/lit/ - Literature

>POV: you just suggested to an american that he could refrain from paying a doctor to mutilate the genitals of his infant son in a semitic ritualistic blood sacrifice
My favorite thing about whenever circumcision comes up, and it is correctly pointed out that it is a completely deranged practice, is that some american cunt of a woman just cannot help herself from participating and saying that she prefers the visual aesthetic of a circumcized dick.

I absolutely, genuinely love that, because of all the implications of thinking this preference has to be mentioned as a weighty argument - it betrays such a profoundly aristocratic spirit, to say it without even a shred of irony or self-awareness, that you think the other sex should be subjected to routine and non-consensual plastic surgery because of your preferences. It is the kind of master morality that would make nazi eugenicists blush. I can't really decide for myself whether I think the obliviousness of how deranged it is makes it better or worse. On some level, I think not even registering how deranged it is makes it even more based, like it is so natural that the world should conform to your most minor, inconsequential and frivolous desires, that you are not even able to see a problem with amputating body parts off of infants to make it so.

However, it can be cringe, because it is a particularly glaring example of all the little cracks and dissonances that occur in trying to pretend like we are egalitarian and aren't sexist. A man suggesting routine labioplasty to infant girls to remove beef curtains, because of his preference, would be publicly executed. A woman doing the same is seen as making a worthwhile contribution to a discussion. The cringy aspect occurs when people correctly identify the aristocratic impulse of the women, but then women for some reason feel like they have to pretend like the two things are different. That produces and endless array of cope and cringe.

That is my favorite thing about circumcision debates. My least favorite, by far, are the men who subjugate themselves to the women's desires, as these men perceive them. This is an entire family of pro-mutilation arguments, but one of the worst ones is that a circumcized dick lasts longer before orgasm because of less sensation, and that this is better for the woman's pleasure.
Mutilating the dick of your son because you (falsely) believe that it will increase women's sexual pleasure is a level of extreme bizarre BDSM femdom that a professional dominatrix would reject as being neither safe, sane nor, in the case of an infant being mutilated, consensual. But men will present it as an argument. Deranged, just absolutely deranged.

I fully get that most of the deranged stuff coming from the pro-mutilation camp is because they weren't given a choice and have to cope. But I think it is interesting to dissect (heh) nonetheless, both for its own sake, and also so that the cycle of abuse might be broken.