For Anti-Circumcision People: What Say You About These?

Cultures throughout history have performed various body "modifications" that appear barbarous to us. Are they too guilty of the same "crime" and "violence" you ascribe to circumcision? Why or why not?


Infant Head Flattening
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9039694/head-flattening

Chinese Foot Binding, Infantile Cranial Alteration, Wauwai Limb Swelling, Neck Elongaation, Ear and Lip Plugs
http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/China/04/hutchins/hutchins.htm

Not to mention Ubange lip elongation and other groups practicing earlobe elongation.

Surgey without consent is a damned good thing, because people just don't know what's good for them.

:silly:

Sure, just let it burst and let the kid die since the kid can't consent.

It's up to parents to decide what's best for infants and toddlers, especially, and when a procedure does no harm and may slow STD transmission later in life, who the hell are you to forbid it? It's not your kid. It's not your decision. BUTT OUT.

Why didn't I know that?

And there are 18-22 million people living with Herpes and I'll bet a lot of them aren't telling their respective partners because there's no way of telling who has Herpes when it's in it's dormant period...

I think that the benefit does not justify the damage.

If you think about it, we could all live disease-free, utterly pointless miserable lives.

"Marriage must be restricted to a man and a woman. If one allows marriage between two persons of the same gender, where will it end? Can a man marry his sister? Or brother? Or his dog? If not, why not?"


It's the lowest form of debate...

Justifying ritual genital mutilation for the purpose of enhancing the sex pleasure of the other gender ranks pretty high up there, imho.

I don't think that any of the rationalizations offered in support of circumcision justify it.

There have been several recent studies citing the medical benefits of male circumcision in reducing the risk of HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and the humanpappiloma virus that causes cervical cancer...

If you don't believe the results of the research there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

No?

Because the mutilation that the girls went through to attain this medical benefit was disproportionate, right?

Based on my personal observation and limited knowledge of anatomy I don't really see a nexus...

... among circumcised men may be partly the result of less frequent sex - a result of having been desensitized. This loss of sensitivity may (albeit at too high a cost) also reduce STD transmission among circumcised women.

I have only one frame of reference, so I don't know how much sensitivity is lost.

But the acute needs of appendicitis and circumcision in infants are quite different and not truly comparable.

You can take THAT study and give it back to whichever African tribe it was conducted on, since it has virtually no bearing anywhere else, if even there. What's next from you people? Toe amputation as protection from ingrown nails?

If you actually want to walk around with a mutilated penis that's your prerogative, but if you'd try to violate your kids I'd have you locked away - just as society mandates is done if you otherwise subject them to physical violence. You can tell the cops who'll come knocking on your door to "butt out" as much as you wish; they rightly won't listen.

For the life of me I can't understand why there's a group of people (who are not even Jewish, where they can at least blame their religion) who still advocate this medieval shit. Do they get some kind of sick pleasure from cutting up their kids? I predict this procedure, along with the even more disgusting and criminal female variant, will steadily continue to decline the world over until Jews are pretty much the only ones still doing it - and even there it will decline. Studies previously posted here already show a significant decline in America. We would benefit from being more European in this regard (as in others), where outside of medical or religious reasons this practice is almost unheard of.

In case it is still unclear to some, I reiterate my opinion that people even considering mutilating their children's genitals are sick pervs who need to be dealt with in a corresponding manner. And that means YOU.

The practice bears no relation at all to the trifle of male circumcision.

In fact, all of the items you reference are far more extreme and damaging on their face than that.

Foot binding causes pain and deformity for life, while circumcision is only a brief moment and not even painful due to local anesthesia. Circumcision doesn't cause deformity and pain for life.

There are a lot of men with bad circumcisions. Do a little googling about what happens when a circ is done badly, and you'll see that it's a pretty bad thing. I have a friend who has serious issues - many stemming from the fact that his rig hurts as a result of a botched circumcision. He's never had a healthy relationship, he thinks that sex hurts, and he's angry at his parents for mutilating him.

Of course, his parents didn't mutilate him, and I doubt that whoever did the circ intended to mutilate him either - but that's what happened. But as a result he's a thirtysomething man who's afraid of intimacy because it hurts, literally hurts.

There is a better way through this circumcision debate than just stopping the practice.

He was circed in his early 20s and said he felt like he was "castrated".

Not exactly a walk in the park.

because Louis had a too-tight foreskin and attempts at sex were painful for him. His brothers had the same problem, but not, of course, with Marie Antoinette, just with the too-tight foreskin.

All the men are circumcised...

Thank god. I was worried we'd all stay focused on shit that matters!

Start a thread about circumcision while breast feeding in public.

And make PLENTY of popcorn!

:popcorn:

Circumcisions performed by pit bull. In an Olive Garden parking lot. :popcorn:

The thought came to my mind that other cultures have historically performed similiar acts and I wondered what people thought of cross-cultural body modification, i.e. is it okay for them but not for us, is it still considered by us westerners to be barbaric, etc. etc.

Perhaps you could find a less offensive way to phrase your comparison.

Foot binding is not an outrage because it's "barbaric" (uncivilized, primitive, relating to those folks that ain't white enough).

It's an outrage because it's a cruel patriarchal form of oppression.

I read a book about the subject many years ago (and would actually like to find the book again). Foot binding came about because an Emperor admired the small foot of a Chinese lotus dancer. Lotus dancers would have their feet wrapped in ribbon as part of the costume. That is why a bound foot was also called a lotus blossom foot. Naturally, people wanted to be like the Emperor, so they could emulate his status, and started to admire small feet. Woman started binding their feet to attract rich husbands (which is not unlike women wearing 6 inch heels of present day). The higher class Chinese would start binding their daughter's feet earlier and earlier, because it was a status symbol to have small feet. When they would see a man with a wife with small feet, they would admire him because his wife didn't have to work (she couldn't because she couldn't stand for long periods of time.

Foot binding was popular for about 500 years, because it showed status. And women embraced it because not only was it "fashion" but they could achieve greater status than what they had been born into. The small foot bound foot was also a very sexual thing. Women would NEVER allow their feet to be seen naked, sometimes not even a husband would be allowed to view his wife's feet. So bound feet became a thing of mystery, something to be prized and a sexual object. Tiny shoes were lovingly sewn to adorn the feet and the women were carried every where.

The end to the bound foot was brought about by Mao, and it had to be forced upon the women. They truly felt that an opportunity to better themselves was taken away them.

zalinda

men's sexual pleasure.

The book went into detail about that. But, in a society where women had little known power, foot binding was a way for families to rise in society. Daughters became valuable. Of course, once a woman married she could counsel her husband behind the scenes, and some women were very shrewd about that.

And today, men find sexual pleasure in women wearing 6 inch high heels, which can also cripple women's feet. In China though, during those foot binding days, women with tiny feet were held in high esteem, I can't say women wearing 6 inch heels are as valued today.

zalinda

one of those beauty contests where 6-inch heels are part of the costume! Cash & scholarship prizes, modeling contracts, etc.

Fortunately, wearing them only occasionally doesn't hurt (beyond the time you're wearing them). Even medium heels can change the leg muscles if you wear them every day, esp. to walk in them. I see a drastically lower proportion of women wearing them now than a few decades ago. Even here in Vegas, cocktail waitresses have managed to make the casinos let them wear a one-inch heel for work. It's a small but very helpful victory.

I get maybe a dozen or three replies at most..

The land of the free has the highest incarceration rate in the world..

Putting hundreds of thousands of people in cages unnecessarily is a horrendous crime, and very damn few here care about it.

Please check out this months WDMAfMS, this month's articles include:

-My Neighbor Didn't Get Her Son Done And His Penis Looks Funny
-You Have Huge Feet And Nobody Will Marry You
-How To Let The Evil Spirits Out With A Cordless Drill and Lots of Paper Towels

and much more!

Perfect! I breastfed both my kids IN PUBLIC for the first 2 years of their lives and I did not have my son circumcized as he was born partially retracted anyway. So there, fire away!

Oy. Friends like you....

all that crap is just plain idiocy. If your culture practices nonsense, it needs to be changed.

that the youngsters do nowadays? I don't blame you-it is very strange--and how can they eat with tongue rings or a split tongue?

I consider some of them very odd, but those are by choice. Now, when parents start splitting their baby's tongues, that is wrong.

and they are too young to talk.

I think that is wrong also, being the opinionated person I am.

You can do what you want with your children, of course, but it's a cultural custom that does no harm, causes no more pain than all the vaccinations a baby has to have.

Perhaps we need to tell them to end the practice...

yes, they do need to change. It's unnecessary genital mutilation of an infant. It's sexual assault. It is child abuse.

male and female, I mean, both of which are still practiced in parts of the world. Would you agree, Cleaner, that female circumcision, which is basically removing the sexual pleasure centers for the woman, is a crime? The point of it is like foot binding in that it is a way for a culture to keep women "in their place".

Male circumcision, on the other hand, though painful, does not appear to inhibit function or to do away with sexual pleasure for the male.

Personally, I feel that if a parent decides to circumcise an infant, it is their choice, and it is not my place to interfere unless everyone is REQUIRED to have the procedure performed.

Male circumcision is good because it eliminate *some* sex pleasure. Okay, got it.

I think it's the parents decision too - but most of the rationales for recommending it are either sexist or based on flawed and outdated medical advice.

"I think it's the parents decision too - but most of the rationales for recommending it are either sexist or based on flawed and outdated medical advice."


H.I.V. RISK HALVED BY CIRCUMCISION, U.S. AGENCY FINDS
Print Single-Page Save Share
DiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By DONALD G. MCNEIL JR.
Published: December 14, 2006
Circumcision appears to reduce a man's risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by half, United States government health officials said yesterday, and the directors of the two largest funds for fighting the disease said they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries.

The announcement was made by officials of the National Institutes of Health as they halted two clinical trials, in Kenya and Uganda, on the ground that not offering circumcision to all the men taking part would be unethical. The success of the trials confirmed a study done last year in South Africa.


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

it's the classic example of the slippery slope. Let's see now... a physical pogrom of genital surgery to limit the spread of AIDS practiced on a population without regard to its consent. Geez... I wonder where that could possibly end...

cgrindley (1000+ posts) Mon Jun-25-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
65. Suggesting surgery to limit the spread of HIV is stupid
it's the classic example of the slippery slope. Let's see now... a physical pogrom of genital surgery to limit the spread of AIDS practiced on a population without regard to its consent. Geez... I wonder where that could possibly end...
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top



____________________

The millions of Jewish folks who were killed in pogroms which reached its climax with the Holocaust certainly would have wished they were circumcised instead of beat to death with clubs, shot in the head at point blank, shot en masse and thrown into ditches, and ultimately gassed for efficiency...

Circumcision is not a progrom...

1.7 billion Muslims routinely circumcise their male children, so do most Jews, Filipinos, South Koreans, and Americans... It's not a pogrom...

it's genital mutilation and who gives a shit what religion wants it done. It's no different than religions openly advocating hate through their so-called and wholly fictitious "holy" books. Perhaps Jews, Filipinos, South Koreans and Americans should pass some laws criminalizing this vile and disgusting, superstitious nonsense.

Circumcision targets a specific and entirely innocent segment of the population for irreversible genital mutilation. That fits every conceivable definition of the word pogrom.

If you don't want to be circumcised don't be circumcised...

Perhaps you did manage to get the choice to decide what your genitalia looked like and how it functioned? Unlike the 60+% that were denied that choice for no real reason other than cultural inertia.

The research suggests that many adult African men are eagerly having circumcisions in light of the evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV/AIDS...Would you deny them this surgery?

If you wouldn't why not? You suggested circumcision was a "pogrom" I wouldn't kill someone even if they asked me to...

So because African men willingly want this ridiculous surgery we should force it on Western babies? That doesn't logically follow. Personally, it's kind of retarded to suggest any pogrom without first testing individuals for CCR5?32.

Circumcision-



: Surgery that removes the foreskin (the loose tissue) covering the glans of the penis.


Pogrom



An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group,


I'm confused...

An organized, often officially encouraged wholescale campaign of genital mutilation against a specific group of entirely innocent people who lack any legal recourse or any state protection. It is a pogrom.

If you think circumcision is synonymous with a pogrom there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion...

Most victims of pogroms are dead... Most "victims" of circumcision are still alive...

Since you believe pogroms and circumcision are synonymous and the most most massive pogrom of all was the Holocaust why don't you have bumper sticker made for your car that say


-"Circumcision- Hitler Would Have Loved It"

or

-"Circumcision- the new Holocaust"


or

-"Circumcision- the mark of the Nazi"

it can go next to my Darwin Fish, and my "I hate your god(s)" ribbon and my "Bring the Troops Home" ribbon.

Although I'd rather phrase it:

"Outlaw Circumcision Now"

The goal of pogroms is to eradicate a people... One of the goals of circumcision is to save people...
If you believe that circumcision is synonymous with a pogrom that kills people it should not be made available to anybody, even those who want it...

My logic is impeccable...

one. just one.

I see very few that are complaining...

Most circumcised men and their partners are happy ...


Peter North, The Hedgehog(Ron Jeremy), and John Holmes, the most famous porn stars of our generation, were all cut, and they all seemed satisfied as well as the men and women they had sex with...

and that doesn't mean anything at all.

PS John Holmes died of AIDS in 1988. Perhaps you need better examples, certainly ones NOT taken from the intensely misogynistic world of porn.

Porn is one of the few industries where the women make more money than the men because they are the ones with the following...

Porn stars like John Holmes, Ron Jeremy, and Peter North are exceptions to that rule because of their unique "gifts"...

But hey, if you don't like porn and you don't like circumcision I'll defend your right to my death not to watch it and not to get cut...

money doesn't mean shit.

Some women enjoy having sex... Some women enjoy having sex and getting paid for it...And some women enjoy having sex, getting paid for it, and doing it while the camera is rolling...

The porn industry is characterized by its profound relationship with suicide, drug addiction, sexual abuse and AIDS.

I'd like to see some peer reviewed research to suggest that's the case...

I suspect the incidence of HIV/AIDS is higher in the general population than it is in the pornography industry because actors and actresses are tested every six months...

Sometimes a hole is left only large enough to accommodate a pencil...

When male circumcision routinely have such draconian results I will join you in a call for its abolition.

and I don't believe I said male circumcision was "good" or that it eliminates "some" sexual pleasure. I was attempting to compare the amount of alteration done between males and females only.

I have no children, so I have not had to make that decision. My sister-in-law had two sons, born about ten years apart. The first was circumcised, the second was not.

I was amplifying what you said...

If male circumcision was as "messed up" as female circumcision I would join the call for its abolition...

I think the debate is politicized and the opponents and proponents of the procedure are talking past each other...

99% as unnecessary and brutal? 30%?

And not a small group of self selected men who have said they were harmed by the procedure...


If you don't want to be circumcised don't be circumcised and don't have your children circumcised... I thought we were the party of personal choice...

But I certainly would not recommend it either.

When they have never experienced it in the first place?

How would a man who has never known what it feels like to have a foreskin know what it feels like to have one?

What basis for comparison do they have?

What basis for comparison does the blind since birth have?

My opinion is it's an intensely personal decision that a parent should make after consulting their doctor, their conscience, and their clergy (if applicable)...


I truly believe I have heard the arguments on both sides...

:eyes:

I say forget cutting anything but hair and nails until the kid turns 18.

and that one over there -- i like that circumsized one -- ooohhh -- and that uncircumsized one!

i pretty much just like dicks.

they have all worked ok -- as far as i know -- and no one complained to me about their dicks or mine -- and i've met a few.

:evilgrin:

:spank:

Bad, xchrom. Bad!

that you are enjoying these circumcising threads just a wee bit too much, x-chrom!:D :hi:

self righteous huffiness over what is really a non-issue, than yeah. :) But hey, who I am to talk anyway..I am getting my own AHEM, entertainment value out of these threads myself....:evilgrin: (I'm a baaad girl)

What gives a parent the right to mutilate or deform their child?

"But we've done it for hundreds of years!"


Oh well, can't argue with that logic... :eyes:

I would state my opposition to all of 'em.

If that's not a culturally sensitive proposition, too bad. I don't care.

For the record, I don't think circumcision is a "crime", I respect that others may not come to the same conclusion my wife and I did when we decided not to do it to our son.

But I also don't think it's necessary, I think in most situations it is performing an unnecessary, non medically indicated, often quite painful cosmetic modification on someone else's body--- a baby's- without their permission.

And if people want to get all huffy and defensive at hearing that, that's their problem.

"But I also don't think it's necessary, I think in most situations it is performing an unnecessary, non medically indicated, often quite painful cosmetic modification on someone else's body--- a baby's- without their permission."


I am against body modification without informed consent as a matter of principle.

The shit you listed is just plain disgusting.

How hard is it, honestly to get a boy to play with his cock in the shower?:eyes:

No one is going to go back and get it re-attached. If you're an adult and you're fighting with your parents over your emasculation, get thee to a shrink pronto. But what the hell is the point of going over this again and again and again and again on DU, of all places. Can't you take it to "Foreskin Underground?"

It's crazy enough to think we're actually going to change the Democratic Party...it's fucking ludicrous to think these postings will have an impact on circumcision in this country.

.

I agree, these are the lamest recurring threads on DU.

...an infant's bill of rights bill. One of the provisions is to ban routine infant circumcisions unless medically necessary or for religious reasons.

It's real simple. Stop routine infant circumcision, and these threads will go away.

I'ver read that in the ancient world there _was_ a process to reverse it. Some Jewish men took this step when they wanted to "pass" in the outside world. Apparently it was time intensive and rather painful, though. Anyone know anything more about this?

...with other people practicing seemingly-harmless forms of mutilation as I do with people denying that it is mutilation. Circumcision is genital mutilation, regardless of whether or not it's OK.

Any body modification done to another without their consent without clear medical NEED is a mutilation.

edited for grammer