Male Genital Mutilation

[Flyndaran]

I still say that while the evidence for male circumcision's benefits are still out, so are its drawbacks.

Parents should be allowed to make even mildly harmful medical decisions for thier children. Freedom means accepting individual opinions, and their right to make what are to us mistakes.

Only when a procedure, or its lack, can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be harmful, then, and only then, should we step in.

[Fashion Lad!]

Here is your TMI from me...

I'm circumcised. I don't remember when it happened, so I know I was very young.

I don't think I have any decreased pleasure from sex. I still think it feels pretty damn good. Plus, I don't have to worry about pulling the foreskin back to clean or put a condom on.

Basically, it's low maintenance.

Now, I will stop talking about my junk...

[Gerrinson]

I'm late to this party, I know. But to continue the TMI theme...

I don't think I have any decreased pleasure from sex. I still think it feels pretty damn good. Plus, I don't have to worry about pulling the foreskin back to clean or put a condom on.

I am an uncircumcised man. I've had a few different reactions over the years, but no woman wholly disgusted by it. And, I have to say, while there is a very minor bit of effort needed to clean properly, it's barely more effort than a circumcised man puts into washing himself.

So far as putting on a condom...if you're aroused, pulling the foreskin back is a non issue.

Pleasure wise, my best friend is circumcised, and I know that I have one area that is far more sensitive on me than on him. It could just be that we're different people, I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's because he's circumcised and I'm not.

And while women may find circumcised men more 'aesthetically' pleasing, my g/f said she's never going back to circumcised men because it seems that my foreskin creates a 'ridge' that hits just the right spot and makes things feel 'much, much, much better' to quote her. And not too brag too much.

All in all, I'm glad I am the way I am. My dad was circumcised in middle age, but due solely to medical reasons.

And, I have to agree, amputation/mutilation of any digit (or fraction thereof) should only be done if medically necessary or at the request (with informed consent) of the individual to whom said digit is attached.

Pedersen, I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, the majority of the human herd has major blinders on for this issue. And I do believe there is quite a double standard when it comes to 'gender equality' issues. But that's a whole different Fratching thread.

As for the women, I really find it funny (weird, not ha ha) that most seem 'pro choice' of someone to decide what happens to their body, but then say that circumcision is not a big deal.

[Amethyst Hunter]

And therein lies my single biggest issue with it. Women get to choose. Men get to have the choice made for us. WHY?

Guess who has historically ruled almost every society on this earth since the beginning of time? (including modern-day ones)

M-e-n.

And he who holds the power always has made the rules.

Including those pertaining to genitals and the use thereof, for both female and male.

So whoever thought up circumcision and went "heeey, this is a great idea!", dollars to donuts it was a *man*. (And we all know how nutty some of those Victorians could be...) Thus, circumcision is considered acceptable in this society because the men controlling the population instigated that concept. And those who question the status quo are almost always slapped down (either figuratively or literally) because no power likes being questioned; hence, the (patriarchal-based) mindset that "this is always just how it's been done." Whether or not that mindset is right or wrong in regards specifically to circumcision, unless clearly proven one way or the other, I leave up to the individual to decide for him or herself.

Saydrah was right in stating that banning anything is a surefire route to failure in preventing the very thing that one wishes to reduce/eliminate. All banning does is drive a practice underground and make it vastly more unsafe as hacks and amateurs (no pun intended on the former) opt for the cheapie DIY route. Besides, banning worked *real* well with that Prohibition thing, didn't it?

I've read through this thread and I've seen cases both for and against circumcision. I have no strong feelings about it either way, probably because I don't have a dick and have no intentions of ever spawning another being with a dick (hell, I'm just not reproducing, *period*), but also because I haven't seen enough evidence to sway me to one side or the other (it's always best to take Wikipedia, or Crackipedia, as I call it, with a good dose of salt).

I will say though that if you want a circumcision/want your kid to have one, I don't have a problem with it. Likewise, if you *don't* want a circumcision/don't want your kid to have one, I have no problem with that either.

*goes off to fall asleep wondering if that made any sense*

[Slytovhand]

Besides, banning worked *real* well with that Prohibition thing, didn't it?

But... alcohol was popular and people want it for the enjoyment value..... I'm not so sure I'd say the same about a circumcision

[smileyeagle1021]

the (patriarchal-based) mindset that "this is always just how it's been done."

matriarchs can have the exact same mindset... pigheadedness doesn't discriminate on gender... you'll notice on the "circumcision is bullshit" video that was posted earlier the one couple they showed had the woman saying how this is how it's always been done, our son needs it too, while the dad was saying, no this can't happen.

But... alcohol was popular and people want it for the enjoyment value..... I'm not so sure I'd say the same about a circumcision

and some people find circumsized penises to be pleasing... and looking at numbers they sure are popular, and as Amethyst said, there is the mindset about "this is always how it's been done"... sorry I must agree with him and say it would be just as effective as Prohibition was.

[Pedersen]

and some people find circumsized penises to be pleasing... and looking at numbers they sure are popular, and as Amethyst said, there is the mindset about "this is always how it's been done"... sorry I must agree with him and say it would be just as effective as Prohibition was.

Yep, just like it's been a complete and abject failure at preventing damage being done to women. It's disgusting, really, how often you hear genital mutilation being done to women in this country, against their will. We really have to put an end to the scourge of female genital mutilation in this country first, before we can or even should consider trying to protect all the innocent boys who can or will have this done to them.

What could I have possibly been thinking?

[AFPheonix]

Regardless of how something started, does that mean that it cannot be ended or at least amended to something that all people can agree on? I think people can eventually change their minds so that males can choose to have the procedure done as a body mod when they reach the age of consent. That's something that's going to have to take some education of the populace and some advocation by some people to bring awareness to the subject.
I'm sure having some concrete data on whether babies experience the pain of it when it is done will change the minds of many new parents who are doing it just because that's what's always been done.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Regardless of how something started, does that mean that it cannot be ended or at least amended to something that all people can agree on? I think people can eventually change their minds so that males can choose to have the procedure done as a body mod when they reach the age of consent. That's something that's going to have to take some education of the populace and some advocation by some people to bring awareness to the subject.
I'm sure having some concrete data on whether babies experience the pain of it when it is done will change the minds of many new parents who are doing it just because that's what's always been done.

I'm sure it will eventually change, as all things inevitably do.

FGM raises outrage (and rightfully so) because it's done in a horrific manner and for less than noble purposes. Religion is cited as an excuse, but it's really just a cover for how much the society hates women and views them as objects to be controlled and used by the men. Also, FGM does considerably more physical damage to the woman's body, especially in the most extreme cases. At least with the circumcision the guy (extreme cases notwithstanding) has full function of his genitals, can still feel pleasurable sexual sensations, and the penis generally doesn't cause him pain when he needs to pass excretions.

Circumcision hasn't garnered an outcry because it's done under (mostly) sanitary conditions and can be said to be genuinely religious-based (though of course some people may feel differently); I believe there may be mentions of it in some religious texts? (Whereas as far as I know there aren't any mandates in Biblical or other texts to do FGM) Hence part of the mindset that says "this is just how it's always been done." People tend to raise their generations in much the same manner as they grew up in, so things related to religious practices often continue, whether there's any clear need for them to do so or not. In short, old habits die hard.

However, as we've seen especially in recent years, religion changes too, so there's no reason to think that the attitudes regarding circumcision won't change as well.

[smileyeagle1021]

before we can or even should consider trying to protect all the innocent boys who can or will have this done to them.

What could I have possibly been thinking?

you'll notice I never said that trying to prevent it would be wrong... just that an all out prohibition would never work. If you truly want to stop the practice you need to present your case one person at a time. There's at least one person on this board who has at least reconsidered whether or not circumcision should be practiced. Will it happen overnight? No it won't. However, a legal prohibition will just cause resentment and bitterness and will not slow the practice at all, only drive it underground where mistakes will happen a LOT more often. Like it or not, the current system, however flawed it may be, is a relatively safe system and shouldn't and can't be dismantled overnight.

[AFPheonix]

I'm sure it will eventually change, as all things inevitably do.

FGM raises outrage (and rightfully so) because it's done in a horrific manner and for less than noble purposes. Religion is cited as an excuse, but it's really just a cover for how much the society hates women and views them as objects to be controlled and used by the men. Also, FGM does considerably more physical damage to the woman's body, especially in the most extreme cases. At least with the circumcision the guy (extreme cases notwithstanding) has full function of his genitals, can still feel pleasurable sexual sensations, and the penis generally doesn't cause him pain when he needs to pass excretions.

Circumcision hasn't garnered an outcry because it's done under (mostly) sanitary conditions and can be said to be genuinely religious-based (though of course some people may feel differently); I believe there may be mentions of it in some religious texts? (Whereas as far as I know there aren't any mandates in Biblical or other texts to do FGM) Hence part of the mindset that says "this is just how it's always been done." People tend to raise their generations in much the same manner as they grew up in, so things related to religious practices often continue, whether there's any clear need for them to do so or not. In short, old habits die hard.

However, as we've seen especially in recent years, religion changes too, so there's no reason to think that the attitudes regarding circumcision won't change as well.

Male circumcision is most definitely called for in Genesis. It's how the ancient Hebrew set themselves apart from the other Canaanites according to the Bible.
FGM is not mandated by the Koran, but it was picked up as Islam conquered through nothern Africa since it was an ancient tribal tradition in some areas. It moved back up into other conquered territories with time.
I will agree that while modern male circumcision is not as horrific as some forms of FGM, it still is a body mod that should be the choice of the person that is receiving it, not their parents or their doctors. It unnecessarily removes a body part that has a function.
Now, if that body part has issues, (and there are occasionally complications like tightening and tearing) that call for removal, then fine. But I don't agree with doing it just because an old book that we disregard half the ancient laws in anyways calls for it or because that's what's always been done. There's a lot of things that have been done medically that have been shown to be of unsound practice at a later date.

[Slytovhand]

While I agree that some people may choose to go 'underground' for their circumcisions for a religious belief, and thus putting people's lives at risk, it should also be admitted that the actual number of operations will dramatically drop, and the whole attitude to it will change almost immediately on a massive scale.

I find it highly unlikely that those who would normally have it done on their sons "because it's just the way it's always been done", would still go to the trouble of getting it done in an illegal operation (let's just assume the pun is intended ).

Not suggesting that's a good idea (but then, not saying it's not either, Ped ).... just saying a likely outcome - the reduction of a social standard.

[Amethyst Hunter]

While I agree that some people may choose to go 'underground' for their circumcisions for a religious belief, and thus putting people's lives at risk, it should also be admitted that the actual number of operations will dramatically drop, and the whole attitude to it will change almost immediately on a massive scale.

I find it highly unlikely that those who would normally have it done on their sons "because it's just the way it's always been done", would still go to the trouble of getting it done in an illegal operation

Nope. This was the same rationale behind the abortion bans (yes, I'm going there). When Roe v. Wade legalized it, the number of back-alley cheapie operations AND injuries/deaths from those operations DROPPED dramatically, and have stayed down ever since.

NEVER underestimate someone's willingness to go beyond limits if they feel desperate enough to do so. Banning. Does. Not. Work.

(To illustrate this, take a look at some of the anti-cigarette bans around the country. Smokers are still puffing away, they just can't do it where it's as visible, and I doubt too many of them are motivated by a ban to quit.)

[Greenday]

I don't think comparing them to the smoking bans are quite the same. The smoking bans are there to protect non-smokers, not to stop people from smoking all together. Not quite the same as the ban suggested for male genital mutilation.

[Pedersen]

Guess who has historically ruled almost every society on this earth since the beginning of time? (including modern-day ones)

M-e-n.

And he who holds the power always has made the rules.

Reading enough of your posts, AH, I'm starting to believe that you hate men on general principle, and as a result, for this debate, your opinion might well be somewhat skewed towards the idea "Well, so many men want to take away my right to control my body that by supporting the idea of forced circumcision I can take away some of their own control."

I might be wrong. But that is the attitude that I'm starting to see from you.

So whoever thought up circumcision and went "heeey, this is a great idea!", dollars to donuts it was a *man*. (And we all know how nutty some of those Victorians could be...) Thus, circumcision is considered acceptable in this society because the men controlling the population instigated that concept. And those who question the status quo are almost always slapped down (either figuratively or literally) because no power likes being questioned; hence, the (patriarchal-based) mindset that "this is always just how it's been done." Whether or not that mindset is right or wrong in regards specifically to circumcision, unless clearly proven one way or the other, I leave up to the individual to decide for him or herself.

I have provided concrete proof of harm in a very simple form: I have been harmed by it, emotionally. I am not the only one (far from it) to feel this way.

Others have been harmed by it, including those who were subjected to the safe and sanitary conditions. Cases have been documented where a male child's circumcision was too aggressive, and he was therefore turned into a female. Other cases have been documented where excessive bleeding and infections have occurred.

So far, I've been told that it's acceptable risk. Oh, and that the emotional trauma of people like myself is apparently so insignificant that it does not matter.

Saydrah was right in stating that banning anything is a surefire route to failure in preventing the very thing that one wishes to reduce/eliminate. All banning does is drive a practice underground and make it vastly more unsafe as hacks and amateurs (no pun intended on the former) opt for the cheapie DIY route. Besides, banning worked *real* well with that Prohibition thing, didn't it?

Laws: Things that state what you are and are not legally allowed to do. They are made knowing that people will violate them, and that the violators will have to be punished. Some other things that have been outright banned by law: theft, murder, speeding, jaywalking, yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.

Now, since those laws are broken so often, we should just go ahead and toss them out too, right? I mean, after all, they work about as well as Prohibition did, so they're just as useless and should be stricken from the books, right?

Oh, wait, they're different. They're ones that most people agree on. Well, except for the speeding. Most drivers have a tendency to go at least a little above the speed limit. Still, bad law, no more being on the books for you!

I've read through this thread and I've seen cases both for and against circumcision. I have no strong feelings about it either way, probably because I don't have a dick and have no intentions of ever spawning another being with a dick (hell, I'm just not reproducing, *period*), but also because I haven't seen enough evidence to sway me to one side or the other (it's always best to take Wikipedia, or Crackipedia, as I call it, with a good dose of salt).

Then you haven't followed the links from the wikipedia pages that I gave. You really should. Wikipedia makes a good starting point for learning. Since most people wouldn't follow through on it, I also provided other links that discussed various forms of MGM. In fact, I rarely used Wikipedia for MGM, and mostly used it for FGM. Now, since Wikipedia gets so much wrong, that must mean that FGM isn't really that horrific, so we should totally allow FGM at will, right?

As for the arguments for, I'd really like to hear a good argument for it being done to someone who cannot consent that does not involve medical need. "Aesthetics" doesn't cut it. "It's the way it's always been done" doesn't cut it. "Men came up with it, and therefore they can put up with it" doesn't do it either. And, finally "Well, it's safe enough most of the time, so why not" doesn't do it either.

I'm sure having some concrete data on whether babies experience the pain of it when it is done will change the minds of many new parents who are doing it just because that's what's always been done.

Little known factoid: For several decades, it was commonly believed by the medical community that infants did not experience pain. This went so far as to allow open heart surgeries on infants without benefit of anesthesia of any sort. Yes, I'm serious. More info at these links:

• http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ies-pain_x.htm
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A964958260
• http://www.uams.edu/info/Updates/October01/anand.htm
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4875196.stm

To some degree, the medical community still holds this belief.

FGM raises outrage (and rightfully so) because it's done in a horrific manner and for less than noble purposes. Religion is cited as an excuse, but it's really just a cover for how much the society hates women and views them as objects to be controlled and used by the men. Also, FGM does considerably more physical damage to the woman's body, especially in the most extreme cases. At least with the circumcision the guy (extreme cases notwithstanding) has full function of his genitals, can still feel pleasurable sexual sensations, and the penis generally doesn't cause him pain when he needs to pass excretions.

I thought you said you read this whole thread? You missed some critical bits if you did. I'll summarize them here for you:

Circumcision was advocated, starting in the 1800's, as a way to reduce the sex drive of young buys.

FGM, Type 1A, is a direct analog to circumcision. The clitoral hood is removed, and that's it. The more extreme forms of FGM? Yes, they're bad. So are the more extreme forms of MGM, which include subincision, superincision, and genital bisection. Subincision and superincision involve cutting the penis up by the head, creating an opening to the depth of the urethra. One does it on the underside, the other does it on the top. Genital bisection is exactly what it sounds like: Cutting the penis in half.

Again, FGM is prohibited by law, all forms of it, unless medically necessary. I'm just asking for equal treatment.

Circumcision hasn't garnered an outcry because it's done under (mostly) sanitary conditions and can be said to be genuinely religious-based (though of course some people may feel differently); I believe there may be mentions of it in some religious texts? (Whereas as far as I know there aren't any mandates in Biblical or other texts to do FGM) Hence part of the mindset that says "this is just how it's always been done." People tend to raise their generations in much the same manner as they grew up in, so things related to religious practices often continue, whether there's any clear need for them to do so or not. In short, old habits die hard.

I take issue with that on two levels, actually. First is the implicit assumption that a valid religion requires a text. Several tribal cultures had religious traditions long before they were capable of writing, and some of those traditions called for various levels of FGM. The fact that it wasn't written down does not invalidate their religion, nor its significance within their tribe.

Second is the idea that religion should be allowed to trump the personal freedoms of the person having these choices inflicted upon them. If you agree with that sentiment, then you should just as well agree with the idea that highly christian parents should be able to choose who their daughter will marry (as this is something that is done in the Bible quite often). You would also have to agree that the wife should be completely subservient to her husband (again, called for biblically).

If you don't agree with those two biblical edicts, then how can you agree with the edict that says to cut someone within days of their birth simply because they happen to have been born male?