Male Genital Mutilation - why is this allowed?

Alizrian Crimson

Call me naive but I only recently discovered most American men are circumcised. Why would you do this? I don't care if you're a Jew or Muslim, you're chopping off the most sensitive part of you son's penis. And for what? So he looks like you?

I'm glad my parents didn't have me mutilated. How is this practice not banned is beyond me.

Donald Trump

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Call me naive but I only recently discovered most American men circumcised. Why would you do this? I don't care if you're a Jew or Muslim, you're chopping off the most sensitive part of you son's penis. And for what? So he looks like you?

I'm glad my parents didn't have me mutilated. How is this practice not banned is beyond me.

Jaysus, how long did it take you to inspect them all :O

I hope you enjoyed yourself doing it!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I've actually been surprised to find out (on boards actually) that most Irish men aren't circumcised. I would have guessed that most were, going on personal experience but apparently not.

My understanding is sometimes it's nessessary to prevent infection in kids

Alizrian Crimson

It's not necessary for anything. It's removing parts of a little boy's genitals. Am I the only sane person left in the world?

Does no doctor dare speak out against this incase he's labeled an anti Semite?

Alizrian Crimson

Donald Trump wrote: »

Jaysus, how long did it take you to inspect them all :O

I hope you enjoyed yourself doing it!

Don't worry, I had plenty of help from your ma

Peregrinus

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Call me naive but I only recently discovered most American men are circumcised. Why would you do this? I don't care if you're a Jew or Muslim, you're chopping off the most sensitive part of you son's penis. And for what? So he looks like you?

I'm glad my parents didn't have me mutilated. How is this practice not banned is beyond me.

Male circumcision has, I believe, health benefits, though they are relatively modest. It doesn't have the negative consequences that FGM does; hence there is no move to restrict it.

It's quite common in the US, and only in a minority of cases is it done for cultural reasons; most circumcisions are for cosmetic reasons.

In Ireland and in Britain it was never as popular as in the US, but it was nevertheless relatively common in the past - less so now, I think. The incidence of male circumcision was correlated with social class - the higher his family's socioeconomic status, the more likely an infant boy was to be circumcised.

Alizrian Crimson

Peregrinus wrote: »

Male circumcision has, I believe, health benefits, though they are relatively modest. It doesn't have the negative consequences that FGM does; hence there is no move to restrict it.

It's quite common in the US, and only in a minority of cases is it done for cultural reasons; most circumcisions are for cosmetic reasons.

In Ireland and in Britain it was never as popular as in the US, but it was nevertheless relatively common in the past - less so now, I think. The incidence of male circumcision was correlated with social class - the higher his family's socioeconomic status, the more likely an infant boy was to be circumcised.

Tell that to the men who had their penises destroyed because their parents requested this stone age ritual.

Peregrinus

You may consider that "most American men" have "had their penises destroyed", but I think the views of the men concerned are probably more relevant and, among them, this appears to be a distinctly minority viewpoint.

As I say, the health consequences of male circumcision appear, on balance, to be positive. Most circumcisions appear to be motivated by cosmetic considerations; at the moment your objection to the practice appears to me to be equally based on cosmetic considerations. I think you're perfectly entitled to your view and, for the record, I didn't have my own son circumcised. But I don't see why your cosmetic sensibilities should be backed by the law, and the decision regarding my son was not yours to take.

AllForIt

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

Call me naive but I only recently discovered most American men are circumcised. Why would you do this? I don't care if you're a Jew or Muslim, you're chopping off the most sensitive part of you son's penis. And for what? So he looks like you?

I'm glad my parents didn't have me mutilated. How is this practice not banned is beyond me.

Different strokes for different blokes.

Alizrian Crimson

So why is female genital mutilation not ok?

diomed

It gives me an excuse to repeat an ancient joke.
"When Richard Nixon was circumcised they threw away the best bit."
I'll get my coat.

ceadaoin.

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

So why is female genital mutilation not ok?

removal of the clitoris and stitching the vulva shut, results in lifetime consequences such as pain during sex, difficulties giving birth, inability to urinate and infertility. As well as the risk of dying from infection due to unsanitary instruments. It's not really comparable to male circumcision, which relatively safe and leaves the subject with fully functioning genitalia, except in rare cases where complications occur.

I don't agree with male circumcision as standard by the way, unless it's medically necessary which is sometimes the case. There are no benefits at all to FGM and no time when it is medically indicated. It's simply about controlling women's sexuality.

yermanoffthetv

Anyone who thinks its acceptable to remove part of a child's genitals (male or female) unnecessarily for sky fairy or cosmetic reasons is vile and should be placed in the same category as paedophiles and rapists. If its on your body then nature put it there for a reason . If its not needed evolution will remove it.

judeboy101

Its allowed because like fgm, its the mother who agrees to it due to religious or cultural indoctrination.

corner of hells

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

Anyone who thinks its acceptable to remove part of a child's genitals (male or female) unnecessarily for sky fairy or cosmetic reasons is vile and should be placed in the same category as paedophiles and rapists. If its on your body then nature put it there for a reason . If its not needed evolution will remove it.

Evolution will remove "it" , just like my appendix.

njs030

corner of hells wrote: »

Evolution will remove "it" , just like my appendix.

The appendix has a use!!

corner of hells

notjustsweet wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

Evolution will remove "it" , just like my appendix.

The appendix has a use!!

What's it's use ?

judeboy101

corner of hells wrote: »

What's it's use ?

Its a reservoir for gut bacteria afaik.

corner of hells

judeboy101 wrote: »

corner of hells wrote: »

What's it's use ?

Its a reservoir for gut bacteria afaik.

Isnt that a recent theory , medical research i think was saying its a possibility , nothing definite.

dr.fuzzenstein

corner of hells wrote: »

Isnt that a recent theory , medical research i think was saying its a possibility , nothing definite.

Well if it's there it has a use. To remove it without reason would be like removing bits from your car because you think they don't do anything. That is bad logic.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's useless.

pickarooney

It's a sick practice, perpetuated by bull**** merchants and their ludicrous 'facts' about medical benefits, stone age religious mumbo jumbo and a bizarre cultural inertia.

That cutting off bits of a child is even worthy of discussion in this day and age is insane.

The practice had almost died out in the US outside of Jewish families until the hard puritan element revived it as a method of curbing masturbation in boys. There's been a groundswell of retconned pseudoscience concocted to give credibility to ritual circumcision but none of it stands up to any scrutiny.

Even for medical reasons the vast majority of circumcisions can be avoided by less drastic surgery but the lazy option still prevails far too often.

Parents who insist on their 'right' to mutilate their children disgust me.

jooksavage

I'm not sure what the very latest, up the minute research says but over the last few decades studies have found that circumcised males were less likely to transmit infections like HIV and the cancer-causing HPV virus to their partners.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14746027

(By the way I don't think it's a super idea - just pointing to why it might be rationalised)

judeboy101

jooksavage wrote: »

I'm not sure what the very latest, up the minute research says but over the last few decades studies have found that circumcised males were less likely to transmit infections like HIV and the cancer-causing HPV virus to their partners.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14746027

(By the way I don't think it's a super idea - just pointing to why it might be rationalised)

I'm sure you could show that girls who undergo fgm are less likely to catch aids than girls who don't for example fgm and mgm is almost ubiquitous in Egypt but hiv rates are almost on existent.

GrumpyMe

If there had been ANY long term advantage to not having a foreskin, wouldn't evolution have naturally selected?

jooksavage

judeboy101 wrote: »

I'm sure you could show that girls who undergo fgm are less likely to catch aids than girls who don't for example fgm and mgm is almost ubiquitous in Egypt but hiv rates are almost on existent.

That's fair enough. I understand a lot of folks in this area have a problem comparing the two on the basis that male circumcision is generally not seen today as a way of controlling male sexuality whereas that seems to be the main reason for FGM.

Achasanai

LexieOnRale wrote: »

My understanding is sometimes it's nessessary to prevent infection in kids

Unless they're spending weeks or months wandering out in the desert with no water to wash themselves, they don't need to be circumcised.

Peregrinus

GrumpyMe wrote: »

If there had been ANY long term advantage to not having a foreskin, wouldn't evolution have naturally selected?

No, not necessarily.

Firstly, evolution can only select in favour of mutations which occur. Mutations are random. The mutation of not having a foreskin may not have occurred.

More to the point, natural selection only selects against traits which negatively affect reproductive success. Or, to turn that around, the only advantage it selects in favour of is reproductive advantage. So, for example, natural selection doesn't select against a genetic predisposition to myopia in middle-age (which is extremely common). The problem doesn't manifest itself until you're in your 50s, by which time you've done all the reproducing you're going to do. Natural selection's never going to do anything about that, which is why we've had to invent spectacles.

There's a degree of scientific ignorantism manifesting itself in this thread. Some posters are denouncing beliefs in sky fairies and in the same breath insisting that "nature put it [the foreskin] there for a reason", and apparently they don't see the irony in what they are saying. Nature doesn't have intentions, and reason has no part in its operation. Imputing these things to nature is no different from imputing intentions to a sky fairy. Others are saying that people who circumcise their sons "disgust me", while still others describe the practice as "sick', but nobody is actually offering an evidence-based or medical rationale for banning circumcision.

By all means make a case for banning circumcision, but you do actually have to make the case. If things that other people do disgust you or seem sick to you, that's your problem, not theirs. This remains true whether the thing that disgusts you is (a) parents circumcising their sons, or (b) same-sex couples holding hand in the street. In neither case is your feeling of disgust a reason for a ban. Nor is your mystical belief in the right ordering of nature, and the fundamental evil of interfering with it.

If people want male circumcision to be banned, they're going to have to come up with arguments. Rational, evidence-based arguments, instead of assertions of personal revulsion, or the arbitrary association of circumcision with paedophilia.

Zipppy

I had it done as an adult...best move ever...

_Brian

Alizrian Crimson wrote: »

So why is female genital mutilation not ok?

Thread was mildly amusing until this point, op is either ignorant as to the implications of FGM or just being an idiot.

jamesthepeach

I had it done as a child.
I wish that they hadn't done it and had left the decision up to me when I was older.
The fact that my parents allowed someone to cut off a part of me for no reason that I can never get back annoys me.
The decision should be left up to the person and delayed until he is old enough to make an informed decision himself.

pickarooney

Replace 'holding hands with a consenting adult' with 'strangling a sibling in a wheelchair' if you want to make a valid comparison involving a dominant adult unilaterally deciding to permanently affect the life and body of a helpless relative.

Slavery disgusts me. But only slave owners should have a say in that?