-R- Cornflake Girl Interp. ??
OpenTheDor
soooo. cornflake girl.
who wants to take a crack at analyzing this song? i've been thinking a lot
about it lately. and i know it's not all that timely or anything, what with the
NEW album coming out and stuff. but i think it's a really interesting song that
a lot of us Think we know what it's about.. or we know part of it but don't
really know the references. I mean i know i've been told what it's about but i
don't really understand how everything ties in.
the reason i'm thinking about this is that this morning in my psychology class
we were talking about male and female circumsision. and my teacher was talking
about how apparently circumsision was started in this country to stop
masturbation (which was thought of at one point to cause everything from
headaches to foot problems) . apparently it was thought that if boys didn't
have to lift up the foreskin on their penises they wouldn't get aroused which
would lead to masturbation. and stuff. and she talked about this man named
Kellogg, who invented cornflakes (as a cure for masturbation!) and also wrote a
book called "masturbation and self abuse". anyways, since cornflake girl is
supposedly about female circumsision and that whole Posessing the Secret of Joy
thing where the mother and sister just watched as the girl was "circumsized"
(which is a bit of a euphamism, no?) so anyways. do you think this cornflakes
guy who was such a strong advocate of circumsision has anything to do with the
title of the song? and if not, what is the significance of CORNFLAKE in the
title? and WHAT does "peel out the watchword" refer to? does anyone have any
ideas?
I'm really NOT knowledgable on any of this, or on anything in general really.
so if i come off as stupid it's probably because i am.
-dor
PeacePoet2
I am such an idiot. I thought Cornflake Girl was about fitting in with the
crowd and not fitting in.
Owch.
Peace,
Manda Choutka
Peace...@AOL.com
"Never was a cornflake girl, thought that was a good solution, hanging with the
raisin girls"-Tori Amos
RAM8081
peace...@aol.com wrote:
<<I am such an idiot. I thought Cornflake Girl was about fitting in with the
crowd and not fitting in.>>
part of the theme is.
"There's the Cornflake Girls and the Raisin Girls, and they represent two
different ways of thinking: narrow-mindedness and open-mindness. It's about the
disillusionment that comes from the realization that someone has gone from one
way of thinking to another. It's also about this idea that women are the good
guys and men the bad guys, which just isn't true all the time."
and there's another part...
"It's been - again, it's the victims become the abusers, it's that whole -
which is explored in Waitress, too, where I become the one who wants to slice
this person's head off. But the thing is, it's been, it's so disappointing for
me when I feel betrayed by another woman. So Cornflake Girl is that
disappointment. 'This is not really happening, you bet your life it is. Never
was a cornflake girl, thought that was a good solution.' Cornflake being white
bread, closed. 'Hanging with the raisin girls,' you know, whole wheat,
multicultural, open, a little more going on. 'She's gone to the other side,
giving us a yo heave ho. Things are getting kind of gross.' I think that's
clear. 'And I go at sleepytime, this is not really happening. You bet your life
it is.'
The second verse, it just supports the whole thing. 'Rabbit, where'd you put
the keys, girl?' Rabbit, in certain Indian traditions, it represents fear.
'Rabbit, where'd you put the keys, girl? And the man with the golden gun thinks
he knows so much.' Well, those are my God references again. 'All the sweateaze
are gone, gone to the other side, with my encyclopedia. They musta paid her a
nice price. She's putting on her string bean love.' Anorexic. They just put it
on. If you go to their side and take up their case, then you're a strong,
independent woman. Well, you know, I'm tired of strong, independent woman
equals. And there's a list. Instead of - well, hang on a minute, the most
interesting word here is vulnerability, that's getting left out, because it's
associated with weakness. You don't dress a certain way to be a strong
independent woman. It's fascist, and it's the same - they're no different.
They're the other extreme. I don't feel a part of any kind of sisterhood."
K: Who's Rabbit in that song? Tori: Rabbit is a Deadhead, who lives in
Northern California. Rabbit is a girl. She lives in the forest, and makes
beads, and she lives with Fox...I wished I could have been Rabbit! K: Tell me
about the "man with the golden gun." Is he a wolf? Tori: No. Never. He is
dreams. He was never a contender, nor did he ever want to be. He is someone
who you know; he is just someone who..
all gotten from http://members.aol.com/Weirdyboi/Toriphoria.html
all tori quotes.
-christ.
~~
i am NOT the kind of woman that takes things sitting down - tori amos
if i get scared, i'll just call you - radiohead
MOST PEOPLE KEEP THEIR BRAINS BETWEEN THEIR LEGS - moz
~~
emptyc...@juno.com
In article <199804281915...@ladder03.news.aol.com>#1/1,
opent...@aol.com (OpenTheDor) wrote:
> soooo. cornflake girl.
> who wants to take a crack at analyzing this song? i've been thinking a lot
> about it lately.
> the reason i'm thinking about this is that this morning in my psychology
>class we were talking about male and female circumsision.
genital mutilation, which is practiced in some african cultures (and
possibly others as well, but the african practices are the most well-
known) in which the clitoris is cut off and the vagina is sewn shut,
to be opened only by the woman's husband. this is basically stripping
a woman of her sexuality and taking away the possibility of sexual
pleasure in the form of clitoral stimulation. her husband owns her
and her sex. sex is not something for women to enjoy, it is only
for men, which we can see in our own culture to an extent, although
in more figurative, psychological forms rather than physical ones:
woman is the giver of pleasure and man is the taker (there's a rilly
good book called "transforming a rape culture" that discusses this).
everyone knows that cornflake girl was inspired by alice walker's
"possessing the secret joy" which is about genital mutilation and
the way mothers force their daughters to do this - betrayal of the
matriarchy. we all also know about the raisin girls (the good,
open minded ones) and the cornflake girls (the self centered ones
that will betray you). i'm not going to pretend i know what every
line of the song means specifically but here are some of my guesses:
"never was a cornflake girl thought that was a good solution hanging
with the raisin girls" - trying to be one of the good ones, not the
evil, back stabbing girls. immunity by association.
"she's gone to the other side" - betrayal, switching sides.
"things are getting kind of gross" - disgust
"this is not rilly happening you bet yr life it is" - disbelief that
this can happen, that you can be betrayed by the women you trust, even
your own mother, whether that be in something as extreme as genital
mutilation or just yr best friend stealing yr boyfriend. you lose so
much trust, cause it's like, if i can't trust my sister, my mother, my
best girl friend, who the hell can i trust?
"she knows what's going on" - knowing and not stopping it
"musta paid her a nice price" - bride price; men basically buy a girl's
virginity to marry her and a girl who's had sex before she's married
isn't worth as much. the husband buys her from her father. in the
victorian era in europe and as far back as anciet civilization a man
would often rape a woman to not have to pay the bride price cause
once she had been penetrated she was "useless" to her father since he
could no longer sell her for a high price as her virginity was gone. the
woman would be forced to marry her rapist.
"stringbean love" - i read this in a poem, although i can't remember by
who - possibly alice walker, bell hooks, adrienne rich, but i don't know.
"the man with the golden gun thinks he knows so much" - the gun as a
phallic symbol, thinking he has the power because he's male and he is
the patriarchy. he thinks he can hurt women with his power and his
"male weapon" of sorts, but there's a whole other world that he doesn't
know about, the one that happens in the women's bathroom, the matriarchal
realm that can cut so much deeper than betrayal by any man.
but i might also be completely wrong...
helena
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Kim Jester
PeacePoet2 <peace...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804290035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I am such an idiot. I thought Cornflake Girl was about fitting in with
the
> crowd and not fitting in.
>
> Owch.
> Peace,
> Manda Choutka
> Peace...@AOL.com
> "Never was a cornflake girl, thought that was a good solution, hanging
with the
> raisin girls"-Tori Amos
>
In a book by Liz Evans called: Women, Sex, and Rock and Roll: In their Own
Words
they interview tori, and she says this about cornflake girl:
"Cornflake Girl deals with it (female energy) too. There's a book by Alice
Walker called "Possessing the Secret of Joy", and it's about mothers taking
their daughters to the butcher to have their genitalia removed. That's
what the song is about too. It's like cutting a penis off. Now if we
lined all the boys up and cut their penises of, I don't think it would be
lunch as usual! I think they'd have something to say about it, and yet the
mothers are the ones that take the daughters to do this! Obviously the
whole society is involved, but when is a generation of women going to rise
up, not to fight, not to war, but to honour themselves and each other?"
the girl in the book (the book is somewhat of the third in a sequence
starting with
"The Color Purple"), is in her 20's and she returns to africa to have
herself circumcised because even though she has been living in either UK or
US for a while,
she feels like an outcast and abnormal.
well, hope that helps
ttyl,
kim
k...@usl.edu
Anita L Ashbaugh
I took a course this semester called "History of Women in Europe" the
time period involved was from the French Revolution up through the
twentieth century. Thus the Victorian Era was covered. There was nothing
about raping a girl to avoid paying the father. Women were not saleable
property. Arranged marriages--yes, shot-gun weddings--yes (sometimes), a
financial transaction--not like you're talking about. This doesn't sound
like anything I've encountered in any European history class I've taken in
any time period from the fall of Rome to the present. There's dowries,
but the bride has that & in off and on over the centuries all over Europe
what the woman brought to the marriage in her dowry was hers should
something happen (widowed for instance) she got it back. The ultimate
purpose of a dowry is to make a female an atteactive prospect formarriage
(& thus taking her off her family's hands. She is suported by the family
she marries into then). I do know of a practice among the lower classes
of Victorian society (I'm talking specifically of England)in which a man &
a woman would often shack up for aperiod of time to determine, before going
thro' the effort of marrying, whether the woman was capable of getting
pregnant (for at this time it was still held that it was the woman's
fault if she couldn't get pregnant). Increasing the population has been
the desired result of marriage for most of recorded history. Were a
couple to marry and discover that they couldn't produce children, there's
not much they could do. Divorce during this era was obtained by
submitting a private act through Parliament (again, I am speaking of
England) this was time-comsuming & probably expensive and futile anyway.
There was a large percentage of the marrying female population who were
pregnant. A lot of this was due to the above practice & also shot-gun
weddings & rapes. But the latter were probably less common. anyway, the
whole point of virginity from time immemorial was that if you marry a
virgin then you *know* she's not carrying around someone else's kid which
causes problems with inheritance. Widows were not virgins & yet nearly
all widows remarried.
emptyc...@juno.com wrote:
: in the
: victorian era in europe and as far back as anciet civilization a man
: would often rape a woman to not have to pay the bride price cause
: once she had been penetrated she was "useless" to her father since he
: could no longer sell her for a high price as her virginity was gone. the
: woman would be forced to marry her rapist.
: and my teacher was
emptyc...@juno.com
In article <6i93js$anh$4...@news.alaska.edu>#1/1,
fs...@aurora.alaska.edu (Anita L Ashbaugh) wrote:
> submitting a private act through Parliament (again, I am speaking of
> England) this was time-comsuming & probably expensive and futile anyway.
> There was a large percentage of the marrying female population who were
> pregnant. A lot of this was due to the above practice & also shot-gun
> weddings & rapes. But the latter were probably less common. anyway, the
> whole point of virginity from time immemorial was that if you marry a
> virgin then you *know* she's not carrying around someone else's kid which
> causes problems with inheritance. Widows were not virgins & yet nearly
> all widows remarried.
i'm getting my information from books like "transforming a rape culture"
and "against her will" which are books specifically about rape, so it
does not deal with general marital practices, but that i'm talking about
did happen very frequently, not only in england, but in other countries
as well. it was even more common in ancient civilizations, in some of
which a woman was punished/stoned/killed if she was raped within the
city limits because, they reasoned, if she was "really" raped someone
would have heard her screams for help....it's rilly sick. the victorian
era and gothic literature especially romanticize rape, refering to it
as "ravishing" a woman - kidnapping her and forcing sex on her, which
eventually led to her falling in love with the man and marrying him.
helena
Aimee Lortskell
emptyc...@juno.com wrote:
> the thing is that there is no female circumcision - there is only
> genital mutilation, which is practiced in some african cultures (and
> possibly others as well, but the african practices are the most well-
> known) in which the clitoris is cut off and the vagina is sewn shut,
> to be opened only by the woman's husband. this is basically stripping
> a woman of her sexuality and taking away the possibility of sexual
> pleasure in the form of clitoral stimulation.
keep in mind that male circumcision as practiced in the US is also
genital mutilation - in either case circumcision is just a nice term to
euphemise the procedure. it may not be AS cruel and desensitizing as that
practiced on females in africa, but it IS cruel and desensitizing. if i
ever have a son, i sure won't be having bits of his genitalia peeled off
any more than i'd let someone do that to a daughter of mine.
Aimee the Magdalene
* losing your faith is a lot like losing your virginity; *
* you don't realize how irritating it was 'til it's gone *
* - AEL (me) *
KathrynJD
Aimee the magdalene wrote:
> if i
>ever have a son, i sure won't be having bits of his genitalia peeled off
>any more than i'd let someone do that to a daughter of mine.
Well, male circumcision drastically reduces the risk of penile cancer.
So there is a benifit (albeit miniscule--penile cancer is fairly rare) to male
circumcision.
--Katy
Aimee Lortskell
i'd hardly call that a benefit when balanced with the extreme trauma
for the infant and the life-long reduced sensitivity. it's ridiculous,
actually. and we all know that circumcision didn't become routine in the
US because of concern over penile cancer. it was a pathetic attempt
(like cornflakes and graham crackers, although those are less damaging,
obviously ;) ) to prevent masturbation by making it less pleasurable. we
all know that doesn't work, and even if it did that would be a damn bad
reason for slicing off a chunk of someone's penis. it would be one thing
if it was a grown man deciding to have the procedure done, but this is
done to infants with no say in the matter of their own genitalia.
Aimee the Magdalene
@ new around here? get the newbie pack before i have a chance to tell @
@ you to fuck off. send mail to rmta-...@oak.webville.com, and it @
@ will be sent to you. all will be revealed. @
ran...@hotmail.com
In article <199805030637...@ladder03.news.aol.com>#1/1,
kath...@aol.com (KathrynJD) wrote:
>
> Aimee the magdalene wrote:
>
> > if i
> >ever have a son, i sure won't be having bits of his genitalia peeled off
> >any more than i'd let someone do that to a daughter of mine.
>
> Well, male circumcision drastically reduces the risk of penile cancer.
> So there is a benifit (albeit miniscule--penile cancer is fairly rare) to
> male circumcision.
Loathe as I am to get into this topic, I must point out that each year a few
baby boys actually die as a result of the "benefit" of circumcision (although
this too is fairly rare)
David
C & J Alicea
Being that I have a circumcised son, I feel that I made the right
choice. He was give a local, my dad went with (he's a doctor) to make
sure everything went okay, and my son is healthy, loving, and wonderful
today - even though he had something snipped off. For me the choice was
easy. At the same time generally, my husbands cousin was having to be
circumcised at the age of three due to chronic bladder infections that
were becoming life threatening since he was building a tolerance to the
antibiotics (traditional and intravenous). Not only was he in pain (and
he was knocked out all the way for this), but he was hospitalized for a
week to prevent tearing/infection. That did traumatize him. My uncle
has seen plenty of similar case, sometimes imvolving children that are
older who have to deal with even more fears since thay have become aware
of the sensitivity of their bodies. While, I understand that the
comparisons, I also know there are REAL risks with leaving things as is.
My husband's little cousin nearly died.
Joann
Aimee Lortskell wrote:
>
> KathrynJD <kath...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Aimee the magdalene wrote:
> > > if i
> > >ever have a son, i sure won't be having bits of his genitalia peeled off
> > >any more than i'd let someone do that to a daughter of mine.
> > Well, male circumcision drastically reduces the risk of penile cancer.
> > So there is a benifit (albeit miniscule--penile cancer is fairly rare) to male
> > circumcision.
>
Chris
On 4 May 98 04:45:55 GMT, Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
>i'd hardly call that a benefit when balanced with the extreme trauma
>for the infant and the life-long reduced sensitivity. it's ridiculous,
>actually. and we all know that circumcision didn't become routine in the
>US because of concern over penile cancer. it was a pathetic attempt
>(like cornflakes and graham crackers, although those are less damaging,
>obviously ;) ) to prevent masturbation by making it less pleasurable. we
>all know that doesn't work, and even if it did that would be a damn bad
>reason for slicing off a chunk of someone's penis. it would be one thing
>if it was a grown man deciding to have the procedure done, but this is
>done to infants with no say in the matter of their own genitalia.
Actually, you're wrong. And it wasn't penile cancer either. What
caused it was that several people weren't nearly as cleanly as they
are now, and this lack of cleanliness resulted in a lot of infections,
increased cases of sickness, etc. during earlier time periods. The
idea didn't involve anything to do with masturbation, it involved the
fact that people didn't bathe but maybe once a week, and had urine
trapped in the folds, which can cause numerous problems.
Today, with modern cleanliness, it's not nearly a problem, but at that
point in time, it was a serious concern.
CR
Puma
Aimee Lortskell wrote:
- SNIP -
> keep in mind that male circumcision as practiced in the US is also
> genital mutilation - in either case circumcision is just a nice term to
> euphemise the procedure. it may not be AS cruel and desensitizing as that
> practiced on females in africa, but it IS cruel and desensitizing. if i
> ever have a son, i sure won't be having bits of his genitalia peeled off
> any more than i'd let someone do that to a daughter of mine.
>
> Aimee the Magdalene
- SNIP -
I am amazed by how much circumcision is discussed in the group. I did
a Deja News search and got 535 hits. I was last/first involved in
the topic about a year ago, it seemed longer than that. Well, I found
this interesting.....a blast from the past:
----- Begin Quote -----
Subject: Re: Significance of sexual abuse
From: aimee@*********** (Aimee Lortskell)
Date: 1995/11/02
Message-ID: <************>
Newsgroups: rec.music.tori-amos
[More Headers]
[Subscribe to rec.music.tori-amos]
Robert Johnson (rlwj...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU) wrote:
: On 29 Oct 1995, Aimee Lortskell wrote:
[snip]
: > yes, i always leave foreskins intact. i think male circumcision is
just
: > as cruel as female genital mutilation. it's nasty and completely
: > unnecessary. besides, foreskins are fun toys.
: Really? I thought the first one I saw was kind of icky.
and we've already established that you're a very naive young man.
: > i'm pretty sure that's how it works, too. we're certainly hygeinic
: > enough now that circing is unnecessary to avoid infections (guys,
tell me
: > you'd mind spending a few extra seconds washing mr. winky), and it
: > actually causes more problems if it's botched. and circing is
really
: > easy to botch. you don't even wanna know the nasty things that can
: > result from that....
: I wanna know! I wanna know! So, what are some of the nasty things
that
: result from circ botching?
ok. for one thing, it's not always clear how much is snippable. there
is no set line, and it's up to the discretion of the snipper. if too
much is snipped it may not even cause immediate problems and will go
undetected until the child has grown. usually in those cases the
problem
manifests itself when the kid reaches puberty and starts having
excruciatingly painful erections. it takes surgery and sometimes skin
grafts to correct this, which is painful and for an adolescent not great
for self-esteem. this later surgery as well as the initial botching can
leave nasty scars on the penis. try explaining THAT to your new sexual
partner. sex is a touchy subject in any case, and this just makes it
worse.
even for those who have no real physical problems from being circed, it
does reduce the sensitivity of the penis, which is just a shitty thing
to
have happen, i'd say. i didn't realize the extent of the differences
until recently, when this old whore had to learn some new tricks and
techniques with uncirced penises. it's entirely different. i was
shocked, and that's saying a lot for a whore. in conclusion, i think
male circumcision is cruel and unnecessary. i would certainly never let
it be done to my sons any more than i would have my daughters mutilated
in a similar way.
Aimee the Whore
--
--------------------------------------
| whores are great...we like whores! |
| - Tori Amos |
--------------------------------------
----- End Quote -----
It is deja vu all over again. ;-)
--
(For email, replace .moc with .com)
Puma
|\=/|
/6 6\
=\_Y_/=
^
Michelle Haines
On 2 May 1998, Aimee Lortskell wrote:
> keep in mind that male circumcision as practiced in the US is also
> genital mutilation - in either case circumcision is just a nice term to
> euphemise the procedure. it may not be AS cruel and desensitizing as that
> practiced on females in africa, but it IS cruel and desensitizing. if i
> ever have a son, i sure won't be having bits of his genitalia peeled off
> any more than i'd let someone do that to a daughter of mine.
Oh man, here we go again. :)
Michelle
Flutist
Michelle Haines
On 3 May 1998, KathrynJD wrote:
> Well, male circumcision drastically reduces the risk of penile cancer.
> So there is a benifit (albeit miniscule--penile cancer is fairly rare) to male
> circumcision.
Oh man, why am I getting invovled in this discussion again????
What the hell. Actually, no it doesn't. A fairly recent study n the
Netherlands noticed a significant reduction in penile cancer along with
the rise of -- *fanfare* indoor bathrooms. At least, I think it was the
Netherlands, I'd have to do a fucking websearch to find it again, or hell,
just go to DejaNews and to a Power Search in rmta with the keyword of
"circumcision". You can see this entire flipping discussion played out in
excurtiating detail there. Twice.
Michelle
Flutist
Angela Reid
Michelle Haines (mha...@netherworld.com) wrote:
:)
I propose a circumcision season. Perhaps it's a kind of RMTA El Nino.
Shows up once in a while; saturates everything; goes away.
But I'm pretty sure that the most recent studies show that circumcision
reduces the risk (without checking my notes--I have this one on file
somewhere--I believe that there have been no cases of penile cancer in
circumcised men in the US in blahblah[1] years, where there are 1000
a year in the uncircumcised population), but that in the uncircumcised
population proper hygiene also reduces the risk. Thus, the Nederlands
study makes sense.
Last I checked, the odds of penile cancer in the US were something like
0.3 to 1 in 100,000. It will be interesting to see if these odds are
changed as fewer people opt to circumcise their sons.
Angela, who isn't sure why she used the words "something like" when she
really means "precisely like." She remembers that one clearly. :)
[1] Blahblah--a number larger than 1 and fewer than 100.
Aimee Lortskell
Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
> On 4 May 98 04:45:55 GMT, Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
> > it was a pathetic attempt
> >(like cornflakes and graham crackers, although those are less damaging,
> >obviously ;) ) to prevent masturbation by making it less pleasurable.
no, i'm not. so there! :P"
> And it wasn't penile cancer either. What
> caused it was that several people weren't nearly as cleanly as they
> are now, and this lack of cleanliness resulted in a lot of infections,
> increased cases of sickness, etc. during earlier time periods.
then why is it that it became routine just as we were becoming MORE
hygeinic as a society? people began bathing more often and more
carefully right around the same time. certainly circumcision was
considered to be more hygeinic, but that was a misconception. if
anything, hygeine quickly improved to the point where circumcision was even
less useful in that area. i seriously doubt that infections were on the
rise as people were becoming more hygeinic.
> The
> idea didn't involve anything to do with masturbation, it involved the
> fact that people didn't bathe but maybe once a week, and had urine
> trapped in the folds, which can cause numerous problems.
actually, paranoia about masturbation was pretty central. doctors in the
US initially recommended the procedure for adolescents who masturbated,
on the basis that masturbation leads to both mental and physical
illnesses. which we now know it doesn't. but all sorts of lengths were
gone to on this issue, you should check out pictures of penis rings that
were used to prevent nocturnal emissions, which were considered just as
harmful. those rings had *spikes* on the inside to deter erections, and
some would even deliver an electric shock to the penis. circumcision was
used as a similar treatment, using pain to subdue and frighten all the
poor little penii before junior started growing hair on his palms.
hygeine didn't become the main excuse until later.
oh, and michelle, i believe the study on penile cancer rates you're
thinking of was denmark, not the netherlands.
Aimee the Magdalene
& and when they say, 'take of his body' &
& i think i'll take from mine instead &
& - Tori Amos &
& once i could see...now i am blind &
& - Trent Reznor &
Chris
On 7 May 98 04:53:44 GMT, Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
>then why is it that it became routine just as we were becoming MORE
>hygeinic as a society? people began bathing more often and more
>carefully right around the same time. certainly circumcision was
>considered to be more hygeinic, but that was a misconception. if
>anything, hygeine quickly improved to the point where circumcision was even
>less useful in that area. i seriously doubt that infections were on the
>rise as people were becoming more hygeinic.
It didn't. Circumscision goes back to biblical times, Aimee.
>actually, paranoia about masturbation was pretty central. doctors in the
>US initially recommended the procedure for adolescents who masturbated,
>on the basis that masturbation leads to both mental and physical
>illnesses. which we now know it doesn't. but all sorts of lengths were
>gone to on this issue, you should check out pictures of penis rings that
>were used to prevent nocturnal emissions, which were considered just as
>harmful. those rings had *spikes* on the inside to deter erections, and
>some would even deliver an electric shock to the penis. circumcision was
>used as a similar treatment, using pain to subdue and frighten all the
>poor little penii before junior started growing hair on his palms.
>hygeine didn't become the main excuse until later.
Uh huh. Ok, it may have been used as well for this point, but as far
as initial concern, you can find references of circumcision that date
back into the BC, Aimee. You're asking why has it grown in this era?
You're wrong there as well, because more people are choosing _not_ to
circumscise their children, whereas the thought of not circumscicing a
child in the 1800's would have made people think you were a dolt and
wanted your kids to die :)
No issue is as simple as "it was THIS" and I'm sure that your issues
played a factor, but as far as why it was so quickly adopted, in so
many places, to occur at youth, you'll find that a lot of it was based
on problems that were had with infections/etc. in societies where such
things were common, which is why circumcision dates back so damn far.
CR
Aimee Lortskell
Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
> On 7 May 98 04:53:44 GMT, Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
> >i seriously doubt that infections were on the
> >rise as people were becoming more hygeinic.
> It didn't. Circumscision goes back to biblical times, Aimee.
chris, i'm talking about how it became routine *in the US*, not its entire
human history. i do know circing has a very long history. furrfu!
> >actually, paranoia about masturbation was pretty central. doctors in the
> >US initially recommended the procedure for adolescents who masturbated,
> >on the basis that masturbation leads to both mental and physical
> >illnesses.
[snip]
> >hygeine didn't become the main excuse until later.
> Uh huh. Ok, it may have been used as well for this point, but as far
> as initial concern, you can find references of circumcision that date
> back into the BC, Aimee. You're asking why has it grown in this era?
> You're wrong there as well, because more people are choosing _not_ to
> circumscise their children, whereas the thought of not circumscicing a
> child in the 1800's would have made people think you were a dolt and
> wanted your kids to die :)
actually, it was fairly uncommon in the 19th century, at least as
performed on infants in the US. it did begin gaining momentum during
victorian times, but didn't become a routine procedure on infants until
around WWII. as mentioned before, during victorian times it was used as
a measure to prevent *adolescents* from masturbating. hygeine was at
best a secondary concern. have you done actual research on this?
and yes, more people are now choosing not to circumcise: as early as the
70's there was clear evidence that circing doesn't really have medical
benefits, at least as such a routine procedure. in certain specific (and
rare) cases, circumcision may be the right option. but it certainly
should not be an automatic procedure.
> No issue is as simple as "it was THIS" and I'm sure that your issues
> played a factor, but as far as why it was so quickly adopted, in so
> many places, to occur at youth, you'll find that a lot of it was based
> on problems that were had with infections/etc. in societies where such
> things were common, which is why circumcision dates back so damn far.
societies plural? AFAIK circing has only become so routine in the US in
modern times. as for earlier civilizations, i doubt hygeine was much of
a concern there either, as people didn't really understand about germs,
etc. likely it was more of a rite of adulthood, as both male and female
circumcisions in africa are. the isrealites did circ infants (as
religious jews still do), but as a religious ritual. do you have some
evidence that they were consciously considering hygeine and infections?
Chris
On 7 May 98 20:14:51 GMT, Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
>Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
>> On 7 May 98 04:53:44 GMT, Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
>> >i seriously doubt that infections were on the
>> >rise as people were becoming more hygeinic.
>> It didn't. Circumscision goes back to biblical times, Aimee.
>
>chris, i'm talking about how it became routine *in the US*, not its entire
>human history. i do know circing has a very long history. furrfu!
Ok, that just wasn't clear ;)
>actually, it was fairly uncommon in the 19th century, at least as
>performed on infants in the US. it did begin gaining momentum during
>victorian times, but didn't become a routine procedure on infants until
>around WWII. as mentioned before, during victorian times it was used as
>a measure to prevent *adolescents* from masturbating. hygeine was at
>best a secondary concern. have you done actual research on this?
Actually, we did a fair bit in History of Religion 1 &2, and history
of death and dying.. there were a lot more "scolding" reasons why
circumscision was practiced then masterbation :) You're just not
hitting them ;)
>and yes, more people are now choosing not to circumcise: as early as the
>70's there was clear evidence that circing doesn't really have medical
>benefits, at least as such a routine procedure. in certain specific (and
>rare) cases, circumcision may be the right option. but it certainly
>should not be an automatic procedure.
It's a decided practice, too be sure.
>societies plural? AFAIK circing has only become so routine in the US in
>modern times. as for earlier civilizations, i doubt hygeine was much of
>a concern there either, as people didn't really understand about germs,
>etc. likely it was more of a rite of adulthood, as both male and female
>circumcisions in africa are. the isrealites did circ infants (as
>religious jews still do), but as a religious ritual. do you have some
>evidence that they were consciously considering hygeine and infections?
Yep. I can point back to texts relating to the fact that the Incas
practiced a much more severe form of circumsicion as part of religious
practice, or that it became common during stints in the black plague
and had wide acceptance then; or that it had very strong religious
practices in judiasm (as eastern orthodox religious) going back to
biblical times. Some of it was rooted in medicine, some in religious
practice, some in just thought, but it spread wide and far, and the
purpose of medical benefits was employed as widely in the 1800's (when
it started going here) as did masterbation at that time period.
There are several books on the oklahoma run, etc. that talk (briefly)
about factors like these.
It's just one of those goofy things. After taking 6 years of history,
you come across some oddities.. then again, i went out of my way to
take: history of death and dying, history of religion, history of
baseball, history of witchcraft and the occult and history of the 60s.
Odd history courses are nothing more then trivia material, but they
were fun to take (and some of my best grades)
CR
Not a Pretty Girl
As I lay dying, Aimee Lortskell (ai...@rmta.org) whispered:
: Chris <tms...@removerlrnews.com> wrote:
: the isrealites did circ infants (as
: religious jews still do), but as a religious ritual. do you have some
: evidence that they were consciously considering hygeine and infections?
Well, a lot of these religious rituals were started as health
concerns. Most of the weird parts of the Bible seem to be
ancient health manuals like kosher food preparation, the
avoidance of pork (and trichinosis), and all the millions of
things that make you impure and force you to be exiled for a
period of time. I'd guess that circumcision at least started
more along those lines, though it's difficult to figure out
exactly how a society decides to cut random flaps of skin off
of people.
Kelloggly,
Hyoun
--
\_____________ "...if you allow yourself to feel \_a___________
\_____________ the way you really feel, maybe you \___m__s______
\_____________ won't be afraid of that feeling \_____a_______
\_____________ anymore." \____i__t_____
\www.mosey.com tori amos \_________e___
\_____________ \_____________
hyoun park '99E hjp...@amherst.edu http://www.amherst.edu/~hjpark
Ken Tough
Not a Pretty Girl <hjp...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
>I'd guess that circumcision at least started
> more along those lines, though it's difficult to figure out
> exactly how a society decides to cut random flaps of skin off
> of people.
More likely it started because of its intimacy as an
initiation rite. What could show more dedication to the
cause then having some of your privies chopped off. No
matter why it started, in most societies that have circ.,
it's carried on as a desire "to be normal". Even in Africa
where female circ takes place, the mothers do it FOR their
children (i.e. for their sakes, as the mother's thinking goes),
in order that the child can be normal and accepted in society.
They don't do it TO their children. In NAmerica, most
people did it in a striving for NORMALity, same as they
-don't- do it in Scandanavian countries.
Nowadays, many people are more critical of the reasons
why they do it, and I'm sure there are many parents who,
like Angela, thought hard and examined all aspects before
making their choice. But I'd guess that the majority
still do it because "that's the way it's done in our
family", and they don't want the kid to be "not normal".
Humans are a conservative lot, and don't like going out
on a limb, even if it means chopping that appendage off.
[or whatever].
Also, it means parents won't have to get into the sticky
(to many) situation of teaching their boys genital care.
Face it, most parents will just skirt the issue of sex ed
and genitalia, and if it's one less thing to worry about,
and will avoid them "embarrassment" later, then tick
the yes box instead of the no. If they had to do the
cutting, I'm sure decisions would be different.
--
Ken Tough
Cornwall, U.K. Home of the Choirgirl Hotel
Aimee Lortskell
Ken Tough <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
> Not a Pretty Girl <hjp...@unix.amherst.edu> wrote:
> >I'd guess that circumcision at least started
> > more along those lines, though it's difficult to figure out
> > exactly how a society decides to cut random flaps of skin off
> > of people.
> More likely it started because of its intimacy as an
> initiation rite. What could show more dedication to the
> cause then having some of your privies chopped off.
the specific reason given in judaism is that gawd demanded the procedure
be performed on male infant at the age of 8 days to symbolize the
covenant with abraham. according to the mythology, it is a sort of
dedication.
however, the real social patterns in how it began is more interesting to
me. we know the religious reasons, but who *really* came up with this weird
shit and why? hyoun mentions that many of the dietary laws in judaism
*seem* to be based on concern for health. it's the "seem" that really
isn't good enough.
[snip]
> Also, it means parents won't have to get into the sticky
> (to many) situation of teaching their boys genital care.
> Face it, most parents will just skirt the issue of sex ed
> and genitalia, and if it's one less thing to worry about,
> and will avoid them "embarrassment" later, then tick
> the yes box instead of the no. If they had to do the
> cutting, I'm sure decisions would be different.
now THAT would be a decision! so, are british parents upfront about
teaching genital care? i know i personally wouldn't have any problem
discussing sex or genitalia with any evil offspring of mine. and it
seems like a bad idea to mutilate children just because a parent was
mutilated. i'm not planning on beating my children just because i was
beaten, so why carve up my boy's winky just because his dad's got snipped?
Aimee the Magdalene
/ can't stop this wonderful girl, this woman now /
/ this mother in us /
/ can't stop where we come from /
/ and i held you close when you hurt me once /
/ - tori amos /
Ken Tough
Aimee Lortskell <ai...@rmta.org> wrote:
>Ken Tough <k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>however, the real social patterns in how it began is more interesting to
>me. we know the religious reasons, but who *really* came up with this weird
>shit and why?
What I was getting at is that we can forget the religious
"reasons" because those are just rationales for doing it.
The australian Aborigines, and javanese or whoever also do
it to the boys when they hit puberty, but I wouldn't use
religion as a reason there, more "tradition". The only
reason I can see is that it take major balls to have it done.
What's the most "personal" thing you can put on the
chopping block?
>it's the "seem" that really isn't good enough.
Yeah, I have nothing to add. Except that in a "darwinian"
way, sometimes behaviours come about that have desired
results, without the intention for doing them. Reminds
me of a link between the timing for jewish bris (is it
eight days after birth?) and some chinese medicine that
requires urine from a child < 7 days old, and the fact
that there's some major switch in the infant at exactly
that point, between fetal hemoglobin and "human" hemoglobin
[or something along those lines. hey, it's been 10 years]
>If they had to do the
>> cutting, I'm sure decisions would be different.
>now THAT would be a decision! so, are british parents upfront about
>teaching genital care?
In my experience, yes, British parents are more open
about sexual issues, nudity, that sort of stuff. (IME).
Comparing exposure to nudity/sex in the media, NAmericans
look very prudish.
>and it
>seems like a bad idea to mutilate children just because a parent was
>mutilated. i'm not planning on beating my children just because i was
>beaten, so why carve up my boy's winky just because his dad's got snipped?
That makes sense to me, too.
Michelle Haines
On 8 May 1998, Aimee Lortskell wrote:
> however, the real social patterns in how it began is more interesting to
> me. we know the religious reasons, but who *really* came up with this weird
> shit and why? hyoun mentions that many of the dietary laws in judaism
> *seem* to be based on concern for health. it's the "seem" that really
> isn't good enough.
One explanation I've seen is nationalistic. The Hebrew people started out
a bunch of goat-herdering tribes wandering around in a rather harsh desert
environment. Now, if you get into a war with another nation/tribe and get
captured, without some identifying mark you can lie aobut who you belong
to, and possibly be spared them turning you into chop suey. However, if
you can easily be searched and have it proven you're a liar, you're going
to work a lot harder not to get captured, or give up because you're tired
of this war crap, right? :)
Michelle
Flutist
Michelle Haines
On Fri, 8 May 1998, Ken Tough wrote:
> Nowadays, many people are more critical of the reasons
> why they do it, and I'm sure there are many parents who,
> like Angela, thought hard and examined all aspects before
> making their choice. But I'd guess that the majority
Um, Angela did do a lot of research before making whatever her choice was,
but you might recall she declined to tell us what exactly what that choice
ended up being, as she decided it was Garrett's business to share with the
world the state of his genitals, not her's. :)
Michelle
Flutist
Michelle Haines
On 9 May 1998, Angela Reid wrote:
> Maybe we should make it a convention event. CHANGE GARRETT'S DIAPERS AND
> FIND OUT!!! :)
*laugh* Are you bringing GArrett? We're leaving our munchkin at home
with her grandparents this time, I think -- unless the next munchkin
decides to make a surprise appearance, of course. We need a little
vacation to ourselves, and at nearly two, ToriCon may just not be the best
place for her.
But I'm certainly not adverse to a little diaper changing if it's
necessary. unless it's the type that requires gas masks or he pees on me.
:)
Michelle
Flutist
Angela Reid
Michelle Haines (mha...@netherworld.com) wrote:
: Um, Angela did do a lot of research before making whatever her choice was,
: but you might recall she declined to tell us what exactly what that choice
: ended up being, as she decided it was Garrett's business to share with the
: world the state of his genitals, not her's. :)
Maybe we should make it a convention event. CHANGE GARRETT'S DIAPERS AND
FIND OUT!!! :)
Angela
Angela Reid
Michelle Haines (mha...@netherworld.com) wrote:
: On 9 May 1998, Angela Reid wrote:
: > Maybe we should make it a convention event. CHANGE GARRETT'S DIAPERS AND
: > FIND OUT!!! :)
: *laugh* Are you bringing GArrett? We're leaving our munchkin at home
: with her grandparents this time, I think -- unless the next munchkin
: decides to make a surprise appearance, of course. We need a little
: vacation to ourselves, and at nearly two, ToriCon may just not be the best
: place for her.
I can see that, although it'd be nice to meet her. :( Bring pictures.
:) We do plan to bring Garrett, if we manage to make it. As close as it
is to us, you'll all hear my bellowing if it doesn't work out. ("Is that
a maddened bull I hear?" "No, I think that's....")
Angela
Michelle Haines
Well, if we DO end up moving NEXT year's gone to the Pacific Northwest
area, ToriCon people likely will get to meet our kid's again, since my
father and grandmother live in that area and we'll likely take the
oppournity then to visit them as well as the Con.
I've really been waffling about taking her to this year's Con, but I would
like to be a little more involved in some of the activities than her sleep
and nap schedule allowed us to be last year.
Michelle
Flutist
Ken Tough
Michelle Haines <mha...@netherworld.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 8 May 1998, Ken Tough wrote:
>> Nowadays, many people are more critical of the reasons
>> why they do it, and I'm sure there are many parents who,
>> like Angela, thought hard and examined all aspects before
>> making their choice.
>Um, Angela did do a lot of research before making whatever her choice was,
>but you might recall she declined to tell us what exactly what that choice
>ended up being, as she decided it was Garrett's business to share with the
>world the state of his genitals, not her's. :)
And I didn't make any conjecture as to what the result
of Angela's decision might have been, did I?
I said only that there are probably many parents who think long
and hard about the circumcision issue. But most probably don't.
Michael the Polar Bear
On Sun, 10 May 1998 19:46:59 -0600, right after April showed me her
teeth, Michelle Haines <mha...@netherworld.com> started talking
about:
>
>Well, if we DO end up moving NEXT year's gone to the Pacific Northwest
>area, ToriCon people likely will get to meet our kid's again, since my
>father and grandmother live in that area and we'll likely take the
>oppournity then to visit them as well as the Con.
Well, as long as we're not in danger of tripping over them, or
watching them chew on electrical cords again. ;)
>I've really been waffling about taking her to this year's Con, but I would
>like to be a little more involved in some of the activities than her sleep
>and nap schedule allowed us to be last year.
Well, maybe you could have close friends agree to take care of
her while you're gone. Maybe one of you could stay home. Hell, just
think of some alternatives.
Higs, and a barley soup smae, Michael.
(who doesn't think the Con is any place for a baby)
---
Michael Scheetz, Jr. O- 45.31N 122.40W mtpbatrmtadotorg
Minister of Unfair Vacation Distribution & Comptroller of Sick Days
'I go from day to day, I know where the cupboards are, I know
where the car is parked, I know he isn't you.' - Tori
Michelle Haines
On Mon, 11 May 1998, Michael the Polar Bear wrote:
> Well, maybe you could have close friends agree to take care of
> her while you're gone. Maybe one of you could stay home. Hell, just
> think of some alternatives.
*points back to the rest of the thread* Read a few follow-ups before
this, you might discover the statement that she's likely staying with her
grandparents.
Michelle
Flutist
fastrada
Michelle Haines wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 May 1998, Ken Tough wrote:
>
> > Nowadays, many people are more critical of the reasons
> > why they do it, and I'm sure there are many parents who,
> > like Angela, thought hard and examined all aspects before
>
> but you might recall she declined to tell us what exactly what that choice
> ended up being, as she decided it was Garrett's business to share with the
> world the state of his genitals, not her's. :)
>
not to mention garrett doing a deja news search many years from now and
discovering a bunch of strangers have been speculating on his genitalia.
:o
--
fastrada
*remove the *spam* to reply*
****************** hysterical brides-'r'-us ********************
* when you gonna love you as much as i do--tori amos * fucking with
brides is even more dangerous than fucking with faeries -- aimee
lortskell * let the world turn without me tonight--jcs * think about the
sun --pippin * do YOU feel violated by the internet??