Re: violence...

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] Maybe in reply to: Joe E. Dees

• codehead@ix.netcom.com wrote:
  > Brian S <ender_ctc@yahoo.com> wrote:
  > >
  > > --- "J. R. Molloy" <jr@shasta.com> wrote:
  > > >
  > > > Well then, if human patients (baby boys in the
  > case
  > > > of male genital mutilation)
  > > > cannot hope to experience protection as good as
  > that
  > > > provided to animals, that
  > > > supports my contention that this instance of
  > > > violence toward men and masculinity
  > > > (amputating the prepuce) exemplifies hatred (or
  > at
  > > > best, indifference) toward
  > > > male sexuality. The absence of any research
  > studies
  > > > to determine the
  > > > psychological effects of circumcision provides
  > > > further evidence of aversion to
  > > > the subject of men's issues.
  > > >
  > > > --J. R.
  > >
  > > Actually, I think this is just a case of tradition
  > > being very hard to overcome.
  >
  > There may be less of a tradition there than you
  > think. In a very
  > casual search of under five minutes, I found
  > numerous references to
  > the topic area. A real effort at scholarship would
  > probably turn up
  > a broader array of references. The belief that
  > there is an "absence
  > of any research studies to determine the
  > psychological effects of
  > circumcision" does not appear to be the case.
  >
  

What I meant was that tradition is what accounts for circumcision more than any particular hatred toward male sexuality.

Thanks for the heads up, though.

Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government.

• [ Next ][ Previous ] Maybe in reply to: Joe E. Dees