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

That's what I keep thinking everytime I hear that, I'm intact, and I never have problems with it! Its not the problem waiting to happen that people think it is. Also, there was a time when almost no one showered, if a foreskin was so bad, then there would've been an evolutionary imperative to not form one.

At least you admit that male circumcision is a mutilation. But the degree of mutilation depends on the individual procedure. There are different kinds of FGM just as there are different kinds of MGM. Many types of FGM remove less tissue and less nerve-endings than male circumcision. Yet they are illegal in your country, as is even a pin prick of a girl's clitoris (and rightly so). The fact that we even need to legislate against such behaviours just shows how primitive and barbaric our society really is.

The clitoris has around 8000 nerve-endings. The glans penis has around 4000. But the male foreskin has around 20000 nerve-endings. In an adult the foreskin has an area of about 15 square inches of erogenous tissue.

Some circumcised women claim to enjoy sex just fine, just as many circumcised men claim. We will never really know what they experience.

Male circumcision can also cause serious health problems and serious sexual and aesthetic problems. Many babies have died and some men have to live with damaged penises and destroyed lives.

In my experience and opinion a circumcised man requires more stimulation to feel good and get off. The originators of secular ("medical") circumcision in the USA during the 1800s knew this which is why they tried to use circumcision to discourage masturbation and "excessive" desire and pleasure.

Um no...that's not what I'm saying at all. Female genital mutilation is an entirely different issue. As you say, it is disgusting and repulsive. I definitely agree that men should have the choice to be circumcised or to not be circumcised. I'm just saying that comparing the circumcision of male infants to female genital mutilation, which occurs for entirely different, really fucked up reasons, when the girls are fully conscious, etc., is a completely unfair comparison.
There are also links between FGM and fistula, my system is playing up so can't quote them at the moment but there are UN papers on the incidence of fistula not only because of FGM but include other factors such as early marriage and preganancies, both features of the societies that practice FGM. Rape or congenital factors are perhaps the only causes of fistula not atributal to religious societies. Even those I could at least tenuously ascribe to religion and their practices.
Also just to take issue with something you say, many neo natal circumcisions of male infants in America took place without anaesthetic, and I think that the Bar Mitzvah ceremony upon Jewish adolescents took place without anaesthetic as a point of being a man.

But secular male circumcision began in the USA during the 1800s for the express purpose of inhibiting sexuality. Additionally, the vast majority of infant circumcisions are done without anaesthetic. In the past all were done without any anaesthetic. Some doctors even said that the pain accompanying the operation had a "salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it is to be connected with the idea of punishment".

I will concede that female mutilation many times occurs when a girl is NOT a newborn, and when they are old enough to remember the pain.

That doesn't excuse male circumcision though. There are people (most in Americans in fact) still saying that it is ok to perform, but you'll find almost no American to say that female mutilation is ok. We've got to stop both of these. It's an intolerable act, anywhere in the world, on any gender.
I think that male circumcision is on the decline though, or at least back in the day everyone did it and now the percentage of people who don't is growing. I'm curious if anyone has statistics.
In an abstract sense, both male and female circumcision are the same. We cannot compare various popularity with the almost instant disgust aroused with a mention of the female counterpart.

The only countries who circumcise boys are South Korea (mimicking USA), Philippines as a tribal rite, many African tribes, Muslims , although its not in the Koran, Jews with some more libral descent, and Americans.
Circumcision always finds its crazy supporters. At this time the AAP is again evaluating the so called medcial benefits. The issue seems to be HIV reduction. The odd part here is the AAP is not an STD authority and HIV in the US is not a heterosexually transmitted disease.

The old ignorances and that's not true prevail.

For example, " we did it because its just the normal thing."
"we did it so he could look like his father." ( Boy is that a strange reason)
" Its cleaner" What? Is this not a country where baths and running water exist?
What boggles the mind is Insurance pays for it because its popular yet won't pay for a real life saving procedure.

Despite its said decline in the US, it is hard to validate that, except perhaps on the west coast. Many hospitals discharge 90 percent or more of the male births with prepuce removed!


I agree with Eric R. To say that there is no legitimate comparison between male and female circumcision just shows your lack of knowledge and understanding on the issue. It is not a completely different issue at all. Both practices involve a violation of human rights and the loss of healthy functional erogenous tissue.


Which socalled scientific studies are you referring to? I'm sure that for whatever study you cite in support of circumcision that I can site one to the contrary. I also believe that the majority if not totality of circumcision studies are done by circumcised men (or their female partners) who are trying to justify their own state, and funded by corporations and institutions that have a big financial or religious investment in continuing the practice. Moreover, proponents of female circumcision also argue that it is more hygenic and healthy.


Scientific studies have also shown that the foreskin is the most sensitive and erogenous part of the penis, and anyone with a brain can see that the foreskin maintains a large part of the penis as pseudo-internal, like all accute sensory organs.

People say that circumcision doesn't not affect sexual function: it does. The foreskin helps the penis slide in and out during copulation, it contains sensitive nerve endings that enhance sexual pleasure, and it protects the head of the penis (as anyone knows how has worn pants with jeans in them without underwear-and I won't do that again). It is not just some flap of skin. Every body is under this misapprehension because of the propaganda from centuries ago that was scientifically unsound. Furthermore, the goal was to reduce sexual desire-because it's sinful.
It protects it from zippers and such? Actually I had thought it would make it easier to get caught!
I have this issue personally, though mostly it happens when I go for a run while wearing boxers. I've almost given myself rugburn before. It's not very comfortable, lol.



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