The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

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

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rob van Senten on March 14, 2010 at 6:43pm

There are many men who wish they had never been circumcised, not just those who had complications after the procedure. This is, in my opinion, beside the point.

The point that I tried to make, for which I used the analogy as well, is that perceived advantages and disadvantages based upon societal or ethical values are not a valid reason for an intrusion upon the freedom of the infant.

the only uncircumcised kid in gym class which alone carries a stigma.

With that reasoning you could defend a parent who bleaches the skin of his black kid to fit in at the white school. Or the parent who allows the genitalia of their daughter to be mutilated because her future husband will not marry her without.

For me the fact is, that in all these examples circumcision included, the basic human rights of the infant are being violated. This is the reason why I do not approve of the practice of infant circumcision. Not because some of the victims have regrets, even those without regrets are in my opinion still victims (of an intrusion upon their basic human rights) because:
- the victim has no say in the matter
- the procedure is permanent
- it degrades the appearance of the body
- it degrades the function of the body

No matter how bad the mutilation, I'm sure you can find a victim who is supportive of the practice. In Somalia for instance, mothers who are mutilated themselves wish for their daughters to undergo the same procedure.

I draw the line right there where the rights of the individual begin.

I have yet to hear a proper argument why the removal of the foreskin is not mutilation, as well as why infant circumcision is not in conflict with basic human rights.

I'm appalled by the fact that this subject is not controversial in some of the countries where it's practiced and that parents think that this is their decision to make.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Low on March 14, 2010 at 9:32pm

^^ We're talking foreskin, not the ability to see. ^^

We're talking about sexual pleasure, which - last I checked - motivates a hell of a lot in this society. And we're talking about normal unscathed apearance. I dare you to Google "circumcision damage" and tell somebody they should just get over looking like one of the COMMON horrid cosmetic outcomes you see pictured there.

^^ I imagine there are one or two men on this planet that wish they had never been circumcised ^^

There are HUNDEDS OF THOUSANDS of men enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo some of the damage. I start about 10 men per day down the road to partial recovery.

^^ some things we do to our children without their consent.

Amputate healthy normal body parts? Only male penises qualify for that treatment even though NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine infant genital cutting.

^^ Common sense is where you draw the line ^^

Common sense tells me to let a male decide for himself how much of his perfectly evolved pleasure receptor he gets to keep.

^^ you are going to have your kid being the only uncircumcised kid in gym class ^^

I'd be honored to alert my child that he may occasionally have to say "quit staring at my PENIS, Pervert!" but in fact, the rate of infant cutting is down to about 50/50 in the US now, so there will be some kids swinging both ways no matter what you do.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lisa on March 15, 2010 at 10:38pm

I know this is probably TMI, but I'm a nurse, as I said. It's really really hard, near impossible to catheterize somebody with a foreskin. Older men come in with nasty infections because they can't clean themselves properly or they've had phimosis. I suppose I'm seeing it from a very slanted point of view, but I have seen the problem first hand it can be nasty at times. Still, its possible the benefits outweigh the risks and not being a male, I suppose I'm not the best judge.

Interesting topic and interesting points you all bring to the subject. Not sure I'm ready to change my mind, but you've all given me something to think about.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Low on March 16, 2010 at 12:26am

^^ impossible to catheterize somebody with a foreskin. ^^

80% of the world is intact. It's just a matter of technique and training.

Permalink Reply by Gliktch on March 16, 2010 at 3:25am

Lisa, I'm sure there are some old people who have trouble wiping their bum too, should infants therefore have their buttocks amputated to make it somewhat easier?

Also, I refer you back to the 'medical benefit' rebuttal that's been covered several times; since removal of breast tissue can demonstrably lead to a reduction in the rate of breast cancer in adulthood, should this procedure thus be performed on infants? This is the same justification you're trying to use for permanent, non-consensual, male genital reduction surgery in babies.

As a nurse, have you sworn to a (supposedly modernized version of) the Hippocratic Oath, or do you at least in some way adhere to the principle of Primum nil nocere? Because I doubt that as a medical professional you can honestly claim that routine, non-consensual amputation of healthy infant genital tissue is the best way to guard against potential conditions such as phimosis in adults. You would surely know that even in adults with this class of affliction circucision is not, and should not be the first port of call. At any rate, I must again refer you back to the point on breast cancer.

Regards,
- Matthew

Permalink Reply by Hugh Young on March 20, 2010 at 12:39am

"It's really really hard, near impossible to catheterize somebody with a foreskin."

I can tell you first hand that it's absolutely possible, and with a pretty monstrous (three-tube) catheter, too (following a TURP, which must also have taken some heroic catheting).

The notion that all babies should have part of their penis cut off because some old men have trouble keeping it clean is quite bizarre. What are you going to cut off baby girls to help them when (if) they become incompetent old women?

Permalink Reply by Anthony Hordern on January 2, 2011 at 1:42am

It's not impossible at all. I was cathertised very quickly and easily in an American hospital once. You simply roll the foreskin back; takes all of two seconds. Older men come in with infections because of poor hygeine? So what about older women? Should we circumcise girls at birth in order to make your job more convenient?

Maybe more effort should be spent on preventative health-care and education, rather than the ignorant and commercial way the US treats its patients. You live in one of the most unhealthy cultures on the planet and then you blame nature for your problems.

An older man should not have phimosis. This is a relatively easily treated condition and should be addressed in youth. Unfortunately many (if not most) doctors in the USA have no idea how to treat phimosis without circumcision, because there is a large deficiency of knowledge about penile anatomy and treatment in circumcising countries such as the USA.

Let us not forget that older men (and women) have been around for thousands of years, just like the operation we call circumcision. Why hasn't this procedure ever been advocated for health reasons prior to 20th century USA?

Permalink Reply by Christopher Baughman on January 7, 2011 at 5:22pm

Ron, were you cut or have you always been uncircumcised? Because from what little I've bothered to read on the subject even if I repeatedly tugged on the skin of my penis I'd never regain all the nerve endings that the original tissue possessed. Regardless much of what you say is based on subjective experience for yourself. Being cut I've no problem getting an erection and getting off afterward. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming in any way that it's more pleasurable being cut. I just have zero problem with my dick at present. Thus I'm only mildly interested in this subject as a generic concept when I've no choice in having it performed on someone else or not.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on January 8, 2011 at 12:17am

I just have zero problem with my dick at present

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.

Permalink Reply by Hugh Young on March 24, 2010 at 1:54am

"That's a ridiculous analogy." It's an excellent analogy. "We're talking foreskin, not the ability to see." To see, but not to see as well. To enjoy sex, but not to enjoy it so much. Excellent analogy. "I imagine there are one or two men on this planet that wish they had never been circumcised..."See these first-hand accounts, growing daily."... but I haven't actually taken a poll." Informal polls (there haven't been any scientific ones) polls show about half of circumcised men are happy about it, compared to the great majority of intact men. "Vaccinations are done without consent." Bad analogy. Vaccinations confer near total immunity, prevent epidemics, leave the body whole. Circumcision does none of those. "There are some things we do to our children without their consent. Where do you draw the line? I think right there." No, at cutting parts off their bodies. That's where we draw it with girls - why the double standard? "And unless there is a massive decision by all Americans, for which I can only speak for, I don't know what they do in Europe or anywhere else, you are going to have your kid being the only uncircumcised kid in gym class which alone carries a stigma." The rate is down around 55% now so the stigma could go either way. And which would you rather have to tell your son? - "Theirs are different because their parents had parts cut off theirs"? Or "Yours is different because we had part cut off yours"? Already parents of circumcised kids are having to answer that awkward question from their sons.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 24, 2010 at 7:29pm

here here to easy motion :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Hordern on January 7, 2011 at 2:47am

Foreskin is part of the penis which is, like the eyes, an acute sensory organ; the penis for feeling and the eyes for seeing. Like the eyes the penis has a natural protective covering to help preserve moisture and sensitivity, amongst other functions. To remove the foreskin is akin to removing the eyelids. One man circumcised as an adult compared the difference between intact sex and circumcised sex to the difference between colour television and black-and-white television.

There are a lot more than "one or two" men on this planet who wish they had never been circumcised. The internet is full of the lamentations of such individuals which number in the thousands. There are even organisations such as NORM for men trying to restore their foreskins. Not only have you not taken a poll but you don't seem to have done any research on the matter whatsoever.

The issue of vaccinations is also a controversial one. I would be very hessitant to give children vaccinations. There is a large body of evidence contesting the validity of the theory on which vaccination is based. It is well known that many of the ingredients in common vaccinations are toxic, such as mercury as a preservative. Virus strains can be harvested in diseased animals or even cancerous tumors.

I am suspect about much of conventional allopathic modern western medicine for good reasons. But let us assume that there are situations where properly prepared vaccines have value, I would still never give them to a new-born child because their immune system is too young. And even if I was forced to do this to a baby or child, the point is that you are not amputating healthy functional tissue. You are introducing a serum into the body. Just as you might administer medicine orally or rectally, you are injecting it into the muscle. There is no loss of tissue. Circumcision is an amptuation, a permanent amputation of valuable healthy functional erogenous tissue.

The foreskin of an infant helps to Guard Against Infection. It is a specialised opening that allows urine to exit the penis but does not allow anything to enter. Cutting it off not only removes this natural protection but also actually *exposes* the penis to infection by cutting it open and leaving a wound (which must then heal in a dirty diaper). This is madness.

Where do you draw the line on doing things to infants without their consent? Simple: at amputating natural healthy body-parts. You wouldn't do this to your daughter for precisely this reason, and yet things seem to change when your son's genitals are concerned. Why the double-standard? Surely what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Parents should be taught by doctors and nurses that the original penis is a natural penis and a normal penis, and if it is a healthy penis then nothing needs to be done to it, absolutely nothing.

I don't really understand what you mean by "common sense" in this regard. I would have assumed common sense to dictate that if its illegal for girls then it should be illegal for boys. I think common sense would say that foreskin on either gender is not a birth-defect, that babies are born complete and perfect. I think common sense would be that removing healthy functional erogenous genital tissue will have a negative impact on sexuality. I think common sense would suggest if it ain't broke don't fix it!

Common sense tells me that this is a surgery he can choose to have at any age so why foist it upon him before he can decide for himself? Common sense would conclude that since most of the world's male population is intact and doing just fine that this is an unnecessary procedure. Common sense would say it's his body, is penis, his rights. But there's a problem with common sense which you have just demonstrated: it ain't that common!

And here we are back at the old 'gym class locker room' argument. My gosh. First of all, the rate of circumcision in the USA is dropping and intact penises are becoming more and more common. By the time today's toddlers are in highschool it will probably be about 50/50. But even if this were not the case that is no reason to go depriving boys of their natural God-given right to intact genitalia for the sake of 'fitting in'.

This is a decision made out of fear to conform in a country that was based on the noble ideas of individual freedom and personal liberty! Teach your son to be happy and comfortable with himself and you will go alot further to addressing any potential bullying (which can occur for ANY reason, not just circumcision status) than by changing what he is.

There are many intact american boys who, whether they experienced any teasing or not, are happy with their foreskins. One shining example is Jamie Stroud who's circumcision video can be seen on youtube, and whose story shows that being confident and comfortable in your own skin (so to speak) is what matters. He was teased for being intact but he responded with information and education, even demonstrating how it all works. Eventually the teasing stopped and boys even confided in him their regret at having been circumcised.

And by the way if you want to know what they do in Europe and other countries just google it! You will quickly discover that an intact penis, just like an intact vulva, is very common in other countries. Most men in the world are intact and the majority of circumcised men are Muslim.