Funny, I don't feel like I was abused.
The penis is perfect exactly as it is. Leave it alone and keep it intact with a foreskin.
Women who have had their clitoral hood removed and parts of their vulva removed do not think they are "mutilated" either.
The cold HARD fact is that it also entails risks and medical (not to mention sexual) disadvantages.
A recent example:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6122a2.htm?s_cid=mm6122a2_w
The practice is clearly barbaric. There are a few European countries where they consider this assault on an infant or young boy and they've banned circumcision because it's genital mutilation and the infant boy can't consent to it. Even with the way BustyStClair wrote about getting his or her son cut is still genital mutilation and was done without his consent.
Keeping a foreskin clean is a lot easier than keeping female genitalia clean: pull back, wash, and rinse. It's much more likely for an uncircumcised man to run into a woman with "cleanliness" issues, than it is for a woman to find a foul foreskin. Nature intended the male glans to be moist and
lubricated before sex (this happens with precum); just the same as the vagina, if you think that makes intact men "unclean",
then you must think you are unclean since you have a vagina that not only produces smegma; but it produces yeast which a foreskin does not.
Cleaning foreskin is a lot easier then cleaning a vagina, the clitoral hood creates areas that are certainly harder to reach than anywhere on a natural penis. yet nobody is saying that infant girls or young girls should get their clitoral hoods removed.
The vast majority of men in the world have normal, natural, intact penises. They work perfectly, they are clean, they don't suffer any problems. Sex was intended to involve a foreskin, it has several purposes and simply works better. How it looks is irrelevant, you can't seriously suggest
that holding down a baby and ripping and cutting off, or forcibly removing without his consent at all parts of his penis is acceptable because it's pretty. It's a travesty, a human being should be entitled to keep all of their functioning body parts.
Would you let someone strap your daughter down and let them cut off some of her clitoris while she screamed or disassociated? No way! Baby boys should have rights too!
All the health benefits people ascribe to male circumcision also apply for female circumcision. Until women start hacking off their labia and clitoral hoods, I'm keeping my foreskin. Cutting off body parts on the chance (with very low and practically non-existant probability) that you might get a disease in the future, is just plain insane. Female breast cancer is much more common the penile cancer, but no one advocates cutting
them off, even though since the invention of baby formula their primary function is superfluous. Testicular cancer is found at a higher rate than penile cancer as well yet nobody is saying that young boys and men should get one or both testicles removed since there might be the possibility that they could get testicular cancer or that because a man's balls sweat they smell and are "unclean".
The practical reality is, the US, with its highest circumcision rate, by far, in the western world, has the highest rates of every common STD, including HIV, in the western world. That doesn’t say much for circumcision as a STD prophylactic. Condoms and safer sex work a lot better than genital mutilation does.
I can't believe anyone can shamelessly utter a preference for something that requires a victim to suffer the amputation of a healthy normal body part. Every mammal evolved a foreskin over at least the past 65 million years.
Foreskin includes a concentration of over half a male's specialized sensual pleasure receptive nerve endings, and exquisite surface for sexual interface that is typically 16 square inches in the adult.
The frenulum which is nearly always destroyed in circumcision has a concentration of nerve endings and can be very sensitive and the head or glans of a penis that's not cut is also sensitive as well as the foreskin too.
If you want an infant boy carved up to suit your aesthetics that's sick. Just read any article about men prefering FGM victims and substitute male for female to see how circumcision of infant boys is just as bad
A paltry understanding of female genital cutting in Africa leads some on this site to contend that you can't compare "our" practice of male "circumcision" with theirs because it's always so much "worse" for girls. Fact is, North American media has exploited the most sensational aspects of "their" practice while downplaying the harm done by "ours". In truth, there's a range of mutilation associated with both practices (some aboriginal cultures submit their sons to hemi-castration and others dorsal penile flaying). Even the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that the typical infant male circumcision in U.S. hospitals removes far more erogenous tissue than that in the lesser forms of female circumcision (FGM), yet laws against FGM do not make exceptionos based on how much tissue is removed or whether it was done with a religious motivation. And rightly so.
It's time we all recognized that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes bodily integrity as an absolute right, not a relative right based on culture. This right is also asserted in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which Somalia (with no functioning government) and the United States are the only remaining non-signatories. See: Attorneys for the Rights of the Child arc-law.org.
95% of the world's non-Muslim and non-Jewish familes do not circumcise. Not one national medical association on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision. BTW not all Jews or Muslims mutilate their son's penises. I have dated both Jewish and a few Muslim men who were not
cut since their parents did not want it done to them and they do not believe in genital mutilation as a part of their religious or cultural dogma.
