|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm betting the courts will stay out of the issue concerning whether the child should or should not be circumsized, and instead decide which parent gets custody. And if they decide on some kind of joint custody, that still won't prevent the mother from having the child circumsized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On second thought... the story reads as if the circumcision is exactly what the court case is about. This will be an interesting one to watch after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I know, there is nothing in any of the Christian faiths that REQUIRES that circumcision be done while the child is an infant. In fact, I'm aware that people converting to Catholicism are Baptised into the Church as adults, and so I submit that this procedure can wait until the boy is old enough to decide for himself. The only reason for mom to insist that this be done now is to enforce her will on him (and on his father).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as good pastor cornwell avows, circumcision remains integral to the judeo-christian heritage, exactly as integral as the subjugation of males
paradoxically and ironically, judaism was founded by patriarchs specifically to end the matriarchal blood sacrifice of boys, which was a virtually universal practice amongst human groups prior to the first hebrew patriarch, “abraham”
circumcision remains an occulted sacrificial rite, thoroughly pagan, designed to “adjust” newborn males to subservience to their new owners
the scam is to instill agony, rage, terror, and a visceral sense of complete helplessness, then draw upon it lifelong to ensure the little male does as he’s told … it’s vampiric, and best of all, it can be denied as a “religious tradition” or “health benefit”
whether thirty thousand years ago, or this morning in the clinic across the street, the song remains the same … mom and her institutional drones want the knife to fall immediately, so the little male will know who he serves … thank god we’ve got women to protect our children in america -- why, it gives the angels nothing whatever to do
isaac is as helpless today as he was thousands of years ago when they led him up the hill to the altar as a burnt offering … but abraham’s heart was opened, his hand held back – this was the literary marker for western civilization to reject the matriarchal blood sacrifice of boys, and to raise males from their status at that time – which was essentially equivalent with beasts – to that of worth equal with females … looks like we’ve still got a long way to go
shame on all of us as american men for allowing this torture to continue under our noses while our media and universities blather about some red-herring tribal group in zimbabwe that still practices clitoridectomy
blessings on rodney grisham for attempting to break the cycle of violence and occult subjugation … most men in his shoes would cave, afraid mom would seize custody of the boy, kick dad out of the house, claim molestation, withhold sex, etc.
old hungers die hard
ray remark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sad though it is, this story is useful for bringing into stark relief the truth about the Infant Male Circumcision Program: this brutal branding ritual is a key, foundational element - a sacrament, you might say, possibly second only to abortion - of the Modern Matriarchy. (Actually it is a very old idea, common in the ancient "matriarchal" cultures so beloved of modern feminists, e.g. the cult of Kybele, whose priests castrated themselves to demonstrate their devotion to the Great Mother.)
One important fact I have learned that is indispensable in understanding "gender issues": it is not necessary to be consciously aware of one's power to exercise it effectively. This is, perhaps, the key difference between female and male consciousness: most women are (or seem to be, anyway) mostly unaware of their very real power and how they use constantly it to control the world around them. It's instinctive, automatic, and universal.
As always when the exercise of power is less than pretty, women prefer to induce men to do the dirty work and take the rap. Thus the common feminist view that circumcision is an artifact of the hateful "Patriarchy." It is typical of female "thinking" that men torturing and crippling themselves and their sons could be seen as an oppression of women - rather than what it really is, something men do (as we do almost everything) to please them.
Infant male circumcision was first instituted in 19th-century, Victorian America, to "cure masturbation." Translation: to respond to and gratify the common female view that human males are inordinately obsessed with sex, as in "They only ever think about one thing." The theory was that if (a) a large portion of the male's ability to feel sexual pleasure is amputated, and (b) it is done in a particularly painful manner, the operation will bring male sexuality "under control" where it belongs.
What was - and is - completely overlooked in this picture is the simple truth, which any biologist can confirm, that sexual behavior in all (sexual) species is entirely controlled by the female. Consider, for instance, the common dog, canis familaris: male dogs are almost entirely oblivious of sexual issues, until and unless a female goes into heat in the neighborhood, whereupon the male becomes totally obsessed with sex, to the exclusion of every other usual consideration, including personal survival itself. A male dog, like males of all species, will literally die for a little of that good stuff.
The only difference in regard to sexuality between dogs and humans is that human females are, as my Anthropology professor at UC Berkeley put it 40 years ago, "always in heat." Female dogs broadcast sexual signals only during their brief period of fertility; female humans do it all the time - having discovered (so anthropologists surmise) some 50-100,000 years ago that this greatly facilitates their domination and control of male behavior. Despite the common female complaint, the fact that men "only ever think about one thing" is exactly why human males are so overwhelmingly subject to female power and priorities - unlike many other species whose males mostly do what they like most of the time.
As our primary sense is sight, human sexual signals are almost entirely visual, thus not dependent on hormonal secretions as with other mammals whose primary sense is smell. Thus the perpetual contest among human females as to who can get away with showing the most soft, curved skin (e.g. Britney Spears' famous midriff). The winner of this contest (even by a few strategic square inches) attracts the most male attention, thus has the most male energy at her disposal. Women are seldom entirely aware of the full implications of this contest, even while they engage it in deadly earnest. It just comes naturally - like the male "obsession" with sex, it is a product of the absolute efficiency of natural selection. Those males who could "take it or leave igt" did not become our ancestors.
The foreskin has several functions:
(1) It covers and protects a body part which was designed to be internal, like its female analogue, the clitoris. The glans of the circumcised penis, subject to contact with the atmosphere and constant abrasion from clothing, quickly becomes covered with a layer of dry, insensitive skin. By later life, many circumcised men have difficulty feeling much of anything in what was originally the most sensitive part of the male body. Feminists, of course, will find this result very gratifying, fitting punishment for the crime of "male lust."
(2) It is comprised of some of the most sensitive skin on the body, with more nerve endings than the fingertips, and provides a good deal of sexual pleasure when intact. When it is amputated, the male loses about half of his sexual nervous tissue, while the rest, as in (1) above, atrophies. The circumcised male is a permanent sexual cripple. Another triumph for matriarchalism: a "good" boy doesn't do such nasty things that his Mother wouldn't approve of.
(3) The foreskin is a kind of sleeve of comparatively loose skin around the shaft of the erect penis, which provides a seal for the vaginal opening during intercourse, preventing loss of the lubricating fluids produced by the female. It is no accident that the market for vaginal lubricants is huge in the United States, while they are mostly unknown in nations that do not circumcise. This "sealing" function, I feel, can also be seen in a non-physical sense: the infant-circumcised male, pathologically bonded to Mother by the deep emotional scar tissue resulting from his first experience of life in her care, is unable both emotionally and physically to make a complete connection with another woman in "adulthood." He is forever Mother's "Little Man."
Since I relived my own circumcision experence some eight years ago, I have observed that infant-circumcised males differ from the intact, among other things, in being subject to a deeply embedded, normally entirely unconscious fear of females. A newborn baby is not a rational being; he has not yet begun to think in any form, but experiences everything on the level of feeling, like any other animal. Whatever happens to him for the first days, perhaps weeks, of life outside the womb must inevitably be experienced as part of his relationship with Mother, who has been until then his entire world of experience. In most cases, his experience till then has been almost entirely pleasant and benign; to be suddenly attacked and carved up with sharp instruments applied to the most sensitive area of the body must be a shock far beyond any capability of comprehension in such a being.
From then on he knows, as certainly as any of us can know anything, that Mother is a being of the most radical, unpredictable contradictions, who can and very possibly will cause him overwhelming pain at any time for no discernable reason. The only possible relationship with such a being must be based on a desperate, perpetual effort at placation. It is not an accident, I believe, that feminism took over American culture exactly when the first universally-circumcised generation of American males came of voting age in the 1960s. There are very few "men" in American today who can calmly, comfortably say "no" to a woman.
In sum, circumcision is a perfect expression of the spirit and priorities of matriarchal feminism. It produces a being who (1) is terrified of females and thus easily controlled, (2) has been de-sexed as far as possible while leaving him still capable of necessary stud service, and (3) is crippled and diminished in his masculinity so that he feels a constant need to "prove" himself, thus making him an easy mark for the kind of mindless, collectivist militarism that has recently become dominant once again in our society. Circumcised males make good wage-slaves, taxpayers and cannon-fodder.
I very much doubt that the mother in this story is consciously aware of any of what I have outlined here. She just wants to exert her power, by having her mark of ownership carved painfully and permanently into her son's most intimate flesh. In the Matriarchy, the mother-son bond becomes the substitute for marriage with an adult man, with all its mystery and difficulties. The incest taboo prevents her completely consummating this wonderful relationship, but she'll make sure no other female can have him either. As mothers refuse to relinquish their sons, their daughters won't have men to marry, and so the cycle repeats itself endlessly. She's Her Own Woman, you can be sure, and he's Her Little Boy - forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a brutal post, andrew - the medicine ain't sweet
like you, it's possible for other circumcised men to "relive" their circumcisions ... one can re-experience, in surprisingly visceral and emotional ways, one's circumcision ... it's a dark passage, but also enlightening and helpful in reclaiming masculinity in an age and culture which seeks to excise and mutilate it
the self-castration of priests under cults like those of Cybele are shadows of the earlier matriarchies, occurring near the end of an extensive gynocentric period -- that these "priests" in supposedly patriarchal eras widely performed the most matriarchal of rites is revealing
these castrati are the vestiges -- redactions, so to speak -- of the ritual castration of boys which was central to matriarchal practice for the bulk of human social evolution
the chief – though not only – purpose of the forming of male solidarity groups (magical brotherhoods, incipient masculinity, fatherhood, “patriarchy”) was to protect their sons from castration and sacrificial death
under any social organization resembling a “patriarchy,” circumcision -- and the general dehumanization of boys -- would be the first practice to go -- but despite our fantasies, america is not a patriarchy
it is mothers in america -– and their religious institutions -- who insist upon circumcision, in the same way that the matrons of sparta demanded the public flogging of boys
andrew is correct to bring estrus into this ... jane goodall documented that individual female primates can will themselves into estrus, and this is what human females collectively did a fur piece back – they made themselves year-round sex objects, and most men year-round sex junkies ... slaves, to be exact ... this is the biological component, the manipulation of male libido, that led to “civilization”
andrew is also correct that feminine lust for power is at the heart of the circumcision of boys, and that the intent of the ritual is to instill a deep fear of the feminine in defenseless males ... that was the intent forty thousand years ago too ... this is how the beast is named and kept caged
it seems dirt is being rubbed in the nation's face a bit these days, but truth is, we are long overdue for a wake-up ... terrorism has many faces, and here we stand with infant blood on our hands, calling the other evil
ray remark
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
