FR-- Propaganda Bullshit or A Concept Too Big To Wrap Your Brain Around?

K

kong1971

1
The basic premise of some of those who oppose FR is that the foreskin is "just a useless little flap of skin". I have heard the opposition repeat that phrase more than once in the last couple days. Their basic argument is this: "How can FR do all that when it is just a useless little flap of skin." Of course, with that mindset, they are not going to understand where we restorers are coming from. Their reaction is understandably heated because what we have discovered and espouse would completely destroy that mindset and make them face the awful truth. Bear in mind, we are talking about men who think it is a horrible crime to remove the clitoral hood of a female, but quite fine to cut off a hunk of dick. Is it a case of the oppressed identifying with the oppressors, or denial, or a mixture of the two?

In a country where sexual related crimes are the most shocking and the most severely punished, I am appalled at the apathy and anger that comes into play when one talks about circumcision. Many men just don't care. Others react with knee-jerk rage-- "There's nothing wrong with me! I'm fine! Shut your fucking mouth about it! I don't want to hear anymore!"

It makes me sad.

If you want to know what happened to you when your were born, here it is...They took you into a room and strapped your flailing little newborn arms and legs down. Then a stranger shoved a probe underneath your foreskin, which at the time, still adheres and protects the glans, and forcefully tore the two parts away from one another. By then, you are shreiking in pain because no anaesthetic was used on you. After that, the skin was retracted, clamped, and efficiently sliced away and thrown in the garbage-- or even more horribly, stored for sale later for medical experiments or use as breathable surgical bandages...baby skin is very valuable. For the next few weeks, you urinated and deficated onto the open wound, unable to sleep deeply, constantly in pain, robbed by pain of the bonding experience with your mother and father, because there was agony every time you were held close to them. This experience must reverberate through the halls of the subconscious for the rest of your life.

Open your eyes and look at this picture.

The most sensitive and important part of your penis, STOLEN FROM YOU!!!! Your foreskin is packed with dense, sexual-specific nerves, glands to keep your glans supple and sensitive and healthy, as well as the sensitive frenar delta and the ridged band (which stimulates the female during intercourse as well as gliding inside her to make sex more comfortable). You also lost estrogen receptors and doctors don't even know WHY we have those-- but that doesn't keep them from cutting them off.

Like I said above, though, if you just think it is a useless little flap of skin, you will never see the truth or understand where we restorers are coming from.

You can be content with what you have.

Just don't get in the way!
 
AncientChina said:
To wrap my actual head around or to wrap my penis head around? ?:(

:D
Click to expand...

I can tie my flaccid dick in a knot:D
 
Kong, just a few points... we do have "infantile amnesia" - therefore pain at childbirth and during circumcision isn't applicable. In fact, we hadn't had enough life experience to distinguish pain from pleasure, and at this point we hadn't developed enough cognitive ability to associate pain with any sort of remorse. Also, the nervous system hadn't developed enough to recognize "pain" as anything out of the ordinary. The screaming and crying is an inborn tendency, reaction, and adaptation.

Also, any sort of negative subconcious association you have from childbirth is simply a false memory, surely you've heard the research on this.

So, I'm not arguing for or against FR. But your explanation of the trauma certainly doesn't hold up with developmental theory. I am a psychology major, specializing in development.
 
Really...? So how long can we subject our children to pain before it makes an impact on the psyche? :D Just the first few weeks? Months? Hey, my dad beat me until I was 16 years old. I bet he read the same material you did! :D

You may be a psychology major, but I bet if you stuck a baby with red hot needles or cut it with razor blades, it's going to hurt that baby and make it cry. It probably won't want to be held by you either.
 
Last edited:
Do you want to know honestly or are you just being funny? I'd be happy to go into the psychology of attachment, emotion, learning theory, and cognitive development to answer your question. And all without bias, over extension, or over exaggeration.

Maybe you should take away your disclaimer. People might listen.
 
Typical psychobabble.

Kid, there's the intellectual world and there's the real world. They are only vaguely associated.

Pain hurts.

Abortion is murder.

Humans attain sentience BEFORE being educated at college.

Not flaming you...just poking a little fun. Don't believe everything you read in those books, bud. Just cause they're thick and heavy doesn't mean they're right.
 
My girlfriend does tell me I am the most politically correct person she knows. I can't combat the "step into the real world" argument. Personality flaw maybe.
 
Much respect for that admission. My estimate of your intelligence just jumped five notches...and it was already pretty high to begin with!
 
AncientChina said:
Lucky fuck!

Last time I tried that...........I had to have my mom come in and help me get it out of the knot. :eek:
Click to expand...
You can't be serious?!
 
AlloyCG said:
Do you want to know honestly or are you just being funny? I'd be happy to go into the psychology of attachment, emotion, learning theory, and cognitive development to answer your question. And all without bias, over extension, or over exaggeration.

Maybe you should take away your disclaimer. People might listen.
Click to expand...


How much of this has to do with the physical and medical world? I mean adaptation and reaction aren't just stale and empty words. There are reasons behind those their usage. Why is it believed to be so in general? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm curious. Just if you have time maybe PM me or post some theories or whatnot. But babies do actually feel pain. I just know that physically it has been proven that there are very strong inignorable indications (increased heart rate, decreased oxygen in the blood, increased blood pressure, and a jump in stress hormones have all been documented and are used to tell whether or not a newborn or infant is in pain) that say they do feel pain. I don't how it applies to their subconscious later in life, but I wouldn't think circumcision is a great way to start life. Isn't it about development and moving on from one stage to the next? How does cutting off flesh from a very sensitive and vital body part that shouldn't be removed contribute positively to the development of a person? I always thought there were main stages that we go through in life and the first one had to do with trust. I guess that wasn't correct then. I'm not saying with circumcision all trust is lost from a baby and its parents, but still like I mentioned I can't see how it is good. And wouldn't there then be some kind of consequence?
 
Babies don't feel pain? erm HELLO!?
Watch a video of a baby being circumsized, if it doesnt make you wanna cry your are stone.
 
AlloyCG said:
Kong, just a few points... we do have "infantile amnesia" - therefore pain at childbirth and during circumcision isn't applicable. In fact, we hadn't had enough life experience to distinguish pain from pleasure, and at this point we hadn't developed enough cognitive ability to associate pain with any sort of remorse. Also, the nervous system hadn't developed enough to recognize "pain" as anything out of the ordinary. The screaming and crying is an inborn tendency, reaction, and adaptation.

Also, any sort of negative subconcious association you have from childbirth is simply a false memory, surely you've heard the research on this.

So, I'm not arguing for or against FR. But your explanation of the trauma certainly doesn't hold up with developmental theory. I am a psychology major, specializing in development.
Click to expand...
This type of thinking is exactly why its so hard to abolish circumcisions of babies! reading tripe like this just makes my blood boil. do you actually believe that babies don't feel pain? as a father of 4 i know they do in fact feel pain and can distingush between pain and pleasure. if you poke them do they not cry/ if you cuddle and caress them do they not quiet down and become content, in fact the only reason they don't is because they are in some kind of pain. research has proven that babies feel excruciating pain while being circed and the ones that dont scream have already gone into shock. Doctors and such need to step into this centry and leave the medival thinking behind.!!!
 
There are too many people who swear by FR to discount it. I do think some of the arguments for FR are specious. In my case, my circ scar is so tight that my balls are sucked up tight against my abodomen, and my dick curves sharply upward. So far, FR has released some of that tension. Who can argue against that? If you don't believe, go to another forum. The FR forum is for believers, not naysayers.
 
Foreskin restoration and erect bends have taken most of the curve out of my dick. It is still slightly curved...but to a degree that I and my wife both like. Also, I used to have a glans that was positioned at the end of the shaft kind of strangely, and now it is more normal. I won't say FR did it alone, cause I spent alot of time bending it and trying to push the head into a more normal position...but I will say it helped alot. I don't get near as many skin tears doing my erect bends anymore. I used to get alot of little tears in the inner mucosal tissue when trying to unbend my cock cause the skin was so tight.
 
iwant8inches said:
How much of this has to do with the physical and medical world? I mean adaptation and reaction aren't just stale and empty words. There are reasons behind those their usage. Why is it believed to be so in general? I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm curious. Just if you have time maybe PM me or post some theories or whatnot. But babies do actually feel pain. I just know that physically it has been proven that there are very strong inignorable indications (increased heart rate, decreased oxygen in the blood, increased blood pressure, and a jump in stress hormones have all been documented and are used to tell whether or not a newborn or infant is in pain) that say they do feel pain. I don't how it applies to their subconscious later in life, but I wouldn't think circumcision is a great way to start life. Isn't it about development and moving on from one stage to the next? How does cutting off flesh from a very sensitive and vital body part that shouldn't be removed contribute positively to the development of a person? I always thought there were main stages that we go through in life and the first one had to do with trust. I guess that wasn't correct then. I'm not saying with circumcision all trust is lost from a baby and its parents, but still like I mentioned I can't see how it is good. And wouldn't there then be some kind of consequence?
Click to expand...

Don't confuse physiological response with psychological response. Pain is simply another form of stimulation; cognitive ability hasn't reached a level of attaching negative connotations with the physiological response. It's very difficult to imagine, I understand. When it comes to attachment and nurture(what you are calling trust,) a single instance of physiological "trauma" isn't enough to do psychological damage that early in life. Hold down a 3-year-old and mutilate his penis, it's another story.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for circumcision by any means, but it's based more on the principle of choice.
 
Alloy has it right here; you can't retain any type of experience you have when you're that young, even subconciously. It might be "BS academics," but it's also a simple matter of brain chemistry and emperical study. Birth is fairly traumatic . . . do we all hate our mothers for it? Nothing that happens when we are that young is stored in the brain in any fashion. I have a harder time taking any of this FR stuff seriolusly when people are running around claiming that science is just BS. In the real world, everything that you use and enjoy all day and the information that produced it comes from research and academics. Enjoying that computer you're using right now? Well I can promise you that it wasn't created by people listening to their intuition or gut . . . because things just seemed obvious to them, duh. So if science and scholarly research are bunk, what is reliable information? Uncited claims from websites? Personal hearsay? Give me a break . . .
 
ok weather or not the trauma of a brutal attack on a new born, such as circumcision is retained in the memory or not doesn't matter say 10 or 20 years latter you wont remember , but at the time i'm sure the child will remember and feel the pain weather its for a day or two or fifty, and he'll bare the scars of that attack for a life time, so why subject that innocent child to such a barbaric procedure? and maybe while hes a child ,a teen and even a man he wont care hes been cut, some wont but its the ones that do feel a lose
that will suffer the most. and with circ. becoming less common those that are cut will someday realise they have lost something. and for what? because some uptight guy thought that by drying out the glans would stop masterbation or prevent an infection. this procedure should be banned to children as female circ has been in the states. and only be preformed on consenting adults or in a life threating situation. liken circumcision to amputating a female babies breast so she wont get breast cancer.
 
belowav said:
ok weather or not the trauma of a brutal attack on a new born, such as circumcision is retained in the memory or not doesn't matter say 10 or 20 years latter you wont remember , but at the time i'm sure the child will remember and feel the pain weather its for a day or two or fifty, and he'll bare the scars of that attack for a life time, so why subject that innocent child to such a barbaric procedure? and maybe while hes a child ,a teen and even a man he wont care hes been cut, some wont but its the ones that do feel a lose
that will suffer the most. and with circ. becoming less common those that are cut will someday realise they have lost something. and for what? because some uptight guy thought that by drying out the glans would stop masterbation or prevent an infection. this procedure should be banned to children as female circ has been in the states. and only be preformed on consenting adults or in a life threating situation. liken circumcision to amputating a female babies breast so she wont get breast cancer.
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I sound brutal, but you are wrong. On just about everything. It's obvious you think that circumcision shouldn't be practiced. I don't think it should be either. But your arguments are horrible.

No, the child won't remember. At that point, memory isn't functioning at a level that can even be called memory. Metacognition doesn't come for a LONG time.

Yes, some don't mind, and even prefer to be circumcized. That's OK. Some do mind. But, the negative consequences aren't widespread enough to pass legislature to end it.

It wasn't an uptight guy who started it. It was originally a prodecure suppodely declared by God to separate Jews and everyone else. In those days, it was probably safer to call foreskin a helth risk, as infections were common. In the Bible it is sometimes refered to as "unclean flesh." Whether that means anything to you or not, I don't know. Just some history.

Your breast analogy was poor. I don't think I really need to argue that one.

No doubt, circumcision is ridiculous. But come on guy, think a little bit.
 
I think you're both being purposely obtuse is you feel mutilation and horrible pain has no effect on a child. That's ridiculous.

Saying a child won't remember the pain is denying the basic concept that, for days or even weeks, that child will, in fact, experience the pain. Since a newborn has no concept of time, in your world view, that entity thus exists in a seemingly never-ending timeless void of agony.

I think it's frightful that you have so little sympathy for other human beings. That's why I tend to avoid medical professionals. The first thing they do is train the empathy out of you guys. I guess the only way to deal with the misery and suffering you witness it to dehumanize others...make it not real in your minds. Its really sad to me.

PS-- This is about a 7 out of 10 on the stupidity scale:

"I have a harder time taking any of this FR stuff seriolusly when people are running around claiming that science is just BS. In the real world, everything that you use and enjoy all day and the information that produced it comes from research and academics. Enjoying that computer you're using right now? Well I can promise you that it wasn't created by people listening to their intuition or gut . . ."

Typical professional arrogance. :D Creation is an act of imagination, not science. Science puts the cogs in the clock, but an artist makes the watch beautiful, and it was an eccentric inventor more than likely that came up with the very concept of "clock".
 
AlloyCG said:
Forgive me if I sound brutal, but you are wrong. On just about everything. It's obvious you think that circumcision shouldn't be practiced. I don't think it should be either. But your arguments are horrible.

No, the child won't remember. At that point, memory isn't functioning at a level that can even be called memory. Metacognition doesn't come for a LONG time.

Yes, some don't mind, and even prefer to be circumcized. That's OK. Some do mind. But, the negative consequences aren't widespread enough to pass legislature to end it.

It wasn't an uptight guy who started it. It was originally a prodecure suppodely declared by God to separate Jews and everyone else. In those days, it was probably safer to call foreskin a helth risk, as infections were common. In the Bible it is sometimes refered to as "unclean flesh." Whether that means anything to you or not, I don't know. Just some history.

Your breast analogy was poor. I don't think I really need to argue that one.

No doubt, circumcision is ridiculous. But come on guy, think a little bit.
Click to expand...
Think alittle bit i have given this subject much thought i didnt just blurt out something that wasnt thought about! when i had my first son i was against circ. but lost the battle with my wife, with my second son i armed myself with what ever i could read on the subject this time i didnt lose and i also saved my two nefews from suffering the pain and suffering of routine amputations of there forskins. I DID THINK!!!
i was refering to modern routine circs. ( "The modern use of Hebrew circumcision as a medicalized practice dates from about 1865 in England and about 1870 in the US.9 The procedure accepted for medical use essentially was the Jewish peri'ah. Moscucci reports that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation.14 Gollaher further describes the history of medicalized circumcision.9 No scientific studies were carried out to determine the efficacy and safety of circumcision prior to its introduction into medical practice,9 nor were any studies conducted to determine the social effects of imposing genital alteration surgery on a large portion of the population.")

heres more for you to ponder.
"It started as an ancient Egyptian custom and there are wall carvings to prove it. It seems to have its origin in snake worship. The Egyptians believed that when the snake shed its skin, and emerged shiny and new again, it was undergoing rebirth. They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans should follow suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began. From there it spread to many Semetic peoples, both Arabs and Jews adopting it and converting it into an act of religious faith. As the centuries passed, it became popular in other regions of the world for moral, medical, or hygenic reasons. " From the book, Babywatching by Desmond Morris.

Non-religious circumcision began in England inthe late 1800s and it became extremely popular in English-speaking countriesbetween 1920 and 1950. England introduced the practice to the U.S. At the time, it was believed that masturbation caused a host of differentillnesses. Masturbation was considered extremely immoral and many children,both male and female, have been circumcised throught the years because parentsdiscovered them "in the act." To this day, who doesn't remember thethreat associated with masturbation that "you'll go blind?"

It was known even in the late 1800s that the removalof the foreskin (the only moveable part of the penis) would reduce sexualsensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.

A noted Jewish sage, Rabbi Moses Maimonides inhis Guide to the Perplexed, expressed the following:

"...people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation... How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moralshortcomings. ...Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for thereis no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement,and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment..."

It was believed that masturbation caused blindness,mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and a host of other ills. It thereforemade sense to some physicians that genital surgery would stop masturbationand prevent the onset of these illnesses.

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost alwayssuccessful in small boys is circumcision..." The operation should be performedby a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending theoperation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it beconnected with the idea of punisHydromaxent..." John Harvey Kellog, M.D., Treatmentfor Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington,Iowa; F. Segner & Co., 1888.
When it was finally realized that masturbationdid not cause illnesses, the foreskin became the blame for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.

All of the medical reasons for circumcision have been eliminated by experts.Circumcised men are not immune to suffering from these diseases. The surgeryoffers no warranty.

Also with some of these statments above my breast anology was right on the money!!!!!
heres another anology, liken circ. to amputating someones toes to prevent an ingrown toenail.
 
yea after reading all this stuff im against circumcision too. one day when i have a kid ill make sure that his foreskin stays on, and I wish my parents had left mine too. darn
 
belowav said:
Think alittle bit i have given this subject much thought i didnt just blurt out something that wasnt thought about! when i had my first son i was against circ. but lost the battle with my wife, with my second son i armed myself with what ever i could read on the subject this time i didnt lose and i also saved my two nefews from suffering the pain and suffering of routine amputations of there forskins. I DID THINK!!!
i was refering to modern routine circs. ( "The modern use of Hebrew circumcision as a medicalized practice dates from about 1865 in England and about 1870 in the US.9 The procedure accepted for medical use essentially was the Jewish peri'ah. Moscucci reports that circumcision was imposed in an attempt to prevent masturbation.14 Gollaher further describes the history of medicalized circumcision.9 No scientific studies were carried out to determine the efficacy and safety of circumcision prior to its introduction into medical practice,9 nor were any studies conducted to determine the social effects of imposing genital alteration surgery on a large portion of the population.")

heres more for you to ponder.
"It started as an ancient Egyptian custom and there are wall carvings to prove it. It seems to have its origin in snake worship. The Egyptians believed that when the snake shed its skin, and emerged shiny and new again, it was undergoing rebirth. They reasoned that if, by shedding skin, the snake could become apparently immortal, then humans should follow suit. They made the simple equation: snakeskin = foreskin, and the operation began. From there it spread to many Semetic peoples, both Arabs and Jews adopting it and converting it into an act of religious faith. As the centuries passed, it became popular in other regions of the world for moral, medical, or hygenic reasons. " From the book, Babywatching by Desmond Morris.

Non-religious circumcision began in England inthe late 1800s and it became extremely popular in English-speaking countriesbetween 1920 and 1950. England introduced the practice to the U.S. At the time, it was believed that masturbation caused a host of differentillnesses. Masturbation was considered extremely immoral and many children,both male and female, have been circumcised throught the years because parentsdiscovered them "in the act." To this day, who doesn't remember thethreat associated with masturbation that "you'll go blind?"

It was known even in the late 1800s that the removalof the foreskin (the only moveable part of the penis) would reduce sexualsensitivity and restrict movement of the penile shaft.

A noted Jewish sage, Rabbi Moses Maimonides inhis Guide to the Perplexed, expressed the following:

"...people believe that circumcision is to remove a defect in man's formation... How can products of nature be deficient so as to require external completion, especially as the use of the foreskin to that organ is evident. This commandment has not been enjoined as a complement to a deficient physical creation, but as a means for perfecting man's moralshortcomings. ...Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for thereis no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement,and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment..."

It was believed that masturbation caused blindness,mental illness, alcoholism, epilepsy and a host of other ills. It thereforemade sense to some physicians that genital surgery would stop masturbationand prevent the onset of these illnesses.

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost alwayssuccessful in small boys is circumcision..." The operation should be performedby a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending theoperation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it beconnected with the idea of punisHydromaxent..." John Harvey Kellog, M.D., Treatmentfor Self-Abuse and Its Effects, Plain Facts for Old and Young, Burlington,Iowa; F. Segner & Co., 1888.
When it was finally realized that masturbationdid not cause illnesses, the foreskin became the blame for penile and cervical cancers, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases.

All of the medical reasons for circumcision have been eliminated by experts.Circumcised men are not immune to suffering from these diseases. The surgeryoffers no warranty.

Also with some of these statments above my breast anology was right on the money!!!!!
heres another anology, liken circ. to amputating someones toes to prevent an ingrown toenail.
Click to expand...

Good post.
 
kong1971 said:
I think it's frightful that you have so little sympathy for other human beings. That's why I tend to avoid medical professionals. The first thing they do is train the empathy out of you guys. I guess the only way to deal with the misery and suffering you witness it to dehumanize others...make it not real in your minds. Its really sad to me.
Click to expand...

Rationality is not lack of sympathy OR empathy.

I am an extremely emotive person. So much so, that I have to choose my concerns. With the FR example - I worry about the fact that I didn't have the choice, and my son may not have the choice to have a part of his penis cut off. That concerns me deeply. I am not concerned for the physical "pain" that it may have caused me or anyone else during the operation. Please do not take that sentence out of context. I've shared enough on cognitive development to support that statement without sounding inhumane.

Should a baby be born with a deformity or mental defect, it saddens me greatly. Too greatly, really. The best case scenario it's something a child can grow out of or have surgery for while he's young, and perhaps have no recollection of it later in life. In that case, no I do not feel for the child. It's pointless. I do have sympathy for his parents though. The torment they went through is far greater than a recovered child will have to experience.

Just today my mom told me about a baby born with organs on the outside of his body, and without a diaphram. Yes, it's sad. It's sad because that child will have horrendous problems for the rest of his life, if he survives. It's also sad because of what his parents must be going through. Am I concerned for any pain he might be going through at the moment? At the risk of SOUNDING inhumane, no - because of what I know about development.

Now, a man gets circumcized as a baby. He goes through life thinking it's normal. He likes his penis. He has no recollection of some horrible, traumatic procedure performed on him. Why should I feel sorry for him?

A response to the above: "What if a person get beat when he was an infant? Are you saying because he can't remember it I shouldn't feel sorry for him?" Yes, and no. You should feel sorry for him if it had traumatic effects on his physical or psychological well-being. That's something that he will have to deal with when and if he develops meta-cognition. Again at the risk of sounding inhumane - no, if there are no ill effects after reaching meta-cognition. Should the offender still be punished? Of course, because he or she might do it to someone, sometime, who it might affect. In that case, it would be a tragedy, and I would feel deeply for the abused.

RECAP: Because I do not have ill feelings towards the "pain" of circumcision does not make me less sympathetic. It does allow me to focus more of my emotive energy on greater tragedies of the world.
 
RECAP:" Because I do not have ill feelings towards the "pain" of circumcision does not make me less sympathetic. It does allow me to focus more of my emotive energy on greater tragedies of the world"
But what greater tragedy is there than having a tiny helpless child strapped to hard cold plastic table having the most sensitive part of his anatomy ripped and cut from his body, without the aid of anesthetics? then having his parents the people he should trust most stand there and condone it.
I read that there are approximatley 1.2 million circs performed each year in the U.S. ( this # maybe more or less) To me thats an awful lot of tragic events happening right here in the good ol' U.S.
 
i would like to ad that this procedure does not just end at infancy because they dont remember, many men end up emotionally scarred by this, thats why there is such a thing as foreskin restoration, i belong to several FR groups and the amount of men that write in discribing the anguish they feel over the loss of there foreskin is staggering. they feel violated, abused, mutilated. this is more than just "removing a usless piece of skin" it affects people in many different ways some very deeply.
 
Infant pain blockers are used about half the time now, and the AMA has suggested that their use for the procedure ought to be universal. A circumcision is also not nearly as brutal as many of you are making it out to be. I've seen a Jewish child circumcised at a Bris on several occasions and it was far from the nightmare scenario that some love to agrandize by describing in ever more gruesome detail.

I don't think many men start to feel traumatized by their circumcision until they get on the internet and start reading about how they haven't really been enjoying sex all these years and that their penises should really be bigger and that they viciously mutilated by their parents and the medical conspiracy, ect. . . . I don't remember my circumcision, which I learned some time ago was performed without benefit of anisthetic, and I feel no sense of trauma whatsoever.

What I see with FR is men mostly indulging in fantasy scenarios and creating a little sense of personal drama for themselves. Not necessarily a horrible thing, except when the fantasy could potentially undermine the sexual confidence or feelings otherwise of some of the more impressionable people that visit this forum.
 
belowav said:
RECAP:" Because I do not have ill feelings towards the "pain" of circumcision does not make me less sympathetic. It does allow me to focus more of my emotive energy on greater tragedies of the world"
But what greater tragedy is there than having a tiny helpless child strapped to hard cold plastic table having the most sensitive part of his anatomy ripped and cut from his body, without the aid of anesthetics? then having his parents the people he should trust most stand there and condone it.
I read that there are approximatley 1.2 million circs performed each year in the U.S. ( this # maybe more or less) To me thats an awful lot of tragic events happening right here in the good ol' U.S.
Click to expand...

Reread my post. In fact reread every post of mine in this thread. I'm not going to go back and forth with you.

And what greater tragedy than circumcision? And I'm the one called less than sympathetic?
 
"And what greater tragedy than circumcision? And I'm the one called less than sympathetic?"

go ahead and read whatever you want into my post obviously you will be right and i will be wrong. Damn, its like arguing with my wife.
 
AlloyCG said:
Don't confuse physiological response with psychological response. Pain is simply another form of stimulation; cognitive ability hasn't reached a level of attaching negative connotations with the physiological response. It's very difficult to imagine, I understand. When it comes to attachment and nurture(what you are calling trust,) a single instance of physiological "trauma" isn't enough to do psychological damage that early in life. Hold down a 3-year-old and mutilate his penis, it's another story.

Just like at that point in life it wouldn't be enough to call any experience the baby has an actual experience that they can learn from?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for circumcision by any means, but it's based more on the principle of choice.
Click to expand...

So, 3 is the beginning stage of metacognition?

I mean I wasn't trying to say you were wrong. I just couldn't see how just because they don't really have any ability to learn the way we do that it wouldn't affect them in some way. Where is the bridge then from them not being able to have an attachment from physiological responses to psychological ones? What are babies doing at that point in life? Just surviving and exploring all their parts? (that could be construed as sarcastic, but it's not.) Maybe it will be found that babies do have their own way of "learning." Obviously I am vastly ignorant to the said areas of study and perhaps it could have seemed in other posts like I don't believe in science or something, but that's crazily false. (to whomever) Eh, we both find it wrong at least.

I mean look to anyone claiming that doctors and science is part of a problem. Yeah, maybe in some ways, but these people are doing all the work. They are just going by what they know or what is widely believed based on studies. I mean what do you want from them? Areas that have anything to do with psychology is going to evolve over time and some faster than maybe thought before. But shit, it can only benefit us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top