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: 919

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lane on March 2, 2010 at 9:52pm
Male circumcision began as a Bronze age blood ritual. Circumcision got popular in America around 1900 as an antimasturbation measure due to pseudo-science nonsense coming from sex-hating nuts like John Harvey Kellog. It was claimed that masturbation caused insanity, blindness, etc. You name it. It actually doesn't even reduce masturbation becuase it just mutilates the penis. It does nothing to reduce the male sex drive. Masturbation is now known to be a healthy, normal activity by most everyone except the sex-hating nuts of the Abrahamic religions. And the idea of parents mutilating their children's bodies to control their sex lives is disgusting by most modern Americans, so new reasons have been created to justify circumcision through the decades. Anyway all of the masturbation hysteria was known to be BS by scientists by the 1920s, but circumcision had already caught on in hospitals. It is the most common surgery done in the US. It is profitable for doctors, and that is one big reason why this sacrilege still persists. It is a $500 million per year industry. Male circumcision removes alot more tissue than female circumcision, enough tissue to cover a 3 by 5 notecard by maturity. The highly sensitive frenulum, the rigid band, and thousands of feet of highly sensitive nerves, and other complex structures are cut away forever in male circumcision. The foreskin is not just some little insignificant bit of skin. Circumcised females can still have orgasms too by the way. Circumcision male or female is equally horrible and both should be illegal. 1 in 500 male circumcisions has complications: skin bridges, excessive skin removal, gangrene, damage to glans, heavy bleeding, uneven scarring, and occassionally even death. It is an irreparable mutilation done without consent. It violates the hippocratic oath. It is usually very painful and traumatic for the baby boy to endure, a totally needless trauma. The foreskin protects the glans as the eyelid protects the eye. For day to day comfort the foreskin protects the glans from chaffing against clothing, drying out, coldness, and becoming desensitized. The mechanics of intercourse are entirely changed for the worse without the foreskin for both male and female. Go to sexasnatureintendedit.com to find out all about this. One fact is that intact men don't need lubrication. Their foreskins have a gliding action of the foreskin over their glans that affords nearly frictionless sex. Orgasm is easily achieved by intact men. Their refractory period between orgasms is less than circumcised men. 85% of the world does not circumcise. America is the only country besides South Korea that does circumcises for mostly non-religious reasons. Americans need to understand that circumcision is a peculiar, unique, and stupid American practise that needs to stop. Some intact men have foreskin problems like phimosis, but ususally this can be overcome without circumcision. Should breasts be amputated because they may get cancer? A mutilated man's glans do stay a bit cleaner, but this tiny benefit is so exaggerated. Is it worth it to have your sexual pleasure and abilty drastically reduced to save 5 seconds in the shower? Is it worth it to have your sex life end many years earlier to be a little cleaner!? When the procircumcision nuts like Harvey spoke of hygeine, they meant moral hygeine. The hygeine thing is largely based on a language misunderstaning anyway. Circumcised men are less likely to use a condom, so they are more likely to get an STDs. Circumcision is no protection against STDs. Millions of circumcized American men managed to get HIV. Didn't they? Go to Intact America's website to joiin the fight to end infant circumcision. I believe the wretched practise of circumcision will end in the US within a generation. Guys who have been circumcised should begin restoring because it takes a long time and the younger the starting age the better. Many sources claim a restored foreskin is 80% as good as the real thing. One last point. If an adult (over 18) of either sex wants to get circumcised, fine; but all children female and MALE have a right to not have any of their genitalia cut, amputated or attacked in anyway by scalpels, knives, scissors, Gompco clamps etc. without their goddamned consent.
Permalink Reply by Nicholas Whitfield on March 2, 2010 at 10:32pm
Regardless of which side you on, I find it more disheartening the level of some in this discussion are portraying the other side of the opinion. Mutilation? Seriously?

I dare say its just as bad as the dogmatic defense of Christian teachings in this country.

I contend that yes that it should be a personal choice, made by a consenting adult, however calling it barbaric mutilation just weakens your cause overall, and honestly makes you no different than those who practice this based on religious reasons.

I'm circumsized, and even though I had no choice in the matter, I'm quite happy that I am this way.

Besides there much worse things going on in this world, caused by religious beliefs other than people having their male children circumsized.

People getting their hands cut off for petty crimes, people being threatened to death, or even killed over their sexual preferences, Whole ethnic groups persecuted because of religious beliefs, I could go on and on.
Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 2, 2010 at 10:43pm
Cultures practicing female circumcision also refuse to call it mutilation. It all depends on which side of the fence you are.

You're happy with yours cuz it's all you know, it's normal, it's self preservation to accept yourself and this is good. But you simply don't know what you're missing. And that's fine. There are more and more men going the restoration route.

Any ablation of an organ done without a person's consent is mutilation.

And yes, there are a couple of worse things, but it does not excuse this one.
Permalink Reply by Nicholas Whitfield on March 2, 2010 at 11:20pm
For you to compare female circumcision to male circumcision as equal travesties, just makes you seem just as out of touch as the those who practice it in my eyes.

Both might be done for whacky religious reasons, but only one serves to punish that gender for being that particular gender, the other I might add is done for perceived hygenic reasons.

And just as you say those whom are circumcised, are "missing out", you can very well say the same for those whom are not, are "missing out" as well, but painting these things black and white only serves make the debate that much more moronic.

I also find it more telling that there are millions of men who parents have "mutilated" them at childbirth, and yet for whatever reason they're not complaining.

But most of all I find it most disconcerting that there are more egregious things done in the name of religion, yet some people fanatically focus a small piece of skin.

Regardless, It seems to me the most logical position is that to leave it as a personal choice, and yet somehow I don't see certain advocates being able to be satisfied with that answer.
Permalink Reply by Ron Low on March 2, 2010 at 11:26pm
You're wading into territory covered very thoroughly earlier in this discussion. FGMs that are illegal now for 94% of the wolrd cover a wide range, from a "pin prick" to basically "murder." Both FGM and MGM are done by force and coercion, both kill hundreds per year and maim thousands in unanticipated ways, and both alter a person's sexual experience. If done without consent or medical neccessity, both are mutilations and violations of human rights which must be opposed. Ask Soraye Mire or Ayaan Hirsi-Ali. Both are FGM victims and authors who say male and female genital cutting are both atrocities.
Permalink Reply by TNT666 on March 2, 2010 at 11:29pm
Female mutilation oups circumcision IS NOT done for punishment. 'They' also use it for 'hygiene' see Wikipedia's entry under subtitle Traditional African cleanliness as well as other reasons, JUST LIKE IN THE USA. Same exact reasoning.

So look who YOU sound like...
Permalink Reply by Aaron S. (USA) on March 2, 2010 at 11:35pm
I think you're crossing the line here. You're accusing - I'm not sure exactly sure who of being "fanatical" and "out of touch", but the best example of these seems to be yourself.

No one here is claiming that there aren't worse things that happen, but that doesn't mean we can't talk about it. Physical abuse isn't as bad as full-fledged murder, but that doesn't we should just ignore physical abuse until all the murders have stopped. We can't stop every bad thing from happening - all that we can do is address wrongs of all kinds whenever we come across them. You yourself said that routine infant circumcision is wrong, but we're not going to be able to make any progress on that front without talking about it.

Secondly, FGM isn't practiced as a punishment just for being female, and worldwide, most male circumcisions are for religious reasons, not hygienic.

I don't know if anyone is necessarily "missing out" - but the crucial difference is that if I'm intact, and think I'm missing out, I can get a circumcision. Whether or not circumcisions reduce or increase pleasure may not be hard science at this point, but we can still say that victims of RIC are missing out on their right to make a choice.

Finally, if it's really your intent to raise the discussion, not lower it, the best thing you can do is not immediately resort to blaming your opponents of making the discussion moronic by fanatically dichotomizing the issue.
Permalink Reply by Ron Low on March 3, 2010 at 12:20am
^^ worldwide, most male circumcisions are for religious reasons ^^

While 2/3 to 3/4 of male circumcisions globally are done to Muslims, and they may THINK they have a religious reason, in fact the Qur'an says nothing of genital cutting for either gender. 3% of Jews and higher percentage (from 5% to 20% depending on source) of Muslims do not circumcise.
Permalink Reply by Paola Hughson on March 3, 2010 at 8:55pm
They do have a religious reason, Yahweh told abraham that circumcision would be a sign of the covenant between them and that he was to have a son and carry this on.
Sarah, his wife, was too old to bear him a son, so Hagar, their slave had a son for him.
Sarah in her jealousy, thought it was only fair to cut something off Hagar, she did not like the idea of cutting her nose or ear, so she thought, i will cut off her clitoris! DANG! lol
It is well known that mohummad thought he was a decendant of abraham.
Most of the Quran is plagurised from the old and the new testament.
Permalink Reply by Aaron S. (USA) on March 3, 2010 at 11:05pm
in fact the Qur'an says nothing of genital cutting for either gender

Wait, are we accusing religious people of logical and textual consistency? :P

But, to be a bit more technical (which is probably a bad idea for me considering how little I know of Islam), isn't the hadith and pronouncements by various mullahs more important, in terms of prescriptions and proscriptions, than the Qur'an? I don't suppose anyone with more knowledge could comment on this..?
Permalink Reply by Ron Low on March 3, 2010 at 11:24pm
That's what the Mullah tells you, anyway.

But no, there are Islamic originalists who say if it ain't in the Qur'an it's not authentic. If you look at the politcs surrounding the few generations after Muhammad, you can see why people might be suspicious that stuff attributed to the prophet (hadith), or supposedly akin to what he would have done (sunnah) tends to sound conveniently exactly like the thing that would do the most to keep the ruling cabal in power.
Permalink Reply by Paola Hughson on March 4, 2010 at 12:31am
There is a hadith where mohummad says about female circumcision,that you can cut a little bit or alot and he leaves it up to the his followers to judge.
They also say there is nothing in the Quran that says women have to wear a hijab or burka, but in fact in the hadiths, mohummad says that it is better to wear it and better still to wear the niqab, which also covers one eye.
It may not be in the Quran, but it is in the hadiths.

RSS

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service