PDA

View Full Version : The real reason for circumcision


Dasher
June 7th, 2010, 00:24
I never heard of this before, and thought it might be new to you too. I ran across it by chance. The real reason for circumcision.

Jewish scholar Moses Maimonides said the foreskin is "useful" for the penis, and the whole idea behind circumcision is to weaken the penis:

"The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened."

The main reasons for circumcision given by American doctors, and I may be leaving something out here, are:

1. It's cleaner, it's healthier. (The hygiene reason)
2. It looks better. (The cosmetic or aesthetic reason)
3. So the boy will look like his father/other boys. (The conformity reason)

Now it looks like Moses Maimonides has let the cat out of the bag as to the real reason for circumcision. To weaken the penis in an effort to reduce sexual pleasure in men. At least as far as Jews are concerned.

Does this revelation about circumcision make any difference to you?

BamaDude
June 7th, 2010, 10:48
Does this revelation about circumcision make any difference to you?
It certainly did when I first read it. However twisted his motives might have been, Moses Maimonides was no dummy and clearly knew exactly what he was recommending and why.

Here's a link to Moses Maimonides' quotes on circumcision-
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/

A few of what I think are Rabbi Maimonides' most insightful quotes on circumcision:

"It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision."

"The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard."
In other words, circumcise the child before he can object, fight back, or refuse to be circumcised.

"The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed."
In other words, circumcise the child before his parents come to think of him as an individual with thoughts and opinions of his own.

Joseph
June 7th, 2010, 11:10
Does this revelation about circumcision make any difference to you?

N-nope...

In all frankness, who cares what a witch-doctor said hundreds of years ago?

Aren't doctors supposed to be practicing SCIENCE, not ancient magic?

Obviously the "intention of debilitation" only matters in FGM, not MGM.

Bollux this double-standard.

Mister.Barbecue
June 7th, 2010, 18:15
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLZvEelu7IA

This creative asshole echoes the line that circumcision is useful for self-restraint in the face of temptation. I guess the idea has not yet died out!

Of course, I wonder if Maimonides actually had any empirical evidence for what he claimed. Sure, he reasoned that circumcision weakened the member, but I think he overestimated the effects from the damage and pain. After all, I'm sure many horny women can still get their kicks from a cut guy (even if cut cocks are worse on average) and men can still be lusty even with their reduced member. I think he overstates the "benefit" of the procedure.

Joseph
June 7th, 2010, 19:29
He's was basically a religious shaman.

Whadja expect?

And uh, yeah. The myths surrounding circumcision still prevail. That's why we have our work cut out for us.

It has been said on another medium; "Our job is to become absolete."

It's real funny though, often times, to defend male circumcision, pro-circs site how FGM is supposed to "debilitate a woman" and "reduce her chances for orgasm."

Then they turn around and plug THIS shit.

For "g-d's" sake would you please make up your mind???

By the way, just as male circ doesn't elliminate a man's potential for a good sex life and or/orgasms, the same applies to FGM. Even women who have undergone infibulation which is the WORST kind of FGM can experience orgasm. So this "elliminates" or "restrains" crap? It's all complete bullshit.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Bottom line: Let's say this "restraint" crap was true; it is a human rights violation to be imposing this on non-consenting children. It is medical fraud to be profiting from elective, non-medical procedure on non-consenting individuals.

Ozymandias
June 8th, 2010, 07:10
The thing that worries me, is not so much what it does to the individual, it's what it does to society.

In the film 'Bowling for Columbine', Michael Moore makes the point that gun owner-ship in Canada approaches gun ownership in the USA yet gun crime is far higher in the USA.

Both cultures are formed from European cultures so why is American culture more violent?

Why is the middle east so violent?

A pattern emerges once you look at global statistics for countries where the majority of males are circumcised.

From

The Nationmaster website with the search term Circumcision (male)

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali ,Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa,Tonga, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Yemen.

Dasher
June 8th, 2010, 09:16
The thing that worries me, is not so much what it does to the individual, it's what it does to society.

In the film 'Bowling for Columbine', Michael Moore makes the point that gun owner-ship in Canada approaches gun ownership in the USA yet gun crime is far higher in the USA.

Both cultures are formed from European cultures so why is American culture more violent?

Why is the middle east so violent?

A pattern emerges once you look at global statistics for countries where the majority of males are circumcised.

From

The Nationmaster website with the search term Circumcision (male)

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali ,Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa,Tonga, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Yemen.

Excellent point. There is a definite correlation between the circumcising countries and violence, with the best example maybe the one that you gave being the contrast in violence between the U.S. and Canada. All you have to do to be able to see this connection is be able to add up two and two and come out with four.

Because the notion that circumcision breeds violence (or even that it may breed violence) is so horrifying, the circumcision activists will have to swing into action, and throw cold water on this observation. Threre are now a couple of circumcision activists who have already infiltrated this board, posing as intactivists. It doesn't take long for their true colors to show, and they quickly reveal themselves. I am sure that your valid observation -- no matter how self-evident -- will not go unchallenged, and will bring the trolls out.

Joseph
June 8th, 2010, 09:56
Ah, ah, a-hem.

I'm quite anti-circ mind you, and I for one think there are confounding examples that drill a few holes in the "circumcision promotes violence" bucket.

Just as examples, look back on WWII.

Who were the violent ones? Let's see. The Germans, who were for the most part intact, killed like 6,000,000 circumcised Jews. Not to mention all the other countries they invaded.

The Italians? The prosciutto on the men is uncut.

The Russians? The men have babushkas on their dicks.

The Japanese? Their dicks are wrapped in little kimonos. It is these people who took over the Philippines, where Pinoys are circumcised in childhood. Not to mention Indonesia and Malaysia, where Islam is wide-spread and boys are also circumcised in childhood.

There are also historic accounts of violent countries that didn't circumcise, IE the Romans, the Greeks etc.

There are simply too many examples of violent intact countries to generalize that "circumcision breeds violence."

Sorry if that makes me sound like a pro-circ...

Ozymandias
June 8th, 2010, 14:20
Ah, ah, a-hem.

I'm quite anti-circ mind you, and I for one think there are confounding examples that drill a few holes in the "circumcision promotes violence" bucket.

Just as examples, look back on WWII.

Who were the violent ones? Let's see. The Germans, who were for the most part intact, killed like 6,000,000 circumcised Jews. Not to mention all the other countries they invaded.

The Italians? The prosciutto on the men is uncut.



The Russians? The men have babushkas on their dicks.

The Japanese? Their dicks are wrapped in little kimonos. It is these people who took over the Philippines, where Pinoys are circumcised in childhood. Not to mention Indonesia and Malaysia, where Islam is wide-spread and boys are also circumcised in childhood.

There are also historic accounts of violent countries that didn't circumcise, IE the Romans, the Greeks etc.

There are simply too many examples of violent intact countries to generalize that "circumcision breeds violence."

Sorry if that makes me sound like a pro-circ...

At first glance you make a good point but I think the moot point you miss is evolution, culture evolves like species evolve, I'm given to believe the majority of people in the US do not not agree with evolution.

If you understand evolution, you realize all men are cousins, not brothers by selection, when you become a Muslim all other Muslims are immediately your brothers, this is a case of misuse of metaphor, the LA gang culture shows the same unfortunate tendency.

Huguenots were persecuted French protestants many of who came to Britain, guess what happened next?

They vanished.

Why did they vanish?

Well to put a finer point on it, they integrated.

The Jews came to Britain because they were persecuted too, but did not vanish, they did not integrate because of different cultural practices.

There have been lots of Asian immigration to Britain, one can see the same process happening when you compare Muslims Hindus and Sikhs, the Muslims hardly integrate at all, many of them cover their women from head to foot. This is not a good idea in a temperate zone. You need to expose skin to sunlight to make vitamin D.

A good example for a culture evolving out of violence is Denmark it is now considered one of the most happy and peaceable countries on the planet, it was also where the Vikings came from.

Yes Japan and Germany used to be a violent cultures but they are not now, but the US remains violent.

What creates more violence than anything else, is the concept of 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' 'them and us' is another way of putting it.

There is good evidence that Arabs and Jews are the same genetically, the evidence for this was squashed.

It seems like I'm unable to post normal URLs yet, so to read the evidence, you will have to reconstruct the URL, just reconnect guardian co uk with periods and fill the rest of the spaces with '/'s then copy and paste into the title bar.

guardian co uk world 2001 nov 25 medicalscience genetics

There is more evidence of the similarities between Jews and Arabs, like thinking eating pork is wrong, having a lunar calendar instead of a solar calendar and obviously male circumcision, the fact that the Jewish bible is part of the Muslim bible also hints at deeper issues.

It is not not so much that I think circumcision makes the individual more violent, its that I think it makes the individual ever so slightly more narrow minded.

We are all to some degree 'narrow minded' and I have a certain amount of 'narrow mindedness' and someone who is circumcised might be less 'narrow minded' than I am. What I am saying is, if I had have been circumcised, I would have been ever so slightly more narrow minded than I am all ready.

The fact that in the main America and the Muslim intelligentsia do not accept evolution is evidence for
'narrow mindedness" to see evolution, all that is needed is a pair of sharp eyes and an open mind.

So how come circumcision might make society less 'open minded'?

Thousands of years ago Plato said "we must separate passion from reason" what we now know of neurology tells us he was correct.

Passion is the ratio of neurotransmitters in the cerebral fluid, its like music really, you get chords and discords.

Neurotransmitters are substances like dopamine serotonin oxytocin and the rest of the instruments of consciousness, to my mind Descartes got it wrong when he claimed "I think therefore I am" what he should have said was "I feel therefore I am" I don't think alive - I -->feel alive<-- ,circumcision changes the neurological mathematical balance between logic and emotion, this is only my hypothesis, so might be writing rubbish, but the demographics of male circumcision urgently need looking into, 'coz we are running out of planet.

Logic is the firing of the neuron it is yes or no.

Logic is to the left of the decimal point and emotion is to the right of the decimal point.

The approximately 20,000 nerve endings that are removed with circumcision connect with the limbic system.

The limbic system is an incredibly ancient part of our brains, it is located at the top of the spinal column, in the brain stem.

We share this organ with reptiles and birds it is the 'conductor' of our emotional orchestra.

If our limbic system gets less signals from our genitalia it might make us less emotional and more logical, but do we really want our planet run by the equivalent of the Borg?

Please let me apologise to all non star trek fans out there.

The Borg are folk who disagree with variation, the folk who run our culture promote the controversy of global warming, without ever promoting the controversy for male circumcision.

Joseph
June 8th, 2010, 17:22
What creates more violence than anything else, is the concept of 'ingroup' and 'outgroup' 'them and us' is another way of putting it.

Bingo. You don't need circumcision to establish an ingroup/outgroup relationship; this can be done, and has been done in other ways.

IE, skin color. Styles of clothes. Styles of hair. Whether or not a people are tattoed, scarrified, whether or not they eat or not eat ham, pork, or just meat altogether.

Circumcision was/is used to create an ingroup/outgroup relationship, but as you can see, the majority of Americans still circumcise, and the circumcised Middle East still hates our guts. Being circumcised doesn't change anything.

When people want to hate, they will find other reasons to hate once the original reason is nullified.

It is not not so much that I think circumcision makes the individual more violent, its that I think it makes the individual ever so slightly more narrow minded.

Now it's not "violence," but "narrow-mindedness"?

Aren't we trying deparately to find an effect for the cause? "Circumcision makes a person ..." is sounding more and more like "circumcision prevents..."

I think what circumcision causes or does not cause is a bit of a red herring.

Bottom line; circumcising healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of their basic human rights. It needs to stop.

If it makes sex better or worse, if it makes a person happier or crankier is secondary.

Ozymandias
June 8th, 2010, 18:32
Bingo. You don't need circumcision to establish an ingroup/outgroup relationship; this can be done, and has been done in other ways.

IE, skin color. Styles of clothes. Styles of hair. Whether or not a people are tattoed, scarrified, whether or not they eat or not eat ham, pork, or just meat altogether.

Circumcision was/is used to create an ingroup/outgroup relationship, but as you can see, the majority of Americans still circumcise, and the circumcised Middle East still hates our guts. Being circumcised doesn't change anything.

When people want to hate, they will find other reasons to hate once the original reason is nullified.



Now it's not "violence," but "narrow-mindedness"?

Aren't we trying deparately to find an effect for the cause? "Circumcision makes a person ..." is sounding more and more like "circumcision prevents..."

I think what circumcision causes or does not cause is a bit of a red herring.

Bottom line; circumcising healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of their basic human rights. It needs to stop.

If it makes sex better or worse, if it makes a person happier or crankier is secondary.

Why have you not addressed the connection between evolution and circumcision?

Or perhaps the lack of connection between evolution and foreskin restoration technology?

Joseph
June 8th, 2010, 19:25
Because, if I am correct, the connection people are trying to make in this thread is between circumcision and violence.

"Circumcision and evolution" sounds like an interesting discussion, although, I think a completely different one.

For circumcision and its evolution through time, one only need to look at its history. I recommend Marked in Your Flesh by Leonard Glick. Goes from circumcision in Ancient Egypt, to circumcision in modern medicine.

The reasons and intents for circumcision have changed throughout the centuries.

The end-message remains the same: circumcision is medically unnecessary in healthy, non-consenting individuals. It is a violation of basic human rights and it needs to stop.

What magical attributes some people affix to circumcision should be of no business to a doctor who is supposed to be concerning himself with science and medicine, not magical, mutilative rituals.

greg_b
June 9th, 2010, 05:16
Why have you not addressed the connection between evolution and circumcision?

Or perhaps the lack of connection between evolution and foreskin restoration technology?

Sorry, but I must have missed something. What is the connection between evolution and circumcision? Or if there is none, then are people suggesting there is? I tried looking back through your posts, but didn't see a clear statment about this...

freddys
June 9th, 2010, 14:32
[QUOTE=Joseph;36603]
The end-message remains the same: circumcision is medically unnecessary in healthy, non-consenting individuals. It is a violation of basic human rights and it needs to stop.

Joseph, you are absolutely right. This simple statement is all that should be needed to stop infant circumcision. But how to get across to persons with closed minds?

Ozymandias
June 9th, 2010, 16:13
Sorry, but I must have missed something. What is the connection between evolution and circumcision? Or if there is none, then are people suggesting there is? I tried looking back through your posts, but didn't see a clear statment about this...

I started to write a reply to you and gave up, because the reply would not just take one book it would take a whole library, suffice to say, evolution created mammals with foreskins for a reason, to think you can improve upon evolution, is evidence for arrogance.

Ignorance is to innocence what confidence is to arrogance.

greg_b
June 9th, 2010, 16:31
I started to write a reply to you and gave up, because the reply would not just take one book it would take a whole library, suffice to say, evolution created mammals with foreskins for a reason, to think you can improve upon evolution, is evidence for arrogance.

Ignorance is to innocence what confidence is to arrogance.

Thanks, got it. Doesn't seem to need much discussion to me.

Regards

Ozymandias
June 9th, 2010, 17:05
Thanks, got it. Doesn't seem to need much discussion to me.

Regards

Had an idea, perhaps circumcision slows down evolution as a process of creation, when in terms of the non sustainable behaviour of all us cousins, in terms of what we do to the planet, it needs to be speeding up, maybe in the idea that money is not the lowest common denominator after all.

Perhaps sex and laughter are more important than money in the long term.

One of the men who runs Britain and in some ways runs the world is Alan Sugar, he has gone on record saying he enjoys making money more than making love, if he had a foreskin he might not say that.

Our world seems to be run by men that prefer making money than making love.


Regards

Peter.

http://dollyknot.com

Ozymandias
June 10th, 2010, 05:38
Sorry, but I must have missed something. What is the connection between evolution and circumcision? Or if there is none, then are people suggesting there is? I tried looking back through your posts, but didn't see a clear statment about this...

What Darwin demonstrated was, that we were animals 'great apes' to be precise.

By the act of circumcision we separate ourselves from animals ie intact penises look like dogs penises.

Some of those who advocate circumcision, consider those who don't, to be uncultured barbarians no better than dogs.

Among Semitic people, to be called a dog is to be insulted.

You will sometimes hear the insult 'you animal' Darwin showed this to be a somewhat ridiculous insult.

Accepting evolution makes it easy to see the foreskin as a natural part of the human body.

And as the old saying goes.

'If it ain't broke don't try to fix it'!

Ps Another try :)

greg_b
June 10th, 2010, 06:16
Had an idea, perhaps circumcision slows down evolution as a process of creation, when in terms of the non sustainable behaviour of all us cousins, in terms of what we do to the planet, it needs to be speeding up, maybe in the idea that money is not the lowest common denominator after all.

Perhaps sex and laughter are more important than money in the long term.

...

Our world seems to be run by men that prefer making money than making love.


Regards

Peter.

http://dollyknot.com

Whoa, slow down, lol. How would circumcison slow down evolution?

How is evolution a process of creation?

Cutting off body parts does not affect our genetic make up. Interstingly, there are some very specifc circumstances when what happens to our body can be expressed genetically in future generations, but only in a very limited way. for the most part. what happens to our bodies does not effect our children's genes.

I will agree that sex and laughter are way mor eimportant than money, though money is a great enabler...

Cheers!

greg_b
June 10th, 2010, 06:20
What Darwin demonstrated was, that we were animals 'great apes' to be precise.

...

And as the old saying goes.

'If it ain't broke don't try to fix it'!

Ps Another try :)

Darwin didn't demonstrate that we were animals or great apes. This is a common misunderstanding by many people. But if you think this way, it will lead you down all sorts of wrong paths in logic.

Instead, he demonstrated that we evolved from common ancestors. You could just as easily say that the great apes evolved from their ancestors. But you wouldn't say that great apes evolved from great apes.

Great saying. More people should listen to it...

Regards

Ozymandias
June 10th, 2010, 08:58
I note you are an admin until I get the ability to post a link. I cannot point to where I'm quoting from.

Whoa, slow down, lol. How would circumcison slow down evolution?

As Maimonides points out circed men obtain less reward from from sex, he terms it "Circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement."

Circed men will stray less, take the example of the gene for blue eyes, latest research has it that blue eyes stem from one male.

"New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. “Originally, we all had brown eyes.”New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today."

Had my distant ancestor been circed he would probably not have put it about so much, he would more likely to have stayed with one female.

Another example.

With 16 million living men carrying his Y-chromosome, Genghis Khan had about 800,000 times the reproductive success of the average man of his age.

I should imagine Mr Khan got a great deal of pleasure from sex :)

How is evolution a process of creation?

I am not an atheist I am a pantheist, pantheism was a position established by Spinoza in the 17th century.

Basically what he said was "God did not create the universe, god -->is<-- the Universe" he earned himself death threats and an attempt was actually made on his life for stating that.

I see evolution as being the process by which speciation occurs.

Regards,

Peter.

Joseph
June 10th, 2010, 10:09
Decided to move this thread since it's gone WAY off on a tangent, and it has nothing to do with intactivism anyway.

Feel free to discuss your theories on what connections circumcision may have to violence and/or evolution here...

~Joseph

Ozymandias
June 10th, 2010, 14:59
I do hope thats direct at "Lord" Sugar and not me ;)

Sorry about that mate, too much neck oil last night, got up this morning saw what I had written and wished I hadn't, if I could delete the post I would and I have :)

People like Sugar run England, this I know, I don't want to go into details but I have evidence.

I don't understand what it means that this thread has 'moved' where has it moved to?

Regards,

Peter

Ozymandias
June 10th, 2010, 15:34
Apology accepted.




Come now, you can't just say something like that and expect it to slide unquestioned :p

Otherwise it just sounds like your peddling the good old "jews run the world" conspiracy :)

Nah its not that I think that Jews run the world per se, its more that I think men who care more about money than sex run the world.

In fact he is on the box at the 'mo peddling his apprentice crap, I still can't believe how badly designed his Amstrad PC was.

Good at business don't make me laugh, all he is good at is peddling his one size fits all narrow minded philosophy, backed up by the nepotistic cronyism that runs the BBC.

Why on earth can't we elect who runs the BBC?

Regards

Peter

madbr3991
June 10th, 2010, 15:44
some of the reasons babies are circircumcised is

a baby can't resist (thats a diabolical reason. but probably the truest reason)

conformity ( the whole he won't look different in the locker room argument )

some people think money (i don't think money drives it. doctors make a remarkable amount of money anyway. an extra $100 for 15 min. is not that much to a doctor)

stupidity (most parents don't know what a foreskin does. most doctors don't know either.)

its cleaner (the hygiene reason this just gives parents a chance to be 10 seconds lazier. its also kinda driven by stupidity )

doctors don't want to admit that they have been doing wrong for 100+ years. (if the medical authority came out and said circumcision was harmful. can you imagine the feedback. millions of men outraged. for being butchered. and the largest class action lawsuit in the history of man. that kinda announcement could tear the medical world apart.)

he should look like his dad (this is the most idiotic excuses i have ever herd. you son wont ever be your clone. why should he penis look like yours. if the father is gone should you have a sex change done to the baby so the baby now looks like the mother? thats an easy NO. this whole look like the father reason is a doctors fall back reason

a baby wont remember the pain (thats a justification not a reason. doctors use this reason to justify circumcision when they know it is wrong)

before anyone thinks "but what about religious reasons" i chose not to list religious reason because most of the time you can't explane someone out of there religion.

this is not a complete list these are just some of the biggest reasons.
circumstitions. com has a great list of over 390 different reasons that doctors have used for circumcision

i say infant circumcision is as bad as rape.

Ozymandias
June 10th, 2010, 16:05
doctors don't want to admit that they have been doing wrong for 100+ years. (if the medical authority came out and said circumcision was harmful. can you imagine the feedback. millions of men outraged. for being butchered. and the largest class action lawsuit in the history of man. that kinda announcement could tear the medical world apart.)

This is why this website is so important, if males can be restored to full sexual health, then perhaps people will be less angry.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Regards,

Peter.

cobra
June 11th, 2010, 14:31
You guys put the cart before the horse when it comes to circumcision. Circumcision is a symptom of an ill society, not the cause of a society's ills. Circumcision springs up in sexually repressed, totalitarian-type cultures. It is a method imposed on people in an attempt to control them. Controlling the sex drive and procreation is extremely powerful stuff. It's also a way of branding people. You have the secret mark. You're one of us.

Do you think the USA is not a totalitarian society? We call ourselves a democratic society, but we do not directly vote for our leader, and we do not directly vote on our laws. Try smoking in a courthouse and see how free you are. Try walking down the street nude. Ask any citizen of an invaded foreign nation how democratic we are with our tanks in their streets and our soldiers pointing machine guns at them. There is not one thing in our country that is not taxed, monitored and legislated by the government.

Circumcision is a brand of conformity in a society that fears the alien. It is a tool that makes you less passionate, more productive, and less involved with your family, your fellow men, and ultimately yourself. The goal is not to make you more violent, but to make you a drone.

We are free to do only what the state allows us to do. There's a reason our prisons house such a disproportionately high percentage of the population, that 40,000 new laws were inacted this year alone in our nation, and that lawmakers and corporations work so hard to ensure that circumcision continues and thrives.

And it's not just circumcision. Did you know that the flouride that is put into our drinking supplies has no real benefit for tooth health. Flouride in the water is a Nazi idea. Flouride makes people more docile and obedient.

Go back to that list of nations and re-examine it. See how many of them are oppressive, xenophobic cultures...

Ozymandias
June 11th, 2010, 15:29
[QUOTE=Joseph;36603]Because, if I am correct, the connection people are trying to make in this thread is between circumcision and violence.

Circumcision is violence - end of story!

Ozymandias
June 11th, 2010, 16:02
Circumcision is a symptom of an ill society, not the cause of a society's ills.

Or maybe it is a circular argument, circumcised societies cause ill societies.

So how did this barbaric procedure begin?

I have a pet theory.

Many years ago there was a Spanish king and he had a lisp now all Spanish people talk with a lisp.

It is not pronounced Valencia but pronounced Valenthia the king is the arbiter of taste so all people must speak like the king to be excepted within polite society.

So because the king had a lisp he left a culture with a lisp.

Now imagine a young Pharaoh with phimosis and a doctor with ambition and a process that reinforces conservatism (and I don't mean that in a political sense).

To understand recursion first you must understand recursion.

madbr3991
June 11th, 2010, 16:13
circumcision is violence. but i don't think circumcision alone causes violence. lots of things cause violence. sexual repression causes violence. but what causes sexual repression. i think that religion causes most of the worlds sexual repression and thus causes a lot of violence. we have condoms and birth control so why is sex still so taboo. circumcision is just a form of sexual repression. sex between 2 consenting people should not be taboo. sex feels good and keeps your mind off how crappy life is.

its no wonder some people are violent. repress there sex lives + reduce there sexual pleasure (circumcision) = increased risk of violence. this formula does not describe all violent people only some. violence is a complicated monster and there is no one thing that causes violence.

Joseph
June 11th, 2010, 19:04
Circumcision is violence - end of story!

Maybe you're just dense or something.

Cobra and I have given you quite enough examples of how circumcision doesn't necessarily make a people violent.

(IE, the Nazis, Japanese, Italians, Germans, Russians, etc., etc.)

I will agree that circumcision is a violent act, and that it is violence against chidlren.

But history shows that circumcision alone does not necessarily make a people violent. As shown, there has to be a little bit more than that.

cobra
June 11th, 2010, 19:51
Circumcision is violence - end of story!

Whaaaatttt? How DARE you contradict us! I'll twist off your head and shit down your throat! I'll fucking KILL you! You'll rue the day you were ever BORN, pissant! I'll... herrumm... oh... um, sorry... That was my old circumcised weiner talking.

I agree that circumcision is a violent act. I just think it is the end product of a fucked up society, not the reverse. To be honest, I feel more passionate and confident being restored. More "manly". This would seem to me to be the opposite of having a "calming" effect on my personality. Besides, just look at how much of a drama queen Joseph is.

LOL, just kidding, Joseph.

Joseph
June 11th, 2010, 20:01
No, it's true.

Why lie?

Just LOOK at me. I'm not circumcised, and I'm the loudest in the group.

Maybe circumcision has a CALMING effect on guys.

:rolleyes:

Actually, I'm kind of violent and I need to calm down sometimes.

In my last bout of anger, I was so angry at my computer that I took the LCD screen in my hands and I bent it in two. I kind of half-savored the enjoyment of watching black cracks spread across the screen. Then I came back down to earth and realized it was $500 down the drain. Luckily it was my netbook and not my more expensive laptop. :D

Maybe if things don't improve I might consider circumcision to calm myself as punishment...

:rolleyes:

cobra
June 12th, 2010, 07:00
Maybe if things don't improve I might consider circumcision to calm myself as punishment...

Stop talking like that. You'll make aussie hard.

LOL.

I hate to say this, cause it runs counter to what many restorers would like to think, but I feel (no proof, just opinion) that uncircumcised men are the more passionate of the two. Not violent. Violence is about poverty, lack of education and generational cycles of cruelty. Violence is about lack of self control. But there is no way, in my opinion, that circumcision makes men more violent.

I know alot of uncircumcised men. Half my family is uncircumcised. I have had opportunity to observe them, my cut associates, and observe my own emotional evolution as I restore and here are the differences between the two as I have observed.

Cut men are more withdrawn and closed off from their family and their friends. They boast about sex and their dicks alot. They seem preoccupied with their genitals. They are not as emotional and kind of slobbish, couldn't give a shit.

Intact men are more open and gregarious. They are more affectionate towards family and friends. They do not seem as preoccupied with sex and their dicks, and don't really brag as much. They seem to take their sexuality more serious and personal. They are more emotional and from the ones I know, more fastidious about their appearance, their homes. Both my dads were intact, and both of them were and are almost feminine about maintaining themselves and their homes.

Some cultures claim that circumcision is performed to remove the feminine aspect of a man's personality... and I think there is a smidgen of truth in that. The intact men I know are more emotional and in touch.

These are just my opinions and open to debate. I would be interested in hearing if others observe this and agree.

Ozymandias
June 12th, 2010, 07:55
Stop talking like that. You'll make aussie hard.

LOL.

I hate to say this, cause it runs counter to what many restorers would like to think, but I feel (no proof, just opinion) that uncircumcised men are the more passionate of the two. Not violent. Violence is about poverty, lack of education and generational cycles of cruelty. Violence is about lack of self control. But there is no way, in my opinion, that circumcision makes men more violent.

I know alot of uncircumcised men. Half my family is uncircumcised. I have had opportunity to observe them, my cut associates, and observe my own emotional evolution as I restore and here are the differences between the two as I have observed.

Cut men are more withdrawn and closed off from their family and their friends. They boast about sex and their dicks alot. They seem preoccupied with their genitals. They are not as emotional and kind of slobbish, couldn't give a shit.

Intact men are more open and gregarious. They are more affectionate towards family and friends. They do not seem as preoccupied with sex and their dicks, and don't really brag as much. They seem to take their sexuality more serious and personal. They are more emotional and from the ones I know, more fastidious about their appearance, their homes. Both my dads were intact, and both of them were and are almost feminine about maintaining themselves and their homes.

Some cultures claim that circumcision is performed to remove the feminine aspect of a man's personality... and I think there is a smidgen of truth in that. The intact men I know are more emotional and in touch.

These are just my opinions and open to debate. I would be interested in hearing if others observe this and agree.

Interesting, there is a way to find out what the epigenetical effects are.

Find a couple who are due to have twins and would circumcise as a matter of course, make sure the twins are identical and pay them big dollar not to do it to one of them.

Then sit back and wait to see what the psychological differences are, it would probably easier and cheaper to go to a third world country that had a circumcising culture.

If a fund could be got together I would gladly donate.

Ozymandias
June 13th, 2010, 15:29
There is cause and there is effect.

But there is also morals and judgement.

And judgement, get the planck out of you're eye and don't miss the minor planck in mine own eye.

My kingdom for a hoarse.

Julian
July 9th, 2010, 10:36
The real reason for circumcision: We are in an era called Kali Yug.

Ok, technically, it might be Dwapar Yug by now, according to some.

Note about the word "dharma". In different sects it has different meanings, and it might not correlate exactly with English terms. But dharma is given here as "morality". But it can also mean "duty" or "raison d'etre".

---

Scummy people (Moses Whatever) would weaken the penis in what kind of era? An era of scumminess - our era. An era which started thousands of years ago. Another point about maniacs like him is that they are pure materialists. You stole? Cut off your hand! Do something physical. Forget about the so-called "spirit". This the degeneration mentioned below.

From Wikipedia

Hindus believe that human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga,[5] which is referred to as the Dark Age because in it people are as far removed as possible from God. Hinduism often symbolically represents morality (dharma) as a bull. In Satya Yuga, the first stage of development, the bull has four legs, but in each age morality is reduced by one quarter. By the age of Kali, morality is reduced to only a quarter of that of the golden age, so that the bull of Dharma has only one leg.[6][7]

Kali Yuga is associated with the apocalyptic demon Kali, not to be confused with the goddess Kālī (read as Kaalee) (these are unrelated words in the Sanskrit language). The "Kali" of Kali Yuga means "strife, discord, quarrel, or contention."

Julian
July 9th, 2010, 14:27
some of the reasons babies are circircumcised is

a baby can't resist (thats a diabolical reason. but probably the truest reason)

conformity ( the whole he won't look different in the locker room argument )

some people think money (i don't think money drives it. doctors make a remarkable amount of money anyway. an extra $100 for 15 min. is not that much to a doctor)

stupidity (most parents don't know what a foreskin does. most doctors don't know either.)

its cleaner (the hygiene reason this just gives parents a chance to be 10 seconds lazier. its also kinda driven by stupidity )

doctors don't want to admit that they have been doing wrong for 100+ years. (if the medical authority came out and said circumcision was harmful. can you imagine the feedback. millions of men outraged. for being butchered. and the largest class action lawsuit in the history of man. that kinda announcement could tear the medical world apart.)

he should look like his dad (this is the most idiotic excuses i have ever herd. you son wont ever be your clone. why should he penis look like yours. if the father is gone should you have a sex change done to the baby so the baby now looks like the mother? thats an easy NO. this whole look like the father reason is a doctors fall back reason

a baby wont remember the pain (thats a justification not a reason. doctors use this reason to justify circumcision when they know it is wrong)

before anyone thinks "but what about religious reasons" i chose not to list religious reason because most of the time you can't explane someone out of there religion.

this is not a complete list these are just some of the biggest reasons.
circumstitions. com has a great list of over 390 different reasons that doctors have used for circumcision

i say infant circumcision is as bad as rape.

Confusion! "As bad as rape?" Using the equative grammatical form to mean rape = mutilation? Really? They are equal? Wouldn't you trade in your circumcision for being raped?

Unregistered
July 9th, 2010, 16:23
The thing that worries me, is not so much what it does to the individual, it's what it does to society.

In the film 'Bowling for Columbine', Michael Moore makes the point that gun owner-ship in Canada approaches gun ownership in the USA yet gun crime is far higher in the USA.

Both cultures are formed from European cultures so why is American culture more violent?

Why is the middle east so violent?

A pattern emerges once you look at global statistics for countries where the majority of males are circumcised.

From

The Nationmaster website with the search term Circumcision (male)

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali ,Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Samoa,Tonga, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Yemen.

OK, now we are getting somewhere. In France, the violent ones, the bullies at schools are usually the "Beurs" (North Africans). I was startled in France at how non-violent the French kids were there. A fight would be a really big deal at school and rare. In Canada, it was all violence all the time. Circ not related to violence and rape? I think not.

Also, search wiki for "top serial killers by country" or "top serial killer countries". You will see the USA like massively way up on the list.

en.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_serial_killers_by_country

A coinkadink?

And all of this fits into the larger Kali Yug picture.


Julian
July 16th, 2010, 11:47
The real reason for sexual predators:

Circumcision? Well, no, not for ALL of these guys, but I think there must be some connection. Certainly with sexual violence maybe there is a strong connection.

No, not all guys on NBC To Catch A Predator were circumcised I don't think.

These NBC To Catch A Predator guys are only catching the small fry. Hollywood social engineering is pure garbage.

The AMA isn't being outed, gentlemen.

Somehow I don't feel sorry for doctors when they are caught doing things much milder than other things that they get away with, like circ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7ACJ4Acddc