Indeed?
Indeed.
So in your view, none of the terms you used and I quoted you using in post #441 above were salacious?
This is fucking ridiculous, I’m sure Bricker holds a thousand views that I would find utterly distasteful and he may well be a first-class turd, but he’s just simply correct here: there are many good reasons to object to this practice – but the debate is debased by the juvenile use of prejudicial language, and the conflation of bizarro weird fucking religious rites with paedophilia can make (and, to some, will make) the argument look weaker and possibly motivated by religious hatred and not the consequence of impartial reasoning.
That is what makes me sad, any attempt at offering male infants the same protection will have people screaming “anti-semitism” at the top of their lungs.
And anti-Islamic prejudice as well, since the khitān ritual appears in both the hadith and the sunnah, and is regarded by the Shafi`i and Hanbali sects of Sunni Muslims as binding on all of the faith. Virtually all Shia sects agree.
However, the thrust of the argument in this thread was about what the medical data shows. (Well, the non-idiotic argument, anyway). As I noted in my first post in this thread, there are strong reasons to argue against the oral suction portion of the Jewish circumcision ritual. These reasons are based in medical best practices.
So assuming we still agree that medical data, not religious doctrine, should control our approach:
Well?
Dude, nine pages of “stop sucking babies’ penises” and you decide to open up this can of worms?
Is the “dude” in your post me or grude?
You, Bricker.
Edited because I had confused grude with AnaMen.
I’m talking about adults sucking babies’ penises after maiming them in front of a gathering of friends and family. There simply is no level of “salaciousness” that could be added, since that is what is actually happening. I agree that it sounds like it must be a ridiculous exaggeration, but alas, it’s considered some sort of “cultural ritual,” so we are all supposed to join this dance where we pretend it’s exempt from judgment and that somehow that’s not “really” what’s happening at all.
NAMBLA? How is that “actually happening?”
Why should I leave **grude[/b’s] statement unchallenged?
Do you bleieve his statement was cognizant of best medical practices – the same standard we have been valorizing in this thread?
Bizarro religious rites and pedophilia belong in the same category when the activity we are attempting to describe consists of an adult putting his or her mouth upon an infant’s genitalia directly after cutting away a portion of the infant’s anatomy. I’m not an ad agency for this practice. The onus is not upon me to somehow try to find a way to phrase a description of this activity so that it sounds innocuous. The entire point is that it ISN’T.
There are many many people in the US who have no idea what circumcision is, what happens at a bris, or what a mohel does. I refuse to obscure what is actually happening behind these types of words. There is no need to worry about “weakening” the argument against the activity, because the activity itself is what it is.
NAMBLA also attempts to justify their behavior by attempting to frame its motivation more appealingly.
From their site, http://nambla.org/whatis.html:
"Man/Boy Love: Propaganda versus reality
To explain man/boy love today, one must first explain what it is not: It is not what you view on television or read in newspapers. It’s not what you hear on Oprah or Geraldo, nor is it the propaganda put out by police and politicians.
It’s the love of a man for a boy, and of a boy for a man. Enjoyable, consensual, beautiful.
The Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name
The “Love that dare not speak its name” in this century is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michelangelo and Shakespeare. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michelangelo, and those two letters of mine, such as they are. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the “Love that dare not speak its name,” and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the joy, hope and glamour of life before him. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.
~ Oscar Wilde, playwright
Who We Are
As never before, our society is beginning to recognize the value and richness of human diversity. The manifold nature of our humanity appears in the emotional, spiritual, and physical attractions between people. Attractions between men and boys can be found in every society, crossing lines of race, age, temperament and occupation. They form a sure basis for mentoring and friendship traditions the world over. Man/boy love is exceptional only for the degree to which it is still misunderstood in cultures derived from Northwestern Europe. Most man/boy relationships are based on mutual respect and affection, and strongly desired by both partners. Such relationships do not harm anyone, and often entail many benefits for both man and boy. Boy-lovers and boys alike respond to the needs of those they love — needs for affection, understanding, and freedom. "
See, it’s not pedophilia, like you’re thinking… It’s spiritual, beneficial, and misunderstood!
:rolleyes:
Are you asking me whether or not I believe that grude is aware and in agreement with the medical pros/cons of male circumcision?
I honestly have no idea. All I can tell is that he seems to object to the practice on some fundamental basis.
The reason I’d have left it unchallenged is because you know exactly how this conversation is going to go. Exactly how all these conversation on this subject go. And while you and I are probably on the same side of the argument, I’m not sure I can take being in agreement with you twice in one thread, on two consecutive days. (that’s a joke, btw.)
Even their justifications don’t elide the fact that they seek sexual contact.
The practice being discussed here is not sexual.
That’s what makes your descriptions salacious – a fact you then tried to deny.
All of that would be fair enough if anybody within a thousand miles of this thread had said, “this practice is reasonable because of [insert pseudo-spiritual BS here]”, but nobody has.
NO ONE IS SUPPORTING THIS FUCKED UP PRACTICE.
Sure… but leaving this kinds of things unchallenged is what lets the AnaMens and grudes of the world continue to hand out misinformation.
On the other hand…life is short, and I understand that you can’t step on every cockroach in the city.
But the ones that cross your path, I’d opine, ought to get some attention.
Exactly correct.
I’m simply supporting describing it correctly and arguing against it for legitimate reasons of medical practice.
So what terminology do you want? Oral suctioning of the infant’s penis? Sounds like dicksucking to me.