GENIUS FORUMS

But it isn't a failure within himself, it was a failure on the part of his parents - and at least some guys recognize this.

Here are a couple of organizations working on the issue:

http://www.intactamerica.org/

and

http://www.mgmbill.org/index.htm which has some kind of event on 1/11/2010.

There is but one way to permanently transcend the conditioned idea of gender, and that is to see that Thought Itself is genderless.

Thought is Pure Self. Only when the interpreter is using their senses as a reference point, do they fall into the ignorance that there is such a 'thing' as a woman or a man, or that there is such a 'thing' as female or male ways of interpreting thought.

All sense interpretation is subjective to the vision of the interpreter in their individual moment of sense awareness. Gender subjectivity is one of these individual moments of sense awareness. Gender is one of the lies of the illusion that thought needs a physical body in order to be.

Bring back the old Jewish practice of biting the foreskin off with your teeth. But it has to be bitten off by the teeth of an unmarried Jewish man.

5Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:But it isn't a failure within himself, it was a failure on the part of his parents -

Right, what I'm saying is it's a cycle that needs to be broken, and can only be at great psychological sacrifice of the father, because he's already circumcised. It will also cause confusion for the son, because no doubt he will see his fathers penis and some stage, when they are changing into swimming trunks at the beach or swimming pool etc.

The boy will wonder probably why their penises are different. He may not say anything or even understand, but it would be a cause of underlying anxiety.

So the burden again would be on the father to explain this.

I'm not defending circumcision at all, just outlining some of the reasons why it would be so difficult to deal with.

I don't have any children and never will, but if I did have a son, I would make absolutely sure that he was not circumcised, even if the mother insisted on it. I'd sooner choke her to death on the operating table than allow the boy to be cut.

Prince, Oh, okay on everything but the choking of the mother to death. With you in jail and the mother's dying wish that the boy be circumcised, the kid doesn't have a chance. Better to pat your 357 while looking at the doctor and saying "You aren't really going to mutilate my son's penis, are you?"

Animus wrote:Bring back the old Jewish practice of biting the foreskin off with your teeth. But it has to be bitten off by the teeth of an unmarried Jewish man.

5Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the[c] written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God. (Romans 2)

The covenant between Abraham and God was between the adult Abraham and God. It was Abraham's choice. If the boy wants to be circumcised when he is old enough to give consent, that is one thing - but no baby has ever consented to this. By your quote, even by those laws it would be better if the boy was old enough to have a chance at never breaking any of whatever law again. Children make mistakes; it's part of being a child. By circumcising as a baby, the parents basically guarantee that he will have lost his foreskin for nothing.

prince wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:But it isn't a failure within himself, it was a failure on the part of his parents -

Right, what I'm saying is it's a cycle that needs to be broken, and can only be at great psychological sacrifice of the father, because he's already circumcised. It will also cause confusion for the son, because no doubt he will see his fathers penis and some stage, when they are changing into swimming trunks at the beach or swimming pool etc.

The boy will wonder probably why their penises are different. He may not say anything or even understand, but it would be a cause of underlying anxiety.

So the burden again would be on the father to explain this.

I'm not defending circumcision at all, just outlining some of the reasons why it would be so difficult to deal with.

I don't have any children and never will, but if I did have a son, I would make absolutely sure that he was not circumcised, even if the mother insisted on it. I'd sooner choke her to death on the operating table than allow the boy to be cut.

On a general note, in terms of parenting, I think its important for parents to have a holistic view of their child's psychology and relation to them. To make a simple disection of different parenting styles, using Diana Baumrind's model we see that some prove more beneficial to the child and the circumstances in general than others. Parents who are interpersonally involved in the core development of their child's psyche are the most effective parents. Parents who are neglectful or place to much emphasis on the child's responsibility to shape up to the imposed requirements of the household and the society tend to have children who are pretty distressed. An effective parent, under the circumstances would confront the child on the issue to head off anxiety issues that might arrise. I don't think you have to be a parent to see that this is desirable in terms of raising a well adapted child. If so, its possible I don't know what I'm talking about. It all sounds good in theory and apparently mass observation, but you gotta be one to know they argue or submit.

Oh forget it. I was going to reply to you Elisabeth, but fuck it

In terms of circumcision I'm not upset with the fact that I didn't have a choice in the matter. I'll never know the difference and not knowing the difference has no psychological discomfort associated with it, unless I'm a control freak or something. I don't remember the incident either, I argue, its a bit different when the child is 8 years old and not 8 days old. Either way, I don't much of a point in circumcizing a child outside of its symbolic religious significance, but the symbolism is lost in the practice itself. I'm pretty sure disfiguring your johnson is supposed to be a sign of devotion to a life of higher metaphysical purpose. That's not something that can be determined by the 8th day after birth so I guess its more for onlookers. I suppose it was performed originally for hygenic purposes as the Jews were some of the most hygenic people of the region, constructing aquaducts and latrines for sanitation purposes. This reduced a lot of infection, as would circumcision because it requires less rigorous cleaning. The flappy foreskin is an environment suitable for bacteria. Something like this would be written into law because at the time it was the only means of effectively dealing with a widespread problem. It could be encouraged through the devotion to a metaphysical concept rather than simply for hygene. The mutilation of the genitals is a basic symbol of ascetic devotion and having a child circumcised is done with the intent of raising an individual in that light, or simply because the parents are religious traditionalist fools. Personally I'd say they are fools either way, the only sound reason is for hygene, if thats not a problem then why bother?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Prince, Oh, okay on everything but the choking of the mother to death. With you in jail and the mother's dying wish that the boy be circumcised, the kid doesn't have a chance. Better to pat your 357 while looking at the doctor and saying "You aren't really going to mutilate my son's penis, are you?"

Yes I would end up in jail, my point is if that's what it took to prevent my son from being circumcised I would gladly do so. I would killl the mother and sacrifice myself to save the son and keep him intact.

Prince, my point was that with you in jail, who is going to protect your son from his dying mother's wish? You think the doctors would listen to a murderer, or to the new custodial parents who doubtlessly would want to honor the dead woman's wish?


Animus, back to reality, some studies are saying that the foreskin actually reduces infection, and as for hygenic purposes, in this modern day, it isn't a big deal to use some soap and water on a regular basis. Rationally, I can't see how a flappy foreskin would be any more of an environment suitable for bacteria than the flappy labia on a female - which don't seem to cause a problem, and as a female who has managed to get a tiny piece of toilet paper perhaps the size of a pin head stuck between her clitoris and its hood, which is similar enough for comparison to the male penis and foreskin, I guarantee you that if there is anything that needs cleaning out of that area, it becomes a top priority to the individual to get that area clean quick, and it is so not a problem. I imagine it would be even less of a problem to clean a penis under the foreskin because the penis is more accessible and more easily visible to the owner than the clitoris.

When you have a half hour to do so, watch this 3 part series. I already posted it in WM so now I'm spamming with Penn and Teller, but oh well, this is worth it.


Oh, and prince - thanks for the dedication to responding to me. :p I thought about thanking you for the Coca-Cola link on that WM youtube thread and mentioning that I passed it on to a friend and will be posting it to my facebook page this afternoon when people are about to get off work, but I figured it wasn't worth an extra post to the thread. I guess that makes us even.

Gender Equality to the most extreme definition will never happen.

In about 50 years we will (well technically it's already true) not need men, biologically, anymore.

Who knows the implications if men were wiped out & only women DNA was passed, etc.

But to be honest, our brains are set up for discrimination.

There's an odd overlap of the "pro-life" (anti-choice) men (and generally the ones that blow up doctor's clinics and try to kill gynecologists are male pro-lifers) that believe a woman has no right over her own reproductive organs once pregnancy occurs, and that he didn't have any choice over his reproductive organ as an infant - other than that circumcision and anti-choice both spring from the church.

Einstein once said, "As long as there be man, there be war." i think 'man' needs to be replaced with 'human'.

i think it was rather arbitrary which gender took control to start humankind. call it man's innate want for control, and woman's innate want for protection. but we cannot say that this is necessarily true. it could have just occurred based on physical superiority.

from this; who is to say that if women controlled that there would be no war? i think society and growth of human has shaped our gender roles.

In that day "man" meant "human." It wasn't until feminism came along that we had to remember all these distinctions.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:When you have a half hour to do so, watch this 3 part series. I already posted it in WM so now I'm spamming with Penn and Teller, but oh well, this is worth it.

I actually like Penn and Teller a lot, but I think they are agendized for ratings and I'm skeptical of all their claims. They are more of a source of leads for my investigation.

IJesusChrist wrote:In about 50 years we will (well technically it's already true) not need men, biologically, anymore.

Who knows the implications if men were wiped out & only women DNA was passed, etc

That would be a kind of devolution, considering that XY sex-determination evolved from X0 sex-determination which is what it would be like without Y chromosomes walking around. Realize this, the evolutionary roots of sex are hermaphrodites. Organisms with both gonads for gestation and gonads for fertilization. This self-impregnating form of reproduction lacks biodiversity. An organism that impregnates and replicates itself creates genetic clones of itself. Meiosis of the X chromosome of the mother and the X or Y chromosome of the father is the basis of our diversity. It is biologically advantageous to have males in a species. It would be an incredibly myopic and ignorant thing to make any adjustments to our biology or lifestyle which eliminated men.

Futhermore, with the abolishment of the male sex, the species would only be capable of hermaphroditic reproduction open up the potential for a single virus or disease that would wipe out the entire species. Farmers know this all to well, if they create genetic clones of high-output animals, say cows that produce the most milk. They might see a higher yield from their cattle, but a single disease could wipe out their entire business because all of the animals would have the same potential to survive the disease. Biological diversity brings us individuals who are immune to malaria and HIV, we can study these individuals to develop gene therapy for others that would cure them of the disease, if nothing else a handful of genetically diverse individuals will survive otherwise total extinction of the human species. Biological diversity is extremely important for our continued survival and arises through meiosis and XY sexual reproduction.


Edit: I mean primarily, genetic variation occurs for other reasons too, but at a much decelerated rate.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Two of my friends have given birth to boys since Tomas posted this thread 3 years and 3 months ago, I tried to discuss the issue with both of them, and they both barely heard a word I said, the final word from both of them being that the fathers of the babies wanted the boys circumcised because they had been circumcised. I can understand why most women would defer to the judgment of a man on that issue, because we don't have penises so we don't really know what it's like, but the men's "reasoning" leaves a lot to be desired there.

While that is bad, I don't really know what to make of the fact that I was circumcised while my father was not. (I did not find out that he was not circumcised until I was over 40.)

40+ years ago, people never questioned their doctor's recommendations, and the attitude about circumcision in America was more pro-circumcision than it is today.

You might want to ask your father about that while you still have the opportunity.

elizabeth, that further supports my point... in a way. woman could've very well represented human, if the initial distinction was different.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Oh, and prince - thanks for the dedication to responding to me. :p I thought about thanking you for the Coca-Cola link on that WM youtube thread and mentioning that I passed it on to a friend and will be posting it to my facebook page this afternoon when people are about to get off work,

Dearest Elizabeth, I will gladly provide you with more youtube links illustrating the horrors of injustice that are occuring everyday in the world we now live in, as I should happen upon them.

Love, Prince