The Genital mutaltion of children | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » Discussion » General Discussion
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
SIN Dec 10 '12
Listen up people . Especially mothers. Circumcision is nothing short of genital mutilation of male infants. I know young mothers are encouraged to allow this sadistic religious act by those who are doctors and ' in the know' . Doctors are trained to think and act like this. For hygienic reasons a male must be circumcised. At one point in time several centuries ago there was a health advantage . That was before we had SOAP . Now there is no reason to mutilate your infant babies penis !

   Circumcision is not more than the genital mutilation of helpless new born babies. It is a religious ritual that has been pass down from generation to generation. And the mothers allow this to go on ignorantly assuming the doctor knows best. The doctor knows what he is told. Nothing else.

  Think about this. How would you feel as a helpless infant fresh into this world. One of your first experiences in life is a blade cutting away at the most sensitive part of your body...  you penis. This experience has long lasting psychological effects. It is not talked about. It is just done in the name of God and hygiene ..neither have any merit anymore.

   Unfortunately , there is a stigma in the western world regarding uncurcumcised males. Woman think its ' gross' .And that only perpetuates the ritual of genital mutilation .

  Let the male decide. When he is old enough let him decide if he wants it. Do NOT let a doctor slice away at you sons penis. Do NOT let that be one of the first experiences in you infant boys life. Not only is it unnecessary , it is sadistic.

The Geography of Genital Mutilations

James DeMeo
The Truth Seeker, pp 9-13, July/August 1989
© 1989 James DeMeo. All Rights Reserved
Presented in 1989 at the
First International Symposium on Circumcision


NOTE:Links with a right-facing blue arrow will take you off this site.

Genital mutilations elicit severe pain and terror in infants and children
and are often very dangerous to health.

This paper summarizes portions of a prior study of the geographical aspects of human behavior among subsistence-level aboriginal peoples (DeMeo, 1986,1988). The focus here will specifically be on the phenomenon of male genital mutilations. Genital mutilations are often classified as a "cultural practice," but there is growing evidence that this benign-sounding label merely serves to dismiss or evade the painful and contractive effects the mutilations have upon the psyche and soma of the child. Genital mutilations elicit severe pain and terror in infants and children and are often very dangerous to health, which raises important questions how they could have gotten started in the first instance. People who do not engage in such practices view them almost always with horror and disbelief, while people who do them often have difficulty imagining life without the practice. Oftentimes, the presence or the absence of the rites are seen as important requirements for the selection of a marriageable partner, and very powerful emotions focus upon them. Genital mutilations are among the most strongly defended, or defended against, of all cultural practices. Among the various theories developed to account for the mutilations, their geographical distribution has only rarely been discussed (DeMeo 1986).

Genital mutilations are among the most strongly defended,
or defended against, of all cultural practices.

The global distributions of the male and female genital mutilations among native, non-Western peoples, along with history and archaeology, suggest their genesis in the deserts of Northeast Africa and the Near East, with a subsequent diffusion outward into sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania and possibly even into parts of the New World. They have generally been transmitted from one region to another by virtue of relocation diffusion, accompanied by phases of military conquest of cultures which do not mutilate by invading cultures which do, or by voluntary adoption in association with other cultural changes of an anti-sexual and anti-child nature. One must keep in mind the premarital, pubertal character of the mutilations as originally practiced by most cultures, performed at a time of otherwise great sexual interests and passion.I have demonstrated elsewhere that the global distributions of genital mutilations are similar to that of other patrist anti-child, anti-female, and anti-sexual cultural factors, such as infant cranial deformation, swaddling, the virginity taboo, vaginal blood taboo, male domination of kinship and inheritance, and so on (DeMeo 1986).

Figures 1 and 2 show the overlapping distributions of various types of male and female genital mutilations, respectively, as they existed among aboriginal, subsistence-level peoples within the last several hundred years. As such, the maps greatly minimize or eliminate the influences of the diffusion of European peoples within the last several hundred years. For example, the maps do not reflect the existence of male circumcision as adopted in the USA over the last 100 years  [NOHARMM note: See Fig.1B, which illustrates this contemporary development]; North and South American data is composed from aboriginal peoples only. The various forms of the mutilations, and the source for the mapped data, are discussed below. A detailed discussion of female genital mutilation will be given later by Fran Hosken, whose work (1979) provided the basis for the map of female mutilations.

Fig. 1: Map of Historical Male Genital Mutilations

Historical MGM Map.jpg (19 KB)

 

Fig. 1B: Map of Contemporary Male Genital Mutilations [added by NOHARMM]

MGM Map-Contemporary.gif (242376 bytes)

Circumcision only gained the status of being a "hygienic operation" in relatively recent times.

Male Genital Mutilations

Incision, the least harsh of the male genital mutilations, consists of either a simple cut on the foreskin to draw blood, or a complete cutting through of the foreskin in a single place so as to partly expose the glans. Incision existed primarily among peoples of the East African coast, in Island Asia and Oceania, and among a few peoples of the New World. Circumcision, a harsher mutilation where the foreskin of the penis is cut or torn away, was and is practiced across much of the Old World desert belt, and in a number of Sub-Saharan Central Asian, and Pacific Ocean groups. When performed during puberty, circumcision was largely a premarital rite of pain endurance.

Circumcision only gained the status of being a "hygienic operation" in relatively recent times, although the most recent and best medical evidence has in fact shown that routine circumcision has neither short nor long-term hygienic benefits; indeed, it has mild to severe negative psychological and physiological effects. Particularly in the bush, under less than sanitary conditions, the circumcised boy infant or child would have been at greater risk than the uncircumcised boy. The most severe male genital mutilation, a form of skinstripping, was practiced along the Red Sea coast in Arabia and Yemen, at least into the 1800s. Here, in an endurance ritual performed on a potential marriage candidate, skin was flayed from the entire penile shaft as well as from a region of the pubis. The community blessing would only be bestowed upon the young man who could refrain from expressing emotion during the event (DeMeo 1986).

Another harsh ritual, subincision, was practiced primarily among Australian aborigines and on a few Pacific Islands. It consisted of a cutting open of the urethra on the underside of the penis down to as far as near the scrotum; the subincision ritual was generally preceded by a circumcision ritual. The practice did not confer any contraceptive advantage, and no claims as such were made for it by the Australian aborigines. The geographical aspects of the Australian genital mutilations has been studied previously, and two competing theories were developed: Northwest Australia, specifically the Kimberly region, was identified as a location where genital skin stripping was performed, and some believed that circumcision and subincision spread into Australia from that region, diffusing to the east and south. On the other hand, independent development of the traits within Australia has been argued, based upon the observation that the most intense forms of subincision occurred in the desert center of the continent, being absent in a few border regions where only circumcision was practiced (DeMeo 1986).

Fig. 2: Map of Female Genital Mutilations

FGMmap.jpg (21 KB)

...genital mutilations possessed a widespread distribution,
centered on Northeast Africa and Arabia.

The Ethnographic Atlas of G. P. Murdock (1967) provided most of the data for Figure 1. Murdock's Atlas also contains raw data on the age at which the mutilations were customarily done among a globally-balanced sample of 350 cultures. A map of that data which I constructed indicated that genital mutilations possessed a widespread distribution, centered on Northeast Africa and Arabia. Furthermore, the greater the distance from those central regions, the older was the male at the time of the mutilation (DeMeo 1986, p. 159). As one moves farther and farther east from Africa and the Near East, the males are progressively older at the time of the mutilation. Furthermore, the practices occur less frequently and undergo a gradual dilution of harshness as distance from those central regions increases. Genital skin stripping, the harshest mutilation, was centered on the Red Sea region, and was surrounded by a region practicing only male circumcision. Circumcision, in turn, gives way to the less harsh practice of incision as one moves eastward across the Pacific. Genital mutilations were not practiced at all among most of the aboriginal peoples of the Americas or Eastern Oceania. It was precisely in these regions of mutilation absence where the decorative "penis tops" were most frequently found among native peoples, indicating a similar interest in the genitalia, but only in a decorative and pleasurable sense.

Genital mutilations were not practiced at all among most of
the aboriginal peoples of the Americas or Eastern Oceania.

From the standpoint of the pain involved in circumcision as a puberty or premarital rite, the easterly decline in mutilation frequency and dilution of the rite towards less painful methods, and to older ages, makes perfect sense if we also assume that the emotional attitudes, beliefs, and cultural institutions which originally mandated the painful ritual were likewise diluted as they were carried eastward from a Northeast African or Arabian point of origin (DeMeo 1986). With the social and emotional root reasons for the rituals becoming diluted with time and distance, less painful methods such as incision were substituted, or it was put off as long as possible, certainly well past the period just before marriage, preferably into the period of old age. Or it was relinquished altogether. In the Near Eastern desert regions where the social institutions and emotional roots for the ritual remained but where the pain of the mutilation was feared as a puberty/premarital rite, it was occasionally shifted into infancy, or adopted as such from the start.

...it seems probable that genital mutilations, were introduced before 2300 BC,
when the Nile Valley was invaded by militant pastoral nomads,
and culturally transformed around 3100 BC.

There have been several phases of diffusion of the mutilations. Egyptian bas-reliefs give the earliest known unambiguous evidence of male genital mutilations, performed as a puberty rite during the early Dynastic era, about 2300 BC (Paige 1978, Montagu 1946). However, it seems probable that genital mutilations were introduced before 2300 BC, when the Nile Valley was invaded by militant pastoral nomads, and culturally transformed around 3100 BC. These invaders, who possessed Asian and Semitic characteristics, ushered in an era of divine kings, ritual widow murder, a military and priestly caste, massive graves and fabulous grave wealth, temple architecture, and other trappings of extreme patriarchal authoritarian culture (DeMeo 1986, p.218-294). As discussed below, cultural tendencies of a similar direction, but of lesser intensity, are positively correlated with genital mutilating cultures of more recent times.

According to biblical scripture, the Hebrews institutionalized the mutilations
after the Exodus from Egypt, and it thereafter became a special mark of the tribe.

According to biblical scripture, the Hebrews institutionalized the mutilations after the Exodus from Egypt, and it thereafter became a special mark of the tribe. The mutilations appeared widely across the Near East prior to the eruptions of Moslem armies in the 600s A.D., but were subsequently spread wherever Moslem armies ventured. While neither male nor female genital mutilations have any specific Koranic mandate, Mohammed thought them to be "desirable," and they predominate in Moslem areas. Still, there are regions of' non-Moslem Africa and Oceania which possess the mutilations as a probable diffusion from ancient, pre-Moslem times. Diffusion from these earliest periods may also yet account for isolated, rare examples of the traits in the New World (DeMeo 1986, p. 358-426).

Fig. 3: Historic Spread of Human Genital Mutilations

Map-Spread of HGM.jpg (188340 bytes)

Areas Influenced or Occupied by Arab Armies Since 632 AD (after Pitcher 1972). The Islamic empire spread genital mutilations into many new areas of the globe, and reinforced it in others. However, genital mutilations had spread into sub-Saharan Africa, Oceania, and the New World, prior to the Islamic period, notably among caste, high god, and warrior-emphasizing peoples.

Male genital mutilations were never adopted widely in Europe, European Australia, Canada, Latin America, in the Orient, or by Hindus, Southeast Asians, or Native Americans.

Male genital mutilations were never adopted widely in Europe, European Australia, Canada, Latin America, in the Orient, or by Hindus, Southeast Asians, or Native Americans The spread of the rite of infant circumcision to the United States during the late 1800s and early 1900s is a most recent phenomenon not reflected on the maps. Circumcision gained in importance in the USA only after allopathic medical doctors, playing upon prevailing sexual anxieties, urged it as a "cure" for a long list of childhood diseases and "disorders, "to include polio, tuberculosis, bedwetting, and a new syndrome which appeared widely in the medical literature known as "masturbatory insanity."Circumcision was then advocated along with a host of exceedingly harsh, pain-inducing devices and practices designed to thwart any vestige of genital pleasure in children (Paige 1978).

Reich saw the real purpose of circumcision, and other assaults upon the child's sexuality,
to be the reduction of the child's emotional fluidity and energy level, and their ability
to experience maximal pleasurable genital excitation later in life
...

Freud and other psychoanalysts have discussed male genital mutilations as inducing a form of "castration anxiety" in the child by which the taboo against incest and parricide is pathologically strengthened (DeMeo 1986). Montagu (1946) and Bettelheim ( 1962) have discussed their connections to the male fear of vaginal blood, where menstruation is imitated (subincision), or where the male must be ritually absolved of contact with poisonous childbirth blood (infant circumcision), or hymenal blood (pubertal circumcision). Reich identified genital mutilations as but one, albeit a major one, of a series of brutal and cruel acts directed toward infants and children which possess hidden motives designed to cause a painful, permanent contraction of the child's physical and emotional self. Reich saw the real purpose of circumcision, and other assaults upon the child's sexuality, to be the reduction of the child's emotional fluidity and energy level, and their ability to experience maximal pleasurable genital excitation later in life, a major step in, as he put it,transmutingHomo sapiens into armored Homo normalis. Reich argued that parents and doctors blindly advocated or performed the genital mutilations, and other painful shamanistic medical procedures, in proportion to their own emotional armoring and pleasure-anxiety, in order to make children more like themselves: obedient, docile, and reduced in sexual vigor and emotional vitality (Reich 1967, 1973).

Male genital mutilations are found present in a cultural complex where children, females,
and weaker social ethnic groups are subordinated to elder, dominant males
in rigid social hierarchies of one form or another.

These ideas, as disturbing as they may be, find support in cross-cultural comparisons of cultures which mutilate the genitals of their males.Textor's Cross-Cultural Summary(1967) demonstrates positive correlations between male genital mutilations and the following other cultural characteristics (also see Prescott 1975, DeMeo 1986):

  • High narcissism index
  • Slavery and Castes are present
  • Class stratification is high
  • Land inheritance favors male line
  • Cognatic kin groups are absent
  • Patrilineal descent is present
  • Female barrenness penalty is high
  • Bride price is present
  • Father has family authority
  • Polygamy is present
  • Marital residence near male kin
  • Painful female initiation rites are present
  • Segregation of adolescent boys is high
  • Oral anxiety potential is high
  • Average satisfaction potential is low
  • Speed of attention to infant needs is low
  • High God present, active, supportive of human morality

One cannot extract a list of correlated pro-child, pro-female, or sex-positive traits from Textor's work, as cultures which mutilate the male genitalia do not generally possess such characteristics. Male genital mutilations are found present in a cultural complex where children, females, and weaker social ethnic groups are subordinated to elder, dominant males in rigid social hierarchies of one form or another. While the cross-cultural analysis contrasted only aboriginal, subsistence-level cultures, many of the factors identified in the above list are or once were applicable to the USA, where male circumcision predominates. It must be noted, however, that many or most of those patristic characteristics may be present in cultures where genital mutilations are absent, but which can be accounted for by deprivation of physical affection in the maternal infant and adolescent sexual relationships (Prescott, 1975, 1979, 1989).

The underlying psychology of genital mutilations is anxiety regarding sexual pleasure,
mainly heterosexual genital intercourse...

Summary:

The underlying psychology of genital mutilations is anxiety regarding sexual pleasure, mainly heterosexual genital intercourse, as indicated by the associated virginity taboos and ritual absolutions against vaginal blood. In the final analysis, these mutilations say more about predominant attitudes regarding sexual pleasure than anything else.

...female infibulations and other forms of female genital mutilation persist
in accordance with the arranged marriage system, and other vestiges
of a powerful and hysterical virginity taboo.

Given their similar distributions, similar cross-cultural aspects, and similar psychological motifs, the time and location of origins of male and female genital mutilations are probably identical, the use of each being mandated and widely expanded by groups where dominance of the sexual lives of children by adults, and of females by males, was most extreme. The use of eunuchs has died out over the last 100 years with the decline of the harem system, but female infibulations and other forms of female genital mutilation persist in accordance with the arranged marriage system, and other vestiges of a powerful and hysterical virginity taboo.

The urge to mutilate the genitals of children stems from deeply ingrained
cultural anxieties regarding sexual pleasure and happiness.

The genital mutilations of young males and females are major examples of cultural "traits" or "practices" which, on deeper analysis, reveal roots in severe pleasure-anxiety, with sadistic overtones. The parent or tribal elder who cuts the genitals of young children, was subject to the rite himself as a child, and is made very anxious or angry when confronted with a child whose genitals are not mutilated. This incapacity to tolerate pleasurable movement or feeling in others (pleasure anxiety) was first identified for Homo sapiens by Reich who also identified the role that social institutions play in demanding a systematic recreation of trauma and damage in each new generation; primatologists have identified similar processes of abuse transmission at work in monkeys deprived of maternal love in infancy (DeMeo 1986). Prescott (1975) previously confirmed many of these relationships in a cross-cultural manner. The materials summarized here in geographical form further confirm these processes which possess historically identifiable roots in specific regions. The urge to mutilate the genitals of children stems from deeply ingrained cultural anxieties regarding sexual pleasure and happiness. Genital mutilations always exist within a complex of other social institutions that provide for the socially sanctioned expression of adult sadism and destructive aggression towards the infant and child with unconscious motivations aimed at destroying or damaging the capacity for pleasurable emotional/sexual bonding between mothers and babies, and between young males and females.In the absence of such deeper motivations, genital mutilations would not be welcomed or championed by parents or birth attendants.

[For more on this, read James DeMeo's Blue_ArrowD096.gif (140 bytes)Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence in the Deserts of the Old World 1998. You can order this book through NOHARMM's Online Bookstore.]

James DeMeo, Ph.D., earned his doctorate at the University of Kansas and has served on the Faculty of Geography at Illinois State University and the University of Miami. He is currently the Director of the Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory, PO Box 1148, Ashland, OR 97520, Editor of the environmental journal, Pulse of the Planet, and author of The Orgone Accumulator Handbook.

References

Bettelheim, B. (1962): Symbolic Wounds, Collier Books, NY.

DeMeo, J. (1986): "On The Origins and Diffusion of Patrism: The Saharasian Connection," Dissertation, U. of Kansas, Geography Department. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor; see section on "Male and Female Genital Mutilations," p. 153-178.

DeMeo, J. (1987, 1988); "Desertification and the Origins of Armoring: The Saharasian Connection," J. Orgonomy, 21(2):185-213, 22(1):101-122, 22(2):268-289.

Hosken, F. (1979): The Hosken Report on Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females, 2nd Edition, Women's International Network News, Lexington, Mass.

Montagu, A. (1945): "Infibulation and Defibulation in the Old and New Worlds," Am. Anthropologist, 47:464-7.

Montagu, A. (1946): "Ritual Mutilation Among Primitive Peoples," Ciba Symposium, October, p.424.

Murdock, G.P. (1967): Ethnographic Atlas, Pittsburgh, HRAF Press.

Paige, K. (1978): "The Ritual of Circumcision," Human Nature, May.

Pitcher, D. (1972):An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire, E.J. Brill, Leiden, Map V.

Prescott, J.W. (1975): "Body Pleasure and The Origins of Violence," The Futurist, April, p.64-74.

Prescott, J.W. (1979): Deprivation of Physical Affection As A Primary Process In The Development Of Physical Violence. In: Child Abuse and Violence. (David G. Gil, Ed). AMS Press New York pp 66-137.

Prescott, J.W. (1989): "Affectional Bonding for the Prevention of Violent Behaviors: Neurobiological, Psychological and Religious/Spiritual Determinants. In: Violent Behavior Vol. 1: Assessment and Intervention. (Hertzberg, L.J., et al., eds) P M A Publishing Corp. New York 1989, p. 109-142.

Reich, W. (1967): Reich Speaks of Freud, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, p.27-31.

Reich, W. (1973): Ether, God & Devil, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, p.67-70.

Textor, R. (1967): A Cross-Cultural Summary, HRAF Press, New Haven.



Deleted user Dec 10 '12
I shed a tear for the poor little babies..


Wait no..I couldn't possibly care less.


I do know one thing..I'm quite glad that I don't have a slug penis, and I wouldn't make my kid(were I to ever have one) live with a slug penis either.


Uncut is straight nasty.

The Forum post is edited by Deleted user Dec 10 '12
VanillaStoned Dec 10 '12
It's so weird to me how this happens still... Most would have a problem putting plastic surgery, tattoos or piercings on a baby, but permanent scarring of an infant's genitalia seems to still be okay, ONLY if it's a male baby. 


Just another one of those "What the fuck, people?" moments, like abortion or gay marriage.


(EDIT: ...The Genital "mutaltion" of children)

The Forum post is edited by VanillaStoned Dec 10 '12
Deleted user Dec 10 '12
Quote from autodiabolic 

Uncut is straight nasty.


"Nasty" is perfectly subjective, though.  I find cut to be a little disconcerting, honestly.  What's considered attractive, most often, is based on familiarity.  My first three boyfriends were natural, and cut looks (and feels) really weird to me.  I don't hold it against the guy, since I know it's not his fault, but my preference is still there.  I'm sure in cultures where infibulation of females is common, the vulva looks every bit as "nasty" from their perspective, like the sarlacc pit.


Quote from autodiabolic I do know one thing..I'm quite glad that I don't have a slug penis, and I wouldn't make my kid(were I to ever have one) live with a slug penis either.


I don't see how you could "make" your kid be uncut, anymore than you could "make" him have attached earlobes.  In one case, a decision is being made for him.  In the other, the decision is being left open.  It's a lot easier to get circumcised than to undo having been circumcised.  It seems getting him cut would be more of a "making" him a certain way, to me.

Quote from Mortician I am more upset about the female clitoris cut in Africa done to little girls because they believe that sexual pleasure is for males only.

That's not the actual reason given.  Westerners tend to assume that female circumcision must be to repress female sexuality.  But where it's actually practiced, female circumcision is justified with reasons such as...wait for it...aesthetics, religion, and hygiene.  Sounds darn familiar.
For that matter, not all forms of female circumcision remove the clitoris.  In fact, a majority do not.  Most forms simply remove portions of the inner labia and/or prepuce.  This is perfectly analogous to male circumcision--it's "extra skin" that has a tendency to get smeggy.

Deleted user Dec 11 '12
Sorry but I prefer a cut cock over one with extra skin. I think they are more physically attractive.
Deleted user Dec 11 '12
The thing remains a matter of choice, how (un)educated the reasons might be for choosing to do so. 

However, I'm against circumcision on teens, infants and young children. I'm only of the opinion that if you want a cut penis you should at least be on an age where you're capable to make a choice on a reasoned basis and not by a mood-swing. 

I can see the logic in the "more hygienic" part. But also point out if you wash on a regular basis the hygiene remains the same, especially in modern day. The supposed "health" benefits you get from being circumcised are in comparison with a >2-month unwashed dick. 

Supposed advantages against HIV? That argument is like playing russion roulette with a gun that can carry 6 bullets instead of 4. Not really an excuse. 

When it comes down to it, most reasons for doing so are just plain bunk. The only reason that might be considered is aesthetics.. but that's purely subjective and even then, there's a chance of the dick being deformed if the circumcision wasn't done properly. 
SIN Dec 11 '12
  The only reason people think a cut penis is more attractive is because it is more familiar looking to them.
IamWill Dec 11 '12

My view on circumsizing babies/children is the same as christening them. I was splashed with water by a so called "priest".  They  celebrated it like a happy religious function and family occasion. It is a despicaple  practise in my view.   They didn't know any better and had no mavelent intent, but ignorance is no excuse.

 

 People are free to make their own decisions. I  feel there should be a punishment for cutting off a babies forskin or splashing them with water without their consent which babies arn't capable of giving.  I'm happy to still havemy helmet covered.

The Forum post is edited by IamWill Dec 11 '12
evilclown Dec 11 '12
In reference to circumcision, if you really want to hear some graphic stuff, here's an example. A certain Jewish sect (Hasidic?) performs circumcision in a way that would send anyone else off to jail and gang raped by the inmates. It seems that when performing the circumcision, the rabbi does not use a knife, but rather sucks off the foreskin (I kid you not). But then, it's protected under law - being a 'religious' rite.
Deleted user Dec 11 '12
I think this is just completely ridiculous. The entire subject. I never understood zealots that got worked up over, at least, American circumcision. My first son was circumcised, my last son was going to be circumcised and any other boy I may or may not have will be, yup, circumcised. And I don't think that it's any right of yours or anyone else's to tell me that I deserve jail time because I get any of my sons circumcised. Period.


The picture that you posted Naama, is barbaric. American doctors do not just take a flat razor and cut the shit out of there. Certainly not on little girls either. 


I also think that using the word "mutilation" is a bit harsh for a practice that has been done for a very long time. I'm not going to get at anyone's throats for not circumcising their sons... why knock on my door? My son doesn't even remember anything about being circumcised at birth. And I sure as hell would rather deal with it and not remember it.


How many of you have male children.. for one.. and for two.. have male children that are circumcised and are trying to argue against it? Please. 

Deleted user Dec 11 '12
does a single male that is circumcised remember the circumcision? i don't and there are no psychological effects to me, yet i know uncircumcised males tha have a stigma about there dick. is this because of societies acceptance of cut and not uncut? absolutely but that is the world we live in. and whether yu admit it or not cut looks way better, unifom, clean, the only type of person i know of that has a large statistic of members that enjoy uncut, is gay males.
Deleted user Dec 11 '12
Here's my take on things. The only real benefit to cutting part of your dick off at birth is that it is considered more attractive by society. I personally don't give a fuck, because penises look weird either way.


But if I were a guy, and my parents got me cut, I'd be pissed because you actually lose thousands of nerve endings, meaning sex will be slightly less awesome, forever.


If my parents didn't get me cut, and some chick wanted otherwise, as in she expects me to cut off part of my dick so it looks prettier to her, I'd be like, yeah go fuck yourself. Nobody should have to mutilate themselves in order to have sex. 


You wanna get circumcised, fine. Just don't make that choice for your kid before they even know what their dick is.  

lelijkebaas Dec 11 '12
if cut 'looks better' - why do most male porn actors (as far as I know) have them uncut?
evilclown Dec 11 '12
Blame it all on fucking Abrahamic monotheistic religions that maintain a brain hold on idiots following poisonous doctrines.
Deleted user Dec 11 '12
Quote from Naama "If the husband is unusually awkward or difficult to educate, one should at times make the clitoris easier to find[by amputating the clitoral hood]." [Female Circumcision: Indications and a New Technique General Practioner, Vol. 20, No. 3, September 1959, pp. 115-120] http://www.noharmm.org/femcirctech.htm

Well, that had me laughing. I don't think removing the clitoral hood is going to help "unusaually awkward" men locate the clit.
It just happens that I have some pregnant friends that have been debating circumcision. Just like I see panning out here, it seemed to come down to an argument of aesthetics. My friend brought up the possibility of psychological issues stemming from circumscision, but no one seemed to believe it to be possible. Personally I find the debate interesting, but it doesn't pertain to me since I do not have a penis and never plan on having children. Something I have noticed that no one has brought up is the correlation between race and circumcision. Being that I live in Texas there are large numbers of Mexicans in my area, and I've been told on different occasions by hispanic friends that Mexicans generally do not have their children circumcised. This seems to reinforce my assumption that religion has little to do with circumcisions among Christians, being that the majority of Mexicans are Catholic.
Deleted user Dec 11 '12
Quote from Dimitri The only reason that might be considered is aesthetics.. but that's purely subjective and even then, there's a chance of the dick being deformed if the circumcision wasn't done properly.

Good point, and yet another reason to wait until adulthood.  It's easier for a surgeon to navigate a full-sized, developed penis than the itty bitty penis of a newborn.  Mistakes and complications are more common in infant circumcision.  The foreskin is still attached to the glans in many males until puberty, which means circumcision entails ripping it off.


The fact that there's an open wound in a diaper exposes the incision site to urine and feces, and general rubbing irritation, causing meatal stenosis in as many as 11% of infant circumcisions.  My current boyfriend, circumcised as an infant, developed meatal stenosis and had it corrected with a meatotomy (essentially a surgeon ramming a scalpel up his urethra to widen it) at the age of six.  There's still a disconcerting amount of scar tissue surrounding his urethral opening.


Some surgeons, for the sake of performing the procedure efficiently, remove the frenulum, by which the foreskin is attached, first (known as frenectomy).  Even some circumcised men wince at that idea, complaining that the frenulum is very sensitive.  (Well, what do they think the foreskin is?)


In rare cases, the surgeon will accidentally remove the entire penis of a newborn in a botched circumcision.  As tiny as the risk of that happening is, why risk that at all when an adult can get circumcised as well?


Quote from evilclown It seems that when performing the circumcision, the rabbi does not use a knife, but rather sucks off the foreskin (I kid you not).

Yes and no.  The foreskin is removed using a knife (though the Torah technically calls for a sharp piece of flint). The wound is then "cleansed" (despite the number of bacteria in the human mouth) by sucking of blood from the open wound.  Many infants have contracted herpes from this practice.


Quote from Mortician"The practice is carried out by some communities who believe it reduces a woman's libido"..."Some tribes believe that FGM is a rite of passage to womanhood for girls and prepares them for marriage. It is believed to lower female libido and is linked to premarital virginity and marital fidelity,"

Again, that notion is more caused by Westerners imputing their understanding onto those cultures than what those cultures actually believe.  I'm not saying the belief doesn't exist, just that we tend to overemphasize it as the primary reason.  As for the few that do tote libido reduction, the same argument has been used to support male circumcision.  And either way, it's ineffective; removing the ability to feel does not remove desire.

Quote from OrgasmicKarmaticAnd I don't think that it's any right of yours or anyone else's to tell me that I deserve jail time because I get any of my sons circumcised.

It's pretty much anyone's right to express any opinion--free speech and all that good stuff.  Whether that opinion has merit is another question.  Personally, I'm just evaluating the merit of arguments both for and against circumcision--medical, cultural, religious, etc.

Quote from OrgasmicKarmaticI also think that using the word "mutilation" is a bit harsh for a practice that has been done for a very long time.

Almost every form of mutilation has been done for a very long time.  I think it's silly to appeal to tradition and to claim that others are in no position to judge, if one takes up the title of Satanists.  Aren't Satanists meant to question common assumptions?


Quote from Spike13I don't think removing the clitoral hood is going to help "unusually awkward" men locate the clit.

I don't think one should get surgically altered for the sake of "unusually awkward men" (is that really unusual?), but I have encountered women who essentially have the female equivalent of phimosis, where the glans clitoris never emerges from the hood.  It could be argued that such women could benefit.

Deleted user Dec 11 '12
Quote from OrgasmicKarmatic I think this is just completely ridiculous. The entire subject. I never understood zealots that got worked up over, at least, American circumcision. My first son was circumcised, my last son was going to be circumcised and any other boy I may or may not have will be, yup, circumcised. And I don't think that it's any right of yours or anyone else's to tell me that I deserve jail time because I get any of my sons circumcised. Period.


The picture that you posted Naama, is barbaric. American doctors do not just take a flat razor and cut the shit out of there. Certainly not on little girls either. 


I also think that using the word "mutilation" is a bit harsh for a practice that has been done for a very long time. I'm not going to get at anyone's throats for not circumcising their sons... why knock on my door? My son doesn't even remember anything about being circumcised at birth. And I sure as hell would rather deal with it and not remember it.


How many of you have male children.. for one.. and for two.. have male children that are circumcised and are trying to argue against it? Please. 


Actually, I've met a lot of guys that are against circumcision because their parents made that choice for them. 


And I'm not sure what you would call it, other than mutilation? You literally cut a piece of penis off. If I cut off a chunk of one of my fingers, people would probably call it mutilation. 


Ya know Lexi it's fine that you're for it, but I am really curious why you're for it? 

Deleted user Dec 12 '12
Quote from SammieSam12398 Actually, I've met a lot of guys that are against circumcision because their parents made that choice for them. 

I have never met a man that was against circumcision because they're parents made that choice for them. Not one. Most men I know, would take the same stance as Dread over there. Never have I heard a son get down on their parents decision to have them circumcised. More power to anyone who does.. or gains that sense of this is right or wrong because of it. I just don't see it.



Quote from SammieSam12398 If I cut off a chunk of one of my fingers, people would probably call it mutilation. 

You're probably right about that but I'm sure the term "psycho" would be thrown around more.



Quote from SammieSam12398 Ya know Lexi it's fine that you're for it, but I am really curious why you're for it? 

Quite honestly, I'm truly neutral to it. If you read my response, I am more against extremism than whether or not you cut a piece of your son's dick off. It's a personal choice I made as a parent. Just like choosing to feed my child certain types of food, having them engage in certain physical activities to promote health or making them brush their teeth. 



Quote from XiaoGui17 It's pretty much anyone's right to express any opinion--free speech and all that good stuff.  Whether that opinion has merit is another question

Fair enough. I'll reword it then. I don't believe that it is anyone's right to send me to jail because I have my son circumcised. The above statement was made in a heat of passion remark. Simply because I think that zealots of any kind are completely blinded by their own sight of things.



Quote from XiaoGui17  Aren't Satanists meant to question common assumptions?

I guess so. This is probably a question better served in another forum thread but aren't there a lot of things Satanists are "supposed" to do that they don't?



desiccant Dec 12 '12

Quote from OrgasmicKarmatic I have never met a man that was against circumcision because they're parents made that choice for them. Not one.
Do I count? That's not the only reason I'm against it, but I do think it's fucked up that My dick was mutilated just so the doctor could make an extra buck. I don't blame my parents because they aren't really "thinkers" and really didn't know any better.


Quote from OrgasmicKarmatic I also think that using the word "mutilation" is a bit harsh for a practice that has been done for a very long time.

It's mutilation regardless of how long it's been done. No offense, but that's a pretty weak argument.

I'm not "traumatized" by any means because of it, I just don't think it's right that I was subjected to some Jewish dick chopping ritual against my will.
Deleted user Dec 12 '12
I am sorry but a child is not subject to personal ownership especially as a newborn. And you say so dont do it and let the child decide if they want it done when they are an adult. Yeah so as an adult you can remember the pain of the procedure? thanks mom and dad. If a parent wants to circumcise it is their choice and bringing allegations of abuse because of this is ridiculous. Not a single circumcised male is traumatized nor remembers the pain of the procedure so who cares. If I choose to have this done to my child it is my choice and to not do it to yours is your choice, but to allege that it makes those who do some kind of monstrous child hating abusers is bullshit.
The Forum post is edited by Deleted user Dec 12 '12
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
This topic is locked
Certain features such as the live video/audio chat,the IM text chat and the free PDF library are only visible and available to registered users of this network .

DONATIONS

Help Keep SIN Alive. Everything Helps.
photo small.png
photo unnamed.jpg"0" alt="photo Ad.jpg" />
photo banner.png