|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can only discuss this from one side of the fence. I'm uncircumcised (as are the vast majority of Brits and Europeans), so I can't comment on all the debate about loss of sensitivity, restoration or have any deep feelings about my rights as a child.
However, there are two key reasons that advocates of circumcision spout about that make my blood boil.
Firstly, the "hygiene" argument. There is not a single scientifically credible study which supports this. The female inner labia comprises of fleshy folds of skin which are not dissimilar to the foreskin. Can you imagine the outcry if we excised that for hygiene purposes? Quite frankly, it is insulting and patronising to men to suggest that women are somehow inherently more capable of keeping themsleves clean.
I found this on www.infocirc.org:
“The uncircumcised penis is self-cleaning,” explains Robert Van Howe, M.D., a pediatrician from Wisconsin who has been studying the causes of circumcision for 20 Years. “Every time you urinate, you flush out the preputial cavity. The hygiene issue was just another excuse. Since its inception, circumcision has been a surgery looking for a rationale. First it was disease, then masturbation, then hygiene; now it’s back to disease.”
In addition there is also this:
“You’re more likely to be struck by lightning than to suffer from penile cancer,” counters Dr. Van Howe. “Japan, Norway, Finland, and Denmark all have lower rates than the United States, and they don’t circumcise their boys.”
“Penile cancer is extremely rare-less than one case for every 100,000 men,” adds Dr. Altschul. “It’s preposterous to even suggest that because we have some minuscule risk of disease, we should cut off the foreskin of every little boy.”
“Breast cancer in women is common,” says Dr. Denniston, “more common than all the purported health risks of the foreskin combined. Does that justify cutting off all breasts at puberty?”
Fact: whether male or female, if you don't wash your genitals, there will be odour! If I removed your teeth, bad breath due to tooth decay would never be an issue. If I sewed your butt up and gave you a colostomy bag, your butt would be a significantly nicer place. See what I'm getting at? Laughable, unfortunately, most American women/mothers are indoctrinated in this hygiene/disease "concept".
Secondly, the supposed benefits for partners of circumcised men with respect to cervical cancer rates. In the first instance, again, there is no conclusive proof of this effect. Debate rages long and hard (sorry!) about this supposed benefit. But I guess the key question is this, imagine we condoned routine female circumcision on the basis of some unproven medical benefits for men. Would it happen??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @06:49PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm to shy to talk about this openly, but I will say that I was cicumcised as a man so I'm full aware of the before and after.
1. Sex was better with it (more sensual and erotic), but it's still absolutely great.
2. Would I do it again? Yes, all the other time when I'm not having sex it feels more hygienic overall, whether it is or not.
Signed, Winky w/o his hat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think the issue of circumcision comes down to a matter of consent - if 18+ year old men want to get circumcised, or some claim that they prefer it, or feel it's important for religious reasons, that's fine. What's unacceptable is involuntary infant circumcision, the removal of this part of the body before an individual can make their own, informed, rational decision about it.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Consent is the issue. And I doubt that any man would consent to the ripping procedure described (I think by Dan) in another thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday August 08, @09:55PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. Consent is the issue. And I doubt that any man would consent to the ripping procedure described (I think by Dan) in another thread.
I agree with one exception: in case something happens to be wrong with the infant's genitals and circumcision could help it. In other words: if the circumcision was for some reason really medically necessary, then I think the parents should be allowed to decide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 09, @07:28PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I would feel shortchanged, and resent any Dr. who tried to get ahead as a result of my circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I have written here before, I hate infant circumcision. It is done to infants at a time when they can't possibly give informed consent. That alone should be enough to stop it. The other arguments, such as reduced sensitivity and the intense pain that an infant feels, even with anaesthetic, just cinch it. InfoCirc and other anti-circ sites have information on this: roughly half of the infants screamed in pain, and the other half either went into shock or exhibited dull reactions due to the presence of anaesthetic given to the mother during labor (which a newborn takes up to a week to metabolize).
Of course, medics will lie and say that infants don't feel pain. More horseshit from the people who were supposed to take care of us when we were infants, but instead removed healthy tissue for no justifiable reason.
Both Judaism and Islam, the two major religions that "require" circumcision, have scholars who have posited the viewpoint that each religion does not require it as an absolute necessity. However, even if they say you will go to Hell if you don't circumcise, why must it be done at birth? Let the age of consent be sixteen or eighteen, so that they can't be so easily coerced into doing it.
By far the biggest problem, however, is that there are many men out there who just don't want to hear about it. It was done to them and they think they're fine and they fully intend to have their sons circumcised, or already have. They are emotionally invested.
Like I said, the solution is to OUTLAW it for people under a certain age. It is unnecessary, it is barbaric, and any God that demands that you do it to infants and children truly loves neither... and by the way, why put it there just to have it painfully cut off? It is illogical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Given what we now know about the structure and function of the foreskin, anyone who condones routine infant circumcision should be considered morally no better than a paedophile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feminism and circumcision are related, even if males invented cirucmcision. The sheer number of men who were involuntarily circumcised tends to undermine claims that men aren't "oppressed", at least if you believe that men have a right to their own bodies. In view of this, even if no woman ever consented to have her son circumcised, or suggested or recommended that someone else be genitally reconfigured, women cannot claim to be the solely oppressed gender - at least not on the basis of what we now know.
The fact that women have been involved in the oppression of men in this way is an embarassment for feminism. Millions of women have insisted that their son's be circumcised, effectively denying their sons the right to their own bodies. So many millions of women have violated the rights of men in this way that one can safely dismiss the idea that women's oppression of men is some form of fiction.
"John Harvey Kellogg wrote: "A remedy [for "self-abuse"] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision . . . The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, 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.""
This is a very negative image to have about males. I have to agree with Arthur C. Clarke who wrote that that Kellogg "was obviously a sadistic lunatic".
Involuntary foreskin amputation, the analog of which corresponds in females to labial reduction, is a gender issue. An argument to somehow show that gender and gender bias have nothing whatsoever to do with routine infant circumcision would be impressive indeed. Such an argument would somehow have to surmount the fact that infant boys but not little girls are singled out for this procedure, and that glaringly obvious form of gender discrimination is only the first of many problems the argument would have to overcome.
My mother once had an abortion. It was her body. But by having my brothers and myself involuntarily circumcised after we were born, she denied us the right to our bodies.
Many women who assert that they have a right to their own body will think nothing of denying their newborn sons the right to THEIR bodies by having their foreskins involuntarily amputated. I have no anti-abortion agenda. My point is that this irony is possible due to widespread anti-male bias.
The anti-male bigotry that condones male infant involuntary foreskin amputation but condemns involuntary female genital reduction ought to be exposed. Men should claim at least some of the rights that women have claimed for themselves.
There are gender differences in who is considered an appropriate object of violence in ths US. These differences contribute to the widespread prevalence of routine infant foreskin amputation. It is a good measure of our cultural blindness that we so often consider the decision to irreversibly alter a man's sexuality and body image at birth hardly worthy of consideration.
Most men consider routine infant involuntary foreskin amputation to be no big deal. Most men are therefore admitting that the right to their own bodies is be hardly worth their time and effort, so in effect men have already lost the gender wars. By relegating the anti-male violence of involuntary foreskin amputation to the backwaters of the mens movement, the mens movement has unwittingly given up on every issue of concern to them, from the pressure to be success objects to child support reform.
If the involuntary amputation of "vestigial" parts of their genitals is of no concern to men, then they condone the anti-male violence of involuntary circumcision, a practice that has no medical benefit and which interferes with normal sexual functioning. If involuntary foreskin amputation is ok, men have little business complaining about any other form of inequity that disproportionally affects men.
It's not ethical to remove another person's body parts without their consent, especially when their lives and limbs are not at risk. For some reason this simple principle does not apply to male genitalia for many people. For the lack of any other obvious explanation, I suggest that we take the lesson of history seriously and hypothesize that since patterns of cruelty and callousness recur throughout human history, involuntary circumcision being among them, there are destructive impulses inherent in human nature that contribute to the prevalence of the phenomenon.
In the case of involuntary circumcision, we deliberately turn off our protective instincts towards infants. Through an act of will, an infant boy goes from being a person--a locus of rights--to a nonperson who has no right to his foreskin. We do not allow ourselves to suppress our protective instincts this way towards infant girls, which suggests that gender bias is involved in the decision to circumcise as well.
The same ability to suppress emotional urges through force of intellect and conscience (allowing us to defer gratification and resist temptation) also allows us to overcome our horror over the involuntary amputation of parts of an infant's genitalia and to persist in this barbaric practice on the pretext that it serves some medical or aesthetic purpose. By now it should be common knowledge that routine infant circumcision interferes with the mechanics of sexual intercourse, among other consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, so I'm not a moderate on the issue of routine infant circumcision, and I neglected to mention the millions of men who followed their doctor's advice, or who more selfishly wanted their sons to look like them...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the involuntary amputation of "vestigial" parts of their genitals is of no concern to men, then they condone the anti-male violence of involuntary circumcision, a practice that has no medical benefit and which interferes with normal sexual functioning. If involuntary foreskin amputation is ok, men have little business complaining about any other form of inequity that disproportionally affects men.
Men's oppressions are always the last to end, since men are indoctrinated with the remnants of stoicism to the degree that the very term "man," as indicated by the phrases "be a man," "take it like a man" etc. means to tolerate abuse without complaint. This is fine if there is a recognition and reward for superior courage, effort and sacrifice, but modern feminism wishes to equate itself with this image on a silver platter while at the same time men are expected to continue to suffer these indignities without complaint; ironically it's often these very self-same feminists who, hypocritically, are the first to chide men for daring to simply point this out.
In other words, feminists expect men to simply shut up and serve them with nothing but abuse for reward because they believe men are scum who deserve no better. Sadly, many impressionable young men, brought up on this hypocrisy, have adopted this unspoken (and sometimes spoken) message, and have taken on a sadomasochistic self-hatred for their maleness.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
