Child Circumcision

[Liam3880]

On 8/17/2021 at 1:20 AM, itsnotallrightjack said:

 

Phimosis is what it's called Liam and this is condition that doesn't affect new born boys because the foreskin is fused to the phallus until puberty, as it is meant to be. It retracts of it's own accord naturally at puberty, so it seems some medic had no idea what they were talking about or, perhaps they were of a religion that promotes circ for baby boys and wrongly told your parents that you needed to have this done. You have my sympathy that this happened to you.

My parents were not religious enough to be influenced, for example noone in either of my parents family have ever been circumcised before , maybe what you say about the medic is correct as my mum worked for the NHS at the time so could have been easily influenced 

[itsnotallrightjack]

13 hours ago, Liam3880 said:

My parents were not religious enough to be influenced, for example noone in either of my parents family have ever been circumcised before , maybe what you say about the medic is correct as my mum worked for the NHS at the time so could have been easily influenced 

 

Maybe the "doctor" did have some sort of "conversation" with your mother Liam. I'm sorry that this happened to you. 

[Ethel]

I have not seen this film but have heard that it doesn't hesitate in showing the negative aspects of circumcision. This surprises me, given that it's on something as mainstream as Netflix, but would be curious to know if anyone has seen it? I don't really want to pay for it unless I know it opposes circumcision.

 

 

[metak88]

2 minutes ago, Ethel said:

I have not seen this film but have heard that it doesn't hesitate in showing the negative aspects of circumcision. This surprises me, given that it's on something as mainstream as Netflix, but would be curious to know if anyone has seen it? I don't really want to pay for it unless I know it opposes circumcision.

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/IlrmipIsvTUO/

[Ethel]

Just now, metak88 said:

 

https://www.bitchute.com/video/IlrmipIsvTUO/

 

Cheers

[Ethel]

American Circumcision: A Commentary

 

This film is a couple of hours long and provides a surprisingly balanced look at the topic of circumcision. Although both sides of the argument are presented here, the anti-circumcision side of the argument is well represented, with the end result being that the documentary could not reasonably be accused of “favouring” either side.

 

The documentary begins showing a close up of a baby’s face, before moving on to showing it being strapped to a circumcision board. Thankfully the footage then stops, although this horror is thoroughly explored later on in the documentary. There are a couple of highly upsetting sequences.

 

America is the only country in the world carrying out incredibly high levels of circumcision on infant males for non-religious reasons.

 

This documentary centres predominantly around a group of activists whom oppose circumcision, called “intactivists”, and a bunch of delusional academics who are in varying states of denial.

 

One of these academics is a guy called Brian Morris, a professor Emeritus at the University of Sydney, who has the vibe of a psychopath and who claims to be pro science despite making a slew of unscientific claims like rapid gunfire. Morris promotes the idea that the human body is inherently flawed, is born flawed and needs “science” to correct it, a common view amongst people with God complexes. Morris is anti-science, anti-nature, and, it goes without saying, anti-God.

 

Another academic, Andrew Freedman, is a deranged beast who circumcised his own son, and who admits that circumcision in the Western world is done predominantly for cultural, rather than medical reasons. This theme is explored several times throughout the documentary, with academics blame-shifting onto parents who seek out these procedures for their offspring on the grounds that they want their sons to be “just like the other boys”. Even if this is true, and it probably is, the idea that doctors are ever led by ordinary everyday people is laughable; their God complex and their professional hubris simply wouldn’t allow them to be swayed by the wants and needs of their patients, and even if it did, carrying out drastic and damaging surgeries to accommodate cultural norms is moral insanity.

 

An interview with a young man who confronted his own Mother about her terrible decision is particularly interesting; her response demonstrates a clear case of Narcissistic entitlement, telling him that he “belongs to her”. When he refuses to back down, she responds with narcissistic rage and throws several cups onto the floor, smashing them.

 

At this point I would like to comment upon ‘cultural norms’. It strikes me as a particular form of weakness when people allow themselves to be influenced by the toxicity of their culture, and an even greater form of weakness when they fail to spot that toxicity in the first place. Behold the foundation of moral relativism: “if everyone’s doing it, it must be okay”.

 

A clear picture begins to emerge by this point: the people who defend circumcision lack the intelligence, insight, wisdom, empathy, compassion or intuition to understand the damage which is being done. They are numb so they think feelings don’t matter. They are numb so they don’t understand what trauma is.

 

Claims of the alleged benefits of circumcision are proven pseudo-scientific nonsense and have been debunked too many times to count. For a comprehensive summary, read ‘Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma’ by Ronald Goldman.

 

Some examples of academia’s dishonest tripe include: claiming that circumcision prevents UTI’s when rates of these are higher in women than men, claiming that circumcision prevents penile cancer despite this being one of least common types of cancer in men, and claiming that circumcision reduces risk of HIV despite the fact that America has the highest rate of HIV in the Western world combined with the highest rate of circumcision. The academics appear to be gas-lighting; although unfortunately this is what people who are in denial do.

 

Next, there is a lengthy discussion of the physical after effects of circumcision which mainly centre around the loss of penile sensitivity. The foreskin contains many thousands of nerve endings, which create enhanced sexual sensation. Circumcision literally removes the Frenulum, which is the most sensitive area of a man’s penis. Many men and women are unaware that men can have multiple orgasms, but will be less likely to after circumcision. Apparently, the difference in intensity of orgasms experienced by men who are circumcised in adulthood is like night and day.

 

The first of two sequences which show part of a circumcision procedure is absolutely gut-wrenching and it is very short. My legs went completely numb and cold as I heard the desperate cries, then, most sickening of all, we see the babies face and he is in a clear state of shock and dissociation. You can literally see his little chest heaving as he breathes raggedly. I know trauma so I know this is what I am seeing.

 

Another interview in the film sees a survivor of female genital mutilation stupidly defending what has happened to her whilst enabling the barbaric and backward cultures which perpetuate FGM the most. What is most remarkable about this woman is her denial. She is like a Stockholm Syndrome victim.

 

We are also treated to an interview with another academic, Edgar J Schoen in which he gaslights the audience by trying to convince them that some babies “sleep through the procedure”, a lie which any sensible human being can see through. What he is actually referring to is a state of extreme dissociative shock; mainly because human beings generally don’t tend to sleep when they’ve just had part of their genitalia cut off. Schoen, along with several other of his cohorts also repeatedly uses the “appeal to popularity” logical fallacy to justify circumcision, stating that the “majority” of men don’t complain about what has been done to them, ergo, no harm done. A more nuanced interpretation of this, of course, is that the majority of men have been so desensitized by the experience that they are in a state of full blown denial. Of all defence mechanisms, denial proves the greatest menace to our species.

 

This idea that many babies whom have been circumcised develop PTSD is further explored by another Intactivist, Marilyn Milos, who speaks about how babies whom have been circumcised later go on to respond more severely to being vaccinated. She also likens the experiences of circumcised males as akin to sexual abuse, particularly because doctors stimulate the genitalia of these babies until the penis becomes erect. Is this sexual abuse? You decide.

 

A brief mention is made of botched circumcisions, I am sure most of us have heard of the most famous example of this, David Reimer, who lost his penis in a botched circumcision and was then forced to live socially as a female. This occurrence, whilst apparently uncommon, is avoidable enough and horrifying enough to be worthy of mention here.

 

Towards the end of the documentary more actual circumcision footage is shown, this time for a longer period. Some parts of this were blurred, although the sounds told their own story. As I, and many others have said before, the screams are really like no other. I am sure you have all heard babies crying before. This wasn’t like that; this was like something dredged up from the depths of hell, unforgettable in the worst way, frantic and desperate, like a cornered, wounded animal. If this weren’t enough, the documentary also shows us a variety of the torture devices actually used to carry out the procedure, and at this point the dread and horror I felt were overwhelming. Interestingly, at one point, one of the academics mocks one of the activists for her overtly emotional displays, as though he genuinely considers emotion to be a defect, inadvertently shining a light on why he holds the perspective he does.

 

Finally, the documentary briefly explores the religious aspect of circumcision before cursorily and delicately touching upon Judaism’s full scale assault of infant bodily integrity and it’s wicked attack on sacred masculinity. The segment lasted around a minute or so, out of a two hour documentary.

 

In summary, the documentary was worth watching, and told me a small handful of things I didn’t already know about the topic. It highlighted a topic which I believe actually underpins a lot of the problems in Western society, leading me on to my final conclusions on what I believe to be the motivations behind circumcision.

 

Possible motivations for circumcision

 

The widespread sexual desensitisation of males

The deliberate traumatisation of males

Deliberate reduction of genuine intimacy in relationships, owing to both of the above

The emotional numbing of men, caused by traumatisation

Creation of dissociative states in men (The freeze response) This inhibits the drive to take action

The creation of widespread denial as a defence mechanism, the most common defence mechanism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 4/2/2022 at 11:30 PM, Ethel said:

American Circumcision: A Commentary

 

Thanks @Ethel for that very detailed review of the documentary (and for the time it must have taken you) .... thanks mate :)

[Ethel]

2 hours ago, ink said:

 

Thanks @Ethel for that very detailed review of the documentary (and for the time it must have taken you) .... thanks mate :)

 

You're welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read it.