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: 3596

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

>>Even if there were huge advantages of circumcision I would still argue that it's a decision that should be made by the person himself when of age of consent.

So if someone is unable to get the other side of the story and being propagandized that circumcision is good for them, then is it still that person's decision? Because that is the scenario in Africa.

If male circumcision was supported as being highly effective for what?
I got the raw numbers from the original papers, and put them up in tabular form together at http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html#3

You are committing the fallacy of Appeal to Authority. There have been some scandals within WHO, it is not infallible. Circumcision is not "religious based" (except the ritual, of course). The bad reasons for doing it are hydra-headed, and HIV is only the latest of them. There isn't a conspiracy (any more than a beehive is a conspiracy), but powerful forces at work (distributed - lots of circumcised men each wanting to defend circumcision) to promote circumcision come what may. The decision to promote it was made at a meeting at Monteaux, Switzerland in April 2007, but nobody who wasn't there seems to know who was there. Some of the key movers and shakers are known to have vested interests in promoting circumcision - they were doing so long before the AIDS claims.
Simple. At the time of the circumcision the child is still under the parents' authority. The parents have final say. It should be made illegal until a proper age of consent, but as of now religion is just too strong. People like false hope.
Well at least you're not saying "Parents must make many decisions for their children..."

I point out again and again that this decision is unique. There is no other normal, healthy, non-renewable, functional body part that parents may have cut off a baby boy without pressing medical need (why the anomaly?), and no such part at all of baby girls - in fact the most nearly corresponding part of girls gets special legal protection (why the double standard?).

Your point about religion is a good one. Circumcision could be cut by 97% if the only ones allowed were religious, but that would involve a test of religion, which is unacceptable. (And/or lots of people would claim their Christianity requires it, which is nonsense.) And it would also fray the human rights issue, implying some babies have fewer human rights than others, by virtue of their parents' religion.

@ Anthony CIRCUMCISION VS PHIMOSIS (started new thread as old one ran out of replies :)

 

After reading your many posts, something has dawned on me, ... I dated a young man in the Caribbean who had phimosis, and so read up on it quite a bit.

 

It now dawns on me that in a "christian" nation, where masturbation is considered wrong, phimosis must be an awfully common condition, much more so than in the rest of the population. I think it's quite possible that all the "problems" that circumcised men defend circumcision for (infections, catheter, cleansing, etc) actually are possibly not due to non-circumcision but to phimosis due to clinical non-masturbation! This would go a long way in explaining a great deal of these anecdocdotal 'intact' problem males...

 

It seems to me that in a nation where religion and lack of sex education are endemic, phimosis, especially low grade ones, would be assumed to be 'normal' by a large swath of the population, making them ASSUME that they have foreskin problems, when in fact they had childhood behavioral problems. Just as religious people think it's normal for young ladies to have flaps of membrane ("hymen") covering the vagina opening. It's not, it's approximately 1/2000. Many cases of young women who bleed their first time is indicative of lack of sex ed from parents and lack of childhood play.

 

Normal foreskins move properly, untrained (lack of playing with it) foreskins can cause problems.

 

This is a fine example of why the attitude of "as long as you keep your religion to yourself, I don't care what you think" does NOT work. There are practically no decisions which are entirely private. All these supposedly private decisions have impacts on society at large.

 

All male children should see this video

 

 

 

That you know of... of course, since you don't know what it's like to be the way nature made you, really, you simply don't know.

~ TNT666

 

Same goes for being cut.  You won't know what it's like till it's done to you. 

sorry but no, that kind of argument does not work both ways.

 

The response is as ridiculous as a one-eyed man defending his lack of an eye to a 2-eyed man, saying "my life is just as great as yours, you aren't missing an eye you don't know". Simply is not rational. You're the one missing a part, not he. A one-eyed man has reduce vision capacity and has no grounds to defend that line on.

Sorry to break it to you but that bit of skin isn't as vital to survival as an eye is. I haven't lose anything but extra nerve endings. It's not like I've lost depth perception. In fact you've no idea what it's like for me sexually and would only be making an assumption about the nature of it.

You guys need to quit making that flap of skin sound like a vitally important organ to the human body. Because it simply isn't one. So next time try to come up with an example that is more apt instead of appealing to a piece of skin on the penis as a major sensory organ. It is at most a minor one that isn't vital to survival. A more apt comparison would be an equivalent removal of skin somewhere else along the human body.
I limited my critique or your reasoning of reversing the argument, now you shift the argument away to something I did not address, which was best addressed by other posters. The point is ... YOU simply DO NOT know what YOU are missing. No matter what body part is compared, no matter its importance, if you don't have it, you're less, and you have no ground to say that the intact person is on the same side of the logical argument. You are not on the same side.

My point is that YOU do not know what it is like MISSING that bit of flesh.  There are many assumptions made throughout this thread about the sexual dysfunction of those who've been circumcised.  And thus not experiencing what it is like is an assumption on the part of the people spouting such claims.  I never made the assumption of what it'd be like to still have my foreskin.  I can even buy that it'd be more pleasurable.  My stance however is one of apathy regarding my foreskin.  I just don't care enough about it to tug at the skin of my dick to regain some semblance of it. 

 

The reason I attacked the comparison is because eyes have been repeatedly brought up as being an apt comparison when it isn't.  If you recall my very first post in this thread had to do with the removal of eyelids not being in any way comparable to the removal of foreskin.  If you guys want to make comparisons then do so in regards to a circular bit of skin that isn't vital to the human body.  Like say a bit of flesh on the arm or leg. 

Whether or not the eye is the best comparison is not the point, the point is that you are missing an organ and that is not defensible by the same argument thrown back at me that the "other" who's intact doens't know either... It's a moot counter argument.

 

But you say you're apathetic about it... well, I suppose one would either need to be, or take action. It"s certainly no reason to be depressed. But there is a world of difference between being apathetic about having an organ removed without your approval, and ADVOCATING for it to be done to others and defending it. Apathetic seems like a tenable position.

 

As a women who's experienced plenty of both intact and cut men, I do KNOW it makes a tremendous difference during copulation. The foreskin plays a major role in copulation. As an bedside sexologist (as opposed to armchair) I'd even venture that the popular notion that most North American women do not experience vaginal orgasms could be linked to high rates of circumcision, in my experience, it makes THAT much of a difference.

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