data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9178a/9178a8080e440b5b3c2780b00fc44bc146d81143" alt="Subscribe to Syndicate"
First cut is the deepest
Article here. Excerpt:
'As a society, we’re mostly in denial about the fact that a large proportion of guys walking around today were traumatized shortly after birth by circumcision, performed in the hospital where they were born. In Canada, the medical profession didn’t come out against circumcision until 1975. Despite official disapproval, babies are still circumcised for irrational reasons like "so he’ll look like Daddy." There may be a tendency to joke this subject away, precisely because it is so painful, but unfortunately we now know thanks to recent anatomical research that removing babies’ foreskins is not all that different from removing an eyelid or lip. All these structures contain sensitive nerve endings and a mucosal membrane for lubrication. The foreskin contains most of the specialized nerve endings needed for full sexual pleasure. Removing it is the equivalent, gals, of removing your clit. It’s still often done without anaesthetic, even though the way the foreskin is attached to the penis in babies is similar to the way fingernails are attached to the nail bed.
...
Besides being unethical, since it removes healthy tissue without the informed consent of the patient, circumcision also has no demonstrated health benefits. It’s kept going, say activists, by denial and our society’s deep-seated anxiety about sex.
Fortunately, rates are dropping rapidly in Canada, though they’re still at 60 per cent in the U.S. In the meantime, we have to come to terms with this poor decision made by our elders. It’s important to realize that post-traumatic stress from the operation can linger into adulthood, exacerbating rage, fear, depression, low self-esteem or shame. And if you’re a male who has trouble being sexually intimate or is chronically angry with women, this could be what ails you.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
good to see an anti-circ
good to see an anti-circ article in the mainstream news.
Okay Then...
I appreciate this person speaking out against circumcision, but why do they have to say "chronically angry with women"? Would "chronically angry" not suffice?
I think whoever wrote this might be sipping Myriam Pollack's kool-aid. She has the nerve to say that male circumcision is really a plot to disempower women by making sons angry with their mothers, who according to her, are forced to go along with the decision (eyeroll).
It annoys me how this issue is frequently hijacked, and dressed up as "misogyny". I.e. I've even encountered people who say that violence against women is highest in countries with male circumcision, completely overlooking that gender symmetry is found in studies on domestic violence worldwide - which makes it a completely moot point. Every time I've ever brought this to their attention, their reaction is to ban me.
Even issues which affect a man in his most intimate regions, even up to denying him part of said regions seem to be shrouded with gynocentrism. SMDH.