American circumcision
-
I really recommend this for everybody cut/uncut to help in the discussion of this horrible and unnecessary practice still plaguing some of our brothers and sisters.
View it on Netflix of Hulu or whatever you have. If you can.
-
@vmalar 'The way they portray this movie is a lie. They don't look at both sides evenly or objectively. They spend the hour and half film demonizing circumcision and those that do it. I feel as if I've spent the length of this film watching a propaganda film about the joys of being uncircumcised and how anyone who has done it is evil and a horrible parent. This is trash and it's pathetic. I am sad to have seen it.'
perfectly fits this biased documentary. Once again people always thinking they know everything better and condemn when people don't agree with them.
I'm cut, I accepted it, I have no problem with it, so neither should you. How about we focus on more important things?
The fact that the gay community is so obsessed with 'foreskin' that they would purpsoely discriminate and leave out those that are cut from a community that should know best how horrible intolerance and discrimination is.
-
@davis94 said in American circumcision:
@vmalar 'The way they portray this movie is a lie. They don't look at both sides evenly or objectively. They spend the hour and half film demonizing circumcision and those that do it. I feel as if I've spent the length of this film watching a propaganda film about the joys of being uncircumcised and how anyone who has done it is evil and a horrible parent. This is trash and it's pathetic. I am sad to have seen it.'
perfectly fits this biased documentary. Once again people always thinking they know everything better and condemn when people don't agree with them.
I'm cut, I accepted it, I have no problem with it, so neither should you. How about we focus on more important things?
The fact that the gay community is so obsessed with 'foreskin' that they would purpsoely discriminate and leave out those that are cut from a community that should know best how horrible intolerance and discrimination is.
Male circumcision is a deeply cultural, often religious ritual. I haven't watched the video - the link above does not work for me.
But I will say this: In the US, male circumcision rates are plummeting... because, in part, the cultural "stigma" of being un-cut is going away... so, mostly it is the religion and the "but I had it done to me" folks who are still doing this to their male children. In my home State of Fla, the current rate of circumcision (on infants) is just 35% - probably influenced by our large Latin and Asian populations. (Source)
When I was born (early 60's), it was virtually assumed in the hospital that your male child would be circumcised... if you DIDN'T want it done, you'd have better have made that clear BEFORE the birth!!! (Source: my mother LOL)
When I was about to have my (our) first child, I did considerable research, even though we didn't even know the sex of the child yet (while THAT child turned out to be female, we would eventually have 9 kids, tho some of them were adopted from foster care - 4 of whom are male).
Of the 4 boys we either had, or adopted as infants, NONE were circumcised at our request (one had the procedure done at the insistence of the biological parents - whose rights were terminated a few months later).
There is nothing WRONG with the typical/normal male penis - the way it comes "from the factory"... there are claims, and counter-claims galore about everything from circumcision being a panacea of male child wellness, to it being the root of all evil (both are just a bit hyperbolic!)
The truth is, the practice (as I noted above) is societal in most cases (and the US is/was RARE in the Western World at circumcising a majority - previously a HUGE majority - of male infants).
But even in areas of the world where religion is the primary reason for the practice, rates are falling.
But, given that the OVERWHELMING majority of circumcisions are done on infants, there is ABSOLUTELY no cause to discriminate against people with or without a foreskin! Virtually NONE of them had a say in the matter!
For what its worth, my bf is uncut (Asian), and as noted above, I was cut as an infant. We have no issues with this difference...
-
@bi4smooth said in American circumcision:
...there is ABSOLUTELY no cause to discriminate against people with or without a foreskin! Virtually NONE of them had a say in the matter!
This is very important. Much of the anti-circumcision "intactivist" conversation can have the effect of causing what might be called Foreskin Dysphoria--a concept that being circumcised is deficient, and that such person would have an inferior sex life, etc. We cannot demonise people for a situation that they had no control over. I have many circumcised friends who have very satisfying sex lives.
-
@eobox91103 It's child abuse. It doesn't matter that you meant well. What matters is the harm you did to a helpless child. Your son/daughter is not your property, you are just taking care of someone for a while.
-
@davis94 Read 'The Banality of evil' by Hannah Arendt in which she discusses the holocaust and how was a society blindly oblivious to the extermination that was going on behind the scenes. What you are asking the gay community is a similar thing. Why?
-
@vmalar said in American circumcision:
@davis94 Read 'The Banality of evil' by Hannah Arendt in which she discusses the holocaust and how was a society blindly oblivious to the extermination that was going on behind the scenes. What you are asking the gay community is a similar thing. Why?
Really?
Comparing the holocaust to the practice of male circumcision?
Someone has gone off the deep end on this one...
Is it unnecessary? I believe so (Hasidic Jews might disagree)... but "child abuse"? Again: someone has gone off the deep end here.
One of the stated goals of the religious purposes of circumcision is to reduce masturbation - it goes to the absurd religious belief that all sex - outside of that intended solely to procreate - is bad.
Whatever happened to tolerance of people and beliefs that differ from your own?
-
@vmalar Please re-read what I said, and I'll also try to simplify it for you: There's a big difference between a parent who circumcises a child without his consent, and that child who grows up to be a circumcised man.
I think the parent was wrong to enforce this upon the child. While this might fall under the category of child abuse, it cannot be compared to the holocaust.
But the guy who was circumcised is not wrong. He had nothing to do with the decision, and he has a right to enjoy his sex life--and his penis--to the fullest. Telling him that he is defective and mutilated serves no purpose.
-
@bi4smooth said in American circumcision:
One of the stated goals of the religious purposes of circumcision is to reduce masturbation - it goes to the absurd religious belief that all sex - outside of that intended solely to procreate - is bad.
If you go back far enough it has a religious origin. And it has to do with human sacrifice not masturbation. Read Genesis (although there are older references still) and it was a way to not kill your child and give an offering to God to appease him. All of this was ended in Christianity with Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice.
-
@eobox91103 said in American circumcision:
But the guy who was circumcised is not wrong. He had nothing to do with the decision, and he has a right to enjoy his sex life--and his penis--to the fullest. Telling him that he is defective and mutilated serves no purpose.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. The practice of genital mutilation in newborn babies is archaic and wrong. No matter how much you try to justify it.
There is a custom in the Philippines I believe in which circumcision is a rite of passage of sorts. Teenagers want to have this done. Fine! You are 10 years or older, you can consent to this.
But to do that to a new born is evil.
-
@vmalar said in American circumcision:
@eobox91103 said in American circumcision:
But the guy who was circumcised is not wrong. He had nothing to do with the decision, and he has a right to enjoy his sex life--and his penis--to the fullest. Telling him that he is defective and mutilated serves no purpose.
You are trying to put words in my mouth. The practice of genital mutilation in newborn babies is archaic and wrong. No matter how much you try to justify it.
There is a custom in the Philippines I believe in which circumcision is a rite of passage of sorts. Teenagers want to have this done. Fine! You are 10 years or older, you can consent to this.
But to do that to a new born is evil.
Circumcision for religious belief is not a reference solely to "Old Testament" Judaism (that would seem a very Christian-centric view!).
While is it a common practice among ALL of the Abrahamic religions, it is also a religious rite among many African tribal religions, it was practiced on-again, off-again in Ancient Egypt, as well as Hellenistic Greece.
In many of these societies, the circumcision was NOT performed on infants, but rather on pubescent males - as a rite of passage into manhood. It was (esp in Egypt) also done to slaves to inhibit sexual activity as well as prevent disease. It was considered a mark of a "real man" to "endure circumcision" stoically - with ancient writing containing "bragging" about not "hitting out, screaming out, or scratching".
The practice of performing the surgery on an infant is something new-ish (last 2-thousand years or so?) - and done primarily to bypass the intense pain caused to older boys & men. (In other words, "if you're going to do it anyway, do it to the infant so there is less - at least memorable - pain" - which doesn't sound so "evil" after all).
Alternately, in some ancient sects, it was ONLY done to the priests and/or wealthy - and it was both a "secret" (how to do it safely) and a sign of great power and/or wealth.
Also: Egyptian heiroglyphs, when they show penises, show them as either erect (when you can't really tell - at least not in an artist's rendering) or as circumcised. They are never depicted without clearly showing the glans, and therefore not as "uncircumcised".
But all that proves is that it is an ANCIENT practice - not that it isn't time to stop it!
I'm with you on the desire to stop it (in general, and in non-religious circles). Where I'm not with you is in the characterization of it as something that is vile and evil.
I agree that it is medically unnecessary in the VAST MAJORITY of cases, and while there are reports en-masse that both support and decry the practice, some 5000 years of the rite hasn't shown that much of a difference, in either sexual promiscuity or masturbation.
As for whether it makes your journey into heaven any easier, we'll have to wait to know that - on an individual basis.
But I'm not prepared to enforce my beliefs on others in this case. Why? Because it's got a 5,000-year history of being benign ... essentially "cosmetic"... I would prefer to convince others that it is both unnecessary and painful to the infant - that is: convince with facts and science; than to try to force my beliefs onto others. (ESPECIALLY lest they, later, try to force their beliefs on to me!)
There is a word to describe that.... ah! yes! I've heard it before!
FREEDOM!
Do I personally want to end the wide-scale practice of circumcision, yes!
Am I willing to call parents who choose to circumcise their male children EVIL because of the decision? Certainly not!
-
@bi4smooth In a way I get it: If you are a parent you are happy/ecstatic/scared all of that and more and some nurse comes along and asks you 'do you want to circumcise your child?'. And of course! You want the best for your child and it's payed by the healthcare insurance so why not? Yes! you say! I want what's best for my son!
There! In that simple arc of a story is where the parent is being EVIL. Did you catch it?
You invaded the personal freedom of a new person! The fact that you are his parent does not give you the right to invade/impose on his freedom. That's EVIL.
If later on the kid wants to do it. Great! More power to you!
-
OMG! Someone is being very dramatic on this topic.
Parents are EVIL just because they choose to circumsise their children? I don't think so...
And i don't think Hannah Arendt thoughts about Holocaust are the best to be used in this discussion. -
@vmalar said in American circumcision:
@bi4smooth In a way I get it: If you are a parent you are happy/ecstatic/scared all of that and more and some nurse comes along and asks you 'do you want to circumcise your child?'. And of course! You want the best for your child and it's payed by the healthcare insurance so why not? Yes! you say! I want what's best for my son!
There! In that simple arc of a story is where the parent is being EVIL. Did you catch it?
You invaded the personal freedom of a new person! The fact that you are his parent does not give you the right to invade/impose on his freedom. That's EVIL.
If later on the kid wants to do it. Great! More power to you!
You're obviously not a parent
What-if that child grows up to be a VEGAN and you've fed them MEAT and DAIRY all through their childhood!
EVIL!
What if you raise your child a "good Christian" and she turns Atheist at 14?
EVIL!
You can play what if-s all you want... if you, as a parent, are doing what you feel is best for your child, then you are decidedly NOT EVIL
And your self-righteous, judgemental soul can deal with it... and may your God have mercy on your soul!
