Circumcision?

[Mephistopheles]

Moff; stay away from tribal areas in Africa, don't convert to Islam, and you'll be fine.

FGM is being frowned upon by most Arabs, it's something from tribal Africa that those areas just mixed with islam, with which it has nothing to do. In some parts of tribal Africa the clitoris is considered poisonous and has to be removed.

A circumsized penis is less sensitive because the glans is exposed and rubbing against the person's clothing making sex usually last longer.

I don't know whether that's an advantage really, things might be a bit more pleasurable for the woman but I don't know the difference it makes for men.

 

[DimpleToes]

I dont care either way for a man. I do think it is more humane to do it shortly after birth for one wont recall it. Beeing in the medical field I have seen several men who are not clean in that area, they forget to pull the forskin back and clean which leads to nasty build up and possible infections. I had a dear freind who had his circumsion when he was in his 40's and was in so much pain.

As for the female beeing circumsized it is differant for the clit is actually removed.. big differance from just the skin beeing removed.

 

[Artoo]

Beeing in the medical field I have seen several men who are not clean in that area, they forget to pull the forskin back and clean which leads to nasty build up and possible infections. I had a dear freind who had his circumsion when he was in his 40's and was in so much pain.

That's nothing more than an argument for good hygeine, not an argument for male circumcision.
Sometimes people don't wash their hands after going for a piss. It's disgusting, but perhaps it would be on the safe side if we just lopped off their hands when they were born. Otherwise they could get nasty infections.

 

[DimpleToes]

That's nothing more than an argument for good hygeine, not an argument for male circumcision.
Sometimes people don't wash their hands after going for a piss. It's disgusting, but perhaps it would be on the safe side if we just lopped off their hands when they were born. Otherwise they could get nasty infections.

Artoo.. I was not saying that is an excuse to circumcision. I guess I should of been more clear. I was not implying what you think. I dont care if a man has the procedure or not.. it should be there choice when they are old enough to make said choice. In me saying what I said, I was only stating why my freind had the precedure so late in life.

 

[Artoo]

Artoo.. I was not saying that is an excuse to circumcision. I guess I should of been more clear. I was not implying what you think. I dont care if a man has the procedure or not.. it should be there choice when they are old enough to make said choice. In me saying what I said, I was only stating why my freind had the precedure so late in life.

My apologies, I was being facetious.

 

[Mephistopheles]

That's nothing more than an argument for good hygeine, not an argument for male circumcision.
Sometimes people don't wash their hands after going for a piss. It's disgusting, but perhaps it would be on the safe side if we just lopped off their hands when they were born. Otherwise they could get nasty infections.

Less washing and cleaning can actually be good for you according to the hygeïne hypothesis considering the source of allergies.

 

[Evil Dave]

I was circumcised as a kid and I can honestly say it hasn't screwed me up one iota. I honestly don't know any different. I have no frame of reference.

Male circumcision is nowhere near as offensive as female circumcision (which was surely only invented to 'put women in their place') as it doesn't completely destroy a persons ability to enjoy sex.

I'm not trying to say that every guy should be circumcised but for me it has never really been an issue. Considering the hygiene benefits I am quite content with the current arrangement.

 

[sasaxrah]

"Can you cut yourself more attractively please?"
Ladies, if your boyfriend sat you down and told you that your breasts weren't sufficiently shaped/sized for him to achieve a satisfactory erection and actually turned him OFF from having sex with you...

Well, guess what suggesting circumcision to men is like for us? True, most of us born before 1990 already ARE, but for those who aren't, this is kind of the same slap in the face. The REASON CIRCUMCISED PENISES "LOOK BETTER" is because they've been the standard for 100 years, and by standard I mean no-one-born-in-a-hospital-had-a-choice standard. Keep in mind that optional circumcision is still new, but 50 years from now, circumcised penises might be as uncommon and unattractive as uncircumcised ones are now.

A fair point, Amn. When I say that uncircumcised penises look a little weird to me, that's only because of experience. Just like I've seen some vaginas that are a little different than the norm. That doesn't mean it's something I would consider a turnoff, so maybe the word 'weird' should have been 'different.' Different doesn't mean deal breaker, it just requires a quick adjustment. And if in 50 years the reverse is true and uncircumcised penises are the norm, then I would hope other women wouldn't shun Jewish guys or whoever still had them.

By the way, I know gay guys who have the same negative thoughts about uncircumcised penises, so it's not just a female perception thing.

You bring up some really good points here, and I sincerely appreciate having my thoughts challenged.

 

[Amnesiac]

nd if in 50 years the reverse is true and uncircumcised penises are the norm, then I would hope other women wouldn't shun Jewish guys or whoever still had them.
-sasaxrah

I don't think it'd be much of a problem; there's still voluntary adult circumcision to consider, and a fair percentage of people who undergo it are happy with the decision. There's always going to be a contingent of circumcised men, as well as a contingent of people who appreciate them...its more a matter of 1) the uncircumcised not being victims of biased cultural aesthetics and 2) circumcised men having a CHOICE about the matter. Plus, there's also a population of practicing Jews who AREN'T circumcised (but you probably already know about that, lol).

Keep also in mind that having it both ways would make people accustomed to adapting to various body types in their SOs rather than having awkward reactions and freak-outs like they do now, which is probably better for body images.

 

[MrMacphisto]

Female circumcision is rather brutal. It's generally considered mutilation in most countries. It's more or less a punishment more than a custom.

 

[kis123]

I was married to an uncircumsized man for 10 years and I will NEVER have sexual relations with an uncircumsized man again.

The entire time we were together, I was being treated for one type of infection or another. We conceieved one child together, and even then I was constantly sick.

Men should be allowed to decide whether to be circumsized or not, but I get to decide whether I will sleep with them. If they're not cut, it's not clean to me.

 

[Carsomyr]

People have mentioned FGM, but I have to say I think male circumcision is barbaric too. At any rate it should not be up to the parents to decide if their baby should have his genitals mutilated or not. If an adult want to do it TO HIMSELF then it's a different matter I guess, but I'd still regard it as rather odd that someone would want to do such a thing.

The hygiene issue is bollocks too, it's just like when the church used to say that masturbation makes your penis fall off... It is completely made up.

Back to the parents right to decide though... I actually got a classmate once who was circumcised. It wasn't his decision, and he was severely messed up mentally because of it. He even started cutting himself, and tried to take his own life. I was the only person he would talk to about it, he said that while there were other factors, the circumcision part was a major reason for him feeling so bad.

 

[luvgirlsfeet]

Oooooooooooh Hell's NO

 

[locker669]

So what are my downsides since I was circumcised?

 

[..Glamorous..]

I circumcised my son, his pediatrician highly recommended it. Circumcised men are apparently more likely to not develop UTI's and are less likely to catch STDS (idk about that but oh well). I also did it because it's easier to clean and my husband is circumcised.


As for that other shit about female circumcision, fuck that man! That makes my damn vag hurt.

 

[Amnesiac]

I also did it because it's easier to clean and my husband is circumcised.

Well if soap & water qualify as difficult tools, then...

As for that other shit about female circumcision, fuck that man! That makes my damn vag hurt.

I don't have a vag and yet, MY genitals hurt at the thought of FGM...too bad women don't get the same feeling thinking about male circumcision...

 

[..Glamorous..]

Well if soap & water qualify as difficult tools, then...

Uhm, my son is one years old. He is hyper and wont sit still. LOL It's not the tools, it's the kid.

 

[asutickler]

I'm glad my folks had it done to me when I was a baby. Otherwise I would've had it done myself as soon as I was able, and that's NOT something I'd like to experience or remember.

 

[..Glamorous..]

I now know far too much about members of the board's penises.

 

[Amnesiac]

Uhm, my son is one years old. He is hyper and wont sit still. LOL It's not the tools, it's the kid. - ...Glamorous...

One year old? Uh...you're not supposed to actively clean the foreskin until it starts retracting, which is about 3-5 years old (although it can be earlier or later). It's stuck together which is what keeps it from getting dirty underneath.

 

[..Glamorous..]

One year old? Uh...you're not supposed to actively clean the foreskin until it starts retracting, which is about 3-5 years old (although it can be earlier or later). It's stuck together which is what keeps it from getting dirty underneath.

Word.


Doesn't matter. He's circumcised and that's how I wanted it.

 

[kis123]

Well if soap & water qualify as difficult tools, then...

It wasn't enough for me; month after month of infections times nine years is a lot. He was a very clean man who knew how to clean himself, yet I still got sick. Sometimes it's simply not enough. As soon as I stopped having relations with him and had one more antibiotic run, I haven't been sick since. The men I have been with since are all circumcized and I've had no problems. That's enough evidence for me.

I don't have a vag and yet, MY genitals hurt at the thought of FGM...too bad women don't get the same feeling thinking about male circumcision...

Female circumcision has NOTHING to do with hygiene as it does with control. Take away her pleasure center and she doesn't enjoy sex; it simply becomes a duty to her husband who can take his uncircumcized member and get pleased with any woman he wants.

 

[Bohemianne]

Uncircumcised male...ugh...no way.

FGM...what? While we respect Freud's "penis envy" theory, they still think the remaining pea needs trimming? Bah! This will mean World War 2-1/2!

 

[Amnesiac]

Well, aesthetic preference is a matter of personal taste, so there have to be allowances for that. For example, the shaved pubic look is popular today but would've been very unusual in the 1970s, so tastes change with time, and in most of those cases it's personal experience that forms the appeal.

Imagine 100 years ago, before Kellogg and his contemporaries finagled the medical world into adopting neonatal circumcision: virtually no one outside of the Jewish community WAS circumcised and so the first generation that underwent neonatal routine HAD to have encountered some unusual reactions by sexual partners to it. Future generations saw nothing BUT circumcised men and so THAT became the standard aesthetic. What's got me curious...is that if Kellogg and his kind hadn't been successful, WOULD THOSE OF YOU (besides Kis) ADVOCATING/DEFENDING IT NOW, or would you find it as unappealing as people found it back then?

And THAT is what I've been trying to point out in this thread: that most of the opinions (again, besides kis') seem to follow the trend and familiarity aspect of the argument rather than the evaluative. For example, in this discussion (inside and outside the forum) I've noticed that there's a lot of overlaps between the FGM and MGM (Male Genital Mutiliation, since "male circumcision" takes up more space) but then there's a point where the conclusions DIVERGE...and the final conclusion people seem to agree on seems arbitrary and that's where I get the feeling of gender bias (misandric, rather than misogyny):

OVERLAPS
1. Surgery is irreversible
2. Surgery is done without patient's consent
3. Surgery is done at young age
4. Surgery is excruciating without anesthetic
5. Surgery removes large percentage of sexual sensitivity
6. Appearance indicates health in dominant cultures
7. Appearance is considered appealing in dominant cultures
8. Post-op complications cripple sexual functioning
9. Post-op complications CAN (not WILL) be lethal
10. Surgery considered act of forcible submission
11. Complication/Benefit ratios are comparable in probability percentages
12. Age-related memory loss argued as shield against emotional trauma

DISCREPANCIES
3. Days (males), Days-Years (female)
5. 70% (males), 90-100% (female)
6. Hygiene (males), Fidelity (female)
10. Females (to other males), Males (to male God)
11. Complications in females abound, benefits are considered nonexistant
Males (.02-10%/10%)
12. Age-related memory loss considered inviable justification with women; viable in men
13. Sensitivity loss in women relevant in consideration; loss in men irrelevant in consideration
14. Ignorance of sensitivity loss considered indefensible argument in women; defensible in men
15. FGM considered INDEFENSIBLE in Western culture in spite of similarities to male circumcision regardless of any supporting medical data or standards; MGM considered DEFENSIBLE in spite of similarities to FGM and conflicting medical data.

So in this rough compilation, there's about 12 major overlaps, and 9 discrepancies; 4 of them technicals (in measurement units) that don't contradict the overlap, and 5 of them indicative that men and women are given differing considerations. In a culture that prides itself on being a promoter of gender equality in all fields, especially protections and choice, this is a BLINDING OVERSIGHT. I'm wondering if the circumcision supporters are 1) AWARE of these discrepancies and 2) consider them ACCEPTABLE in spite of the hypocritical properties (and if so, why?)

Maybe I should clarify that I'M NOT AGAINST CIRCUMCISION AS A VOLUNTARY DECISION...JUST AS A NON-CONSENSUAL ROUTINE ACTION.
I can't look at any of the above arguments and consider male circumcision anything other than an unjust practice that violates the fundamental Western virtue of choice & self-determination. Remember that rape scenario I mentioned where a rape performed under the same defenses as circumcision (memory and temporary damage) was considered ASSAULT regardless of those defenses, but the consideration wasn't reciprocated? That's another illustration of this.

In the end, I think what disturbs me most is that men & women are EMOTIONALLY responding to the horrors of FGM (i.e. CUTTING UP THE VULVA) without being swayed by traditional defenses...but that those same emotional responses CAN BE neutralized by traditional defenses of MGM, and they not only don't realize it...but don't care.

 

[kis123]

Amnesiac:

You've put up some very strong arguments but it leaves me with questions.

If this procedure is done literally hours after birth, how does any male know or remember the level of pain?

Moreso, how does the male infant know down the road that this is a sensitivity issue? I haven't heard one circumsized male post that they're less sensitive due to circumscision. The female circumsision/mutilation has a lot of info on the books that it decreases sensitivity and it's done on much older females, hence the pain factor. If you're cutting the vulva and the clit, exactly what's left to find sex enjoyable and pleasurable? Not much IMO. She's left literally no more than a hole for her husband to stick himself into and babies to fall out of.

There are cultures that suscribe to men enjoying sex and woman doing their wifely duties for their man. They don't care if women enjoy it. Hell, prior to the seventies, some western cultures *cough US cough* didn't see women as enjoying sex but it was a duty between spouses. Hell, there was a time where there was no such thing as rape between a husband and wife and it hasn't been that long ago either. We're not as evolved and cultured as we'd like to believe.

I'm not trying to mininmize your opinion, but this is not an apples to apples comparison by any means.