Recently I was linked to an article, posted on the website "Barrel of Oranges," about Rape. The title intrigued me, as I'm sure it would just about anyone (good on you, Barrel of Oranges!), because of the simplicity of it.
"Teaching my 2 year old how not to rape" is what it said. I was intrigued because of the idea behind it. The idea that we have to teach our children not to harm others. The idea that if we don't teach them not to harm, someone else will to teach them how to harm. The idea kind of blindsided me and I realized I had to read the article.
If you are interested in reading it for yourself here is the link:
http://barreloforanges.com/2013/03/24/teaching-my-2-year-old-how-not-to-rape/
Surprisingly, however, it wasn't her views on rape that astounded me. It was what I read about circumcision. She doesn't hide her opinion on the matter. Its right there in the first paragraph. It jolted me a bit, because I've never really thought about circumcision. At least, not as in depth as I did after reading a couple of her other posts on the topic.
I grew up in church. The majority of the people that know me (or have read a few of my rants) know this. I was taught that circumcision (of male genitalia) is required by God. I don't know why, actually. I never really understood why it mattered whether or not the foreskin was cut off of a man's junk. In fact, for the longest time I had NO idea what a foreskin even was. I had never seen an uncircumcised penis, actually. Not that I had seen very many penises at that time anyway.
But the Bible is FULL of verses on Circumcision and how men are to be circumcised. Even Abraham got circumcised at the ripe old age of ninety-nine (Genesis 17:24). What I do know is that God believed it was a valid part of a covenant between himself and Abraham (its been a while since I picked up my Bible). He even says so in Genesis. If you want specifics, chapter 17:10-11.
I've also always believed that circumcision was healthier for a man than remaining uncircumcised. Something that I discovered, upon researching, isn't entirely true. I thought that a man received more sexual pleasure if he was circumcised versus uncircumcised. However, circumcision comes down to aesthetics more than health and sexual pleasure. And, often times, it can be botched.
Now, if you had asked me about female circumcision I would've told you that it was genital mutilation. There is no aesthetic or enhanced sexual pleasure to female circumcision. It is purely to mutilate to the point that a woman no longer feels enjoyment or pleasure from sex, keeping her faithful to her husband. It is also so that a man remains "undisturbed" by the natural shape of a female sex, or her being "over-sexed." I remember being horrified as a kid reading an article on the topic by Waris Dirie, a Somalian actress and model, who had been "circumcised" at the tender age of five.
But the post by Barrel of Oranges made me think. It made me consider a few things.
Recently my god-daughter, who is 3, got a hold of a pair of scissors and cut off a decent portion of her hair (think Sinead O'Connor). Obviously, her mom was freaking out. This beautiful child, however, was not upset and told her mother that it was "perfect." I didn't "fight" with her mother, but I did tell her that if the child wants to cut off all her hair that is her right. It is HER body, not her mother's. She should be able to express herself however she wants. If she thinks she is beautiful, I want her to believe that. I want her to grow up believing that no matter what she is beautiful because she LOVES how she looks and fuck anyone who doesn't think so.
The belief that it is her body and that her mother shouldn't interfere is something I had never considered when it comes to circumcision.
The absence of a "no," doesn't automatically mean "yes."
Why would I cut off healthy, living, tissue from my son's penis just because I think circumcised is more attractive? He has no way of agreeing to this and I am doing irreparable damage to his body. Circumcision is permanent. I can't go back later and let him undo it. There is NO going back from that. And I would want my child to decide what they want. Not what I want.
My husband is circumcised. And yes, I prefer the look compared to uncircumcised. After reading up on it, doing some research and thinking very carefully about body rights, I have decided that if I ever had a son, I would never circumcise him. I would let him decide when he was old enough to understand what he was doing.
I had the audacity to ask an adult male (that I had a crush on) if he was "cut" or "uncut." I remember his being appalled at the idea of being "uncut." As if that was a disgusting thing. Why is a piece of flesh disgusting?
We can argue aesthetics all day long. I don't find penises particularly attractive to begin with, so it would be easy for me to say I prefer my husband's. It would be easy to say that the only other penis I have ever found attractive was Yul Brynner's and he was uncircumcised. Either can be beautiful. Either can be perfect. It is a matter of opinion.
What isn't up for debate, at least where I am concerned, is the ethics of it. Is it ethical to remove healthy tissue from a healthy penis without the consent of the patient? No matter how young? Is it ethical to alter someone else's body without their permission, just because they won't "remember" or because we find it more "aesthetically pleasing?" I don't think it is.
Let my child remain uncut. Let them decide when they are old enough to understand it. Let them decide what to do with their body. They only receive one in this lifetime and who am I to tell them what to do with it?
My question for my male friends/readers is this:
* What are your thoughts?
* Are you circumcised? Uncircumcised?
* If you are circumcised, do you wish you hadn't been? Are you comfortable as you are?
* If you are uncircumcised, do you wish you had been? Do you prefer being "uncut?"
"Teaching my 2 year old how not to rape" is what it said. I was intrigued because of the idea behind it. The idea that we have to teach our children not to harm others. The idea that if we don't teach them not to harm, someone else will to teach them how to harm. The idea kind of blindsided me and I realized I had to read the article.
If you are interested in reading it for yourself here is the link:
http://barreloforanges.com/2013/03/24/teaching-my-2-year-old-how-not-to-rape/
Surprisingly, however, it wasn't her views on rape that astounded me. It was what I read about circumcision. She doesn't hide her opinion on the matter. Its right there in the first paragraph. It jolted me a bit, because I've never really thought about circumcision. At least, not as in depth as I did after reading a couple of her other posts on the topic.
I grew up in church. The majority of the people that know me (or have read a few of my rants) know this. I was taught that circumcision (of male genitalia) is required by God. I don't know why, actually. I never really understood why it mattered whether or not the foreskin was cut off of a man's junk. In fact, for the longest time I had NO idea what a foreskin even was. I had never seen an uncircumcised penis, actually. Not that I had seen very many penises at that time anyway.
But the Bible is FULL of verses on Circumcision and how men are to be circumcised. Even Abraham got circumcised at the ripe old age of ninety-nine (Genesis 17:24). What I do know is that God believed it was a valid part of a covenant between himself and Abraham (its been a while since I picked up my Bible). He even says so in Genesis. If you want specifics, chapter 17:10-11.
I've also always believed that circumcision was healthier for a man than remaining uncircumcised. Something that I discovered, upon researching, isn't entirely true. I thought that a man received more sexual pleasure if he was circumcised versus uncircumcised. However, circumcision comes down to aesthetics more than health and sexual pleasure. And, often times, it can be botched.
Now, if you had asked me about female circumcision I would've told you that it was genital mutilation. There is no aesthetic or enhanced sexual pleasure to female circumcision. It is purely to mutilate to the point that a woman no longer feels enjoyment or pleasure from sex, keeping her faithful to her husband. It is also so that a man remains "undisturbed" by the natural shape of a female sex, or her being "over-sexed." I remember being horrified as a kid reading an article on the topic by Waris Dirie, a Somalian actress and model, who had been "circumcised" at the tender age of five.
But the post by Barrel of Oranges made me think. It made me consider a few things.
Recently my god-daughter, who is 3, got a hold of a pair of scissors and cut off a decent portion of her hair (think Sinead O'Connor). Obviously, her mom was freaking out. This beautiful child, however, was not upset and told her mother that it was "perfect." I didn't "fight" with her mother, but I did tell her that if the child wants to cut off all her hair that is her right. It is HER body, not her mother's. She should be able to express herself however she wants. If she thinks she is beautiful, I want her to believe that. I want her to grow up believing that no matter what she is beautiful because she LOVES how she looks and fuck anyone who doesn't think so.
The belief that it is her body and that her mother shouldn't interfere is something I had never considered when it comes to circumcision.
The absence of a "no," doesn't automatically mean "yes."
Why would I cut off healthy, living, tissue from my son's penis just because I think circumcised is more attractive? He has no way of agreeing to this and I am doing irreparable damage to his body. Circumcision is permanent. I can't go back later and let him undo it. There is NO going back from that. And I would want my child to decide what they want. Not what I want.
My husband is circumcised. And yes, I prefer the look compared to uncircumcised. After reading up on it, doing some research and thinking very carefully about body rights, I have decided that if I ever had a son, I would never circumcise him. I would let him decide when he was old enough to understand what he was doing.
I had the audacity to ask an adult male (that I had a crush on) if he was "cut" or "uncut." I remember his being appalled at the idea of being "uncut." As if that was a disgusting thing. Why is a piece of flesh disgusting?
We can argue aesthetics all day long. I don't find penises particularly attractive to begin with, so it would be easy for me to say I prefer my husband's. It would be easy to say that the only other penis I have ever found attractive was Yul Brynner's and he was uncircumcised. Either can be beautiful. Either can be perfect. It is a matter of opinion.
What isn't up for debate, at least where I am concerned, is the ethics of it. Is it ethical to remove healthy tissue from a healthy penis without the consent of the patient? No matter how young? Is it ethical to alter someone else's body without their permission, just because they won't "remember" or because we find it more "aesthetically pleasing?" I don't think it is.
Let my child remain uncut. Let them decide when they are old enough to understand it. Let them decide what to do with their body. They only receive one in this lifetime and who am I to tell them what to do with it?
My question for my male friends/readers is this:
* What are your thoughts?
* Are you circumcised? Uncircumcised?
* If you are circumcised, do you wish you hadn't been? Are you comfortable as you are?
* If you are uncircumcised, do you wish you had been? Do you prefer being "uncut?"
No comments:
Post a Comment