| 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
Canada6600 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 | ||
|
Iranon
United States983 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote: I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this. But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery! It's been a long time since I literally read a post and laughed aloud. Hats off to you, good sir. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On February 19 2013 08:43 fight_or_flight wrote: 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. Nice username. | ||
|
fight_or_flight
United States3988 Posts
I definitely don't think it's a conscious thing, either on the side of the parents or the children. But most of the foundation of our lives is not conscious to us. I don't believe my post proved anything, nor do I believe I can prove anything to anyone. I'm just giving my opinion on what I think the significance of it is based on my personal knowledge and experience. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:34 deathly rat wrote: If people with foreskins got more / worse infections, they would be less likely to survive to pass their genes onto the next generation. Yet everyone has foreskins, not every part of the human body is ideal. | ||
|
deathly rat
United Kingdom911 Posts
On February 19 2013 10:44 Scarecrow wrote: Yet everyone has foreskins, not every part of the human body is ideal. The conclusion you should be reaching is that foreskins are favourable to our survival. We are still finding out how perfect and and ideal the human body is, so it's pretty arrogant to say that you know better than millions of years of evolution (or even god for that matter). | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote: I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this. But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery! I KNEW I WASN'T THE ONLY ONE THAT DID THIS | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 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 makes sexual relations rougher and less sensitive... I'm circumcised and view certain personal tendencies as potentially related to what I'm talking about. Using circumcision to justify your sexual problems... it could be any number of things but I doubt it's from the loss of a bit of skin when you were a few days old. There's also plenty of relatively non-violent countries that practice circumcision. Korea for example is mainly circumcised and has really low levels of violence. Ancient Rome and Greece produced conquering warrior cultures whilst refusing circumcision. It's just a bit of skin, and its ridiculous to assert it's why modern day America/Israel and Islamic nations are violent. Something that happens so early in development is unlikely to have any impact imo. We get plenty of painful immune shots but I don't remember them till much later and the friend that says they remember stuff from when they were 4 days old is full of shit. On February 19 2013 10:54 deathly rat wrote: The conclusion you should be reaching is that foreskins are favourable to our survival. We are still finding out how perfect and and ideal the human body is, so it's pretty arrogant to say that you know better than millions of years of evolution (or even god for that matter). If anything I feel like foreskins are irrelevant to our survival and thus unlikely to be impacted by evolution. The human body is ideal in terms of survival but there'll always be parts that are ancestral relics that don't affect our survival (appendixes, coccyx, plantaris muscle, wisdom teeth, male nipples etc). Besides I'm not saying circumcision is/was actually necessary for health, just that's how I believe the procedure was originally justified. | ||
|
Bengui
Canada775 Posts
On February 19 2013 10:58 Scarecrow wrote: If anything I feel like foreskins are irrelevant to our survival. It prevents things from entering the ureta. Every hole in the human body has some of mechanism to prevent unwanted things from entering and causing trouble, for the penis it's the foreskin. | ||
|
Scarecrow
Korea (South)9172 Posts
On February 19 2013 11:10 Bengui wrote: It prevents things from entering the ureta. Every hole in the human body has some of mechanism to prevent unwanted things from entering and causing trouble, for the penis it's the foreskin. Maybe when we we were walking around naked it had some use, though it doesn't cover mine. With the advent of clothes it seems pretty useless, it's not like the Egyptians and Hebrews died out from infected urethras. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
mikerol
United States1 Post
Making it a taboo to compare male with female sexual mutilation is the biggest scandal of the controversy. In both instances the most sensitive and most erogenous zone of the human body is amputated and severely damaged. In both instances, what counts primarily is the cutting of human sexuality. The imposition of control by the patriarchy. http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html What is lacking in all the talk about circumcision is discussion of its archeological dimension - that it is the left over of human sacrifice. Also, unfortunately it is / has been circumcision that has MADE for no end of anti-semitic sentiments. Freud found that it was the chief reason for unconscious anti-Semitism. And the myths surrounding it are at the core of the “blood libel.” Thus, it's time to eliminate the Brit Milah because if that is the chief reason for being anti-Semitic or anti-Abrahamic [Islam too practices the rite] then why hang on to this left-over of human sacrifice? that traumatizesthe child, cutting off 5,000 nerves, that is the equivalent of female circumcision in the sense that it eliminates everything but the clitoris,and only serves the UltraOrthodox to maintain their power? After all, reform Judaism sought to eliminate the rite in the 19th century, and Jewish identity depends on being born by a Jewish mother, or converting. Here a link to an archive of the entire German and then some debate, note especially Michael Wolffsohn's two pieces . Circumcision has been controversial also within Jewry forever. http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-circumcision-debate-links-and.html http://analytic-comments.blogspot.com/2012/10/michael-wolffsohns-foreskin-of-heart.html http://www.facebook.com/mike.roloff1?ref=name | ||
|
SamsungStar
United States912 Posts
On February 19 2013 09:33 Burrfoot wrote: I like to put my wife's finger/thumb on my flaccid penis and wrap my foreskin all the way up! She however, does not like this. But to be denied this simple pleasure by god is a traveshamokery! LOL this is fucking amazing. | ||
|
I_Love_Katheryn
United States41 Posts
I'm not circumcised but my brother is, and I feel bad for him sometimes | ||
|
Funnytoss
Taiwan1471 Posts
On February 19 2013 14:23 I_Love_Katheryn wrote: I'm not going to touch the religious aspect of this, but circumcision is scientifically proven to decrease pleasure during sex because it numbs the area of the penis that the foreskin is intended to cover. The foreskin has a purpose: to cover the head of the penis so as to heighten sensitivity instead of (in the case of circumcision) constant rubbing/contact which leads to numbness and less pleasure/sensitivity I'm not circumcised but my brother is, and I feel bad for him sometimes That's fairly interesting - I imagine that parents who would have one kid circumcised would be likely to circumcise their other kid too. What happened? | ||
|
Burrfoot
United States1176 Posts
It was more amazing once I fell in love and decided to ask her to marry me to hide the ring at the base of my shaft under the foreskin so at the moment of climax I gave her face twice the love. Plus she is saying "yes" anyways, so it's sort of entrapment, but it worked for me! | ||
|
I_Love_Katheryn
United States41 Posts
On February 19 2013 18:44 Funnytoss wrote: That's fairly interesting - I imagine that parents who would have one kid circumcised would be likely to circumcise their other kid too. What happened? I was born in another country where circumcision is not as widely practiced. When I was about 2 years old, my dad went to America for his job, leaving me and my mom behind. My uncle wanted to bring me to the hospital to get me circumcised but my mom was unsure about the whole idea and never asked my father about it, which is why it never happened. We came to America when I was about 4. My brother, on the other hand, was born in America and the doctors performed the procedure on him right there | ||
|
Coriolis
United States1152 Posts
| ||
|
AnythingThenDelete
381 Posts
| ||
|
AmorFatiAbyss
51 Posts
| ||
|
crazyweasel
607 Posts
On February 19 2013 07:30 Mothra wrote: I've often wondered why circumcision of children started in the first place. Today a plausible reasoning of why its first adopters might have done it occurred to me. See what you guys think. 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? actually was invented because sand would infiltrate the prepus and hurt the man (was mostly found originately in desertic places). | ||
|
crazyweasel
607 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
