Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ha! Tell that to my poor, circumsized penis!
I can say with a great deal of certainty it wasn't a mohel that did it to you
I have no problem with fixing a congenital defect.If it's medically warranted (e.g., phimosis), then sure, snip away. At least then there's an objective reason to do so. But if the infant has a perfectly healthy and normal penis, why should we even consider cutting bits of it off?
What about a perfectly functional and harmless piece of the body, like the ear lobe?I have no problem with fixing a congenital defect.
The ear lobe and the foreskin are not defective by default. Why remove tissue that has not been proven to be defective? We don't routine remove tonsils or spleens do we?What about a perfectly functional and harmless piece of the body, like the ear lobe?
If it's obviously abuse for women, why isn't it obviously abuse for men? I'm not saying you don't think it's abuse for men, but still, why do you think it's not obvious?
(Kellogg) was an especially zealous campaigner against masturbation; this was an orthodox view during his lifetime, especially the earlier part. Kellogg was able to draw upon many medical sources' claims such as "neither the plague, nor war, nor small-pox, nor similar diseases, have produced results so disastrous to humanity as the pernicious habit of onanism," credited to one Dr. Adam Clarke. Kellogg strongly warned against the habit in his own words, claiming of masturbation-related deaths "such a victim literally dies by his own hand," among other condemnations. He felt that masturbation destroyed not only physical and mental health, but the moral health of individuals as well. Kellogg also believed the practice of "solitary-vice" caused cancer of the womb, urinary diseases, nocturnal emissions, impotence, epilepsy, insanity, and mental and physical debility; "dimness of vision" was only briefly mentioned.
Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[7] he wrote
“A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed."
So you're saying female circumcision is bad because of the intent and outcome behind it? That certainly qualifies it as unethical.I can't speak for Ortho Cat, but I can share my line of reasoning behind why I feel FGM is abuse, but not the male circumcision practiced in Western culture. Female circumcision is almost always done as a means to completely eliminate a woman's ability to experience sexual pleasure, particularly before marriage. Some cultures not only completely cut off the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or sew the hood closed, but sew the vaginal opening shut almost completely, only allowing a small opening through which menstrual blood can escape. It is considered an honor for her husband to break through that skin on their wedding night, a most painful and horrific experience for the girl. In other cases a tribal matron may reverse the closing of tissue by making a small incision and seeing if it has been made large enough to permit sexual intercourse and childbirth.
In rare situations, a woman may consent to having part of her vaginal tissue or clitoral hood removed due to excessive growth. Usually female circumcision, however, is associated with mutilating a girl's genitals to prohibit sexual pleasure. I suspect complete loss of sexual sensation is quite rare in male circumcision and, if that were the purpose of male circumcision, then it absolutely would be a horrible practice.
And just because a person can't remember an experience doesn't mean it isn't traumatic or painful.
Actually Kat, one of the biggest proponents of male circumcision in America (read:One of the men who really got the movement going and made it standard in almost all hospitals) was an absolutely lovely ******* named John Kellogg. Yes, the cereal guy. And the whole point of it (the only point of non-religious circumcision) was to prevent masturbation, which he considered to be the biggest danger to health since the black plague. He believed sexual pleasure was evil and went to all kinds of lengths to destroy it.
Until the past decade or so, all circumcisions were done sans anesthetic (and most of them still are today, since they are done to little babies who are just born and pumping a newborn full of pain-nullifying chemicals can be a dangerous prospect). And just because a person can't remember an experience doesn't mean it isn't traumatic or painful. And it definitely doesn't make it okay.
Yeah, female circumcision is worse. But that doesn't make male circumcision any less terrible.
Wiccan_Child said:So you're saying female circumcision is bad because of the intent and outcome behind it? That certainly qualifies it as unethical.
What if someone simply removed the labia majora of a woman, with the express intent of not causing her any harm or limiting her sexuality? Perhaps, say, a surgeon did this to save her life during childbirth? Would that be immoral?
Umaro said:If not, why would it be any different for a baby?
Just because one person with sexual hang-ups believed circumcision could curb masturbation doesn't mean that's the purpose of male circumcision.
Despite what it may appear to be, I'm not a huge supporter of circumcision. I find it to be rather pointless, to be frank. With that said, I am not one of these rabid anti-circumcision folk who try and claim it's just as bad as FGM either.
This is a difficult question, because on the one hand let's say the woman is under anesthesia or otherwise unconscious and has no relative who is present to consent for her and the doctor must make a split-second decision. Would it be ethical to alter her genitals in order to save her life? Of course, it's difficult to compare these scenarios for two reasons - one, circumcision is mostly done either for religious or aesthetic reasons, and not to save the infant's life and two, it is the parents consenting on behalf of the child, something they are legally compelled, and permitted, to do until the child reaches the age of consent.
[/quote]For the same reason most people support abortion up until the second trimester - because, for whatever reason, if it cannot be remembered or comprehended it must not be unethical. It would be highly unethical to circumcise a fifteen year old boy for no reason other than aesthetic ones against his consent, because he would be able to process all of the feelings (physically, emotionally, mentally) associated with the procedure.
No one in this thread claims that male circumcision is as bad as female genital mutilation. But the fact that something else is even worse doesn't make circumcision good.Despite what it may appear to be, I'm not a huge supporter of circumcision. I find it to be rather pointless, to be frank. With that said, I am not one of these rabid anti-circumcision folk who try and claim it's just as bad as FGM either.
The God's law is there to be obeyed. If you are theist it doesn't make sense to thing about it as "bad" law. I really wonder why Christians stopped to obey the Lord.No one in this thread claims that male circumcision is as bad as female genital mutilation. But the fact that something else is even worse doesn't make circumcision good.
So consent and medical urgency are important, yes? So in the case of a newborn boy, who has neither given consent nor medically requires it, you'd oppose his circumcision? Why or why not?This is a difficult question, because on the one hand let's say the woman is under anesthesia or otherwise unconscious and has no relative who is present to consent for her and the doctor must make a split-second decision. Would it be ethical to alter her genitals in order to save her life? Of course, it's difficult to compare these scenarios for two reasons - one, circumcision is mostly done either for religious or aesthetic reasons, and not to save the infant's life and two, it is the parents consenting on behalf of the child, something they are legally compelled, and permitted, to do until the child reaches the age of consent.
The kind of FGM that occurs in Africa, sure. But what about the surgical removal of a newborn's labia majora? Isn't that on par with male circumcision?No one in this thread claims that male circumcision is as bad as female genital mutilation. But the fact that something else is even worse doesn't make circumcision good.
I don't know. I don't know how much not having labia maiora affects one's sex life, I don't know if it is worse than circumcision. I am against medically unnecessary surgery without the patient's consent, does that answer your question enough?The kind of FGM that occurs in Africa, sure. But what about the surgical removal of a newborn's labia majora? Isn't that on par with male circumcision?
For those who support circumcision, at what age does it become immoral? I often hear the argument that parents have the right to chose medical procedures for their children, but if the 15 year old child of the parent does not want a circumcision, do they have the right to strap him down and do it anyways? If not, why would it be any different for a baby?
Humans are not able to remember past 3-4 years of age.It just occurred to me, that maybe in some cases, a person can't remember a traumatic event because it was traumatic. Food for thought.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?