Should mutilating children be a protected form of culture?

[Anonymous]

Look, there's mutilating, and then there's mutilating. Piercing my baby's ears? Not something I would do. Circumcising a male child? Not somethign I'm enthusiastic about but my anecdotal experience tells me it is not a damaging, disabling procedure. Most men have perfectly good sexual and penile health despite the removal of a foreskin. Circumscising a female, or binding her feet? That is hardly an apt comparison. The first cripples her sexual function and threatens her overall health (increased infections for instance). The second LITERALLY cripples a person.

I think a compairing these things is frankly insulting to the women who have had to endure horrible mutilation. Male circumcision does not compare to the maiming and ruin of part of a person's body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this still practiced?
I remember that this was common at the same time when europeans used corsets to bind the girls lungs.

Someone is going to say it has to be done as a child, because nobody is going to do it as an adult.

You got to be kidding me. OP is insane.

OP is not insane, she's making a point/drawing parallels. Jeez. Didn't you people go to college, study comparative anything? OMFG.

We did go to college. If you think foot binding is any way the equivalent of circumcision, I'm afraid you're going to have to return your degrees. You're ignorant about what foot binding entailed on a day to day basis, and what it meant for women who had had it done. Debate the merits of circumcision, but I don't notice a lot of circumcised men needing assistance to get around on their hobbled dicks.

A bad community college? The point is not that footbindign is the equivalent of circumsion, dummy. The point is that society at one point made similar comments in support of it, and used similar comments in support of their arguments.

Greendale may be a toilet, but it's my toilet, thank you very much.

It's not nice to call names, for one. Other than on DCUM and similar sites, I don't hear a lot of people making comments about why or why not their kid is circumcised. The dangers of circumcision are small. Depending on which research one does and how one interprets it, it might have some health benefits. Once again, an intactivist has missed the point, and brought it up again because... you think you're going to change someone's mind?.

By the way, is the "quoted" article the one about the hyper-conservative Jewish sects with their defense of mouth on penis action?

I have GOT to quit clicking on these nincompoopery threads.

[Anonymous]

My penis does not hurt every time I use it. It is nothing like foot binding.

[Anonymous]

foot binding can be compared to corsets, not circumcision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:foot binding can be compared to corsets, not circumcision

no. A corset is temporary and uncomfortable. Footbinding is disabling. Permanently.

[Anonymous]

Somewhat off point, but is this really political? Off-topic, maybe?

[Anonymous]

foot binding is mutilation, and nobody practices it anymore.

The only comparable thing I can think of is female circumcision.

Male circumcision is not. The PP who mentioned corset - try break one of your toes downward and tuck it under your foot first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:foot binding can be compared to corsets, not circumcision

no. A corset is temporary and uncomfortable. Footbinding is disabling. Permanently.

So is corseting. You are misinformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightlacing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:foot binding can be compared to corsets, not circumcision

no. A corset is temporary and uncomfortable. Footbinding is disabling. Permanently.

So is corseting. You are misinformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightlacing

From your link: " However, these effects are only temporary and will be lost on removing the corset. Indeed, excessive corset wearing has been claimed to weaken certain muscles, making it more difficult to maintain posture without a corset"

Not to mention, this is something that adults are CHOOSING to do to themselves, not parents breaking bones or destroying the sexual organs of children without the consent of the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:foot binding can be compared to corsets, not circumcision

no. A corset is temporary and uncomfortable. Footbinding is disabling. Permanently.

So is corseting. You are misinformed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tightlacing

From your link: " However, these effects are only temporary and will be lost on removing the corset. Indeed, excessive corset wearing has been claimed to weaken certain muscles, making it more difficult to maintain posture without a corset"

Not to mention, this is something that adults are CHOOSING to do to themselves, not parents breaking bones or destroying the sexual organs of children without the consent of the victim.

So to be unable to maintain posture seems like a temporary effect to you? Have you seen tightlacers? I say again, intactivists have a weird obsession with baby boy genitals. Like a really, really weird intense interest in genitals, an area that will be of primary interest to no one but the owner of the penis, other operators of said penis, and perhaps caregivers later in life. That's about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So to be unable to maintain posture seems like a temporary effect to you? Have you seen tightlacers? I say again, intactivists have a weird obsession with baby boy genitals. Like a really, really weird intense interest in genitals, an area that will be of primary interest to no one but the owner of the penis, other operators of said penis, and perhaps caregivers later in life. That's about it.

OP here. This is exactly why I started the thread -- if you agree circumcision should be of primary interest to the "owner of the penis," should it be the right of the child, as the person who is the "owner" of their body parts, to make decisions that are permanent, like footbinding, circumcision, and ear piercing?

First off, I am not an "intactivist" (I have a DD and so don't have a dog in that fight), but from a philosophical standpoint, it's fascinating that our culture allows certain permanent bodily modifications to be performed on the "owner" when they are nonconsenting children, but not others. What's more fascinating is how we view modifications (like foot binding) that are outside our culture and/or historical.

I was certainly taught that footbinding was barbaric. But I was taught circumcision was "normal" -- why? And when someone questions a modification like circumcision that our culture has largely accepted, why do people such as yourself attack them and claim they have a "weird obsession"? (Do you know why you're so uncomfortable with people questioning the beliefs you hold? Have you questioned them?)

[Anonymous]

When I was in college, a classmate (from another country) got circumcised. I did not know him well enough to ask how it compared, but I have always wondered how someone who has a before and after to compare might feel about it. Anyone out able to address the question?

Not to be sexist about it, I suppose I should also ask the consumers (so to speak) whether there is a notable difference?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Is this still practiced?
I remember that this was common at the same time when europeans used corsets to bind the girls lungs.

Someone is going to say it has to be done as a child, because nobody is going to do it as an adult.[/quote]

You got to be kidding me. OP is insane. [/quote]

OP is not insane, she's making a point/drawing parallels. Jeez. Didn't you people go to college, study comparative anything? OMFG.[/quote]


College grads by no means have a corner on brains. I have worked with grads that could not write a proper business letter or do simple math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:foot binding can be compared to corsets, not circumcision

no. A corset is temporary and uncomfortable. Footbinding is disabling. Permanently.

Ever been to the Mutter Museum in Philadelphia? They have the skeleton of a woman who wore corsets from childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to be unable to maintain posture seems like a temporary effect to you? Have you seen tightlacers? I say again, intactivists have a weird obsession with baby boy genitals. Like a really, really weird intense interest in genitals, an area that will be of primary interest to no one but the owner of the penis, other operators of said penis, and perhaps caregivers later in life. That's about it.

OP here. This is exactly why I started the thread -- if you agree circumcision should be of primary interest to the "owner of the penis," should it be the right of the child, as the person who is the "owner" of their body parts, to make decisions that are permanent, like footbinding, circumcision, and ear piercing?

First off, I am not an "intactivist" (I have a DD and so don't have a dog in that fight), but from a philosophical standpoint, it's fascinating that our culture allows certain permanent bodily modifications to be performed on the "owner" when they are nonconsenting children, but not others. What's more fascinating is how we view modifications (like foot binding) that are outside our culture and/or historical.

I was certainly taught that footbinding was barbaric. But I was taught circumcision was "normal" -- why? And when someone questions a modification like circumcision that our culture has largely accepted, why do people such as yourself attack them and claim they have a "weird obsession"? (Do you know why you're so uncomfortable with people questioning the beliefs you hold? Have you questioned them?)

Quoted PP here. Your last paragraph rather disproves your "I'm not an intactivist" claim. I have a son, I did have him circumcised, just like I make him get shots, take him to school, and bring him to church. I did it because from the literature I read, and it's been some years so I can't remember specifically what, but I'm comfortable with him having been circumcised, and if we have another boy I'd have him circumcised, too. You must be new to DCUM if you haven't read enough quotes to think that a lot of intactivists are kind of obsessed. That, or you're trolling.

Furthermore: The history of circumcision is a weird one. My son is circumcised for health reasons, not cosmetic (unlike pierced earrings, foot binding, corseting), not "to be like his daddy," not for religious or cultural reasons. It was done a single time under sterile conditions with local anesthesia at a hospital (unlike corseting, foot binding). He is not hobbled by it (corseting, foot binding). No one other than of his sexual partners or his doctors, will see it (unlike most tattoos, corseting, earrings, foot binding).