Circumcision - is it right? Should it be forced on men?

d'Oracle

The Corinthian wrote: »

• Male genital mutilation - a.k.a. circumcision - completely ignored,

I know I pretty much stepped away from this thread ages ago. I acknowledge that there is no way in hell we are going to see eye to eye on a lot of your points.

But I feel that you could have phrased that better.
Lots of blokes get circumcised for cultural or medical reasons.
Your post implies that their langers have been mutilated.
I would disagree. So would many of the others. Hell I know women who would heartily disagree.

From the link posted I know that you were talking about the home butchery jobs like that posted in the article, but the terminology in the posts itself was sort of offensive.

Also Male on Male violence is funny. (See Laurel and hardy, the three stooges) As is Female on Female violence (see the episode of Malcom in the Middle at the family picnic). Actually Male on Female violence has been funny within the safe bounds of comedy (see the opening sequence of "Intermission")

Sorry for OT.
I'm probably gonna drift out of tGC again.

metrovelvet

d'Oracle wrote: »

Also Male on Male violence is funny. (See Laurel and hardy, the three stooges) As is Female on Female violence (see the episode of Malcom in the Middle at the family picnic). Actually Male on Female violence has been funny within the safe bounds of comedy (see the opening sequence of "Intermission")

Sorry for OT.
I'm probably gonna drift out of tGC again.

Yes when you get into comedy it is outside the normal rules. Someone slips and falls on a banana peel - its funny. Someone slips and falls on a banana peel and they hit their head and are in pain and we seem them bleeding and taken to the hospital its not funny.

Zulu

d'Oracle wrote: »

But I feel that you could have phrased that better.

Why, because it's "culturally" acceptable in the western world to circumcise males? It shouldn't be.

Lots of blokes get circumcised for cultural or medical reasons.

Few get circumcised for medical reasons. In america all males are circumcised at birth - why? There is NO need.

Your post implies that their langers have been mutilated.

They have. See dictionary for meaning of mutilate.

Hell I know women who would heartily disagree.

So what!?! Because a women prefers it, we should automatically mutilate our bodies?!?
Also, extend that logic to FGM - clearly we can find men & women who would "heartily disagree" with us in relation to that (hence it exists in the first place)!

From the link posted I know that you were talking about the home butchery jobs like that posted in the article, but the terminology in the posts itself was sort of offensive.

"Home butchery" is one issue. Another issue is that the clinical proceedure has become so wide spread!

r3nu4l

Off-topic posts cut from the Men's rights thread.

The Corinthian

d'Oracle wrote: »

From the link posted I know that you were talking about the home butchery jobs like that posted in the article, but the terminology in the posts itself was sort of offensive.

I used the term specifically to cite the female equivalent.

I am not saying that male circumcision is the same as female circumcision, or that it cannot be necessary or even preferable for social or medical reasons, however neither is it the diametric opposite of female circumcision either - a harmless, natural procedure - yet this is what we are told.

We have been inundated with propaganda on female circumcision in recent years, to the point that media Muppets like Philip Boucher-Hayes go through hoops to support what turn out to be fraudulent abuses such as the Izevbekhai asylum case - for fear of a "home butchery jobs" back in Nigeria.

Simultaneously, these "home butchery jobs" are defended by the same legal system in the interests of cultural sensitivity, even though children actually died - and not even in some distant African country.

Are "home butchery jobs" OK only when it's a penis you're slicing up?

Also Male on Male violence is funny. (See Laurel and hardy, the three stooges) As is Female on Female violence (see the episode of Malcom in the Middle at the family picnic). Actually Male on Female violence has been funny within the safe bounds of comedy (see the opening sequence of "Intermission")

Don't confuse slapstick comedy with domestic violence. Male on male violence in the real World is not considered funny, neither is male of female violence, yet female of male violence is still considered funny, or excusable in the real World.

It is bizarrely, perfectly acceptable for a woman to slap or throw a drink in the face of a man - even funny and, more tellingly, justified. And women still get far more lenient sentences for the more horrific crimes of violence because we judge that they were justified or somehow 'not in control' - the infamous Bobbitt case being a good example of this.

r3nu4l

Okay, I know I cut this from the main thread and TC makes very valid points (that I agree with) on domestic violence but these points have been made before in this forum.

Let's stick to the circumcision debate here.

EDIT: This isn't a mod warning to anyone, just explaining the background and where I'd like this thread to go.

Stark

d'Oracle wrote: »

But I feel that you could have phrased that better.
Lots of blokes get circumcised for cultural or medical reasons.

There are cultural reasons behind women having their genitals mutilated as well. It doesn't make it right. There are medical reasons in some cases for circumcisions but that has nothing to do with routine circumcision.

d'Oracle wrote: »

Your post implies that their langers have been mutilated.
I would disagree. So would many of the others.

I'm uncircumcised and wish to stay that way. I do not wish to have my body violated by having a permanent modification forced upon me and I don't see why a child should have to suffer the same.

d'Oracle wrote: »

Hell I know women who would heartily disagree.

What right has a woman to be inflicting mutilation on male bodies to suit their preferences? Should men be allowed to slice and dice female bodies to suit their preferences? Never mind that the procedure is usually performed on infants. Let the child wait until he's sexually mature before deciding if he wants bits of his penis chopped off to please the ladies.

Kooli

I am so glad to hear circumcision being described as mutilation!
For so long it has gone completely unquestioned, it's about time people started to stick up for the babies who are having painful procedures done for no good reason. (obviously apart from those who have it done for medical reasons).

JohnK

d'Oracle wrote: »

But I feel that you could have phrased that better.
Lots of blokes get circumcised for cultural or medical reasons.
Your post implies that their langers have been mutilated.
I would disagree. So would many of the others. Hell I know women who would heartily disagree.

I think mutilation is an apt phrase for it and unless the circumcision is medically necessary there is absolutely no justifiable reason for what I can only term child abuse. If an adult chooses to get a circumcision then thats their own business and good luck to them but to force it on a child? Frankly I find that despicable and cultural or religious reasons are no excuse.

metrovelvet

The problem in the US, where it is standardised is that the procedure is promoted as the norm and is backed by the medical authorities. And who are the medical authorities in the US? Men.

Furthermore, in the US medical procedures on a minor must be backed by the consent of BOTH parents. So both have to request that it is not done.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

The problem in the US, where it is standardised is that the procedure is promoted as the norm and is backed by the medical authorities. And who are the medical authorities in the US? Men.

I could add something to that but the Anti-Defamation League would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

metrovelvet

You read my mind.

Not to mention the ACLU.

HavingCrack

metrovelvet wrote: »

The problem in the US, where it is standardised is that the procedure is promoted as the norm and is backed by the medical authorities. And who are the medical authorities in the US? Men.

Furthermore, in the US medical procedures on a minor must be backed by the consent of BOTH parents. So both have to request that it is not done.

Technically this is not true any longer. Certainly back in the 1960's through to the late 80's early 90's circumcision was most definately the norm with the vast majority of male infants undergoing the procedure. However this trend has slowed considerably in recent years and its now down to between 30-50% of new borns being circumsised depending on which sources you use. I for one am delighted that American parents are finally beginning to cope onto the fact that this mutilation is not necessary.

amacachi

metrovelvet wrote: »

The problem in the US, where it is standardised is that the procedure is promoted as the norm and is backed by the medical authorities. And who are the medical authorities in the US? Men.

Furthermore, in the US medical procedures on a minor must be backed by the consent of BOTH parents. So both have to request that it is not done.

Historically male circumcusion in the USA was done for the almost the same reason as females in Africa, to curb sexual desire/curiosity. Ironically the rates of circumcision in the US is falling as more kids are born to Mexican immigrants, i.e., those liberal catholics. :pac:

Mrmoe

It is medically rare that circumcision should be carried out on young male babies. Even in instances where action is required for an adult male circumcision is usually pushed as the prefered option without giving any thought to others. Additionally many men suffer from phimosis/paraphimosis for many years. A lot of it is treatable without surgical intervention. It comes back to poor sexual education and in deed poor education about our bodies in general. There is a huge deficit for both sexes in sexual & biological eductaion but I think this is even more so for young boys and adolescents.

metrovelvet

Although rates may have dropped, it still not should be an option for cosmetic or wacky reasons without a medical reason. The fact that you can opt for it, just because you feel like it still says its endorsed and sanctioned, and not only that but if you are on government health insurance, and contrary to popular ignorant belief, yes it does exist in the US, it is covered.

CDfm

How come it became the US norm? Any reason.

What religions and cultures have it ?

Trivarion

CDfm wrote: »

How come it became the US norm? Any reason.

What religions and cultures have it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

Non-religious circumcision in English-speaking countries arose in a climate of negative attitudes towards sex, especially concerning masturbation. In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[8] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "In the United States, the current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' - the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"

Trivarion

As a guy who was circumcised for medical reasons and is currently restoring*, I have had the opportunity to speak to a wide variety of men about circumcision, mainly from the US, Australia, Israel and some Middle Eastern countries.

* Restoring, the process of stretching the shaft skin and remaining inner foreskin on the penis to regrow an artificial foreskin. Motives for doing this vary -some to counteract some of the ill effects of circumcision (like tight skin, like me) or regain a more 'natural' looking penis. It takes years to get back coverage, depending on how tight the circumcision was and the persons age etc. It has a very active community with 3000+ members in the two main English speaking sites I'm joined to.

My opinion is that circumcision of male infants, with the exception of medically valid reasons, is no less morally repulsive than female circumcision and is an unforgivable violation of a person's human rights and dignity. I support a full ban on infant circumcision for non-medical reasons and believe that religion is no excuse to be allowed to mutilate the genitals of defenseless babies.

I have talked to many people about the issue- those who campaign for it and those who seek to end its practice. I have spoken to many men who are rightfully angry at what was done to them, whose parents were talked into it by doctors or bowed to social norms. I have also talked to many men who feel great guilt at circumcising their own sons.

Circumcision is, in my opinion, unjustifiable. It is a dangerous surgery and kills more male babies per year in the US (a 1st world country) than Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. That doesn't count the dozens who suffer penile amputations and other damage. In Africa the death count is far higher but uncounted (look at the 20 deaths and 100's of injures in South Africa earlier this month, albeit it from untrained doctors).

The "benefits" of circumcision, namely a statistically lower chance of contracting HIV/AIDS*, are far outweighed by the disadvantages which include decreased sensitivity of the glans due to keratinization, less skin mobility and the most obvious which is the loss of the most sensitive skin on the penis containing thousands of nerves. The foreskin, far from the ugly unneeded skin it is viewed as in many culture, serves a real purpose in a man's body and it's loss is not something to be encouraged.

*Although there is evidence of lower infection rates among circumcised men the proposed mechanism of protection is actually keratinisation of the glans- namely damage to the head of the penis from abrasions leading to the glans becoming dry and desensitised, decreasing sexual pleasure. (edited as to say debunked would be false)

Circumcision is a difficult issue to tackle because of religion and social issues. I understand that. Many men think nothing of it. Others like me needed it and were glad it was done. Some see it as more aesthetically pleasing. Others find it horrifying and barbaric, and passionately despise what was done to them.

I'm sure some of those who, like me, suffered from phimosis and were not circumcised as infants but later in life will say circumcision is not that bad. That's because the most damage is done when infants are circumcised- leading to far greater keratinisation and possibly skin bridges and tight painful erections. The infant procedure is far more damaging as the foreskin is tightly bonded to the glans and has to be ripped free.

I fully support men's right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it's circumcision- so be it. As adults they have the right to alter themselves as they see fit. However babies have the right to have the opportunity to live their lives with their genitals intact- and that is why I oppose medically unnecessary infant circumcision.

Edit: Added links etc (of course all papers/statistics are debatable), sorry for wall of text.

Some studies and conclusions:

"Male circumcision is not the HIV ‘vaccine’ we have been waiting for", http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/17469600.2.3.193

In short, given the large number of unknowns, confounding factors and lack of long-term follow-up in the three RCTs, it is premature to recommend circumcision as an HIV-prevention strategy. Much more evidence must be gathered on real-world efficacy of male circumcision as a prevention tool before mass surgeries are implemented.
Finally, the value and function of the foreskin as an integral part of the male sexual organ [31] and the ethical issues surrounding such surgery, including informed consent, the possibility of coercion and the dangerous implications of conveying erroneous messages of HIV immunity, must also be carefully considered in any analysis.

"Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis",http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118508429/abstract

The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

I forgot this:
"Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Death", http://www.mensstudies.com/content/b64n267w47m333x0/?p=15c8277b88414886a6227be9bb89b88c&pi=5

Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

Links if people are interested, consider nsfw given the topic at hand
The International Coalition for Genital Integrity- http://www.icgi.org/

Doctors Opposing Circumcision- http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
Intact America http://www.intactamerica.org/

http://www.nocirc.org/
http://www.noharmm.org/
http://www.circumstitions.com/

http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

JohnK

Trivarion wrote: »

My opinion is that circumcision of male infants, with the exception of medically valid reasons, is no less morally repulsive than female circumcision and is an unforgivable violation of a person's human rights and dignity. I support a full ban on infant circumcision for non-medical reasons and believe that religion is no excuse to be allowed to mutilate the genitals of defenseless babies.
[...]
I fully support men's right to choose what to do with their bodies. If it's circumcision- so be it. As adults they have the right to alter themselves as they see fit. However babies have the right to have the opportunity to live their lives with their genitals intact- and that is why I oppose medically unnecessary infant circumcision.

Well said!

metrovelvet

Neonatal circumcision nonetheless still remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today.

This stuck out for me from the wiki link that was posted above. Sick. Am I wrong to suspect there is money tied into keeping the myth going?

Trivarion

metrovelvet wrote: »

Neonatal circumcision nonetheless still remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today.

This stuck out for me from the wiki link that was posted above. Sick. Am I wrong to suspect there is money tied into keeping the myth going?

Human foreskin is used by certain companies to make skin grafts- a big business. I don't buy into conspiracy theories but just google "Dermagraft and circumcision" for example (edit: as I don't know about the issue I can't cite any reliable sources of info). There was a book written about similar practices called "Body Bazaar: The Market for Human Tissue in the Biotechnology Age" by Lori B. Andrews and Dorothy Nelkin.

amacachi

metrovelvet wrote: »

Neonatal circumcision nonetheless still remains the most common pediatric operation carried out in the U.S. today.

This stuck out for me from the wiki link that was posted above. Sick. Am I wrong to suspect there is money tied into keeping the myth going?

There's what, 4-5 million births a year in the US, say 50 quid apiece and it's a $200million industry. Probably more than that on both counts too.

EDIT: Forgot about using the removed foreskin itself too, add plenty more cash for that as well.

d'Oracle

Zulu wrote: »

Why, because it's "culturally" acceptable in the western world to circumcise males? It shouldn't be.
Few get circumcised for medical reasons. In america all males are circumcised at birth - why? There is NO need.
They have. See dictionary for meaning of mutilate.
So what!?! Because a women prefers it, we should automatically mutilate our bodies?!?
Also, extend that logic to FGM - clearly we can find men & women who would "heartily disagree" with us in relation to that (hence it exists in the first place)!
"Home butchery" is one issue. Another issue is that the clinical proceedure has become so wide spread!

I take it you are not cut.
I prefer it, the few and possibly desperate women who have witnessed it liked it. My good lady likes it.
Its a LOT cleaner for a start. I'd actually recommend it.

Also I'd like to point out that the posted definition of mutilate does nothing to back up your point. It implies a negative result.
My dick is vastly improved since the circumcision.

And my logic does not extend to FGM.

Stark

d'Oracle wrote: »

I take it you are not cut.
I prefer it, the few and possibly desperate women who have witnessed it liked it. My good lady likes it.
Its a LOT cleaner for a start. I'd actually recommend it.

Also I'd like to point out that the posted definition of mutilate does nothing to back up your point. It implies a negative result.
My dick is vastly improved since the circumcision.

And my logic does not extend to FGM.

If you want to modify yourself to please the ladies, fair enough, that's your prerogative as an adult. You shouldn't have the right to inflict a medical procedure on an infant who can't consent, no matter how much your good lady might like it. Sure why not give the infant a Prince Albert and maybe a pair of nipple piercings while you're at it. I hear some women love those.

It's easy for someone to go from uncut to cut as an adult if they decide that's what they prefer. That is not the case if they wish to go from cut to uncut if their parents decided to inflict a circumcision on them in their youth.

d'Oracle

The Corinthian wrote: »

I used the term specifically to cite the female equivalent.

I am not saying that male circumcision is the same as female circumcision, or that it cannot be necessary or even preferable for social or medical reasons, however neither is it the diametric opposite of female circumcision either - a harmless, natural procedure - yet this is what we are told.

We have been inundated with propaganda on female circumcision in recent years, to the point that media Muppets like Philip Boucher-Hayes go through hoops to support what turn out to be fraudulent abuses such as the Izevbekhai asylum case - for fear of a "home butchery jobs" back in Nigeria.

Simultaneously, these "home butchery jobs" are defended by the same legal system in the interests of cultural sensitivity, even though children actually died - and not even in some distant African country.

Are "home butchery jobs" OK only when it's a penis you're slicing up?

I might call strawman here. But that would be pointless.
I'm going clarify a bit here.

You said "male genital mutilation - circumcision"
When we get this propaganda about FGM we dont get people talking about clioridectomy or labiaplasty. So you were not citing anything. I feel you may not fully understand the reasons and the difference between why circumcision is performed and why FGM performed. They are not diametric opposites, they are not equivalent, they are seperate and distinct issues.

I'm not disagreeing that "home butchery" is a bad thing. I'm not disagreeing that its an issue that needs highlighting. But my dick is not mutilated, so its offensive to me that you would describe a circumcision as MGM.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Don't confuse slapstick comedy with domestic violence. Male on male violence in the real World is not considered funny, neither is male of female violence, yet female of male violence is still considered funny, or excusable in the real World.

You introduced the comedic aspect. You posted a link to a cartoon as proof that Female on Male violence is funny. You can't then turn around and point out how I'm confusing comedy with the real world. With the people I surround myself with, female on male violence is as deplorable as any violence.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is bizarrely, perfectly acceptable for a woman to slap or throw a drink in the face of a man - even funny and, more tellingly, justified.

It is not. You need to hang around in better circles.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And women still get far more lenient sentences for the more horrific crimes of violence because we judge that they were justified or somehow 'not in control' - the infamous Bobbitt case being a good example of this.

On the strength of that link, the Bobbitt case is a very poor example indeed. It proves nothing as 1) you have quoted no other example by comparison and 2) there were so many extenuating circumstances.

This is unfortunately woman hate for woman hates sake. You quote one very ****ty example and extrapolate that as proof of a very skewed possibly inaccurate point. Lots of men get off with violent crimes in the same circumstances. It just didn't get as much coverage cos dicks weren't cut off.

d'Oracle

Stark wrote: »

If you want to modify yourself to please the ladies, fair enough, that's your prerogative as an adult. You shouldn't have the right to inflict a medical procedure on an infant who can't consent, no matter how much your good lady might like it. Sure why not give the infant a Prince Albert and maybe a pair of nipple piercings while you're at it. I hear some women love those.

It's easy for someone to go from uncut to cut as an adult if they decide that's what they prefer. That is not the case if they wish to go from cut to uncut if their parents decided to inflict a circumcision on them in their youth.

I have intentionally not commented on the US issue. So don't start putting words in my mouth.

I did not get cut for "the ladies", I doubt anyone does.
TBH its pretty ignorant to imply such a thing being you know the sum total of **** all about me.

I posted in response to the implication that all circumcision is somehow mutilation of the penis.

Poor post.

Mick Daly

I think circumcision is pathetic process. Why is it carried out on innocent American babies? They don't have a choice.

It's mutilation of the highest degree. No other part is mutilated. Why damage a bit of skin alone? Would it be ok to snip a piece from the scrotum? No it wouldn't

CDfm

what about ireland and what is the practice here ?

can parents be prosecuted if they bring a child abroad for the purpose of circumcision and if so are there any prosecutions. some cultures carry out circumsision as part of a right of passage -boy too man.

does the law differ for males and females

The Corinthian

d'Oracle wrote: »

You said "male genital mutilation - circumcision"
When we get this propaganda about FGM we dont get people talking about clioridectomy or labiaplasty. So you were not citing anything. I feel you may not fully understand the reasons and the difference between why circumcision is performed and why FGM performed. They are not diametric opposites, they are not equivalent, they are seperate and distinct issues.

In calling it male genital mutilation I was underlining the use of emotive and propagandist terms for female circumcision and demonstrating how such a permanent bodily modification, a mutilation by definition, which is comparable (but not to the same level) is completely dismissed as normal, even though it has very real, sometimes fatal, consequences.

The reason to use such a term is to give the debate oxygen and underline the double standard - that's why the female term was invented. And that is why I cited it. Are we clear?

I'm not disagreeing that "home butchery" is a bad thing. I'm not disagreeing that its an issue that needs highlighting.

I don't believe that. It's a non-issue for you. You're at best indifferent to the issue.

Look even at the language you're using; you're not "disagreeing" that it's bad - but you're not agreeing either. You're not "disagreeing" that it's an issue that needs highlighting - but you're not agreeing either. It would be difficult to be more tepid.

But my dick is not mutilated, so its offensive to me that you would describe a circumcision as MGM.

It is mutilated. It may be elective or even medically necessary, but any act or physical injury that degrades (decreases or reduces) the appearance or function of any living body is mutilation. If you don't believe me, I suggest you look it up in a dictionary.

It is not. You need to hang around in better circles.

Seriously, grow up. We're not talking about our own little corners of the universe. My circles would not tolerate such behavior from a man or a woman - but we are not simply talking about my circles or your circles, but society in general and a woman slapping a man is still largely acceptable in society.

Tell me, if you saw a a woman slapping a man in public what would you do? If you saw a man slapping a woman, what then? If your reaction, even your perception, of the two differs then you've proved my point.

On the strength of that link, the Bobbitt case is a very poor example indeed. It proves nothing as 1) you have quoted no other example by comparison and 2) there were so many extenuating circumstances.

Again you prove my point - I said that women in such cases are treated differently because "we judge that they were justified or somehow 'not in control'" - and here you are making excuses for her.

This is unfortunately woman hate for woman hates sake. You quote one very ****ty example and extrapolate that as proof of a very skewed possibly inaccurate point. Lots of men get off with violent crimes in the same circumstances. It just didn't get as much coverage cos dicks weren't cut off.

Really? Care to show some statistics to back up your claim, or is the onus of proof something you seek from others alone?

Accusations of misogyny are a bit pathetic though. I've repeatedly in this thread debunked gynocentric conspiracy theories from other posts, so I've hardly been one-sided here. Unlike you.

Stark

d'Oracle wrote: »

I have intentionally not commented on the US issue. So don't start putting words in my mouth.

Thread is "Circumcision - is it right? Should it be forced on men".

So discussing circumcision without consent is perfectly valid I would think. You are the one dragging the thread off topic by discussion circumcision by choice.

d'Oracle wrote: »

I did not get cut for "the ladies", I doubt anyone does.
TBH its pretty ignorant to imply such a thing being you know the sum total of **** all about me.

I posted in response to the implication that all circumcision is somehow mutilation of the penis.

Poor post.

The argument in your post hung off the women in your life preferring your cut penis. As I'm not going to go to the trouble of befriending you and getting to know you as a complicated complete human being, I'm just going to respond to points that are in your posts.

You're perfectly entitled to have your penis whatever way you prefer it. The thread is about whether we should allow children to have that choice made for them. Since it is a medical procedure that is very difficult if not impossible to reverse (I don't think a regrown foreskin is ever as good the original), the word mutilation seems apt also.

metrovelvet

A little bit OT but relevantly OT I think:

It's not important to start comparing it to FGM. There is something in human nature [and I know many dont believe in human nature] that niggles at us to start competing for who suffers the most.

THis should not be the case here. Whatever the case abotu FGM, male circumcision or MGM if you want to call it that, should be redressed in its own right regardless of the case of FGM.

Dravokivich

Short Answer - No.

Longer Anwser - Definately Not.

There should be no reason to change anything on someone elses body, just on a whim, or because "convention" determines it to be preferred.

Some people find it more satisfying to be cut...

Some people find it more comfortable to remain uncut...

But it should be a desicion made by the person themselves to get cut or remain uncut (Unless you're Jewish).

metrovelvet

Dravokivich wrote: »

Short Answer - No.

Longer Anwser - Definately Not.

There should be no reason to change anything on someone elses body, just on a whim, or because "convention" determines it to be preferred.

Some people find it more satisfying to be cut...

Some people find it more comfortable to remain uncut...

But it should be a desicion made by the person themselves to get cut or remain uncut (Unless you're Jewish).

Sorry, but why do religious beliefs get to superscede preventing uneccesary cruelties performed on infant boys? They shouldnt be allowed either.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's not important to start comparing it to FGM. There is something in human nature [and I know many dont believe in human nature] that niggles at us to start competing for who suffers the most.

I think there is some confusion still as to why I made the comparison.

I have never suggested that FGM and male circumcision are the same thing, and I really don't care to enter a suffering competition - I'm not that Catholic. I think it fair to say that FGM is far more extreme as it is (apparently) a complete removal of the clitoris, which would be akin to a complete removal of the penis, not simply the foreskin.

However the popular view is that, because we cannot (are almost not allowed to) compare them, male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable automatic medical policy with no downsides or dangers. And this is a flawed and false perception.

Calling male circumcision MGM catches the attention of those who sleepily accept this popular view, and once you have their attention you can argue your case with far greater impact.

After all, where do you think the term FGM came from? It used to be called female circumcision only a few years ago.

The Corinthian

Dravokivich wrote: »

But it should be a desicion made by the person themselves to get cut or remain uncut (Unless you're Jewish).

If you accept such procedures on the basis of faith, then you can't then really argue that FGM should be treated differently.

Dravokivich

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry, but why do religious beliefs get to superscede preventing uneccesary cruelties performed on infant boys? They shouldnt be allowed either.

I'm not saying it should. It's a part of their way and I don't want anyone to confuse my idea's as something to be imposed upon them, while they aren't imposing their idea's on me.

Zulu

d'Oracle wrote: »

I prefer it, the few and possibly desperate women who have witnessed it liked it. My good lady likes it.

Thats fine. And I'm glad everyone mentioned likes it.

But by god, you've missed the point! Just because ladies prefer it doesn't mean we should inflict it wholesale on infants.

Its a LOT cleaner for a start.

Rubbish excuse. If I removed my finger nails it could be cleaner, however, I could just wash myself.

Also I'd like to point out that the posted definition of mutilate does nothing to back up your point. It implies a negative result.

I don't really care what it "implies". Did you read the link I added? Mutilate has a definite meaning:
1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
Like it or not, a circumcised penis has been mutilated.

And my logic does not extend to FGM.

Sure it can. If we as a society decide in the western world that "female circumcision" (FGM) is fashionable, and we surgically roll it out wholesale...

metrovelvet

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not saying it should. It's a part of their way and I don't want anyone to confuse my idea's as something to be imposed upon them, while they aren't imposing their idea's on me.

I disagree. I think we should be imposing our ideas when it comes to things like this. It's a barbaric procedure.

Zulu

Dravokivich wrote: »

I'm not saying it should. It's a part of their way and I don't want anyone to confuse my idea's as something to be imposed upon them, while they aren't imposing their idea's on me.

No, but they're sure as shit are imposing their idea's on him - that poor infant whos about to have a razor took to his penis!

Dravokivich

metrovelvet wrote: »

I disagree. I think we should be imposing our ideas when it comes to things like this. It's a barbaric procedure.

Imposing your idea's only makes other people want to fight for theirs more no matter how wrong you think they are.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you accept such procedures on the basis of faith, then you can't then really argue that FGM should be treated differently.

Within the quote you took from my post, I made a comment that people should choose for themselve's.

(Unless you're Jewish)

Was a reference to them not having the choice available.

The Corinthian

Dravokivich wrote: »

Within the quote you took from my post, I made a comment that people should choose for themselve's.

Was a reference to them not having the choice available.

Yes, I understood; you stated that people should choose for themselves, unless as in the case of religious tradition, it is imposed upon a minor by the decision of his parents. Or her parents, because then the same applies to FGM.

Do you think parents should be able to impose such measures based on faith alone?

Wibbs

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry, but why do religious beliefs get to superscede preventing uneccesary cruelties performed on infant boys? They shouldnt be allowed either.

Funny enough the original Jewish circumcision was far less invasive a procedure(just the tip). Much less tissue was removed. Some writings discuss just drawing blood with a thorn. no removal of tissue. Written evidence for this comes from the greeks. Way back in the day Jewish men would compete in the greek games. The greeks and the romans who followed considered the exposed glans to be beyond the pale*, so jewish men would roll their foreskin forward to cover it. This shows they had enough skin to do so. The Jewish religious hierarchy who disapproved of such games in the first place then changed the procedure to remove so much tissue that rolling it forward was no longer an option and then made this change a religious duty. Two birds one stone.

Zulu wrote:

But by god, you've missed the point! Just because ladies prefer it doesn't mean we should inflict it wholesale on infants.

Indeed so. In fact there's another cultural similarity with the more radical FGM. The men in such cultures prefer it, prefer the look of it and consider the woman "cleaner".

As an aside on FGM, the least invasive kind just removes the foreskin/clitoral hood. Basically a comparative procedure to male circumcision and I reckon the vast majority of men and women would take rightfull issue with that. Though smegma can build up under the clitoral hood too so would arguably be "cleaner".

*one of the most talked about and contentious issues for the early christian church was circumcision. The romans and greeks they were trying to ocnvert were having none of it and if the early church fathers not backed down I suspect we would have heard a lot less of christianity.

metrovelvet

Also - circumcision for Jews is performed at a briss [sp?]. But circumcision allowances extend outside of that to hospitals offerring it freely as a choice to all parents, jewish or not.

Now, Im all for freedom of religion [ahem], but I kind of stop at Santa Ria pracitioners leaving parts of chickens all over the streets for municipal garbage collectors to have to clean up. Sure chop up all the chickens you want, but dont leave the city to clean it up.

I sure as hell think freedom of religion has to stop when it comes to the endagerment of a minor's body, including the refusal of blood transfusions for JWs or circumcision for Jews and Muslims. They have their own countries set up where they can practise what they want in their own religions to their heart's content. If the UN chooses not to protect those children of those nations, so be it.

But why the rest of the west has to accommodate this and make it appear normal or sanctioned by medicine is just not OK.

Dravokivich

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, I understood; you stated that people should choose for themselves, unless as in the case of religious tradition, it is imposed upon a minor by the decision of his parents. Or her parents, because then the same applies to FGM.

Topic title referes to "Should it be forced on men?"

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you think parents should be able to impose such measures based on faith alone?

If they do what they do based on thier "faith", they believe they are right as it's what their faith expects them to do.

I don't agree with thier faith. Doesn't mean I'm going to bash them for the choice they made based on it. Or anything within a foreign culture, that remains domestic within that foreign culture...

I'd be against it all out if this was to be rolled out as standard practise here, as then it would become a domestic issue that I would have a say in.

Zulu

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't agree with thier faith. Doesn't mean I'm going to bash them for the choice they made based on it. Or anything within a foreign culture, that remains domestic within that foreign culture...

So, say if the one religion decided that another needed extermination, according to their faith, you'd be ok with that so long as it happend within their domestic borders (and not ours)?

Dravokivich

Zulu wrote: »

So, say if the one religion decided that another needed extermination, according to their faith, you'd be ok with that so long as it happend within their domestic borders (and not ours)?

I wouldn't be ok with it, but would recognise it as a domestic issue that has to be dealt with domestically.

Are you dragging me onto something else here?

Can't wait too see what else pops up...

metrovelvet

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't be ok with it, but would recognise it as a domestic issue that has to be dealt with domestically.

Are you dragging me onto something else here?

Can't wait too see what else pops up...

By permitting it in our law, our medicine, and our philosophy we are allowing these faiths to impose their beliefs on us, and as a result our humanity is compromised when we protect some infant boys and not others.

.

Zulu

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't be ok with it, but would recognise it as a domestic issue that has to be dealt with domestically.

Fair enough.

Are you dragging me onto something else here?

No I just wanted to see how far you'd let that go. Alot of people would be against it, but would rather that action to prevent it (I'd be one of those).

Dravokivich

metrovelvet wrote: »

By permitting it in our law, our medicine, and our philosophy we are allowing these faiths to impose their beliefs on us, and as a result our humanity is compromised when we protect some infant boys and not others.

.

1) Circumcision is not mandatory in Ireland, how is it being imposed on us?

2) As I mentioned before, anything anywhere else is a domestic issue for them to deal with.

I've said I don't agree with it and would oppose it's introduction here. I recognise that for some people in other regions that's how things are. But they need to be against it to change it for themselves.

metrovelvet

Dravokivich wrote: »

1) Circumcision is not mandatory in Ireland, how is it being imposed on us?

2) As I mentioned before, anything anywhere else is a domestic issue for them to deal with.

I've said I don't agree with it and would oppose it's introduction here. I recognise that for some people in other regions that's how things are. But they need to be against it to change it for themselves.

While circumcision is not manditory in Ireland do you not think that being pressured into allowing infant boys born to parents of other faiths where the faith itself makes the unneccesary circumcision mandatory is not an imposition in itself?

Also this dicussion as far as I can see is not limited to IReland.

Q: Can anyone in an Irish hospital request a circumcision for a newborn?