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: 1719

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Proven to be false by whom? You make these claims over and over and cite nothing but some videos of individual stories told by physicians in the US?

I'm going to refer you to the reply to DTM here going forward.
There is a great collection of all the problems with the Africa studies on circumcision and AIDS here: http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

Your sarcasm belies your lack of understanding. Heather is right: amputating healthy functional tissue in no way improves hygeine. If it did then why not circumcise girls too? And why are we only cutting off parts of the genitalia for hygeine? Smells fishy to me (pun intended). If Americans were really interested in improving hygeine then surely they would stop poisoning themselves with drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, and the most disgusting products posing as food. They would stop poisoning their air and water ways with toxic chemicals. And they would exercise regularly. These things would contribute alot more towards health and hygeine than genital mutilation. But then Americans have a very prudish history so they all know that sex is "dirty".

 

I would not necessarily trust the CDC at all. Why are studies even being performed on male circumcision? Why not female circumcision? Who is performing the studies, and why? Do you think the scientific method is incorruptible by fallible humans? Do you think big organisations and corporations are beyond being influenced by hidden agendas and biases? The only cultures you find doing studies on circumcision are those already practicing it and looking to justify it, just as you are perhaps looking in your own way to justify your circumcised state.

 

Routine circumcision is an insidious meme because it is the involuntary surgical alteration of the penis. It affects the deepest level of the male psyche which relates to power and pleasure, sex and violence, identity and masculinity. Like all destructive traditions, and perhaps even more than most, it takes great awareness, great courage, great compassion, and great determination to break the cycle of abuse.

If they cared so much about hygeine in this country, they'd be for people having more sex, and not be so sexophobic. We're improving though. Sex is good for physical, mental and emotional hygeine.
AND would not be cutting planned parenthood funding :(
Oh.no wonder I look like a fish out of water when I ahemmm, u know.But for real though most of my Latin friends have not had this precedure done to them and as an uncircumcised male I have to admitt the hygene part is totally bogus.

There are different kinds of FGM just as there are different kinds of MGM. One reason FGM is performed is to lessen the enjoyment of sex. This reason has also been given for male circumcision. In fact this is precisely why it began in the USA during the 1800s. In societies where virginity upon marriage is prized the girls are infibulated.

 

Anyone who thinks that the evidence is inconclusive that circumcision improves hygeine is themselves circumcised and has no understanding of or experience with intact genitalia. Amputation of healthy functional tissue does not improve hygeine and not one culture that practiced circumcision prior to the 20th Century has ever given physical cleanliness as a reason.

 

Circumcision is a euphamism for genital mutilation, genital cutting, genital amputation, or however you wish to put it. It is an anti-sexual act and if perpetrated on an infant it is a heinou sex crime. It is hard for circumcised men to admit this to themselves because this is such a deeply psychological issue.

Mutilating the penis is cutting away parts off it, it is mutilation. Its not really a medical procedure, its cosmetic. Its akin to scarification, horn implants, and other more extreme body modifications, except this one is done on a human being that did not and can not consent. It doesn't matter what possible benefits it might have, its wrong. Removal of all sexual organs all together will remove nearly all the risk of catching an STD for example, that doesn't mean it should be done.

Well said. In spite of any benefits that may or may not exist to circumcision, what is missing from this debate in the media is a recognition of and discussion about the functions of the foreskin. In the USA and Australia most journalists are not doing their job by interviewing interviews doctors opposing circumcision and asking important questions such as what we might be taking away. A doctor circumcised at birth who has had no experience of or education about natural genital anatomy and physiology does not understand the significance of what is being removed. The only thing we sometimes hear is that circumcision may result in a small loss of sensitivity in the glans (and then this is usually refuted by "at least he'll last longer") but no mention is made of the sensitivity of the foreskin itself, much less its role in sexual activity.
I am divided on this subject. I am circumcised myself and I have never felt mutilated. My perspective is that it's a bit of skin which I feel no loss for and can't imagine wanting. I perceive male circumcision as little different than piercing the ears of an infant, which I have also seen. I confess some ignorance about female circumcision but a wikipedia article on the subject states that it is not analogous to male circumcision and more worthy of being termed mutilation.
it's a bit of skin which I feel no loss for and can't imagine wanting. Fine, but according to experts: "More than "just a flap of skin", the foreskin contains thousands of sensitive nerve endings. Its primary job is to protect and moisturize the glans (head of the penis), in much the same way as the eyelid protects the eyeball."

I got this from : http://infant-toddler-health.suite101.com/article.cfm/reasons_not_to_circumcise_your_baby.

Any other human anatomist will confirm that.
I cannot comment on the veracity of such claims other than to say that my penis has more than enough nerves as it is. :)

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service