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?

Views: 3602

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

To compare female genital mutilation to the circumcision of newborn boys is horrible, in my opinion. It's a COMPLETELY different issue, with *so* many more aspects involved.

That said, I do not fully support the circumcision of newborn boys, mainly because they do not have a say in the matter. Yes, scientific studies have shown that circumsized men are less likely to catch STDs and such, so there are certain health benefits to circumcision. However, I think it should be the man's choice when he is old enough to decide for himself whether or not he wants the operation.
How is it any different? It's pretty offensive to say that women have a little bit more right to their complete genitalia than men. Of course the female mutilation is also grounded in misogyny-so that women will be faithful to their husbands. Some cultures even sew up the vagina after they mutilate the clitoris. This is disgusting and repulsive and it needs to stop.

But we ALL equally deserve to be born without being mutilated, and without our permission. It's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
You sound personally motivated in this discussion. Are you circumcised?
I am circumcised. I don't feel necessarily inadequate: my member works just fine thankfully. But no one had the right to cut part of it off in the first place.

But even if I wasn't, I'd still feel it is immoral.

I'll admit though, it's not the most glaring human rights violation in the world. I feel much more strongly against genocide and religious terrorism.

So what you're saying is that the right to bodily autonomy isn't important. Sorry, the right to bodily autonomy is very important.

He said immoral, how on earth do you interpret that as meaning unimportant???

It's not to say that males' genitals don't matter as much as women's--it's just that the degree of mutilation is different. Female genital mutilation is cutting a part of the clitoris off, and/or cutting the labia off and sewing them together. I'd say that's the equivalent of cutting the head of the penis off. I don't think "circumcized" women can reach orgasm at all, and FGM also causes some serious health problems.

Don't take this to mean that I'm for male circumcision, though. I still wouldn't circumcize a male child if I had one. Like so many other religious customs (prayer instead of medicine, for one), it has to be done when they're a kid, b/c if they're allowed to wait until they grow up to make up their own minds about it, the tradition would die out b/c no one would be stupid enough to do it!

The only way to know about sexual function is to compare the responses of circumcized and uncircumcized men. From what I've seen, circumcized men still enjoy sex and can reach orgasm, but there still could be a difference. Comparing sensations between people is difficult. Some sex therapists have said that the foreskin makes sex more pleasurable for both partners. It is also easier for uncircumcized men to masturbate; the one I know doesn't need lube b/c it just slides up and down.
Those are very good points. Great discussion!
Except some of the more well known benefits of not being circumcised such as easier masturbation and being more in control of your orgasm (premature ejaculation) it apparently also has some benefits for the sexual partners of uncircumcised men. I've been told that it's somewhat nicer for women to have intercourse with an uncircumcised male because the foreskin acts like a natural cockring.
Wrong. There will be circumcised men in this world as long as there are men who are into rough sex, are stupid, or don't clean under the foreskin daily and thoroughly. It would just be involuntary circumcision forced by the doctors. Torn foreskins and smegma infections are not that uncommon. >.X
Well let them do it when they're old enough for cosmetic surgery! Do you want girls to be getting breasts implants at a young age? NO!

I don't think you know much about intact male genitals. As an intact male I don't have to clean under my foresin "daily and thoroughly". Hygeine is a very personal matter and differs according to the individual. Some people need to wash more than others because of diet, lifestyle, genes, etc. You make the foreskin sound like a disease-incubator and if a guy doesn't scrub thoroughly every day then woe be unto him. This is just not true. It takes two seconds to clean an intact dick. And if a man goes for long periods without cleaning it I don't think that anything horrific will happen; at least not in most cases. If the man has a pre-existing health condition then maybe. But otherwise a build up of smegma is not a health hazard.

Smegma is not toxic or carcinogenic. It is a natural bodily secretion with anti-microbial properties. It is produced by men *and* women. And if it is undesirable then it is easily washed away. I have never heard of or had a "smegma infection", whatever that is. As for "torn foreskins", this would only happen if the male has a tight foreskin and is rough with it. There are many cures and treatments for tight foreskins and all physicians should be aware of them.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service