Circumcision ban a step closer to the ballot

[hava1]

CW. i am perfectly open to any discussion, but it seems that I stumbled into a skin heads club. So, I bow and leave ...

Circumcision is mandatory for observant jews (about 10 Million people) and to observant moslems (i'd say about 1 billion people), and to sizable number of christians for unknown reasons (not religious, I think, but maybe I'm wrong). I somehow feel the discussion is going to stray to places I will feel sorry for crediting the company with my presence (as if I validate by that, their right to spew stuff that otherwise may be considered hate speech).

To get facts straight - 1. the religious habit starts with the story of Abraham and his pact with god. 2. the old testament by no means allowed or tolerated ritual killings of humans. 3. female circumcision is not found in the bible. 4. i will not be convinced that circumcision is the root of all evil in the world, or that infant vaccination after birth (hepatititis B) is the reason for global warming.




Thanks for the info on early trauma.

[RocketMan]

CW. i am perfectly open to any discussion, but it seems that I stumbled into a skin heads club. So, I bow and leave ...

What?? You erected a whole bunch of straw men in your last post... pun intended.

[Canadian_watcher]

CW. i am perfectly open to any discussion, but it seems that I stumbled into a skin heads club. So, I bow and leave ...

What?? You erected a whole bunch of straw men in your last post... pun intended.

funny and accurate, rocketman.

And Opetero thought he listed all the taboo subjects in his self-sufficiency thread. I knew he was missing some.

Hava.. I didn't mean to offend and really didn't think I said anything too risqué.

edit: blatant spelling error fixed.

[Canadian_watcher]

Informal gym-shower-room data-gathering of mostly white Canadian boys born in the 60's revealed to me that the vast majority had been snipped. The ones who weren't, were born in Europe or the boondocks.

Circumcision was sold as part of responsibly parenting a new frontier, hygienic best-of-everything kid, I believe. A class distinction like braces on the teeth, colour TV, or a fridge with an icemaker.

I mean, Albert Goldman went so far as to write about Elvis that "he saw his beauty disfigured by an ugly hillbilly pecker" because he wasn't circumcised. That seemed to be the prevailing attitude back then.

yes, I think you're pretty right on regarding the reason it started and remains a tradition in North American culture. --Not so sure if that was the 'underlying' reason, but it was the sales pitch. I remember thinking as a young girl, "can't they just teach boys how to wash?" lol... seemed an extreme thing to do for the sake of what.. five seconds of shower time?

[justdrew]

as if the repression mechanism didn't get enough of a kick-start with birth trauma (to both parties), add this to the mix.

[brainpanhandler]

What are your thoughts Fruhmenschen?

[hava1]

The current view is, again according to my understanding, that female genital mutilation is a patriarchal institution whose intent is to control the ever-scary female sexuality whereas with males... what? Anyone?

pretty much the same. It is a rite which asserts the supremacy of the patriarch. It does inhibit sexual pleasure for both males and females. It symbolizes allegiance to God as the Bible and Torah make much of the sacrifice of sons and male body parts - particularly if the father is to sacrifice his son at the behest of the Almighty.

edit: I am not that familiar with the Qur'an but rumour has it there is more personal choice re circumcision within Islam.

[RocketMan]

We're not supposed to discuss religious myths? This is all so very passive-aggressive, hava.

[hava1]

my last comment on this, as I do not see a place for me to participate. The quote above is not a myth, its a fabrication of a myth, there's a diff.

Anyway, as I said, I will make sure to skip this thread from now on. enjoy your little party, coz it might change my position to support circumcision from now own, and THAT would be passive aggressive.

[Canadian_watcher]

You know, I can't catch a break these days.

Stand up for women, get vilified.
Stand up for male children, get vilified.

Maybe it's because I typed "Torah" and I'm not qualified to do so (eyeroll). Who knows. Who the fuck knows.

[Luther Blissett]

This may be TMI for RI, but I'm a member of the ultra-rare 30-something American male uncut minority, and if I were to ever have children I certainly would not have them circumsized. As far as I can see from my lifetime of experience, it is pretty pointless.

[hava1]

You know, I can't catch a break these days.

Stand up for women, get vilified.
Stand up for male children, get vilified.

Maybe it's because I typed "Torah" and I'm not qualified to do so (eyeroll). Who knows. Who the fuck knows.

I find that language pretty redundant, unless you want to inflame, which I might miss here, as I am not an English speaker, some of the nuance escapes me.

I'll break that to small bits =
Yes, torah is what you call "the old testament", Bible - the new testament.
Both of them do not mention, nor condone in any way the sacrifice of children or their body parts. You can of course point to sources, and prove that point.
The Torah/Bible (and Quran which affirms both of these docs as valid testaments), are the creation of the opposition to child sacrifice and to bodily maiming, which was the common religion of their respective era. I dont subscribe to a religion, but I try to stick to facts when opposing religious precepts, or else I serve their claims, that secular people are ignoramuses.

The TOrah and the Bible are one long menifesto against human sacrifice as ritual, and this was the main novelty. THou shall not kill is one of the commandments that all three religions propose as law.

As I said, since I miss a lot of innuendo with the more sophisticated writers here, who also tend to be caustic and rude, I beter leave this room, with no hard feelings.
Lastly, spinning facts, saying fuck etc., does not protect the rights of young male children, IMO, to the contrary.

In order to oppose circumcision as mandatory practice, one does not need to set the world on fire. Many people are with you on that issue, but would not like to wage a crusade and burn Jerusalem for "the cause".

You are entitled to use Torah, or any other word, I am far from being a decision maker here. But, associating "Torah-child sacrifice" in this context is a slippery slope.

In another thread, another day, I will gladly get into the problem of child abuse within the "jewish culture", which is far from being identical to "the torah". Oh that brings to memory the days of one poster here who called jews "talmud bankers", where is he btw ? ))

I also definitely agree there are interesting linkages bn "the torah" and the treatment of family, love, children and emotion, in general, as secondary to "clan loyalty" (or tribe loyalty). But that would have to be some other time. I am "the fuck" out of here...

[Canadian_watcher]

[WakeUpAndLive]

This wasn't a very nice post in response to someones opinion. I understand your tempers may be flaring but this is not the way to treat another being.

[Stephen Morgan]

I had a daughter, but had I had a boy child I would have fought NOT to have him circumsized. I say 'fought' because I'm pretty sure his father would have wanted to, and social pressure to conform would have been strong.

Glad to see that perhaps the social pressures are swinging the other way.

Never do anything that social pressures say. Within reason. That's the same thing that keeps female circumcision going in east Africa. The girls want to be like the other girls, the mothers want their children to be like them, the women who do the deed want to keep the tradition going, the local boys think that's how their wives ought to be and pretty much everyone thinks it's good for the girls themselves too. Health, hygiene, the same sort of ideas put forward to defend the practice of male circumcision today.

I'm personally indifferent regarding circumcision as I am most things that are and should be a personal choice - perhaps. If you want to change society, it's easier to pass a law than starting an advocacy organization and hoping for end results.

It's not a personal choice if it's done to a little kid soon after birth. That should be illegal. If they want to be circumcised in later life, it's their own funeral.

As I understand it, female genital mutilation is guaranteed to prevent sexual pleasure, or at least curb it to a very high degree and with males the effects are on a different scale. The current view is, again according to my understanding, that female genital mutilation is a patriarchal institution whose intent is to control the ever-scary female sexuality whereas with males... what? Anyone?

I don't think that's the conscious view held by those people involved in female circumcision. Also there are many types of female circumcision and while the more invasive would certainly heavily hinder sexual enjoyment, "reformers" have long been proselytising for "sunna" circumcision, which is the removal of the prepuce and as such analogous to male circumcision.

All in all, I find it very strange that some country, which isn't even predominantly Jewish, has a tradition of ANY KIND of circumcision/genital mutilation. I believe way over 50 % of US boys are circumcised? The whole concept is just... creepy.

The Jews have Rabbis, the Muslims have Mullahs (I think that's just Shi'ites, actually), Americans have doctors and lawyers. And sexual prudery. Circumcision came in the provide work for doctors and to discourage masturbation. Another reason the be glad of my foreskin. Busy-work was created for doctors in this country too, at the inception of the NHS surgeons didn't have enough to do, so they took to routinely removing appendices and tonsils, even with no reason. Random sexual mutilation of children never really took off, though. Of course NHS doctors just wanted to keep their hands in, they weren't getting a cut of the action. If you see what I mean.

sizable number of christians for unknown reasons (not religious, I think, but maybe I'm wrong)

The only group I'm aware of is the Ethiopian Copts, who have a number of bizarre practices which associate them closely with the Hebrews, such as their mock-up of the Ark of the Covenant in each of their churches. Presumably the pseudo-Jewish heritage is the source of their attachment to circumcision.

Of course the practice originates, according to Herodotus, with the Egyptians, and he saw it as proof of the Jews' origin in Egypt that they mutilated themselves in this way.

4. i will not be convinced that circumcision is the root of all evil in the world

It's just one of the many unique things about America. Of first world countries they're pretty much the only one without proper healthcare, they have the biggest wealth disparity, the most serial killers and also happen to mutilate their children. Cause and effect could work either way there.

Both of them do not mention, nor condone in any way the sacrifice of children or their body parts. You can of course point to sources, and prove that point.

Actually, the sacrifice of the body part was the bloodshed needed to seal the Old Covenant. David, I think it was, also offered the prepuces of the conquered Philistines up to god in celebration. The New Covenant, or Testament, simply replaces the circumcision with what Paul calls a "circumcision of the spirit".