Why are circumcision cultures more violent?

[B_johnschlong]

I'm probably not saying anything new, but I'm still interested in hearing your opinion on this matter. Why are so-called 'circumcision cultures' so violent?

Only three cultures mutilate the genitals of their female or male members:

-Islam
-Judaism
-Anglosaxon Protestantism

If you look at the conflicts of the past few decades, you see that precisely these cultures are the cause of most wars and massacres.

So why would this be so? The easy explanation is that these circumcision cultures are based on fundamentalist forms of monotheism. This hard, simplistic monotheism results in primitive rituals like circumcision (which is just a symbol of the religion, but a significant one - for those who know him, Derrida has written an famous philosophical piece on it - Circumfession), and more importantly, they are totalitarian and intolerant in their approach to others.

Is it a coincidence that only these cultures based on totalitarian desert religions circumcise their women and men?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

This is probably among the most retarded things I've seen posted on these boards and that's really saying a lot.

 

[DaveyR]

This is probably among the most retarded things I've seen posted on these boards and that's really saying a lot.

I am with you 100% on that post NIC.

 

[B_johnschlong]

I forgot to add that the fact that Protestant Anglosaxons circumcise their children is historically due to the (19th and early 20th century) Victorian obsession with fighting masturbation and with hygiene. Of course, many other Victorian cultures have since abandoned the practise, and only the most fanatic protestant cultures have kept it.

That's why I wanted to make the distinction between protestants and Christians. Circumcision is not a Christian ritual. I think most of us would agree also that Christian cultures are far less violent than the Anglosaxon protestant culture.

 

[B_johnschlong]

This is probably among the most retarded things I've seen posted on these boards and that's really saying a lot.

Hey I understand, but you don't have to take this personal. I just made a remark about social phenomena and about religion and culture, not about individual members of that culture.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Hey I understand, but you don't have to take this personal. I just made a remark about social phenomena and about religion and culture, not about individual members of that culture.

I wasn't taking it personally. I hope that even if I was an uncircumcised man living in Japan or Peru or Cambodia... I would still think this assertion was retarded. The two things have nothing at all to do with one another. and how can your Gibsonian assertion about wars and massacres as well as your characterization of "totalitarian desert religions" be seen as anything less than offensive?

 

[hanko]

Most boys in the United States are circumcised for hygiene purposes. Recently, there have been studies that indicate that circumcision might not be best for boys and that might change things for many parents. Specifically, there have been studies that show a link between circumcision and some health related problems. However, these problems seem to be minor. As far as the link between violence and circumcision is concerned, it is as potent as the link between violence and the color of your skin.....completely non-existent.

 

[snoozan]

Can you name a culture that isn't, at some point in its history, violent?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Can you name a culture that isn't, at some point in its history, violent?

The Swiss?

maybe a handful of Pacific Islander cultures who have next to no contact with the outside world.

A more relevant question could be why is it that Judeo-Christian civilizations have achieved cultural and technological ascendancy over the rest of the planet so that they are currently (and have been for the last 200 years or so) in a position where they are more able to do violence against other cultures of the sort that when they do it it is more widely seen and commented on and often more spectacular in scale. Maybe cutting off the skin on our penises gave us some kind of special powers!

 

[thedude111]

I thought this was a Support group?

 

[dreamer20]

That's why I wanted to make the distinction between protestants and Christians.

You failed in that attempt IMO.

 

[SteveHd]

Some violent cultures before circumcision became prevalent: Moguls, Huns, and the ancient Assyrians (not related to modern Assyrians).

Murderous intact men of the modern era: Adolph Hitler, Vladimir Lenin, Pal Pot, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, and many others.

Enough said.

 

[1kmb1]

The Swiss?

maybe a handful of Pacific Islander cultures who have next to no contact with the outside world.

A more relevant question could be why is it that Judeo-Christian civilizations have achieved cultural and technological ascendancy over the rest of the planet so that they are currently (and have been for the last 200 years or so) in a position where they are more able to do violence against other cultures of the sort that when they do it it is more widely seen and commented on and often more spectacular in scale. Maybe cutting off the skin on our penises gave us some kind of special powers!

its the fluoride....

 

[Knight Attrition]

I like how he says that Christians are not violent but protestants are. I guess he has forgotten about the Catholic sponsored crusades.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I like how he says that Christians are not violent but protestants are. I guess he has forgotten about the Catholic sponsored crusades.

Or the Spanish Inquisition, or the Irish Republican Army, or the latter days of the Roman Empire, or the conquistadors' brutal subjugation of native peoples in Central and South America, or the Christian nation sponsored transatlantic slave trade, et cetera.

 

[Dave NoCal]

Ronald Goldman is a psychologist and anti-circumcision advocate. In his book: Circumcision:The Hidden Trauma" he cites research suggesting that among the industialized nations, the U.S. and Israel have the most violent crime and other research showing that circumcised baby boys cry longer and more violently after getting vaccinations (shots) than uncircumcised baby boys and baby girls. Nurse friends have told me that men (in the U.S., at least) are far more likeky than women to have vasovagal reactions (falling out) to injections. The book is at my office so I can't look it up at the moment but wil if ther is any interest.
There is starting to accumulate a good bit of research on the neurobiology of trauma indicating that trauma can alter neural pathways in lasting ways. Who knows what it does to a baby boy to have one of his first lessons in life be that people can and will hurt him in excruciating ways? I believe in "body memory;" that we can have powerful and influential memories from the pre-verbal stages of childhood.

 

[joyboytoy79]

Ronald Goldman is a psychologist and anti-circumcision advocate. In his book: Circumcision:The Hidden Trauma" he cites research suggesting that among the industialized nations, the U.S. and Israel have the most violent crime and other research showing that circumcised baby boys cry longer and more violently after getting vaccinations (shots) than uncircumcised baby boys and baby girls. Nurse friends have told me that men (in the U.S., at least) are far more likeky than women to have vasovagal reactions (falling out) to injections. The book is at my office so I can't look it up at the moment but wil if ther is any interest.
There is starting to accumulate a good bit of research on the neurobiology of trauma indicating that trauma can alter neural pathways in lasting ways. Who knows what it does to a baby boy to have one of his first lessons in life be that people can and will hurt him in excruciating ways? I believe in "body memory;" that we can have powerful and influential memories from the pre-verbal stages of childhood.

Interesting assertion, no doubt. I wonder if that explains why all men hate women, as birth, itself is excruciating for babies.

I however, think this is all balderdash. Mostly, i think so because Jews, Muslims and Anglo-Saxon Protestants have just as many peace-mongers as war-mongers. Let us not forget that Elie Weisel, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, and many other prominent proponents of peace were circumcised.

Also, i look to countries with a currently peaceful culture, such as South Korea, and the Phillipines where circumcision is prevelant in the absence of Judaism, Islam, or Anglo-Protestantism. This makes me wonder if maybe the culture of violence is perpetuated more on a cultural, rather than physical level.

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Just when I thought the circumcision trolls had said it all, this one comes along. Amazing.

 

[B_johnschlong]

I like how he says that Christians are not violent but protestants are. I guess he has forgotten about the Catholic sponsored crusades.

Sure, but I was more talking about recent decades. Many have observed that precisely these monotheistic religions can't cope with modernity. Catholicism obviously can.

Just make a list with all post-WWII conflicts, massacres and terrorist attacks and see who's involved. You'll notice that these three cultures are behind the vast majority of these events.

 

[B_johnschlong]

The two things have nothing at all to do with one another.

Mm, I think they do. They're maybe not related in a causal manner, but there's definitely a correlation. Just like there's a correlation between the level of HIV/AIDS in Africa and protestantism; the more protestants in any given African country, the higher the HIV/AIDS ratio. Does this mean protestantism causes AIDS? Of course it doesn't. But protestantism does create cultural conditions which lead to sexual mores that have an influence on infection rates.

and how can your Gibsonian assertion about wars and massacres as well as your characterization of "totalitarian desert religions" be seen as anything less than offensive?

Is there anything wrong with saying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are totalitarian desert religions? It's a basic and quite objective, neutral assertion from religious anthropology. These religions originated in deserts, where resources were scarce, justifying the need for harsh, simplistic, stringent moral rules; monotheism is a representation that fits these requirements.
Science can be offensive, but in this case I don't think it really is.