Circumcision

[Shrooms00087]

God didn't command anyone to circumcise. A bunch of people came together and said "that looks ugly, clearly God made a mistake".

 

[BecomingJulie]

Mutilation of boys' genitals might well have offered a survival advantage to Bronze Age tribes of desert-dwelling goat-herds with barely-adequate supplies of clean water; otherwise, they would hardly have developed an elaborate code of superstition to reinforce the practice. But there is simply zero medical reason routinely to amputate the foreskins of boys in an all-electric, Western 21st Century setting. Regular urination, freshly-laundered underwear and using a condom every time you have sex, each alone make a greater improvement to genital hygiene than circumcision (which itself is not without risks of permanent damage; including erectile dysfunction, infertility, total loss of sensation in the genital area, sudden death from catastrophic blood loss and loss of limbs, and which definitely affects enjoyment of sex adversely even if none of the risks be encountered.)

However, it is hardly surprising to see the post-hoc rationalisation pouring forth from male genital mutilation survivors. These men have had a horrific act of abuse perpetrated against them. They must feel a need to justify it to themselves somehow, to make themselves feel as though they would absolutely have elected to be circumcised themselves, if they had been given the choice; there must have been some utterly compelling reason why a parent would ever do such a terrible thing to their own son, even if they do not understand it fully themselves. Why else would anyone subject anyone they loved, while still a child too young to understand, to an unnecessary surgical procedure with the side effect of reducing the pleasure felt from sex, unless the alternative were somehow genuinely worse than all that?

Probably the worst justification that I have ever heard for ritual genital mutilation was "to make him look just like his daddy". If the boy's father had lost two fingers in a power saw accident, would that make it right to chop off two of his fingers "to make him look just like his daddy" ? Then there is the last-ditch catch-all, "well, it didn't do me any harm". That's like saying corporal punishment "didn't do you any harm", when you just don't appreciate the harm it did you (i.e., taught you that violence is an acceptable way of solving problems ).

Bonus question: What might be the likely effects on a person's attitude towards an individual's right to decide for themself in matters concerning their own body -- and not just with regard to genital mutulation, but also with regard to unwanted pregnancy, or being "born in the wrong body" (I really don't like that phrase at all, but it will have to suffice faute de mieux) -- of having that right so callously violated in early childhood?

 

[Foreigner]

I think we need to stop calling male circumcision genital mutilation. There are adult men who voluntarily get circumcised, and there are occasional medical reasons to do it. You can't compare it to female circumcision which has no real value and no woman in her right mind would ever have it done voluntarily.

There is certainly a discussion to be had about involuntary circumcision but the alarmist language is unnecessary. If children are "being mutilated" then it means the adults are too when they get it done. How do you think that feels for them? Some adolescent boys have foreskin strictures, some chronic infections no matter how much they clean themselves. Some men have penile cancer in the foreskin and get circumcisions for that.

Telling men that they were mutilated is none of your business. Their relationship to their body is their own... and as long as there are medically necessary reasons for getting it done in some cases, it's not that black and white.

 

[BecomingJulie]

Genital mutilation, absent any medical necessity, is genital mutilation, irrespective of the kind of genitals being mutilated. Or are you saying that the integrity of a boy's genitals is worth less than the integrity of a girl's genitals?

Amputation of the foreskin in infancy might have been beneficial to the survival of Bronze Age goat-herding desert tribes; but nowadays there are more effective and less drastic methods available, to those living a modern lifestyle in temperate latitudes, by which decent hygiene can be achieved without loss of sexual pleasure.

 

[Foreigner]

Genital mutilation, absent any medical necessity, is genital mutilation, irrespective of the kind of genitals being mutilated. Or are you saying that the integrity of a boy's genitals is worth less than the integrity of a girl's genitals?

There's no physical difference between a man who voluntarily had circumcision and a man who had it done involuntarily. You can't call one mutilation and not the other. They're either all mutilation or none are, whether the person was a willing participant or not is irrelevant to the physical result. Calling it amputation is also wrong. Amputation applies to limbs only, it has specific medical terminology.

If the discussion is about involuntarily circumcision, then let's talk about that. Your choice of words is polemical, inaccurate, and overshadows the more important aspects of the conversation. I'm circumcised and I also take personal offense to being called mutilated, when I have never seen my body in that light. It's body shaming and you need to stop right now.

 

[Erikmen]

This tradition started thousands of years ago because of the poor hygienic habits back then and only through religion and its enforcement people would obey and avoid problems we don't have these days. Continuing to do this now is simply unnecessary IMO, putting religion aside obviously.

 

[tokezu]

There's no physical difference between a man who voluntarily had circumcision and a man who had it done involuntarily. You can't call one mutilation and not the other. They're either all mutilation or none are, whether the person was a willing participant or not is irrelevant to the physical result.

There isn't necessarily a physical difference between an act of consensual sex and an act of rape or between someones's body being cut open by a murderer or a surgeon. Does that mean we shouldn't make a difference between those? Consent and/or medical necessity is exactly what makes the crucial difference between two acts that otherwise look the same.

 

[swilow]

^That's quite an absurd comparison.

 

[tokezu]

Care to elaborate? How can consent be irrelevant in one case but not the other?

 

[Foreigner]

Care to elaborate? How can consent be irrelevant in one case but not the other?

Your comparison has more to do with consent, and as I've already stated, I'm against involuntary circumcision. However, we should not call it mutilation just because it's involuntary, anymore than we would call tonsil removal, ear piercings or tattoos mutilation. The penis functions just fine with or without a foreskin.

I was circumcised as an infant against my will, and I'm not upset about it. I resent people projecting their weird politics onto my body. My body is not mutilated. It's normal, functional, and I've had more than enough partners enjoy my cock. My body is not to be used for your agenda and I refuse to subscribe to your labeling system. (By "your" I mean anyone using that ridiculous mutilation rhetoric, not you specifically tokezu.)

 

[Xorkoth]

There's no physical difference between a man who voluntarily had circumcision and a man who had it done involuntarily. You can't call one mutilation and not the other. They're either all mutilation or none are, whether the person was a willing participant or not is irrelevant to the physical result. Calling it amputation is also wrong. Amputation applies to limbs only, it has specific medical terminology.

If the discussion is about involuntarily circumcision, then let's talk about that. Your choice of words is polemical, inaccurate, and overshadows the more important aspects of the conversation. I'm circumcised and I also take personal offense to being called mutilated, when I have never seen my body in that light. It's body shaming and you need to stop right now.

I'm going to agree with that. I've never felt mutilated, and putting the idea out there that someone who was circumcized at birth is mutilated can produce negative effects on someone who is impressionable.

After this whole debate I can see where people would argue against it, it certainly isn't necessary, and yeah, we probably shouldn't do it by default. But damn, some kid comes in here and reads this (or hears someone say something like that in real life) and maybe they decide to become traumatized, whereas if no one had told them it was some horrible, barbaric thing that happened to them, they would never have felt trauma regarding it. Honestly I didn't even know foreskin was a thing until I got older, if I would have never been told about it or never seen it, I'd have lived my life happy as a clam. But what if I was 6 years old and someone got all intense on me telling me my parents mutilated me? I might get fucking disturbed by that.

Totally agree with Foreigner 100%. Yeah let's talk about the fact that perhaps it shouldn't be done by default. But it's damaging to try to turn it into some sort of horror show. Are you trying to make circumcized men feel like victims of abuse and malevolent mutilation? Because that's unnecessary and I can't see how it in any way does anything but cause harm. I'm fine. If I have a son, maybe I won't do it, because of some of the things I've learned from this conversation. But I sure as hell won't try to convince someone they should feel mutilated when, if left alone, they wouldn't.

"Male genital mutilation survivors"... really? I'm no victim, and you don't get to decide if I am one or not.

 

[tokezu]

Your comparison has more to do with consent, and as I've already stated, I'm against involuntary circumcision. However, we should not call it mutilation just because it's involuntary, anymore than we would call tonsil removal, ear piercings or tattoos mutilation. The penis functions just fine with or without a foreskin.

I was circumcised as an infant against my will, and I'm not upset about it. I resent people projecting their weird politics onto my body. My body is not mutilated. It's normal, functional, and I've had more than enough partners enjoy my cock. My body is not to be used for your agenda and I refuse to subscribe to your labeling system. (By "your" I mean anyone using that ridiculous mutilation rhetoric, not you specifically tokezu.)

Yes my point is soley about the issue of consent and when I used "mutilation" earlier in the thread that was meant in the sense that it is the lack of justification that makes it "mutiliation" rather than a judgement of how damaged one's body is as a result, so in that sense inflicting a very serious injury on someone's body with reasonable justification would not be "mutilation", but even the slightest injury to one's body could qualify as "mutilation" if it was not justified and could have been avoided. As I have asked before, when we look at the spectrum of female genital mutilation from very severe to less severe forms to a (maybe hypothetical, I don't know) equivalent of male circumcision, can we really say "at this precise point it stops being mutilation and becomes circumcision"? That doesn't really make sense to me, the point where it might become acceptable is not a matter of how severe the injury is, but a matter of the injury being justified or not. Maybe I'm using the word "mutilation" a bit wrong, English is a second language for me. I definitely didn't want to make a value judgement about your or anyone's body, I am sorry if it has come across that way.

Are you trying to make circumcized men feel like victims of abuse and malevolent mutilation? Because that's unnecessary and I can't see how it in any way does anything but cause harm.

As I said above, I do feel that people who were circumcised as children (without medical necessity) are victims of an unjustified infringement on their right to bodily autonomy. On one hand I don't want to make anybody feel uncomfortable with their body, there is more than enough of that going around already. But on the other hand I have the impression that denying your (the generalized you) own victimhood very easily leads to denying that there is an ethical problem at all with the practice and devaluing the experiences of people who do feel like they are victims of mutilation. Like even in this thread some people seem to be saying "I don't feel like a victim, so I can't take anyone serious who claims that he does feel like a victim".
I guess I understand your point about not having the right to define other peoples experience, but it goes both ways. Claiming that it objectively is not mutiliation devalues the experience of people who do feel like they have been mutilated. And I think for those people (who might not even be able to totally admit that to themselves, who wants to be a victim after all?) it is very important to hear that this is an absolutely valid interpretation of what happened to them. I am not sure how to reconcile that beyond the obvious point that we always need to be very careful with such sweeping statements about what some thing is or is not.

 

[Foreigner]

Yes my point is soley about the issue of consent and when I used "mutilation" earlier in the thread that was meant in the sense that it is the lack of justification that makes it "mutiliation" rather than a judgement of how damaged one's body is as a result, so in that sense inflicting a very serious injury on someone's body with reasonable justification would not be "mutilation", but even the slightest injury to one's body could qualify as "mutilation" if it was not justified and could have been avoided. As I have asked before, when we look at the spectrum of female genital mutilation from very severe to less severe forms to a (maybe hypothetical, I don't know) equivalent of male circumcision, can we really say "at this precise point it stops being mutilation and becomes circumcision"? That doesn't really make sense to me, the point where it might become acceptable is not a matter of how severe the injury is, but a matter of the injury being justified or not. Maybe I'm using the word "mutilation" a bit wrong, English is a second language for me. I definitely didn't want to make a value judgement about your or anyone's body, I am sorry if it has come across that way.

Again, there are medically necessary reasons for male circumcision: foreskin stricture, chronic balantitis, chronic infection, etc. These occur at all ages.

There is no medically necessary reason to perform female circumcision, ever.

You're saying that mutilation is when there's not consent. I don't agree with that. Mutilation is serious injury to the body, causing disfigurement. If someone chops off another person's finger, or hand, or arm, or ear, that's mutilation. Removal of the foreskin does not affect the function of the penis.

There are people who suffer worse injuries than circumcision as children, like 3rd degree burns, or being wounded from playing outdoors. We don't call them mutilated. We say they had an injury.

When I hear the word mutilated, I think of someone being attacked by a shark or a bear, or being tortured as a prisoner of war.

Again, I agree that lack of consent is a problem. Is it mutilation though? I don't think so.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Mutilation of boys' genitals might well have offered a survival advantage to Bronze Age tribes of desert-dwelling goat-herds with barely-adequate supplies of clean water; otherwise, they would hardly have developed an elaborate code of superstition to reinforce the practice.

However, it is hardly surprising to see the post-hoc rationalisation pouring forth from male genital mutilation survivors. These men have had a horrific act of abuse perpetrated against them.

Haha survival advantage for a penis without skins? Do go on...

Also the rationale is that this is your first sacrifice to God upon entering the world. This sacrifice is in line with knowing pain, disease, and suffering (Christians love to make the Saints suffer). As well as proving that memory is the sole existence of pain and guilt derived from pain must take into account the unconscious behavior of something being intangible acting on a memory. This is a very old tribal tradition that comes in many different forms. From males of a tribe going to hunt, to having bullet ants bite their hands, etc. Most people who go through these trials find meaning in it even if there is none. "I'm a man in my tribes eyes" etc. If you ask anyone circumcised I would bet that the most sane would say "So what" as should people who haven't. Society has gotten to such an insufferable point that we're arguing penis aesthetics while engaging in hyperbole because the Sacred is sold separate from Science which offers its own brand.

 

[tokezu]

^Initiation rites like that, just like modern hazing, are nothing but simple brainwashing techniques. The more you have suffered to become a member of a certain group the less likely you are to leave that group, because in order to do that you'd have to admit to yourself that you suffered through all the pain just for nothing. There is nothing to glorify about that.

Foreigner, was it a deliberate choice to use "female circumcision" rather than "female genital mutilation" or just out of habit?

 

[Shrooms00087]

^Initiation rites like that, just like modern hazing, are nothing but simple brainwashing techniques. The more you have suffered to become a member of a certain group the less likely you are to leave that group, because in order to do that you'd have to admit to yourself that you suffered through all the pain just for nothing. There is nothing to glorify about that.

The theology still stands. A hardcore Jewish Theologian would call you an antinatalist.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner, was it a deliberate choice to use "female circumcision" rather than "female genital mutilation" or just out of habit?

I didn't really give it much thought. Pretty sure my point was clear regardless, though.

 

[tokezu]

^I wasn't sure if you were trying to say, it qualifies just as little for "mutilation" as male circumcision does, which would confuse me a whole lot more about where you draw the line. Anyway, I don't think that discussion about what exactly "mutilation" means leads anywhere, let's just agree to disagree, ok? Again I am sorry if my use of it has offended you. I am glad that you can see that there is a problem surrounding the issue of consent, it's mostly that some people don't seem to understand that at all, that makes me get so angry about this topic sometimes.

The theology still stands. A hardcore Jewish Theologian would call you an antinatalist.

Well that's the nice thing about theology, right? It always 'stands'. But that's just because it is hard to fall when you're using training wheels, i.e. having decided on the answer before you ever started to study the problem.

 

[Shrooms00087]

Well that's the nice thing about theology, right? It always 'stands'. But that's just because it is hard to fall when you're using training wheels, i.e. having decided on the answer before you ever started to study the problem.

Theology isn't nice. It's brutal. It set out to define all the wood planks that make up the foundation of the world and wrote them as Eternal Laws voiced by God Himself. Even if you 'studied the problem' you would still be left inside the structure of the house. The only difference is Theology (which I would argue is the first true empirical scientist literature) doesn't make up complicated answers involving God knows what nonsense, DNA, RNA, etc. Instead they just dictate laws as they see them and let you study the text for dialectical purposes.

 

[zephyr]

My mother was a midwife in the 1960s and 70s. She has three older brothers and her father who were all circumsised.

They were from rural Australia. My mother worked in public teaching hospitals all over Australia and also major hospitals in the UK.


I asked her about circumsision and what was the deal with it when I was expecting my baby and had not found out I was having a girl.

She said that going back a generation to her fathers birth in the 1910s, boys who were born in the public hospitals were routinely circumsised. Parents did not get asked. It was just done.

Also even up to the era when she worked, children who were born profoundly disabled had their fate decided by the attending doctors and midwives, not the parents. Circumsision was just another thing that got done as routine for boys. There was no debate about it. People are assuming in this thread the parents actively saught out circumsision. Most just thought it was just normal.

The mother seemed to not be part of the birth emotionally, it was just a case of getting the baby out and following the rules at the time.


Circumsision was done en masse because it was implemented by hospitals as the standard thing to do for mainly fashion reasons and also hygiene reasons.

It was NORMAL. As womens rights and flexibility of options and healthcare available got better, parents felt they had more say in refusing circumsision.