Circumcision...why is it still legal?

[emzie]

Not at all. Female genital mutilation takes many forms. While infibulation is more invasive than the average male circumcision, it only comprises 15% of FGM practiced world wide. Most female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoral hood, or the clitoris and the labia. Both of which are very comparable to male circumcision which essentially removes the male "clitoris".

You are bordering on the extremely offensive. Circumcision is nothing at all like removing the clitoris. It's like removing the clitoral hood so that the clitoris becomes less sensitive. Trying to compare the two practices because they share the name "circumcision" is an insult to the millions of women who are horrifically mutilated every year.

This is not to say male circumcision is okay. Preforming unnecessary, dubiously medical procedures on infants is bad. But it's nothing, nothing like cutting up a woman's genitals.

I understand you are passionate about this, but you are going too far with your comparisons and that turns people off from your line of thought. People shut down when you make an absurd claim like the two things called circumcision are comparable, and they don't hear your valid argument.

 

[CaptainF]

You are bordering on the extremely offensive. Circumcision is nothing at all like removing the clitoris. It's like removing the clitoral hood so that the clitoris becomes less sensitive. Trying to compare the two practices because they share the name "circumcision" is an insult to the millions of women who are horrifically mutilated every year.

This is not to say male circumcision is okay. Preforming unnecessary, dubiously medical procedures on infants is bad. But it's nothing, nothing like cutting up a woman's genitals.

I understand you are passionate about this, but you are going too far with your comparisons and that turns people off from your line of thought. People shut down when you make an absurd claim like the two things called circumcision are comparable, and they don't hear your valid argument.

"Excision doesn't remove your desire or ability to enjoy sexual pleasure. The excision of women is cruel on many levels. It is physically cruel and painful; it sets girls up for a lifetime of suffering. And it is not even effective in its intent to remove their desire."

"I think male circumcision is worse than incising a girl. With boys, a lot of skin is removed. Depending on how that is done, in Third World countries for instance where there's poor hygiene, and where the people who carry it out don't possess the necessary skills, the consequences can be worse for boys than for girls. With girls, a sharp object is pricked into the clitoris. It bleeds a little. And the whole family is satisfied and she is declared 'pure'. Strictly speaking, that procedure is less dramatic than male circumcision."

-Ayaan Hirsi Ali

...As mentioned before, not all FGM in all countries involves infibulation. In many parts of the world, circumcision like Ali described is the majority of all procedures. And, like she said, that procedure is far less extensive than MGM.

There are also many infibulated women who say that there sexuality is no different than that of intact women, and will vehemently defend this point, much like the many circumcised men in this country who will insist that the procedure has had no effect on their sexual function or pleasure. In countries where FGM is widely practiced, the procedure is endorsed and seen as perfectly normal by the women themselves, just like men here in the United States.

The procedures on both genders involve different mutilations of the anatomy, and female genital cutting is generally more extensive in certain parts of the world. But the cultural and psychological doublethink, denial, repression and ignorance surrounding both of the practices is pretty much exactly the same.

 

[emzie]

And... I'm less inclined to care about male circumcision now.

 

[CaptainF]

And... I'm less inclined to care about male circumcision now.

Not my fault if you choose to be in denial given all these pertinent facts. That reflects poorly on you, not me. Have fun with your sexism.

 

[CaptainF]

Yet another interesting study. Apparently, some adult women who undergo labiaplasty are just as sexually satisfied as some adult men who choose to undergo circumcision:

Link

 

[Traitorfish]

Not my fault if you choose to be in denial given all these pertinent facts. That reflects poorly on you, not me. Have fun with your sexism.

I'm a circumcised male, so can I be less inclined to care about male circumcision without being sexist?

 

[illram]

You are bordering on the extremely offensive. Circumcision is nothing at all like removing the clitoris. It's like removing the clitoral hood so that the clitoris becomes less sensitive. Trying to compare the two practices because they share the name "circumcision" is an insult to the millions of women who are horrifically mutilated every year.

This is not to say male circumcision is okay. Preforming unnecessary, dubiously medical procedures on infants is bad. But it's nothing, nothing like cutting up a woman's genitals.

I understand you are passionate about this, but you are going too far with your comparisons and that turns people off from your line of thought. People shut down when you make an absurd claim like the two things called circumcision are comparable, and they don't hear your valid argument.

Yeah this sums things up nicely I believe. I mean, I am not sure whether I am going to circumcise my (future) son if I ever have one (I have a daughter) but I certainly am not going to chide my good Jewish friend who recently had a baby boy and had him circumcised. Even if I disagreed, for male circumcision, we are talking about a fairly personal and private family decision for most people.

A measured discussion regarding medical benefits vs risks is different than a hyperbolic campaign comparing it to female genital mutilation, which is preposterous comparison. In SF a group recently tried to outlaw circumcision in City hospitals and the laws proponents went on a similar outrage binge; the measure was soundly defeated at the polls.

 

[Quackers]

Cutting off the head of the penis at the very minimum. More like cutting off the whole penis and that's still just the beginning. What is called "female circumcision" is not any sort of "circumcision".

I would support a law against circumcising boys who could not consent.

Uhmm I never knew it was that bad!
I know woman can get pleasure two different ways, one with the Clit and the other...ermm inside . So you can still gain pleasure, now lopping off the entire penis would end up with no pleasure for a man. So are they really comparable?

 

[LucyDuke]

Uhmm I never knew it was that bad!
I know woman can get pleasure two different ways, one with the Clit and the other...ermm inside . So you can still gain pleasure, now lopping off the entire penis would end up with no pleasure for a man. So are they really comparable?

In the worst cases, intercourse becomes extremely painful. So extremely painful versus not pleasurable... and hey, you've still got your prostate.

(I don't think it's really useful to compare them anyway. )

 

[Lord Gay]

Both men and women have two sources of pleasure: an external source and an internal source.

Straight men only know of one though, so, unfortunately, I will now have to kill you to keep the secret.

 

[Hygro]

I love these threads. They serve as nice loud announcements about which members feel their genitals are inadequate.

This is basically true. It's kind of like telling someone their mother is a bad parent. They've only got one mother and there's nothing they can do to change it, so why make them feel worse about it? Obviously it would be better to stop cutting parts of babies for the sake of tradition justified by dubious exogenous claims, but currently the debate is people trying to argue they've got it better than the other side, so as to not feel bad about themselves.

Can't we all agree that everyone's junk is good, and we should, from here on out, not cut things off people who don't consent with adult judgement? It seems like a pretty simple way of moving forward.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think I agree with that. I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration, plus its not really a harmful procedure.

 

[Lord Gay]

I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration,

In what regard?

 

[Hygro]

I don't think I agree with that. I certainly think the religious freedom angle needs consideration, plus its not really a harmful procedure.

It is a harmful procedure, it's just not one so bad that those who had it done to them try to perpetuate it, perhaps to self justify or perhaps because it's not the biggest deal in the world.

But remember, religious freedom ends at forcing itself on others. We wouldn't accept 7th century Islamic freedom to convert others through forcible invasion, would we? Nor should we let someone's religion allow them to impose their violence (and it is violence) on someone else.

So it's not like circumcision is the devil, it's just that we shouldn't do it to non consenters.

 

[Lord Gay]

So it's not like circumcision is the devil, it's just that we shouldn't do it to non consenters.

Perhaps we should borrow a page from the R playbook and require all parents to watch a video before being able to have their son snipped.

I think it's a disgusting practice but I leave the choice to the parents.

 

[emzie]

I'd need to know just what circumcision means to Jews before I comment on religious freedom. If it's something like baptism where without it, you won't be considered pure in the eyes of god, then I'm kinda hesitant to ban it.

I think to a non-religious person, an ideal world would be one in which parents didn't pass on their religion to their kids from birth. Rather, the kids joined the religion as the grew. You know, choice v indoctrination. But let's be honest, that's not the world we live in and the idea seems like a pipe dream. So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.

Then again, for Christians, it's just a cultural thing that's done to us because it was done to our dads and it was done to our dads by our grandfathers. 200 years ago, I don't think most of our ancestors did circumcision. I remember it being a 1800s thing, perhaps to dissuade masturbation?

 

[GhostWriter16]

In what regard?

Its compulsory for Jews to circumcise their children according to their beliefs.

I'd need to know just what circumcision means to Jews before I comment on religious freedom. If it's something like baptism where without it, you won't be considered pure in the eyes of god, then I'm kinda hesitant to ban it.

I think to a non-religious person, an ideal world would be one in which parents didn't pass on their religion to their kids from birth. Rather, the kids joined the religion as the grew. You know, choice v indoctrination. But let's be honest, that's not the world we live in and the idea seems like a pipe dream. So are we going to deny parents the right to raise their kids in their religion? Cause that's what denying circumcision would be tantamount to.

Then again, for Christians, it's just a cultural thing that's done to us because it was done to our dads and it was done to our dads by our grandfathers. 200 years ago, I don't think most of our ancestors did circumcision. I remember it being a 1800s thing, perhaps to dissuade masturbation?

That last part certainly doesn't work

 

[emzie]

Its compulsory for Jews to circumcise their children according to their beliefs.

Yes, but from what point?

That last part certainly doesn't work

Well, the late 1800s had some crazy ideas. People thought mental illness came from excess masturbation. Corn flakes -- I'm not making this up, google it -- were invented to be a bland food to keep men un-stimulated to dissuade masturbation.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yes, but from what point?

IIRC its the eighth day.

I do consider the pain marginally less meaningful to the kid since he won't remember it. I definitely would not allow a parent to force it on an older kid who would remember!

Well, the late 1800s had some crazy ideas. People thought mental illness came from excess masturbation. Corn flakes -- I'm not making this up, google it -- were invented to be a bland food to keep men un-stimulated to dissuade masturbation.

Yeah, that's a bit crazy. Corn flakes invented for that purpose? Wow. People were stupid back then

(And note, I think masturbation is a sin, and still think this is stupid.)

 

[Lillefix]

Its compulsory for Jews to circumcise their children according to their beliefs.

Yeah but so what? Why should we care about that?
(I honestly don't think circumcision is a big deal, but I don't think it's right to view things differently just because some random religion demands it)

A more extreme example would be the Jehova's witnesses, who want to refuse their children blood even if they will die without it. What's your stance on that? Should that be legal just because a religion demands it?