Why their interest in Circumcision ?

[go2]

I wish George had seen the infant genital mutilation I saw. The boy he saw mutilated was one of those who go into shock, disassociation, and unconsciousness almost immediately, unable to deal in any other way with the overwhelming trauma they are experiencing and unable to stop. The one I saw reacted more violently than any human being I have ever seen react to anything, screaming –– in between bouts of violent projectile vomiting –– in a way I have never heard a human being scream, but eventually, suddenly, he became entirely limp. He, too, was knocked unconscious by the trauma. After it was all over –– it'll never be over for that boy –– the apparently genuinely oblivious circumciser asked me, "Did you have any objection to that?" I very badly wanted to kick him in the groin as hard as I possibly could, and then ask him, "Did YOU have any objection to THAT?"

I am pleased to report that my grandson has reversed two generations child abuse suffered by the men of my family as a result of lies and pressure from the obstetrics profession in the United States. There was direct and repeated pressure by the staff of the hospital to preform a genital mutilation on my grandson. It required a vigorous and informed insistence to maintain my grandson's genital integrity. The parental signing of a consent form for genital mutilation is now required by law in the United States. The form was presented for signing on three separate occasions, the hospital staff appeared incredulous that their recommendation was being firmly resisted. I included the quote above to illustrate the reality of this brutal and traumatic abuse of our boys. This trauma may be one of the mechanisms of mind control damaging the psyche and capacity of men to become responsible fathers and husbands. The percentage of American boys who are genitally mutilated peaked in 1965 at 85% and has declined to about 60% today. I continue to hope knowledge of this abuse of boys be clearly and vigorously disseminated.

Perhaps, the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind might stand against this pathological abuse of our boy's genital integrity in The Statement of Principles.

 

[Buddy]

I am pleased to report that my grandson has reversed two generations child abuse suffered by the men of my family as a result of lies and pressure from the obstetrics profession in the United States.

One thing I can't remember seeing in the circumcision arguments and it makes me wonder. Why does no one mention the possibility of doing the operation much later...long after the imprint phases, but before the likelihood of sexual behavior?

To the hospital staff, this would be neither a yes or a no, rather a "maybe later." Seems like that could take some of the wind out of their sails while the baby is newborn and let the parents get out of there with less hassle.

Has this idea ever worked for anyone?

 

[Laura]

Perhaps, the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind might stand against this pathological abuse of our boy's genital integrity in The Statement of Principles.

I agree. Gonna get it done.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Perhaps, the Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind might stand against this pathological abuse of our boy's genital integrity in The Statement of Principles.

I agree. Gonna get it done.

5.3. On the Influence of Psychopathy has this sentence: "The psychopathic caste exploited the esoteric aspects of spiritual knowledge, corrupting it with beliefs in psychopathic gods, exclusivity, domination, limitation, and practices such as child mutilation (male and female genital mutilation), human sacrifice, and slavery." which may be modified to say "male and female circumcision".

In 6.7. after this sentence "from service in any armed forces, police force, or militia (see 3.5. On Human Creation and 3.6. On Human Destruction);" we can add "to refuse the medical or religious practice of circumcision on our children on the grounds that it is a clearly pathological form of child abuse (see 5.3. On the Influence of Psychopathy);" or something along those lines.

 

[truth seeker]

I found what I thought was an interesting perspective on the history of circumcision. The entire website linked below the excerpts is very interesting as well.

History of circumcision: A French urologist's perspective
History and geography of ritual circumcision
Gérard TILLES
French Society for the History of Dermatology, Musée de l’Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France

Progrès en Urologie, Vol. 9, No. 6, 1999, pp. 1148-1157

Translated by Dennis Harrison

Some excerpts:

RELIGIOUS CIRCUMCISION
Today this practice encompasses African circumcision and the circumcision of the monotheistic religions: Coptic Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

Circumcision in monotheistic religions
Coptic Christianity [14]

During the 3rd century A.D., the Egyptians began writing their language in letters borrowed from the Greek alphabet augmented by a few characters from Demotic (a popular Egyptian script dating from the 2nd century). Beginning in the 7th century, this language, known as Coptic, began to disappear from everyday use, to be supplanted by Arabic. It survives to this day however in the Egyptian church. In Coptic societies, circumcision is performed on boys at ages ranging from one week to several years. It is not obligatory in character but is generally carried out for reasons of social conformity and hygiene.

lslam [1]

The Arabs were circumcised before the advent of the Prophet; Islam merely allowed this practice to continue. In fact, Islam does not prescribe circumcision and the word is not even mentioned in the Quran. Circumcision is nevertheless traditional in Muslim societies where it constitutes a rite of initiation: a transition from childhood to adulthood. It also allows integration into the community of believers. Performed most often in the first few years of life (sometimes the odd-numbered years in certain communities) to minimize psychological trauma, it can be carried out by a Muslim or a Jew.

Judaism [2, 9, 22]

In no culture does circumcision occupy the position it occupies in Judaism.

The first circumcision was that of Abraham, who circumcised himself as a sign of the Covenant at the age of 99, then circumcised his eldest son Ishmael, aged 13, as well as all the males of the household. Isaac, son of Abraham, was born exactly one year after the Covenant and was circumcised by his father on the eighth day.

Since circumcision served as a mark of identity, it was frequently prohibited by enemies of the Jews such as the Ptolemys[25] and Antiochus IV Epiphanes (2nd century B.C.) It was also forbidden during the two centuries of slavery in Egypt. Moses, who was not circumcised, reinstated the practice after the Exodus. It was again banned by Hadrian. With the rise of Christianity, circumcision became the distinguishing feature of Judaism

A number of rationales have been put forward for performing circumcision (“Milah”) on the eighth day. According to some, the period of eight days lets the infant experience at least one Sabbath. Others believe that since Creation took six days and God rested on the seventh, the eighth day symbolizes the beginning of a period that is more human, compared with the preceding seven days of divine prerogative. The eighth day, therefore, marks the true birth of man and circumcision assumes the meaning of new beginning and inauguration.

Any Jew who has been circumcised himself can perform circumcision on another, but usually the task is reserved for an individual specially trained in the act (Mohel). The contraindications to circumcision are many and specifically include a suspicion of hemophilia. The Talmud provides, for instance, that if two sisters have each lost a child to circumcision, then the third sister cannot have her son circumcised.[15] In the same way, if a mother has lost two sons to Brit Milah and circumcision appears to be the cause of death, then circumcision is waived for the third son.

The ceremony is carried out according to well-defined rules and comprises three phases: separation of preputial adhesions, done with a fingernail and called “periah”; cutting off the prepuce; and “metzitzah”, the sucking of blood by the Mohel, indispensible for full compliance with the Covenant.[10]

Circumcision and Christianity [14]

Circumcision is not mentioned in the New Testament. The practice was not straightway put in question during the early years of Christianity, but Paul, anxious to facilitate conversions, decided to relax certain rules (observance of the Sabbath, dietary laws and circumcision). Circumcision became worthless for Christians as a means of integrating members into the community. It was replaced by baptism, while the blood covenant with God was succeeded by Communion with Christ. It should be noted that the circumcision of Christ, which has inspired numerous paintings, notably from the Renaissance, is celebrated by Christians every year on January 1st. [Figures 5, 6, 7, 8]

Here, Gerard Tilles outlines the various myths that justify circumcision:

Elements of meaning
The Covenant

Jewish circumcision is justified by the Covenant. Genesis prescribes it explicitly: “God said to Abraham: As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. Throughout your generations every male among you shall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring ... Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant”.[21]

Thus the circumcision of Abraham expresses the divine will to conclude a permanent alliance; it is applied to the organ of procreation--a symbol of eternity.

Myth of androgyny

Under this interpretation, “man was created man and woman; he did not become man until his feminine part was removed”. The extraction of Adam’s rib could also be symbolic of circumcision. Adam called the new creature “woman” and assumed his true identity by giving himself a new name: “man”.[10] An original state of androgyny was also invoked by Plato. The incompatibility of androgyny with the development of a harmonious society could have made circumcision an indispensable tool for reconciling men and women. As a matter of fact, Zeus says in the “Banquet” that he has “a plan that will allow men to exist but will humble their pride. I will diminish their strength by cutting them in two ... but if they continue insolent I will split them again. When man’s nature has been diluted in this way, each half will miss the other half and reunite with it”.[32]

Mythologies of Africa [13]

Circumcision in African societies is the object of various explanatory myths, some of which are similar to the myth of androgyny. Of these myths, some say that the first male and female creatures were rough-hewn in a primordial egg. One of the males emerged prematurely from one half of the egg. In an attempt to take sole possession of the world, he tore out a piece of his placenta. One of his own sexual parts, the prepuce, was cut off by God as a punishment for stealing part of the divine placenta.

In other primitive societies, circumcision takes on a meaning akin to the Oedipus complex. Having been forbidden to approach their mother and sisters, the grown sons of the chief kill their father, then kill one another out of rivalry for the same women. When they become aware of their crimes, they cut off their penises in expiation. This practice is replaced by circumcision. In this interpretation, circumcision is indeed supposed to reduce sexual excitation, a reduction indispensable for subordinating individuals to social systems.[26]

For some groups in West Africa, circumcision assumes a meaning similar to the explanation found in Plato. Every child is born surrounded by an evil force, more specifically an evil force attached to the prepuce (or the clitoris in the case of a girl). This force is capable of causing a disorder that makes it impossible for a man to live with anyone. It is necessary therefore to rid every boy of his prepuce and every girl of her clitoris. The maleficent force then falls on children who have not yet been circumcised.

Hygienic aspect of circumcision

Considerations of hygiene also form part of the significance of ritual circumcision, which may then assume value as a prophylactic. Besides alleviating balanitis, the first circumcisions may have been aimed at preventing sexually transmitted infections (STI). Thus Abraham, living in very precarious conditions of hygiene, may have imposed circumcision as an adjuvant for STI prevention. Later, circumcision was prohibited during the period of Egyptian bondage except among the Levites. After leading his people out of the desert, Moses noticed that only the Levites had increased in number. He concluded that circumcision had protected them from STI, and reinstated the practice.[7] More recently, the anxiety about venereal disease in France at the end of the 19th century brought forth proposals to introduce circumcision as a public health measure: “Of all the surgical methods recommended to protect the public against venereal diseases, circumcision is the surest and least questionable”.[31]

Other elements of meaning [17]

Other interpretations include the role of the prepuce in fertility. African women who have had only girls are sometimes advised to eat a prepuce in order to have a boy. Elsewhere, circumcision may be practised to increase sexual pleasure. It may also be considered a sign of captivity or a mark of bravery.

He further goes into the history of circumcision in the U.S.:

ROUTINE SECULAR CIRCUMCISION: The CASE of the USA
The United States is unique among Western countries in its practice of routine circumcision.[45] From 1.2 to 1.8 million little Americans are circumcised annually, representing from 60% to 90% of newborn boys.[48]

The routine, almost compulsory character of this mass circumcision raises multiple questions concerning public health and medical practice. Having originated in particular historical circumstances, this procedure has for decades been the subject of studies aimed at making precise measurements of actual medical benefits, calculating cost/benefit ratios, and attempting to understand the sociocultural implications and ethical issues.

The history of circumcision in the United States can be divided into three periods:

1870-1949: Circumcision as punishment
Routine circumcision was introduced to the United States in stages beginning in the 1870s for one basic purpose: to deprive the male of a prepuce considered essential for masturbation, a practice thought to be the cause of multiple physical and mental pathologies. From Europe, where masturbation was seen as an indication for circumcision,[12] the fear of masturbation spread to North America, where emphasis was placed on its psychological effects.[41]

Routine circumcision made its initial appearance in the United States on February 9, 1870.[37] Lewis Sayre, first professor of orthopedic surgery in the United States, president of the American Medical Association and founder of J.A.M.A., noticed that a 5-year-old boy with multiple tendon contracture of unknown etiology suffered from very painful phimosis and priapism, which Sayre attributed to excessive masturbation. Believing that masturbation could create a “source of irritation” responsible for tendon pathology, Sayre recommended circumcision. According to Sayre, circumcision caused the tendon contracture to disappear within a few weeks, allowing the boy to resume walking.

Sayre’s position at a university gave his first publication an important audience. Sayre led his audience to believe that a simple intervention could cure myriad puzzling diseases thought to be incurable. He encouraged doctors to examine the prepuce every time they encountered unfamiliar pathology. He added a great number of illnesses to the list of indications for circumcision, to the point where many of Sayre’s disciples quite naturally proposed changing over from therapeutic circumcision to preventive circumcision. So great, they said, were the benefits and so innocuous was the operation. Circumcision became progressively established as a simple health precaution, a kind of surgical vaccination.

A few years later, Remondino [36] enumerated the disorders caused by masturbation (alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, enuresis, kidney disease, gout, prolapse of the rectum, hernia, cancer, syphilis...), reinforcing the prophylactic benefits of circumcision and contributing greatly to making the procedure acceptable in the eyes of the public. Remondino suggested that insurance companies should treat the foreskin as a special risk factor for men, a suggestion that could only provide additional impetus for circumcision. Some doctors applied themselves to perfecting and simplifying circumcision techniques: in 1910 Kistler invented a device that allowed adults to perform self-circumcision.[27]

In a climate so favourable to preventive circumcision, few publications condemned circumcision as a barbaric practice or advised doctors to stop doing mutilations which lacked a scientific basis.[39]

In fact the practice of circumcision grew, especially as the field of general anesthesia progressed rapidly and the rise in the number of surgeons and hospitals (a 20-fold increase in the last third of the 19th century) motivated surgeons to seek new opportunities for profit. Thus after the First World War neonatal circumcision became almost routine, to the point that in 1929, an editorial in J.A.M.A. called for the circumcision of all newborns, with or without the consent of parents.[18]

The period of evaluation
Right into the 1940s, the usefulness of circumcision was taken for granted in the medical birthing culture. Parental approval was almost never requested and the proportion of little Americans circumcised was about 90%--that is, nearly all of them--a situation which explains the first assessment studies.

It was Gairdner’s work[20] that first brought the value of routine infant circumcision into doubt. Drawing up the inventory of indications, which had changed little since the days of Sayre, Gairdner noted that in the West, circumcision was routine only in English-speaking nations and that circumcision was more common in boys from the upper classes.

In 1969, Bolande compared circumcision to tonsillectomy, describing both as ritualistic surgeries having no sound scientific basis. He demanded credible scientific evidence showing that circumcision was useful. In the absence of such evidence, he considered circumcision contrary to the most basic principles of medical ethics, principles also highlighted by Price.[35]

The potential benefits of routine infant circumcision were evaluated in practice guidelines published on several occasions by the American Academy of Pediatrics [38, 44] and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.[24] The indications assessed by these bodies were prevention of phimosis, facilitation of hygiene, prevention of penile cancer, prevention of cervical cancer (at times considered more frequent in partners of non-circumcised males), and prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Studies showed that:

• usually phimosis in the newborn is physiologically normal and is not an indication for newborn circumcision;

• circumcision could facilitate glans hygiene in conditions of social disadvantage;

• penile cancer can be prevented as effectively by proper hygiene as by circumcision, a procedure whose protective biological mechanism is moreover poorly understood;[4,19,29,30,33]

• absence of circumcision is not by itself a determining factor in the occurrence of cervical cancer.

With regard to the prevention of urinary tract infections in children, the purely retrospective nature of the studies and the limiting of subjects to children treated in hospital did not warrant recommending routine circumcision for this indication.[44]

The question of preventing sexually transmitted infections (STI) was also the subject of numerous studies, notably because of the implications for AIDS prevention. A study of 300 heterosexual men by Donovan, Bassett and Bodsworth [16] found that circumcision offered no protection against genital herpes, genital warts or non-gonococcal urethritis. Elsewhere, studies conducted in Africa seemed to indicate that heterosexually transmitted HIV was more common in men who had not been circumcised.[40]

In point of fact, most authors note the multiple methodological flaws in the largely retrospective studies, especially the assumption that circumcision is risk-free. The studies depend heavily on the socio-economic status of parents, suggesting that the sexual behaviour of circumcised and non-circumcised men may not be the same. This hypothesis was confirmed by Laumann.[28] Due to the bias inherent in these studies, the results in most cases are difficult or impossible to interpret.

These evaluative studies concluded that there was no absolute indication for routine infant circumcision, bringing into question the justification for a practice affecting nearly all male newborns. Moreover practice guidelines emphasized the need to give parents clear information on the risks of circumcision and non-circumcision, to substitute good hygiene for routine circumcision, and to avoid considering newborn circumcision as a defining element in the overall quality of health.

Notwithstanding these recommendations, the practice of routine circumcision scarcely changed and the frequency of circumcision in the USA today remains the highest in the industrialized world. More than 80% of boys are circumcised at birth [46] while--for reasons that are not well understood--routine circumcision in economically comparable Anglophone societies (Great Britain, English-speaking Canada, Australia) is either quite uncommon or virtually nonexistent. Against the backdrop of a medical consensus that seems to carry little weight, recent articles underscore the importance of social factors in US circumcision practices and provide some insight into the persistence of this practice.

Circumcision in the USA: A social marker
Circumcised men are more likely to be white and socio-economically advantaged. Among blacks, circumcision is half as common. The study conducted by Laumann [28] on a representative sample of about 1500 Americans aged 18 to 59 found that the circumcision rate is higher among whites than among blacks or Hispanics, a finding that was confirmed by Wilkes and Blum.[47] Of the reasons given by parents to justify a request for circumcision, most are social in character, the parents effectively not wanting their sons to have a physical difference that would set them apart from most Americans and hinder their social integration. Moreover the decision to circumcise or not circumcise a newborn is strongly correlated with the circumcision status of the father, illustrating the attraction of circumcision as a physical mark of social identity.[6]

The circumcision decision also depends to a significant extent on the social status of the mother. The circumcision rate was 2.5 times higher in boys whose mother had a university education. Finally, in contrast to the situation in Europe, circumcision in the United States is not generally correlated with the practice of a religion. Thus circumcision reflects social rather than religious differences. The request for circumcision on the part of parents seems to reflect a desire for membership in an elite, and parents belonging to less favoured classes are not as strongly committed to circumcision.

Besides behaviours linked to the social profiles of parents, the role of circumcising physicians should not be overlooked. Circumcisions are less frequent in public hospitals where physicians are on salary.[47]

Finally, it should be noted that different studies seem to show that masturbation, whose role in introducing routine circumcision to the USA has been previously mentioned, actually appears to be more common in individuals who have been circumcised.[28]

The history of ritual circumcision shows the complexity and intricacy of the meanings attached to this practice. It also illustrates the social importance accorded to circumcision by all the societies that practise it. Finally, it offers physicians abundant raw material for reflection on the history of ideas in medicine and the cultural meanings of certain medical practices; it draws attention to the difficulties inherent in, and the necessity for, proper evaluation of medical practices that have become routine.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=81
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/

 

[psychegram]

Excellent thread.

I remember all too clearly when I first found out about male circumcision, from a television show when I was 15 or 16 or so. With dawning horror I realized what had been done to me, and how needless it had been, and how I had forever been denied the full sexual pleasure my unmutilated peers would be able to access. Following fast on the heels of that was rage. I banged on my parents' bedroom door, and gave them a piece of my mind. They were shocked, and my father (himself an uncritical victim of this barbarism) was enraged that I should so question their judgment. It remained a 'sore spot' for a decade and more. Indeed he has now gone to his grave, without ever apologizing for what he consented to ... and with no apology, I have been unable to forgive.

I recently came across this article on the subject:

The Psychological Harm of Male Circumcision

which concludes:

In summary, the average mutilated American man unconsciously blames his mother for his sexual mutilation, has lower levels of body image and self-esteem compared to his levels had he not been mutilated, and is sexually dysfunctional compared to his sexual functioning had he not been mutilated. These are the primary effects of his sexual mutilation. Besides these primary effects, there is a wide range of possible secondary effects that he can suffer, depending on how the primary effects interact with him, and influence him, in terms of his thinking, his emotions, and the actions he takes in his life. As to which secondary effects manifest and when, that largely depends on his mental details (such as his personality) and on the details of his life’s circumstances (such as the kind of society in which he lives).

Given the two primary effects of blaming mother and being sexually dysfunctional, possible resulting secondary effects include a wide range of negative feelings, attitudes, and actions directed against women. Given the other two primary effects, a lower body image and lower self-esteem, possible resulting secondary effects include a wide range of negative thoughts and feelings about the self, and possible compensatory actions—as Goldman suggests—involving verbally and/or physically attacking others.

Since America has sexually mutilated many tens-of-millions of men, it is no wonder that many American women complain about a lack of good men from which to choose. There is indeed a huge artificially created shortage of good (natural) men. And because the primary and secondary effects of sexual mutilation are negative, America’s large population of sexually mutilated men have an overall lower quality-of-life compared to what their collective quality-of-life would have been had they not been mutilated. Overall, in addition to greatly reducing sexual pleasure, sexual mutilation shifts its male victims in a negative direction, both physically and psychologically.

However, it was this statement that caught my eye:

Another reason that understanding the sexual damage done by circumcision is hard for the average mutilated man, is because the consequences of this understanding include emotional pain (and it is natural for people to avoid pain). In the above statement by Christopher P., he says “my resentment and my sense of loss and loathing increased and deepened” as a consequence of his increased understanding of his sexual losses. In my own case, the understanding of my sexual losses made me angry (I am not normally angry about anything), and my anger lasted for roughly a year (roughly from the latter part of 2001 to the latter part of 2002). And like so many other mutilated men who have expressed their anger over their mutilation, I too was having fantasies about killing the doctor who mutilated me.

I have had precisely the same, dark thoughts.

Knowing that this trauma has coloured my thought processes and emotional makeup practically since birth - likely leading to ambiguous feelings towards my mother, and women in general, which went unacknowledged for much of my life - is half the battle. Unacknowledged, the experiences cannot be integrated, but rather remain in the subconscious, poisoning me. But then merely to think on such matters arouses a boiling, hot rage that threatens to consume me. I cannot even express it in words ... it is too much.

Yes, this practice must stop. I have already resolved, long since, that no son of mine shall feel the doctor's knife. Indeed I may physically strike any physician who even suggests it.

But the question remains: how to heal the damage it has caused to me, psychoemotionally? This stinking, fiery rage and aching sense of loss and betrayal ... at such a deep, prerational level ... I am at a loss.

 

[Gonzo]

Great thread.

From the data perspective, working for a government agency currently evaluating centralized data with the hopes of eventually being open data (accessible to the public minus personally identifiable information) I have a certain perspective on this.

It has been my experience when centralizing data is to ask all departments and agencies if they would even use any of the data fields. In the case of circumcision, several would be interested, since it connects to culture/religion, health, epidemiology (ot so they might think), etc. Therefore the data filed would be given a common core prefix.

I'm sure many of us would be surprised to find out how often circumcision is part of a data set in several departments and agencies.

In terms of why any department would be interested, the more fields in a data set, the richer the correlations that can be formed into hypotheses to be tested.

For example, if the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is higher in certain populations and it is determined that this population has a high incidence of circumcision, they may want to look deeper, form theories and test them (often resulting in false assumptions, in my experience).

For those North Americans (I can't speak for other continents) under the age of 25, you might not be aware how it was a social imperative, if not a medical imperative, to circumcize a newborn.

By the mid-80s, more and more people were questioning this practice and yet the myopic medical community responded with ridiculous statements of how it is better to circumcize at birth than later in life when it hurts a lot more (they used to think babies felt no pain and that many uncircumcized men would eventually develop hygiene related infections of the glans/foreskin - duh!).

Now, in some jurisdictions, circumcision will only be performed upon demand and is considered an invasive, unnecessary procedure and not covered by certain health plans.

I also find it interesting that early circumcision involved cutting off a tiny amount of foreskin, not all the way to expose the glans. I don't remember where I came across that though, so I can't back it up with a source for verification.

As much as I abhor the torture and disgusting act of female circumcision for obvious reasons, we should not minimize the affects of male circumcision, and I'm not trying to take away from the affects of female circumcision which I agree is more damaging. But it is important to know that for many men, circumcision impairs sexual function strictly from a physical perspective. Over sensitization and lack of lubrication contribute to painful experiences in some and premature ejaculation in many.
This in turn creates "hang ups". Although, in my generation uncircumcized men also developed hang ups, both in the shower room with the guys in school and in the bedroom with girls who were conditioned to see an uncircumcized penis as disgusting, an anomaly, as if there was something wrong.

Talk about creating an ongoing feeding frenzy for the PTB.

Gonzo

 

[Caustic]

I am happy that my parents refused to allow me and my brother to be circumcised. They recognized it for what it really is: genital mutilation.
When I was a child and I realized that all my friends were circumcised and I was not, I felt a sense of shame and kept it a secret. They would say things like "burrito dick" and other stupid stuff to make fun of those who were not circumcised. It was a source of ridicule. Now that I am a grown man I am proud of my foreskin and wouldn't want to have it cut off.

It seems to me that circumcision from a religious stand point was intended to mark Jews, Muslims, Christians as different and somehow superior to everyone else.
Circumcision as a way to discourage masturbation and reduce pleasure from sexual intercourse seems like a typical religious motive as well.
Hygiene is a big factor, especially considering the poor hygiene people endured in the past, but has no place in modern society.
Transmission of sexual diseases is related to the hygiene issue.
The timing of the ritual, usually within the first 8 days, seems especially barbaric to me since it apparently leaves a life long psychological imprint on the child. Maybe that is intended.

Now why the government would be interested in circumcision? Maybe statistical research. You can't really evaluate the effects of circumcision on health and behavior unless you know who is and who isn't. I doubt it's used often for body identification. Still, it seems bizarre that they would keep track of stuff like that.

just my 2 cents

 

[go2]

It seems to me that circumcision from a religious stand point was intended to mark Jews, Muslims, Christians as different and somehow superior to everyone else.

Christians are not identified by or with genital mutilation. My father was the first one in our Christian family to be circumcised. He was forced to submit to genital mutilation by the United States Army in 1942 under threat of court martial. Before World War II, few Americans excepting Jews were circumcised. The American medical profession was dominated by Jews in that era. Perhaps Jewish influence in the AMA and on medical protocol is the underlying reason for the mass genital mutilation of American men.

Jewish medical school candidates, who reportedly made up 60 percent of the applicant pool in 1934, dropped to 9 percent in 1988, the last year figures were available. By contrast, 26 percent of all applicants in 1995-1996 were Asian American, a group that represents 4.4 percent of the U.S. population.

Michael Nevins, a New Jersey cardiologist who also studies the history of Jews in medicine, estimates that at the tail end of the 20th century there were between 80,000 and 100,000 Jewish physicians in the United States, comprising between 12 percent and 15 percent of the nation's 684,414 medical doctors. Jews make up 2 percent of the total U.S. population. If Jewish doctors seemed more ubiquitous than these statistics imply, it is because they are clustered in major urban environments, especially in California and the Northeast.

If it's true that there are fewer Jews entering the medical field, is it a commentary on the field of medicine -- or does it indicate something about the state of the next generation of Jews?

Some believe that declining number of Jewish doctors can be viewed as a step forward: a sign that young Jews are moving beyond stereotype and becoming thoroughly absorbed into the fabric of American life.

But Elliot Dorff, rector and distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Judaism, sees the downside. For Dorff, whose specialty is medical ethics, fewer Jewish doctors will inevitably mean "fewer people who share Jewish values about medical care."

This might have grave consequences in thorny areas like abortion, infertility treatment, stem cell research and end-of-life issues, on which Jewish doctors instinctively tend to reflect the teachings of Jewish tradition. Dorff believes that for most Jews, whatever their level of Jewish education, the sanctity of life and the sacred calling of medicine are articles of faith. It's disheartening to think of a future in which Jews no longer hold the health of a nation in their hands.

 

[Buddy]

But the question remains: how to heal the damage it has caused to me, psychoemotionally? This stinking, fiery rage and aching sense of loss and betrayal ... at such a deep, prerational level ... I am at a loss.

Well, if my example is worth anything, I'll share it.

I was circumcised as an infant. By the time I came to this Work, I had researched the issue of circumcision as fully as I could and Laura's historical information completed the picture for me. I knew the biological factors involved, even who the woman was who started nocirc.org and what initiated the whole thing. I read tons of personal stories. I know the experiences and perspectives of men and women as parents and as victims, people who were circumcised as infants, teens and adults. Even among those various stages, I know the points of view of those who had it done to them and were 'for' it, those who had it done to them and were 'against' it, those who had it done later in life who regretted the decision and those who did not regret it.

In short, I've dug up every possible point of view that I could find concerning the issue (and there are so very many I assure you) and read the reasons, the stories and experienced the emotions and feelings involved.

Having all that in my head and connecting it with my own personal observations, thoughts and feelings I reached a point where I just couldn't take any more. I felt like I had emotionally/empathically connected my own experience with everyone else and by seeing and feeling all the suffering from all the various points of view, emotionally I collapsed under the weight and alternated between feelings of rage, grief and self-pity.

Not from just that issue though, because I was also dealing with other stuff. Before it was all over, I also thought about reacting against my father, the doctor (who was already passed) and anyone else who was pro-circumcision.

I was able to restrain myself long enough to learn something very important; namely, that it wouldn't have done any good. Not because it was too late, but because of what I could now 'see' with all the emotional baggage out of the way.

I went back over my childhood and just watched my story unfold. First, there was a stage in which, as a little boy, I was circumcised and didn't know any different. Then, after some observation and learning, I did know that I was circumcised because I knew what the natural state was - yet it didn't matter because it was just an intellectual realization. Then, the final stage was when I connected observations thoughts and facts with those of other people and began to fully realize the immediate as well as the longer range consequences of the whole thing for me and everyone else.

Having made that connection with my own emotions and clearing a lot of it out, I felt like I had something to go back with and compare to my earlier mental states with regard to the issue. Armed with that knowledge, I could actually see myself functioning in emotional disconnect. Even back when I knew what had been done to me, I had no feelings about it because I was disconnected from the issue - even though it concerned trauma to my own body!

When I was able to observe myself to see and understand how it is possible to function in disconnect mode, I came to understand the importance of Gurdjieff's teaching about how the most important thing is for people to get connected to their emotional centers - the large accumulator.

That is the answer - not revenge of any sort.

When a parent, doctor or anyone else with the capability is connected with their emotional center, they will look at an infant or any human being and instead of seeing "infant object" or "human being object", they will see a multi-level sentient being with horizontal (linear) connections to a deep past, the Now and an eternal future and 'vertical' connections from the very ground of existence to the highest potential attainments of someone connected to their higher centers...and all of this existing simultaneously as actuality or potential. At the very least, they will see a person more holistically and with more caring.

If someone is not connected with their emotional center they will not see any of that, so will not understand your anger or at least will not likely be receptive to it - especially while under attack.

Connecting to the emotional center is the answer. G says so, C's say so, Laura says so through her own Initiation and through this Work and my own experience with this agrees, so that's where I've decided to place my bet. :)

As to what do I think about my own circumcised state today? I'm no longer concerned, but I am curious about something. Back when the C's were talking about New Mexico and the 4th density state they mentioned going to bed as a male and waking up as female. I got to thinking...well suppose I could do that. What if the next night I went to bed as a female and woke up as a male once again. Would I be circumcised? Hmmm. At the moment, I don't think so.

Curious, indeed. :) I'd be interested in what others think, but that's probably too far off topic. :(

Hope this helps someone somewhat.

 

[Ollie]

But the question remains: how to heal the damage it has caused to me, psychoemotionally? This stinking, fiery rage and aching sense of loss and betrayal ... at such a deep, prerational level ... I am at a loss.

Well, if my example is worth anything, I'll share it.

I was circumcised as an infant. By the time I came to this Work, I had researched the issue of circumcision as fully as I could and Laura's historical information completed the picture for me. I knew the biological factors involved, even who the woman was who started nocirc.org and what initiated the whole thing. I read tons of personal stories. I know the experiences and perspectives of men and women as parents and as victims, people who were circumcised as infants, teens and adults. Even among those various stages, I know the points of view of those who had it done to them and were 'for' it, those who had it done to them and were 'against' it, those who had it done later in life who regretted the decision and those who did not regret it.

In short, I've dug up every possible point of view that I could find concerning the issue (and there are so very many I assure you) and read the reasons, the stories and experienced the emotions and feelings involved.

Ditto, it was all quite a shock to learn of the changes to brain chemistry, and the lack of emotional involvement.

I went back over my childhood and just watched my story unfold. First, there was a stage in which, as a little boy, I was circumcised and didn't know any different. Then, after some observation and learning, I did know that I was circumcised because I knew what the natural state was - yet it didn't matter because it was just an intellectual realization. Then, the final stage was when I connected observations thoughts and facts with those of other people and began to fully realize the immediate as well as the longer range consequences of the whole thing for me and everyone else.

Having made that connection with my own emotions and clearing a lot of it out, I felt like I had something to go back with and compare to my earlier mental states with regard to the issue. Armed with that knowledge, I could actually see myself functioning in emotional disconnect. Even back when I knew what had been done to me, I had no feelings about it because I was disconnected from the issue - even though it concerned trauma to my own body!

When I was able to observe myself to see and understand how it is possible to function in disconnect mode, I came to understand the importance of Gurdjieff's teaching about how the most important thing is for people to get connected to their emotional centers - the large accumulator.

That is the answer - not revenge of any sort.

Ditto, allied with the question, ‘How do I connect with the lower emotional centre?; How do I move forward?’

I have found J Konrad Stettbacher’s book – Making Sense of Suffering, The Healing Confrontation with Your Own Past – which deals with Primal Therapy and neonatal trauma invaluable as providing a method to work back through the trauma. This is coupled with other therapy work which is currently ongoing.

Hope this helps someone somewhat.

Or not.

 

[Skyfarmr]

Very interesting thread, thanks to all who contributed, but I hope no one minds me bringing this full circle to original post:

why would "they" be interested in whether somebody is circumcized or not ?

in the URL i post below (found via cryptome.org), you will find what is known as database schemas, used for the purpose of interchanging data between various branches of the US govt. for people who do not understand much about computers, it describes the fields or "attributes" used to store data about various subjects of interest to US govt agencies, like persons, events, vehicles, locations ... these so-called "attributes" together describe a certain subject, for example a person.

now, if you look at the stuff in the link below, you'll get a pretty good look at exactly *what* the US govt stores about people and what they are interested about. as you'll see, they are interested in much more than just name and address of a person, and they are interested in many more subjects than just "persons": they want to know about aircraft, places, cars, boats, organizations, capabilities (of a person), incidents, medical and biometric records, ... pretty much the usual data one would imagine big bureaucracies collect.

i know a bit about the hunger for information of bureaucracies, having worked for a bank doing databases myself. but the one thing that stuck out here was that they store whether somebody is circumcized or not. this is so weird that i cant start imagining for what they'd store it. circumcision does not identify anybody and also does not by itself identify somebody with a distinct group: while jews and muslims do it for religious reasons, christians (or better, "westerners") and other demographic groups often circumcize for medical, hygienic or "potency" reasons. does anybody have an idea why "they" would be interested in this weird piece of data ?

if you want to look youself, the NIEM or "national information exchange model" as it is called, is hosted at the university of georgia, here:

http://tinyurl.com/q8opj

if you dont understand what this is all about, do this to find the circumcision bit: on the left side of the bar immediately below the two buttons click on the link "PersonType" (NOT on the small "c" to the left !), you'll see that the column to the right side of the bar changes. Now look for the subtitle "Properties as subject" (in bold letters) on the right column, and browse below it for the link "c:PersonCircumcisionIndicator". There you have it. The small "c" BTW denotes that this attribute belongs to a set of attributes they call the "common core", meaning that there is not any specific agency requesting it, but that all agencies use it. if you browse the attribute sets you'll also find other weird stuff they're interested in,

So: for what would the US govt want this weird piece of data ? Any ideas ?

tried to link to the address http://tinyurl.com/q8opj
and I get an error message. Anyone else experiencing this? has link been dc'd?
Could Name possibly find an updated link?

was able to find info about Cpyptome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptome and Cryptome's site, cryptome.org.

Very interesting the amount of data that NIEM is able to acquire through this network of databases:
NIEM's home address: http://www.niem.gov/index.php

 

[name]

The NIEM website has relocated and changed since May 2006, and the NIEM itself has also evolved.

Try the URL
_http://tools.niem.gov/niemtools/ssgt/SSGT-GetType.iepd?typeKey=nr-6sl
to see the attribute in the intel:PersonType type.

Notice that the "PersonCircumcisionIndicator" attribute is part of an intel type, not part of the medical history of the person.

Thanks BTW to all who have contributed to this thread.

 

[psychegram]

Thanks Bud! That actually does help ... I'd already figured a lot of that out for myself. Which doesn't make it easier, of course, but whoever said any of this would be easy :P

 

[go2]

But the question remains: how to heal the damage it has caused to me, psychoemotionally? This stinking, fiery rage and aching sense of loss and betrayal ... at such a deep, prerational level ... I am at a loss.

Well, if my example is worth anything, I'll share it.

I was circumcised as an infant. By the time I came to this Work, I had researched the issue of circumcision as fully as I could and Laura's historical information completed the picture for me. I knew the biological factors involved, even who the woman was who started nocirc.org and what initiated the whole thing. I read tons of personal stories. I know the experiences and perspectives of men and women as parents and as victims, people who were circumcised as infants, teens and adults. Even among those various stages, I know the points of view of those who had it done to them and were 'for' it, those who had it done to them and were 'against' it, those who had it done later in life who regretted the decision and those who did not regret it.

In short, I've dug up every possible point of view that I could find concerning the issue (and there are so very many I assure you) and read the reasons, the stories and experienced the emotions and feelings involved.

Having all that in my head and connecting it with my own personal observations, thoughts and feelings I reached a point where I just couldn't take any more. I felt like I had emotionally/empathically connected my own experience with everyone else and by seeing and feeling all the suffering from all the various points of view, emotionally I collapsed under the weight and alternated between feelings of rage, grief and self-pity.

Not from just that issue though, because I was also dealing with other stuff. Before it was all over, I also thought about reacting against my father, the doctor (who was already passed) and anyone else who was pro-circumcision.

I was able to restrain myself long enough to learn something very important; namely, that it wouldn't have done any good. Not because it was too late, but because of what I could now 'see' with all the emotional baggage out of the way.

I went back over my childhood and just watched my story unfold. First, there was a stage in which, as a little boy, I was circumcised and didn't know any different. Then, after some observation and learning, I did know that I was circumcised because I knew what the natural state was - yet it didn't matter because it was just an intellectual realization. Then, the final stage was when I connected observations thoughts and facts with those of other people and began to fully realize the immediate as well as the longer range consequences of the whole thing for me and everyone else.

Having made that connection with my own emotions and clearing a lot of it out, I felt like I had something to go back with and compare to my earlier mental states with regard to the issue. Armed with that knowledge, I could actually see myself functioning in emotional disconnect. Even back when I knew what had been done to me, I had no feelings about it because I was disconnected from the issue - even though it concerned trauma to my own body!

When I was able to observe myself to see and understand how it is possible to function in disconnect mode, I came to understand the importance of Gurdjieff's teaching about how the most important thing is for people to get connected to their emotional centers - the large accumulator.

That is the answer - not revenge of any sort.

Bud, your detailed description of coming to a state of impartiality with regard to a perceived and experienced injustice is full of love and wisdom.
Your words trace the reconciliation of physical experience and the reasoned exploration by a deep feeling of all attendant emotions of yours and others is a precise encapsulation of the method and possibilities of the Work. I have not come so far, yet.

When a parent, doctor or anyone else with the capability is connected with their emotional center, they will look at an infant or any human being and instead of seeing "infant object" or "human being object", they will see a multi-level sentient being with horizontal (linear) connections to a deep past, the Now and an eternal future and 'vertical' connections from the very ground of existence to the highest potential attainments of someone connected to their higher centers...and all of this existing simultaneously as actuality or potential. At the very least, they will see a person more holistically and with more caring.

If someone is not connected with their emotional center they will not see any of that, so will not understand your anger or at least will not likely be receptive to it - especially while under attack.

I feel sorrow for all of us who are severed from our emotional center by trauma inflicted by circumcision, game theory, coercive parenting, etc. We are bared at the emotional gate by traumas long forgotten. Your story of discovering and opening the gate to the vast inner world of feeling and the great potential of feeling for others is an inspiration and I want to thank you for sharing your effort to wake up the atrophied potential for sensing your feelings and the feelings of others.

“And these various forms of mutual relationship among them were formed of themselves after the being-property of sensing the inner feeling of similar beings in relation to oneself had become quite atrophied in their psyche, which property must infallibly exist in all beings of our Great Universe without distinction of form or place of arising.”

“At the present time among them, good or bad mutual relationships are established exclusively only according to outer calculated manifestations, chiefly according to what the call ‘amiability,’ the is, by empty words in which there is not a single atom of what is called ‘the result of an inner benevolent impulse,’ such as arises in general in the presences of all beings in direct contact with ‘those similar to themselves.’”

As to what do I think about my own circumcised state today? I'm no longer concerned, but I am curious about something. Back when the C's were talking about New Mexico and the 4th density state they mentioned going to bed as a male and waking up as female. I got to thinking...well suppose I could do that. What if the next night I went to bed as a female and woke up as a male once again. Would I be circumcised? Hmmm. At the moment, I don't think so.

Curious, indeed. I'd be interested in what others think, but that's probably too far off topic.

Well, not off topic at all, Bud. I returned to your post and decided to respond to the powerful image, “When I go to bed as a male and waking up as a female…”. These images illuminate the gift of external consideration and the great possibilities when we access the feelings of another. First we must feel our inner world through the emotional center, which is stunned asleep, brutally for the circumcised. Then, “When I go to bed as a female..” doubles the possibility to see and understand ourselves and others. The Work opens infinity of relationship through the emotional gate. Thanks…Bud!