|
How do you like your pen0r? (pg. 24)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
Again - no, because I have been to several celebrations and have been raised in the religion my whole life. At no point, has any Rabbi or parent said "we're gonna cut his penis so we can discourage sexuality". |
So what? That tells you nothing about why the practice originally started, it only tells you why people do it today. Theresa was talking about why it might have started -- not saying I buy that theory, either, but the issues of why it started and why people do it today are separate. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
I'm sorry - did Teresa live in the years when the first circumcision happened? Did you? Did I? None of us did.
The way I see it is this: Jewish are notorious for the circumcision. We continue on with this tradition today. Since none of us were actually alive when the first procedure happened, we go off of what has been told generation through generation from Rabbi to Rabbi, which at some point was based off of that particular reading. From all the religious studies that me and my boyfriend have been through throughout our lives - there is no suggestion of Teresa's idea as to "why" (discouraging sexuality).
What I don't understand is why MJBJ is convinced that Teresa's opinion (who, last time I checked was NOT Jewish and has not really have any interaction with the religion) is more plausible than the overall consensus of WHY we do it [today] in the Jewish community. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
|
Moral and Mr J are doing a good job of replying to you, so this dumb bitch wont bother.
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So what? We're arguing about whether it's mutiliation. The ignorant medical beliefs of people hundreds of years ago don't make it mutilation. The issue is how much damage it actually does, and I'm putting my money on the clitoris being far more important to sexual pleasure than the foreskin. Furthermore, there are no medical benefits I can think of to female circumcision, yet there are multiple benefits for men.
You seem to have a simplistic notion of "reality", but that's a whole other debate. You asked why circumcised men don't feel angry about it. The answer is this most of us don't feel like there's anything wrong. Again, I really ing doubt a circumcised woman would feel the same.
I should make it clear at this point that I was cut for medical reasons, but not at birth.
You mean like when they remove teeth, drill 'em and fill 'em, straighten them, erode them with whitening solutions and otherwise modify them away from their natural state? By your dictionary definition, someone with a missing tooth or two is "mutilated", but the practical and aesthetic impact is so minimal that nobody would ever call them mutilated. Perhaps before you go around labelling people disfigured or mutilated, as if we're circus freaks, you should have a good think about how great the practical implications actually are. And because you've neither had a cut nor an uncut dick, perhaps conclude you really aren't in a position to judge. |
Look up the definition of mutilation. I didn't define it. If you don't like the word, sorry. The definition doesn't specify how much damage must be caused. Just because it doesn't prevent sexual enjoyment doesn't mean it isn't mutilation. Just because I can still walk without my baby toe doesn't mean it isn't mutilation. You seem to have a problem with the underlying connotations of the word and not the actual meaning of it.
The 'medical benefits' that you speak of, like I mentioned and Astroboy has done a great job of pointing out, are not entirely reliable.
I really doubt that a woman who had been without their clitoris their entire life would think twice about it either. Why would she? She doesn't know the difference, she doesn't know what she is missing and chances are, she doesn't even know she had anything to begin with. If done at birth, she wont remember it either. As for whether it is equivalent to the foreskin, I have no idea, but it doesn't matter. It is still removal of something that is naturally supposed to be there.
For those of you who had a legitimate reason to have it removed (due to a real medical condition opposed to a postulated prevention of some condition), then fine. Sometimes medical action has to be taken to prevent damage, and so we perform oral care etc. But that is reactive, not proactive. We don't yank babies teeth out as soon as they grow in because at some point they might get cavities.
Edit: And Moral has already argued my point. Thank you :)
 |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Moral and Mr J are doing a good job of replying to you, so this dumb bitch wont bother.
|
Thank goodness.
The less you type, the better for everyone. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
From all the religious studies that me and my boyfriend have been through throughout our lives - there is no suggestion of Teresa's idea as to "why" (discouraging sexuality). |
Put it this way, then: if that were the original purpose, do you think that it would be stated openly? Or do you think people would make up something prettier-sounding like a covenant between God and his "people?"
| quote: | | What I don't understand is why MJBJ is convinced that Teresa's opinion (who, last time I checked was NOT Jewish and has not really have any interaction with the religion) is more plausible than the overall consensus of WHY we do it [today] in the Jewish community. |
I don't really. Nor do I, as a general rule, expect people who have been involved with a religion their whole lives to be very level-headed or objective when looking at its practices. |
|
|
| bananas |
| And here I thought this thread won't be interesting |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
From all the religious studies that me and my boyfriend have been through throughout our lives - there is no suggestion of Teresa's idea as to "why" (discouraging sexuality). |
In order to find a reason other then that in the Torah you'd need to examine early Hebrew and other Semitic tribes in the area from an anthropological stand point. That said, if you're satisfied with continuing the tradition out of respect for tradition or belief in the story of Abraham then go ahead... In truth, I don't know how any man that identifies himself as Jewish could choose not to as it is the first of the 4 obligations he would have to his son (that said very few follow through with the last of the four).
| quote: | | What I don't understand is why MJBJ is convinced that Teresa's opinion (who, last time I checked was NOT Jewish and has not really have any interaction with the religion) is more plausible than the overall consensus of WHY we do it [today] in the Jewish community. |
Because they are not believers themselves they are naturally inclined to believe that the anthropologic theory is more valid then the bible story. Extending this; anyone acting as perscribed by the bible is misguided. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
Being objective is hearing every opinion - which I do, NOT banishing opinions based on their [religious] foundations - which is what you are doing. It seems that you are basing your opinion that all reasoning based off of religion is incorrect because you [personally] don't believe in it.
Being objective is also not claiming that my [Jewish] way is better or more right than everyone else - which is what I am doing. I, in no way, feel the need to pressure my beliefs on anyone - nor do I think any other belief is "morally corrupt" because it is not mine. The difference here, is that I can respect that others do not believe in circumcision while many of you are struggling with accepting the idea that some of us, religious reasons or not, do believe in it. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
Look up the definition of mutilation. I didn't define it. If you don't like the word, sorry. The definition doesn't specify how much damage must be caused. Just because it doesn't prevent sexual enjoyment doesn't mean it isn't mutilation. Just because I can still walk without my baby toe doesn't mean it isn't mutilation. You seem to have a problem with the underlying connotations of the word and not the actual meaning of it. |
Remember what you said at the start of this argument. You asked why society tolerates one form of mutilation and not another. If you're going to be a semantic robot for the sake of argument, I'll simply reply that society tolerates it because almost everyone on Earth is already mutilated anyway, and so mutilation clearly isn't an important issue.
So unless you're going to realise it's a question of relativity and not absolutes, the argument is over and the problem is solved.
| quote: | | The 'medical benefits' that you speak of, like I mentioned and Astroboy has done a great job of pointing out, are not entirely reliable. |
A bit of enquiry revealed that Astroboy has discredited different studies to the ones I've seen. The issue is not cut and dried, but there remains evidence for medical benefits, which is far more than you can say for female circumcision.
| quote: | | I really doubt that a woman who had been without their clitoris their entire life would think twice about it either. Why would she? |
Because she'd find it very difficult or near impossible to masturbate through natural means? The clitoris exists purely for sexual pleasure. It really is just a collection of nerve endings. Remove it and there is no sexual pleasure from that part of the body. It's a lot more severe than removing a foreskin. |
|
|
| squirrelly |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
In order to find a reason other then that in the Torah you'd need to examine early Hebrew and other Semitic tribes in the area from an anthropological stand point. That said, if you're satisfied with continuing the tradition out of respect for tradition or belief in the story of Abraham then go ahead... In truth, I don't know how any man that identifies himself as Jewish could choose not to as it is the first of the 4 obligations he would have to his son (that said very few follow through with the last of the four). |
Everything you say here is true. But since I (nor Teresa) have enough education to speak any opinion on the anthropological standpoint - we must all go off of what we know, have been taught, and personally done research - which in that aspect none of us are entirely correct nor incorrect. Each of us holds what is "morally acceptable" differently - so what may be acceptable to me may not be acceptable to you, but that doesn't mean that it makes anything you or I do any less or more "wrong".
| quote: | | Because they are not believers themselves they are naturally inclined to believe that the anthropologic theory is more valid then the bible story. Extending this; anyone acting as perscribed by the bible is misguided. |
I think I touched on that in the last post I made :p (as far as being "objective") |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Also, I've just realised what a wonderful pun "the issue is not cut and dried" is in this context. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by squirrelly
It seems that you are basing your opinion that all reasoning based off of religion is incorrect because you [personally] don't believe in it. |
Not really. If you wanted to talk about a Jewish practice based in later times, not about a figure (Abraham) and an event (the covenant with him) that most historians will tell you is probably fictitious, then I wouldn't be so quick to cry "mythology!" As it is, you chose him, so I do.
| quote: | | The difference here, is that I can respect that others do not believe in circumcision while many of you are struggling with accepting the idea that some of us, religious reasons or not, do believe in it. |
Beliefs get respect if they deserve it. Advocating a medically unnecessary and painful procedure because of belief in a myth is not intellectually respectable. If you wanted to talk about disease prevention you would be on better ground, at least in my eyes. |
|
|
|
|
