| Blogs > Mothra |
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
The circumciser takes on the role of God, and he gives a message to the child: "This scar on your body will always remind you that I am all powerful and you are powerless. It will remind you that your body is not yours. It belongs to me, and what I give I can take away." If this is what they meant, I must admit, it is a forceful, elegant way to exert power, and to command fear and obedience. Do you think something like this might have been running through their minds?   | ||
|
Iyerbeth
England2410 Posts
Obviously though, I don't think anyone these days views it like that though either way. I don't think you were suggesting anyone did, I just wanted to be clear in my post. | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
| ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
| ||
|
GERMasta
Germany212 Posts
| ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
I believe it does several fundamental things. As described in the OP, it establishes a relationship of powerfulness/powerlessness. Try to think beyond God for a minute and just think about the impression itself. Infants are not aware of ideas such as God, but rather they simply have raw impressions. Entering the world and getting cut like that will give a certain impression of the world. I have a friend who has a memory of when he was 4 days old, so I definitely believe such impressions linger. Furthermore, I also believes it changes the relationship between men and women. I believe it makes sexual relations rougher and less sensitive. It may seem hard to believe why something like this would be considered good, but it's all depends on your point of view. From a sociopathic perspective, hurting one's loved ones can actually be a good thing. It teaches them the hard lessons that you yourself have learned, and prepares them for the world. In other words, it's just a different way of doing things. Cultures can have different ways of doing things too, which might seem wrong but which, in the context of the culture, are viewed as good and a way of life. There are many other types of psychological traits which are passed down through cultures and families. So I agree that it makes sense as the propagation of a certain cultural perspective, but the question that we need to ask is if we agree with it or not. I'm circumcised and view certain personal tendencies as potentially related to what I'm talking about. People don't normally question a lot of the things they do, and why they are the way they are, but it's an important thing to do. | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
| ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:10 Scarecrow wrote: In times when sanitation/hygiene were poor, boys with long foreskins got more/worse infections, so they learned to cut them off. Seems more plausible to me. You think nobody got an infection after having the snip back in the day? I mean, all operations carry risk of infection. Plus, this theory goes right in the face of evolution and survival of the fittest, not that this means much to most people in favour of the act. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On February 19 2013 08:43 fight_or_flight wrote: I think it's a way to propagate violence. Notice that the circumcised cultures in our world (American, Jewish, and Islamic) are the violent ones. I believe it does several fundamental things. As described in the OP, it establishes a relationship of powerfulness/powerlessness. Try to think beyond God for a minute and just think about the impression itself. Infants are not aware of ideas such as God, but rather they simply have raw impressions. Entering the world and getting cut like that will give a certain impression of the world. I have a friend who has a memory of when he was 4 days old, so I definitely believe such impressions linger. Furthermore, I also believes it changes the relationship between men and women. I believe it makes sexual relations rougher and less sensitive. It may seem hard to believe why something like this would be considered good, but it's all depends on your point of view. From a sociopathic perspective, hurting one's loved ones can actually be a good thing. It teaches them the hard lessons that you yourself have learned, and prepares them for the world. In other words, it's just a different way of doing things. Cultures can have different ways of doing things too, which might seem wrong but which, in the context of the culture, are viewed as good and a way of life. There are many other types of psychological traits which are passed down through cultures and families. So I agree that it makes sense as the propagation of a certain cultural perspective, but the question that we need to ask is if we agree with it or not. I'm circumcised and view certain personal tendencies as potentially related to what I'm talking about. People don't normally question a lot of the things they do, and why they are the way they are, but it's an important thing to do. If your post refers to the modern-day and not the invention of circumcision, then I think you may be in the wrong here. Having been circumcised, I never gave a flying fuck about whether my dick has some kind of a skin hood thingamajigger or not. I mean, you usually get circumcised when you're too young to remember anything, so until I ran into these forums and associated with people who were not circumcised and disapproved of the practice, I cannot confidently say that circumcision meant anything significant to me. Never thought about it, never cared about it, never asked about it, nothing. Not one single, tiny fuck given at any point. Can't really say it's the significant event in my life you seem to think it is. Also, I sincerely doubt that, for generation after generation after generation, parents have been indulging in some kind of child-hating sociopathic urge. I mean, just think about how fathers always hold their newborn children. You think there's some undercurrent of hate going on there? I'm just not seeing it. I'd have to say that you seem to be overthinking the issue. It is entirely plausible that circumcision has existed throughout the ages simply because we thought it was a good thing to do for all this time. I mean, few people actually remember any trauma from the operation, and even today a lot of people think there are practical benefits to having it done. Add that to the fact that for much of our history "because Jesus said so" was enough of a reason, and I think you've got a simple, logical explanation for why circumcision has existed for so long and why it still continues today. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
CecilSunkure
United States2829 Posts
Edit: oops this guy said the same as me: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/postmessage.php?quote=8&topic_id=399266 | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:16 deathly rat wrote: Plus, this theory goes right in the face of evolution and survival of the fittest, not that this means much to most people in favour of the act. Yes, because any medical procedure is about survival of the fittest -.- | ||
|
Burrfoot
United States1176 Posts
But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery! | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:22 Scarecrow wrote: Yes, because any medical procedure is about survival of the fittest -.- If people with foreskins got more / worse infections, they would be less likely to survive to pass their genes onto the next generation. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
I don't know if it's just the branch of Christianity or something to account for the difference. Any other Greeks, Russians, maybe Coptic Egyptians who can comment and add their input? TL;DR I disagree. | ||
|
OmniEulogy
Canada6595 Posts
On February 19 2013 07:48 ImAbstracT wrote: Man, I unleashed a tidal wave of religious blogs. I was just thinking the same thing. lol Very interesting take on the subject though, I never thought about it very much but I'd accept this if somebody gave it to me as a reason in a conversation as being plausible. Anybody going near my crotch with knives at any point in my life for any reason would put the "fear of God" in me  hahaha | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:35 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I was brought up pretty religiously (Russian Orthodox), the few memories I remember include my baptism and being told about who God is, and my grandma took all that stuff seriously and tried to get me and my brother in on it as well. Yet my foreskin seems to be attached to my penis proper. I don't know if it's just the branch of Christianity or something to account for the difference. Any other Greeks, Russians, maybe Coptic Egyptians who can comment and add their input? TL;DR I disagree. Circumcision isn't a Christian thing, it's among others a Jewish one, but it's been incorporated into the general US population | ||
| ||
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #120
Creator vs KrystianerLIVE!
Zoun vs Shameless
PiG Sty Festival
Group D
YoungYakov vs ShoWTimELIVE!
ByuN vs Serral
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Winter Champion…
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
