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: 3577

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I learned about female circumcision about the same time as most girls are forced to go through it, at age 10. I had nightmares afterward about men and women coming for me and my 6 year old neice to circumcise us. It is so horrible, so cruel, so misogynistic I think there can be no argument for it.

However, when it comes to male circumcision, the jury is out, including from men like those here who are "cut" and don't seem to mind. I find the practice equally stomach turning and unnecessary. Also, before a certain time in the past, these too were done without anaesthesia. Horrible. I think it ridiculous I am an adult female and have seen exactly two men in their natural state, one of whom was British and one from India. When I saw one for the first time, I was struck by the sense of seeing an unfinished painting my whole life without realizing it was incomplete. I thought it was beautiful and really added something to the penis which seems gawkish and awkward, like a 13 year old boy.

Now as to why the Jews do it or this and that religion does it, has absolutely nothing to do with the entirety of North America. It seems utter nonsense in that context. As for the Jews, was it not the covenant with God which Abraham made, in which he said, "Hey God, we're your chosen people, therefore I will cut off the tip of my and my son's peepees in perpetuity to enter heaven, Amen"? I can't accept this any more than any other nonsensical drivel which religions of all kinds expect me to swallow.
Yeah, you'd think if God made man he would have made their penises to His liking without the need for them to be surgically altered. Omnipotent? Yeah right.
It was just an upgrade - Penis 1.2
In which country are "we" overlooking genital mutilation of boys? This is an international site, so please forgive my cluelessness.

I would like to see male circumcision stop except in cases where medical intervention is required. I have known two men who seemed to believe that they did need it, and both were circumcised as adults. There were some weird complications with their foreskin. However, the vast majority of boys don't "need" it.

I don't think there is hypocrisy involved.... no one said "Ooh, we're going to fuck over wee boys, but give girls a pass".

One of the differences between male circumcision and female genital mutilation is that a man who has been circumcised will still be able to enjoy sex (maybe not as fully as he would with a foreskin), while a woman will not.

FGM is often carried out with no sterilization and no anasethesia, by people who have no medical training whatsoever. Girls die from shock due to excessive bleeding, or end up with painful infections. I'm not going to elaborate further, as it's pretty horrifying. Any websearch can be a wealth of information.
I live in Washington and my baby son was born almost two months back. When we were told about our options to circumcise, we were told that 60% of births in the hospital didn't, which surprised me. We have quite a cosmopolitan pool in the population, many people from around the world coming in to work for high tech industries, and perhaps the cultural mix tends to skew the results a bit. But it seems to me to be a good sign that when we voiced our decision not to have him circumcised, our doctor nodded and said "Good choice."

The reason we didn't was because we feel it should be his choice not ours, and the medical benefits seemed questionable at best after some pretty heavy research. It just seems wrong to perform such a dramatic and unnecessary operation on a baby infant who has no clue.

Since I feel it was wrong to circumcise my boy, by extension I feel it was wrong that I was circumcised. How do I know if my penis works as well as it would have had it been left well enough alone? And if I inflicted the same proportional pain on a newborn boy anywhere else on his body, wouldn't that be considered abuse, even torture?

Would it be ok because later he wouldn't remember it?
I'll agree with many of the other posters here that male circumcision as practiced in the USA is very different than FGM - not that that means it's acceptable in any way. As far as I'm concerned, it should be illegalized before age 18 unless there's some clear, immediate medical necessity. Another poster mentioned pierced ears, but the difference here to me is that pierced ears will eventually heal if you decide to get them, but a circumcision is forever. You can always get cut later, but once it's done, it's done.

My parents circumcised me for religious reasons. I'm very, very upset about it. As far as I'm concerned, it was just another bit of religious abuse that my parents put on me - just one more way in which their religion trumped my basic human right to keep my body in one piece.

Ever since I found out what a circumcision was, I've felt like I was only 90% male. I've done some researching on foreskin restoration, and it seems that if I wear some equipment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 2-5 years, I can probably get something that *looks* like a foreskin back, and I'm seriously considering doing it. I'll never have my ridged band back, or my frenulum, or several nervous structures, but at least I'd be able to take a LITTLE bit of control over my own body. I just wish that my parents had never forced the whole thing on me.

It's a major problem in the relationship I have with my parents. I mean, eventually the emotional wounds could heal, but even then the physical ones wouldn't.
Wow dude, you've definitely got some balls for sharing this. Kudos to you!
I can understand your resentment for this decision that was made without your consent.

Many people love to have and express their control over their bodies. They mutilate their skin by piercing, injecting ink, and causing patterned welts. I've seen some disturbing examples. I don't understand this desire but I recognize the individuals right to have it.

I wonder why no one here decries the practice of piercing an non-consenting child's ears or nose. There is no more reason to mutilate those parts of the body in my opinion.
Well, if someone wants to grow their piercings in (at least at that gage) it is easy to do, and all they have to do is ignore them for awhile. Mainly the only issue I could see is the chance of infection, but maybe there are some I don't know about.
I've repeatedly heard here that parents should not be permitted to make even cosmetic changes to their children. Are you calling for governmental control? Do we want the government dictating how we can treat our children? What are the possible consequences of this opposite extreme? Are we comfortable with the idea that, someday, our children will simply be taken at birth and we will have no input in how they are raised? It may eventually come to that.

Leaving FGM way to the side, I consider male circumcision to be a cosmetic change. I have not heard compelling evidence that circumcision affects the enjoyment of the individual or his partner in a significant way. One reason that circumcision may be continued to be practiced in the absence of religious tradition is the perception of beauty. How many porn films have you seen with an uncircumcised male star? I have seen very few. Like it or not much of our perception of beauty comes from what we see in film and print. As far as contemporary pornography is concerned huge circumcised penises and shaven vaginas are appealing.

If I want to revert to my natural state I will stop shaving or concerning myself with unnecessary tasks like trimming my toenails and plucking unsightly hairs. No, the modern human is willing to go to great lengths to achieve their beauty ideal. Is circumcision such a great leap from that objective? Since it is made for another person perhaps so. Since it is far less desirable to make such a change later in life perhaps not.
I agree 100% about the subjectivity of beauty. Different cultures and people have concepts of beauty that differ immensely. Hardly anyone now would consider binding Chinese women's feet to be "beautiful," but at the time it was the very height of feminine beauty, at least as viewed by the men. I doubt women had very much say in the matter as to what they considered to be beautiful in men or other women.

If no one had ever conceived of circumcising males, we'd never have started doing it, and we'd never even have the possibility of considering it to be aesthetically pleasing. It's all relative.
A) Uncut porn is everywhere. I use the word intact but the industry being mostly based in the US where cut is common for sexually active males, they still use uncut.

B) If circumcision were free of acute risks and perfectly painless it would still be a huge violation of human rights. It takes away about half a male's pleasure-receptive nerve endings, removes protection for the mucosal parts meant to keep them supple and sensitive, and changes intimacy for the worse by eliminating the frictionless rolling/gliding action of the slinky skin that makes sex more plush for a man and his partner. It also makes the penis THINNER, reducing the diameter by 4 skin thicknesses (the skin doubles under and enfolds over the glans upon a withdrawal phase so there are two layers on either side of the glans).

In the only study to carefully measure the fine-touch sensitivity on various spots on the penis for over 150 men, of 17 spots they measured the 5 most sensitive were all on the foreskin. You might ask why they measured the foreskin more than once. That's because it comprises about 15 square inches in the adult. It includes some outer skin like the surviving shaft skin on a cut guy, the roll-over point which is very ticklish, the ridged band of highly concentrated sexual nerve endings, the frenular delta, and the frenulum (the neurological homologue to the clitoris).

Involuntary penis reduction surgery? Bloody brilliant idea!

C) MOST of the world is intact (like 80%). Even in the US there are states where only about 1/4 of infants are being cut today. So forget about cutting to fit in unless your boy will never leave your state. If he's cut he WILL fit in with Muslims who comprise about 3/4 of the cut males on earth, but over half of them are cut later in childhood.

D) Even a pin poke to draw one drop of blood from a girl is illegal with no religious exemption. Where were you with your parents' rights protest when that was enacted? I'm definitely in favor of the goverment protecting the defenseless from irrational treatment (as today we can force Jehovah's Witnesses' kids to accept blood transfusions). Permanent non-therapeutic amputations should be high on the list of protections.

E) Please don't embarrass yourself by comparing voluntary shaving or trimming of parts with no nerve endings - and that grow back - to forced ampution of parts that include skin, muscle fibre, nerve endings, and blood vessels.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service