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: 3646

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The way you talk about it I'm surprised intact guys make it to the bedroom at all. Are there any stats on comparative endurance?
I've known uncut guys who were minutemen too, and some circumcized guys who lasted a long time.
Absolutely, rules do not apply 100% of the time. There is always some sort of response bell curve/Gaussian curve, and it's not the 90th percentiles or the standard deviations that matter, but how far away from the average those two curves compare to each other.
^^ Are there any stats on comparative endurance? ^^

There are. But like many comparisons of populations the bell curves overlap far more conspicuously then they diverge. If I am recalling well, one study said average duration of penetrative intercourse was like 2:45 for cut vs 2:36 for intact. I think the time until the male was ready for another round favored the intact guy, however.

Of course according to one sex therapist who was recently on Dr. Victoria Zdrok's show, "there is no such thing as premature ejaculation. Climax occurs when it is inevitable. It's only premature if one partner stops trying to please the other before he or she has had enough."

To compare just the duration of intercourse ignores the cut men who go completely and forever limp at a younger age than intact men. It also ignores the fact that (at least in my case) sex with foreskin is like a luxurious massage that I'm in no hurry to end, whereas cut sex was a mad rush to build up to enough stimulation so I was feeling something. My wife would get rubbed raw and need days off. Now that I've restored she still gets "mutiples" as often as she has time for and we're having the best sex of our lives, more often than any time in our 19 year marriage.
Hey there, Poster Boy for restoration :)
Absolutely wonderful. Next time my friends are pregnant with boys, I'll make sure they see this!

Belgium is my favourite country for many reasons: best beer, best fries, best mussels, great movies, great bands,

Now I add this to the list :)
Some things are so discusting to me that there are literally no words I can say that'll do its magnitude justice. Male mutilation is definitely up there but I think female mutilation is...ugh. I can't even get into it...
I'm very impressed with this discussion. I wonder how many other places where it could occur. There is disagreement, of course. I would not want to be in the minority opinion here, since so many are so clearly against circumcisions - but even so, it doesn't go as far as many other discussions that I have seen. I think it's a sign of the general maturity and overall good-natured character of those involved.

In defense of the guys who've stated they are cut and happy with the result - no one else lives in their bodies, and no one else can tell them not to be happy with the result. I wouldn't want anyone not to be happy with their bodies, including their willies. Hundreds of millions, possibly billions, of men are cut, and they probably have lives as happy and fulfilled as men who got to keep their turtlenecks.

In defense of women who like guys who are circumcised, well, you have plenty to choose from, and your taste is your taste. There are also lots of men who love bosoms that rival the Hindenberg. If a woman wants those as implants, it's her right as well. As long as no one forces her or, god forbid, starts a child on that path.

I would personally like to see the procedure go the direction of other body mod - if someone chooses it, cool. I would lump it with tattoos, big piercings, split tongues, eyeball tattoos, horn implants, etc - do what you like with your own body, and celebrate that people have the freedom to choose, even if the result is not your own choice.

Saying that, I would love to see elimination, and prohibition, of this procedure for children. It is a violation, a senseless procedure, chances are it does reduce pleasure, chances are it has more risk than benefit, and there is no justification to do this to newborns or children of any age.
I'd like to second everything that was said here. I'm against the procedure when it's done to children, but adults have every right to modify their bodies how they please, and if some or a lot of men aren't bothered by their circumcisions, then I don't see any need for them to feel that way.
I like the comparison you make to other body modification. I think that's a perfectly good analogy. As for happiness with what you have... sure... one must.

Circumcised guys also have the option of opting for foreskin restoration and I think support groups on this topic are becoming easier to find.
Not to mention that you never get your frenulum back, or the ridged band - and that "restoration" doesn't even always result with something that looks like a foreskin.

For those who want it, and are willing to put in the years of stretching for it, it's probably worth it, but restoration is really only partial restoration.
Personally I have objections to using the softened terms 'circumcision' and 'molestation' when referring to cultural and religious violence against children. 'Molesting' someone used to mean simply to annoy them, and 'circumcise' has an inbuilt implication that you are removing something defective or unwanted.

I realise that even I myself fall into the trap of using the soft terms for things when discussing such ugly topics, but I do think the conversation (on either subject) is forced to be clearer when using "child rape" or "child sexual assault" instead of "molestation", and "(male) genital mutilation" or "cutting the sex organs of babies", etc instead of "circumcision".




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service