MERGED-->First Circumcision, Now Breast Ironing + Circumcision... - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-12-2006, 12:03 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by The Tonic

There's no outcry because the vast majority of men have no idea what they're missing. They're completely uninformed on how a penis is supposed to function naturally, and they're completely ignorant as to what sex with and without an uncircumcised penis feels like, never having had the chance to try both.

Also, they're not given a choice. It's not presented to you as something you even get to decide. So it never even broaches consciousness in most men. Make it an option on the child's 18th birthday and see how many men go for it.

As for scientific evidence that circumcision hinders sexual gratification - why not supply me with some evidence that it doesn't?

There's been mention of the fact that circumcision in the Jewish tradition is a mark of Abraham's covenant. How can an infant make a covenant? It's completely meaningless as a religious gesture. Why not let the person choose to get circumcised as an adult, as Abraham did, as a proof of faith? The minutiae of this ceremony have evolved over time anyway, as seen by the fact that rarely does the mohel perform a circumcision using a lengthened fingernail, or suck blood from the penile incision into his mouth, as they traditionally did.

I don't think that babies should get their ears pierced, but neither do I feel this is an apt analogy. Yes, I'm getting defensive. Yes, I have very strong emotions on this subject. Why? Because I carry on my body (and not just my earlobes, which truly ARE useless as evidenced by the fact that lots of people are born without them) the scars of an operation done without my consent, which hinders my sex life to this day. And because I know the motivation behind this act, however it was justified, is actually Puritanical, sexphobic ignorance. And every time I look at the scars on my genitals, and face sexual dysfunction, I'm reminded of how our entire society is just blindly repeating the same errors made by the generation before, and the generation before that, and the one before that. Apply a little rationality to circumcision and the problem evaporates. But a little rationality is too much to expect from the human race.

This makes me disappointed at my parents and in my own body on a micro level, and cynical about the future entire human race on a macro level. My genitals were mutilated as an infant in a senseless oppressive religious rite, and you expect me NOT to be emotional?
Tonic, this is what I was trying to get at. Thank you for explaining. I am very sorry for what has happened to you and I didn't in any way mean to be insensitive to that. I hope you didn't understand my question about emotion as suggesting that one SHOULDN'T have strong emotional feelings about this. I just wanted to know what they were because I could tell that was what was really driving the argument, giving it the stridency.

I guess I'm one of those ignorant guys you describe who don't know what their missing. I've been fortunate to not have experienced the limited sexual function you've had to deal with (at least as far as I know. Without getting all graphic on everyone, everything seems to be in VERY good working order) so I guess I never worried about it. Also, I always felt like I looked "normal" and not the other way around, though I have to confess I haven't exactly seen a ton of penises in my lifetime. But I never felt scarred or mutilated. Which is in no way to diminish what you've experienced or felt.

We've just had very different experiences with the fact of being circumcised and that is what informs our passion (or lack therof)on this topic.

You make a very compelling case though, and I know I'll certainly think twice--if and when I have a son-- before having my son circumcised where I maybe wouldn't have before.

As for the religious aspect, most Christians (that's my faith) don't demand circumcision so that's not an issue for us. As for those of the Jewish faith, they'd have to speak on that since I'm not qualified to do so. I think it's important to point out, as Melon did, that for most non-Jewish people this is not a religious issue, but one of habit, tradition and, perhaps, misinformation.
__________________

__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-12-2006, 12:43 AM   #47
Babyface
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 16
Local Time: 11:48 PM
I took nothing you said as an implication that I shouldn't be passionate, don't worry. :^) I appreciate your understanding as I know I'm being a little abrasive; I find it extremely hard to compromise on this subject.

I took a look at the wikipedia entry, and I think it's important to point out that one of the most common "penile problems" solved by "medically necessitated circumcision" is phimosis, a condition where the opening of the foreskin is too small to allow it to retract completely. Naturally, this would lead to pain during intercourse, and reduced sensitivity. A similar problem, paraphimosis, results when the foreskin can't be brought back over the glans. Most people probably would find relief and improved sexual function from circumcision in these cases, but it's worth noting that there are alternatives in some cases, surgical and otherwise, and that their reactions to circumcision are almost certainly atypical compared to adults generally. They don't seem to cross-reference results of men who were circumcised for medical reasons with the results of men who volunteered their normally functioning penises for circumcision.
__________________

__________________
The Tonic is offline  
Old 07-14-2006, 11:34 PM   #48
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


The "slash-and-burn" circumcision techniques that we use today originated from 19th century American Protestants who were obsessed with masturbation. They were so obsessed with it that they believed that removing the foreskin completely would prevent children from doing it. Prior to the 19th century, "circumcision," even in Biblical times, referred to removing only a small portion of the end of the foreskin, so as to have a small portion of the tip exposed.

It was their idea from the start to have less sensitivity, and, yes, it was about hatred of male sexuality. If adults wish to be circumcised, then so be it. But I do not think it would be ethical to give tattoos to infants, so I don't see what is ethical about mutilating infants' penises without their consent.

Melon
Agree strongly with the good fortune of living in a country without as much mad protestantism.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-17-2006, 08:17 AM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,998
Local Time: 06:48 PM
http://metimes.com/articles/normal.p...7-043553-6607r

BANGALORE, India -- On the streets of this booming Indian city, Laura Neuhaus says that she is constantly on guard against men who brush against her body.

"People run up and grab my butt, my breast and brush against me purposely," Neuhaus says. "It happens so fast."

"I will be walking with my boyfriends and it makes no difference. After that I go through post-traumatic stress. You are so angry and humiliated," she says. "There is no one to talk to."

To help stop the practice, the 23-year-old technology executive from the United States joined Blank Noise - a group that fights "Eve teasing," a euphemism in India for the sexual harassment or molestation of women.

....In India's male-dominated society, 16 cases of various types of violence against women are reported every hour, according to the National Crime Records Bureau. More than 18,000 rape cases are reported against women every year.

Some 8,800 women are killed in India every year in dowry disputes, the bureau reported.

India is currently mulling laws to combat sexual harassment.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 05:21 PM   #50
War Child
 
Devlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 922
Local Time: 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
While circumcision might be a "silly custom" in the U.S., I don't think it can be compared to the genital mutilation and breast ironing, because I believe these practices are rooted in misogynistic thinking. These practices are about the hatred of women, and the fear and suppression of female sexuality.

Male circumcision is not about fear and hatred of men or male sexuality or the penis, right? I mean, is it really that big deal? Isn't it not much different from getting piercing or a tattoo--something that means something to the people who do it, but is essentially harmless.

As to reduced sexual function, to be honest, I hadn't noticed. But who knows, maybe I'd be on the "Who got lucky thread" two and three times a day if my parents had made a different decision. Dang those parents!!!
Dude - I hate to break it to you, but removing part of the penis (the foreskin) does mutilate the penis. Not to the extent of FGM, but yes, it's mutilation and completely unneccesary for the most part. Rarely will a male need, medically, to have his foreskin removed. It takes extra time to wash, I'm sure, but most guys could do with an extra five minutes in the shower!:P
__________________
Devlin is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 05:28 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Devlin


Dude - I hate to break it to you, but removing part of the penis (the foreskin) does mutilate the penis. Not to the extent of FGM, but yes, it's mutilation and completely unneccesary for the most part. Rarely will a male need, medically, to have his foreskin removed. It takes extra time to wash, I'm sure, but most guys could do with an extra five minutes in the shower!:P
Actually, it's already been broken to me, thanks.

I wasn't arguing for it's necessity nor whether it is "in fact" mutiliation.

I was simply saying that, for ME, it's not a big deal. I'm not going to mourn my foreskin-less state nor waste time wondering what has been missing from my quite satisfying sex life.

I had asked the question about why people were so worked about the issue of male circumcision. The Tonic answered that question quite well, and that's that.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 07-30-2006, 10:55 AM   #52
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 11:48 PM
Male circumcision was very much the norm when I was growing up, but I believe the ratio is now closer to 50/50 as far as hospital reports go. None of my nephews were circumcised, I believe all of their fathers were. A change in the prevalence of the practice is unmistakable here in the U.S.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-30-2006, 11:02 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 09:48 AM
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com