View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
Sleeping With the Enemy?
neilmarr
It's sometimes difficult to believe that we're in the 21st Century West -- arguably the most advanced society in the history of our planet -- yet still we allow our elected officials and 'secular' authorities to be swayed by reigious sensibilities.

We allow them to be accepting of superstitions and traditions that are, at best out-moded, at worst barbaric; at best a hindrance to modern thought and science, at worst downright dangerous.

And we, I believe, are too forgiving of societies and their authorities in less developed parts of the world who still allow themselves to be influenced or even dictated to by die-hard theocratic trandition and establishment.

As an example of a present danger imposed by one ancient cult -- in this case Judaism -- here's Christopher Hitchens on circumcision as still often carried out according to ritual ... in 21st Century New York.

http://www.youtub...re=related

Neil
 
Skeeve
Quite disgusting. I didn't understand what circumcision was until around puberty or so, thinking it always looked like that. When it was explained to me, doctors were the one that performed this procedure. Once I started reading about religions, I learned of the Jewish practice of making it a ceremony performed a few days after birth.

When the story related in the video involving herpes was first reported, I was unaware of this "removed by sucking it off the infant" aspect. Has this been a big secret or have I just not been paying attention? Nasty shit.

*edited to add

In any other context, this man would be convicted of child molestation. Religion or not, that is what it is. The pro's and con's of circumcision have been bandied about for years, but, IMO, this particular aspect needs to be stopped.
Edited by Skeeve on 11/22/2008 09:21
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
cheshiredragon
It IS barbaric and I am lucky to be one of the few to be spared(your view may be different) Beyond the article/video I am a firm believer that circumcision is child abuse.(Again, your view may be different) and with this being a super sensitive subject, to me, I leave this thread never to return.
That's right, I said it...
 
derF
cheshiredragon wrote:And with this being a super sensitive subject, to me, I leave this thread never to return.


Too bad. Cheshiredragon will not read this post but his last statement leaves itself open to so many interpretaions. I am sure that he meant that the discussion about circumcision was the super sensitive subject. But the penis could also be described as super sensitive too. It could also be pointed out that an uncircumcised penis is far more sensitive than a circumcised one. But, being as this is an unsavory topic for some, we'll just leave it hanging.
Edited by derF on 11/22/2008 19:13
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
JDHURF
This is easily the worst horror-show argument available and one we hashed out more than enough times on the last site.

Circumcision isnít a strictly religious practice anymore and hasnít been for a long time. In some cultures, such as American culture, circumcision is simply the norm. From what I hear, most girls don't get so hot about uncircumcised members. Thatís the culture. Itís more aesthetic and, I promise you, there is no lack of sensitivity.

We are no longer hairy beasts roaming the plains naked. There is no longer a biological need for foreskin, itís evolutionarily superfluous.

If some of you guys are personally attached to your foreskin, great for you, Iím not going to demand you undergo circumcision, but for the sake of decency stop going on about circumcision as though it were criminal mutilation motivated by religious fanaticism: it makes you look as wild eyed and crazy as the religious right.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/22/2008 20:55
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Cynic
I can't imagine why, given the choice, anyone would actually want a foreskin. But then, I've no memories of having one. Obviously the removal should be done in the most painless way possible -- which isn't necessarily compatible with religious tradition. On the other hand, anesthetics, even locals, aren't something you play around with lightly with newborns. Barbaric as it is, however, it's not as if it would leave a lasting impression in any way on a newborn.
 
Bob of QF
I agree with JDHURF and Cinic, and will add this:

I think the mental damage done, when raising a kid with fundamentalist beliefs (regardless of the flavor) is far, far worse than what they can do to the physical person.

The mental damage from fundies' dogma lasts a lifetime, and slops over into others around the victim.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
catman
I was circumcised (in 1946, it was common practice in my part of the world), but I certainly remember nothing of it. My parents were anything but fundamentalists.

And look how I turned out! On second thought, as derF said, let's just leave it hanging.Grin
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
derF
Just to throw a little gasoline onto the fire here is the opinion of a well known and highly respected doctor about circumcision.

http://www.health.../9985.html

And this from the prestigious AMA:

http://www.ama-as...13585.html

Or perhaps this from a popular medical web site.

http://familydoct...e/042.html

Another view this time with information about who completed the studies.

http://www.circum...tudies.htm

And finally:

http://www.mother...tcirc.org/

Seems the medical community, and others, have differing opinions but tend to lean toward the opinion that circumcisions' benefits are marginal at best.
Edited by derF on 11/23/2008 02:34
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
JDHURF
As the AMA points out, yeah, "circumcision decreases the incidence of urinary tract infections in the first year of life, and also protects against the development of penile cancer later in life...[t]he circumcised male also may be somewhat less susceptible to HIV infection and certain sexually transmissible diseases[,]" so there are medical benefits to circumcision - as was established on the last site - yet, just as I have already said:

"A majority of boys born in the United States still undergo nonritual circumcisions. This occurs in large measure because parental decision-making is based on social or cultural expectations."

btw - no mention of a loss of sensitivity.
Edited by JDHURF on 11/23/2008 03:01
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
derF
JDHURF writes: btw - no mention of a loss of sensitivity.


Someone didn't read carefully.

DIFFERENCES: SEXUAL SATISFACTION OF WOMEN

Recent studies have found that sexually, circumcised men are different from intact men. The glans or tip of the intact penis is more sensitive. Circumcision removes the equivalent of 15 square inches of skin in the adult male. One study recently published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men
Edited by derF on 11/23/2008 03:29
I'll drink to that. Or anything else for that matter.
 
neilmarr
It wasn't male circumcision I meant to focus on here (I honestly don't know all the pros and cons) so much as the sanctioned religious rite that makes the operation so dangerous. There's 3,000 years of difference between modern surgery and the Iron Age use of the teeth to do the job -- it should not be allowed. Simple. Neil
 
JDHURF
derF wrote:
JDHURF writes: btw - no mention of a loss of sensitivity.


Someone didn't read carefully.

DIFFERENCES: SEXUAL SATISFACTION OF WOMEN

Recent studies have found that sexually, circumcised men are different from intact men. The glans or tip of the intact penis is more sensitive. Circumcision removes the equivalent of 15 square inches of skin in the adult male. One study recently published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men


Oh no. I read carefully, the legitimate link. I didn't even open the others.

If the argument is that the foreskin has nerves in it, therefore it is more sensitive because of the added nerves, I've never seen a more ridiculous argument.

The last jibe is clearly utter bullshit and unworthy of a serious response. A few centimeters of skin isn't what's doing it for women, that's for damn sure.
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
Cynic
That's what she said!

*ducks*
 
Skeeve
neilmarr wrote:
It wasn't male circumcision I meant to focus on here (I honestly don't know all the pros and cons) so much as the sanctioned religious rite that makes the operation so dangerous. There's 3,000 years of difference between modern surgery and the Iron Age use of the teeth to do the job -- it should not be allowed. Simple. Neil


There are three parts stages to the Jewish circumcision ritual:

Excision of the outer part of the prepuce; cutting of the inner lining of the foreskin to uncover the glans; and the sucking of the blood from the circumcised penis using the mouth and lips of the mohel


This was reformed somewhat in the late eighteenth century by a small segment of modern Orthodox to involving using a glass straw instead of directly applying their lips to the penis.

There has been some Jewish opposition based on the act being unsanitary and a means for the transmission of oral herpes, but there has never been any opposition to the rite due to the fact that it constitutes molestation of the infant.


Pretty sad. A grown man is allowed to take an infants penis into his mouth and nobody considers it wrong because it's done in the name of a religion.
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Bob of QF
Skeeve wrote:
Pretty sad. A grown man is allowed to take an infants penis into his mouth and nobody considers it wrong because it's done in the name of a religion.


It's a case of never looking at what they are doing objectively.

They grew up with it thinking it was "normal". Thus, they never as a adult, had the chance to look at it objectively, and decry, "what the FUCK? Are you KIDDING?"

I find this is the way of the majority of religious belief: it gets instilled into a small child's mind, before any defensive and/or skeptical mental tools are developed.

Thus, it gets placed "inside the mental fence" before the fence gets built.

If ALL religions were somehow, through magic (! <heh> ) forced to abstain from teaching kids until they were 18?

Within one or at most two generations, the vast majority would vanish.

Some of the more nebulous would stick around, I think: some folk need the comfort and ego-boost of thinking they have a "special" relationship with something really huge.

But most of the fundamentalist crap would vanish, I think. It takes a special sort of brainwashing to keep that junk going generation after generation...
Edited by Bob of QF on 11/23/2008 16:11
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
JDHURF
Cynic wrote:
That's what she said!

*ducks*


Lol
[img]http://www.atheists.org/images/headerLogo.png[/img] is not a valid Image.
 
willie
derF wrote:
Recent studies have found that sexually, circumcised men are different from intact men. The glans or tip of the intact penis is more sensitive. Circumcision removes the equivalent of 15 square inches of skin in the adult male. One study recently published in the British Journal of Urology found that intact men are more satisfying to their female lovers than circumcised men
That's one is easy... Theists are stupid; fact. Therefore atheists are more intelligent, intelligent people tend to be more open minded and less likely to follow convention, so where circumcision is a cultural practice those with intelligent parents are most likely to be the ones to retain their foreskin. Also intelligent people get better jobs with better pay. Women like shoes, to buy shoes one needs money. Hence women are more likely to compliment the lovemaking of men with money, who as described above are most likely to be men with a better paid job, intelligence and foreskins.

If only everything was as straight forward as penises.

Grin
 
Skeeve
Hear, hear!!
"The world is my country, and do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine
 
Sinny
I crunged at the picture of the female circumcision. There was an HBO program about it about 2 months ago. I had to turn it off it was so horrible. I saw a little girl huddled up crying in frantic fear while what I assumed to be her sister screamed in terroized agonizing pain while they cut her. What makes it worse, as though anything else could, is that they aren't infants when this excruciating painful violation is done...no they are about 9 years old. I wonder if this was started by a man who had a daughter who touched herself as a young child of about 5 or 6 years of age. My little niece used to do that. She didn't know any better being so young and once said to me she didn't have any other time to do what felt good to her. I told her wait until you are in bed at night with the lights off and your sister is asleep...that way no one will see you and that's better because it's private. Her answer....ready for it......but by then I am tired and fall asleep before she does LOL LOL LOL. Those two little ones were always opposite. One would fall asleep during a party and the other you couldn't get to sleep. Anyways I wonder it that's how it all started. Some crazy wakaloon father got embarassed, didn't know how to teach her it's private and told a Rabbi or what ever religious leader there was at the time and that's what they decided to do.
 
Jump to Forum: