Very interesting......

Great topic again Wheezie! We've thought about this a time or two. There is no difference. In fact, research has shown some males to develop PTSD symptoms later on and the psychological impact is great. It's a traumatic loss of a body part, whereas SRA CSA victims it's a traumatic loss of a childhood. We agree with you, the only difference is our socially and moral acceptance of this very barbaric right to passage for males.

*plink, plink* our two cents. :)

Good topic. This has always been a problem for me concerning the bible. It is truly discusting and evil even if I do belive in the bible for the most part this will never be accepted as purity. I was not aware people still do it for ritual. I don't believe in it even medically becouse there just as likly to get infection from havng that doen but with worse consiquences.

You are saying that someone who has an operation performed on them within the first month of their life is more likely to become DID because it can be equated to SRA? The infant brain often does not start any form of cognition until at least 12-15 months. So how can something like this possibly be "abusive" when it also has been proven to provide health benefits as well?

I'm not equating it to SRA. It is pure ritual abuse.If one thing is certain in my case about dissociation is it's ability to record these memories in exact detail no matter what age you are.I myself have very precise memories at 18 months and younger of abuse.Also there is no solid evidence that there are health benefits to circumcizing males. That is a myth put forth by these religious groups and the doctors that are influenced by their religious beliefs.Why would evolution and nature evolve the male of our species to have this if it was unhealthy?It would have been done away with long ago by natural selection if it was unhealthy.

If you reread the last three lines of your initial post, you will easily find how anyone would end up at my conclusion as well.

I don't expect to see eye to eye on this, as it is something that I have read about and known to be fairly common due to my faith.

While your personal experience may in fact be different than the normal, most people in the world do not have memories before the age of 2. I still remember the first time I opened my eyes, and the weird flip that my brain made at that point. I remember being in church at some point before I could walk too. But most people don't.

Now, if you don't mind, I would appreciate you not calling something that my faith refers to as a form of consecration satanic abuse.

No Hope I didn't call it Satanic abuse.I equated it to SRA(which is also Sadistic Ritual abuse) and called it ritual abuse which is exactly what it is. You have been conditioned to accept and believe it is a consecration in your faith. When you look at it with logic and are unbiased by religious dogma it is nothing more than mutilating an infant for religious purposes.If you read Ausie's reply you will see that there has been research confirming the psychological ramifications of such abuse.

I think the harm comes more from the idea than the actual surgery... Let me try to articulate what I mean by that. I believe the fact that people accept physical mutilation of infants as being "okay" because it's supported by church officials is the most harmful part of the process. It gives religious individuals the authority over other people's childrens' bodies. That is where my biggest red flag lies.

There's a very good podcast done on circumcision by the folks at "Stuff You Should Know." It's available free on itunes, and they looked at it from all sides, backed up with the latest research, both pro and con. I listened to it months ago, so I've forgotten most of it, but I seem to remember them saying that as long as a male uses good hygiene, he's only slightly likelier to have issues if he's uncircumcised. There are few risks associated with the surgery, if performed correctly. However, the loss of nerves in that area does affect sensation for life. So, all in all, it's a loss for the man without any measurable benefit. It is purely done (in modern times) because "it has always been done."

There are also religions that still believe in female genital mutilations for infants, in which the clitoris is cut and/or removed. The result is no sensation for the woman for her entire life. Most of us see this as barbaric, and it is! I've come to feel the same way about circumcision. My opinion is that it should be left as an option that the man can choose to have done when he is an adult, if he decides to, rather than having it done TO him as an infant. (A whole lot fewer would make the choice themselves, you can be sure... Yet they continue to do it to their sons.)

I'll see your two cents' worth, and raise you two more!
~Wistala

I agree Wistala and 1.2 billion Indians and 1.4 billion Chinese seem to concur as well.I think if there was any validity to these supposed medical benefits the males of these populations would have been performing this "surgery" long ago.

http://www.dailystrength.org/health_blogs/dr-orrange/article/can-being-circumcised-lower-your-risk-for-prostate-cancer

No health benefits? Seems that research is false.

Having it off reduces cancer risk...
But my own thoughts are more influenced by the transgender/intersex perspective:

I think it is a human rights violation to sugically alter someone's genitals before they are old enough to give informed consent, and if I should have a boy, he will not be so mutilated.

Intersex people are still surgically altered without thier consent or knowledge as babies to suit the parents...the parents can and do guess wrong, and in adulthood the person is stuck with what the parents chose.

It's clearly wrong to me and I do not understand why people allow it.