I guess I'm becoming an "intactivist", meaning the more I consider it, the more cruel and heart wrenching circumcision seems to me. I'm glad I wasn't so mutilated, and I am ever so glad that we didn't do it to our babies. Is it really any different from Female Genital Mutilation? I'm thinking not. Again, no real research on my part, but one reason it was heavily promoted last century was in order to stop boys from, ahem, stimulating themselves - meaning it took the pleasure out of it, meaning it is also taken (to a degree) from the victims even in their marital relations. Horrific. I'm not judging or condemning anyone who has done it to their babies; I just think there's not nearly enough information out there for people to make an informed decision. "Everyone" else does it, and the doctors and hospitals expect it to be done, so little thought goes into it. Here is a description of the torture enabler above.
No comments:
Post a Comment