Is it true........

[candiland]

that those countries with the highest male genital mutilation rates are also the most violent?

Makes perfect sense to me.......... when you have your innocence and trust literally stripped away right after birth, and living in a society that isn't enlightened enough to outlaw it..... well, that says a lot about those societies right there, I guess...

[merpk]

Would you like to clarify which countries you're referring to?

The theory sounds interesting.

Am keeping religious belief out of this ... but will point out that for 2,000 years the circumcised Jewish people were regularly and relentlessly and repeatedly slaughtered by the uncircumcised Christian people ... and *never* fought back (unfortunately) ... and until the founding of the state of Israel, one standard stereotype of the Jewish male was meekness.




I'm not trying to say that circumcision doesn't have psychological ramifications, but realism can be used to make the anti-circ point without wild generalizations that have no grounding in reality.









And candiland, there are *no* personal implications in my post. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. You can take this as an entirely respectful response to your theory. Unless you've finally got me on ignore ... :LOL

[LavenderMae]

America is one them most violent/crime ridden countries in the world, it also has one of the highest circ rates. I have no idea if there is a connection or not.

[candiland]

but will point out that for 2,000 years the circumcised Jewish people were regularly and relentlessly and repeatedly slaughtered by the uncircumcised Christian people ... and *never* fought back (unfortunately) ... and until the founding of the state of Israel, one standard stereotype of the Jewish male was meekness.

Wow, I never knew this! Thank you for pointing that out.

I am thinking of the United States, first and foremost. It's kind of like the chicken-and-egg syndrome...... which came first?

I guess it started out with roots much deeper than circumcision.... I'm thinking of the Puritans, for example. Circumcision, as we all know on this board, started as a routine phenomena b/c it was believed to cure masturbation..... excruciating pain in the genitals immediately after birth would make the child not want to play with his penis, and if he had no foreskin, he'd be less apt to tug on it which would lead to masturbation... which, as we all know, can cause hysteria, blindness, paralysis, all sorts of horrible things

It seems that circumcision stemmed from really unhealthy belief systems..... that expressing oneself freely, thinking for oneself, enjoying sex, etc. etc. were "evil"...... so all of the healthy, natural things a human does to stay happy and sane were thought of as bad, and as "the devil's work." I'm assuming that a lot of society's violence stems from a lot of these beliefs carrying over to today...... which includes circumcision, although the true meaning of RIC is lost to most new parents today.

So circumcision feeds in to this vicious cycle of unquestioning obedience. It's unnatural for mothers to expose their children to this sort of brutality..... yet they do, all the time..... and I'm sure there is some sort of deep-set Freudian thing going on here, that the baby grows up feeling exposed and unprotected and somehow traumatized; damaged...... which only feeds into the cycle of fear and self-loathing which leads to more violence.

Okay, so I have come to my own conclusion here
Circ. in and of itself does not automatically = violence. But when a society of people are unquestioningly obedient to a hierarchal structure, it leads to suppressed anger and emotion and a sensing that something "is not quite right", and this feeds the cycle of violence and MGM.

Oh, my. Please, no one call the padded wagon on me this evening. I've been thinking about this issue for a few days now and it finally just "came together" for me.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally posted by Sheacoby
It is known that during a period in history males were circed before going off to fight in a war, so they would be more violent.

I'm curious. Where did you find this information? It would seem to be just the opposite. It would seem to me to lessen the aggressiveness from the warriors protecting a very sore and tender area from further pain. I would also think that except for the 20th century, these men would violently fight it and would lessen the esprit de corps from a forced mutilation of their genitals.




Frank

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally posted by candiland
excruciating pain in the genitals immediately after birth would make the child not want to play with his penis

Actually, it was first perpetrated on adolescents who had been caught masturbating and it was done as a punishment for masturbating. There was no anesthesia given for the procedure and it was bleieved that the pain would be a warning against self pleasure. I've also wondered if the procedure came with a warning that if they were caught doing it again they would be circumcised again.

and if he had no foreskin, he'd be less apt to tug on it which would lead to masturbation

Dr. A.J. Sayre who started this madness certainly knew of the pleasures of a foreskin and his intent was to remove those pleasures. An intact man uses his foreskin to masturbate and some intact men have a hard time understanding how a circumcised man can masturbate. As we all know, they adapt quite readily. :LOL It is very doubtful that Dr. Sayer was ever circumcised.

... which, as we all know, can cause hysteria, blindness, paralysis, all sorts of horrible things

All of those things came after they learned that circumcised men still masturbate and that circumcision was extremely profitable.

and I'm sure there is some sort of deep-set Freudian thing going on here

Oh, YES! But it may not be what you think. I have seen it expressed as misandrism. (dislike of men) and mothers stating that the baby deserves the pain for the pain he caused her or that men's sexuality needs to be reduced because they have too much and are a danger to society. Those are certainly some deep rooted psychological issues that are transferred to the baby as a result of simply being born male.

But when a society of people are unquestioningly obedient to a hierarchal structure, it leads to suppressed anger and emotion and a sensing that something "is not quite right"

The odd thing here is that this unquestioning obedience is exactly 180 degrees counter to our beliefs as Americans (and Canadians too!) that we are a people of free will and fierce independence.

Oh, my. Please, no one call the padded wagon on me this evening. I've been thinking about this issue for a few days now and it finally just "came together" for me.

Congratulations on being a free and independent thinker. There are way too few of you!





Frank

[LavenderMae]

Frank, I went and tried to find the article I had read a long time ago about the violence and your right I had it backwards. I'm going to go edit that post now. I should always remember how bad my memories is.:LOL

[AnnMarie]

Originally posted by Frankly Speaking

Oh, YES! But it may not be what you think. I have seen it expressed as misandrism. (dislike of men) and mothers stating that the baby deserves the pain for the pain he caused her or that men's sexuality needs to be reduced because they have too much and are a danger to society. Those are certainly some deep rooted psychological issues that are transferred to the baby as a result of simply being born male.

I think we all know, hopefully, that this is not the case with the majority of circs. Only a moron would think such a thing (that the baby deserves the pain, etc.).

I think PEOPLE, not mothers, are responsible for circ. That includes, mothers, fathers, doctors, & nurses. Doctors are at the head of that line.

[LavenderMae]

I have read post were mothers wrote things like my son will be more of a man if he's circed, He needs to be so women won't find him dirty, nasty.... So he goes thru some pain women go thru a lot more pain than that anyway. I do actually believe there are women who think their sons' deserve it, even if it's subconsciously.

[Frankly Speaking]

Something just made my mind click and remember something I have read somewhere about the warriors.

What I read was that conquering armies would circumcise their defeated foes as a warning to never mess with them again for the next time, it wouldn't be just the foreskin! this was a reminder the defeated carried with them for life and a message that would be passed down to succeeding generations of potential warriors. I imagine it was quite effective. This was in Biblical times.

Before you ask, I have no idea where I read it. I have almost filled my disk drive with this stuff to the point it's difficult to find anything. I still have a little disk space in my head but it is not as efficient at pulling up the details. :LOL




Frank

[Stardust27]

Originally posted by merpk
Am keeping religious belief out of this ... but will point out that for 2,000 years the circumcised Jewish people were regularly and relentlessly and repeatedly slaughtered by the uncircumcised Christian people ... and *never* fought back (unfortunately) ... and until the founding of the state of Israel, one standard stereotype of the Jewish male was meekness.

Sorry I'm a bit late on this – I had to find the time to leaf through the book first to be sure that I'm not making things up:

In "Circumcision – The Hidden Trauma", Ronald Goldman describes that the trauma of circumcision might manifest itself in many different ways, and besides several aggressive traits, he names low male self esteem and passivity. So it's possible that circumcision leads to both contrary phenomenons: Increased violence and extraordinary meekness. Probably depending on the inherent coping mechanism of each individual boy (fight back or endure, scream or withdraw into shock) and his upbringing.

These are of course just theories and ideas, and they haven't been scientifically proven. But neither have they been disproven, and considering the complexity of the human psyche, I don't think they can simply be dismissed.

Stardust

[candiland]

Hmmm...... that's very interesting. Maybe that's what I heard about on this board a while back. It certainly makes sense....