Reply to Should mutilating children be a protected form of culture?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Should mutilating children be a protected form of culture?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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 [b]primary interest to no one but the owner of the penis[/b], other operators of said penis, and perhaps caregivers later in life. That's about it.[/quote]

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 [i]you[/i] questioned them?)[/quote]

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).[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics