3 ms·

It is about lessening sexual pleasure and removing the child's autonomy. It's entire purpose was to mark you as subservient: https://www.ancient-origins.net/his

It is about lessening sexual pleasure and removing the child's autonomy. It's entire purpose was to mark you as subservient: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/history-circumcision-0010398 https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/h...

buran77 5y ago
The same thing applies to the genital mutilation endured by girls in some parts of the world. But in that case it's generally agreed throughout the Western world that we're talking about "mutilation" and "abuse". Somehow circumcision managed to escape these labels despite being essentially the same.
- tomrod 5y ago
  Isn't the reason for this acceptance due to tolerance of Judeochristian fundamentalist religious observance? I would love to see an ethnography on the topic.
  - buran77 5y ago
    Anecdotally, every person I know to have a circumcision performed on them had it because "it was normal" in the society, not for any religious belief. Not wanting to stand out is a good enough reason for many. In some places an uncircumcised penis is (was?) considered "gross" or "abnormal" and many parents just want to avoid that for their child.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Right. This is one of the few instances where how the social norm evolved can be determined.
- veidr 5y ago
  It's not remotely the same — if you are circumcised, your dick still basically works fine. I mean, yeah, wtf, but it's a minor change. Like getting a tooth pulled, or an appendectomy, for no reason. You get (most values of) the "girls version" around the world, and it's basically equivalent to chopping off the entire top half of your dick. The _important_ part. Totally not in favor of either. But there is no equivalence here.
  - lindseymysse 5y ago
    How do you know? Why are you minimizing the pain of this practices victims? This is the equivalent of saying: My dad beat me and I turned out fine. Men's pain should be recognized and not minimized.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

buran77 5y ago

The same thing applies to the genital mutilation endured by girls in some parts of the world. But in that case it's generally agreed throughout the Western world that we're talking about "mutilation" and "abuse". Somehow circumcision managed to escape these labels despite being essentially the same.

tomrod 5y ago
Isn't the reason for this acceptance due to tolerance of Judeochristian fundamentalist religious observance? I would love to see an ethnography on the topic.
- buran77 5y ago
  Anecdotally, every person I know to have a circumcision performed on them had it because "it was normal" in the society, not for any religious belief. Not wanting to stand out is a good enough reason for many. In some places an uncircumcised penis is (was?) considered "gross" or "abnormal" and many parents just want to avoid that for their child.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    Right. This is one of the few instances where how the social norm evolved can be determined.
veidr 5y ago
It's not remotely the same — if you are circumcised, your dick still basically works fine. I mean, yeah, wtf, but it's a minor change. Like getting a tooth pulled, or an appendectomy, for no reason. You get (most values of) the "girls version" around the world, and it's basically equivalent to chopping off the entire top half of your dick. The _important_ part. Totally not in favor of either. But there is no equivalence here.
- lindseymysse 5y ago
  How do you know? Why are you minimizing the pain of this practices victims? This is the equivalent of saying: My dad beat me and I turned out fine. Men's pain should be recognized and not minimized.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]