Hostility - another perspective from some who would enforce circumcision
Find a Conversation
|Sat, 05-28-2011 - 11:48pm|
"The indecent interest in male genitals displayed ...... can be seen even in medical literature. One doctor was quoted as saying: `[C]ircumcision is a beautification comparable to rhinoplasty, and a circumcised penis appears in its flaccid state as an erect uncircumcised organ - a beautiful instrument of precise intent.' Two other medical writers said: `While the foreskin of an uncircumcised penis can be retracted, the circumcised penis exists in exposed beauty whether flaccid or erect. In 1942, a prominent New Zealand doctor commented that some itinerant nurses `appear to collect foreskins with the same enthusiasm as the Red Indians did scalps.' because of the way they persuaded parents to get their boys circumcised by the doctors."
Did or does such 'indecent interest' exist in American medical circles today? If so, is it born of an undefined but distinct hostility to the very existence of a foreskin? Does it in some way match the 'raiding parties' who seek out and forcefully circumcise men and boys across the world today?
Is, perhaps, the USA's willing assistance given to some African nations, following the notorious 'studies' of HIV and intact male adults, driven by an inherent hostility towards the uncircumcised penis?