Keeping Our Spearheads Intact

by Chuck Ross on November 5, 2009

There was a story circulating the news a couple months ago that’s near and dear to my, uh, heart. Depending on your news source, the CDC is considering measures to promote/force circumcision of male babies born in the U.S.  This isn’t new as many AIDS activists and Bill Clinton himself have advocated the same thing.

The recommendation rests on studies which show that HIV transmission is lower in circumcised Africans.  Considering the AIDS “epidemic” in the U.S., health officials are seeking any means of containing its spread, despite repudiation of the study.  Governments prefer to use pragmatic means to solve the crisis; I’d prefer that people learn not to fuck so non-chalantly in environments with high HIV prevalence. 

As a young, uncut boy I often wondered why my penis looked like an anteater while those of other boys’ in the swimming pool showers looked like toadstools. Parental guidance of “wash behind your ears” was accompanied with “and under your foreskin, too.” I was jealous that my brother – a follower of Abraham’s covenant – wasn’t chastised by our parents for “not cleaning his dick”. I had issues coming to grips with my oddity. I’d laugh at foreskin jokes pretending to be in on the fun when I was actually the target. The first mention of “smegma” was met with outward revulsion but inward angst.

But as I got older, I came to accept my extra layer of skin in all of its natural glory. Being unbaptized, non-religious and with a tendency to swim against the stream, I regarded my situation as the ultimate marker of resistance against the status quo. I was blessed with a triumvirate of rebellion. I was different in philosophy from those I grew up with, how fitting I also had tangible evidence to back it up. No I didn’t let my foreskin freak flag fly, but in time I developed foreskin pride.

                               

But I’ll put aside the personal pride of my fully-holstered gun; possibly it has biased my opinion on the subject. There are the natural rights issues of circumcision. Any well-heeled lover of personal liberty would oppose the government-mandate du jour regardless of its potential benefits to society. Slicing off an infant’s man-sheath is an affront to a basic tenet of liberty: protection from bodily harm. I buy into the Murray Rothbard school of radical libertarianism on child-rearing issues:

“Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[2] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[3] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.)  Very little need be said on that issue.”

I agree with Rothbard.  I don’t believe there should be any legal obligation for a parent to provide for their child although there are strong incentives to doing so in practice. A newborn – no matter how small and fragile – is a free agent. Parents have no natural obligation to feed or clothe it. Now, as Rothbard said, it’s best for society and the parents psyche to provide for their children, but they can’t be thrown in jail even if they allow them to die in the streets.  Since a parent has no obligation towards the child, they also have no claim on the child. This counts his foreskin. Foreskin mutilation is assault plain and simple. A free agent – when decision-making abilities are formed – can choose to whack their mole based on health, faith, or aesthetic reasons, but its their decision; it’s not for other people to decide.

Circumcision was historically practiced by the Jews for religious reasons.  Before that, it is believed that trimming a little off the top arose out of ritual:  a boy gave something of value (not toovaluable mind you) to mark his ascendancy to manhood.  In the book Sexual Mutilation: A Human Tragedy, Frederick Hodges asserts that circumcision became widely practiced in England after Jewish in-migration in the 1800s.  The observation that they - sans foreskin – had lower prevalence of syphilis than the then-uncut Brits.  Without analyzing the sex behavior of each ethnic group, the extra skin was blamed for the difference.  During the same century, Anglo-Saxon culture became obsessed with the ill effects of masturbation in boys.  To prevent this widespread calamity, the patriarchy decided to start cutting off heads – no questions asked.    

These simple reasons for performing the ritual – health and superstition – don’t hold up under scrutiny.  First, if you’re a believer, God made us in his image.  The man with the white beard is walking around with his gun in its holster just like me.  If you’ll allow me to get a little ridiculous, God’s use of a mohel would be an affront to His perfection. 

Turning to more practical matters, this study in the Journal of the American Medical Association claims that circumcision has no significant impact on STD prevention or sexual dysfunction prevention.  Also, circumcision was seen to lead to an increase in masturbation and more “unnatural” acts like oral and anal sex.  The reasons for circumcisions rise in the Anglo world are largely unfounded.

Another argument used by circumcision advocates is that smegma is a carcinogenic agent causing higher incidences of cancer.  This theory has been largely debunkedFrom the American Cancer Society:

“In weighing the risks and benefits of circumcision, doctors consider the fact that penile cancer is very uncommon in the United States, even among uncircumcised men. Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the Canadian Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine circumcision of newborns just for medical reasons.In the end, decisions about circumcision are highly personal and depend more on social and religious factors than on medical evidence.”

Oh yeah. The most important reason to leave the foreskin intact: sex is more enjoyable for men and women when the man is uncircumcised.  For us men, the foreskin houses nerve-endings and blood vessels that create arousal and heightened orgasmic pleasure.  In women, the water-weenie effect allows for more lubrication and greater sensation. From an evolutionary standpoint, doctors are messing with something that exists for a reason;  there may be unintended consequences of removing the foreskin.  Even if cancer and STD prevalence was higher in uncircumcised men, we still don’t have a good enough cost/benefit analysis to decide proper action.  After all, you wouldn’t cut off your nose to spite your face would you?

Circumcision in the United States has declined since the 1960s; it rests around 56% as of 2006.  I happened to be born in a town with hippie tendencies:  their acceptance of female armpit hair and dumpster diving was oddly correlated with foreskin sanctity.  For that I’m thankful.  The grounds for male circumcision are shaky and superstitious at best - torturous at worst.  The argument itself should be moot if we adhere to Rothbard’s admonishment:  circumcision is an affront to personal liberty and it’s practice on newborns should be eradicated.  To this I say “Give me Foreskin or Give me Death.”

HT:  Menareangrynow

{ 93 comments… read them below or add one }

JohnnyBravo November 5, 2009 at 13:11

I’m circumsized (on religious grounds), and I care little for other guys’ dicks.

It was a rather sanitary operation and I am not scarred for life or anything.

My only advice for guys who wish to avoid AIDS and other STDs, circumsized or not, is to not stick your dick in anything with a pulse, and for the gals, not to drag home any drunk frat boy. Common sense, really.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 13:14

I should preface before comments get going that menareangrynow wanted to see something on this topic. The topic hits home with me, so I figured I’d throw something together. It won’t appeal to everyone for obvious reasons, but its something to keep in mind should any of us have baby boys in the future.

Mouthbreather November 5, 2009 at 13:19

Also, if you’re gonna do it, be sure not to do it the fancy Jew way where a rabbi has to suck off the blood with his mouth. Some kids in Staten Island and Brooklyn got herpes that way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
jz November 5, 2009 at 13:22

I don’t buy the “no natural obligation” part of your argument, but agree that the boy/man deserves the option for himself. The greatest advantage to circumcism comes at the end of life, during the nursing home years, when he can not care for himself competently. Paraphimosis/phimosis are brutally painful and common among elderly uncircumcised men. If I owned a nursing home, I’d require it for admission.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
sestamibi November 5, 2009 at 13:30

As a member of The Tribe myself, I can assure Mouthbreather that not only did I not find out about the practice he described until about a year ago, but also that I find it just as repulsive as he does. I approve prosecuting individuals to perform such acts.

Now, having said that, let me add that my wife is also Jewish, and we damn well observed our tradition when our son was born. I get sick when I hear the tortured reasoning some Jews give for not doing it. It’s an article of faith: either you do it or you don’t, but don’t come up with excuses that are not written in the Torah.

On the other hand, no one should ever be forced into this if its not part of your faith, so I agree with you to that extent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 5, 2009 at 13:58

I don’t personally think circumcision is harmful, but I certainly don’t see it as necessary either.

If done for religious reasons, as it is with Muslims and Jews (and some Australian and African tribesmen, I believe), I’d say there’s no sense in attacking the practice. As far as I know, it originated, in the ME at least, with the Egyptians, who also practiced female circumcision, and still do to this day.

What really surprises me is the outrage over female circumcision, which in most cases is not nearly as brutal as Western women make it out to be, yet the perfect acceptance of male circumcision.

I agree with Sestamibi: without the religious mandate it should probably not be encouraged.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Hestia November 5, 2009 at 14:25

What really surprises me is the outrage over female circumcision, which in most cases is not nearly as brutal as Western women make it out to be, yet the perfect acceptance of male circumcision.
Any pain that men feels is not real, you should know that Welmer. /sarcasm

The newspaper we have from the day our daughter was born features an article on the front page about a Muslim family who circumcised their infant daughter and the resulting legal action that was taken. It blows my mind to consider that same day, had we had a son, we could have given him a circumcision for no other reason than we felt like it, and nobody would have decried the procedure. In fact, many feminists do not even seen the objection of those who are anti-circ when they are argue for same bodily integrity for men than they themselves want for women.

Sometimes while considering this inequitable attitude as referenced above, I can’t help but wonder if routine circumcision–those that weren’t done for religious reasons- came to be in the US to punish male sexuality. One of the original reasons to make circ routine was the myth that doing so would stop masturbation after all. Whether you believe circs cause great harm as do I, or that they aren’t that bad, the fact remains that many helpless infant boys are being tied down in circumstraints and having the most sensitive spot on their bodies operated on, mere days after they’ve been welcomed to this world. Why would this become okay in our collective culture while we wouldn’t dare do such a thing to girls? Could there be any other reason for RIC than putting boys in their place from day one?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 5, 2009 at 14:46

Sometimes while considering this inequitable attitude as referenced above, I can’t help but wonder if routine circumcision–those that weren’t done for religious reasons- came to be in the US to punish male sexuality. One of the original reasons to make circ routine was the myth that doing so would stop masturbation after all.

-Hestia

The modern Anglo-American practice probably did arise out of a negative view toward male sexuality. Anglo-American culture, since the Romantic era, has had a punitive attitude toward men surpassed by few other cultures; in fact I can think of none besides certain slave societies (e.g. Ottoman Turks) that treated men with such callous disregard.

The origins of male circumcision were probably twofold. First, it was likely a rite of passage, performed at the onset of adolescence. Boy becomes man through pain and bloodletting, perhaps to mark his passage as clearly as menses does for women. Secondly, as with the Egyptians, it was a sign of cleanliness. The Egyptians were obsessed with purity (a long time ago :) ), and had a number of rituals to reflect this.

The Jews made it into a symbol of their covenant, marking them as men with a clear duty to God’s commandments. However, the ideal of cleanliness and purity was definitely a part of the Jewish practice. This can clearly be seen in Jesus’ arguments about circumcision of the heart being the most important mark of spiritual purity. If I remember correctly, one of the OT prophets made the same distinction between circumcision of the heart and the penis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
kis November 5, 2009 at 14:53
What really surprises me is the outrage over female circumcision, which in most cases is not nearly as brutal as Western women make it out to be, yet the perfect acceptance of male circumcision.

Any pain that men feels is not real, you should know that Welmer.

My outrage over female circumcision arises from the fact that it often (not always) involves total removal of the exposed clitoris. It’s analogous not to removal of the foreskin, but to removal of 2/3 of the penis. And it basically means the 40-60% of women who can’t achieve an orgasm without clitoral stimulation will never have an orgasm. Ever.

But personally, I think messing with any baby’s private bits is a horrible thing. I’m not going to tell religious people what they should or shouldn’t do, but no holy book would convince me to do it to my kid.

I’d assume foreskins were naturally selected through evolution. If they weren’t necessary or beneficial in some way, they wouldn’t exist, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Chip Smith November 5, 2009 at 14:55

I’m glad to see you tackle this, and get it right. Infant circumcision is commonplace barbarity, and the arguments in its favor are stupid.

I’d like to recommend the book, “Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America,” by Leonard Glick, which I discuss (at some length) here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Hestia November 5, 2009 at 14:58

Welmer- The point you brought up about circumcision being a right of passage is a good one. I suppose if it was done as an old time right of passage the procedure is something markedly different than what RIC is today. (I’m staunchly anti-routine circ if you couldn’t tell ;)

Anglo-American culture, since the Romantic era, has had a punitive attitude toward men surpassed by few other cultures; in fact I can think of none besides certain slave societies (e.g. Ottoman Turks) that treated men with such callous disregard.
THANK YOU for saying this! Sometimes I just want to bang my head against a wall when it seems some folks find misandry to be a new thing as it is not new at all. Maybe the way the family courts allow women to rape men in court is new, but misandry has been woven tightly into our cultural tapestry long ago. What we’re seeing now is something that has been brewing for a very long time, both the sick women who hate men and the poor men who are lost and trying to find masculinity in a world that hates them so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 5, 2009 at 15:08

“in fact I can think of none besides certain slave societies (e.g. Ottoman Turks) that treated men with such callous disregard.”

As an amateur historian, I feel I have to clear this up.

The Ottoman Turks employed the “devshirme” system, which meant that captured, non-Turkic (ethnically) boys would be raised according to traditional Ottoman culture, but always be kept aware of their racial differences to the (Turkic) masses, and eventually be placed in leadership (military, clergy, bureaucratic and social) positions.

The rationale behind this was that people of influence raised as such would be protective of the empire, and yet, feeling not much sympathy for those who were not of the same ethnicity (a concept the Turks understood much better than our shamans of diversity) would be willing to sacrifice countless lives in the pursuit of expansion and defense of the empire.

It was a cold, calculating and perhaps inhumane move on the part of the Ottomans, but it ensured an empire of more than 250 years, something that is looking less and less possible for the US right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 15:10

I didn’t put this in my piece, but there could be long-lasting psychological effects from circumcision. I don’t know the extent to which trauma affects a baby, but I do know that the infant has no idea why his foreskin is being cut off. Today, we are averse to Freudian psycho-babble, but I can see an argument that messing with an infant’s penis in that way could have some effect later in life.

Welmer November 5, 2009 at 15:17

It was a cold, calculating and perhaps inhumane move on the part of the Ottomans, but it ensured an empire of more than 250 years, something that is looking less and less possible for the US right now.

-Johnny Bravo

True enough. Extreme measures have to be taken to maintain an empire in that area, and perhaps the Ottoman rule was about as humane as one could expect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia November 5, 2009 at 15:32

Today, we are averse to Freudian psycho-babble, but I can see an argument that messing with an infant’s penis in that way could have some effect later in life.
One of the arguments I have heard is the trauma of the procedure itself results in bonding issues between mother and child, and this is what causes the psychological problems, not the circumcision itself per se.

With such a sensitive topic as this one, it might be important for it to be said that the argument against circumcision is primarily one of sovereignty over one’s own body. Being circumcised does not make a man a damaged person or anything negative nor is an individual a bad parent because they did (or would) circumcise their son for whatever reason. As there is evidence that brings about the possibility of adverse effects from circumcision and the idea of sovereignty over one’s own body, this is an important issue to be discussed rationally, without judgment for those who fall into either of the groups I’ve just mentioned.

I hope that wasn’t inappropriate for me to say or offensive to you, Chuck. So often circ posts can get overtly heated both in the mommy sphere and MRA sphere and as the Spearhead is a place that has much interesting and productive debate, it would be sad to see your post fall apart into one of those mud slinging fests.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Kirt33 November 5, 2009 at 15:45

Another thing you should keep in mind is that of the Western democracies, circumcision is pretty much only widespread in the US (except for Israel, and of course now Muslims are importing it throughout Europe, but still). As an ‘intact’ Canadian, I was shocked to learn that circumcision is the norm in the US. Remember that Seinfeld episode where they are discussing circumcision? I didn’t get the jokes when I was younger. Someone on the show asks, ‘So, have you ever seen one that… wasn’t…?’ And I used to be like, ‘Umm… what does he mean, have you ever seen one that “wasn’t”? I’ve never seen one that was!’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 5, 2009 at 15:46

“True enough. Extreme measures have to be taken to maintain an empire in that area, and perhaps the Ottoman rule was about as humane as one could expect.”

Eh. I am going to admit this here, I am 50% ethnically Turk (though born and raised in the west) so I may be biased on the topic.

Personally though, I think the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire holds many clues about whither the west is going, being that it was one of the most long-lived multicultural enterprises which, despite the best efforts of her rulers to keep the empire together, failed spectacularly, in grand fashion.

It was ruled by men for most of the time, ruled by women (picture that) for quite some time, and failed due to the outbreak of (imho justified) nationalist sentiments.

Dismissing the Ottoman Empire as a “here be dragons” sort of barbarian-ruled dark, unexplored area would be rather rash and harsh.

Though I prefer Ataturk’s republic, sometimes I yearn for the late (Tanzimat-era) days of the old empire in which a girl would drop her handkerchief, signaling to a passing gentleman who would pick it up that she was interested in a relationship, rather than the disgraceful drop-down-drunk gyrating going on nowadays.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kimberly November 5, 2009 at 16:11

If I have a son I will not have him circumcised. It will pretty much be over my dead body as far as I’m concerned. It’s mutilation, no if ands or buts, or religious excuses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 16:26

Hestia:

“I hope that wasn’t inappropriate for me to say or offensive to you, Chuck.”

Not at all. I’m not trying to offend anyone with the post either. While I’m clearly not religious, I give those that perform the procedure on strictly religious grounds a little wiggle room. I really don’t want to turn it into a religious debate; we can save that for Larry Auster’s blog.

kirt33:

re: “Seinfeld”

as a huge fan of the show, I remember feeling bad when I watched that episode. The kicker was Elaine’s wrinkled nose and terse, disapproving head-shake. I felt weird that I was uncirc when I became sexually active and such. I figured they’d never seen one before, and most of them hadn’t. I’m over the angst now though.

Tarl November 5, 2009 at 16:26

My father wasn’t cut.

I wasn’t cut.

My son is not cut.

I would go to the barricades if the government tried to force that on me before my boy was born. It is an absolutely unacceptable intrusion on a personal decision. Keep your laws off my dick!

I was pleased to learn at the hospital that the default position is “don’t circumcise”, i.e. they’re not going to do that to the newborn without specific instructions to do so. Nevertheless I was there to make sure they didn’t exceed their instructions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Tarl November 5, 2009 at 16:29

The most important reason to leave the foreskin intact: sex is more enjoyable for men and women when the man is uncircumcised. For us men, the foreskin houses nerve-endings and blood vessels that create arousal and heightened orgasmic pleasure.

Oh yeah, the unsheathed head is extremely sensitive… the thought of having it permanently unsheathed in my shorts is highly cringe-inducing. It’s really too bad that so many of them have been desensitized via circumcision.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 5, 2009 at 16:36

as a huge fan of the show, I remember feeling bad when I watched that episode. The kicker was Elaine’s wrinkled nose and terse, disapproving head-shake. I felt weird that I was uncirc when I became sexually active and such. I figured they’d never seen one before, and most of them hadn’t. I’m over the angst now though.

Yeah, being a Canadian woman who has only been with one circumcised man, I thought that episode was weird–until my friend came back from the States to tell me how it was there. She’s going to have it written into the custody agreement that her son’s (American) father not be permitted to do the deed during a visit. That’s how adamant he is about wanting it done, and how dismayed she is by the whole concept.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 17:00

kis:

while she’s not adamant about it, my girlfriend (if we were to have children) wants to circumcise. i told her i’m strictly opposed to it. she has no other rational grounds besides “everyone else has it done” – meaning guys in her family. it would create a very interesting situation if one parent was for the procedure and one was for it. i’ll bet dollars to dog nuts that a mother would win out if she wanted the procedure done while the father didn’t.

fedrz November 5, 2009 at 17:00

The vast majority of Canadian men are circumcised, sorry. 70% of them, I believe. You have to go to Europe to get to where it is the other way. Amongst white people, anyway.

Btw, those with sons who are not circumcised, keep in mind that when you hear the “health arguments” proposed by the pro-circumcision crowd, that over 98% of the problems caused by being uncircumcised are caused when a boy goes through puberty. It is something called “phimoses”, where basically the penis and the foreskin do not maturate in tandem. This is the cause of the vast majority of problems cited by the pro-circumcision crowd, but what they fail to say is that 98% of this problem could be eliminated merely by awareness among the parents of the boy that upon the onset of puberty, his foreskin ought to be examined to ensure it has developed properly (If it hasn’t, a small surgical incission can be made which will remedy the problem). This would take a mere 15 min examination by a doctor, yet it is never discussed. It is certainly more cost effective than annual pap smears.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan November 5, 2009 at 17:15

Didn’t see this when I skimmed the comments (might have missed it) but the popularity of modern American circumcision to a large extent the result of late 19th/early 20th century anti-masturbation quackery “spearheaded” by the co-inventor of the cornflake, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

http://www.cirp.org/pages/whycirc.html

That is the best way to mock circumcision-pushers, in my opinion. It comes from the age of snake oil and miracle cures with cocaine in them. It’s hocus pocus carnival quackery that medical professionals should be mocked for continuing.

Circumcision is not necessary, and unnecessary surgery is stupid and wasteful.

It is most often done for aesthetic reasons, and that’s fucking barbaric and the people who give aesthetic reasons should be ashamed of themselves. Why not give a boob job to your 13 year old girl so she’ll be popular in high school? I’d say it’s exactly that stupid, but circumcision is actually dumber.

We’re talking about a pre-emptive cosmetic surgery performed on a piece of anatomy hidden from view 99% of the time, because it may make a kid feel kinda weird someday. Maybe.

Men somehow made it through millions of years of evolution uncircumcised in far less sanitary conditions; hygiene arguments are about parental laziness, convenience and awkwardness. Unacceptable.

The AIDS epidemic has not, for the most part, spread to heterosexuals in the West, and a moderate chance of not spreading HIV to a majority population that after over 2 decades is still not facing a real epidemic is nowhere near a good enough reason to spend one single taxpayer dollar promoting circumcision in America.

That said, if it’s a religious thing, I guess people should be free to do it because there’s some sort of meaningful context there, and parents are allowed to authorize other sorts of unnecessary procedures. Basically the pro-men side of me says it’s child abuse, and the libertarian side of me says that it’s also none of the government’s business, and in this case the libertarian side of me wins. The best way is to advocate strongly against it and resist attempts to re-institutionalize or sustain the practice.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
G November 5, 2009 at 17:36

Canada = 31.9%
Notice Quebec (french culture) = 12.3%

The Maternity Experiences Survey, conducted in 2006 by the Public Health Agency of Canada.
http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-e.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 5, 2009 at 17:45

Well, G, I’m not gonna follow the stats on that website, as they are contrary to everything I have ever heard on the subject in the past twenty years. I know that Canada has less circumcision than the USA, but, not significantly so.

Btw, Kis is the first Canadian woman I have ever heard who believes that most Canadian men are circumcised… mostly, I hear the same snicker jokes here amongst women as were told on Seinfeld. I would venture to guess that the vast majority of uncircumcised men in Canada are the descendents of European immigrants, who carried on the tradition that their fathers were not circumcised.

I won’t buy into the stats monster that quickly, sorry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 5, 2009 at 17:51

http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/Canada/

Here is a site that shows that in Alberta, in 1971 (a year before I was born), 67.5% of men were circumcised.

The rest of the article illustrates how the circumcision rate has been dropping, according to your previous stat.

Perhaps I am old enough now that it has dropped a lot, who knows, lol!

I remember always reading that the vast majority of Canadian men were circumcised.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 18:00

fedrz:

in the US the rate has dropped about 30 percentage points in 30 years from a high of 90% in the 1970s to 60~% today. i’d assume that canada has followed suit. in fact, this site says its at 50% – following the general trend.

piercedhead November 5, 2009 at 18:28

Perhaps if the issue was re-phrased. Would it be right to identify a part of the female anatomy as imperfect, and such a statistical threat to public health that it had to be surgically removed at birth?

What impression do you think it would have on the female psyche to be defined imperfect at birth?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Wulf November 5, 2009 at 18:35

Exodus 4:25

“Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.”

Eh – the woman, I take it, did it, but didn’t like the idea? Why did she give a rats ass anyway?

What the hell difference does it make?

I fail to see the purpose of this argument.

Does it make circumcised mem crappy lovers or something?

I’m cut and I don’t care. I guess I don’t have foreskin envy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Indomitable Thoughts November 5, 2009 at 19:39

Circumcision = crime.

Unless there is an extreme medical reason to do so, it should be avoided. And above all, it should not be forced on an individual before he can decide for himself! That is the apex of tyranny, stripping humanity away from a powerless individual. The foreskin is there for a reason and anyone who tells you otherwise is either hopelessly brainwashed, perversely misandrist or a plain old idiot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Wulf November 5, 2009 at 19:49

Abraham would have to be a patriarch.
Therefore Circumcision, at one time, = Patriarchy.

I’m missing my foreskin and I do not feel that I have been violated.
I will not play the victim like a woman and make a case out of nothing.

This shouldn’t even be an issue in the men’s movement.
Circumcision of males has nothing to do with the femnasties.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
menareangrynow November 5, 2009 at 20:10

Thanks for putting this up. I can already tell that this topic is hitting home with quite a few people too. Personally, I’ve always felt that circumcision was child abuse, of the worst order. To add insult to injury, our government banned female circumcision; but, kept male circumcision perfectly legal. It’s a sick and twisted discrimination against men. Males deserve equal protection under the law too. The lack of protection for us, is a violation of our 14th Amendment rights. Every year, baby boys die from this, from bleeding to death and infection. If they survive, they’ve lost they’re birth right: 24,000 nerves they’ll never get back.

I hope you all look at these videos to get a good understanding what I’m talking about, both biologically and morally. A lot of you, probably have never seen a circumcision done, so please see these!

1) FGM Vs. MGM
This is a video that a lot of you, who are comparing male and female circumcision should see. It is a full medical and biological comparison.

2) Male genital mutilation ritual from Desmond Morris
It’s not well known that male circumcision is often forced on older boys. Watch this to see circumcision, as practiced in other cultures.

3) Look just like Dad, by matching genitalia?
You need to see this! You will see what happens in a circumcision, and why it is atrocious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Double Minded Man November 5, 2009 at 20:14

I agree with Rothbard. I don’t believe there should be any legal obligation for a parent to provide for their child although there are strong incentives to doing so in practice. A newborn – no matter how small and fragile – is a free agent. Parents have no natural obligation to feed or clothe it.

I rather strenuously disagree with this. You are assuming that the only thing involved is whether or not the free will of the individual exists. I agree that the child has his own desires and in that manner is a free agent, but he is rather more of a prisoner than a free man.

There is not a child alive who asked to be born nor who asked for specific parents. The parents did that for him. They chose, by the act of copulation, to bring forth a child. It was THEIR choice, not his, that brought this child into his helpless state. Therefore, as they have dragged this “free agent” into his present circumstances, it falls upon them to provide for him. It may not be much more than the debt the jailer owes to the inmates, but it does indeed exist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Trevor Blake November 5, 2009 at 20:25

Rabbi Yitzchok Fischer of New York not only performs circumcisions, but does so in the metzizah b’peh tradition. That means after he cuts part of the baby’s penis he sucks blood from it. In 2005 Rabbi Fischer gave three of those baby boys herpes by this means, and one of them died from it. Rabbi Fischer has not been arrested, not been taken to court, not been charged, not been put in prison. Because he cut off part of baby penis and sucked the blood from the wound and gave the baby herpes in the name of an invisible monster that lives in the sky, he got away with it. That’s what religion is, that’s what religion does. Want to touch your lips to a baby’s cock, cause them to die and then get away with it? Do it in the name of G_d and you’ll learn that child sacrifice is alive and well in 21st Century North America.

Background: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 5, 2009 at 20:32

That’s a little extreme, eh Trevor?

I try to talk from both sides of the fence, because I was raised that way, but no longer live that way.

But the way you talk is hypocrytical, and, as a non religious person – I find it insulting, even if you are only insulting my parents, and my centuries long tradition.

Religious people are being attacked as severely as men, if not moreso. I do not wish to argue the merits of religion, but, I do wish to point out that those who attack religion out of bigoted assholery, will recieve no quarter from me any more than a feminist. The Christians have just as good of a case as “men.” They may be misguided on some issues, but, what beta male isn’t?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan November 5, 2009 at 20:38

Wulf

I will not play the victim like a woman and make a case out of nothing.

That could be applied to any grievance . By the same logic there shouldn’t even be a “men’s movement.”

(I’m really not sure there is much of one anyway)

Circumcision is stupid. I am circumcised and I was not traumatized by it nor am I crying about it, nor do I consider myself a victim.

But it IS stupid, it IS unnecessary, it IS irreversible, it IS done without permission, and the is NO reason for it to continue. It’s part medical quackery, part superstition.

It IS a great example of a double standard, because if female babies were cosmetically altered for aesthetic and superstitious reasons, there WOULD be a stink about it and it WOULD NOT be done so routinely.

If I had had a choice, no, I wouldn’t have had it done. Men should be able to make that decision on their own. Making that argument is not playing the victim or acting like a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
menareangrynow November 5, 2009 at 20:40

@Wulf

Abraham would have to be a patriarch.
Therefore Circumcision, at one time, = Patriarchy.

I’m missing my foreskin and I do not feel that I have been violated.
I will not play the victim like a woman and make a case out of nothing.

This shouldn’t even be an issue in the men’s movement.
Circumcision of males has nothing to do with the femnasties.

I take extraordinary issue with this post on three grounds. The first being that, the Men’s Movement is not solely to fight feminists, but to fight all misandry and, most importantly, to help men. They are but one road bl0ck to obtaining true equality. The second being that, as such it is necessary that we protect males from being tied down and flayed alive. Whether you admit it or not, this is what circumcision is. This is a grave issue, and we must protect our baby boys; because, no one else will. The Federal Prohibition on Genital Mutilation purposely excluded males! This, by itself, is an issue we should take up. It is in violation of the 14th Amendment’s supposed guaranty of equal protection under the law. And lastly, you say that women are playing the “victim” when it comes to circumcision. Circumcision is wrong, when its done to females and it’s wrong when it’s done to males. Unfortunately, this is an issue that feminists have been oft to be involved in. They have been known to advocate male circumcision as a “revenge” against “evil” men.

I hope you will watch the above videos, wulf, along with this last one:

-How to heal from circumcision

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan November 5, 2009 at 20:42

fedrz…

Technically Trevor was talking about Jews, so defending Christians is kind of beside the point–which is that people get away with all kinds of nuttiness if they attribute it to religion. This is true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 5, 2009 at 20:50

Literally, Trevor is attacking people who believe in the “Monster Who Lives In the Sky”.

He is attacking my family, and my heritage. Period.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist November 5, 2009 at 21:11

It’s going to be really hard to change the minds of those who were circumsized or have circumsized their children because in a way they will take it as criticism as them as people, as parents.

I think the best approach would be to establish in the debate that if circumcision is right, then their son will choose it when he’s legally an adult, even with their parents’ advice to do so.

If they already ARE circumsised, well, it’s hard to miss what you didn’t have, don’t try to convince them that they are less of people or that every sexual problem they have or think they have is a result of it.

I think if circumcision is going to leave, it’ll be very gradually, very slowly, and with “meh”s coming from the parents who decide not to, they won’t be waving flags of foreskins nor grieving over their own circumcision that was not up to them. The stats reflect this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eman November 5, 2009 at 21:24

“Being unbaptized, non-religious and with a tendency to swim against the stream, I regarded my situation as the ultimate marker of resistance against the status quo.”

Too many Americans keep forgetting that being uncircumcised actually IS the status-quo worldwide — the vast majority of the world’s men are uncircumcised, i.e. they still have the penis which nature intended them to have.

Circumcision is clearly a major violation of human rights, and mind you this is coming from someone who is very far-right. Tens of millions of American male newborns have been circumcised against their will just so the corrupt American medical establishment could make an extra couple hundred bucks post-delivery. Routine circumcision was virtually unknown in the USA before the 1950s/60s. It was only promoted in order to make an extra quick profit, doctors mutilating little newborn’s genitals for a little bit more money…truly sickening.

Female circumcision has correctly been labeled ‘genital mutilation,’ so why the incredible double standard for not labeling the slicing off of the foreskin of a helpless newborn male baby the same thing?

Circumcision damages the ‘spearhead,’ to use your terminology. It causes the glans (head) of the penis to gradually become keritanized over time, thus leading to eventual desensitization of the penis. The glans also becomes slowly desensitized via constant rubbing against clothing for decades, where uncircumcised penises are protected from that by the foreskin and thus remains more sensitive. Just as our eyeballs would become completely dried out and we would go blind if we cut off our eyelids, the same principle applies to the head of the penis — the glans is a natural mucous membrane that is meant via Nature’s design to remain somewhat moist (with smegma) and enclosed throughout our lives.

Overall, circumcision ought to be made a crime — if the Jews, Muslims, and some others want to do it then they can be given special permits, but routine infant circumcision is highly barbaric and ought to be abolished as standard procedure just like other obsolete and ridiculous medical practices of the distant barbaric past.

Also, I think that circumcision is a major reason why so many American men tend toward the ‘beta’ — it’s pretty obvious that having their dicks cruelly and unnecessarily sliced up by strange surgeons right after they’ve been born has instilled in many American men a strong sense of ‘castration anxiety’ which likely lingers with them throughout the rest of their lives.

To all the people here: if and when you have a male son and you get him circumcised, you are violating his sovereign right to exist as Nature intended him to be. Humans have evolved via many aeons of evolution…who are we to moronically tamper with Nature’s brilliant anatomical designs by slicing off random body-parts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
by_the_sword November 5, 2009 at 21:42

I want my foreskin back.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray November 5, 2009 at 21:46

it’s no coincidence that the CDC is suddenly pushing this concurrrent with the installment of the fully feminist obama administration . . . A Woman’s Nation . . . etc

this year mass/mandatory circumcision was also heavily pushed in Africa, with international covers but principally by, you guessed it, the US (see first paragraph)

circumcison was prescribed to the hebrews for reasons specific to their religious and cultural development, not as a punishment nor as a political tool, and was NEVER intended for gentiles in modern western nations

the US-backed mass-circumcision propaganda must be understood as part of the matriarchy’s larger war on masculinity, it’s apparently bottomless, pathological hatred of the free male being as created by God

the traumatization of week-old defenseless males as a ideo-political tactic — as a kind of collective revenge — is despicable but indicative of the type of forces now in unchecked positions of influence

if america tries this, it’ll be over my dead body, and that won’t be the end of it either

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kalim Kassam November 5, 2009 at 21:54

Chuck,

This is the first time I’ve seen the Rothbardian theory of children applied to the issue of circumcision, and I think you’ve made a convincing case. Well done. I still want to quibble however–I don’t think this bit is quite right:

“As Rothbard said, it’s best for society and the parents psyche to provide for their children, but they can’t be thrown in jail even if they allow them to die in the streets.”

If you’ll permit me a simple appeal to authority, here’s a section from Walter Block’s paper applying Rothbardian childrens’ rights theory to abandonment:

For another thing, [parents] could abandon the baby without choosing adoptive parents. That is, as long as they notify all and sundry of their intention to give up their rights to the baby, and do not prevent anyone else from homesteading the child, they have no positive obligation to keep it, or even to ensure that the baby is taken up by others.

Would it ever be possible, under libertarian law, for a baby to be abandoned by its parents, for there to be no other adult willing to care and feed it, and the baby be relegated to death? Yes. However, this could occur only under the condition where the entire world in effect was notified of this homesteading opportunity, no roadblocks were placed against new adoptive parents taking over, but not a single solitary adult stepped forward to take on this responsibility. Since there are no positive obligations in the libertarian lexicon it is logically possible for such a sad state of events to take place.

The reasoning behind all this notification business is explained earlier in the paper, but it has to do with homesteading donuts. The upshot is that in the libertarian land of Ruritania, while parents can indeed legally abandon their baby in the streets under very particular circumstances (or more preferably on the front steps of a hospital, orphanage or church), they certainly cannot just leave them locked in the closet or inside a dumpster to die.

Also, are you willing to take this radical theory of rights to similar conclusions regarding piercings for children? I don’t want to get into Rothbardian punishment theory right here, but the penalty for putting bejeweled studs through the earlobes of one’s bouncing baby daughter would not be insignificant.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eman November 5, 2009 at 22:07

chuck ross:”it would create a very interesting situation if one parent was for the procedure and one was for it. i’ll bet dollars to dog nuts that a mother would win out if she wanted the procedure done while the father didn’t.”

Any man that allows his woman to have dominion over his son’s dick isn’t much of a man at all. A man should NEVER allow his newborn son’s penis to be sliced by some random doctor just looking to make a few extra bucks.

The man in the relationship or marriage should always decide the issues of primary importance; women are very conformist and often irrational, and their judgments cannot always be trusted except when they involve the most mundane/everyday tasks related to chores and keeping house. Thus, the man should always be the person to decide issues of supreme importance such as circumcision and so on.

All that being said, no parent has the right to tamper with a body that is not theirs, even if it is their own child(ren). People have the right to not have the most sensitive and private portions of their body sliced up against their will only a few hours after they’ve been born, scarring them for life in more ways than one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eman November 5, 2009 at 22:29

ray:”the US-backed mass-circumcision propaganda must be understood as part of the matriarchy’s larger war on masculinity, it’s apparently bottomless, pathological hatred of the free male being as created by God”

Precisely. They want and have sought to create hordes of pliant, meek, and psychologically castrated (circumcised) beta-drones to do the actual work and heavy-lifting for them while they sit around and indulge their foolish female fantasies which will eventually lead to the ruin of all true and higher culture as it eventually becomes overseen by and thus lowered to the petty level of the average female.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 22:31

Eman:

I agree, this *should* be more of a father’s decision. Hopefully both parents can agree and/or the mother agrees with the father’s stance, I’m just wondering what, hypothetically, would happen in such a case. If one is telling the doc to snip and the other isn’t, who wins?

Pretend its a Jewish mother and a Gentile father who aren’t married or even close. Again, completely hypothetical, I’m just curious which way it would go.

Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 22:41

Wulf:

“I will not play the victim like a woman and make a case out of nothing.

This shouldn’t even be an issue in the men’s movement.
Circumcision of males has nothing to do with the femnasties.”

Does everything we write about or think about have to be contrasted against feminists? I’m all for punching feminists in the mouth, but we have issues that don’t really pertain to them that we need to address. They aren’t going to fight us on the fact that circumcision should be banned in cases outside of religious reasons as they aren’t going to fight us on imploring men to get regular health exams in order to close the “Death Gap” between women and men, but feminists and women also aren’t going to help us get that idea out either. They’re focused on their own stuff, we have to focus on ours.

kis November 5, 2009 at 22:47

@ fedrz

Btw, Kis is the first Canadian woman I have ever heard who believes that most Canadian men are circumcised

Do you mean uncircumcised? I’m pretty sure most Canadian men my age (born 1970) or younger of European descent are UNcircumcised. I’ve been with one who was, and god only knows how many who weren’t. Um, I can’t remember them all. *ahem* Lots.

Here is a site that shows that in Alberta, in 1971 (a year before I was born), 67.5% of men were circumcised.

The rest of the article illustrates how the circumcision rate has been dropping, according to your previous stat.

Perhaps I am old enough now that it has dropped a lot, who knows, lol!

The rate started dropping around the time I was born. When I was three, my mom’s friend wanted to have her boy done, and she had to go all the way from Edmonton to Calgary to find a doctor who would do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 5, 2009 at 22:50

BTW, my dad was circumcised for medical reasons as a young man. He said sex was way better before he had it done. After the hypersensitivity of his glans faded, well, it just wasn’t hypersensitive anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 5, 2009 at 23:16

Kalim Kassan:

Ah, those libertarians and their crazy thought experiments. that’s what initially drew me to them.

anyway, to quickly lay out the argument to those who didn’t read block’s piece, the homesteading of a donut-shaped parcel of land with an unowned central “hole” is analogous to the baby being abandoned. For the baby to be truly abandoned – and not merely held captive – there must be an attempt to allow others to “own” it. It’s still kind of hard for me to accept that the baby is property though, as Rothbard and Block argue. As Block wrote, a parent doesn’t treat a baby purely like property – nor can they – because they can’t destroy it. I haven’t read up enough though to understand their argument though.

Thanks for the comment.

fedrz November 5, 2009 at 23:46

Geez, Kis, thanks for the info on Pa!

Now, let me tell you how my Ma told me to jerk off Pa back in ’82? K’? Gather in close now!

You are the same age as me, Kis. You’ve got no leverage there. I was born in 1970 as well… the big four oh, you know! Uh oh!

In our generation, YES!, 2 out of 3 men WERE circumcised. If you’ve been hittin’ thirds all your life, let’s document it and maybe I’ll spring for a trip to Vegas, eh? You never know!

Sex with a foreskin definitely does have a purpose, aside from protecting the sensitivity of the glans.

Both women and men find sex easier with an uncircumcised male, as the foreskin’s elasticity allows for easily 1″ to 2″ of penetration without hardly any male-penetration/female-lubrication occuring at all… if you know what I mean. The foreskin acts as a lubricant of its own… it is obviously designed to enhance sex, for both men and women – for the sex act.

It is a disgrace to both sexes to hamper natural sex this way.

But, respectfully, this subject is about as much out of your bounds as it is for me to recomend the best brand of tampons for you to use.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis November 6, 2009 at 00:27

Geez, Kis, thanks for the info on Pa!

Now, let me tell you how my Ma told me to jerk off Pa back in ‘82? K’? Gather in close now!

LOL. Actually, my mom told me what he told her when I was pregnant with my first kid.

Maybe I did hit thirds all my life. Or perhaps a significant portion of the 2/3 of circumcised men were older than us? There’s a lot of men over 40 in Canada. If nearly all of them were cricumcised, it would take a long time for overall stats to reflect my experience. I wonder what the percentage of circumcised men will look like when the baby boomers are gone.

Both women and men find sex easier with an uncircumcised male, as the foreskin’s elasticity allows for easily 1″ to 2″ of penetration without hardly any male-penetration/female-lubrication occuring at all… if you know what I mean. The foreskin acts as a lubricant of its own… it is obviously designed to enhance sex, for both men and women – for the sex act.

But, respectfully, this subject is about as much out of your bounds as it is for me to recomend the best brand of tampons for you to use.

Um, not exactly. I found with my one circumcised partner that it didn’t matter how much natural lubrication I produced initially. Without that foreskin to slide along as he pulled out, the head of his penis pulled the lubrication out of me. Sex would start out wet, and end up…not so wet. Makes a difference for me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 6, 2009 at 01:13

The best sex quote of all time comes from sleezy cad Richard, on the show Ally McBeal:

“How do I know I’m good at sex? Because I always satisfy myself!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 01:55

Hello and thank you for all your concern about my penis.

Rest assured, my penis works at full capacity and never malfunctions except in cases of extreme alcohol consumption, though the manual said that this was true of all models.

Should my penis ever break down, I will make sure to give you all a call so you can immediately take care of it. Should it break down while I’m doing the deed, one of you fine gents can take over while my penis is being repaired. Don’t worry, I will clarify to her that she has nothing to fear, that you are just guys from the internet who care a lot about my penis.

Furthermore, sex does not feel like having my groin sandpapered. Though I have never had my groin sandpapered, so I can’t say for sure. Ah to hell with it, took a knife to my dick already, I might as well go ahead and buy industrial-strength sandpaper from Home Depot. I will report back in a few hours and tell you if sex feels like sandpapering my groin or not. Stay tuned.

Also, I have never thought about uncircumsized men dominating me with their large, intact penes. Though I am sure the next time I’m in an elevator with other guys this will inadvertently pop into my mind and I’ll look like an idiot laughing over just how gay and batshit insane the thought is. Thanks a lot, assholes. Thanks a lot, internet.

Oh, and I see we have someone talking about evil sky wizards, I think it’s time to rename this post “Dick Panic ’09″ so people know that homotions are running wild in here, that this post and the comments will satisfy all their dick needs for years to come (ladies drop me a line: 1-800-DICK-A-LOT).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cayalx November 6, 2009 at 02:27

since fedrz (i believe) mentioned phimosis as a potential problem, I figured I’d add in my own experience. I’m uncut and had this very problem. Never would of known of it if not for the internet, which clued me in at around age 20. It surely did ruin my first sexual experience (at age 17). Once I found out about my issue, I resolved to cure it. How, I had no idea. The internet said I needed to stretch, but the skin around my head was so sensitive that I didn’t see how I could possibly get my hand within 6 inches without jumping five feet into the air. The only thing that freaked me out more, was the thought of being circumcized. So I took it slowly, and forced myself to stretch it a little at a time. At first it was impossible, but the nerves desensitized themselves fairly quick. Three months and several hot baths later, I was able to reveal the head of my penis fully for the first time. One of my proudest moments.

I’m not saying that all other cases will be similar to mine, but I could only imagine going to a doctor for his “wisdom” on the manner. No doubt he would recommend surgery. Whereas doing it on my own, I found such a drastic step unnecessary, and today I’m intact with all the benefits that entails. Such as, a much lighter wallet from all the money I didn’t spend buying lube. ;o

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
PA November 6, 2009 at 05:07

I’m intact, being a non-US born Christain. In my relations with American girls, I was often the first uncut guy they had been with. And in every single case, the girl said, with pleasant surprise, some version of this: “It feels better / more natural going in.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rollory November 6, 2009 at 05:56

“A newborn – no matter how small and fragile – is a free agent. Parents have no natural obligation to feed or clothe it.”

You are completely fucking nuts. I’m done with you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Wulf November 6, 2009 at 07:04

@ Messrs. Indomitable, Donovan, Menareangry & Ross:

Thank you for your enlightenment on the matter.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis November 6, 2009 at 10:01

I just want to clarify something I said. Yes, the fact that the one man I dated was circumcised did affect the sex we had. That’s not to say it wasn’t pleasurable for either of us, just that there were measures we had to take (tube of lube next to the bed) to ensure that it stayed good for me for the duration.

I don’t think being circumcised or having a circumcised partner makes sex worse. It’s just something we had to acknowledge and deal with. Sex with him was totally blammo (certainly better than many of the uncut men I’ve been with) once we figured out what was going on. :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 6, 2009 at 10:42

Not to sound gay, but does an erect uncircumcised penis look that much different from an erect circumcised one, or is the difference much more pronounced when flacid. Just curious.

BTW: I’m totally against circumcision. I see no argument beyond religion, as even reasonably justifying it.

Ignore the below if you don’t like off topic rantings that I have a hard time keeping in, because the debates here inspire such a rush of ideas in me. I won’t repress the joy I find in being intellectually stimulated by always staying on topic. Lack of focus can encourage creative output in positive ways. Excuse my scattered nature.

“First, if you’re a believer, God made us in his image.”

As a non-sequitur to the dialouge at hand, but in reference to above, I believe we evolve in tandem with God. I don’t think god is static at all. Perfection is better reflected by a dynamic entity. Why would the omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent entity of God be stagnant. Perfection is not stagnant, but closer to being cyclical (I actually think something more like a repeating spiral driven by cyclical processes, but thats a rabbit hole, and I’m already too off topic). We reflect Gods “image”, yes, but more from a meta-view of human kind as a whole, not the individual, or the individual form. If we are simply a being (or rather a mass of beings) representing a point on a continuum of evolution, would God not be similiar by nature, in the sense that he is evolving. If God is everything, including us, who says God is done with himself. Seeing God as a singular, even remotely humanoid entity, does a diservice to his phantasmagoric magnificence. I refuse to believe that he is that boring. I see him as a process, one we are all a part of, and one hell of a show to watch.

To tie this into the debate, God has less to do with circumcision, then he does to the actual debate surrounding circumcision. The ideas, implications, metaphorical significance, and/or beliefs about circumcision would matter far more to him, and as he and we are not stagnant, his feelings on the debate can change just as ours can. If he once approved and appreciated circumcision, that does not mean he does not see it as unecessary and barbaric now. What, God can’t change his mind? The problem with religions is that they are written down (stagnant). It is time we move past this archaic act. God has more important stuff on his plate for us to deal with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hestia November 6, 2009 at 10:50

I agree, this *should* be more of a father’s decision. Hopefully both parents can agree and/or the mother agrees with the father’s stance, I’m just wondering what, hypothetically, would happen in such a case. If one is telling the doc to snip and the other isn’t, who wins?
I have read on an anti-circ message board I used to be a part of about a few cases in which consent was required for a circumcision from *both* parents as it’s an elective procedure. If this is true I’m not sure, but it would be wise policy to be in place for the protection of children.

This is an issue you’d likely want to start discussing now if you would consider having children with your current girlfriend. This was one of the issues that would have been a deal breaker for me. There was no way I could have married and had children with a man who would circ his son. I’ve known many people who have been able to overcome the objections of their co-parent when they shared the sinister information about circumcision. (Believe it or not, fathers are often the ones advocating for the circumcision, sometimes using the objection of wanting their son to look like them.)

I have several links to anti-circ sites on my blogs sidebar, including one toe wreckingboy’s “mutilation nation” writing that is quite graphic (including pictures) but explains the issue in a truthful matter. MotheringDotCommune also has an anti-circ forum that is full of information and can be a place to ask questions or send a woman who needs to be educated about why circumcising her son is harmful and isn’t a choice she should make. I’ve sent quite a few people to both of these resources and they have thankfully helped change minds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 6, 2009 at 12:02

Rollory:

“You are completely fucking nuts. I’m done with you.”

Ah come on. We had such a good relationship.

Jab her wochie:

“As a non-sequitur to the dialouge at hand, but in reference to above, I believe we evolve in tandem with God.”

Personally, I fully believe that things in the Bible and Talmud and what-not are superstitious. Humans gain nothing by following those creeds since (in my opinion) there is no God.

*But* if there was a God, he would by definition be perfect. We were made *in his image*. Now, each human isn’t perfectly constructed, but the basic framework, the recipe follows that perfect mold. Human penises come wrapped in an extra fold of skin. While that skin may not be perfect in every single baby boy, the idea of it is perfect. Slicing it off, in accord with tradition, is an affront to that perfection. To me, that is an inconsistency in doctrine.

As I’m writing this, to be fair to the religious, God made them in his image but he asked them to sacrifice something dear to prove their loyalty to him.

JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 12:19

“Not to sound gay, but does an erect uncircumcised penis look that much different from an erect circumcised one, or is the difference much more pronounced when flacid. Just curious.”

I am terribly sorry but you are, in fact, gay now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 12:39

“Humans gain nothing by following those creeds since (in my opinion) there is no God.”

Stupid and childish.

How is nothing gained by, say, following the ten commandments?

Oh, of course I know the standard reply to that. Scientific humanism. Assign worth to humans by axiom.

The problem here is that not everybody is an agreeable fellow who will go along with the “golden rule” (which itself is a tenet of basically every religion and sprung from religion itself). Those who advocate that atheism can regulate society just fine simply ignore the fact that many people simply do not have the capability to adhere to scientific humanism.

Let’s ask the question “why is a human life worth anything?”

The religious answer would be: Because God said so.
The scientific humanist answer is: Because it just is.

Now, bright people can grasp the answer that scientific humanism gives. They can understand that not valuing human lives at all would result in a complete and utter breakdown of society and mankind.

However, let’s not forget the people who just don’t give a fuck. To them, anything beyond immediate personal gratification is worthless. They are the ones who need religion, and they are present in sizable numbers in every society. Because whereas scientific humanism offers no disincentive for ignoring basic rules of civilization (except for prison, which more and more resembles luxury resorts in the west), religion does.

It does not matter whether or not you understand why valuing human life is important, as long as you believe that any transgression against it will result in a pissed off “sky wizard” (to use angry Dawkins-style atheist parlance) and an eternal fiery ass-kicking. Bam, instant disincentive.

Canning religion was the worst mistake and most ignorant mistake the elites in the west have ever made. And is say this as an atheist myself. I’m beyond my teenage anger at religion and can understand that it has been used as an excuse for violence (which in any case would have happened due to human nature, religion or no religion. Anybody remember the Soviet Union?), but that it is one of the pillars of civilization, and will remain so for all eternity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie November 6, 2009 at 13:01

“Jab her wochie:”

You noticed my innuendo! Thank you. Sometimes I think I’m the only person smart enough to appreciate how clever I am. Just kidding. Many of the people here I consider my intellectual superiors. I get bored around people I think I’m smarter than. I have a lot of ideas, fluency of thought I think is what its called, but most of them are stinkers, and I rely on more refined minds to sift the gems from the bullshit I spout off. I would make a better sounding board, fostering creativity in people who have more discipline in how they think, than an intellectual leader in my own right. I see pictures in my head, and I don’t want to do the necessary research to make sure they aren’t illusions. Do I make any sense?

“JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 12:19 pm
“Not to sound gay, but does an erect uncircumcised penis look that much different from an erect circumcised one, or is the difference much more pronounced when flacid. Just curious.”

I am terribly sorry but you are, in fact, gay now.”

Sweeet!! Now I don’t have to deal with women at all! I always thought the gays had it made! Just tell me how I go about finding cock rammed up my ass enjoyable, and I’ll be set!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 13:08

“Just tell me how I go about finding cock rammed up my ass enjoyable, and I’ll be set!”

The fastest way to enjoy sucking on dicks and having the rammed up your ass nowadays is becoming a politician.

Just place your bid for an office, the various lobbies will do the rest. You’ll be sucking cocks in no time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 6, 2009 at 13:13

JohnnyBravo:

“How is nothing gained by, say, following the ten commandments?”

Like your namesake, you’re a loose cannon. There is something gained by following other unmentioned laws, but some are pure superstition and/or outdated responses to ancient situations.

Circumcision is pointless. Not eating shellfish is pointless. Forgoing pork is pointless. Abstaining from killing someone, otoh, is not pointless. Humans have an ingrained aversion to that. Yes, scientific humanism supports that train of thought.

As an atheist myself, it becomes hard to discern what society should and shouldn’t do. We have to employ somewhat pragmatic measures when deciding on what’s good for society. Through observation and trial and error we come up with a set of behaviors that it deemed “good”. Now, I understand the implications of this; there is still no universal, absolute ground on which humans can definitely say things “ought” to be a certain way. But who is to say we were ever afforded the luxury to be able to say that? If you believe there is a God, then you have your answer. If you believe the evidence supports the argument against God’s existence, then God is merely a safety net, a just-so story that conveniently tells us how we ought to behave.

I have the same spiritual life-cycle as you. I used to be more militant in my atheism, thinking that Christianity is the root of all of our troubles, but it’s not. Christianity serves a purpose and has done a lot of good. But, it’s not true. So we have to reconcile that. As an atheist, Johnny, how do you reconcile that?

Chuck Ross November 6, 2009 at 13:22

Jabherwochie:

“I have a lot of ideas, fluency of thought I think is what its called, but most of them are stinkers, and I rely on more refined minds to sift the gems from the bullshit I spout off. I would make a better sounding board, fostering creativity in people who have more discipline in how they think, than an intellectual leader in my own right. I see pictures in my head, and I don’t want to do the necessary research to make sure they aren’t illusions. Do I make any sense?”

I’m interested in how people develop their ideas. This sounds a lot like me. I’m not trying to act like I’m some genius or brilliant blogger; I’m not. Most of my ideas are shit; I have dozens of ill-thought writings on my PC desktop that are plain stupid. I’ve even posted some on my own blog. Perhaps I’ve posted some here too. For me, blogging and commenting on message boards is a way for me to think through things. Often, I’ve learned the most by being completely wrong and having people tell me so. I engaged in a discussion with Larry Auster about morality that changed a lot of what I thought about the subject (I’m still atheist but I now understand the limitations and implications of atheism, plus I understand a more rational argument for God). I’ve been smacked down in the past by Novaseeker, Welmer, and Dave from Hawaii on Roissy’s board for some naive thoughts on subjects I didn’t know enough about.

But I’m young, and I’m learning. If you keep writing and getting those thoughts out somehow, eventually it will coalesce. Also, don’t feel as if every thought you have has to be the most brilliant insight in the world or that it has to be entirely organic to be yours. The Spearhead is a product of a type of perfect storm I guess. Welmer saw a need for it and acted after a dust-up between Ferdinand Bardamu and Larry Auster concerning Game. For a couple of months lots of people were weighing in and developing ideas, feeding off of each other to figure out “what’s wrong”. It was great. Nobody’s ideas were entirely their own, but we each had something to add.

Hope November 6, 2009 at 13:26

“Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it.”

On the subject of God, no one can ever really know. I am no longer an atheist, and I am also not traditionally religious. I’m a weirdo spiritualist, and I’m also still trying to figure it out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 13:35

The more “anachronistic” rules of religion have a purpose: Indoctrination.

Assume, for example, that you are a bright patriot. You understand why loving your nation is important, so that it might prosper for all eternity (ideally) and bestow upon you, your children and your grandchildren a good quality of life.

If, however, you are a short-sighted person who does not grasp the importance of nationalism, what you need to do is recite the pledge of allegiance every so often and wave the flag to remind you and keep you in line.

If only all could be solved by reason, but a big part of mankind only acts on emotions and instincts, so those who cannot be gotten around by rational arguments need to be kept in line with things which appeal to emotion and instincts. And that is, in short, the purpose of indoctrination.

If people separate meat and dairy, go to church on sunday, pray 5 times a day, or avoid pork and alcohol, it might not be for a practical purpose anymore, but just for constantly reminding them of the rules which govern civilized society.

The way I reconcile this with myself is a “don’t give a damn but won’t act out either” train of thought. I understand that going against these rules will encourage malcontents which clamor for any and all excuses to throw of the shackles of civilized behavior and unleash their animal natures. So if I am expected to go to church on sunday, I will go to church on sunday. If I am expected to rest on saturday, I will rest on saturday. If I am expected to attend communal prayers on friday, I will attend the communal prayers on friday. It will be a minor inconvenience for me, but it will be the pillar which upholds the civilized society in which I can enjoy a comfortable life. Sounds like a deal to me.

Sure, “double-think,” which has been thoroughly discredited in our “modern” society (a congregation of few truly enlightened people and vast masses of rampant barbarians), may strike people as inherently evil, but I am a moral absolutist. I believe that civilization is good and barbarism (though it might grant us unprecedented individual freedom) is bad. And if I have to say “2 + 2 = 5″ to uphold civilization, I will do so, even though I may know, or at least be very certain, that it is wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 6, 2009 at 14:00

Not eating shellfish is pointless. Forgoing pork is pointless.

Anthropologist Marvin Harris in “Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches” actually makes a pretty good case for the prohibition of both shellfish and pork within the context of the environment where those things were prohibited. Pigs, having no sweat glands, must wallow in something moist to keep from overheating. In a hot, dry, desert climate this usually means their own feces, which in that environment makes them incredibly prone to disease and spreading disease. The high fat content of pork makes it an incredibly appealing food, and Harris speculates that in a mostly ignorant illiterate society logical reasons to avoid something were not enough to overcome human tendencies toward self-indulgence. Only a religious-based prohibition had enough power to get most people to avoid such items.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer November 6, 2009 at 14:11

Pigs, having no sweat glands, must wallow in something moist to keep from overheating. In a hot, dry, desert climate this usually means their own feces, which in that environment makes them incredibly prone to disease and spreading disease.

The Chinese certainly never seemed to mind pigs wallowing in feces. But then they use the wok, and fry things very hot or boil them for a long time. Only ten years ago, you’d get funny looks if you ate raw vegetables in China. Over there they are grown in human feces after all, so everything gets cooked. Also, nobody drank cold water — only hot water or tea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sparkplug November 6, 2009 at 14:13

I 100% agree with and endorse this article.

I escaped circumcision, communion, and all the rest of the brainwashing and physical mutilations that pass for childrearing among the religious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zombie November 6, 2009 at 14:15

“I don’t believe there should be any legal obligation for a parent to provide for their child although there are strong incentives to doing so in practice. A newborn – no matter how small and fragile – is a free agent. Parents have no natural obligation to feed or clothe it.”

Sorry dude, but this particular bit of the piece is a steaming pile of bullshit without any value even as fertilizer. If parents have no obligation to their own children through this bit of rhetoric then it should be ifinitely simpler to justify why women owe nothing to men including basic respect and decency… After all if I owe my own genetic progeny nothing more than the opportunity to die of exposure then I owe my neighbor even less.

All you’ve done here is to supply your detractors with ample ammunition that the otherwise well thought out arguements you make, can be ignored without thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed November 6, 2009 at 14:21

The Chinese certainly never seemed to mind pigs wallowing in feces.

Pigs wallow in their own feces everywhere. The issue is that in a dry desert climate there is not much else to wallow in, or anything to dilute it, so the disease potential is greater.

The interesting thing about Harris is that he never claims that his explanations are THE answer, or the only possible answer – just that they are plausible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 6, 2009 at 14:39

“it should be ifinitely simpler to justify why women owe nothing to men including basic respect and decency… After all if I owe my own genetic progeny nothing more than the opportunity to die of exposure then I owe my neighbor even less. ”

they owe it in the sense that if they want it back, they should dole it out. they aren’t obligated to owe respect to men, but society works best if they do and if we respect them as well.

Welmer November 6, 2009 at 14:54

Pigs wallow in their own feces everywhere. The issue is that in a dry desert climate there is not much else to wallow in, or anything to dilute it, so the disease potential is greater.

The interesting thing about Harris is that he never claims that his explanations are THE answer, or the only possible answer – just that they are plausible.

Living in an area with red tides, I have found the disease theory compelling at times, but my personal hunch is that it had more to do with the Hebrews’ origin as warlike nomadic herdsmen. Maybe the kosher criteria was simply to make sure that people didn’t eat the horses and camels that provided them with transportation and mounts for battle, and pigs weren’t even an important consideration, because nomads don’t generally keep pigs anyway. Mongols, for example, don’t eat horseflesh because horses are too important for them to eat, and they don’t eat pork because pigs are lousy herd animals.

That’s really what I think it was, but the pig is the best known taboo because it seemed so odd to Europeans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hope November 6, 2009 at 15:30

“Also, nobody drank cold water — only hot water or tea.”

Drinking water is boiled first, yes, but especially in the summer water is allowed to cool in a container after boiling.

Circumcision was historically practiced by the Jews for religious reasons.

30% of men worldwide are circumcised, and of them, 68% are actually Muslim. It is unclear why Americans have adopted this practice while it is unusual in Europe (though there are some conspiracy theories surrounding this).

Some say that circumcision was a religious practice popular to the Middle East region because the foreskin would become infected in climates in which people lacked the ability to wash regularly. Urinary tract infections and STIs may have been more common as well.

Circumcision is, however, an outdated practice for hygienic purposes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo November 6, 2009 at 15:31

Hm I have a Mongolian friend (whattup Erjan), and they do eat horse every now and then, though certainly the old Mongols rather used to drink the blood of their horses for nourishment, without considerably weakening the animal.

They also use horse milk to create a local drink (which ferments and creates a considerable amount of gas, as we awkwardly found out in an incident involving an explosive thermos can and a pissed off Russian customs officer on a train somewhere in the far reaches of Siberia. Good times.)

That shows that they use horses for nourishment without killing them, which does not explain why jews and muslims do not do the same with pigs, avoiding them altogether as a source of nourishment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
barsin November 6, 2009 at 17:30

After reading that Rothbard quote, I’ve decided to stop feeding my kids — those durned liberty-stealing little commie shits. Worst part is I knew, deep down, I knew all along about them…. little Lenin and Castro.

Although, I guess causing someone to be born into this vale of tears could be considered the ultimate imposition on liberty, depending on your cosmology. Maybe I owe it to em.

What this has to do with circ, which I’m against based on an exhaustive study of common fucking sense, I’ve no idea.

Fun sidetrack though. Zany libertarians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 6, 2009 at 19:09

Chuck Ross,

Here is an interesting article, in relation to Christianity, that holds some of the same viewpoints as your own:

http://craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=597&subgroupID=17

Basically, Mr. Read points out how there are certain basic facets of the Bible that are neccessary for our civilization, as well as the basis for Capitalism and private property arising from the Bible.

Tossing Christianity aside willy nilly, without thinking ahead of how to replace the mechanical function it provides to society, would be a disaster. It is only the cornerstone upon which Western Civilization has leaned upon for a few thousand of years… it just might be important in maintaining Western Civilization, which could explain why Cultural Marxists targeted it with as much gusto as they did men & the patriarchy.

Craig Read is not a Christian, and believes the Bible could be rewritten into a extremely shortened version of moral values that wouls still sustain a civilization.

I agree with him… but would people listen to such a system without the power/threat of religion behind it?

I mean, as far as I can see, where-ever I go, I am pretty much the most brilliant human specimen around, and yet hardly anyone listens to even what I have to say. Why should these moral values work without the psychological crutch of them being hidden in a religion? I’m not sure people are able to control their moral compass enough to survive without religion – which is why there has never been a civilization that did not have a form of religion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Harry November 6, 2009 at 19:27

@fedrz

“hardly anyone listens to even what I have to say.”

I always listen to you.

” I’m not sure people are able to control their moral compass enough to survive without religion – which is why there has never been a civilization that did not have a form of religion.”

It is going to be very difficult to foist any religion on to people nowadays because the powers-that-be cannot control the information reaching the public.

However, there remains a glimmer of hope.

It might turn out that so many millions of men arrive at the same solution to their problems, that the force that they exert is sufficiently powerful to become religion-like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz November 6, 2009 at 22:11

Yes, AH,

It is like a whole shop full of radios, all tuned to different stations and playing at full blast now…

This was one of the features of religion that created a civilization: it created one unified voice amongst a group of people. In other words, Cultural Hegemony.

There is a difference between cultures/religions that follow the “feminine principle” and the “masculine principle,” however.

Totalitarians salivate at turning a society into one that follows the feminine principle, because a feminine society is one that is ruled by “relative truth.” The truth can change, and be whatever feels right for the moment. This is great for tyranical forms of government, because they often contradict themselves and do whatever they feel is right, right now. Just like women.

A society that adheres to the masculine principle is not so easy to manipulate for ill purposes, because, um… it adheres to principles! Ones that never changes! In other words, a masculine society is one that acknowledges Absolute Truth as more important than Relative Truth. This is also the basis of Patriarchal Religion – there is an Absolute Truth: The Word of God becomes Absolute Truth. It never changes, even though the world about it does change.

This is also the basis of hierarchy that the US Founding Fathers followed when they designed America. They followed the ideology of John Locke (who founded his ideology upon the Bible itself), who combined both deductive and inductive reasoning, but placed them upon the ladder of importance in the proper order:

1: God’s Law
2: Natural Law
3: Civil Law

A civil law that goes against a natural law is a false principle, and a natural law that goes against God’s Law (Absolute Truth – even if we don’t know what that Truth is) is also a false principle.

This is a defining characteristic of a society based upon the masculine principle: 2 + 2 = 4. It will still be four in a year, it will be four in 100 years, and it will be four in 10,000 years. There are absolute principles which we can follow.

Hitler, Lenin, Marx, Comte, New Agers, Feminists, Totalitarians etc. all recommend a society based upon the feminine principle – based upon feeeeeeeeeeeeeyulllllllings. If it “feels better” that 2 + 2 = 5 today, then, that is the right answer today! The “ladder” goes something like this:

1 – Relative Truth
2 – Relative Truth
3 – Relative Truth

But, come back tomorrow, and maybe it’ll change!

This is the big danger of “Rule by Science” – because what they mean is rule by the Social Sciences. Sciences that are founded in quick sand, where principles and definitions are forever subject to change.

A dictator’s paradise!

Under the masculine principle, “Rule by Science” can also work, I believe – along the same lines as Craig Read’s idea of condensing the Bible.

A feature of the masculine principle is, well, that it has principles… it grounds itself in Absolute Truth. Once we know 2 + 2 = 4 (Natural Law), we understand that our civil laws must also follow this maxim, unless Absolute Truth (God’s Law, or unforseen Truth) shows up and trumps the Natural Law – basically, changing our understanding of the universe around us – think gravity, or discovering the world was round.

I believe mathematics could be used to found and anchor moral values, which is also “rule by science” – but hard science. For example, we could likely come up with a mathematic formula illustrating just how many single mothers a society could sustain before it parasitically began to drain the society into oblivion… and once that mathematical “point” has been created, it becomes pretty morally obvious that society must ensure, one way or another, that we stay on the survivability side of that point. Rule by science – but, science based in Absolute Truth – like Math, or the Laws of Physics – something that doesn’t matter how people “feel” about it, that takes precedence over feeling.

Lol!

Ramble, ramble, ramble… blah, blah, blah… yaddah, yaddah, yadday….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ray November 7, 2009 at 12:04

“Ramble, ramble, ramble… blah, blah, blah… yaddah, yaddah, yadday….”

no, that was v good

the spiritual/moral principles of the prophets in 3000 b.c. are NO different, in essence, than the principles advanced by god’s servants today

and they’ll remain that way forever

righteousness is always righteousness

jesus didnt overthrow god’s old testament law, he fulfilled it and simplified it, and trimmed off the bullshit the priestly classes had added w/o authorization, for their own purposes — but the masculine principles underlying each age dont change, they apply in concert with what human beings are able to grasp and manage as the planet’s physical and cultural environments develop, and as the species gets closer to god

god’s laws are simple and few, and he reserves judgment to himself

human’s laws are complex and endless, and humans appropriate judgment to themselves (and in real practice, the collective feminine eventually and ineluctably becomes judge)

the devil’s in the details — the more complex and relativistic the system, the more tyrannous, satanic, and biased towards the feminine

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hugh7 November 7, 2009 at 14:56

JohnnyBravo: “My only advice for guys who wish to avoid AIDS and other STDs, circumsized or not, is to not stick your dick in anything with a pulse, ”
Hmm, inflatable ladies only, is it? Or is necrophilia OK too? Reminds me of the advice to young women: “don’t put anything in your vagina that you wouldn’t put in your mouth”. I think you mean “…into just anything…”.

Chuck: “The most important reason to leave the foreskin intact: sex is more enjoyable for men and women when the man is uncircumcised.” True, but the most important reason is that it’s HIS penis.

(I won’t buy the “babies are free agents” line. Free, but utterly helpless. If you neglect them and they suffer or die, that’s all your doing and none of theirs. Childhood, like pregnancy, is not a state but a process, a process of gradually handing over someone’s rights to them, at a rate that is more and more negotiable as they are more and more able to exercise them.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tarl November 7, 2009 at 16:52

Not to sound gay, but does an erect uncircumcised penis look that much different from an erect circumcised one, or is the difference much more pronounced when flacid. Just curious.

The uncut ones are longer. =)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hugh7 November 9, 2009 at 17:31

Jabherwochie: “…does an erect uncircumcised penis look that much different from an erect circumcised one…?”

You can see photographic comparisons at http://www.circumstitions.com/comparison.html (NSFW, obviously)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ron Low November 9, 2009 at 18:15

If I squint so I can’t see the part about the the government having no role in forcing people to keep their kids fed, I really liked the article.

My chief complaint is the use of “extra skin” to describe the foreskin. Nobody has – or ever had – extra skin. I was circumcised at birth but I want ALL of the normal natural penile slack nature painstakingly evolved for me over the past 65 million years.

And I’m doing something about it. Through non-surgical foreskin restoration I’m painlessly expanding the remaining skin so it can act like a foreskin. It now protects my glans and the adjacent mucosa from the drying and abrasive effects of air, bedding, and clothing, so those parts are more supple and pleasure-receptive. The new skin affords an exquisite frictionless rolling/gliding action during manipulation and intercourse which is pretty hard to describe – especically to cut men – but let’s just call it luxurious. My wife and I both love it. Oral sex is a whole new art form with the slack to play with, and the slinky shaft skin gives a sensation – as it bends 180 degrees rolling over at the end – that I just can’t describe with words – any more than I could explain “purple” to someone blind since birth.

While the sensations from intimacy are much improved, foreskin restoration will not regenerate the lost specialized pleasure-receptive nerve endings, and that is enough to be royally pissed off at my parents about, but restored foreskin FEELS REALLY GOOD, and that allows me to sit at the Thanksgiving dining table without knifing anyone. If I could teleport back to the moment my genitals were attacked I would certainly gleefully seize that knife and plunge it through the butcher’s eye, to the back of his brain. A guy can dream.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Chuck Ross November 9, 2009 at 18:22

Ron,

I regret that my part about the government being unable to enforce people to take care of their kids overshadowed the thrust of my argument. I was hasty in that I really,really wanted to throw that Rothbard passage in there. I should have just stuck with the negative versus positive rights argument. Anyway, glad you liked the article other than that part.

As for “extra skin” – that goes to show you how socialized I am towards circumcision. I still view an uncircumcised penis as having something extra rather than a circumcised one lacking something.

Mark Lyndon November 30, 2009 at 14:41

In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they’re Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI’s including HIV.

Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they’ve been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn’t happen. We now have people calling circumcision a “vaccine” or “invisible condom”, and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.

The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: