But it looks like poo!
Jan. 9th, 2004 10:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
40cakesWas bored, thought I'd check out the Human Rights Campaign home page to see if anything new of interest was posted. The top link was something to the effect of "MGM bill to stop genital mutilation." And I'm all, "Hey, I'm against genital mutilation. Click!"
Turns out the bill is against circumcision of infant males. I spent time trying to find out why this was so bad. Instead, it felt like the ol' "how do you keep an idiot busy for hours?" gag. Every page had a link. "To see why we're against male infant genital mutilation, click here." Click. "Welcome to the anit-male genital mutilation page! Click here to see why we're against male infant circumcision!" Click. "To see why..."
Finally I found the Doctors Opposing Circumcision page, which had some sort of explanation, though completely devoid of any health-related reasons. The End of Circumcision in America states that circumcision is painful, embarrassing, and goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Two interesting quotes from the page:
"Fear, pain, crippling, disfigurement and humiliation are the classic ways to break the human spirit. Circumcision includes them all."
- a circumcision victim
(from The Joy of Uncircumcising! by Jim Bigelow, PhD, Hourglass Books)
Now, as some of you may know, I'm not a man. My ownership of a penis is more contractual in nature. Nonetheless, I can't imagine that an operation (according to TEoC, circumcision isn't surgery) done immediately after birth to a little piece of skin which makes the penis look bigger afterwards (and according to my junk email box, that's what y'all are perpetually trying to do anyway), is crippling, disfiguring, and humiliating. (Unless you're referring to Roman times, when sports were played naked, and the Jewish athletes were fied upon for showing the glans of their penis. I don't think naked basketball is going on down at the YMCA.) Besides, if circumcision's so crippling, make special "circumcised parking only" spots at the mall. Please.
Not to mention uncircumcised penises look like turds. No, I'm not apologizing for that (unless you can prove otherwise); they DO.
"Having to justify the foreskin is like having to justify breast feeding!"
I fail to see the correlation between "nourishment" and "extra skin."
And still, no medical proof or facts stating that circumcision is bad or unhealthy. Well, other than conjecture:
America has the highest rate of AIDS in the industrialized world, and is the only major country which circumcises a majority of its males. Is there a connection? We do not know.
Hmmm...I have a livejournal, and I don't have AIDS. In fact, a lot of my friends have livejournals, and I don't know anyone with AIDS. There MUST be a connection! I know we have a lot of STUPID people in this country; many that don't have protected sex and still share needles. Maybe that's the connection. And if circumcision leads to increased risk of AIDS, then women are in the clear, right?
Well, that's enough for me. Any males care to weigh in on the issue? Or anyone who has any sound medical reasons behind not performing this? No, I don't know why I'm so interested. Perhaps because there'a group of people who equate this with "mutilation", which is like calling physical therapy "beating."
>^..^
Turns out the bill is against circumcision of infant males. I spent time trying to find out why this was so bad. Instead, it felt like the ol' "how do you keep an idiot busy for hours?" gag. Every page had a link. "To see why we're against male infant genital mutilation, click here." Click. "Welcome to the anit-male genital mutilation page! Click here to see why we're against male infant circumcision!" Click. "To see why..."
Finally I found the Doctors Opposing Circumcision page, which had some sort of explanation, though completely devoid of any health-related reasons. The End of Circumcision in America states that circumcision is painful, embarrassing, and goes against the Hippocratic Oath. Two interesting quotes from the page:
"Fear, pain, crippling, disfigurement and humiliation are the classic ways to break the human spirit. Circumcision includes them all."
- a circumcision victim
(from The Joy of Uncircumcising! by Jim Bigelow, PhD, Hourglass Books)
Now, as some of you may know, I'm not a man. My ownership of a penis is more contractual in nature. Nonetheless, I can't imagine that an operation (according to TEoC, circumcision isn't surgery) done immediately after birth to a little piece of skin which makes the penis look bigger afterwards (and according to my junk email box, that's what y'all are perpetually trying to do anyway), is crippling, disfiguring, and humiliating. (Unless you're referring to Roman times, when sports were played naked, and the Jewish athletes were fied upon for showing the glans of their penis. I don't think naked basketball is going on down at the YMCA.) Besides, if circumcision's so crippling, make special "circumcised parking only" spots at the mall. Please.
Not to mention uncircumcised penises look like turds. No, I'm not apologizing for that (unless you can prove otherwise); they DO.
"Having to justify the foreskin is like having to justify breast feeding!"
I fail to see the correlation between "nourishment" and "extra skin."
And still, no medical proof or facts stating that circumcision is bad or unhealthy. Well, other than conjecture:
America has the highest rate of AIDS in the industrialized world, and is the only major country which circumcises a majority of its males. Is there a connection? We do not know.
Hmmm...I have a livejournal, and I don't have AIDS. In fact, a lot of my friends have livejournals, and I don't know anyone with AIDS. There MUST be a connection! I know we have a lot of STUPID people in this country; many that don't have protected sex and still share needles. Maybe that's the connection. And if circumcision leads to increased risk of AIDS, then women are in the clear, right?
Well, that's enough for me. Any males care to weigh in on the issue? Or anyone who has any sound medical reasons behind not performing this? No, I don't know why I'm so interested. Perhaps because there'a group of people who equate this with "mutilation", which is like calling physical therapy "beating."
>^..^
