|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday August 24, @11:30AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
For starters, the video of the circumcision is barbaric, and the procedure is more cruel than I was lead to believe (you know...the old "snip snip" and it's over thing)
It is unbelievable that we live in a
Society that is more concerned about the infrequent and remote issue of female circumcision when the vast majority of infant males endure this butchery every day.
The video should be added permanently to this website so everyone can see how heinous circumcision really is, but www.ogrish.com is a really disgusting site, and should not be linked to from this website. I am in shock that such a site even exists, and linking to it greatly lowers the quality of this web site.
Thanks for ruining my day….
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ogrish.com is kind of interesting, in a macabre way, but not to everybody. mensactivism.org should credit them as the source.
I couldn't even watch this video all the way through. It's just so hideous. Maybe I'll try again later. :(
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 26, @12:58AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Uuuh, I'll just take you guy's word on all this.
I'd rather not see it.
Like I often say at the end of my posts; "I have enough aggrevation."
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uuuh, I'll just take you guy's word on all this. I'd rather not see it.
I got threw the first few seconds till I saw forcepts being used to grab the foreskin. That was enough for me. It is truely a shocking video. I had no idea the circumcision was this barbaric. There is no reason that this practice should continue.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given what we know about the structure and specialized functions of the foreskin, and given recent changes in attitudes towards the right of men to their own bodies (i.e., men should be allowed to decide for themselves when they reach the age of consent whther to be circumcised), it is fair and appropriate to maintain that anyone who advocates or condones routine infant circumcision is morally no better than a paedophile; parents who authorize this procedure are the accomplices of paedophiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By popular demand, I'm re-posting some of my best writing on circumcision, anti-male bias, and its relation to competitive feminism.
It's not ethical to remove another person's body parts without their consent, especially when their lives and limbs are not at risk. For some reason this simple principle does not apply to male genitalia for many people. For the lack of any other obvious explanation, I suggest that we take the lesson of history seriously and hypothesize that since patterns of cruelty and callousness recur throughout human history, involuntary circumcision being among them, there are destructive impulses inherent in human nature that contribute to the prevalence of the phenomenon.
In the case of involuntary circumcision, we deliberately turn off our protective instincts towards infants. Through an act of will, an infant boy goes from being a person--a locus of rights--to a nonperson who has no right to his foreskin. We do not allow ourselves to suppress our protective instincts this way towards infant girls, which suggests that gender bias is involved in the decision to circumcise as well.
The same ability to suppress emotional urges through force of intellect and conscience (allowing us to defer gratification and resist temptation) also allows us to overcome our horror over the involuntary amputation of parts of an infant's genitalia and to persist in this barbaric practice on the pretext that it serves some medical or aesthetic purpose. By now it should be common knowledge that routine infant circumcision interferes with the mechanics of sexual intercourse, among other consequences.
Involuntary foreskin amputation, the analog of which corresponds in females to labial reduction, is a gender issue. An argument to somehow show that gender and gender bias have nothing whatsoever to do with routine infant circumcision would be impressive indeed. Such an argument would somehow have to surmount the fact that infant boys but not little girls are singled out for this procedure, and that glaringly obvious form of gender discrimination is only the first of many problems the argument would have to overcome.
My mother once had an abortion. It was her body. But by having my brothers and myself involuntarily circumcised after we were born, she denied us the right to our bodies.
Many women who assert that they have a right to their own body will think nothing of denying their newborn sons the right to THEIR bodies by having their foreskins involuntarily amputated. I have no anti-abortion agenda. My point is that this irony is possible due to widespread anti-male bias.
The fact that women have been involved in the oppression of men in this way is an embarassment for feminism. Millions of women have insisted that their son's be circumcised, effectively denying their sons the right to their own bodies. While it is true that at least as many millions of men as women have violated the rights of men in this way, so many millions of women have been involved that one can safely dismiss the idea that women's oppression of men is some form of fiction. Feminists cannot smugly dismiss circumsision as something that "men do to men" any more than whites can dismiss the violence of some other race as something they do to themselves. Although some feminists have maintained that female genital mutilation is something that "women do to women", this was not the attitude taken when it came to legislation against the practice in the United States.
John Harvey Kellogg wrote: "A remedy [for "self-abuse"] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision . . . The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases."
Arthur C. Clarke wrote that that Kellogg "was obviously a sadistic lunatic." Given what we now know about the barbaric practice or routine infant circumcision, we can count those who practice and recommend it Kellog's accomplices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Way back when I was ignorant of men's rights (not all that long ago) I became a father for the third time of a son who was/is afflicted with a relatively minor and not-too-well-know condition called hypospadia. Without boring you all with all of the details, hypospadia is a condition wherein the urethra exits the penis in the wrong place. It is a genetically-carried condition (and if you must ask, I was also afflicted), and it can be quite extreme. Sometimes the urethra exits behind the scrotum. Not an easy fix. We decided to have my son's affliction repaired during his first year on the planet, and as part of the procedure, the doctor asked if we wanted him circumcised. Being rather ignorant, but knowing that he would be under anasthesia, I/we consented. He's thirteen now, and I suspect that he'd be pretty embarassed if I started asking a lot of questions, so I choose not to, for now. I will have a conversation with him on this topic when he's more comfortable with it. But AFAIK, he has developed normally since then. My own story is different, but that was largely related to the fact that when I had it done, the procedure was in it's infancy.
Now, I certainly do regret this decision at this point, but I am NOT willing to accept the label of paedophile. We made a conscious decision that, while it may not have been the best informed, was counseled and considered at length and we were comfortable with the notion that he would be anesthetized. I would not make the same decision now, but I know that he was not butchered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No better was known, and better is known now. Let the past be the past, and let the future witness an end to this barbarous inhumanity.
We point to Muslims who celebrate their religion by shoving spikes through their stomachs and walking down the streets, and think nothing of the heinous cruelty that is done to male infants on a daily basis. It's high time we abolished unnecessary infant circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I said that based on what we NOW know, there is no longer any excuse to hide behind the veil (or burka) of ignorance. Frank H's situation wasn't routine in any case, although it was unfortunate that he authorized an unnecessary procedure. Let me say this again: if you saw the video, if you know what you're putting your son through, then you are the accomplice of a sex offender. If you don't like the "label", then too bad; take it up with your maker.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't see the video, and I choose not to see it. But I know what my son went through because I went through it myself. I reject your inference, and were we to be in close company, I would also express this in physical terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What inference are you talking about? I'm referring to people who know better, who know that it compromises a man sexually (whether performed under anaesthesia or not), and who go ahead with the procedure anyway, after finding out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The phenomenon of routine infant circumcision also dramatically exposes the lie that society is doing whatever it can in "the best interests of the child." Children are property to be mutilated at will, or to be used as weapons in divorce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 26, @05:34PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
((("Children are property to be mutilated at will,")))
Just one correction Mars.
MALE children are property to be mutilated at will.
FEMALE children are precious treasures to be valued highly.
And before anyone flames me..., I agree that "Female children are precious tresures". But I think that ALL children are. INCLUDEING MALE CHILDREN!!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DAMN! And I was so looking forward to a good bonfire!!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
