|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can remember as a child various "flavour of the month"surgical procedures that were hard sold to parents such as everybody needed their tonsils and adnoids out. The only benefit these procedures have is cost absorbsion of our beleagered health care system. The origin of this barbaric practice has nothing whatsoever to do with any supposed medical benefit. It was a ritualized mutilation of exiles from the Chaldean Empire to indicate symbolicly that they were "cut off from their people". Continuing this practice is as absurd as the Ubanghi continuing to mutilate their women with neck rings, lip plates, and heavy ear lobe weights, long after there is any danger of them being abducted by slave traders (those practices have less than three centuries of "tradition" and were instituted to make the women too grotesque to be targeted by slave traders). It is safe to say that more males have suffered from the results of circumcision than from any complication of not having one. But don't expect any sympathy from the feminazis on this point...they would prefer the whole thing be removed at birth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:00 AM February 23rd, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
"don't expect any sympathy from the feminazis on this point..."
Yeah I know, they whine, "how can you compare circumcision with female genital mutilation?". They can say this because our society sees circumcision of males as something normal and because of that, not so bad.
p. george
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a ritualized mutilation of exiles from the Chaldean Empire to indicate symbolicly that they were "cut off from their people".
That's one I hadn't heard before; maybe so, but MGM has also appeared in other cultures and locales, e.g. ancient Egypt, Australian Aborigines, Polynesians, et al. There are many reasons/causes, but all come down to a fundamental discomfort with sexuality -- not unjustified, I feel, but violence and cruelty are not the solution to the problems it causes in our lives.
I was intrigued/amused recently to note that celebrity author Leonard Shlain, whose book Sex, Time and Power has made him very popular with the ladies, speculates therein that male circumcision was thought up by the Tribal Grandmothers, as a way to reduce male pleasure from sex so they would stay at it long enough to bring the females to climax. Rather simplistic, like most of his ideas, but worthwhile additions to the discussion. And I'm pleased to see someone with such wide exposure bringing the Tribal Grandmothers into the picture, since it's clear to me that it's they who really run every human culture -- including its sexual habits. And amused that it's Shlain's claim that it's really women who run everything that makes him so popular with women -- who apparently haven't considered that if this is true, it kind of precludes the perennial victim status they're constantly claiming. Just another example of female "logic," I guess. Women will always insist on having their cake and eating it too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
. . .are you at all familiar with the overwhelming facts that condemn routine and ritual male genital amputation?
Maybe you should check out http://www.cirp.org first. This is a very real and very serious human rights issue, and CIRP is just about the single most complete and authoritative resource for the topic that is available online.
Routine and ritual male genital amputation is inherently and inevitably harmful to male sexual sensitivity and function -- it's been documented through peer-reviewed research published in a primary international medical resource (Taylor, Lockwood, & Taylor, British Journal of Urology 1996).
I know Rush pooh-poohs intactivism, but he's wrong on this one. It's a serious and important men's issue -- routine and ritual child genital amputation has been criminalized at the federal level, but only *exclusively* for little girls. That's a direct and incontestable violation of the 14th Amendment, and a very dangerous femelitist legislative precedent.
Please take a look around the CIRP site (assuming you're not familiar with it yet). If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. This is my particular field of men's issues expertise and activism.
Doctors most certainly are *not* supposed to promote medically purposeless surgical amputation, *particularly* when their patients are incapable of consent. And no doctor or other medical worker should *ever* bring up routine and ritual male genital amputation in a professional context unless there is a direct, specific medical *need* for it -- which is a vanishingly rare situation in the first place.
They shouldn't have done that, any more than they should have 'offered' to cut a little baby girl's prepuce and inner labia off and strip out the inner skin out of her vagina.
Because that's what the comparable effects of the 'common' procedure of routine and ritual male genital amputation would be like for a little girl.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Ack.
I'd also suggest "In Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child" for a hard-hitting reality check. Nobody who has not read this site is entitled to be regarded as having a respectable opinion on the subject.
The Circumstitions page ("Reasons Given for Circumcising a Male") is also excellent. Good for a laugh, if you still can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And on my side, it's simultaneously annoying and amusing that you should take that attitude. Because I generally refer to it as genital amputation OOH as a *concession* to those people who haven't yet been informed about the seriousness of the problem and tend to react negatively to its proper name -- genital *mutilation*.
And, OTOH, for consistency, because I refer to female child genital cutting in the same way -- as routine and ritual female genital *amputation*. Which I do, and will continue to do, because of those who oppose female genital cutting *exclusively* and who refuse to acknowledge the severity of routine and ritual male genital amputation. Unless and until they stop self-defeatingly doing that, I won't call it routine and ritual female genital mutilation either.
More and more, we are seeing that the condoning of routine and ritual male genital amputation can and does interfere with progress in stopping routine and ritual female genital amputation.
Because the acceptance of routine and ritual male genital amputation can and has led to the 'mainstreaming' of routine and ritual female genital amputation.
So here I am, carefully balancing my use of language after long thought and reflection, and here you are using this *precision* on my part as some kind of excuse not to discuss the issue with me.
And you know, now that I've gone to the trouble of explaining all this, I'm finding the amusement decreasing and the annoyance increasing, noticeably.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:32 PM February 24th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"By the way, when you trim your nails, do you refer to it in conversation as "appendage amputation"?"
I don't think you know too much about foreskin Dittohd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:48 PM February 24th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
As someone who was circumcized and someone who is trying to "restore" the foreskin. I can attest to the fact that having skin covering the glans, makes the glans much more sensitive. And in fact makes sex last longer, not shorter. Circumsized men want to quickly get to the good part, because that's the part they get the most sensations from. Whereas men who have a foreskin feel much better during sex and have not conditioned themselves to rushing towards orgasm. Circumsized men need to dull their glans because they desire to straight to orgasm, so the numbing of the glans makes circumsized men go further.
By the way, there is no such thing as truly restoring the foreskin. All that sensitive skin is permanately gone. The frenelum is usually gone as well, and this is considered the male g spot. The foreskin also covers the glans while not erect. This keeps the glans moist and prevents the glans from kerotization of the glans, which makes the glans harder and less sensitive. This is why circumcized men have conditioned themselves to rush towards orgasm. Men with intact foreskins feel much better then circumsized men leading up to orgasm, this is why they last longer.
In fact circumcision really is an amputation of part of the penis. It has a useful purpose and is meant to be kept on the penis throughout it's lifetime. And the baby feels pain when it is cut off, so it is not the same as cutting off a fingernail.
This is a permanent procedure with seriously negative repercussions for the circumsized boy. So it should be his choice, no one else's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:50 PM February 24th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"It's really amazing how people can twist things around"
Yes, it is.
(I'm the above poster)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:19 AM February 25th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
(same poster of the above three posts)
I'd like to say I do not hold it against my mom for allowing this to happen to me. She just thought she was doing the right thing, because the doctor wanted to do it, and everyone else did it to their sons. Even though this has caused me much pain.
You can't hold on to hate, without that hate turning on you. If I told my mom how I feel and the things I now know about circumcision, it would break her heart and she'd cry. I forgive her, she meant no harm to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anon, I feel exactly the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Anon? Get a handle.(sounds so blunt when you say it like that) I agree with what you are saying, and it would be much easier to keep track if you put your name on your posts.
So where did you get all this medical information? Got any sources I can steal? (working on a project)
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:47 AM February 25th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I am representing a man who went to a surgeon for a vascectomy and instead was given a circumcision. He and his wife are devastated. It seriously damaged his sex life and hers too.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"it's obviously mostly circumcised men who are wishing to be less sensitive down there during intercourse as opposed to more sensitive."
If a man, acting in an autonomous capacity, wishes to become circumcised for whatever reason, I doubt that many here would object. What I believe is the more relevant issue is whether we (that is, society at large) should be allowing a medically unjustifiable surgical manipulation to happen to people who cannot consent to it.
This is not an issue of pleasure or sensitivity -it is an issue of bodily integrity and autonomy. Discussions of cleanliness, etc., are all just convolutions of, and irrelevant to, this gross violation of medical ethics, both because the recipient cannot consent to the act, and because the "risks" of not performing the operation by no stretch of the imagination outweigh the risks of not performing it. If you are going to argue that such practices should be performed on people who cannot consent, please accompany that argument with a justification of forced removal of, for instance, a vestigial and potentially harmful appendage such as the appendix. If there is a difference, please explain.
And just to nip this forthcoming argument in the bud, I understand that many operations are performed on minors who are not technically capable of consent. The difference, of course, is that none of those procedures are performed without a, um, medical purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And no, I don't refer to nail-trimming as 'amputation'. Because *nails grow back*, Dittohd. The foreskin does *not*.
Just last night I did my father's toenails. He had a stroke back in '95, you know; I've been his 24/7 caregiver for over eight straight years now. And *he* gets why I'm so committed to this issue. It took him a while -- the sidebar comments in Jim Bigelow's *The Joy of Uncircumcising* are what really tipped the scale for him.
As to 'all this crap about circumcision making the penis less sensitive', it's not crap. I gave you a citation. And I don't think you've done me the simple courtesy of even examining it. So I'm not impressed by your cavalier dismissal of the *actual facts*.
That you haven't heard about women complaining about men taking too long is proof of nothing. I hear about it on a regular basis, because I hang out in forums where the topic is actually discussed. And yes, women do get rubbed raw and find themselves dreading intercourse with their genitally amputated husbands and partners, because of how the natural gliding action of these men's penises has been reduced or destroyed by the amputation of their foreskins, which also causes them to take forever to reach climax.
Furthermore, men who have non-surgically restored their foreskins consistently report that their ejaculatory control is *increased* as a result.
As their *sensitivity* is increased, not just in terms of what they felt previously, but in terms of *other* sensations, *and* in terms of finer, more *precise* sensitivity -- sensations and *degrees* of sensation that they were previously *denied* because of the amputation of their foreskins -- they find that sex is far more enjoyable not only in terms of superior orgasms, but *as a whole experience*. The 'getting there' becomes significantly more pleasureable also, *and they have more and better control over the process* as well.
As far as the 'present percentages of men in America' undergoing routine and ritual male genital amputaion, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. The rates are not only descending but have been dropping for years. Men most certainly are *not* getting their foreskins cut off to become less sensitive.
Nobody is twisting anything around here, and I wouldn't make accusations about 'no matter what the facts' are unless you start bring some facts of your own to the discussion.
I understand that this can be an upsetting and disturbing topic -- for years as a men's issues advocate, it simply vanished off my own radar, even when I was exposed to it specificially as a men's issue.
It was not until I 'had' to decide for my own intact, stroke-incapacitated father, and needed to become informed because his medical care givers were not informing me themselves, that I really began to understand what was involved and how serious the issue was, and remains.
So I can understand and deal with your resistance and offensive attitude and comments. And I hope you will stop rejecting this out of hand and spitting on my shoes in the process, and actually start informing yourself about the real facts. Because the vast majority of what the vast majority of people know about this subject is nothing but myths, lies, and urban legends.
I think it would be a lot more productive if you would consider and address my other points that you seem to be ignoring. Here they are again:
It's a serious and important men's issue -- routine and ritual child genital amputation has been criminalized at the federal level, but only *exclusively* for little girls. That's a direct and incontestable violation of the 14th Amendment, and a very dangerous femelitist legislative precedent.
And this *is* a serious physical harm to little boys, and the adult men they grow into -- again, the comparable effects of the 'common' procedure of routine and ritual male genital amputation would be like for a little girl would be to cut a little baby girl's prepuce and inner labia off and strip out the inner skin out of her vagina.
I am not exaggerating, nor am I twisting things around.
Ack!
Non Illegitimi Carborundum, and KOT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have always found it ironic, given how much complaint I've heard all my life about men being in a hurry about sex, "they only think about one thing," etc. etc., that the great majority of white anglo American women are so enamored of a "procedure" which amputates nearly all of the male's ability to feel relaxed, non-focused sexual pleasure (I don't remember how many miles of sexual nerves are in the foreskin, but the information is readily available), and leaves him only with the nervous tissue (in the glans) whose express purpose is to trigger climax and ejaculation. It's all they've left us with, all we can feel. The foreskin is the most female part of the male body; without it the male is nothing but a kind of sexual guided missile, with only one purpose.
Another purpose of the circumcision ritual is embodied in the intense pain experienced, which very effectively forces the infant -- who cannot but experience the event as absolutely life-threatening -- to dissociate from his feelings, which naturally makes him a better candidate for military service.
It also, I believe, forges an indelible link in the boy's subconscious between sex and violence -- yet another supposed quality of maleness about which females constantly complain. Again, the logic of female thinking escapes me.
BTW, it's of interest to note that sales of vaginal lubrication products are astronomically higher in the USA than in Europe, where circumcision is not practiced. I believe -- though of course I've no experience of this myself -- that another function of the foreskin is to seal the vaginal opening during intercourse, thus retaining the lubricating fluids produced by the female. The circumcised penis is missing the plug, so all the fluid leaks out, leaving the vagina dry and -- as noted -- subject to friction and resulting discomfort.
So why are American women so enthusiastic about infant male genital mutilation? Perhaps it's because of another result I've observed: that boys and men who've been through this experience are subconsciously terrified of females. I don't think it's an accident that feminism took over precisely when the first universally-circumcised generation (mine) came of age in the 1960s. The modern American male is rendered inert (if not impotent in the strictly sexual sense) by even the threat of female wrath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, if the sexual nerves located in the foreskin are sufficient in number for sexual pleasure prior to - or even separate - from glans induced orgasm and ejaculation...
Wouldn't that mean that men have the equivalent of a clitoris incorporated into the exterior of the penis?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not exactly. The clitoris is the female analog of the glans penis, and it is covered by a "hood" which is the analog of the male foreskin. Clitoris and covering in the female develop from the same foetal tissue which becomes glans and prepuce (Latin for "foreskin") in the male. Glans and clitoris contain nerves which directly "trigger" orgasm, while foreskin and hood (and surrounding tissue) provide more diffuse, unfocused erotic feeling.
Thus, if we associate aggressive, "goal-oriented," orgasmic/ejaculative sexual activity with "maleness," and receptive, diffuse, ongoing erotic sensation, not focused toward climax, with "femaleness," then the clitoris can be seen as the most "male" part of female anatomy, and the foreskin as the most "female" part of male anatomy. This is analogous to the idea in Jungian psychology that we each contain an inner, unconscious "mirror image" of the opposite sex: an "inner male" ("animus") in the female, an "inner female" ("anima") in the male. It is really true, on the plain physical level, that we each contain our opposite -- at least as we are born, before human sexual/social psychosis goes to work. Circumcision of the male, and clitoridectomy in the case of the female, is a direct physical attack on our complete humanity; the result in each case is a crippled being, "merely" male or female.
Thus all the talk I've heard from women all my life about how men should "get in touch with their inner woman," "learn to feel," etc., rings very hollow in the context of those very same women's enthusiasm for circumcision, which literally amputated that part of my body which physically connected me with femaleness, both physical and psychological. What do women want, anyway? Clearly, what they say they want is quite the opposite of what they do everything in their power to create. And not only in this area. We're all familiar, I expect, with the phenomenon of the female "no" really meaning "maybe" or even "yes" in the "right" circumstances. Females are simply not equipped biologically to be straightforward in communication.
Are they conscious of this conflict between words and deeds? In most cases, no, I don't think they are. Like children, they are "innocent," not because they are not destructive, but because they simply "know not what they do." Which is precisely why traditionally women were not allowed to participate in arenas of social life, such as politics and religion, where conscious awareness of the relationship between words and deeds is vitally important. And why, for instance, women were not allowed in the military, and other situations where men must cooperate efficiently -- because a woman in such a context can cause endless disruption just by batting her eyelashes and wiggling her hips, which she does instinctively and without thought, all the while perfectly convinced that "I wasn't doing anything!"
Which is not to say that men are all that much better at consciousness, intellectual integrity, straightforward communication, etc., than women -- only that men are, for the most part, at least dimly aware of the importance of such things, while women, in their natural state, are not. Nature is absolutely economical; She doesn't waste energy where it isn't needed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gotcha on all that. The "inner animus" does put a bit of a twist on the "The Vagina Monologues" doesn't it? No wonder they never think about getting in touch with him.
"Instinctvively and without thought"?
Sounds familiar. To quote Robert Heinlen (as Lazarus Long): "Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse."
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
