Circumcision and genital mutilation: let's discuss.

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: 925

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Agatka Radwańska on March 2, 2010 at 8:39pm
Then I guess I'd report him to police, Met seems to be very much against it.
Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 2, 2010 at 7:40pm
The only way a dildo can look "uncut: is if it's not erect. A flaccid dildo seems pretty useless to me!!!!
Permalink Reply by Agatka Radwańska on March 2, 2010 at 8:11pm
It has that extra ridge below the head that looks like a retracted foreskin, du-uh! lol
Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 2, 2010 at 8:56pm
Simply not true/realistic.Your last time seeing an erect uncircumcised penis must have been a very long time ago. The ridge is all glans. As the erection lengthens and thickens the penis, the foreskin nearly disappears from sight

So whatever uncircumcised dildo you saw was a con.
Permalink Reply by Eric R. on March 2, 2010 at 7:51pm
Unfortunately you're not alone in being pro-circumcision. Far too many people are of the same opinion. Be glad that people don't feel that way about women. I hope that mutilating boys' genitals is justified so that you "like how it looks." Do you realize how fatuous that sounds? Sorry to sound so hostile but we're talking about a violation of someone's fundamental human rights to their bodies, and subjecting them to an UNNECESSARY PAINFUL procedure so that women like you can enjoy the sight.
Permalink Reply by Limber Lightfoot on March 2, 2010 at 8:27pm
I didn't think circumcision is generally performed so that women will like the look of it, how often is that what the parents are thinking?

Every other aspect of circumcision is bad, so having girls slightly more willing to give you a gobbie if cut has to be seen as a minor perk if nothing else. It would be different if the procedure was driven by female whim, but I don't think it is.
Permalink Reply by Eric R. on March 2, 2010 at 8:34pm
Agatka Radwańska said this: I must be alone in my views over here but I am totally pro-circumcision. Simply because I've slept with both cut and uncut men. It looks soooo much better...

I'm not saying that circumcision is motivated by female whim, but statements like that are completely selfish and inconsiderate, and completely intolerable. I'm glad that she is not my mother. We need to be pushing so that more women in the Middle East ARE NOT mutilated by chauvinist sadistic men, and remember that we need to reconsider the mutilation still going on in the west.
Permalink Reply by Tom Thompson on March 3, 2010 at 1:49pm
"I'm not saying that circumcision is motivated by female whim, but statements like that are completely selfish and inconsiderate, and completely intolerable."

I suspect that women generally suffer more pain due to male expectations than do circumcised males. Waxing hair, walking around in high heels, and all the rest of the things we expect our women to do are no more justified but they do it, and many of them are quite willing to do it because it is socially acceptable.
Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 3, 2010 at 1:58pm
We do it cuz we've no choice in the matter, socially speaking. It's do it or die single and poor. ;p

Those women who say they're 'glad' to do it are just as brainwashed by patriarchal values as religious people are of religious values.

The main difference is we mutilate boys before they're old enough to cuss us out or have personalities and opinions of their own. Whereas many female mutilations are done later in life and require the girl to be brainwashed to accept it.

A baby's crying cuz of circumcision has no more sadness effect on a doctor than the operator of a slaughter house when killing livestock. All in a day's work.

If the baby could talk, he'd say FUCKING STAY AWAY FROM MY DICK!
Permalink Reply by Anthony Hordern on January 22, 2011 at 10:12pm

And now, as ever, it is good to challenge social custom and religious tradition. At least that is necessary for the few of us who actually have some regard for truth and freedom.

This is especially true regarding our attitudes about sexuality and our treatment of women.

Permalink Reply by Agatka Radwańska on March 2, 2010 at 8:37pm
I doubt that origin of circumcision lies in women enjoying the sight... I also wouldn't circumcise my infant sons have I had any just because I like the way it looks. If the father wanted this and there were more credible medical studies concluding the benefits outweight the risks I'd seriously think about it although I'd rather have my children decide for themselves. So we kind of agree on this one.
How I feel about it as a woman enjoying the benefits (my long-term boyfriend is circumcised) is probably not how I'd feel if I was a man. I'd probably be all "leave my penis alone" .
As to FGM... please don't get me started...
Permalink Reply by Agatka Radwańska on March 2, 2010 at 9:15pm
Dear Rigbyt,
Please next time read my posts before forming such opinions. Also thank you for wishing me so well, you are such a lovely and tolerant person. Oh, also please read my name before you type it or try copy&paste, it's very helpful indeed.

RSS

© 2013   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service