are not very conservative), 22% are members of Orthodox synagogues (which is very conservative, e.g. Senator Joe Lieberman); 2% Reconstructionist, and 5% other types.
This means that the group of Jewish people who practice circumcision is relatively small in comparison to the total US population, probably less than 2% of the nation’s citizens, and that is a very high estimation, just to be safe.
My point here is to insist on my strong disagreement with you regarding the form needed to prohibit circumcision. The universal strategy and wisdom of transition is absolutely critical here, especially considering that such a small percentage of the American population, 2% at most, would continue to circumcise their sons for religious reasons, at least within the Jewish community. The 'all or nothing' approach to reform is almost always foolhardy. The 'all or nothing' model is unjustifiable most of the time because it doesn't make sense. One simple reason why is because it is better to have 50% of a victory than no victory at all. That is how change takes place in nature most of the time, whether it be in the natural universe or in human civilization.
With all this said, however, the most important argument in support of circumcision is NOT religious! Most Americans who defend the systematic practice of male genital mutilation use a false medical argument, for example, that it protects against the spread of AIDS, which is proven to be a lie. That is where the true monster of ignorance lays its lair regarding the issue of circumcision.
If you really want to attack circumcision as a practice, the religious community is the least of your concerns. It is ignorance and misinformation about the “healthy” purposes of circumcision. That is who you will find in front of you most of the time defending circumcision.
Edward
Lots of things happen that don't "make sense" and many of those happen because of religion or tradition. Mutilation, like piercing or tattooing, is also a common thing that doesn't "make sense" to everyone. Also, children have a lot of things happen to them on their parent's call, including lots of decisions that impact their future. I think the choice of schools has more of an impact than circumcision, though.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:
Invoking Nazis wasn't necessary, by the way; this isn't all that dramatic an issue (unlike female genital mutilation). Guys can take it. And hell yes, it reflects poorly on religion - so? people seem drawn to it anyway. Something as relatively harmless as a little body decoration is a lot less of a problem than the emphasis religion puts on patriarchy and uncritical obedience to authority.
I suppose some people feel that circumcision is more serious an issue than I see it to be; people are traumatized by all kinds of things and I don't feel moved to judge their right to be traumatized. But there's thousands of years of this "tradition" to draw on and there's very little evidence that it's had much affect on the bulk of those subjected to it. Certainly not enough to try to stigmatize it as child abuse or equate it with genocide. I think it'd be kind of cool to start a tradition of tattooing infants instead, though.
Edward, let's not confuse my using slavery as an example to make a couple of points with some notion that I drew an equivalence between slavery and circumcision. I did not. You waste a lot of your precious time in this post of yours going on and on at length comparing and contrasting slavery with circumcision as if someone said they're equivalent. No one said nor implied that. They are relevant to each other only insofar as they're both examples of needless victimizations of human beings which have, in certain times and places, been widely accepted as moral. Slavery has since been rejected as a legal social institution (though it still exists worldwide, but that's another rant). Thus there is hope that circumcision may be eventually illegalized too.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Having said that, there are a number of people for whom slavery would be far better than circumcision--the thousands of girls and hundreds (maybe thousands) of boys who are killed by circumcision each year. Here is some info I've excerpted from a webpage at: https://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
"Circumcision can cause death indirectly in a variety of ways, such that if the baby had not been circumcised, he would not have died...:
* Loss of blood
* Anaesthetic
* Infection (septicaemia)
* Painkiller
* Urethra blocked by a circumcision ring
Invariably, the indirect, involuntary cause is given all the blame, and the decision to circumcise, none. So circumcision continues to be promoted as "safe" and babies continue to die. The suicide of David Reimer after a ruined life was ultimately due to his botched, unnecessary circumcision."
I encourage you to check out that website, Edward. Better yet, google "death from circumcision" like I did and check out several sites. Maybe then you won't be so sanguine (pun intended) about this practice which is, indeed, better than slavery--IF the child survives.
It appears from the small amount of research I've done on circumcision-caused deaths (which is more research on it than circumcision advocates care to do), that on average over 100 infant boys a year die from circumcision in the U.S. alone. We can excuse some percentage of deaths from medically necessary surgeries, but how many deaths from a totally unnecessary procedure like circumcision are acceptable to you? My answer: NOT ONE! Does that seem extreme? Should we be willing to accept the deaths of children from entirely unnecessary rituals? If a serial killer were killing 100 babies a year, would that be worse than 100+ a year dying from needless circumcision? Should we stop the serial killer but let the circumcisors chop away with impunity? If so, WHY?
That would be redundant. There are already good outlines for change being promoted by excellent organizations such as NOCIRC--and by you. My function is to do what I do best--write and speak about the subject in such a way as to get people to see things differently, to shrug off the blinders of familiarity and see the issue with new eyes, to really feel the horror in order to awaken their empathy, even if I have to pop people's bubbles of denial and distortion and specious reasoning, grab them by the throat and shake them out of their complacency--and even if it makes me unpopular. Our children deserve no less.Quote:
Why don’t you present an outline for change?
From the accounts I've read of the screams and other behaviors of infants being circumcised, and from common sense, I think it's safe to declare that 100% of infants and children do not want to be circumcised. So if you really wanna compare/contrast circumcision with slavery, you must concede that they're alike in that respect. And you don't get to invoke the notion that it's acceptable if the parents consent, because it's not the parent's body that's being cut, so their consent is irrelevant. Parental consent for medically necessary procedures is a different matter, but A CHILD'S BODY IS NOT AN OBJECT THAT BELONGS TO THE PARENTS; IT'S NOT A BLOCK OF INERT MATTER UPON WHICH THEY CAN CARVE THE SYMBOLS OF THEIR BELIEFS; it's a human being. Thus parental consent for medically unnecessary procedures is absolutely trumped by the obvious non-consent of the screaming infant.Quote:
There were absolutely no slaves, to the best of my knowledge, which wanted to continue being slaves...Look carefully at the passive acceptance of almost all Americans whose babies are circumcised, and also of the religious—an attitudinally and fundamentally different mindset. And now compare that to the horror in the minds and lives of 100% of African–Americans who were slaves, none of which wanted to be slaves.
Thanks for the pontification from your Grey Eminence, Edward. Silly me--it's only been a few thousand years (including pre-Hebrew circumcision traditions such as in ancient Egypt); why am I in such a hurry? And why did we give those women and darkies the vote so quickly? Too much too soon! Pardon my youthful misjudgment; I'm only 60.Quote:
As a general rule in life, you don’t make progress with big changes all at once. That is the “wisdom” of youth, who want big changes overnight.
Time by itself won't help; it's other factors that determine whether time brings improvement or worsening. As far as education and enlightenment go--What the hell do you think I'm trying to do here, Edward?Quote:
We need to garner the elimination of circumcision through the great majority of Americans first and allow time, education, and enlightenment to work its way through the remaining communities.
[Edward then goes on to bore us all--Jews and goys alike--and insult our intelligence with a ton of irrelevant facts about Jews and condescending spew such as "American Jews are NOT a solid block of people who all think and live alike...".]Quote:
If you are going to continue to harp about American Jews circumcising their sons, then let us take a closer look at the Jewish community here in the United States...
Edward, it's NOT about Jews. I've talked about Jews because I was responding to Barry's invoking Jewish tradition as a rationalization for supporting people's presumed "right" to enact painful rituals on their babies, and because it's impossible to fully address the issue of circumcision in this country without acknowledging the Jewish connection--including the likelihood that secular, non-Jewish circumcision would never have taken hold in this country had the practice not been normalized by public acceptance of the Jewish religious tradition. You know as well as I that lots of Jews don't circumcise their kids nor even support the "right" to do so, and lots of goys do. I don't give a flying fuck whether someone is Jewish, goy, or Martian--only whether they're needlessly hurting children.
Who the hell said anything about "all or nothing"? That's certainly not my position. I'm getting really tired of responding to inferences you draw from my writing which were never implied, Edward. What a frustrating waste of time. Please learn to identify real implications in the things you read, and stop projecting all this distorted bullshit into what I write. We're supposed to be on the same side here. Sheeesh!Quote:
The 'all or nothing' approach to reform is almost always foolhardy. The 'all or nothing' model is unjustifiable most of the time because it doesn't make sense. One simple reason why is because it is better to have 50% of a victory than no victory at all.
Well Dixon, yes, I am also under the same impression as you that we are supposed to be on the same side. Like I said before, it seems to me that you and I agree on almost all of the content, just not necessarily on the form or the best way to address the problem of circumcision. But perhaps I’m wrong about that too?
Just for the record, regarding my view on the religious aspect of circumcision, I do not believe that religion is an acceptable exception, only that it is impractical to try to tackle strong religious sentiment in solving the circumcision issue. Of course, Jewish babies suffer every bit as much as do babies from any other demographic group. But I still believe that it is not a strategically smart move to prohibit circumcision all at once for everyone, without exception. That is where you and I part ways—the form, the manner, the procedure, the action, the implementation. That is what I was trying to say and it was not my intention to accuse you of taking that position; I'm sorry if I did.
And I do agree that it is not about religion, that it is about needlessly hurting children. Otherwise, why bother debating it since you and I are atheists? But in this country, as you might possibly agree, you cannot address the entirety of the subject of circumcision without addressing the Jewish community and maybe other religious communities' connection to this practice. In other words, it is first and foremost about protecting children who are vulnerable to mutilation, not religion, that is at the core. But religion can still become a big boulder that gets in the way. But above all, religion is not a justification for mutilation.
As I’ve tried to state in my previous posts, I feel it is more convenient to overlook the group of Americans, goy or Jewish who practice circumcision for religious reasons. That’s all I was trying to say. Sorry if that irritated you or if anything else I said annoyed you. (Thanks for the new term, “goy,” by the way. I was unfamiliar with it.) Passing a law requiring a written request provided by parents (not a form provided by medical centers) to circumcise their children will immediately and significantly reduce the practice of circumcision by the medical industry. The law could also require that a doctor have a consultation with parents before accepting the written request, much like the laws that require an informative interview for women before having an abortion.
And I still insist that we need to begin to outreach and educate the American public at large. The religious question is very small by comparison and not really the issue. Circumcision in the US has more to do with the old medical custom, and public acceptance, to routinely circumcise baby boys. By making the public aware of the facts about circumcision, we can make great strides in significantly and permanently reducing the practice of circumcision for millions of non-Jewish Americans—or goys.
I insist on repeating that an effective outreach and education program will successfully and permanently reduce male genital mutilation for non-Jewish Americans to well under half of the total US population. That is where we need to begin.
(One final observation about the religious side of circumcision is that families who feel strongly about this tradition probably also feel threatened by a substantial decrease in non-Jewish circumcision. This might be the case, for fear of feeling socially isolated as being the only people who continue a custom perceived largely as barbaric. Curiously, this implies that the feeling of security and pride about continuing the practice of circumcision for religious reasons depends on continuing circumcision for millions of non-Jews.)
Regarding the following statement that you wrote:
“And you don't get to invoke the notion that it's acceptable if the parents consent, because it's not the parent's body that's being cut, so their consent is irrelevant. Parental consent for medically necessary procedures is a different matter, but A CHILD'S BODY IS NOT AN OBJECT THAT BELONGS TO THE PARENTS; IT'S NOT A BLOCK OF INERT MATTER UPON WHICH THEY CAN CARVE THE SYMBOLS OF THEIR BELIEFS; it's a human being. Thus parental consent for medically unnecessary procedures is absolutely trumped by the obvious non-consent of the screaming infant.”I agree with you 100%. But imposing prohibition of circumcision on that sector of US society that practices circumcision for religious reasons is completely impractical.
And I sincerely apologize to you for any continued projection of distorted bullshit on my part into the things that you write. It is not my intention to alienate, irritate, or make an enemy from an ally.
Best regards,
Edward
My Friends,
I haven't weighed in on this debate thread because:
I've been busy with other things.
This topic has been thoroughly reviewed and argued in previous Waccobb threads.
I don't have kids and don't think it's likely I ever will.
I'm already cut and I didn't have a choice in the matter. I turned out OK. Sort of. Any abuse that has marked my life is abuse I remember. And others might just call it early 1960's standard child rearing practice. Couple or three, maybe five at most, quick, formal spankings for blatant violations of the rules. It sucked. But from the perspective of the time, fair and measured. If I had kids I'm not sure I'd apply the same methods. I've read most of Alice Miller's For Your Own Good, and she seems to have good points.
The spankings were with the hand on my lower butt/upper thighs, while bent over a parents knee, or with a slipper, maybe once with the leather belt strap. Three strikes, four at the most. I was paddled in 8th grade by my Science teacher, in the hall, for reading a novel behind my science text as he read it too us, after I'd already read it on my own. I felt sorrier for him than myself. I felt justified and saw him as the one losing face.
By the by, I'm not saying, it was done to me, so it should be done to others. The issue is more complicated than that. And that's not my position.
But (Hah!), some points that haven't been mentioned here in the last two days, and some that have been but I want to reemphasize:
Nobody has talked of the purported health benefits of circumcision. HPV spread prevention, other stuff. Yeah, I know, teach the boy to clean under his foreskin. But stats show a lesser risk of the trimmed dicky being a vector for STD's.
Saying that only an adult, making an informed decision, would be the only circumstances allowed for getting cut, kind of defeats the purpose of doing it to an infant who heals more quickly and is unlikely (I'm grossly understating here) to remember it ever being done.
Yeah, yeah, repressed trauma, long term consequences, betrayal, infant PTSD, mutilation, etc., etc. Those are points too.
You guys seem to me to have an intense concern, rage even, for something that you're not going to be able to do much about. Unless you become fathers of boys.
Cause in the end it's the parents decision, at least in a society which protects family privacy when it comes to making healthcare choices for themselves and their children. I'm all for informed consent. As much education on a subject as appropriate. Perhaps your position will prevail down the road. But it's really not your call. It's the parents'.
And in spite of all the vituperation against infant male circumcision that you muster, surely you're prepared to admit that everyone may not agree with you? Even after having looked at all the available information and arguments pro and con? (See previous relevant thread for pretty much everything there is to say on the matter, from all perspectives.)
Some loving and well informed parents may decide to have their son circumcised soon after birth. (I know, not loving and well informed by your definition!)
And if they do, it's really none of your, or anybody else's, business. Except for the doctor doing the operation.
Kinda like the Pit Bull debate, there's been a lot of heat, more than light, here.
Love you both! (Podfish, you're part of this homosocial love fest too!)
I like to say, the only penis I'm interested in seeing, touching, talking about, hearing about or thinking about, is my own.
An exaggeration, I know, cause I do view hetero erotic moving images once in a while. Rarely of course! So without it being my cup of tea, I'm familiar with the look, both cut and not. But the claim holds true (hah!) for the most part.
Some African tribes, the Ndebeli in South Africa for one, don't circumcise until after puberty. A friend of mine in the late nineties was visiting, she is a TCM practitioner, and her description of youths standing around in the days and weeks after their manhood ceremony, with festering, pustular, oozing dicks, was horrific and terrifying.
I say, if you're going to do it, do it in a clean surgical operating theater, with professional staff, and do it when they're so young the experience will never be remembered.
People have physically modified their babies for millennia. Flattening foreheads, by Meso Americans comes to mind. Not saying it's a good thing, and I believe that's stopped in the modern era. But good luck suppressing a practice that has some demonstrated health benefits, and has been culturally ingrained for untold generations.
Aren't there bigger fish to fry?
Smegma!
(I just like saying it, cause I think it's funny.)
"Mad" Miles wrote:
> Any abuse that has marked my life is abuse I remember.
To me, knowing how much I have discovered about myself - about why I feel and seem to need what I do and the ways in which I spend my life energy, this statement strains my credulity mightily. I had no clue about how circumcision had affected me until I was over 40, had spent countless hours in therapy and written hundreds of journal pages in self-exploration. I don't think unresolved traumatic experiences that occur long before we have any capacity for making sense of them are easily accessible to consciousness. My mind, at least, I have found to be very powerful at keeping such memories walled off and well outside awareness.
> Saying that only an adult, making an informed decision, would be the only circumstances allowed for getting cut, kind of defeats the purpose of doing it to an infant who heals more quickly and is unlikely (I'm grossly understating here) to remember it ever being done.
The physical wound may or may not heal more quickly for an infant. The emotional wound may never heal, whether or not the person remembers the experience. We swim in an ocean in which psychological brokenness is considered normal, and most such impairment is invisible, especially to those who are impaired.
To paraphrase Rumi: Out beyond notions of right and wrong, there is a field . . . To that field I would bring the questions: What kind of world do we want to live in? What kind of lives do we want our children to have? All manner of addictions, abusive and violent behavior (both toward self and others), relational dysfunction and illness can be traced to our unresolved experiences and all the things the mind does to keep our awareness far away from those experiences.
Infant circumcision and other forms of ritual torture do have their function. But do we want men who are loyal to the tribe (because abuse leads to unhealthy attachment, as seen in dogs abused by their owners) - and who will brave danger to defend the tribe (because there is no place of safety in their world and because of the rage they carry within them)? Or do we want men to grow up to be whole, healthy, happy human beings? (I don't think we need to even ask such questions as applied to women, unless some of us still view them as chattel!)
Many of us are familiar with the effects of traumatic experiences from being in violent situations such as war. The effects of circumcision are so much more devastating because the trauma is unacknowledged, and the mind cannot make sense of them or allow them into consciousness. So it becomes extremely unlikely that these experiences will ever be resolved.
Regardless of what the "stats" (so often used for disinformation!) say, I know what kind of world I want to live in and the kind of life I would want for my and anyone else's child. The evolution of human society from violence and destructiveness to peace and healing for the planet will only occur when we go beyond utilitarian views of our fellow humans and see each person as valuable for the whole, unique beings we are and can become.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Mad" Miles;125637][SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman]
My Friends,
I'm already cut and I didn't have a choice in the matter. I turned out OK. Sort of. Any abuse that has marked my life is abuse I remember. And others might just call it early 1960's standard child rearing practice. Couple or three, maybe five at most, quick, formal spankings for blatant violations of the rules. It sucked. But from the perspective of the time, fair and measured. If I had kids I'm not sure I'd apply the same methods. I've read most of [URL="https://www.alice-miller.com/books_en.php?page=2:
Well, I certainly didn't expect agreement from the vociferous and righteous crusaders against circumcision here. I just wanted to point out some issues that haven't been brought up, and point out some logical gaps in the argument against it, and the implied campaign to end it.
The reason I mentioned the previous discussion here on waccobb, is that it was comprehensive, spirited and contains many more points of view, links to specific medical and scientific sources, etc. There are reasons cited there for circumcision that are not limited to some ancient cultural need to produce warriors. Health reasons. Aesthetic reasons. I'm not interested in repeating what has already been ably written, in quite a bit of detail. The thread is easy to search for here.
I suppose one definitive way to settle the matter would be to do a longitudinal psycho-sexual life satisfaction study of two populations. This with and without. It would take a lot of money, which I don't have, and expertise, which I'm not certified in, to carry it out. But a well designed one, that showed evidence of unconscious, unacknowledged and significant PTSD trauma in those who were "mutilated" as infants, while those who weren't were somehow, all other things being equal, leading much happier and more fulfilling lives, might convince me, and other skeptics, to join your cause. I'm afraid that the odds of such a study being carried out, are slim. But who knows, maybe some psychiatrists and pediatric surgeons are working on it as we type away here?
The human mind is a powerful and still mysterious organ. It is capable of amazing acts of thought, imagination, empathy and sensibility, of pain, pleasure, and everything in between. Please forgive me if anecdotal evidence, the intensity of those of you who are exercised by this issue and everything else in the big ball of outrage about this, are not compelling to me, and perhaps others.
In the end the parents and doctors will decide, as it should be.
Of all the problems facing us, I'm just not going to make this one of my top priorities.
But it's a kinda, sorta free country. At least that's the popular, but fading, claim. So, knock yourselves out! You go guys!
Hello Clint,
Don't let detractors get you down. Remember what Ghandi said: First, they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win!
Right now, our anti-circumcision movement is at the "laughing stage." It is still early, a lot of work and time still needs to transpire before the majority of Americans no longer circumcise their children.
For now, join a group, donate a little money, continue talking to people, and researching the truths and lies surrounding circumcision.
Thank you for your support,
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Hi Ed,
Thanks for your concern. There is a vast lack of awareness about this issue, so it doesn't "get me down" normally.
You may, though, want to update your information about circumcision - especially the recent stats on prevalence in the US. Here's a couple articles to check out:
https://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/08/17...plunged-to-33/
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/h...circ.html?_r=1
In these and elsewhere I have read that circumcision rates in the US are down to around 33%, which I find quite encouraging. Seems to me we are well beyond the "laughing stage," thanks in part to publications like "Mothering" magazine and people like Dr Dean Edell.
Peace,
CSummer
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Valley Oak:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
Thank you for that information, Clint!
Here is a list (links included) of local Bay Area organizations fighting against the brutality and ignorance of circumcision:
Anti-Circumcision Organizations:
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (Berkeley)
Global Women Intact (San Francisco)
National Organization for Restoring Men (Concord)
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (San Anselmo)
Bay Area Intactivists Group (BANG), Oakland
Address: c/o Tina Kimmel, MSW, MPH
719 Aileen Street (near MLK)
Oakland, CA 94609-1611
Voice: (510) 653-5260
Fax: (510) 653-5260 (same as voice)
Email: [email protected]
Edward
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by CSummer:
I love my circumcised wiener.
The "trauma" I have has never been about the lack of a foreskin.
Just wanted you flappers to know there's always another view of any situation.
Hang in there.
:fairy duster::banana::tiphat: