It seems to be one of the more disturbing things i have come across, but what do you think about it? Do you think that there is any truth to it? Do you believe that there is a connection between this and women that are adamantly pro circumcision? Do you think that the women that insist on circumcising their sons regardless of the information provided to them share this sentiment? Finally, how common do you believe that this sentiment is?
I am curious to see what all of you think about it.
I think that there could be some truth to that seniment in some women. Thankfully, not many, but I have heard at least one woman who stated that the pain of circumcision that her son endured was "payback" for the pain that she endured in giving birth.
What struck me most about the replies was the refusal of those who were obviously pro-circ to consider the ethical implications of RIC.
no, i think what he is saying is entirely irrelevant. First of all, circed men cannot give pleasure to a woman the way a man with his foreskin can, because his penis is not functioning properly. He lacks sensitivity cannot reach climax as easily , so he bangs against the cervix in an unpleasant way because he cant feel as much. So... not really a good thing for women.
2ndly, harming the newborn child just days after he is born undermines the power of a woman to protect her child, is effectively an affront and an insult to the mother of that child. Its almost like the voice of patriarchy sneering at a woman at her most powerful (and most vulnerable)-when she gives birth, sneering at her and saying, so what, now look at what im going to do to your baby....i still have total power over you. Circumcision is definitely patriarchal. Others have said it much better than i before me.
(actually, i think the article you linked is idiotic at best)
I had never heard of that possibility before. I have much sympathy for someone that would have to live their childhood with a mother like that. There is only one species that would actively attack the reproductive organs of their own offspring.
@contactmaya and pek64:
There are many female circumcisers as well, so i do not believe that it is entirely patriarchal. This question was in regards to the women that are adamantly pro circ. From the 1920s through the 1950s the majority of the fathers at the time were intact, so i am not sure why they would be interested in circumcising their sons.
One trend that many may not be aware of but is very alarming has to do with the circumcision rate in the U.K, particularly England. With the influx of immigrants from circumcising cultures more women are encountering circumcised men. What is alarming about this is that the rate of non medical, non religious circumcisions has also been rising. Because circumcision for non medical reasons is not covered on the NHS, all of these circumcisions need to be done privately, either at a clinic or by a specially trained religious person, which also means that many of these do not go into official statistics. I have heard many individuals state that if it was offered for free at birth as it is in the U.S then they would have had their sons circumcised and i suspect that the circumcision rate would be much higher then it is today. This is evident on many of the U.K parenting sites, but it is important for more official statistics to be gathered on this.
The real aim of this question is what motivates these individuals. Personally, i think it is more about a very strong preference for some of them, but for how many is it about the desire for power and influence over another human being?
It is very highly unlikely that this represents the majority of individuals in the U.S. Instead, it is very clear that ignorance and being misled by those in health care is what really keeps this practice going.