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?

Tags: Christianity, God, Judaism, circumcision, clitoral, covenant, genital, mutilation

Views: 1834

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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.

It'd probably be best to consider it as missing a piece of an organ rather then a whole one.  But as you said that is neither here nor there. 


I should probably state once again that I'm not advocate for circumcision to children.  I consider it an aesthetic body modification.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Just the other day I read on Google News a blurb about circumcision protecting women from HPV.  My stance however remains unchanged.  I think we'd do better as a species to vaccinate against HPV rather then argue for circumcision as a logical argument to stop the spread of that disease.


You could very well be right.  I personally believe however that the vilification of sexuality due to religion has led to people not seeking as much pleasure as possible in sex.  Christianity has a sordid history of dismissing sexual pleasure as sinful, and given the state of religion in the US I do believe it plays a role.  I'm curious to know though if the pain can be mitigated by using lube, in your opinion.  Because I'm assuming the pain boils down to the circumcised penis being dryer then one that isn't.  Now being a male I've very little if any understanding of female pleasure in sex.  I don't know if it's just as much psychological as it is for me, or if it is more physical in the sense that certain stimulation needs to occur for an orgasm to happen. 


Anyway, in case I miss your response; take care, and have a good day. 

 

 

It's the basic mechanical difference between friction and simultaneous glide. No lube even comes close to simulating the synchronous movement of foreskin protecting the vagina's entrance, resulting in zero friction (akin to drawer action based on sliding vs bearings?). Myself I was never religious (third generation atheists) and I was always one to seek out maximum pleasure from sex. But ALL my sexual encounters in the first 10-15 years were with circumcised men, and I was like most women, no vaginal orgasms. Then I started living/working abroad and met a lot of intact men, and the degree of my enjoyment of sex changed instantly. It was like a revelation. And believe I don't use that word lightly. Yes religious mandated prudeness and monogamy have certainly played a large role in women's dissatisfaction in sex matters, no argument there, but since circumcision has long been a religious fact, they are highly entwined and I'm not sure they can truly be distinguished.
Thinking about it a bit more lube probably isn't the solution.  The solution would be communication during sex rather then relying on a sixth sense.  But that is an assumption on my part, I'm assuming that circumcised men tend to be rougher during sex then uncut men.

You're acting like you didn't see this, so here it is again:

^^ I'm not going to go pulling at the skin of my dick to give the the impression of faux-foreskin though. I just think that there's no point to it other then aesthetic reasons. ^^

The benefits of foreskin restoration are most definitely functional, not just aesthetic.

The glans and mocusal tissue adjacent to the glans revert to being supple and pleasure receptive (moist like the inside of the lips, instead of dry like the outside of the lips).

The shaft skin gives an indescribably awesome feeling as it slinks over the corona. There are simply no words with which one could over-state this effect.  It's the way the skin was seemingly designed to work.  Until I had the slack to experience this slinking of skin I just never knew sex could feel this good.  The tight 180 degree bend the skin makes as it rolls triggers a nerve response that I could only descibe as seeing in a new color.  I could roll my skin around before while flaccid, but during arousal the response is totally different.

The other huge benefit is the way my wife enjoys the frictionless gliding feeling during intercourse.  Before she would get rubbed raw by sex and need a few days off if I gave her multiple orgasms over the course of say an hour.  Now she's raring to go day after day.

Lastly, there are things I can experience now which are simply impossible without slack.  An example would be my wife pulling my skin forward over the glans and swirling her tongue around between the skin and glans, tickling both surfaces simultaneously.

Restoring is not just about cosmetics, vanity, or an obsession to be more natural.  It makes sex a LOT BETTER. 

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service