You do realise that Finland (which is the only Nordic country which introduced restrictions on animal slaughter about the same time that Hitler was coming to power) law doesn't actually prohibit ritual slaughter, right?
I'll just add for further clarification that our animal welfare law is from 1998.
The first animal welfare laws in Finland were introduced already in 1864, and certainly not by Hitler. But I'm not going to derail the thread with an essay about legislative history in Finland, and all relevant sources I can find are in Finnish.
I also thought so until I learned about Gilgal Society (among others). It's a pro-circumcision advocacy group with members sharing a sado-masochistic fetish of circumcision, that is they get sexually aroused by fantasizing, watching, or performing circumcisions. The group has also published erotic literature about circumcising minors. Interestingly some of the members also happen to be medical professionals who not only perform circumcisions but also advocate circumcision to the point of making it mandatory, and also produce studies which purpotedly show significant health benefits for circumcision such as reducing AIDS. Last year Vernon Quaintance, the Head of Gilgal society, was convicted of possession of child porn.
In a way, the removal of the entire clitoris could be said to be analogous to removing entire penis, but I don't believe it's a prevalent procedure at all as successfully doing it would be quite sophisticated operation. (*
But perhaps you mean the removal of the external part of the clitoris, that little 'button' which is tiny compared to the total size of the clitoris.
If so, then your analogy fails because:
1. While removal of the external part of the clitoris certainly affects sexual pleasure negatively, it does not prohibit it because by far most of the clitoris is internal and is still giving sexual pleasure and even orgasms (varies by individual ofc).
2. Because the clitoris is such a large organ, the removed external part can be restored by surgery: some of the internal erectile tissue is introduced back outside as a new 'button'.
So no, while abhorrent, removing that button is not analogous to removing the entire penis with all its erectile tissue. And I'm glad that such procedures have been made illegal to perform on infants and children including religious or cultural reasons.
Well, your analogy indeed was a bit disingenuous. The question remains what would be an apt analogy? At least not a total loss we can be sure.
Perhaps removing the external part of the clitoris would be analogous to removing part of the glans penis. In both a small part of erectile erogenous tissue is lost, sexual pleasure is diminished, and sexual pleasure and orgasms are still possible.
As it happens, sometimes a part of glans penis does get removed during infant circumcision.
*) Would also require knowledge of female anatomy that quite many seem to lack at least here in western world. For those interested and willing to learn, here's an informative overview of relevant female anatomy: The Internal Clitoris
It was only last decade when science finally took the trouble of finding the clitoris!
Forgive pedant, but I can't help but take note of your wording. If it were me--and were the case--I'd have been very sure to write that the boy died as a result of his circumcision. That isn't what you wrote. Why not?
Seeing as you refuse the understand the difference between an action that has been in practice so long that it has become obligatory as if it has always been in practice and an action that is obligatory because it has always been in practice, there is little for me to actually say to you, except to note that the etiquette for bringing attention to a question that you feel has not been answered is quote the relevant discussion. Not only is quoting an irrelevant post with a "polite snip for focus" is in fact neither polite nor focused, but "snipped" is also .a particuarly poor choice of words given the topic at hand.
Oh. So rather than admit that it "became a 'mitzvah' through tradition", and therefore could not have 'always' been a "mitzvah", you prefer to pretend to "rules" of etiquette. "As if it had always been" is a different class of conditions than "it has always been". You knew exactly what I was talking about; quoting the whole post where you tried to avoid the question by accusing me of one-upmanship was not needed.
I routinely use "snip", and "polite snip" , and "snip fpr space" and the like; it is disingenuous of you to pretend that I would refer to an elective mitilation so cavalierly. Straw man much?
Oh. So rather than admit that it "became a 'mitzvah' through tradition", and therefore could not have 'always' been a "mitzvah", you prefer to pretend to "rules" of etiquette. "As if it had always been" is a different class of conditions than "it has always been". You knew exactly what I was talking about; quoting the whole post where you tried to avoid the question by accusing me of one-upmanship was not needed.
When the origin of the metzitzah b'peh can be located in historical times, whereas, cricumcision in some form has always been a practice among the Jews, your above distinction intentionally dense.
I routinely use "snip", and "polite snip" , and "snip fpr space" and the like; it is disingenuous of you to pretend that I would refer to an elective mitilation so cavalierly. Straw man much?
Uh...all I said what "polite snip" was a poor choice of words given the topic. I said literally nothing about your own opinions on circumcision. Naturally, you are, per usual, the one who has erected a straw man.
You are aware that the clitoris is quite large and mostly internal organ, and removal of it would require quite an operation?
So, evidence for your claim?
No.
In a way, the removal of the entire clitoris could be said to be analogous to removing entire penis, but I don't believe it's a prevalent procedure at all as successfully doing it would be quite sophisticated operation. (*
But perhaps you mean the removal of the external part of the clitoris, that little 'button' which is tiny compared to the total size of the clitoris.
If so, then your analogy fails because:
1. While removal of the external part of the clitoris certainly affects sexual pleasure negatively, it does not prohibit it because by far most of the clitoris is internal and is still giving sexual pleasure and even orgasms (varies by individual ofc).
2. Because the clitoris is such a large organ, the removed external part can be restored by surgery: some of the internal erectile tissue is introduced back outside as a new 'button'.
So no, while abhorrent, removing that button is not analogous to removing the entire penis with all its erectile tissue. And I'm glad that such procedures have been made illegal to perform on infants and children including religious or cultural reasons.
...the most severe forms of female circumcision rather often do result in a near-total loss of pleasurable sexual sensation, despite the internal structures that may be left intact. Consider that even many uncircumcised women experience difficulty achieving sexual arousal and multiply that by painful vulval and vaginal scarring and female-circumcision-practicing cultures' lifelong inculcations excluding pleasurable sexuality from descriptions of proper femininity (inculcations which have no real functional male equivalents in any culture I'm aware of) and you'll invariably end up with something that by the thinking of any Western culture would constitute catastrophic sexual dysfunction.
We should all fight for Parents rights to cut off bits of their children?
Lets not over complicate this...Should I have the right to sever my childrens ears because I believe a god tells me to? Or possibly because it will prevent them from ever getting skin cancer on the ears?
**** me the list of potential tribal mutilation practices we can retain in the modern world is just mind blowing...plate lips anyone?
And since the majority of female circumcisions as practiced in the world entail at least the removal of the clitoris, which would be analogous to removing a man's entire penis, wouldn't you say that it is a bit disingenuous to imply that male and female circumcision are in any way equivalent?
There's a couple of big problems here. First of all, the clitoris isn't entirely removed, as most of the clitoral structure is not part of the external genitalia. You're probably thinking of removal of the clitoral glans.
Also, while male and female genitalia develop from the same structures, they are not functionally analogous. For example, the female prepuce doesn't contribute to frictionless penetration, nor does it contain the majority of the genitalia's erotogenic nerves. The male prepuce (foreskin) does.
There's a couple of big problems here. First of all, the clitoris isn't entirely removed, as most of the clitoral structure is not part of the external genitalia. You're probably thinking of removal of the clitoral glans.
Also, while male and female genitalia develop from the same structures, they are not functionally analogous. For example, the female prepuce doesn't contribute to frictionless penetration, nor does it contain the majority of the genitalia's sensory nerves. The male prepuce (foreskin) does.
We should all fight for Parents rights to cut off bits of their children?
Lets not over complicate this...Should I have the right to sever my childrens ears because I believe a god tells me to? Or possibly because it will prevent them from ever getting skin cancer on the ears?
**** me the list of potential tribal mutilation practices we can retain in the modern world is just mind blowing...plate lips anyone?
And I think we can conclude from the evidence that they do that for two main reasons:
a) religious nuttery / cultural identification - apparently you can't possibly identify as part of a group unless you wear the badge...or rather don't wear the badge...er, except your biggest 'opponent' group has exactly the same (absence of) badge so it's not a particularly good identifier.
b) unlike most of the rest of the civilised world, Americans apparently struggle to keep their wangs clean - though they do have better teeth than us .
b) unlike most of the rest of the civilised world, Americans apparently struggle to keep their wangs clean - though they do have better teeth than us .
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
