Circumcision

[Foreigner]

Circumsision was done en masse because it was implemented by hospitals as the standard thing to do for mainly fashion reasons and also hygiene reasons.

It was NORMAL. As womens rights and flexibility of options and healthcare available got better, parents felt they had more say in refusing circumsision.

Yes... my mother told me that when I was born it was very routine and nobody thought anything of it. It was a tad bit more progressive in the sense that they still had to get the parents' permission but both my parents just gave it because they trusted the doctors and the doctors said it was very routine.... like how they also removed tonsils a lot and now they don't.

Currently in Canada, circumcision is no longer covered by public health care. If you want it done to your baby boy you have to pay for it and specifically request it.

 

[kinkyjohn]

I have to say as somebody who had no medical choice but to get a circumcision at the age of ~30 I don't rate it as a standard procedure and though it did fix my problem (thank god .. it doesn't always) I did miss what was cut off. My specific problem is usually referred to as BXO in men (or lichen sclerosis in women) .. and is quite rare although presumably that is because of the routine nature of circumcision and the complete lack of social acceptability to talk in detail about the functionality of male or female genitalia. I didn't even realise mine wasn't functional until I'd had more than one partner .. and they didn't realise either. Eventually I tore the **** out of my taylor's ridge band and frenulum during a rather energetic MDMA session and worked the rest out from the there.

Because of my experiences I probably know more about how your genitals function than you do (man or woman .. as the women's support group was active and more willing to talk) which in my opinion is what's really wrong here. Talking about and understanding it is a better solution than cutting it off 99 times out of 100.

I'm a dream at dinner parties of course ...

 

[herbavore]

I'm a dream at dinner parties of course ...

Haha!

 

[zephyr]

My point is that in the genersations of time where it was a routine thing after the birth of a boy and the parents werent even asked if they wanted it done, parents were not mutilating their sons. It was stock standard procedure. Australia copied the ways of the British and impirted UK specialists as we had none.

Thats why it was prevalent here.

 

[Xorkoth]

Theology isn't nice. It's brutal. It set out to define all the wood planks that make up the foundation of the world and wrote them as Eternal Laws voiced by God Himself. Even if you 'studied the problem' you would still be left inside the structure of the house. The only difference is Theology (which I would argue is the first true empirical scientist literature) doesn't make up complicated answers involving God knows what nonsense, DNA, RNA, etc. Instead they just dictate laws as they see them and let you study the text for dialectical purposes.

In what way is theology empirical? The difference between studying a problem to gain insights about it and relying on what someone tells you to believe is tremendous. Sure, we will probably never get to the bottom of what this existence is, but at least by studying it, we have a basis for understanding reality that is flexible, able to evolve, and comes from something usable. I mean you imply that DNA is preposterous, but using what we've learned about it, we've made tremendous advances in medicine and our understanding of things that are able to be used in measurable and reliable ways. I'm quite sure we don't have the whole picture, but we clearly understand something because we are able to produce replicable results with that knowledge. Without science and the process of questioning doctrine, we would still be dying at 35 if we were lucky enough not to die of a plethora of now-curable diseases, and we wouldn't be able to be having this conversation with each other right now.

Some people treat science the same way religious people treat theological dogma, but real scientists are basing their results on what is demonstrably true, and do not claim to have all the answers or have the full picture. But to compare science and theology as being equally empirical is absurd.

 

[Foreigner]

In what way is theology empirical?

It's based on verifiable experience and observation, just like anything else. Science uses deductive reasoning through material reductionism, which is one branch of empiricism. There are spiritual and theological systems which can help a person generate the same experiences through tried and tested methods. At its core, without the politics and power games, that's all religion really is. If someone is seeking truth, divine contact, inner contact - whatever you want to call it - there are many spiritual systems out there with sufficient levels of experiential refinement that people awaken to truth through using them.

Scientifically minded people get triggered by these words and claim ownership of them, but science doesn't own empiricism. Empiricism is, fundamentally, experiential. How the experience gets qualified and verified is where the subsets come in.

 

[swilow]

Foreigner, I would disagree that theology has (or can be) verified experientially. How would you measure, for example, the efficacy of a spiritual practice? For one thing, there is often no clear aim for such practices and so its difficult to measure how succesful they are beyond relying totally on the subjective accounts of individual practitioners.

What sensory experience could ever confirm something like the holy trinity?

On the other hand, I believe Buddhist meditation techniques have a degree of experiential verification but counter to that, Buddhist ideas of reincarnation (ie. the theological aspects) have no empirical basis.

 

[Foreigner]

How would you measure, for example, the efficacy of a spiritual practice?

Its ability to alleviate suffering in a permanent way, the feeling of truth that is evoked. There are different faculties. And what is efficacious looks different for different people. It's up to you to decide that.

For one thing, there is often no clear aim for such practices

Yes there is. Most people seeking spirituality and religion are looking for comfort at the very least, and truth at the very most. Just like in anything else where people seek meaning.

and so its difficult to measure how succesful they are beyond relying totally on the subjective accounts of individual practitioners.

Measuring success is materialistic and what success looks like is completely arbitrary. I for one am not into spirituality because I want to be successful at something. For me there is no goal.

What sensory experience could ever confirm something like the holy trinity?

I don't know as I don't work with the holy trinity. Maybe someone else with more experience could tell you.

On the other hand, I believe Buddhist meditation techniques have a degree of experiential verification but counter to that, Buddhist ideas of reincarnation (ie. the theological aspects) have no empirical basis.

Buddhism is a great example of the refinement of experiential knowledge into systems to help people arrive at the same experiences. But again you use the world empirical with a sense of proprietorship. All empirical means is that it's an experience that can be repeated. If I can teach you to have the same experience that I just had with Buddhism through some means, then something empirical is happening.

You're using empirical in the scientific sense when scientific empiricism is irrelevant to ontology. Do you understand? There is ontological empiricism, mainly through inductive reasoning, that is completely different from scientific deduction.

 

[swilow]

Its ability to alleviate suffering in a permanent way, the feeling of truth that is evoked. There are different faculties. And what is efficacious looks different for different people. It's up to you to decide that.



Yes there is. Most people seeking spirituality and religion are looking for comfort at the very least, and truth at the very most. Just like in anything else where people seek meaning.



Measuring success is materialistic and what success looks like is completely arbitrary. I for one am not into spirituality because I want to be successful at something. For me there is no goal.

So you could measure the 'success' (or usefulness if you prefer) of a spiritual practise by measuring what level of "comfort" it provides, or how well it "alleviates suffering". These things, to my mind, cannot be empiricially determined in any degree beyond the 'opinion' level. But, of course, the subjective accounts of practitioners should not be disregarded, but some of these accounts are going to be telling us that spiritual practise is not beneficial. Or we will find different people deriving different benefits from the same practise.

Buddhism is a great example of the refinement of experiential knowledge into systems to help people arrive at the same experiences. But again you use the world empirical with a sense of proprietorship. All empirical means is that it's an experience that can be repeated. If I can teach you to have the same experience that I just had with Buddhism through some means, then something empirical is happening.

Hmm, I don't know. I understand empirical to mean 'determined experientially through the senses'.

You're using empirical in the scientific sense when scientific empiricism is irrelevant to ontology. Do you understand? There is ontological empiricism, mainly through inductive reasoning, that is completely different from scientific deduction.

I'll have to do some more reading I think

I just don't think that scientific knowledge and theological knowledge are the same thing. Ontological empiricism relies too much on subjective self-assessment of reality to be considered reliable to my mind.

Anyway, I'm deviating further from the topic- back to genital amputation or whatever hyperbolic mantra its referred to as this week.

 

[Foreigner]

I just don't think that scientific knowledge and theological knowledge are the same thing. Ontological empiricism relies too much on subjective self-assessment of reality to be considered reliable to my mind.

Totally valid... a lot of people feel this way. For myself I use a mix.

 

[Nixiam]

For me, chopping away at my genitals is a bit too close for comfort. Definitely wouldn't have it happen to my kids, or to me.


.-. my father disagreed RIP 20,000 nerve endings.

 

[Ragnarok-isinsight]

Some people previously had mentioned that Female circumcision is on the same level a male circumcision, youre just cutting off the 'bit' which makes either gender feel pleasure, but this isn't true. Cutting off some of the foreskin on a penis is entirely different then chunking out the entire clitoris, virtually making any or all pleasure no existent, OR the vagina is completely sewn up as well as chunking out the clit to prevent any sexual intercourse, then the vagina is cut back open so the woman can bear children.

It's alot different then trimming a bit of skin off.

 

[Nixiam]

Sure.



Still just doesn't make sense though. People make the cleanliness argument, but just clean it?

Female circumcision is true mutilation and anyone who decides to perform that operation should have their's removed as well. Yeah. Big statement.

Fuck.

 

[kinkyjohn]

Some people previously had mentioned that Female circumcision is on the same level a male circumcision, youre just cutting off the 'bit' which makes either gender feel pleasure, but this isn't true. Cutting off some of the foreskin on a penis is entirely different then chunking out the entire clitoris, virtually making any or all pleasure no existent, OR the vagina is completely sewn up as well as chunking out the clit to prevent any sexual intercourse, then the vagina is cut back open so the woman can bear children.

It's alot different then trimming a bit of skin off.

I'm not 100% sure that's what is usually (or always) meant by female circumcision but if you call it female genital mutilation then I would certainly agree and that is utterly barbaric and always makes the news as it's good sensationalist copy and well .. it is barbaric and people do do it. It is a big issue .. and it is definitely something that humans would be better off without though I'm not sure the local cultures will just accept that and until the norm changes you'll undoubtedly find many women who would hate being unmutilated - as you don't miss what you never had and nobody else you know has .. but you dislike or distrust the freak that does! I guess it's like drug use .. you might not want it around but your probably not better off with it underground so yes ... it will always be complex and barbaric (like humans) and .. yes it's at best very weakly related to male circumcision. That's probably why it tends to get referred to as mutilation.

I can however imagine female circumcision (as opposed to mutilation) that involved just removing parts of the clitoral hood (which would reduce but not kill sensation), and parts of the labia minora even if only to continue a mutilation tradition and make it less unnecessarily brutal. A quick look didn't turn up much but it would hardly rate a world health organisation campaign and it's less likely to exist because as far as I'm aware it does have fewer likely benefits compared to circumcision for the tiny number of cases where something is wrong (without 1st world medical care .. that's obviously a big deal). If I was trying to eradicate female genital mutilation I'd definitely consider it as a valid way of changing norms in highly resistant and inaccessible cultures .. well at least after consulting with a load of gynaecologists and locals and not getting anywhere with alternatives. I've known of women who (for medical reasons) have had this done and it makes me uncomfortable just like my own (adult) circumcision for medical reasons but they do both seem very similar to me. Not much of a guide to doing it to children but definitely worth thinking about when trying to understand both sides.

Even such lower level mutilation of men or women doesn't really seem particularly acceptable to me at least as a routine thing to do, but I can only see female genital mutilation as justifying messing with other peoples business in trying to alter peoples cultures in ways that will seem aggressive to them and will very likely be counterproductive in a way that has to be paid for or is very hard to negotiate around at some point.

Hmm .. I have a nasty feeling like I've just been a grammar nazi or thrown a hand grenade (or worse .. both!) so maybe I should just shut up - but this one does have personal meaning to me.

 

[alpha_centauri]

Some people previously had mentioned that Female circumcision is on the same level a male circumcision, youre just cutting off the 'bit' which makes either gender feel pleasure, but this isn't true. Cutting off some of the foreskin on a penis is entirely different then chunking out the entire clitoris, virtually making any or all pleasure no existent, OR the vagina is completely sewn up as well as chunking out the clit to prevent any sexual intercourse, then the vagina is cut back open so the woman can bear children.

It's alot different then trimming a bit of skin off.

Actually, male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation (AKA female circumcision), are done for the exact same reasons either excuses of hygene, religion, or cultural reason and both mutilate the genitals and are involuntary.

1. They are both practised on non-consenting children,
2. They both involve cutting, mutilating, and damaging the child's genitals,
3. they both take place because of the irrational dictates of ancient superstitions,
4. they are both often/always dangerous or damaging both in the short term and in the long term
5. they both reduce sexual functioning and pleasure
6. The effects of both are either irreversible or painfully reversible
7. They ensure that intense and prolonged pain are the first experiences a child has of his/her own genitals

More babies die of complications from circumcision than from vaccines. All circumcision deaths are avoidable, by simply not circumcising babies.


It's a myth that the foreskin is a "tip" or "just a bit of useless skin", it's a actual skin, and akin to a woman's clitoral hood or labia.

Once the foreskin is removed the penis is mutilated and becomes less sensitive, and smaller in length and width than it would have been had it remained intact with a foreskin.

People like to pretend that it's about preventing STDs/HIV, hygiene, and all sorts of other things. When there's such a thing a taking a bath daily and using condoms and practicing safer sex.

I am from a country where 95% of men have a foreskin and our genitals are left alone, and nobody has any health issues because of this. Not even all Jews mutilate their kids here and the only ones who do are Muslim.

Also, I have seen pictures of circumcision where things went wrong, and it is absolutely just like female genital mutilation.

Not all women who have been victims of FGM have their labia and vaginal entry sewn up, a lot have only the clitoral hood removed and in Northern African countries and certain Muslim Asian countries this is done in hospitals, and yes circumcision of anyone both girls and boys is genital mutilation since they can't consent to it.

I do find it extremely hypocritical and odd when people get all up in arms about FGM, but believe that when boys get their genitals mutilated by a doctor, religious leader, or tribes person that it's perfectly fine, excusable, etc.

 

[bomber]

All I know is if someone cut anything from my penis when I was a kid, I would be very violent to him when I grew up. Im not sure about catholic church, but orthodox church has nothing to do with circumision.

 

[DoctorMolecule]

I've been in jail for a couple of months now.
Some 17 odd years as an atheist and I decided my life was trash enough to pick up a Bible.
A few months later and I'm completely in love with God.


Well, I got out of jail last week and this morning I'm headed out the door to attend a church service.
Then it Serenity dawns on me Crystal that I don't want to existentially set foot in a place where the thing whether it be a deity or an alien commanded that we cut the tips of our sons penises off as the sign of a covenant.

I might go to church still just for the experience, but could you guys please help me out here?
Am I missing something?

If you read some of the epistles of the apostle Paul, you'll notice he takes a very particular stance on the law/ Torah of the Old Testament. The debate as to the proper place of circumcision is literally as old as the Christian church itself and dates to some 20 or 30 years after the death of Jesus. Long story short, the early church fathers (i.e. Peter, James, Paul, and Thomas) agreed that its more important to expect non Jewish (gentile) converts to the new faith to adhere to a faith in Jesus rather than continue to worship other Gods and dieties. So unless you're a Jewish believer in Christ, you've really got nothing to worry about

 

[herbavore]

It is barbaric to me. American, with two sons. Never even considered it.

 

[keeping]

always thought circumcision was s Jewish practice, i was quite surprised when i found out about the American predilection for 'a bit off the top'.

i heard its supposed to be a hygiene thing, but i wash my dick every day? do some people not? the horror...

 

[AddictRecon]

I've been in jail for a couple of months now.
Some 17 odd years as an atheist and I decided my life was trash enough to pick up a Bible.
A few months later and I'm completely in love with God.


Well, I got out of jail last week and this morning I'm headed out the door to attend a church service.
Then it Serenity dawns on me Crystal that I don't want to existentially set foot in a place where the thing whether it be a deity or an alien commanded that we cut the tips of our sons penises off as the sign of a covenant.

I might go to church still just for the experience, but could you guys please help me out here?
Am I missing something?

The physical circumcision is covenantal between God and the Jews. As Christians we are commanded to circumcise our hearts. Ironically Jews also were told this but are very dogmatic about the physical circumcision.

Deu 10:16 "So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer.