Coming from the culture where it was prevalent, and being born with a penis, I was circumcised.

I'm just wondering, is it genital mutilation?

Medically speaking no. The medical literature on the so called benefits are a lot like Mormon apologetics- pushing the fringes. The vast majority of the world isn't circumcised and by all appearances is able to reproduce. In older diabetic men and men with sickle cell disease it can be performed with benefits.

When I run the NICU (not much longer) I don't allow the procedure to be done on neonates being discharged. There are now some states whose Medicaid programs have stopped paying for the procedure.

I run into parents who think it is a law, want it done because it is "biblical" or most often " want him to look like his Dad or brother".

Gatorman



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2016 07:24AM by gatorman.

Depends how you define 'Genital Mutilation'.

But, I bow to Gatormans, knowledge of *medical* terminology, in this case

I think if you examine the timing and the reasons put forth for circumcision as compared to female genital mutilation, it is pretty clear that the two are worlds apart.

Circumcision was mandated by Jewish religious laws, primarily for cleanliness and health reasons just as dietary laws began as health measures. Whether there is real scientific reason behind this or not is disputed. It is performed in early infancy. No one is trying to keep anyone from enjoying sex, and there are no serious health complications that result from the practice.

Female genital mutilation, however, has absolutely no purpose except to cripple female sexual enjoyment and orgasm so that it is only the male who experiences sexual enjoyment and orgasm. The average age of female sexual mutilation is 10 years old, shortly prior to puberty. Religion is heavily involved in this practice which seeks to forcibly preserve "sexual "purity by makiing sex so painful and unrewarding that it will be nothing but a "duty" for the female. This practice causes many health problems for girls and women.

Once again, males seek to control what they fear--the power of female sexuality!

edited once for clarity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2016 08:12AM by bordergirl.

circumcision was mandated by Jewish religious laws primarily as a form of sacrifice and may have had its roots in child sacrifice rather than any health reasons

In exodus, the lawd sets out to kill moses and his wife cuts off their son's foreskin and throws it down, placating the bloodthirsty god...........sounds like more of a sacrificial aspect than a health aspect (although I guess you could call it a health issue as it prevented moses being killed)

FGM is awful - generally much worse than anything americans and muslims inflict on their infant sons - but FGM is not just one single thing.... there are levels of FGM from 'ewww' all the way through to 'OH MY F,ING GOD, HOW COULD ANYONE DO THAT TO A CHILD''

bordergirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Circumcision was mandated by Jewish religious
> laws, primarily for cleanliness and health reasons
> just as dietary laws began as health measures.

That's clearly disputable. *Nothing* in the Jewish scriptures say anything about it being for "cleanliness and health reasons." ALL of the scriptures say it's done to "mark" the chosen people of god.

That it *might* have some possible "cleanliness and health" benefits, which weren't discovered until recently, after several thousand years of the practice, doesn't mean that what it started as. In fact, it's post hoc apologetics of the highest order -- trying to justify an ancient ignorant religious superstition by finding *something* beneficial in it.

The simple fact is that it's not necessary. And none of the so-called benefits matter if a culture (or family) doesn't have puritanical sexual hang-ups, and they teach young boys how to properly clean their penises.

My parents circumcised me. I didn't inflict that silliness on my son. And I did instruct him how to keep himself clean and healthy.

If it's a "mark", why don't Jews walk around with it hanging out for quick identification? Or whip it out instead of shaking hands?

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it's a "mark", why don't Jews walk around with
> it hanging out for quick identification? Or whip
> it out instead of shaking hands?

Clearly you've never been to Greenwich Village...:)


Genesis 17:
10 This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which [is] not of thy seed.
13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

"The origin of male circumcision is not known with certainty. It has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice, as a rite of passage marking a boy's entrance into adulthood, as a form of sympathetic magic to ensure virility or fertility, as a means of reducing sexual pleasure, as an aid to hygiene where regular bathing was impractical, as a means of marking those of higher social status, as a means of humiliating enemies and slaves by symbolic castration, as a means of differentiating a circumcising group from their non-circumcising neighbors, as a means of discouraging masturbation or other socially proscribed sexual behaviors, as a means of removing "excess" pleasure, as a means of increasing a man's attractiveness to women, as a demonstration of one's ability to endure pain, or as a male counterpart to menstruation or the breaking of the hymen, or to copy the rare natural occurrence of a missing foreskin of an important leader, a way to repel demonesses, and as a display of disgust of the smegma produced by the foreskin. Removing the foreskin can prevent or treat a medical condition known as phimosis. It has been suggested that the custom of circumcision gave advantages to tribes that practiced it and thus led to its spread.

Darby describes these theories as "conflicting", and states that "the only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it." Immerman et al. suggest that circumcision causes lowered sexual arousal of pubescent males, and hypothesize that this was a competitive advantage to tribes practising circumcision, leading to its spread. Wilson suggests that circumcision reduces insemination efficiency, reducing a man's capacity for extra-pair fertilizations by impairing sperm competition. Thus, men who display this signal of sexual obedience may gain social benefits if married men are selected to offer social trust and investment preferentially to peers who are less threatening to their paternity. It is possible that circumcision arose independently in different cultures for different reasons."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2016 07:59PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"The average age of female sexual mutilation is 10 years old, shortly prior to puberty. Religion is heavily involved in this practice"

Any religion in particular? Amish? Quaker? Buddhist?

Exactly.

I never used to think much about circumcision. Then once it got into my head, all kinds of thoughts came to mind. Like, what do they do with all those leftover thingees?

I'll never buy another bag of "pork rinds" ever again, that's for sure.

They can actually grow new skin tissue for burn victims and such from old foreskins.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/lab-grown-skin2.htm

Rub them, and they become an overnight case.

*ducks,runs*

While I think female "circumcision" is clearly genital mutilation, I'm not quit so sure I'd say the same thing for male circumcision. Boys/men can still function properly and still retain sensation after circumcision.

That said, if I had a son, I wouldn't allow it. I don't really see any purpose whatsoever for circumcision and there's just no need to put little boys through such a thing. And I'm completely against cutting off any body part or a part of a body part for religious reasons. That's not a reason; it's cult mind control.

"While I think female "circumcision" is clearly genital mutilation, I'm not quite so sure I'd say the same thing for male circumcision. Boys/men can still function properly and still retain sensation after circumcision."

According to like, every porn scene ever filmed, you are right. :-)

And it usually devolves into a back and forth of who's the rightest on this subject.

Let me say, again, I don't condone circumcision for baby boys unless there's a legitimate health reason. Should I ever choose to have a child and that child is born a male, I won't have him circumcised and oddly enough, my BF is the one who is pro-circumcision...So we may be at odds should this situation ever come up.

However, the difference between circumcision and FGM was explained this way to me:

Circumcision is like losing the tip of your pinky finger while FGM is losing the entire hand. Hope that explains it better to you.

Here's an article to take a look at to understand what the survivors of FGM dealt with:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/matthewtucker/these-british-women-are-all-survivors-of-female-genital-muti

Itzpapalotl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me say, again, I don't condone circumcision
> for baby boys unless there's a legitimate health
> reason. Should I ever choose to have a child and
> that child is born a male, I won't have him
> circumcised and oddly enough, my BF is the one who
> is pro-circumcision...So we may be at odds should
> this situation ever come up.

I agree. Which is why I didn't have it done at MY request to my son. If he decides he wants it done, he can do so (he's an adult now). Somehow I doubt he will...but it's his choice.

> Circumcision is like losing the tip of your pinky
> finger while FGM is losing the entire hand.

There's no doubt FGM is "worse" than circumcision. No doubt whatsoever. More painful, more damaging, more harmful.

However, both are "genital mutilation." They both involve mutilating genitals. :)

The only argument can be about whether (or not) the genital mutilation involved in circumcision has benefits or not...not about whether or not it's genital mutilation. It is.

I've said it so many times that both are forms a mutilation, that I feel like I'm just repeating myself ad nauseam. It's just levels of mutilation of the genitals. Not all tribes or cultures do the full scale of the FGM, either, as some cut off varying amounts of the labia majora, minora, clitoral hood, clitoris... etc. not that it makes it anymore acceptable.

I don't even agree with people piercing their baby girls' ears, because it's something that should be left up to the child to decide in the future. Everyone deserves bodily autonomy and the right to make their own choices for their own bodies.

Female circumcision: DEFINITLY genital mutilation.
Male circumcision: An outdated attempt at "cleanliness" (thanks for nothing early 20th century prudes). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng

I've always wondered if those who enjoy giving fellatio prefer a circumcised penis or uncircumcised.

Anyone willing to weigh in on that?

Cut.

As long as a man is clean and fresh, neither is an issue for me.

While a guy who's lax on hygiene is disgusting, it is MUCH worse if he's uncircumcised, the product which is known as smegma and it's absolutely vile.

Here's a tip for those who've never been with an intact man: Pull the hood back first to make sure he's clean.

Wash those genitals and wash them well. That goes for everyone.

Cut, IMO. Definitely. The same goes for intercourse, too! Much more enjoyable.

wondercat
(a girl cat)

Yep, but not really, but definitely, but it could be worse.

Got it?

Yes, obviously.

My boys are not circumsized. It is not a procedure that is covered by medical here unless that is a valid medical reason for it and it is not always easy to find someone willing to do it if that is something you want to have done. I researched it before my boys were born and came to the conclusion it was not necessary.

FGM is where the woman's clitoris and other genitalia is removed.

The only way that circumcision would be genital mutilation would be if the glans of the penis was cut off.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2016 05:15PM by matt.

Hey, I'm just glad I'm not an Australian Aborigine. Those guys have it rough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile_subincision

It should be considered a medical necessity, as later in life that fore skin could be a choking hazard.

Yes! And I will not debate the issue. My grandson is the 5th or 6th generation of intact males in my family.

RB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2016 06:52PM by Lethbridge Reprobate.

Yes it certainly is and my parents never gave me a say in the matter.

It's just another reason to be pissed at them.

I didn't have either of my sons done at birth. Now in their 30's, one chose to have it done as an adult, the other is fine as is. Seems a barbaric thing to do to a newborn, but then they probably cried harder while pitching a fit in the grocery store than they would have during circumcision. My husband once told me the pink ginger at the Chinese buffet was foreskins. So, that's where they go.

For females, it's definitely genital mutilation, and the same is true for males, unless there's a medical necessity later. Even then, when it becomes a necessity, it's done under local anesthesia. As long as someone practices good hygiene including retracting the foreskin to clean the glans, an intact penis won't stink at all.

As I understand it,FGM takes different forms. Sometimes it is a mere prick or small cut in the clitoris and in its worst form it involves removing the clitoris,labia and sewing up much of the vaginal opening. A prick with a pin is not life changing although there is no reason to do it either, but the other forms prevent a woman from enjoying sex and can cause other problems as well. Circumcision isnt remotely in the same category.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/18/2016 11:50PM by bona dea.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/male-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-cdc-says/20013585

I'm uncircumcised, which puts me in the minority in the US. I have never seen my father's or brother's dicks, so I don't know if I "look like them." And I wouldn't care if I didn't. I've never had any medical conditions related to foreskin. The women I've been with never commented on my uncircumcised state.