orgasms are bad but mutilation isn't?
The argument goes something like this: it is wrong to subject children to information about sexuality or to engage them in sexual activity, yet it is perfectly acceptable to take an infant male and mutilate his penis.
It was Queen Elizabeth that first presented the idea that there should be an age at which children should be kept from sexual activity. The reasoning had little to do with ideas of protecting the child from harm and nothing whatsoever to do with morality. The law was set forth to protect a fathers property so that he could obtain a good price when he sold his daughter into marriage. Thus the age of consent was set at ten, since girls were often sold into marriage when they reached the age of eleven.
Nevertheless, those who "stole" a girls virginity before that age were said to be guilty of "consent rape". Thus, under the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the idea of consent and sexual violations were combined for the first time in history.
A recent episode of the Showtime Original Series WEEDS, Shane, played by Alexander Gould, has just entered puberty. His uncle decides to take him to a prostitute/masseuse where he is given a hand job. The next day, Shane is bragging to his classroom buddies about it when he is overheard by his teacher. The uncle intercepts the phone call and goes to speak to the teacher about what the teacher refers to as "abuse". A single act in which the child has such delight, but must be termed "abuse" because it involved behaviour that Christians condemn!
That is but one example of how the thought has ingrained itself in our collective consciousness. Pleasurable experiences must be relegated to adulthood, but pain is good for everybody. So, if a child under the sacred age of eighteen is incapable of giving "informed consent" to a sexual act in which he or she has fun and finds pleasure, then how can an infant merely a few days or weeks out of the womb possibly give informed consent to having a chunk of their penis cut off?
From Aquinas on, Christian philosophers have stated the matter most emphatically. The body is a prison for the soul, and any pleasure that is found in this life is punishment for the bound soul. Therefore it is immoral to gain or provide pleasure, and the body must be persecuted for the sake of the soul. Only ghosts are allowed to be happy.
Therefore, it is considered almost a moral duty to mutilate your infant son, to beat your children into submission, and to prevent others from providing any alternative. The use of the government legislation, and providing terminology that reflects negative connotations, it is easy to persuade the masses to follow such paradigms. Words like "molestation" and "abuse" have proven to be extremely effective. However, a "circumcision" doesn't sound bad, and nobody seems to think much of it at all.
Try "infant genital mutilation". Let's call it what it is.
I am become death, destroyer of worlds