Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boingo82
The reason I brought this topic up in this thread is I'm reading a book examining the possible societal impact of RIC (routine infant circ). For example the disproportionately high rate of rape and murder that the US has compared to other prosperous countries.
|
I'm interested in the title of this book, as it sounds like an interesting read. I'm always interested in the "other side" of the story, so that no-one may accuse me of possessing a lack of infromation. Truthfully, how can you form an educated opinion without examining all sides of the issue? Let me go ahead and ask, though: What is the correlation between circumcision and rape? The fact that the male was "traumatized" as an infant because his foreskin was cut? Does it go into the following quote, where males are bigger and more powerful and can subject lesser subjects (i.e. women) to their will? I've always seen rape as a power/control thing, but also as someone who has an intense hatred for women, so that he must humiliate them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boingo82
Anyway I was thinking about our foreign policy, and the fact that we think that as long as we're bigger and more powerful than a country, we can do whatever we want to them. I wonder what goes through the mind of a baby boy having part of his penis cut off without anesthesia. Maybe he is learning that as long as you are bigger and more powerful than someone (as the doctors are to him), you can take anything you want from them.
|
I haven't read this book of yours (though I'd like to) or seen any other studies, but I do believe there is intense pain, and that anesthesia should be used. However, I fail to see how this would have any lasting mental impact on the child, even sub-consciously. I do not believe that a child becomes "impressionable" until farther on in life than 8 weeks, unless it is an abuse that is repeated. Most people have trouble remembering things from before they were 3 years old. So does the book address this?