Circumcision

[Yourbaker]

I take a very different view on this old religious practice.

The infant can't be given any kind of pain suppressing agents so the papercut to the penis foreskin is felt at full volume by a new person with little to zero life experience.

This moment will not be remembered in conscious memory only because the mechanism for building memory hasn't been constructed. Unconsciously this moment will cause our animal instinct to build both psychological and physical reactions to future interactions using our penis.

For most people this is nothing at all. They simply have no memory and don't give it a second thought. For some, we live with a tiny terror focused on our genitals and a fear we often reassociate with wrong behavior.

A child traumatized by circumcision as an infant will have a psychological predisposition to believe touching themselves is bad or even sex in general is somehow wrong because there is this resounding unconscious memory associated with the penis and pain.

I would hazard a guess that circumcised males in general have more sexual issues vs natural men, but that would only encourage yelling.

 

[Fiori di Bella]

These days, most mohels, rabbis and cantors utilize a Mogen clamp and I don’t know what % of them are performing a freehand bris anymore.
I myself have performed 4-5 circumcisions utilizing a clamp, both Mogen and Gomco Bell types, but I’ve never done a freehand circumcision.

 

[Flynnal]

I would hazard a guess that circumcised males in general have more sexual issues vs natural men, but that would only encourage yelling.

No one can empirically prove that...but there are still plenty out there who do suffer from problems relating to their circumcision, but I'm told it's still relatively rare. I think most people are happy with their circumcision status because they can't change it, some are happy and don't care about it, but many have no choice but to be happy about it, which frankly is quite sad.

I myself have performed 4-5 circumcisions utilizing a clamp, both Mogen and Gomco Bell types, but I’ve never done a freehand circumcision.

So with your experience, the anesthetics used are sufficient enough to prevent any real pain? The footage I saw had me curled up into a ball crying. It really was absolutely utterly brutal.

Also, in this massively pro-choice society (at least when it comes to abortion, not so much when it comes to drugs or voluntary euthanasia - which might really be the root of the problem here - inconsistently applied logic and rhetoric), I find it hard to believe that anyone would volunteer to do this to an infant these days especially if they themselves are pro-choice! 30 or 40 years ago, maybe, but hopefully society is slowly but surely moving forward and we can abandon this practice for the most part, ideally 99% of it. It's one thing to believe in bodily autonomy, it's another thing to respect this principle in practice, as I've known a lot of people who would contradict themselves.

There are plenty of people who are staunchly pro-choice when it comes to abortion but would have no problems with locking up a drug addict, so I guess, for these individuals, forcefully cutting the genitals of an infant wouldn't really be too much of a leap away from that point, in fact it would be pretty close if you want my honest opinion.

When I see these examples of hypocrisy, what I am really seeing is a symptom of a profoundly sick society. Honestly, there is no denying it at this point.

No offense intended, just trying to put everything out here so that people can really, really understand the way I think. I am high-functioning autism and explaining logic is one of my greatest strengths. If someone can understand what I am trying to say, I'd most appreciate their feedback.

 

[Flynnal]

And I see the topic of abortion rearing its ugly head here. I'm not sure I see the similarity (actually I'm pretty sure I don't). But then again: it too is something I have no issue with at all (go figure). How do YOU feel about abortion if I may be so bold as to ask? (I'm guessing I'm going to live to regret asking this question! Lol!).

No real issues with it. I will admit it does break my heart and I would never be able to bring myself to have one if I were a woman, but I wouldn't dare cast judgements on another woman, that's for sure. I'm somewhere between pro-life and pro-choice. I could never force my own view on another person's body especially without their consent.

Now isn't this what my opposition to circumcision is about - choice? The right to bodily autonomy? I cannot see how forcibly cutting the genitals of a defenseless child can be anything other than a gross contradiction to supporting a woman's right to choose - these two things are on opposite ends of the universe, yet we have so many people who seem to accept both. Why, God, why? It really makes absolutely no sense. I feel no one, absolutely no one, has any right to cut a child's most intimate body parts for non-medical reason, EVER.

And back on the topic: would it make you feel better if circumcision (let's say under a certain age unless for valid medical reasons) was legislated against (assuming of course you'd somehow not start a cultural and religious war in the process)?

I would sleep better at night, knowing that children are not having their most intimate body parts needlessly violated and that children would finally have the rights that they desperately need - the right to genital integrity which is a basic, a MOST basic human right. As for cultural and religious wars, I wonder if it would be OK to allow Sharia Law into Australia? Of course not. It would be wrong, because we are a civilised society. Civilised, civilised, civilised. That key word - civilised.

 

[Flynnal]

Only reason I asked about abortion really is because it's come up before (not here in particular) and it's hampered stem cell research which, arguably, could be the greatest of all scientific research and endeavors (well: other than that new machine now that can make pharmaceuticals by simply feeding it the chemical formula! Lol!).

How would abortion hamper stem-cell research? One would think that with a steady supply of embryos and fetuses, that there would be plenty of source material with which to study the cellular structures.

If these embryos/fetuses can be used to help produce stem cell lines and cure things like blindness, deafness, paralysis, and other serious diseases, then the legitimization of abortion would essentially kill two birds with one stone.

There's another funny thing I found out not so long ago - they use infant foreskins to create skin cell cultures. However, without the infant's consent, that is, which is of course entirely wrong and immoral. A single skin sample can go for as much as $3000-4000. Taking skin from someone WITH their consent is fine, but if it's taken without their consent, well, that's a problem.

 

[Yourbaker]

@Flynnal its hard to understand how people can blind themselves to common sense but as you can read here, in this thread, a lot of people do it.

It seems to me that anything that has been ok for years, despite what the action is, people just blindly continue to do. Some even defend their position because They haven't developed the ability to view life from any view other then the one taught to them. You can't argue with them because they can't really hear you, they only hear their own voice developing an argument against common sense and reality.

Circumcision should have been banned generations ago just like tattooing babies. But those that can't think for themselves will cling to the ideas that people who died hundreds of years ago came up with, so why bother understanding When you can blindly continue despite harm to others.

You cant teach a man or woman who knows everything already.

 

[Flynnal]

Circumcision should have been banned generations ago just like tattooing babies. But those that can't think for themselves will cling to the ideas that people who dies hundreds of years ago knew better then they could, so why bother understanding When you can blindly continue despite harm to others.

It's even more disturbing when you see people who identify themselves as pro-choice then turn around and defend this abhorrent practice. It makes you wonder if they are REALLY pro-choice. I guess not, because being pro-choice means supporting the right to an abortion which means the right to control your OWN body. Yet they want to turn around and control someone else's body!!!

To be honest, I'm pretty much done with this thread. I am more than happy to keep replying, but I have "combat fatigue" from trying to get my point across - especially to women, I mean for God's sake, you would think they should know better - but I guess they don't and I find that disturbing to the point of distress.

 

[morpher001]

Imagine taking a scalpel to the fingers or toes of an infant, cutting through a ring of their flesh, then peeling it off the skin.

Most would surely agree - to do so would be insane. Horrifying. Monstrous.

Most would likely conclude that their might be some deep seated, lifelong trauma as a result.

I think with circumcision, its so upsetting to peoples subconscious minds that the airbags deploy and without a conscious knowing, they mask it with denial. To anyone not experiencing that denial, the confabulated justifications people make to sustain their denial, will seem so absurd that it can disrupt everything from their sense of reality to their faith in humanity.

 

[Flynnal]

I think with circumcision, its so upsetting to peoples subconscious minds that the airbags deploy and without a conscious knowing, they mask it with denial. To anyone not experiencing that denial, the confabulated justifications people make to sustain their denial, will seem so absurd that it can disrupt everything from their sense of reality to their faith in humanity.

It is so horrific that people instantly go into denial. It's a psychological defense mechanism to prevent them from having to deal with extremely distressing emotions - especially when such emotions could result in someone being seriously injured or killed (i.e.. assault, murder, and other violent crimes). People who are not able to go into denial either break down into profound grief, some go into depression, some even try to take their own lives (as I did in 2014 but failed, sadly some have succeeded to that end), or they lash out and attack and enact violence (or at least threaten to) against those who are involved in this cruelty to children.

Robbing a child of the most sensitive part of their genitals is atrocious and should never be tolerated in any society that claims to be civilized.

And then we have stuff like this:

Jewish faith leads doctor to perform operations

Jonathan Goldstein and Jennifer Schiller were nervous, but they handed their 8-day-old son to Sara Imershein anyway.

www.columbian.com

Which makes me question the whole pro-choice movement...if they are consistent with bodily autonomy, why would they mutilate a child? Or is because these two things are, in fact, nothing more than twin acts of violence against a defenseless child - one in utero and one outside of utero? It seems to me that with that doctor, she says it's "empowering".

Honest to dear God, who is being empowered by this? Her strapping a little boy down and attacking his virgin body? Her sucking an unborn child out of a pregnant woman's uterus? How is that empowering? I don't see it. Articles like this almost make me want to abandon the pro-choice movement altogether, because I am sure that this isn't isolated to this doctor. Doctors who do both of these things, they are essentially contradicting themselves if they believe in bodily autonomy - and I bet there are countless others just like her who are doing the same things, and then wondering why people hate on them. It is little wonder.

And let's not even start on the war on drugs - that is yet another area where I begin to wonder what the term "bodily autonomy" and "pro-choice" actually really means. I am sure sending someone to prison over a substance they are intending to put into their body is just so far from "pro-choice" that it beggars belief.

And then there's the right to die peacefully that is being denied to us. I can't even legally kill myself peacefully because I don't even want to live in a world like this. I mean...for God sake...where does this end?

TL;DR:- Our society is no where near as pro-choice or in favor of bodily autonomy as people might think. Believe me, it is not even close.

 

[Zephyn]

Its a sick ritual. Sometimes the priest even drinks the blood that is produced from the circumcision. Seriously! That actually happens. Coming from an athiest family, I can't believe I was circumcised and I am super upset that it happened. 90% of my pleasure nerves gone, ill never know what sex was supposed to feel like. Ffs.


To the OP: "god" as it were is much bigger than any single religion or book can say, and can take any form. Ive found existence itself to be intelligent and conscious. Forget their dogma, find your own spiritual connection to the universe.

 

[morpher001]

Which makes me question the whole pro-choice movement...if they are consistent with bodily autonomy, why would they mutilate a child? Or is because these two things are, in fact, nothing more than twin acts of violence against a defenseless child - one in utero and one outside of utero? It seems to me that with that doctor, she says it's "empowering".

Language games. Its not a pro-choice movement, its an anti-consequence movement.

Nor is it about body autonomy. Its not their own body that dies.

 

[Flynnal]

Language games. Its not a pro-choice movement, its an anti-consequence movement.

I never actually thought of it that way. That's an interesting take. I am of the belief that it's a population control movement rather than a sexual liberation movement.

Nor is it about body autonomy. Its not their own body that dies.

This argument is very fitting. Otherwise, why are people still going to prison over minor drug offenses? Why is voluntary euthanasia still illegal in most jurisdictions and cancer patients are forced to die an agonizing death? And once again, there's infant circumcision - and infant circumcision is the one thing that makes me really question the argument of bodily autonomy as it is used to justify the legality of abortion.

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

I'ts a barbaric, ancient, superstitious practice in my opinion.
And dudes who says it's cleaner, shit you ever heard of showering?!

 

[Xorkoth]

I'm circumcised, but the cleaner argument seems pretty forced to me, since, after all, showering is something one should be doing regardless of the state of one's foreskin.

 

[Foreigner]

Yeah... my bf is uncircumcised, and sometimes he doesn't smell great. It takes him like 30 seconds to wash and then it's fine. This is the 21st fucking century. We have had basic sanitation for over 100 years now.

I just object to calling circumcised guys mutilated, not "in tact", violated, or other demeaning language. I understand the intent... to protect innocent babies, but you're also casting that language at grown men who can't change what happened to them. Being in a relationship with an uncut guy, I see how I am disadvantaged. He can get off so easily, without lube or anything. His dick has more components to work with than mine.

But I am trying not to let it get to me because I have a great deal of sexual pleasure too.

 

[TripSitterNZ]

they forced it on americans by the elite cabal who use foreskins to feed moloch at bohemian grove. its barabic and a cultish thing done since the anicent types to feed pagon gods in the torah

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

Yeah... my bf is uncircumcised, and sometimes he doesn't smell great. It takes him like 30 seconds to wash and then it's fine. This is the 21st fucking century. We have had basic sanitation for over 100 years now.

I just object to calling circumcised guys mutilated, not "in tact", violated, or other demeaning language. I understand the intent... to protect innocent babies, but you're also casting that language at grown men who can't change what happened to them. Being in a relationship with an uncut guy, I see how I am disadvantaged. He can get off so easily, without lube or anything. His dick has more components to work with than mine.

But I am trying not to let it get to me because I have a great deal of sexual pleasure too.

But... it is a form of mutilation? I mean, the foreskin is dense with nerve-endings.
We call it mutilation when certain circumsions are made on females, always, but not on men?

Why call a zebra a horse?

 

[Foreigner]

But... it is a form of mutilation? I mean, the foreskin is dense with nerve-endings.
We call it mutilation when certain circumsions are made on females, always, but not on men?

Why call a zebra a horse?

This point was already addressed.

Female "circumcision" involves removal of the clitoris. The equivalent would be removal of the glans penis. They're not the same thing.

Male circumcision is a medical procedure, whether cosmetic or medically necessary. It's medically sanctioned. It's NOT mutilation. Some men need to have it done due to phimosis or other concerns. Are you going to tell them they're mutilated too?

Nowhere in the world but backward societies in Africa sanction female circumcision, and it's done when girls have their first period, and against their will. It's basically rape.

My dick was not mutilated. Stop referring to it as such.

 

[tubgirl.jpg]

This point was already addressed.

Female "circumcision" involves removal of the clitoris. The equivalent would be removal of the glans penis. They're not the same thing.

Male circumcision is a medical procedure, whether cosmetic or medically necessary. It's medically sanctioned. It's NOT mutilation. Some men need to have it done due to phimosis or other concerns. Are you going to tell them they're mutilated too?

Nowhere in the world but backward societies in Africa sanction female circumcision, and it's done when girls have their first period, and against their will. It's basically rape.

My dick was not mutilated. Stop referring to it as such.

Sometimes it involves the clitoris, yes. But that's definately not a requirement.
It is clearly described, again and again, as "...the partial or total removal of external female genitalia...", I mean google it.
I does not have to include the clitoris. I studied this shit as a big part of my courses were in Human Rights, where this is extensively covered.

Look, just because it is sanctioned by religion doesn't change it's very definition, does it?
I didn't mean to offend you, but for someone who is not religious, it's nothing but that;
I'm simply saying had people started doing this 100 years ago, without the involvement of a deity, what do you think it would be called?
Cosmetic surgery? SERIOUSLY?

I'm not saying the damage it causes is the same, but as both are carried out against someone who's got nothing to say on the matter,
I can find no other word; maybe desecration.
If one decides as an adult/ teenager to remove it, then I'd call it cosmetic or medical if there's a reason supporting that.

I had to fix, not remove though, my own fucking foreskin at 13 because it was to tight. That was a medical necessity.
If you'd like to call that mutilation, I'm cool with that - actually, I don't give a fuck whether people say I'm mutilated or not.
It doesn't change a single thing for me.

I just can't wrap my head around how doing it on a baby without knowing if its medically necessary, doing it just because it's a tradition rooted in religion
as anything else than a violation of the human body.

I'm really not trying to offend or be condescending.

I'll shut my trap; I wasn't looking to offend you personally, and didn't think you take it so personally on how I percieve a global phenomenon?
I obviously did though, and I'm sorry - I've had this discussion with my friends in high school and friends I've my later in life, most of them were circumcisied as infants, and none objected to my arguments; no one took it as a personal assault.

 

[Gormur]

circumcsicion is a barbaric outdated 2000 year + old practice. Im still dumb founded why americans practice suck a vile thing. Probably the NWO cabal telling the feeble sheep as its a old practice for those 2000 year old + cults who invented the practice to then eat the foreskins and sacrifice lambs.

It was initially done for cleanliness and to display the vitality of newborns, well and Abraham did it to himself; the first Jew. It wasn't tribal as every tribe did it and continue to do so. I'm just making it clear, this has nothing to do with sacrifice in Judaism. It's about being clean before Hashem