In order for future generations of males to be free of circumcision and its losses, harms and deprivations, currently circumcised men, as those in the intactivist movement have already done, have to give up their psychological defences of justifying circumcision in order to mitigate against the harms done. It hurts less to be in denial about circumcision's losses and deprivations, it feels better to tell yourself that having a circumcised penis is fantastic, that its better! Psychological defenses work But........' The cost of mainataining this psychological defence is that circumcision's harms, losses and deprivations will continue forever generationally. Therefore the psychological pain about the truth of circumcision's harms losses and deprivations, has to be endured by this current generation of men in order to end it for future generations of men.
Bravery and courage awards to the men who break thru their own psychological defences, & feel the pain of what was done to them and what was taken from them, and who fight for furure generations of men to be free of circumcision, and fight for future men to have the freedom to make the choice for themselves. These men have to fight the dominant ideology of their culture, they face ridicule, but they do not flinch, truly BRAVE!!!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Suspending human rights & Requiring balance in debating
Its funny how only on the subject of infant male circumcision are we required to suspend human rights and and demand BALANCE to both sides of the argument, In female circumcision, or genital cutting or FGM, no such suspension of human rights or balance ever seems required (in western nations), its rightly denounced with no excuses for it. One word HYPOCRACY!!!!
A ritual nick on the genitals of a female child is seen as a human rights violation (No tissue is lost, sexual function is unaltered), but you can slice off the whole of the male foreskin, a functional male sex organ which is lost forever in male circumcision, and the subject of human rights is to be suspended, and balance is required? My morals and ethics tells me there's something disgustingly wrong in all this!! Some people call it cultural relativism, that because male circumcision has been common, and it is part of certain religious or tribal practices then it is to be tolerated. Well if there;s such a thing as human rights, then they are either universal to both male and female, and the right to genital integrity is fundamental to both sexes, or human rights are just meaningless.
A ritual nick on the genitals of a female child is seen as a human rights violation (No tissue is lost, sexual function is unaltered), but you can slice off the whole of the male foreskin, a functional male sex organ which is lost forever in male circumcision, and the subject of human rights is to be suspended, and balance is required? My morals and ethics tells me there's something disgustingly wrong in all this!! Some people call it cultural relativism, that because male circumcision has been common, and it is part of certain religious or tribal practices then it is to be tolerated. Well if there;s such a thing as human rights, then they are either universal to both male and female, and the right to genital integrity is fundamental to both sexes, or human rights are just meaningless.
Monday, October 29, 2012
Narcissism & Circumcision
Its just been re-highlighted to me, the narcissism thats involved in the circumcision of children. We have a talentless TV & Radio personality here in Australia, who creates outrageous stunts to entertain, because he's basicly just talentless narcissist. Several Years ago he had his son circumcised, and he bought his son's foreskin into the radio studio to shock his fellow disc jockey's and his audience, making fun of his son's foreskin.
I mean......... How Narcissistic is that, a complete lack of empathy for his son, and what his son may feel about this radio stunt one day if he finds out? The stunt It was all about him and his needs, getting fame, noteriety at his son's expense. Obviously the decision to circumcise, was a narcissistic one, because in Australia the RACP Australia's authority on circumcision of children, recommends against the procedure less than 10% of newborns are circumcised, so he did it because "he" wanted his son circumcised. Narcissism pure and simple, putting his own interests ahead of his sons, with no empathy for what his son might have wanted, and also growing up circumcised, in a country where most of the boys are left intact. Pure Narcissism.
This is also another reason why circumcision still happens, the Narcissism of the parents, putting their own needs ahead of their childs. If they were really empathic & enlightened parents they would investigate not only what circumcision is/was, but also its harms, and the role and function of the foreskin which is lost to circumcision. Given the male foreskin has a functional role in male sexuality, to remove this from your son, because its your preference is just pure Narcissism.
I mean......... How Narcissistic is that, a complete lack of empathy for his son, and what his son may feel about this radio stunt one day if he finds out? The stunt It was all about him and his needs, getting fame, noteriety at his son's expense. Obviously the decision to circumcise, was a narcissistic one, because in Australia the RACP Australia's authority on circumcision of children, recommends against the procedure less than 10% of newborns are circumcised, so he did it because "he" wanted his son circumcised. Narcissism pure and simple, putting his own interests ahead of his sons, with no empathy for what his son might have wanted, and also growing up circumcised, in a country where most of the boys are left intact. Pure Narcissism.
This is also another reason why circumcision still happens, the Narcissism of the parents, putting their own needs ahead of their childs. If they were really empathic & enlightened parents they would investigate not only what circumcision is/was, but also its harms, and the role and function of the foreskin which is lost to circumcision. Given the male foreskin has a functional role in male sexuality, to remove this from your son, because its your preference is just pure Narcissism.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The AAP has a Gross sense of Entitlement
What a Gross sense of Entitlement the American Academy of Pediatrics has, demanding the freedom to cut babies genitals something babies cannot protest to, and then try and deny freedom of speech to demonstrators who protest routine infant circumcision..... Shows u the blinkered vision and mentality of these priveleged unethical doctors.
At the 2012 AAP annual conference, Intact America was banned from having a booth at the conference, and the Police were called to move and ban the protesters from exercising their right to freedom of speech and protest. WOW....... Ya want the freedom to cut kids, yet ya wanna deny freedom to those who protest this!!!!!! WHAT A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT!!
At the 2012 AAP annual conference, Intact America was banned from having a booth at the conference, and the Police were called to move and ban the protesters from exercising their right to freedom of speech and protest. WOW....... Ya want the freedom to cut kids, yet ya wanna deny freedom to those who protest this!!!!!! WHAT A SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)