Sunday, March 26, 2006
Female Penis Envy?
(2)
The Circumcision Cult continues marching on here. Doctor Judith Reichman, probable Jew, recommends neonatal circumcision on some pretty skinny grounds in this article, which answers the question of an 'expectant mother' wondering whether she should have her son circumcised.
The 'expectant mother' is unnamed and otherwise unidentified.
Reichman begins by saying that 'Ultimately, it's a personal decision but the majority of parents do decide to have it done.' What does this mean? If it is indeed a 'personal decision' then should the child not be consulted? After all, it is his person which is being sexually mutilated.
There followed the usual nonsense about urinary tract infections, penile cancer, penile inflamation, STDs, and decreased risk of cervical cancer in the possible future wife of the little guy. These may be of some minor concern to some parents but probably not to the little guy on the cutting board who is about to have a major part of his future sexual pleasure taken away from him forever by people who swore an oath to 'first, do no harm.'
Reichman does allow that there are some drawbacks to the 'procedure' in the form of pain, bleeding and infection, but utterly fails to point out that Mother Nature designed the penis in its original form for a good reason: it works! The mutilated (Jewish) version also works... after a fashion, but much of the pleasurable sexual sensation is necessarily missing. The article ends with:
'Dr. Reichman’s Bottom Line: Religion and “what daddy looks like down there” greatly influence parents’ decisions about circumcision. But health concerns should also play a role: you have to consider the baby’s current and long-term health, plus the health of his potential future partner. I personally would go for it. Then again, I don’t have a penis.'
Interesting. Could we have here an actual case of female penis envy?
The Circumcision Cult continues marching on here. Doctor Judith Reichman, probable Jew, recommends neonatal circumcision on some pretty skinny grounds in this article, which answers the question of an 'expectant mother' wondering whether she should have her son circumcised.
The 'expectant mother' is unnamed and otherwise unidentified.
Reichman begins by saying that 'Ultimately, it's a personal decision but the majority of parents do decide to have it done.' What does this mean? If it is indeed a 'personal decision' then should the child not be consulted? After all, it is his person which is being sexually mutilated.
There followed the usual nonsense about urinary tract infections, penile cancer, penile inflamation, STDs, and decreased risk of cervical cancer in the possible future wife of the little guy. These may be of some minor concern to some parents but probably not to the little guy on the cutting board who is about to have a major part of his future sexual pleasure taken away from him forever by people who swore an oath to 'first, do no harm.'
Reichman does allow that there are some drawbacks to the 'procedure' in the form of pain, bleeding and infection, but utterly fails to point out that Mother Nature designed the penis in its original form for a good reason: it works! The mutilated (Jewish) version also works... after a fashion, but much of the pleasurable sexual sensation is necessarily missing. The article ends with:
'Dr. Reichman’s Bottom Line: Religion and “what daddy looks like down there” greatly influence parents’ decisions about circumcision. But health concerns should also play a role: you have to consider the baby’s current and long-term health, plus the health of his potential future partner. I personally would go for it. Then again, I don’t have a penis.'
Interesting. Could we have here an actual case of female penis envy?
