Circumcision

[selfinflikted]

Does it being YOUR PENIS mean that ONLY YOU get to make decisions about it? (And, of course, why?)

Yea, only I get to make decisions about it, because it's mine I'm not sure how you could suggest otherwise?

Are you 100% certain that the damage to *my* psyche was not irreparable?

Well, no.

And... this now has me wondering... is it possible to reverse a circumcision?

No, at least as far as I'm aware, it's not. Actually, I have done at least some cursory research out of personal curiosity, and the only ways I could find to "reverse" the procedure seemed to me to be gimmicky.

Apparently, your parents believe otherwise. Who's right?

No one is "right", but in my opinion, they were wrong to have this procedure done on me before I could consent to it.

 

[Umaro]

Complaining about male circumcision? 'Mutilation'? Please, some of the posts here make it sound like a death sentence. The horrors of not having a foreskin.

So if we convinced your parents tomorrow to strap you down, and cut off your labia, you'd just be fine with it? "Oh, the horrors of not having labia " and all that?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

So if we convinced your parents tomorrow to strap you down, and cut off your labia, you'd just be fine with it? "Oh, the horrors of not having labia " and all that?

When a male is circumcised (correctly) it's just a minor operation, when a female is circumcised it's mutilation. Sorry gentlemen, I consider myself a feminist but in this respect we're not equal.

 

[Exial]

Removing a small piece of skin is not genital mutilation. That's what they do to females by removing the ENTIRE genitalia. And the reason's for both are completely different.

mu·ti·late (my

t

l-

t

)tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates 1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

Removing a piece of skin is to mutilate. by definition, you are wrong.
When done for purely religious reasons this is wrong.

(btw, why does god want us to hack babies foreskins off?)

Based on your logic then, I would assume that you are categorically against abortion.

You assume wrongly. While in the womb I think the fetus is the "property" of its mother since it generally requires the mother to survive although as the fetus grows older this idea becomes more and more muddled.

My logic is the same however. Nobody should decide for the baby if it should have its foreskin removed in the same way nobody should decide for the mother if she should have a abortion. Its all about people forcing their viewpoint on others, in this case religious (ie, God wants this foreskin removed, God doesn't want you to murder this baby)

 

[Exial]

When a male is circumcised (correctly) it's just a minor operation, when a female is circumcised it's mutilation. Sorry gentlemen, I consider myself a feminist but in this respect we're not equal.

It is not the scale of the mutilation that is the issue. Certainly, female mutilation can be far more grotesque and damaging but the point is that neither the recipients of male or female circumcision get to decide if they want it (when done for religious or aesthetic reasons at infancy).

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

It is not the scale of the mutilation that is the issue. Certainly, female mutilation can be far more grotesque and damaging but the point is that neither the recipients of male or female circumcision get to decide if they want it (when done for religious or aesthetic reasons at infancy).

So? Children don't decide to be born either, which brings me to a point a few other users have brought up -

While in the womb I think the fetus is the "property" of its mother since it generally requires the mother to survive although as the fetus grows older this idea becomes more and more muddled.
...
Nobody should decide for the baby if it should have its foreskin removed in the same way nobody should decide for the mother if she should have a abortion.

So once the baby is born you can't touch it without it's 'consent' but before it's born you can decide to end it's life? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. What is it about birth itself that suddenly makes the foetus / baby a 'person'?

A foreskin is just a piece of skin, assuming the operation goes well removing it doesn't cause any damage. It's not worth complaining about.

 

[Skaloop]

A foreskin is just a piece of skin, assuming the operation goes well removing it doesn't cause any damage. It's not worth complaining about.

Says the person who didn't and doesn't have one.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Says the person who didn't and doesn't have one.

True.

 

[yasic]

There are more than one types of female circumcision. The type that removes a bit of the labia but does not touch the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is very much on par with male circumcision, both are done purely for religious or cultural reasons.

Granted this type of female circumcision is only accounts for 2%* of all female circumcisions.

Would you still call this female circumcision mutilation? If so, why would you not do the same for male circumcision?

*This is what I remember it to be. I could easily be wrong here.

 

[Exial]

So? Children don't decide to be born either, which brings me to a point a few other users have brought up - So once the baby is born you can't touch it without it's 'consent' but before it's born you can decide to end it's life? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. What is it about birth itself that suddenly makes the foetus / baby a 'person'?

You have to draw a line somewhere. I draw that line at birth for reasons I have already explained. It may not be perfect but it is necessary.

We can at least agree that after birth a baby inherits rights that all humans should be entitled to, such as being able to decide if anybody should take a knife to your genitals because they think God will appreciate the sentiment.

A foreskin is just a piece of skin, assuming the operation goes well removing it doesn't cause any damage. It's not worth complaining about.

Because they like foreskin, are just pieces of skin may I cut off your children's earlobes? Or yours? Providing operation goes well there won't be any permanent "damage" and you'll have nothing to complain about. Or what about your labia minora? just flaps of skin eh? What say you?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

There are more than one types of female circumcision. The type that removes a bit of the labia but does not touch the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is very much on par with male circumcision, both are done purely for religious or cultural reasons.

Granted this type of female circumcision is only accounts for 2%* of all female circumcisions.

Would you still call this female circumcision mutilation? If so, why would you not do the same for male circumcision?

*This is what I remember it to be. I could easily be wrong here.

(I'm assuming this post is directed at me. The swearfilter makes your argument slightly unclear though.)

If the circumcision a) does no physical damage and b) does not decrease pleasure (the latter is often the main effect on females) then where's the harm?

 

[Skaloop]

If the circumcision a) does no physical damage and b) does not decrease pleasure (the latter is often the main effect on females) then where's the harm?

The harm is that it does actually do both (a) and (b). It's physical damage, no argument can be made to the contrary. And it's generally accepted that it decreases pleasure (the lack of foreskin protection desensitizes the head of the penis), so that's strike two.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

The harm is that it does actually do both (a) and (b). It's physical damage, no argument can be made to the contrary. And it's generally accepted that it decreases pleasure (the lack of foreskin protection desensitizes the head of the penis), so that's strike two.

Obviously any operation can go wrong, but we can't dismiss circumcision itself because of that.
Removing the foreskin doesn't actual decrease pleasure, it desensitized the head a little, which can be an advantage (as Aradia mentioned ). Female circumcision however completely removed the nerves so that the girl can never have an [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] - the theory being that if she can't feel pleasure she will never be unfaithful.

 

[yasic]

(I'm assuming this post is directed at me. The swearfilter makes your argument slightly unclear though.)

If the circumcision a) does no physical damage and b) does not decrease pleasure (the latter is often the main effect on females) then where's the harm?

Well for starters, male circumcision does decrease pleasure, and it also makes masturbation more difficult.

 

[yasic]

Obviously any operation can go wrong, but we can't dismiss circumcision itself because of that.
Removing the foreskin doesn't actual decrease pleasure, it desensitized the head a little, which can be an advantage (as Aradia mentioned ). Female circumcision however completely removed the nerves so that the girl can never have an [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] - the theory being that if she can't feel pleasure she will never be unfaithful.

Hence my previous post: There are certain types of female circumcision that only cut off labia and nothing else. This only slightly decreases pleasure (no different than male circumcision) and does not prevent [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 the like.

Are you ok with this type of female circumcision?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Hence my previous post: There are certain types of female circumcision that only cut off labia and nothing else. This only slightly decreases pleasure (no different than male circumcision) and does not prevent [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 the like.

Are you ok with this type of female circumcision?

Not quite, due to anatomical differences. If male and female circumcisions were the same the girl would only have her clitoral hood removed - which isn't quite so bad. However removing the labia (major or minor) is more like slicing the scrotum, which even I would agree would be more damaging than removing the foreskin.

 

[Skaloop]

Obviously any operation can go wrong, but we can't dismiss circumcision itself because of that.

Sure we can. An absolutely unnecessary procedure which carries a not insignificant risk of either immediate physical harm or future emotional harm? That should be dismissed.

Removing the foreskin doesn't actual decrease pleasure, it desensitized the head a little,

Which is a decrease in pleasure. You contradicted yourself in half a sentence.

which can be an advantage (as Aradia mentioned ).

Advantage how?

Female circumcision however completely removed the nerves so that the girl can never have an [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]

Which could also be an advantage. I mean, hey, it doesn't decrease pleasure, it just removes the sensitive areas. And if done when she's young, she won't even know the difference.

the theory being that if she can't feel pleasure she will never be unfaithful.

Which would be an advantage, right? Unless you consider infidelity a good thing.

 

[Umaro]

Removing the foreskin doesn't actual decrease pleasure, it desensitized the head a little

So now that I'm an adult, and I say "you know, I wish the head of my penis was as sensitive as nature intended it," why am I the one that has to deal with "too bad, you can't have it?" Why can't the people who want to mutilate babies be told "too bad, you can't do it?"

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Sure we can. An absolutely unnecessary procedure which carries a risk? That should be dismissed.

The risk is quite small, not enough to dismiss the practice altogether.

Which is a decrease in pleasure. You contradicted yourself in half a sentence.

Obviously desensitizing is not the same as the inability to feel any pleasure whatsoever - the big difference between male and female circumcision.

Which would be an advantage, right? Unless you consider infidelity a good thing.

Only for people who think the unfaithful should be scarred for life.

So now that I'm an adult, and I say "you know, I wish the head of my penis was as sensitive as nature intended it," why am I the one that has to deal with "too bad, you can't have it?" Why can't the people who want to mutilate babies be told "too bad, you can't do it?"

Some people are less sensitive than others - either through nature or nurture. A good circumcision would not completely removing feeling from from the head (which does back to the difference between male and female circumcision).

 

[Exial]

So, can I cut off you and your childrens earlobes or not?