I think one of the things that we far too often overlook in this country is that fact that genital mutilation of newborn boys is common practice, if not standard. Why isn't there more of a cry against this? Do the benefits of circumcision (if any, and I don't see any valid argument that there are any) outweigh the cost and mutilation of a boy?

Of course circumcision isn't the only genital mutilation in the world, but it's the only type in practice in the United States. Female genital mutilation is just as barbaric, if not more so. Americans, and Europeans in general, ban female genital mutilation of babies, but why the hypocrisy in not doing the same for males?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 2321

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I didn't think circumcision is generally performed so that women will like the look of it, how often is that what the parents are thinking?

Every other aspect of circumcision is bad, so having girls slightly more willing to give you a gobbie if cut has to be seen as a minor perk if nothing else. It would be different if the procedure was driven by female whim, but I don't think it is.
Agatka Radwańska said this: I must be alone in my views over here but I am totally pro-circumcision. Simply because I've slept with both cut and uncut men. It looks soooo much better...

I'm not saying that circumcision is motivated by female whim, but statements like that are completely selfish and inconsiderate, and completely intolerable. I'm glad that she is not my mother. We need to be pushing so that more women in the Middle East ARE NOT mutilated by chauvinist sadistic men, and remember that we need to reconsider the mutilation still going on in the west.
"I'm not saying that circumcision is motivated by female whim, but statements like that are completely selfish and inconsiderate, and completely intolerable."

I suspect that women generally suffer more pain due to male expectations than do circumcised males. Waxing hair, walking around in high heels, and all the rest of the things we expect our women to do are no more justified but they do it, and many of them are quite willing to do it because it is socially acceptable.
We do it cuz we've no choice in the matter, socially speaking. It's do it or die single and poor. ;p

Those women who say they're 'glad' to do it are just as brainwashed by patriarchal values as religious people are of religious values.

The main difference is we mutilate boys before they're old enough to cuss us out or have personalities and opinions of their own. Whereas many female mutilations are done later in life and require the girl to be brainwashed to accept it.

A baby's crying cuz of circumcision has no more sadness effect on a doctor than the operator of a slaughter house when killing livestock. All in a day's work.

If the baby could talk, he'd say FUCKING STAY AWAY FROM MY DICK!

And now, as ever, it is good to challenge social custom and religious tradition. At least that is necessary for the few of us who actually have some regard for truth and freedom.

This is especially true regarding our attitudes about sexuality and our treatment of women.

I doubt that origin of circumcision lies in women enjoying the sight... I also wouldn't circumcise my infant sons have I had any just because I like the way it looks. If the father wanted this and there were more credible medical studies concluding the benefits outweight the risks I'd seriously think about it although I'd rather have my children decide for themselves. So we kind of agree on this one.
How I feel about it as a woman enjoying the benefits (my long-term boyfriend is circumcised) is probably not how I'd feel if I was a man. I'd probably be all "leave my penis alone" .
As to FGM... please don't get me started...
Dear Rigbyt,
Please next time read my posts before forming such opinions. Also thank you for wishing me so well, you are such a lovely and tolerant person. Oh, also please read my name before you type it or try copy&paste, it's very helpful indeed.
Male circumcision began as a Bronze age blood ritual. Circumcision got popular in America around 1900 as an antimasturbation measure due to pseudo-science nonsense coming from sex-hating nuts like John Harvey Kellog. It was claimed that masturbation caused insanity, blindness, etc. You name it. It actually doesn't even reduce masturbation becuase it just mutilates the penis. It does nothing to reduce the male sex drive. Masturbation is now known to be a healthy, normal activity by most everyone except the sex-hating nuts of the Abrahamic religions. And the idea of parents mutilating their children's bodies to control their sex lives is disgusting by most modern Americans, so new reasons have been created to justify circumcision through the decades. Anyway all of the masturbation hysteria was known to be BS by scientists by the 1920s, but circumcision had already caught on in hospitals. It is the most common surgery done in the US. It is profitable for doctors, and that is one big reason why this sacrilege still persists. It is a $500 million per year industry. Male circumcision removes alot more tissue than female circumcision, enough tissue to cover a 3 by 5 notecard by maturity. The highly sensitive frenulum, the rigid band, and thousands of feet of highly sensitive nerves, and other complex structures are cut away forever in male circumcision. The foreskin is not just some little insignificant bit of skin. Circumcised females can still have orgasms too by the way. Circumcision male or female is equally horrible and both should be illegal. 1 in 500 male circumcisions has complications: skin bridges, excessive skin removal, gangrene, damage to glans, heavy bleeding, uneven scarring, and occassionally even death. It is an irreparable mutilation done without consent. It violates the hippocratic oath. It is usually very painful and traumatic for the baby boy to endure, a totally needless trauma. The foreskin protects the glans as the eyelid protects the eye. For day to day comfort the foreskin protects the glans from chaffing against clothing, drying out, coldness, and becoming desensitized. The mechanics of intercourse are entirely changed for the worse without the foreskin for both male and female. Go to sexasnatureintendedit.com to find out all about this. One fact is that intact men don't need lubrication. Their foreskins have a gliding action of the foreskin over their glans that affords nearly frictionless sex. Orgasm is easily achieved by intact men. Their refractory period between orgasms is less than circumcised men. 85% of the world does not circumcise. America is the only country besides South Korea that does circumcises for mostly non-religious reasons. Americans need to understand that circumcision is a peculiar, unique, and stupid American practise that needs to stop. Some intact men have foreskin problems like phimosis, but ususally this can be overcome without circumcision. Should breasts be amputated because they may get cancer? A mutilated man's glans do stay a bit cleaner, but this tiny benefit is so exaggerated. Is it worth it to have your sexual pleasure and abilty drastically reduced to save 5 seconds in the shower? Is it worth it to have your sex life end many years earlier to be a little cleaner!? When the procircumcision nuts like Harvey spoke of hygeine, they meant moral hygeine. The hygeine thing is largely based on a language misunderstaning anyway. Circumcised men are less likely to use a condom, so they are more likely to get an STDs. Circumcision is no protection against STDs. Millions of circumcized American men managed to get HIV. Didn't they? Go to Intact America's website to joiin the fight to end infant circumcision. I believe the wretched practise of circumcision will end in the US within a generation. Guys who have been circumcised should begin restoring because it takes a long time and the younger the starting age the better. Many sources claim a restored foreskin is 80% as good as the real thing. One last point. If an adult (over 18) of either sex wants to get circumcised, fine; but all children female and MALE have a right to not have any of their genitalia cut, amputated or attacked in anyway by scalpels, knives, scissors, Gompco clamps etc. without their goddamned consent.
Regardless of which side you on, I find it more disheartening the level of some in this discussion are portraying the other side of the opinion. Mutilation? Seriously?

I dare say its just as bad as the dogmatic defense of Christian teachings in this country.

I contend that yes that it should be a personal choice, made by a consenting adult, however calling it barbaric mutilation just weakens your cause overall, and honestly makes you no different than those who practice this based on religious reasons.

I'm circumsized, and even though I had no choice in the matter, I'm quite happy that I am this way.

Besides there much worse things going on in this world, caused by religious beliefs other than people having their male children circumsized.

People getting their hands cut off for petty crimes, people being threatened to death, or even killed over their sexual preferences, Whole ethnic groups persecuted because of religious beliefs, I could go on and on.
Cultures practicing female circumcision also refuse to call it mutilation. It all depends on which side of the fence you are.

You're happy with yours cuz it's all you know, it's normal, it's self preservation to accept yourself and this is good. But you simply don't know what you're missing. And that's fine. There are more and more men going the restoration route.

Any ablation of an organ done without a person's consent is mutilation.

And yes, there are a couple of worse things, but it does not excuse this one.
For you to compare female circumcision to male circumcision as equal travesties, just makes you seem just as out of touch as the those who practice it in my eyes.

Both might be done for whacky religious reasons, but only one serves to punish that gender for being that particular gender, the other I might add is done for perceived hygenic reasons.

And just as you say those whom are circumcised, are "missing out", you can very well say the same for those whom are not, are "missing out" as well, but painting these things black and white only serves make the debate that much more moronic.

I also find it more telling that there are millions of men who parents have "mutilated" them at childbirth, and yet for whatever reason they're not complaining.

But most of all I find it most disconcerting that there are more egregious things done in the name of religion, yet some people fanatically focus a small piece of skin.

Regardless, It seems to me the most logical position is that to leave it as a personal choice, and yet somehow I don't see certain advocates being able to be satisfied with that answer.
You're wading into territory covered very thoroughly earlier in this discussion. FGMs that are illegal now for 94% of the wolrd cover a wide range, from a "pin prick" to basically "murder." Both FGM and MGM are done by force and coercion, both kill hundreds per year and maim thousands in unanticipated ways, and both alter a person's sexual experience. If done without consent or medical neccessity, both are mutilations and violations of human rights which must be opposed. Ask Soraye Mire or Ayaan Hirsi-Ali. Both are FGM victims and authors who say male and female genital cutting are both atrocities.


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service