Last week there was a great article in our local paper on a local tattoo artist who has created a niche business tattooing aureole and nipples on the reconstructed breasts of women who have been victims of breast cancer and mastectomies. A noble occupation to be sure. The article emphasized that this was the final step in allowing these unfortunate women to feel "whole" again.
I immediately recognized a parallel in those men who resent being circumcised, and in particular those who have undertaken the laborious process to restore their foreskin. It's all about feeling "whole" again. It amazes me that many in our North American society, and in particular, the medical community who fail to recognize this. It is a double standard.
It definitely is a double standard. One could say that men who have been circumcised as infants, obviously without consent, are victims of mutiliation just as breast cancer survivors are victims of cancer. Yet it continues. If not for the religious influence, it would die out along with leeches and lobotomies.
You are right about that! However, two things that confound me about that are:
1. Most parents in North America who choose to circumcise their sons do not do it out of a perceived sense of religious obligation.
2. I have never been able to wrap my head around the fact that a parent's perceived religious preferences or obligations trump the child's personal human rights to bodily integrity. The child has not even chosen a religion yet!
|29 members and 18,946 guests|
|Bow , Daffodil , Deborah , emmy526 , girlspn , GreenLED , hillymum , Janeen0225 , jytjwrea , katelove , mama24-7 , Michele123 , MomofLath , momys1 , moominmamma , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , shanna-cat , shantimama , Skippy918 , Springshowers , sren , stephalittle , superseeps , TealCandy , valerievalira , Wolfcat , zebra15|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.|