Nearly all the posts are bilingual.
Presque tous les articles sont bilingues.

English spoken. On parle français. (وكمان منفهم عربي، حبيبي)

Most of this blog's contents is subject to copyright. For instance, many of the latest illustrations I've made myself. I'm the cooperative type. If you intend to borrow some material, please contact me by leaving a comment. :-)
La plupart du contenu de ce blog est soumis aux droits d'auteurs. Par exemple, nombre des illustrations les plus récentes sont faites par moi. Je suis du genre coulant. Si vous comptez emprunter du contenu, SVP contactez-moi en laissant un commentaire. :-)

Friday, November 23, 2007

''Nié khatim Natascha''? DOURAK!

Yin & Yang
MASSACRE OF THE INNOCENT

"We want no Natacha"? IMBECILE!

People are morons. Here's a fundamental truth of the Universe finally revealed. (Einstein himself had foretold it.)
Primitive people don't like having girls.

To the Arabs, the woman has one-quarter of a man's intelligence, according to islamic tradition. A sizeable number of Sunnis in Lebanon convert to Shiites. Because in both cases, the girl inherits half of a boy's share (even among Chritians, those cretins!)... but at least with Shiites, in the absence of a son, the daughters have priority to inherit from their parents. With Sunnis, men always come first, and an uncle may leave his brotherless nieces completely destitute. It's happened several times. So, parents who only have daughters convert to protect them from too stupid a tradition, just in case. Shiite sheikhs aren't fooled, but they aren't inhumane either, and switching Islams in Lebanon is as simple as an administrative formality. Allah reads in the hearts and will acknowlwdge His own ones.

In Egypt, almost all women are excised. This is anti-islamic, but in darn conformity with male pithecanthropus tradition. Woman's sex is man's property, for it is the location of his "honor", a pleasant term to describe the egotistic pride of savages with a smog-clouded calvarium. The woman copulates if, when and how it fits her bearded owner, like any cattle that he paid good money for. The initial farmer/cattle trader is the father, then all the family's men, and finally the husband. Virginity is the exclusive property of the phallus, and females aren't supposed to feel any sexual pleasure, so men correct the small error that Allah forgot to erase from the serial model's blueprints. It's bad enough already that this profligate skirt, through the satanic witchcraft of her shapes, her voice, her glances, her hair and her hormones, has the power to turn mad with concupiscent desire any pure man unfortunate enough to run into them on his way to the Sternness Heaven (and its 70 nymphomaniac virgin geishas). What, should they ALSO enjoy sex, those vile temptresses, sharers of bitten apple, cursed repository of Temptation, friends of the Serpent? Swiftly now, snip-snip!

To pretend there is egalitarianism, little boys get a close-cut circumcision (sheesh, that Creator loved wasting details!), since ancient Jews, and ditto in a near-systematic fashion among those upstanding pious Americans, so that the absence of a foreskin makes the female yôni indispensable to the pleasure of man's lingam, since he can no more count on his helpful hand to commit the supreme sin: missing an opportunity to grow and multiply.

First massacre, and one which has the (dubious) merit of not attempting to hide itself: the "honor crime". Supreme crime against the male's honor, that the woman attempt to dispose of what she carries without owning it, that part of her body bought for a hefty price. If a woman lets her cow-boy's honor wander about, she gets shot down. And in many lands of Islam, including Lebanon, the Law states that this crime isn't one, so there's acquittal, release, case dismissed!
To such an extent that if, for instance, the husband of my twice remote cousin enjoys swinging between couples, I, as a family member, am entitled to feel tainted in the honor which I am co-owner of by divine right, and if such is my fancy I'll just go and slit the throat of its impure receiver, earning the public esteem of all Phallocratistan. "Now, THERE's a REAL man!" ):-P

Ulema Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah
And still... take a good look at the bearded gentleman above. This is Ulema Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. He's the spiritual master of shiite Hezbollah, their second sacred religious reference after the Iranian Revolution Guide, "second sole master on board after God", socio-religious-wise. When he speaks, lebanese chiites listen with such great respect, that Pope Youssef Ben Sixteen would be green with envy. Well, in August 2007 this man has issued a fatwa strictly condemning "honor crimes" as being contrary to Islam. A true social revolution, according to several anthropologists and sociologists. Sayyed Fadlallah, ulema, i.e. a scholar who's a reference in Religion after lengthily studying it in the officially acknowledged circuit, is also notoriously known as a progressist and defender of women's rights. He reforms the muslim world from the inside. He's an islamist, yes, absolutely. He is also a wise man. Whether you like him or not, you have to respect him. People like him are precious for the advancement of the world.
Whaddayaknow... Hezbollah is far less primitive than Mister Bush (he who never lies, ha ha ha!) wishes to virtuously convince us. It's not either the close ally of sunnite Bin Laden, in spite of their common anti-Zionism. And Iran, which isn't limited to the sole Mohammad Ahmadi Nejad (fortunately!), is far less backwards socially than Saudi Arabia, mother land of Wahhabism and of the September 11th 2001 authors, it is an objective fact.

Look way up there: "Knowledge is power". The stupid lies of Bush and Co have only weakened the United States, by vilifying their opponents even at the price of brazen lies. In fact Saddam turned out to be the best stabilizing factor of a country like Iraq, and with hindsight all his crimes were a lesser evil! Dominique de Villepin had said it clearly, BEFORE the big goof-up was committed by the Guantanamian and Abughraibist defenders of Human Rights. "Today we know", yes indeed. But whe could already know before. By Knowledge. Gnôthi seauton.

Another more sneaky crime, and in peace time furthermore: the genocide (it's not too strong a word) of girls and women in India and China. In India, there's that accursed dowry. In China, the son takes care of his elderly parents, while the daughter's good only to marry and leave. Infanticide has been commonplace for centuries: if you have a daughter, and you don't like it, do like with puppies, a hole in the ground and that's the end of it. Girls are far less schooled, which sentences them to social stagnation. They're less loved, therefore less well fed, and in case of sickness they're less cared for, hence a marked over-mortality throughout childhood: straight double that of boys. And for a few years now, with the marvellous alliance of modern technology and sub-animalistic archaism, performing amniocentesis or prenatal echography can even spare you the "bother" of delivering a child into this world if its gender is unwanted, by immediately aborting. Even better yet, Science is so amazing, you can get artificial insemination to avoid the mere CONCEPTION of a daughter, praise the ancestors spirits.

China and India represent around 2 billion people, one third of the whole planet. The smallest imbalance in proportion is automatically mass-amplified, and in the present case proportions ARE NOT the smallest. In result, there are already 190 million women in Asia "missing", to say it delicately. Three times the population of France. More than all the women in the USA. Mass slaughter, sneaky genocide, insane extermination, demented delirium, banal barbary...
After doing the math, if instead of the normal ratio of 105 women for 100 men there are only 93 (according to population census), ONE OUT OF 8 GIRLS ARE MISSING, weren't born, or didn't survive. It's not a supposition, it's a frightfully real fact. At the Mother Teresa Foundation, 9 out of 10 abandoned children are girls. It's getting steadily worse. NGOs expect the girl deficit to double 20 years from now. One out of 4 girls... Oy gevalt, the Nazis didn't do much worse.

Quite obviously, the first consequences to appear are the negative ones, in their full ignominy. Reverse polygamy is becoming commonplace: a young woman simultaneously marries a man and all of his brothers, creating an "inverted harem", polyandry in tech talk. (OK, I admit, one can think of a worse fate. ;-) In poor countrysides, young girls (12-13 years will do) are often kidnapped, then sold and "married" by force to men who have grown weary of celibacy. In the worst cases, baby girls are bought; they'll be raised as obedient all-purpose housemaids (the only difference with a slave, is that both don't get paid!), then once she reaches puberty she'll do an optimally docile wife for the household's son.

As a result, in some villages (the poorest, naturally), one third of girls are missing, sometimes two thirds, and boys are three times as many... when it's not the whole village that's populated exclusively by males!

And yet... popular chinese tradition itself says it: "It takes a boy and a girl for the pair to be complete." Feminine and masculine, yin and yang, paramount for the harmony of Cosmos, their union forming a balanced Whole. See those two little ninja bunnies, way up there? They're Yin and Yang, yo! From the cartoon Yin-Yang-Yo!
"In a world of chaos and disarray,
Brother and sister save the day."

They're twins, are learning the secrets of Wu-Fu, and it's by their union that they become invincible.

I think I couldn't explain things in a simpler way. A 6-year old child would understand. And this isn't just baby entertainment. In the real world, there are only two possible outcomes: wisdom, as quickly as possible. Or the dramatic explosion, maybe wars designed expressly for those millions of lonely, frustrated, angry, incomplete men... to vent off and decrease in numbers. Around 2020, according to estimations. That's like tomorrow.
Just when the oil shortage will seriously kick off, sparking the world economic recession, smack in the face of the wild growths of today's India and China. Oh, this is gonna be great fun for everybody...

There's precious little that can be done by force, although authorities have genuinely tried. The masses need to be educated. And, I have one wildly optimistic hope: perhaps this situation harbors its own solution within. The less women there are in those backwards societies, the more desired they'll be. And the more likely that their worth be finally acknowledged, their importance equal to that of man, and they'll finally be treated with dignity, and fairness. Offer and demand: everything that's rare becomes expensive, precious. If, already today, one often has to PAY to get a wife, pretty soon a dowry will no longer be expected on top of that rare treasure, and she'll be treated like a precious individual, not some cattle head to be locked away, beaten up and killed. Widows, divorced and older women will be deemed as still "weddable". Woman will inherit same as man, for there's no reason for it to be otherwise, and similarly SHE TOO will take care of her elderly parents who have no son. There are evolved countries where this has worked just fine for decades, and with rather good results.

I hope.

---------------------

LE MASSACRE DES INNOCENTES

"On veut pas de Natacha"? IMBÉCILE!

Les gens sont cons. Voici une vérité fondamentale de l'Univers enfin révélée. (Einstein lui-même l'avait prédit.)
Les gens primitifs n'aiment pas avoir des filles.

Pour les Arabes, la femme possède le quart de l'intelligence de l'homme, tradition islamique à l'appui. Un nombre conséquent de sunnites au Liban se convertissent au Chiisme. Parce que dans les deux cas, la fille hérite la moitié de la part d'un fils (même chez les chrétiens, ces crétins!)... mais au moins chez les chiites, en l'absence de fils, les filles héritent en priorité de leurs parents. Chez les sunnites, priorité revient toujours aux hommes, et un oncle peut laisser ses nièces sans frères dans le dénuement total. Ça s'est souvent vu. Alors les parents qui n'ont que des filles se convertissent pour les protéger d'une tradition trop con, au cas où. Les cheikhs chiites ne sont pas dupes, mais pas inhumains non plus, et changer d'Islam au Liban est simple comme une formalité administrative. Allah lit dans les cœurs et reconnaîtra les siens.

En Egypte, presque toutes les femmes sont excisées. C'est anti-islamique, mais vachement conforme à la tradition des mâles pithécanthropes. Le sexe de la femme est la propriété de l'homme, car le lieu où se situe son "honneur", terme élégant pour l'orgueil égotiste des sauvages au calvarium embrumé de smog. La femme copule si, quand et comme il convient à son barbu propriétaire, comme tout bétail dûment payé. Le maquignon, c'est d'abord le père, ensuite tous les hommes de la famille, et ensuite le mari. La virginité est propriété exclusive du phallus, et une femme, ça n'est pas censé jouir, alors on corrige la petite erreur qu'Allah a oublié de gommer dans le modèle de série. C'est déjà assez que cette dévergondée de femelle, par la sorcellerie diabolique de ses formes, de sa voix, de son regard, de sa chevelure et de ses hormones, rende fou de désir concupiscent tout homme pur qui a le malheur de les croiser sur son chemin vers le Paradis de l'Austérité (et ses 70 geishas vierges nymphomanes). Manquerait plus, en prime, que le sexe soit aussi agréable pour elles, ces viles tentatrices, prêteuses de pomme croquée, réceptacle maudit de la Tentation, amies du Serpent! Allez zou, coupe-coupe!

Pour faire mine d'égalitarisme, on circoncit les garçonnets à ras (décidément, quel gaspilleur de détails, ce distrait de Créateur!), depuis les anciens Juifs, et itou de façon presque systématique chez ces bons croyants d'Américains, afin que l'absence de prépuce rende le yôni féminin indispensable au plaisir du lingam de l'homme, qui ne peut plus compter sur sa main serviable pour commettre le péché suprême: manquer une occasion de croître et multiplier.

Premier massacre, et qui a le mérite (douteux) de ne pas chercher à se cacher: le "crime d'honneur". Crime suprême contre l'honneur du mâle, que la femme tente de disposer de ce qu'elle porte sans le posséder, cette partie de son corps achetée au prix fort. Une femme qui laisse vagabonder l'honneur de son cow-boy, on l'abat. Et dans beaucoup de pays d'Islam, y compris le Liban, la Loi dit que ce crime n'en est pas un, il y a acquitement, relaxe, non-lieu!
Au point que si, disons, le mari de ma cousine au second degré est amateur d'échangisme en couple, moi, membre de la famille, j'ai le droit de me considérer déshonoré dans l'honneur dont je suis co-propriétaire de droit divin, et si l'envie m'en prend je vais tout simplement égorger la receleuse impure, gagnant l'estime publique de tout le Phallocratistan. "ÇA, c'est un homme, unVRAI." ):-P

Ulema Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah
Pourtant... regardez bien le monsieur à barbe ci-dessus. C'est l’uléma Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah. C'est le maître spirituel du Hezbollah chiite, leur seconde référence religieuse sacrée après le Guide de la Révolution Iranienne, "troisième maître à bord après Dieu", sur le plan socio-religieux. Quand il parle, les chiites libanais l'écoutent très respectueusement, à rendre envieux le Pape Youssef Ben Seize. Eh bien, cet homme a promulgué en août 2007 une fatwa condamnant strictement les "crimes d'honneur" comme contraires à l'Islam. Une véritable révolution sociale, selon plusieurs anthropologues et sociologues. Sayyed Fadlallah, uléma, donc érudit faisant référence en matière de religion après l'avoir longuement étudiée dans le circuit officiel et agréé, est aussi notoirement connu comme un progressiste défenseur des droits des femmes. Il réforme le monde musulman de l'intérieur. C'est un islamiste, oui, absolument. C'est aussi un homme sage. Qu'on l'aime ou pas, il impose le respect. Des gens comme lui sont précieux pour le progrès du monde.
Comme quoi... le Hezbollah est bien moins primitif que Mister Bush (lui qui ne ment jamais, ha ha ha!) tente de nous en persuader vertueusement. Il n'est aucunement non plus le proche allié du sunnite Ben Laden, malgré l'anti-sionisme qui leur est commun. Et l'Iran, qui ne se limite pas au seul Mohammad Ahmadi Nejad (heureusement!), est beaucoup moins attardé socialement que l'Arabie Saoudite, mère patrie du Wahhabisme et des auteurs du 11 Septembre 2001, c'est un fait objectif.

Voyez tout là-haut: "la Connaissance, c'est le pouvoir". Les mensonges stupides de Bush and Co n'ont fait qu'affaiblir les Etats-unis, à diaboliser leurs adversaires quittes à affabuler effrontément. En fait, Saddam s'est avéré en rétrospective le meilleur stabilisateur d'un pays comme l'Irak, et vus d'aujourd'hui tous ses crimes étaient un moindre mal! Dominique de Villepin l'avait clairement dit, AVANT que la grosse sottise ne soit commise par les défenseurs Guantanamesques et Aboughraibistes des Droits de l'Homme. "Aujoud'hui on sait", yes. Mais avant, on pouvait déjà savoir. Par la Connaissance. Gnôthi seauton.

Autre crime plus sournois, et en temps de paix qui plus est: le génocide (le mot n'est pas exagéré) des filles et femmes en Inde et en Chine. En Inde, il y a cette damnée dot. En Chine, le fils s'occupe de ses vieux parents, alors que la fille sert à marier pour partir ailleurs. L'infanticide est banal depuis des siècles: si t'as une fille, et que ça te plaît pas, fais comme avec les chiots, un trou dans le sol et on n'en parle plus. Les filles sont beaucoup moins scolarisées, ce qui les condamne à végéter socialement. On les aime moins, donc on les nourrit moins bien, et en cas de maladie on les soigne moins bien, d'où une surmortalité marquée durant toute l'enfance: carrément le double de celle des garçons. Et depuis quelques années, la technologie moderne s'alliant magnifiquement à l'archaïsme sub-bestial, l'amniocentèse et l'échographie prénatale permettent de s'épargner même la "gêne" de mettre un enfant au monde si son sexe est indésirable, en avortant tout de suite. Voire, ô merveille de la science, on recourt à une fécondation artificielle pour éviter même de CONCEVOIR une fille, loués soient les esprits des ancêtres.

La Chine et l'Inde représentent environ 2 milliards d'habitants, le tiers de toute la planète. La moindre proportion de déséquilibre est automatiquement amplifiée en masse, et les proportions ici NE SONT PAS des moindres. Bilan: il "manque", pour parler pudiquement, déjà 190 millions de femmes en Asie. Trois fois la population de la France. Plus que toutes les femmes dans les USA. Massacre de masse, génocide sournois, extermination insensée, délire dément, barbarie banale...
Calcul fait, si au lieu du ratio normal de 105 femmes pour 100 hommes il y en a 93 (selon les recensements), IL MANQUE UNE FILLE SUR 8, qui n'est pas née ou n'a pas survécu. Ce n'est pas une supposition, mais un fait effroyablement réel. A la Fondation Mère Teresa, 9 enfants abandonnés sur 10 sont des filles. Ça empire à vue d'œil. Les ONG prévoient un déficit de filles double d'ici 20 ans. Une sur 4... Oy gevalt, les Nazis n'ont pas fait bien pire.

Ce sont bien évidemment les conséquences négatives, dans toute leur ignominie, qui se manifestent les premières. Il devient fréquent de voir une inversion de la polygamie: une jeune femme épouse d'un seul coup un homme et tous ses frères, créant un "harem à l'envers", polyandrie en termes techniques. (OK, j'avoue, on peut imaginer sort plus triste. ;-) Dans les campagnes pauvres, les jeunes filles (12-13 ans, ça fait l'affaire) sont souvent enlevées, puis vendues et "mariées" de force à des hommes lassés du célibat. Dans les pires cas, des bébés filles sont achetées; elles grandiront comme des bonnes à tout faire soumises (la seule différence avec une esclave, c'est que les deux ne sont pas payées!), puis une fois pubère elle fera une épouse optimalement docile pour le fils de la maisonnée.

Bilan: dans certains villages (les plus pauvres, évidemment), il manque un tiers, voire deux tiers des filles, et les garçons sont trois fois plus nombreux... quand ce n'est pas parfois le village entier qui est peuplé exclusivement de mâles!

Et pourtant... la tradition populaire chinoise elle-même le dit: "Il faut un garçon et une fille pour que la paire soit complète." Le féminin et le masculin, le yin et le yang, essentiels pour l'harmonie du Cosmos, dont l'union forme un tout équilibré. Les deux petits lapins ninja, tout en haut, c'est Yin et Yang, yo! Du dessin animé
Yin-Yang-Yo!
"Dans un monde de chaos et de désarroi,
Le frère et la sœur combattent pour l'espoir."
Ils sont jumeaux, apprennent les secrets du Wu-Fu, et c'est par leur union qu'ils deviennent invincibles.

Je crois que je ne pourrais pas expliquer les choses de manière plus simple que cela. Un enfant de 6 ans comprendrait. Et ce n'est pas un simple divertissement pour bébés. Il n'y a que deux issues possibles, dans le vrai monde: la sagesse, le plus vite possible. Ou l'explosion, le drame, peut-être des guerres faites exprès pour défouler et réduire en nombre ces millions d'hommes seuls, frustrés, en colère, incomplets... D'ici 2020, selon les estimations, autant dire d'ici demain.
Juste quand le pétrole commencera sérieusement à manquer, déclenchant la récession économique mondiale, en pleine figure des croissances insensées de l'Inde et de la Chine d'aujourd'hui. On va tous bien s'amuser...

On ne peut pas faire grand-chose par la force, bien que les autorités aient vraiment essayé. Il faut éduquer les masses. Et puis, j'ai un espoir, d'un optimisme insensé: peut-être que cette situation porte en elle-même sa solution. Moins il y aura de femmes dans ces sociétés attardées, plus elles seront désirées. Et plus il est probable qu'on se rende compte de leur valeur, de leur importance égale à l'homme, et qu'on les traite enfin dignement, équitablement. L'offre et la demande: tout ce qui est rare devient cher, précieux. Si, déjà aujourd'hui, il faut souvent PAYER pour avoir une épouse, on ne pourra bientôt plus exiger une dot en plus de ce rare trésor, et on la traitera comme un individu précieux, pas comme une bête de somme que l'on bat, enferme et tue. On envisagera les veuves, les divorcées et les plus âgées comme encore "épousables". La femme héritera comme l'homme, car il n'y a aucune raison sensée qu'il en soit autrement, et pareillement elle s'occupera ELLE AUSSI de ses parents âgés dépourvus de fils. Il y a des pays évolués où depuis des décennies ça marche ainsi, et plutôt bien.

J'espère.

12 comments:

Monsieur Beep said...

I always shudder when I see young girls from the middle east, considering what fate has in store for them.
I once witnessed this extremely cruel and barbaric manipulation on TV, it was so disgusting!!
I recently read that in the US almost all men (or at least half of them) are circumcised! This is just ridiculous! Unbelievable! What right do adult humans have to cripple the organs of their young fellow beings????
This sounds like the deepest and darkest middle ages.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

No thanks, I don't wish to watch this on TV. I've read detailed stories about it, and it's already more than enough! :-(

An educated muslim woman recently said (from the safety of the USA): "After all the suffering Jewish people have been through, culminating with the Shoah, not one single Jew became a terrorist, killing random innocents in random countries. The truth is, Jews are far more civilized than us muslims." She herself witnessed islamist terrorists barge into her college class and murder one of her teachers. Chanting "Allah is Great"...

It seems that some jews are bent on being as civilized as possible and constantly evolving:
"Jews against circumcision"
A more detailed page of the site.

I once saw a site about the medical risks of systematic religious circumcision. On one linked site, some jews proposed that all boys be left the choice to get curcumcised (or not to!) once they reach the age of 18 years.

This reminds me of the ongoing, religious-biased debate over abortion. "My body, my adult free choice, period."
Some fanatic US militants are no better than Talibans. "GOD says so, and *I* know what God DEMANDS."
What supremely sinful egotism!

I myself can just as easily claim: "The Omnipotent has no need for hired help. He takes cares of His own sinners, *when* and *if* He bloddy feels like it. God personally told me so." ):-P

When two masses of morons slaughter each other with alacrity, both in the name of God, it's a safe bet both sides are cons.
Even better, let's say it in French: Les deux camps sont des cons!

Monsieur Beep said...

"The Omnipotent has no need for hired help. He takes cares of His own sinners, *when* and *if* He bloddy feels like it.[...]"
That's exactly what I've been thinking all the time.
Thanks for the bilingual concept of your blog, my french is a bit worn out (what's the french word for beep?)
:-)

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

En français on dirait "bip". :-)

Many of my friends speak either french or english, but not both. Since I don't like to discriminate between my friends, I do the extra effort so that all can enjoy.

Of course, it's extra useful for those who speak both! Vous êtes le bienvenu, Mister Bip.
["Le Mystère du Bip", film at eleven.]

The title of this article is russian, from the small bits I know. It's a private joke based on an old song from Belgian artist Annie Cordy. A song about a russian family unhappy that they've had a girl... until they realize that girl's got some darn genuine character! Then they sing:
"Da! Da! Da!
Et vive Natacha!
Nous autres on est contents
D'avoir une fille comme ça!"

aos said...

I share your outrage at this situation but one small point. Male circumcision has absolutely no bearing on the ability to masturbate.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

Actually, AoS, it depends. Complete removal of the foreskin, without making masturbation impossible of course, is the source of several technical difficulties, which are precisely the underlying intention, whether conscious or not, behind non-medical indications. At the very least, you'll need lube, or it'll hurt.
From my experience and to my knowledge, such "complete" circumcisions are the vast majority.

There's only one sensible reason for circumcision, and that is phimosis (abnormal stricture), which anyway seldom requires more than a partial removal of the tightened zone.

My belief is, EVERY non-essential body modification should be postponed until the person involved is at the age of giving free and mature consent, 16 at the very least. And a truly modern religion should follow those principles.

(I remember that Simpsons episode, where Bart and sisters are placed in the foster home of the Flanders, and Homer intervenes in the nick of time to stop Ned from baptizing his children.)

Systematic circumcision has no objective justification, and several things speaking against it, starting with medical complications. Especially that most of the times, still in today's world, they are still performed artisanally.

Also, some studies made possible only recently by the breaking of taboos have shown that both men and women have more sexual pleasure in the absence of circumcision. "God knew what He was doing in the design"...

Very similarly, it has been established that the appendix and the gall bladder have some very useful roles, even though you can lead a quasi-normal life without them. You can also live without a spleen, or with one kidney, or without a clitoris... and not notice much until you start to need them.

People who will readily take decisions about someone else's body deeply scare me. It's like something invisible but essential is missing from THEM.

I'm curious, how did you find my blog? I don't remember us meeting before. Anyway, I like the way you think and speak. Benvenudos in mi cyber-casa, amigo.

aos said...

I found your blog through a referral on CafePhilos

aos said...

Your request for my name wiped out my original response. Why would my name be an issue?

What I originally wrote, and I hope it goes through this time, is that unless circumcision in your country is radically different than in North America, you have been misled about its effects.

There has been a great deal of discussion about its effects in North America, with some claiming a loss of sensation but none among the millions have ever claimed difficulties masturbating or achieving pleasure.

I myself was circumcized. My parents,like many of their generation, thought it was the healthier choice, and as someone who works in health, I can tell you that the latest studies seem to indicate a swing back in that direction. But I have never had problems masturbating, nor heard of any (until now)and cannot imagine it being easier than it already is.

I know that the operation seems horrible, but for most of us who had it, its a non issue.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

CafePhilos, eh? I'm flattered to be remembered after just one comment there. :-)

Of course your name isn't the least bit an issue. I'm just not used to being known outside my humble circle of friends, that's all. :-) Ah, the wonders of the cyber-communications age...

I don't exactly know how things are generally done in the USA (quite probably with great variety, it's a huge and diverse country), but from some articles I've read written by Americans, some people have definite issues with it. Not ALWAYS, thankfully! If you're perfectly fine with it, I'm glad for you.

I don't exactly meant to contradict you. Please let me get more specific.

The presence of a sliding foreskin is quite convenient for self-pleasuring with the hand, because it's like a physiological sheath, instead of skin directly rubbing against skin. Especially skin of THE most sensitive part of the body, against the second roughest part. It's even more sensitive when not changed by constant exposure after a circumcision. (In technical terms, it undergoes metaplasia from malpighian epithelium to keratinized epiderm.)

I know it's easier said than done, but out of curiosity you might want to chat with uncut men, and with some who for some reason (like foreskin trauma after a zipper accident) underwent circumcision AFTER living their teen years with an original and normal anatomy ("normal" meaning I exclude a phimosis). I hear that they seldom find the difference positive. But it's very hard to know by oneself if you've practically known nothing else.

Plus, many women who have compared the two confide that they prefer it when the foreskin's still present in their partners, according to several sites managed by women, for women. Increases their coital sensations. But women are unlikely to disappoint their lovers by being overly frank face to face.
It's all in the details, of course. I'll never compare it to castration or clitoridectomy! I'd say that for the man there remains perhaps 80% of the original sensitivity and sensations.

A rule of thumb that I learned is that any unjustified procedure is better to be avoided at all. All operations may have side-effects. And, when circumcision's done in the ritual islamo-jewish way, the foreskin is forcibly retracted at the age of just seven days in order to be completely removed, which is a VERY premature moment. It is not supposed to be fully retractable from the first go, and uncovering of the glans must be done progressively over time (weeks to months, always gently), or there can be lesions of the mucosa from forcibly separating the natural adherence. Some men retain permanent scars from that. Others have had strictures of the meatus after being cut a little too close by the sheikh/rabbi's scissors. It's all documented. The frequency of the side-effects still largely exceeds any supposed benefits reported till now.

I'm an MD and came close to specializing in Urology, so I can speak from knowledge. Only a doctor can see past the individual cases, which may greatly vary. (Otherwise phrased: I fully believe you, but your personal experience isn't necessarily average nor universal.) Many smokers DON'T die from lung cancer, either. And then there's the unlucky ones.
[Note to self: do a subject on how smokers actually die. I've seen quite enough of them.]

I'm afraid the socio-cultural context in North America today isn't in favor of a neutral and objective debate yet. Moral and religious influences, conscious or unconscious, may bring bias to any nationwide study on matters of sexuality. Most US doctors today are themselves from the generation(s) that was near-systematically circumcised, so they may lack the ability for distanciation. Can you imagine an israeli MD doing a study that doubts the biological risks of eating pork meat, or a Saudi doc considering that alcohol in moderation is harmless? Not only would they face the very real and dangerous wrath of religious extremists, and the reactions of their families, but they'd have to put aside all their received education. This also I know from extensive experience.

I'll grant you without a moment's hesitation that, most of the times, the consequences of circumcision are so mild they may go unnoticed. My comparison with appendicectomy or cholecystectomy was very carefully chosen!
I'll just say this: it's fundamentally wrong to take such a decision for a child, any time there's no risk in postponing until they decide freely and maturely. No matter whether the reason is religious, social ("he'll feel weird being different from the others"), or some "medical" trend of the moment.
Of course, in my part of the world, any community practicing perinatal circumcision will tell you that postponing the tradition for 18 years brings the great risk of displeasing God. I've heard a similar argument in a documentary on excision in Egypt (more than 99% of women!): one lady stated that "the clitoris is ugly anyway, who needs it?". She was never in any position to experience what it's useful for, the poor woman!

If there is indeed any health issue involved with the foreskin, it can only originate from our contemporary way of life. Natural selection methodically did away with any trait detrimental to the species. There's only one known reason, to my very documented professional knowledge, that may justify a health issue: if a guy is so unkempt that he doesn't wash there. But surgery as an alternative to basic hygiene?...

In Africa, circumcision is now being promoted, because it decreases by an impressive 65% the risk for a man to catch Aids from a woman. Too many guys there won't simply use a condom! And to women, the risk remains the same. It is perhaps even increased: in these parts, the uneducated majority will be tempted to think themselves completely immune, and will go even more reckless. The solution might end up worsening the problem, which is SOCIAL in origin.

In countries where it is done, female excision is shamelessly called "the feminine circumcision". Although it is far more mutilating, the term itself is very revealing of a common mentality surrounding both operations. Both of them are initially a secular, arbitrary and archaic tradition. Which, for American boys, was perpetuated by the conservative religious society of the last century, returning to the jewish-like ways of the Bible. "Traditions" should always be rethought at every generation, or the world won't evolve.

"Do what thou wish shall be the whole of the law." Individual freedom. Some young fools today get their tongue split. It's ALSO mostly harmless, except for some prononciation peculiarities. But if some parents did this to their child, I'd call the police on them.

P-04 Referent quotes Oscar Wilde (a known homosexual), who once said: "Do not do unto others what you would like for yourself. Because you may not have the same preferences!"

As a rational believer, my position could be summed up like this: "If God's design ain't broken, don't fix it."
And no matter how obliging you feel, for God's sake DON'T fix OTHERS before they request it.

Confession time: I'm a little touchy on such issues. For years, others forcibly tried to bigotly fix me. No, not my willy. Worse perhaps: my soul. I very ungratefully and wickedly resisted well-intended attempts to make me "a perfect young man and citizen". Even worse, to this day I'm still proud of my stubborn self!

You hear me, world? Leave the children be.

lessertruth said...

I have been circumcized at 8-10 years age (don't remember exactly) and actually remember having been questioned about the thing, and thinking that it was a good thing (as i had a bigger cousin who had had phimosis) but right now in my life i feel betrayed. Having only recently discovered that the foreskin is extremely sensitive it led me to rethink myself and my life completely, and not in a good way...

I think i can explain the masturbation issue. I do masturbate, oftenly. But i almost never touch my glans during masturbation. And it has grown into a very much "fastfood" experience. Buy it, eat it, be done. Now sometimes, very rarely, i'll take my time and use the seminal fluid or a condom and actively stimulate the glans, which leads to a whole different (and more intense) sensation.

Therefore, although it does not prevent me from masturbation, it certainly makes me do it in another way. (Which i feel is less creative, sadly, but this is my personal experience).

Anyway, P-04, i think the Café Philos post is already worth two new readers to you.

Pascal [P-04referent] said...

Two new readers... and counting! :-)
I'll have to remember to go thank CaféPhilos.

And thank you, Lessertruth, for bringing a far better testimony and explanation than I ever could have. (Your screen name is WAY too modest, man!) As the Lebanese proverb says: "Ask he who tried, not the Doctor/he who studied."

Being the opposite case myself, I can confirn that masturbation can last just about as long as I feel like making it last. More than half an hour on leisury occasions, and eventually "rinse and repeat" immediately afterwards. I really wouldn't want my anatomy to be changed. It's like with quality chocolate: I can munch it, or I can let it slowly melt to enjoy all the nuances of the taste. (Hmm... perhaps I'd better leave this metaphor for applying to my girlfriend, once I have a girlfriend. Certainly planning on doing unto her what I'd like for myself.)
:-)

Even a phimosis seldom justifies a COMPLETE circumcision, only the stricture zone really needs to be removed. The rest is purely overzealous.

I remember, the day I discovered how exquisitely sensitive the forskin itself can be, practically an erogenous zone of its own, and being glad I never was circumcised. A very light contact, like a tickling, can bring unique sensations, which I believe to be similar to imperceptibly caressing the border of a woman's labia minora.

Incidentally, it is possible (and it's being done more and more today) to have a foreskin restoration procedure, a sort of "un-circumcision", by stretching the skin at the extremety of the penis. The same technique, albeit more complicated, is used when a person's toe is grafted to replace a lost finger, and needs to become markedly longer to fuction properly. I don't think it makes you identical to an intact man (in the literal meaning: in-tact, "that was never touched"), with the glans mucosa reverting to the way it was (I'm not sure of the contrary, either), but if you feel the need to do it, even a strictly psychological need, by all means go for it. As femonists would say, YOUR body, YOUR sexuality, YOUR choice and bloody well nobody's else.

I consider myself to be a male feminist. Equal rights are sacred.
Nobody has ever asked the children how they felt about it, nobody ever really cared. Even today, in the majority of the world, insensitive people take the most extreme decisions about children without asking them: enlisting them as soldiers, having sex with them when their psychology doesn't have any sexual drive or understanding yet, modifying their bodies by circumcision, excision or infibulation (if you're curious about the latter and have a strong stomach, look it up on Wikipedia)...

Studies have proven that a baby as young as six months can fully distinguish between nice and mean people by observation, and prefer interacting with the former. At 12-18 months, a human baby (and even a chimpanzee baby) will spontaneously show solidarity and compassion towards strangers who are sad or in need. At three months, our offspring can make out the structures of language, start learning it themselves, and quite likely understand at least the simplest parts of what adults say.
Basically, science has confirmed what common sense had already told me long ago, what I had already realized when I myself was nothing but a small kid: Don't, EVER, under-estimate the ability of a child to understand. Even a newborn has far more sense and smarts than you might think.
If you are cruel, selfish, or simply unwittingly insensitive because you're good at lying to yourself, a child will still understand, and see right through you. Children are just remarkably good at adapting, and forgiving out of love. Or refusal to focus on the unpleasant, which means they also possess great natural wisdom.

I make absolutely no distinction of principle between human rights of an adult and a child. The ONLY difference is, a child needs guidance to become a fully bloomed, balanced and discerning adult (or a reasonable approximation), you can't just give them voting rights in kindergarten.
I'm not even sure all ADULTS have enough sense to deserve voting rights!

The duty of the world, and all who are part of it, you, me, them, is to love and respect. To support, help and educate. And then to leave freedom to those who have become ready for it, who have achieved the full growth of their innate discernment.

This is my creed, my own self-made religion. See this maxim, up at the top of the main page? That's entirely my own. Analphabetism, illiteracy and deprivation of education are crimes just as genocide. Crimes against the human spirit. The right to live means the right to an absolutely full and complete life.

It is WE who belong to the children. Like the Present belongs to the Future.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Number of viewings of this page since December 22nd, 2007:
Nombre total de visites à cette page depuis le 22 décembre 2007:

Free Web Counter
Free Counter