I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 2321

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

"Having your foreskin forcibly amputated is just as bad as having a hand forcibly amputated." "being ... killed is up there with having your genitals mutilated"

Let's not go overboard. We use our hands all the time, our foreskins only occasionally. The case against circumcision is quite strong enough without overstating it. The rest of what you say is pretty good, but our opponents will take overstatements like that one out of context and use them against us.

(I prefer to use understatement, myself. It makes my case more watertight.)

I understand your point and appreciate your reply. However, my statements are a matter of perspective. Having your foreskin forcibly amputated is just as bad as having a hand forcibly amputated in the sense that they are both involuntary and unwanted ablations of normal healthy functional body-parts. As to whether a person would prefer the one over the other is debatable. I once read an intact man allegedly write that he would prefer his hand was cut off than his foreskin, but this may have been hyperbole.

And as someone who believes in life after death and that there are many possible human sufferings far worse than death (whether there is survival or not), I don't consider death to be the ultimate evil and horror that many people seem to believe. In my opinion having parts of your genitals cut off as an infant is an anti-sexual procedure just as being threatened or harmed for your sexuality is an anti-sexual act.

In light of what you said, though, what do you think of the term 'genital mutilation' which many people (Mr Whitfield, who I was replying to, included) consider to be excessive and unnecessarily provocative?

P.S. Are you the Hugh behind the intactivism pages?

In australia one is hard pressed to find a doctor who will perform male circumcisions, because doctors admit its lack of neccessity. Of course i would imagine there would be religious doctors out there that one could seek out. Female circumcision is illegal.
Last night i saw a disturbing documentary about what is acceptable to show on pornographic magazines, and apparently if the labia is sticking out, it is unacceptable, so all these stupid women, not just in the porn industry are having the labia cut off! All for looks! wraaaaaaaaaa!!!! Go figure!
Labioplasty is becoming quite common. Pornography has long dictated the bedroom lives of couples, but with technology making it more readily available, the effects are more clearly seen. It is now pretty much expected for men and women to look certain ways below the belt line, and to act in certain ways. It's rather obnoxious that women are supposed to be able to play an angel in the outside world and a succubus in the bedroom.
Along with hymenoplasty, the manufacturing of fake vaginas so religious women can pretend to be virgins on their wedding night and bleed. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!

And this is the exact reason to spend more time naked with others and NOT have surgeries ourselves. This is what I call "Keepin' it Real". The more pressure there is to look a certain "clean" or "proper" way, the stronger we must push back and show how variable nature is.

Hey, I'll start the confession (for those who won't get to see me naked :) I have side-boobs, had them since age 28. There, I said it. Yes they are actually quite common, nothing like the skinny flat lower armpits we see in porn. I ridicule women who get implants. It is the ultimate in superficiality and a dishonour to all other women. It's in-line with my stance on circumcision (M or F) NO.
oups, manufacturing fake hymens, sorry... altho we some do get vaginal rejuvenation!
Power to Labias!!! hahaha
Can you fly a kite with them?
I know, labioplasty seems like such a waste. It's not just you who likes to play with them :P
Quite common? Breast implants are quite common, labioplasty not so much. I think you're overstating the impact of pornography on people's actual sex lives, but I'm pretty old. Perhaps things have changed for those growing up with easy access to disturbing and freaky stuff. From what I've seen, modern porn has gone further and further away from something that actually resembles real sex.
Bah! Modern internet porn, even the free stuff, simply cuts straight to the chase without all the corny flirting and bad acting that soft porn aims for. Soft porn is unbearable to the ears and eyes!

The women of internet porn all have very similar looking genitals UNLESS you specifically search for freaks or various categories: big labia, big clit, old, fat, whatever...
Soft porn is the true comedy of the genre. Look at Spiderbabe. Nothing worse, and yet the funniest I've seen.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service