Against the Cutlery Culture: A Few Questions Worth Asking

Column by Kevin M. Patten.

Exclusive to STR

While appearing on William F. Buckley’s Firing Line in 1969, the already renowned linguist and anti-war critic Noam Chomsky told a nationwide audience that there was no longer any debate on the Vietnam War. In his view, no question remained that the United States was the ultra-violent aggressor against an innocent people, and that our government was directly targeting civilian populations for the goal of total extermination.

Even as the New Left attempted to stop an evil war, and maybe as Voltaire and Lysander Spooner were demanding an end to slavery, and no less than feminism attempts to stop every last instance of rape today, so are we many “Intactivists” who are demanding genital integrity here in America. Gender equality will see its day, we insist. An end to hypocritical lectures by people already protected under the law is at hand. A restoration of sanity for us all is approaching.

We feel an updated report of human rights in the “freest” country on the planet would include those 60-70 percent of baby boys that are indeed violated against their will, and then are never told by their parents that the Right to their Anatomy simply does not matter. This is why we say: as rape is to a rape victim, as slavery to a slave, so is circumcision for those of us several times more likely to get erectile dysfunction.

And so why would I spend three hours writing an “open letter” on Facebook addressed to my immediate and extended family? After all, I don’t sleep with them. However, the forum of the Internet would also receive more inputted thought, instead of given two lousy sentences in the living room during a commercial break, and then allowed there to be no misconception of the matter: as an address to the entirety of what I will refer to as the Cutlery Culture.

I would now appreciate if the dear reader would make even the slightest consideration for the following. This will be an attempt to gander into the perspective of an unhappily mutilated man. For I have a very grave concern for which I absolutely must have a resolution.

No longer regarding the differing perspectives between myself and family, and while not really intending to discuss any hypothetical children with others, I will freely admit to several recently acquired fears. In five months or so, I will have been partly responsible for bringing a little loveable creation into this world. It will get to experience a life that I have largely deplored. The gender remains unknown, but I am hoping for a boy.

And yet, in the last two or so years, finally coming to realize circumcision exactly as what it is – genital mutilation, a precursor to psychopathy, and pure unmitigated evil – I also came to see how many other people were so incredibly, unbelievably cruel and hateful upon even the slightest mention of it.

Now the question is stuck in my head. If I do have my desired boy, should I seriously have any concern that he might grow up into a community, a society, or a family, where he’ll be shamed and ridiculed and called an “anteater”? Maybe overhear a conversation one day that someone didn’t think he was listening to, talking about how disgusting they thought he really is? Superstitiously scrubbing under his foreskin – just because?

The stories of shame and ridicule against the male body are numerous these days, it seems. Much testimony exists of intact kids that are mocked and laughed at by callous people; simultaneously telling critically sorrowful men as myself that we are nothing more than psychopaths needing therapy – with the profound irony of the assertion always lost on them.

Thanks (or no thanks) to the Internet, where I do spend too much time, these same individuals occasionally enjoy expressing their sickness by engaging chatrooms, making jokes about foreskin restoration and deformed penises. Humiliating to be sure. Yet they no doubt would act something like this at home and elsewhere.

Well I say, your culture and your butcherism be damned!

Important note: It must be said that the anti-circumcision side always seems to be able to provide a fantastic amount of evidence and logic for their cause, while the Cutlery Community always seems to resort to nuclear “ad hom” bombs. By that time, the calls of “penis weights” and “child rapist” appear – and yes, from even me – the “debate” is cut apart. Why does this happen, I think?

“We all want them to look alike.”

“So he looks like his father.”

“It looks nicer.”

“It’s cleaner.”

“Better having it done at birth.”

“Our religion.”

“High school showers.”

This is because at no time during these boring, incorrect, anything-but-universal statements is that crucial question asked, one by me many times, ignored just as often, and that which erects the dividing wall (I believe): can cutting off fifty percent of the penis skin, what many consider the most sensitive part of the male body, not be a possible cause for permanent psychological disturbances? Those who answer in the negative take a far greater leap of faith than those who would dare take the chance. Females defending the practice also acquire a psychosis in order to do so.

Is there really nobody who thinks it possible that a nine year old might fully understand what was taken from him? Might he be upset at the non-answers he would inevitably receive? And perhaps even lash out aggressively at others? Leading to a spanking that could be even more deleterious? All while everyone is confused about the causality? Never once has this situation occurred?! Parents who insist they simply won’t tell their child anything about the procedure; it makes me wonder – if not this? – what would be at the heart of Ethics?

Does nobody want to at least try for a society of lesser-aggression?

Is Stefan Molyneux not correct in his thesis that the origins of all violence are to be found in child abuse?

And is circumcision not our most obvious example of this?

Like all bigotry, the one against foreskin is based on ignorant presumptions that a full eighty percent of the rest of world doesn’t participate in. Perhaps nobody should be worried how mutilated children could act towards others. Or maybe we all should. Since most people seem to be worried about not only their own kids, but others, and who often want to express their bigotry when they deem appropriate, every parent who sees the practice for what it is might want to make personal secession a top priority. Appearance in the locker room is nothing compared to violence on the playground or in the street.

Listening to the guilt and shame and ridicule projected onto other people (and again, even by myself) and onto their kids has become tiring for me as well. But never as tiring as hearing those many females who were not taken a knife to, who now feel qualified to tell me that it’s the best thing ever. Talk about disturbed.

Nevertheless, I haven’t yet seen enough people sympathetic to my perspective from anywhere in the vicinity. So I shall rant. Now. Scream at the top of my lungs to ensure the call for human rights only gets louder.

On the other hand, since so many of us truly are anti-social and do have a tendency to reciprocate the hate back onto others, communication might be impossible with this one. So, since there can be no shades of grey seen between the two “camps,” maybe we should all just go our separate ways.

10
Your rating: None Average: 10 (1 vote)
Kevin M. Patten's picture
Columns on STR: 10
n/a

Comments

zygodactyl's picture

I agree with you Kevin. On top of that, I think that Americans should stop training their children to be ashamed of their bodies! Probably only the Middle-eastern countries are as uptight about public nudity as Americans are. Uncut nude people look exactly like they are supposed to look like. I think these things came about due to this countrys' Purinterannical (My invented word: Puritan + tyrannical) past, but nowhere in the bible does it say that man must wear clothes.
Brian

Glock27's picture

Zygo: Check out Genisis when Adam and Eve began covering themselves, ergo the beginning of the feeling of shame and the need to cover those disgusting parts of the human anatomy. Of course, if you don't believe in the bible, then why mention it? Just curious.

Samarami's picture

As I understand that story, Glock, they only became aware of "shame" after the first recorded politician in history had convinced them that their Creator had lied -- that they could enjoy "...government of the people, by the people, for the people..." (symbolized by the partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "voting" -- subscribing to central [monopolistic] political authority).

"Serpent" is a poor and incorrect translation of the Hebrew. "Whispering Enchanter" would be more accurate English. But the translators got one thing right: political authority represents aggression "...more subtil than any beast of the field..." Politicians are psychopaths -- capable of looking you in the eye while relieving you of your possessions "...for the better good..." of course.

You, like I, were an educator in government ("public" ha ha) schooling. You, like I, promulgated that attitude. You, like I, are on this forum to recover from that demeanor. I think. I can't speak for you. You, like I, need to decide whether we are to accept the feasibility of this story as having at least some veracity for our lives and for our behaviors; or whether we should accept government-funded science, which proclaims (as funding time looms) they are just about to substantiate abiogenesis.

Those first two created human beings, according to the story, had been given free access to the tree of life: governance "...of The Creator, by The Creator, for the people..." The Hebrew throughout that particular best-selling tome uses "tree" ("branch", etc) to symbolize philosophy, character -- point-of-view.

What's your favorite tree?

Sam

zygodactyl's picture

I can answer that from both sides. Assuming that all atheists are also evolutionists; It would be irrational to believe that our ape ancestors wore clothes. Therefore, mans' ancestors have been nude for who knows how many tens of thousands or millions of years. We were born to run so to speak, and we cool best with sweaty bare skin while we run.
Now, for the religious folks. Note in my first comment that I said "Nowhere in the bible does it say man must wear clothes." Your mention of Adam and Eve in the book of Genesis does not invalidate my statement even slightly. The fact that there exists nude and nearly nude cultures even to this day proves that man is not hard wired to be ashamed of his body. Cain killed his brother, but almost nobody does that, therefore it does follow that we must be ashamed of our bodies because Adam was. The bible says that we were made in Gods image. Are Christians who support indecency laws saying that Gods image is indecent? Hmmmm?????? Where you trained as a child that those parts are disgusting? Yes? Then you have made my point!
I could not care less whether people wear clothes all the time. Clothes are useful tools. I am looking at this from a psychological angle. There is no rational reason to be ashamed of ones body. It is what it is. There is nothing "disgusting" about the human anatomy unless it's filthy or diseased.
I suspect the origins of man-made clothing laws originated from the ruling class who wanted to make their subjects feel inferior because of the rags they wore as compared to the wealthy elites fine top-of-the-line garments. You see, in a nude society the rich look no different than the poor. People were probably only wearing clothes when it was cold outside, but the rulers then created a law making year-round clothes wearing mandatory. They probably did it by using religious leaders to twist around the meaning of what Genesis actually said.
I found
this hilarious brief video while hunting for the above link.

Paul's picture

"Females defending the practice also acquire a psychosis in order to do so."

Keep in mind that when you point a finger, you have three other fingers pointing back at you.

In my lifetime I have seen circumcision go from a simple aesthetic or religious choice that nobody made a fuss about, to child mutilation and torture equivalent to total extermination. Maybe a little moderation is called for? Are you trying to give an inferiority complex to boys who happen to be circumcised?

I always wonder about people who get wrapped up in crusades. They never know when to stop. They don't even perceive that their lack of balance can only discredit their message, which might actually be one worth hearing, and would be better heard if not accompanied by flecks of spittle.

Otherwise, here's a thought: mind your own business.

Samarami's picture

I'm a strong fan of your MYOB crusade, Paul ("crusade" in jest, I hope you know).
In fact, those who practice MYOB needn't crusade for NAP -- it's included with the product.

The crusade to end the "right" of parents to circumcise (including the use of the M word to describe it) is closely akin to the crusade to stop the "right" of moms to abort fetuses. The only difference is age of offspring -- and virulence of campaign. Right now the lifers seem to be ahead of the choicers in anti-abortion billboard drives.

I'm struck by a road sign I pass regularly (I'm a trucker):

    "PRAY AND VOTE TO END ABORTION"

There is always the argument: if you believe in prayer, why vote? And if you believe in voting, why pray? Seems some root-strikers need to follow my mutilation (pun intended) of the old u.s. marine adage: pray, vote, or get outa my face.

Sam

Paul's picture

How about this one, Sam? "VOTE TO INCREASE PRAYER." That should solve all the problems.

I actually don't mind the less statist anti-abortion posters, and even sympathize with them to an extent (e.g. "It's a baby, not a choice.") Some people understand effective advocacy: directly affect the mom's state of mind, and stop trying to get some bozo elected.

Jim Davies's picture

The key thing is that to circumcize a baby boy is an act of unmitigated aggression, and so is ipso facto unlibertarian; the infant has no defense. There are horrid things done to baby girls as well, which are arguably even worse.
 
Is the mutilation surgically reversible? - and if so, who pays?
 
Presumably, in a free society the parents would be obliged to pay, if the grown boy demands it. Hence, an inter-generational dispute. Fear of that should act as a strong deterrent for parents against having the knife wielded in the first place.
 

zygodactyl's picture

I am among the 85% of boys born in the '60's who were circumcised. I remember as a little boy looking down and wondering why my skin in that area looked so different in color, and why it looked scarred. It wasn't until my first visit to the locker room in Junior High school that I learned what an uncut penis looked like. I had never even heard the word _circumcision_ until that time. Practically every boy had been cut, a a few weren't. Nobody in my school made fun of uncircumcised boys.
I agree with you Jim that circumcising baby boys is an act of unmitigated aggression! How dare parents and doctors cut and remove skin from a boys penis which reduces his future sensual intensity during sex!
Yes, the foreskin can be restored. http://www.askmen.com/dating/dzimmer_60/62_love_answers.html
Brian

Jim Davies's picture

Thank you, Brian. And first, apologies for my second question; it was silly. Any parent would be far more upset about the fact of their son's resentment at what was done to him, than by the size of a surgeon's bill.
 
I'm first astonished that the C-rate was and is so high. I'd read the fractions upside down. In the 1960s an 85% majority of boy babies got cut? - wow. I checked "Prevalence" in Wiki and it seems that's so. Interesting trivium: "In the United Kingdom, prevalence was roughly 25% in the 1940s, but declined dramatically after the National Health Service  (NHS) did not cover the costs of the procedure." So: government health care may have a virtue, after all.
 
Your restoration link suggests to me that it's a bit iffy. Stretching and taping... or surgery that may or may not work. I was thinking that a series of skin grafts from elsewhere on the body might do the job, but they don't get a mention. Is there a doctor in the house?
 
A last question: given the large numbers of adults involved, does anyone know the extent of the indignation? I've not been aware of marches on Washington, angry buzzes on the Net, etc.  Even on STR, I think Kevin's article was the first to bring the subject front and center.
 

Glock27's picture

Zygo: I know you cannot answer this question because you are circumcised as am I, but is there any evidence anywhere about uncircumcised individuals who's sexual sensitivity is decreased by it. Does the cricumcised males penis head vacate the skin covering?

zygodactyl's picture

This article answers your questions Glock27.
Brian

Glock27's picture

Zygo: Fuq! Fuq! Now I wish I had that damned thing. Makes a hell of a lot of sense to me, however, I have never been a jackhammer. I have a technique that calls for slow and easy, yet I have run into some females who simply are not happy unless you are a jackhammer. Anyway thanks for the link I really appreciated that.

Thunderbolt's picture

Kevin: This is a serious issue. I have wondered about the long range implications of genital mutilation at the time of birth. Certainly children who suffered from spanking have indeed been correlated with extreme tendencies toward aggression, especially toward their own children. It is, I think, very likely that you are right on target about the psychological impact of circumcision. "Spare the rod, and spoil the child" is a religious doctrine that has produced monsters, some of whom have started wars.

Jim Davies's picture

Thunderbolt, can you give us a source for that view, that parental spanking produces violent children?
 
I'm thinking that the correlation might be rather weak. Recently I wrote about a well-known monster, whose father did not spare the rod. But he had three siblings, who did not become violent. His elder brother was a good-for-little petty thief and would-be blackmailer, but nothing worse; his two sisters lived normal, undistinguished lives. Yet they all had the same father.
 
True, Alois Jr had grandsons in New York, one of whom became an IRS enforcer. But it's a stretch.

Glock27's picture

Thunderbolt: Not sure about the "spare the rod, spoil the child" I got my butt whipped so many times when I was a little fellow. The result was that I hated my father and would defend mercilessly my mother against him. I think spanking was merely a cultural thing. I spanked my kids, but I had a limit--dependent upon age. No more than six licks regardless. When they were little fellows my spankings were rather light. When they reached the 1st grade or six years of age the spankings stopped and I used other methods of dealing with the problems. In school I had a few whoopins from teachers. Once was enough. Public humiliation was the worst part of the paddeling, not the paddeling itself, ergo, I have not started any wars and I don't believe I am a monster. The same goes for my kids.
With all this talk I am beginning to lean towards the idea that judges should issue public spankings for certain crimes, or maybe the criminal gets to make a choice public spanking or jail. In jail you are not publicly humiliated and maybe publlic humiliation needs to be done more, but is humiliation a form of aggression. I've got no idea.

Kevin M. Patten's picture

Thanks everyone for weighing in positively.

To address Paul specifically. First, I have absolutely NO intention to shame other men, or to give any one an “inferiority complex.” I am saying that from my own experience, being a 28 year old male, one who has had wonderful relationships and never had a single complaint from any of my girlfriends, it is specifically regarding both the culture and the reaction I have seen in the last few weeks, this whenever I bring the issue up.

Notice how circumcision always seems to bring out the schizophrenia in people. One example is highlighted in the article, but there are a couple more. IE: This is an unusually sexualized society, one in which depraved jokes are the norm, and which body organs are readily discussed and laughed at. Not for everyone, but especially with people in my generation. But then: “Fifty percent of the penis skin? FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY FOR ED?!” Suddenly they turn cold. The interest wanes dramatically. In none of my other social investigations have I encountered a reaction this visceral, except for racism and rape. But if it’s so benign, so much like a dental procedure, why would this reaction be seen at all?
So, I’m worried about the causality of aggression in our society, as well as the reason why so many mothers have a hard time breastfeeding and bonding. The La Leche League Foundation has been screaming about this for 30 years. This single action has no greater repercussions in society? No ripple has been created?
Let it be said: I HAVE never and WILL never go up to any parent and interrogate them about their kids. I have no interest in doing anything so obscene. This anymore than looking at badly-gone circumcisions, just to fuel some internal hated. My vitriol stems from a very recent witnessing of how the largess of our society acts to this issue – both online and in the real world. From my own personal concerns; why was ever an aggressor, and so sensitive to emotional pain, and why I didn’t breastfeed well? People who insist theyre absolutely okay, I truly wonder – because people nobody ever discusses circumcision or spanking.
But here’s one more hypocritical anecdote that can usually be found: Exactly what Sam said. Your MYOB campaign. So, I’m writing a report about Alcoholics Anonymous, taking notes from one Ms. Monica Richardson’s activism. She reports a great many stories of women getting prayed on, with the courts sentencing not only addicts put also rapists and pedos. Great place to express your anonymity, no? And yet no would ever tell me that the desire to reduce sexual assaults is somehow immoral, or not worth it, or that “I cant save them all.”
This is ultimately why I didn’t feel the Vietnam was a horrible example. A great deal of the New Left – protesters, students, teachers – had never been to Vietnam. They only felt the repercussions of damaged men who came back home, and were violent, and addicted. That population – and Im n not comparing their numbers – were what was experienced at home. Its not so dissimilar if you accept the premise that Male Genital Mutilation has possibly created some aggressive tendencies in our society. Serial Killers? Rapists? I have no idea. Human behavior is hard to pinpoint, but we have so much data of pain causing psychological disruptions, as well as a lack of empathy. 
It truly against culture of ignorance, and the people who dont submit to reason, evidence, and empathy. Give a pinch of all, and nobody would ever inflict this on their baby boys again.
Again: Thanks everyone. Sorry if I'm a bit verbose. 
Cheers!

Samarami's picture

Kevin:

    "...I’m writing a report about Alcoholics Anonymous, taking notes from one Ms. Monica Richardson’s activism. She reports a great many stories of women getting prayed on, with the courts sentencing not only addicts put also rapists and pedos. Great place to express your anonymity, no?..."

What's the message here, folks? It's this:

    FREEDOM DOES NOT WORK

And that is exactly the message you are intended to receive. It is exactly the message Monica Richardson's documentary "The 13th Step" portrays. It starts right out with the lament: "AA is not staffed with trained professionals..."

Well, Duh! AA is not allied with any organization that might employ "...trained professionals..." It is probably the most libertarian assembly you know of. The psychopaths who operate "courts" have every bit as much "right" to order people to Catholic Catechism or Baptist Sunday School as they do to AA meetings -- except for the fact the churches have "trained leaders" who would balk.

And that, my friends, boggles the minds of collectivists. A totally free fellowship with no leaders or rulers having any power to manage or control -- with one purpose and one purpose only: to stay sober and help other alcoholics achieve sobriety.

AA has no leaders to resist those robed lunatics' defilement. As a result, many members and chairpersons dutifully sign the court papers -- I wouldn't (and would always argue against it at business meetings).

Anything predators of state cannot regulate, they will co-opt. Alcoholics Anonymous is a classic example. They detest and fear the idea of anything -- anything -- being free. Our primary defense is to abstain from beans and to encourage others to so abstain.

Mind you, internet "regulation" is in the offing. Just like AA has been defiled by "court ordered inmates", the web is being infiltrated by collectivists who gravely influence Google, Yahoo and the many other "engines" that can direct you and me to (and away from) various web pages and sources of information. The white man has introduced and will introduce "legislation" requiring various prerequisites to the posting of essays and/or opinions.

Off topic of circumcision, I know. But important -- and Kevin was sincere in his essay and his response to comments.

Sam

Kevin M. Patten's picture

what does libertarian literature say about cults? of course people are free to be brainwashed, but with the court sentencing many depraved and sick individuals, forcing them to be with others, and have been for many decades, I am unsure how this institution could be called libertarian in even the slightest way. but yes this is off the topic of circumcision

Samarami's picture

As I said, Kevin, the message here is this:

    FREEDOM DOES NOT WORK

Now, we at STR know better. I think. We understand that without central political authority there will still need to be individuals and organizations arise among us who can and will act upon serious crime -- sex predation, child molestation, the whole shmear. Many will want to jump right back into collectivism -- fearful that the free market simply cannot produce freedom.

Since none of us has actually experienced the absence of central political authority, we can only surmise how all that will play out (and we do a lot of that here at STR). Actually, I suggest you read this (pdf)

    "...but with the court sentencing many depraved and sick individuals, forcing them to be with others, and have been for many decades, I am unsure how this institution could be called libertarian in even the slightest way..."

Your key word here is "...the court sentencing..." Courts are not libertarian. AA is. You need to check the link I provided. I also recommend all who read this watch the documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-_xPU3KC5E

But as you do, understand that AA has no leader(s) who are vested with the authority to check your credentials when you step in the door. That's what is libertarian about it. You are a member if you say you are a member.

If you assault or threaten people, a couple big bruisers will perhaps lock onto each of your elbows and escort you out. Or somebody will probably call the cops. But "AA" won't, and can't.

Ms Richardson maintains throughout her "documentary" a classic collectivist mentality. She is good at the "freedom-will-not-work" message. She blames the bad things individuals are capable of on AA. And none of us got to AA because we were "nice" folks. I had my first AA exposure in Huntsville, Texas, behind the big, big wall. I was not a very nice man (or so a host of Texas policemen and "judges" had diagnosed).

In freedom (the absence of central political authority) men will still be men, women will still be women. Crusaders will abound. Bad things will take place. I will still need to defend myself. Attending an AA meeting won't change that. It can help me stop drinking alcohol, and if I get sober I might change my behavior for the better.

I'm not beating the drums for AA here. I've actually drifted away from the meetings since I started back trucking. But don't blame it for psychopathic judges' co-opting of the one free institution on the street.

Sam

Glock27's picture

Sam. Were you aware that the Boy in the White House revised the "Posse Comitatus" act and signed it in January making it totally legal to utilize the military as a police force, an executive order no less, and the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can make and pass laws" not that this is right, but that it is a continuing interest story in mans search for freedom.

Glock27's picture

Kevin: Whether a boy is circumcised or not I believe is a non-relevant point. Circumcision is more a point of freedom of choice by the parents. I am confused about your statement about "nobody talks about circumcision or spanking. Orange and apple here. I am beginning to believe the central issue is to have a clearly defined definition of aggression, violence, coercion, threat and etc. As I read, and not only your points but others as well I get the feeling people are hurling these words about without any honest definition of any of the words. I guess I also am guilty of this verbal crime. I know I am being kind of funky here, but it is an issue I wonder about when I read. Someone or some group of people will have to come up with clearly defined terms. Aggression and violence could be viewed as a person with an expression of aggression and violence on their face as they approach you. Does violence end at the tip of my nose or does it end somewhere else, like three feet away from me.
Recently, in Texas, a "no knock warrant" was issued and a police officer was killed by the home owner. The cops never announced that they were police officers. Fortunately for the young man defending his pregnant girlfriend and their other child he took action to protect his family from a home invasion, and a grand jury did not find sufficient grounds to charge him with murder of a police officer which could have resulted in life in prison or the needle. He did get nailed for having pot plants and seeds. I am not sure but to me violence and aggression ended at the tip of the judges pen. Personally I believe the judge should be charged with depraved indifference and negligent homicide.
I was circumcised at birth. It was tradition and also believed it was more healthy for the male child to prevent infections and etc. With nearly 70 years here I cannot put my finger on a point of my life wherein I felt any behavioral deviancy. It did make me physically different than those whom were not circumcised. The first time I ever observed an uncircumcised male I was rather shocked. I thought, "What's wrong with him! Well. Now I know better and it does not make me feel any different about the individual and I certainly hope they do not see any difference with me. I was breast fed as an infant and I don't think it has made much of a difference in my life. Now these are merely personal reflections and no intention to reflect negatively about what you have shared.
All of us have some evil in us and some good. I guess fortunately more of us have more good than evil, but then again that is an issue that needs to be clearly defined.
Where do we start Kevin??

Glock27's picture

Wow! Circumcision. When will we get to see Strike-the-Root play bunnies?

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

I think it is a good sign that Americans are engaging in less violent intervention in this area than in the past. My observations during childhood were much as Kevin's . And I think that barbaric practices such as circumcision are, indeed, a stepping stone to later aggression by parents against their children. I recall a psychiatrist friend of my former wife--he was always a rude and insulting "host" to me--who demonstrated in his person the potential for "medicalized" bloodthirstiness and totalitarianism that pervades far too many physicians and "healthcare" professionals. They are all to willing to spout the politically correct "soviet" science of their day as if it were true for now and all time--only to wake up years later and realize they had it all wrong (if they are honest about it). Far too many doctors are in favor of imposing a regime of mandatory health practices, which is why so many ancients fled in terror at the approach of a doctor, and with good reason. As Thomas Szaz pointed out frequently, people who attempt to "medicalize" social life by pretending to find medical excuses for mandates and prohibitions enforced at the point of a gun are the enemies of civilization--and it would be redundant to say "free civilization." When I think of today's abuses by medical professionals--especially psychiatrists--I cannot help but think of the Soviet-era concentration camps where people who were defined as mentally ill because of their non-soviet political beleifes and were buried alive.
 

Paul's picture

"My vitriol stems from a very recent witnessing of how the largess of our society acts to this issue – both online and in the real world."

I am having a difficult time understanding you. What does largess have to do with anything? Are we speaking the same language?

Let's assume I thought circumcision was a bad thing, and hoped to slow it down a bit. First thing I would do is figure out how to influence people. Ah, there is a book for just that purpose: Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends & Influence People". Sold a gazillion copies, because it works.

You won't find anything like the above tirade in that book. You won't find vitriol there.

"nobody ever discusses circumcision or spanking"

That's very true. They are too busy haranguing each other to have a discussion. I have tried a few times; it was laughable. Nobody wants to discuss things, because that implies tolerance for differences of opinion. I have gotten the impression that people who bring up these subjects are more interested in building themselves up by berating others, than they are in actually reducing the prevalence of the practices they (allegedly) object to. "Holier than thou," as they used to say in the old days.

Kevin M. Patten's picture

Paul, I mean to say how charible and giving people are in their hatred towards this topic, whenever it can be brought up. It brings out the worst in people, and I've already admitted as much with myself.
"You won't find vitriol there." No doubt Paul - not a measured report by any means. A bit of a tirade. And I have written more than a few. This is a personal issue that has been building up frustration within me for some time. Seeking the anger from others might be my fault, but if I feel it important enough to discuss cogenially with others, and cant seem to do so - ever! - my "report" will reflect something as to how I experience these tital waves of resentment. 
"They are too busy haranguing each other to have a discussion." I understand how difficult this is in the real world. A few nights ago in LA, during a protest against police brutaity and for Kelly Thomas, I tried to explain to someone how - if you follow the link here about "Religion" - any semblance of criticism towards the practice of sucking off amputated foreskins is greeted with calls of Anti-Semitism, along with another lengthy rant about the Holocaust. I couldnt even finish my 3-4 sentences before I was called a fascist, by some friggin kid hiding behind a mask for god's sake.
You're right - its tough to have even-handed discussions about this personal stuff. Jokes about statism, welfarism, and people who go off to fight in horribly iillegal wars - all can usually be done with a handshake and smile. But with racism, religion, rape, genital mutilation - the critique, i feel, has to be served icy cold. No one understands it any other way. 

Glock27's picture

So far, regarding this circumcision issue I believe you have made the most penetrating point. I guess from my perspective, what is really the big deal about to circumcise or not. I do not recall the first circumcised individual I ever observed, but I remember the feeling "What's wrong with him." I looked at him as being abnormal, but soon learned it was a practice of choice for the parents. That is why I have said earlier, someone must come up with a clear definition of aggression, violence, etc. I think all individuals use the term as common language with a common understanding of the terms. I am saying, in the case of this site, it must be more clear than common language terms if honest dialogue is going to occur. This may be a stupid point to some, but I have to believe there are a few who recognize this same need.

"nobody ever discusses circumcision or spanking" It's an apple orange issue. Most people don't give a fuq about those issues, except in school where spanking is illegal. I believe that in some crimes committed that judges should order public spankings of the offender rather than waste of tax payer money with keeping them in jail. But of course, if we put them in jail, then it keeps jobs going!

I would be interested in knowing how many members here would agree with public spankings for criminals who commit non-felony crimes. I guess the problem with this is it still falls under aggression--maybe the criminal should be given the choice, public spanking or jail?

Glock27's picture

Sorry to be so bothersome, but I believe that female mutilation is a far worse situation than the snipping of a little bit of skin from a newborns penis.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Glock, Because you have not read your Rothbard, you are unaware of the clear definitions that have already been laid out in spades. Rothbard clearly discusses the custodial role that parents play in the life of young children. That is why the misuse of that custodial roll can be construed as aggression. Again read your of bard and catch up on the language here.

Paul's picture

Eh, I'm not impressed. The entire parental child relationship can be construed as violence of some sort. I had to laugh at Molyneux, who goes on and on about the "disparity of power" and all that, how he supposedly avoided a "violent" relationship with his daughter. All nonsense; he wasn't avoiding it at all.

If you have some online references of Rothbard's thoughts on children, I'd like to see them.