Atheist Nexus Logo
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: 1988

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'm TOTALLY against female genital mutilation. As for Circumcision... I'm conflicted. I think it should be optional... and should be done in infancy if at all... but from what I've heard circumcision promotes good hygeine and "supposedly" prevents some kind of cancer. So IDK...
Males who are cut can and do get penile cancer. Penile cancer affects old men. It is quite treatable. Even if foreskin caused penile cancer 100% of the time, a lifetime to enjoy a foreskin just might be worth dying of penile cancer. Foreskin feels REALLY good.
There is no special hygiene needed for a boy's penis. That was a red herring introduced by some doctors in the 40-60's to keep routine male circumcision alive an well.
Cancer of a man's breast is more lethal and common than penis cancer. Should we circumcise the breasts of males?

Smegma is a lubricant that can be smelly, females produce same. Is that an excuse for female circumcision as well?
The whole hygiene argument was relevant to prudish parents who didn't want to be moving their hands around their sons' penis, especially moving the skin back was too much for those prudes.
As for why I'm COMPLETELY against female genital mutilation is because 1. It's an EXTREMELY painful and unnecessary procedure done to young women as part of an attack on women's rights. [the right to control her own body]. 2. I read a personal account of a teenage girl who was genitally mutilated at the age of 14 and within 2 weeks married to a 42 year old man [against her will... apparently she failed at a suicide attempt the day before the "wedding" or as I would call it "the enslavement ceremony."] She also mentioned that the mutilation made it EXTREMELY painful to urinate or have sex for the rest of her life.
3. I don't know if circumcision has lasting physically and emotionally painful effects, or if it interferes with sexuality, but I do know this... when a boy is circumsized they remove his foreskin, when a girl is mutilated they remove HER ENTIRE cloiterus [which is, biological, the organ that in males would be the penis.... it is smaller and performs a different function in females... primarily, aiding a female's motivation for sex]. Boys, before you say that the process of female genital mutilation is NOT an abomination, consider this... the equivalent of that practice on males, would NOT be circumcision, it would be if they CUT your PENIS OFF!! - Think about that before dismissing this practice as harmless!
Go and watch the three types of routine circumcision at the Stanford U Pediatrics web site.
All there were done with two injections of pain kill, local anesthetics at 2 and 6 o'clock positions of the penis.

The child does not appear to scream, even when separation and dissection are under way.

I do not recommend or endorse male infant circumcision and I do think a parent should become educated of what is involved before they sign permission. I know in Maryland when I worked for DHS, I saw women from central America getting their male kids cut. That's outrageous as its not in their culture. So, its promoted and someone simply says sign here. I also wonder if these women understood English well enough to know what they had agreed to. I was told in Maryland almost 90 percent of newborn males leave with modified genitals.
Please don't compare the worst FGMs to the most benign MGMs. Both are carried out with a wide variety of severity. Many of cases the WHO calls FGM involve only astringents. Many only slit the hood. Even a pin-prick to draw one ceremonial drop of blood is NOW illegal for 94% of the world's population of females with no religious exemption. No country protects males.

Please don't suggest that non-consensual removal of tissue from my healthy genitals that included over half the sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings I would ever have and which would have grown to over 15 square inches of exquisite sexual interface was not mutilation.

Do you know the foreskin is exactly homologous to the clitoral hood and labia minora? They are the same tissue until 3 months gestation.

I sympathise that your masturbation/sex sessions might have been a bit more "exquisite" had you not been cut. I agree that your parents shouldn't have done it to you or to any of you. I get that you are, correctly, angry that FGM is a crime and MGM isn't. However, the degree to which you are (therefore?) seeking to trivialise the impact of FGM is getting........well, weird actually.
There is no culture cutting girls that does not also cut boys. There are tons of places where cutting girls is illegal and cutting boys is done in public ceremonies. I'd too would be delighted for equal status.
When I used to be a refugee lawyer, one of my client, who suffered gential mulitation, fleed her african country to save her 2 daughters from having to get mutilated because her family was putting more and more pressure on her to get it done. Before the refugee Board members, my client told the story on how she was tied to a tree while her mother and other women from her village, use a piece of glass to cut her clitoris, she was 8 years old. Unfortunalty the board members did not accept my argument, that women fleeing crountry where genital mutilation is encouraged, have no safe heven where they can get protection and therefore , qualified for protection under the Refugee Convention as they face persecution because of their "Membership to social group", but I never forgot the horror that this women went thru, this trauma does not compare to the pactice of circumsicion performed in the safety of an hospital, there is not ,much discussion ot have here.
That's horrible that woman couldn't get refugee status! Did she have to go back to her country of origin?
Obviously, FGM is a horrific human rights abuse that DOES warrant refugee status. I don't know how long ago this woman was cut, but it may have already been illegal in her country, which could infuence the board. The case then becomes one of proving that the law is never enforced.

Such boards have to tread a fine line. Since genital mutilation is so widespread, they acknowledge the damage at the risk of opening the flood gates for hundreds of thousands of male and female refugees.

The AAP and AMA are in the same boat. If they take their heads out of the send and act rationally to defend the human rights of boys in the USA, they build a case for negligence and malice lawsuits against their own membership. But a law which shields the doctors who have been cutting boys from liability would also be a disaster for the victims.

It's really intractable. You can't get a lawmaker to sponsor a bill to prohibit MGM as long as there is a US medical association claiming amputation of healthy body parts is a parents' rights issue, and you can't get the medical association to change that inhumane stance as long as the membership is exposed to liability if they admit a mistake.

Presently, the only state with an actual MGM law proceeding through the legislature is Massachusetts. On March 2nd there will be a public hearing to see if the law makes it out of committee.

This Massachusetts case is unlkely to go anywhere because they are one of the states with no specific FGM law. If they had one, they would just need to strike out the gender references and bring the law into compliance with the equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment. The law that is proposed WOULD protect healthy males, females, and intersex persons from non-therapeutic genital cutting, but Massachusetts can do nothing without looking monstrous because FGM is already prohibited at the federal level (and who gives a hoot about males and intersex persons, right?).


Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service