Is circumcision genital mutilation?

[DrunkCat]

We should cut off our eyelids so we can stop getting that junk every morning.

 

[TheFearmonger]

We should cut off our eyelids so we can stop getting that junk every morning.

I tried that, and I ended up like this:

:shock:

It sucks. Don't do it.

 

[xman]

That's exactly what the end of my willy looks like except with just the one eye.

 

[TheFearmonger]

That's exactly what the end of my willy looks like except with just the one eye.

:facepalm:
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[freedom0f5peech]

We should cut off our eyelids so we can stop getting that junk every morning.

I tried that, and I ended up like this:

:shock:

It sucks. Don't do it.

I must admit... that's pretty fucking funny! :lol:

 

[Nogre]

(big long post)

Okay, you win. Assuming I ever have control over such, I won't circumcize any sons I have. I'm gay, so being able to make such a decision is unlikely (this being one reason why I was somewhat apathetic about it), but you never know. I'm certainly not going to refuse to adopt circumcized or uncircumcized boys, regardless, though.

So...what, should I sue my parents or something? I mean, this is ultimately why I think you're making it a bigger deal than it needs to be... Sure, arguing against future circumcision is certainly legitimate, but you're treating this like it's some big, bad civil rights case where I should be outraged at my parents or something. Yet, even knowing this (and some stuff on that web site you linked), I still just...don't feel outraged. :| Make of that what you will. I have to agree with you, but I can't help but think you're making this a bigger deal than it necessarily has to be. Perhaps I've missed some of what the advocacy is since I skipped a huge portion of the thread (sorry; wasn't up for reading 10 full pages :roll: ), and if I have, I apologize. But now I hope we have a better understanding.

 

[borrofburi]

I'm certainly not going to refuse to adopt circumcized or uncircumcized boys, regardless, though.

I would hope this doesn't change your opinion of living people; just as I would not refuse to adopt a child who had lost his hand, or a finger, or a digit on a finger, etc. of course I wouldn't refuse to adopt a circumcised child.

So...what, should I sue my parents or something? I mean, this is ultimately why I think you're making it a bigger deal than it needs to be... Sure, arguing against future circumcision is certainly legitimate, but you're treating this like it's some big, bad civil rights case where I should be outraged at my parents or something. Yet, even knowing this (and some stuff on that web site you linked), I still just...don't feel outraged. :| Make of that what you will. I have to agree with you, but I can't help but think you're making this a bigger deal than it necessarily has to be. Perhaps I've missed some of what the advocacy is since I skipped a huge portion of the thread (sorry; wasn't up for reading 10 full pages :roll: ), and if I have, I apologize. But now I hope we have a better understanding.

I for one do this arguing/debating thing on this subject because I think current and future parents should know that circumcision is unethical. There are certainly degrees of "ethical", circumcision is not as bad as cutting off a kid's arm. Do I think you should be outraged? Probably not, your parents made a permanent choice that has some effect on you, but again there are levels of ethical, and they probably simply didn't know. I am grateful my father did the research, but I recognize that at the time that was unique (which makes it even more impressive); but if he hadn't would I be angry? I don't know, but I'd like to think I would just accept me, accept he didn't know better, and move on to the same position I hold now. But I don't think you should be angry at your parents, it doesn't really accomplish anything.

What do I think should happen? At the very least more people *now* should know, especially parents and future parents; greater awareness is a good thing (and this is, primarily, why I enter into these discussions). Should we ban circumcision? I don't know / I haven't decided what I think, and such a discussion could probably go for another 10 pages (if you want to discuss that, then perhaps a new topic should be made).

 

[Nogre]

What do I think should happen? At the very least more people *now* should know, especially parents and future parents; greater awareness is a good thing (and this is, primarily, why I enter into these discussions). Should we ban circumcision? I don't know / I haven't decided what I think, and such a discussion could probably go for another 10 pages (if you want to discuss that, then perhaps a new topic should be made).

Okay, I can get behind this.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

It's a much bigger deal (bigger problem) than most people realize. The cultures who perform circumcisions make sure it's done before puberty, so the boy never gets a chance to experience any sexual pleasure from that area... i.e., he doesn't know what he's missing. In cultures that don't circumcise, most people there have no idea that it's done anywhere else. We don't speak about circumcision, so we don't know that it's a problem... if you speak of it, someone is always quick to jump and make you feel uncomfortable for bringing it up, usually with a comment like "why are you so obsessed about penises?" etc. Our culture is still anti-sex, and these topics are very taboo, which makes education about these things difficult.

We have to ask ourselves... why do we have a gut reaction to thinking female circumcision is horrific, but we don't get the same reaction about male circumcision? Both are violations of sexual rights. When you speak to Americans they assume you cannot compare them because "female circumcision is so much worse they cannot be compared"... but when you speak to Europeans they immediately see the comparison.

Should circumcision be banned? That all depends on what would happen, and I cannot say for sure what. If parents would start taking their children to back alleys to get circumcised, then I think it should remain legal... but I really cannot imagine that happening. This isn't like the abortion issue... if someone doesn't want a child, they really don't want it... nobody is that insistent that their boy not have a foreskin to go to such an extreme length. Thoughts?

 

[xman]

You've hit it on the head, f05. (euphemism intended )

 

[Nogre]

It's a much bigger deal (bigger problem) than most people realize. The cultures who perform circumcisions make sure it's done before puberty, so the boy never gets a chance to experience any sexual pleasure from that area... i.e., he doesn't know what he's missing. In cultures that don't circumcise, most people there have no idea that it's done anywhere else. We don't speak about circumcision, so we don't know that it's a problem... if you speak of it, someone is always quick to jump and make you feel uncomfortable for bringing it up, usually with a comment like "why are you so obsessed about penises?" etc. Our culture is still anti-sex, and these topics are very taboo, which makes education about these things difficult.

We have to ask ourselves... why do we have a gut reaction to thinking female circumcision is horrific, but we don't get the same reaction about male circumcision? Both are violations of sexual rights. When you speak to Americans they assume you cannot compare them because "female circumcision is so much worse they cannot be compared"... but when you speak to Europeans they immediately see the comparison.

Should circumcision be banned? That all depends on what would happen, and I cannot say for sure what. If parents would start taking their children to back alleys to get circumcised, then I think it should remain legal... but I really cannot imagine that happening. This isn't like the abortion issue... if someone doesn't want a child, they really don't want it... nobody is that insistent that their boy not have a foreskin to go to such an extreme length. Thoughts?

Hmm...interesting. If it wasn't apparent, my apathy was chiefly due to the fact that I've never heard of foreskin serving any function or providing a significant ammount of sexual pleasure. But now that such has been clarified and we can agree that we should only be concerned about future circumcision (and not getting angry at the ignorant use of it in the past), then I fully support what you're saying here.

The religion-based societal taboos surrounding sex are barriers to a lot of potentially important topics. I can certainly see the comparison now; I was just never aware that the same kind of thing is lost. I think that's probably a big part of that. I also agree with you on the legal issues.

But is it really as severe loss in sexual enjoyment as it is for females? I find that rather disapointing, because as I understood it, it causes females to lose all sexual enjoyment.

 

[freedom0f5peech]

But is it really as severe loss in sexual enjoyment as it is for females? I find that rather disapointing, because as I understood it, it causes females to lose all sexual enjoyment.

It is, and it isn't. There are 3 main types of female circumcision (and many more if we divide those). Type I is less severe, and Type III is far more severe. Type I is the most common, and Type III is the least common (however it is about the most severe and disgusting mutilation imaginable). The only practical way we can compare female and male circumcision is in sexual human rights, where they are all violations.

It is also a common misconception that circumcised women cannot get any pleasure. This misconception spread to try and get people behind the movement to stop the practice. While that's good (that we are stopping it), it's bad that it's based on bad information, and at the cost of making male circumcision (which is far more common) seem less severe in comparison. I'll explain more below.

While all 3 types of female circumcision reduce pleasure (some more than others), they do not remove all pleasure. This stands to reason when you think about it, and it's confirmed in two studies I will post below (the only 2 ever conducted to figure this out). If the female is unable to get clitoral stimulation, she can still have vaginal stimulation, and even vaginal based orgasms. This is of course still a sad outcome, as clitoral based stimulation and orgasms will feel much different (and better in some ways). After a circumcision she is limited to only different types of pleasure (less types). If she was circumcised before puberty she will had never known clitoral based stimulation and orgasm, and is more likely to focus on vaginal. Again, this is a sexual rights violation, and a poor outcome to force on anyone, but this is what happens... it does not remove all ability to have pleasure in most cases. Below are the two studies...


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C).
1: J Sex Med. 2007 Nov;4(6):1666-78.

The group of 137 women, affected by different types of female circumcision, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 circumcised young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm; the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI showed an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of circumcised women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication or pain. The present study reports that FGM/C women can also have the possibility of reaching an orgasm.

86% have orgasms
69.23% always have orgasms
91.23% of the younger women have orgasms
14 out of 15 infibulated report orgasms

PMID: 17970975 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Catania L
Abdulcadir O
Puppo V
Verde JB
Abdulcadir J
Abdulcadir D.

Research Center for Preventing and Curing Complications of Circumcision, Health Promotion of Immigrant Woman - Department of Gynaecology, Obstetrics, Perinatology, Human Reproduction, Florence, Italy.

NCBI
PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Female circumcision does not reduce sexual activity

"Circumcised women experience sexual arousal and orgasm as frequently as uncircumcised women, according to a study in Nigeria."

12:30 24 September 2002
NewScientist news service
Emma Young
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, are these reports accurate? I don't know. They could be highly flawed. But what does stand to reason is that it will not remove ALL ability to feel pleasure... however it will certainly reduce it. In this way it is similar to male circumcision. We also cannot easily compare the two, because there are so many types of female circumcision. The only reasonable way to compare them is to compare the sexual rights being violated (IMHO).

I also made a video about the comparasins here (with a lot more information)...

Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tp8SWF5PrM

 

[Giant Blue Anteater]

I'm certainly not going to refuse to adopt circumcized or uncircumcized boys, regardless, though.

I would hope this doesn't change your opinion of living people; just as I would not refuse to adopt a child who had lost his hand, or a finger, or a digit on a finger, etc. of course I wouldn't refuse to adopt a circumcised child.

Correction, a digit is a finger (or toe). A segment of a digit (finger or toe) is called a phalanx.

But anyway, I was circumcised by my family when I was born, left with maybe a small sensitive spot but little else remains. Something they need to realize is that if the eye lids are to your eyes, then the prepucium (foreskin) is to your penis. My dad was giving me excuses that I have to clean the thing, when the mucous membrane in the inner prepucium does the job for you, and that my mom thinks prepuced penises are gross. So, basically, for misinformed and fully opinionated cosmetic reasons, a happier phallus of mine never was.

However, I did not know that I was circumcised until I learned what an intact penis looks like and when I asked my dad.

I have plans to restore my prepucium, sans the mucous membrane, which really sucks (the quacks who circumcised me should, bad pun intended). Is there any known way to restore the mucous membrane and have a fully restored foreskin?

I do not think I will be able to convince my parents that this is an unnecessary procedure that harms more than it helps (there's probably no point anyway, as it is too late) so the best bet to stop this practice is if I were to have any children in the future, I will not have their prepucia removed. Of course, I would have to agree with Nogre that I would not refuse to adopt a circumcised child, if I were to adopt one.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

You can't really define circumcision in terms of ethical or non-ethical. It's a personal decision.

My husband is grateful for being circumcised as an infant, because he feels it looks better and feels better, and he was too young to remember it. He intends on having it done if we ever have a son. Growing up in a culture where circumcision is the norm, I can't honestly say I have strong feelings either way. I would rather NOT circumcise my children, but I'm not going to feel like a bad person or I've seriously harmed my child if I allow it to happen.

Is it genital mutilation? By definition it is, because you're removing a part of the genitals for a reason of questionable benefit.

 

[borrofburi]

You can't really define circumcision in terms of ethical or non-ethical. It's a personal decision.

You can't really define left-arm-removal in terms of ethical or non-ethical. It's a personal decision... So my question to you is: what precisely is the difference? Is it just degree of harm? In the same way that removing a finger is less awful than removing an arm? Or do you think there is a fundamental difference, other than degree, that differentiates circumcision and finger-removal?

More precisely, I agree, it's a *personal* decision, not one made by parents for children.

because he feels...

Personal experience is not evidence.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

You can't really define left-arm-removal in terms of ethical or non-ethical. It's a personal decision... So my question to you is: what precisely is the difference? Is it just degree of harm? In the same way that removing a finger is less awful than removing an arm? Or do you think there is a fundamental difference, other than degree, that differentiates circumcision and finger-removal?

That would be an adequate analogy - if we were discussing the full removal of the penis. A circumcised penis is still functional, and can still feel - though to a lesser degree.

Personal experience is not evidence.

Clearly you've never heard of "anecdotal evidence".

 

[Giant Blue Anteater]

Personal experience is not evidence.

Clearly you've never heard of "anecdotal evidence".

Anecdotes (e.g., eyewitness accounts and testimonies) aren't the most reliable sources of information as sapient beings (including humans) are rather biased and are capable of being dishonest. They're not good enough for proving a particular case.

 

[RestrictedAccess]

Anecdotes (e.g., eyewitness accounts and testimonies) aren't the most reliable sources of information as sapient beings (including humans) are rather biased and are capable of being dishonest. They're not good enough for proving a particular case.

That depends on what you're trying to prove. Providing a personal preference to demonstrate personal preference warrants anecdotal evidence.

 

[borrofburi]

That would be an adequate analogy - if we were discussing the full removal of the penis. A circumcised penis is still functional, and can still feel - though to a lesser degree.

And a hand with a removed finger is still functional and can still grasp things, though to a lesser degree, yet I submit to you that both are unethical (as is female circumcision) (at least, to infants, informed adults can do whatever they want).

Providing a personal preference to demonstrate personal preference warrants anecdotal evidence.

A personal preference without having tried alternatives is irrelevant. It's like someone saying "I prefer vanilla-only even though I've never tried chocolate."

 

[RestrictedAccess]

And a hand with a removed finger is still functional and can still grasp things, though to a lesser degree, yet I submit to you that both are unethical (as is female circumcision) (at least, to infants, informed adults can do whatever they want).

Yes, but the finger removed is NOT functional. See what I'm getting at?

A personal preference without having tried alternatives is irrelevant. It's like someone saying "I prefer vanilla-only even though I've never tried chocolate."

Yet it's still a personal preference. I could say I prefer being an atheist over being a Muslim because one seems more rational and reasonable, and even though I've never been a Muslim, I can infer from what I know of the Muslim faith that I'd prefer being an atheist.

In much the same way, a person may not have had the opportunity to know what it's like to be uncircumcised, but they can still infer that they'd prefer it based on what they know of it - such as the difference in how they look.