Male Circumcision good or bad up to the individual?

[MysticSang'ha]

First, I'll state I accept that male circumcision is a minor alteration of the kid, with minor health effects, either pro or con. Even though I oppose it because the decision to alter one's body in such a way belongs to the owner of that body, this is over-ridden by the cultural importance of doing it in some groups. So I wouldn't take steps to prevent parents from continuing the practice.
Now, I've a question for pro-circ posters here:
If some forms of female circumcision are as benign in effect, & as culturally important,
should it also be acceptable? If not, what is different about altering a boy vs a girl?

Before I accepted my sons circumcision, I differed in my opinion. I would have been shocked if anybody would have offered to clip my daughters clitoral hood for any non-medical reason. But I was okay to have my sons foreskin clipped. I don't feel that way anymore. The experience was traumatic for all of us involved, and I don't wish that upon others.

That is just my personal experience, however. I don't wish to outlaw or ban circumcisions. But I see them as a non-medical cosmetic procedures. I think they ought to be treated as such economically, then, as an out-of-pocket expense.

 

[Aquitaine]

I think that is up to the parents at the child's birth. A few years ago they started it in Africa and when this happened, aids cases went down there. Possibly , because of the removing the skin made it more sanitary and could be cleaned much better.

Also probably to do with a significant number of Africans living in poverty without proper access to contraceptives and general hygiene. Chopping off part of your sausage to improve cleanliness seems totally overkill - what next, trimming the labia and clitoral hood for girls?

 

[Horrorble]

Also probably to do with a significant number of Africans living in poverty without proper access to contraceptives and general hygiene. Chopping off part of your sausage to improve cleanliness seems totally overkill - what next, trimming the labia and clitoral hood for girls?

I think there is a difference between male and female circumcision

 

[Aquitaine]

I think there is a difference between male and female circumcision

I recognize the difference between male circumcision and FGM, but for the sake of the argument I have been mentioning specifically the use of cutting part of the clitoral hood - which is essentially the same as the male equivalent.

 

[Horrorble]

I recognize the difference between male circumcision and FGM, but for the sake of the argument I have been mentioning specifically the use of cutting part of the clitoral hood - which is essentially the same as the male equivalent.

Ok cool, but would that still significantly reduce pleasure?

 

[Aquitaine]

Ok cool, but would that still significantly reduce pleasure?

If the clitoral hood was clipped? Possibly. I dunno for wimmenz, but the end-section of foreskin removed during male circumcision is an erogenous zone, packed with nerve endings.

The loss of pleasure potential won't be as bad as say, chopping off a girl's clitoris, but I still think it's tight to just remove a boy's foreskin like that.

No-one would accept clitoral hoods being clipped, even if the same "benefits" were there. It's only because of culture/religion that the practice is still being done on baby boys. The practice was born out of ritual, and advocates of circumcision are basically just clutching at straws desperately trying to justify it's continued usage, by pointing to (recently discovered) health "benefits" which are essentially zero-sum.

Out of curiosity, what is your stance on unnecessary infant circumcision?

 

[Horrorble]

If the clitoral hood was clipped? Possibly. I dunno for wimmenz, but the end-section of foreskin removed during male circumcision is an erogenous zone, packed with nerve endings.

The loss of pleasure potential won't be as bad as say, chopping off a girl's clitoris, but I still think it's tight to just remove a boy's foreskin like that.

No-one would accept clitoral hoods being clipped, even if the same "benefits" were there. It's only because of culture/religion that the practice is still being done on baby boys. The practice was born out of ritual, and advocates of circumcision are basically just clutching at straws desperately trying to justify it's continued usage, by pointing to (recently discovered) health "benefits" which are essentially zero-sum.

Out of curiosity, what is your stance on unnecessary infant circumcision?

I don't know a lot about it but as I stand now I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with piercing a child's ears in our society.

But I would say the difference is most women need a clitoris for orgasm whilst men don't need a foreskin for orgasm.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know a lot about it but as I stand now I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with piercing a child's ears in our society.
But I would say the difference is most women need a clitoris for orgasm whilst men don't need a foreskin for orgasm.

Since this line of discussion follows my queries, I'll point out that no one is suggesting clitorus removal, which is heinous. I asked only about a comparable form of female circumcision (without saying exactly what it is or when/where it's practiced).
Note: Among us posters, I suspect that no altering of female infants' genitals for cultural/religous/cosmetic reasons would be acceptable. So I'm curious about thoughts on the matter.

 

[Aquitaine]

I don't know a lot about it but as I stand now I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with piercing a child's ears in our society.

Same 'ere: let them decide to do this themselves when they're older.

But I would say the difference is most women need a clitoris for orgasm whilst men don't need a foreskin for orgasm.

For the record, I'm totally not an expert on female sexuality, but I'd be willing to bet women could orgasm with a portion of their clitoral hood clipped. Not that I'm advocating such a practice being done on infants though, obviously.

 

[Horrorble]

Same 'ere: let them decide to do this themselves when they're older.

For the record, I'm totally not an expert on female sexuality, but I'd be willing to bet women could orgasm with a portion of their clitoral hood clipped. Not that I'm advocating such a practice being done on infants though, obviously.

Ok cool, I have no idea to be honest

 

[Horrorble]

Since this line of discussion follows my queries, I'll point out that no one is suggesting clitorus removal, which is heinous. I asked only about a comparable form of female circumcision (without saying exactly what it is or when/where it's practiced).
Note: Among us posters, I suspect that no altering of female infants' genitals for cultural/religous/cosmetic reasons would be acceptable. So I'm curious about thoughts on the matter.

I understand no one here is pro female circumcision I was just wondering if people accepted the difference of the 2 practices that's all.

 

[Falvlun]

What about the men who go back and try to have foreskin put back on? Even though it will never be the same?(the same as if there foreskin had never been removed)? Are they just looking for something to complain about ?(not saying they aren't because those types exist..can't be happy even when they are)

Obviously, circumcision permanently alters a person's body. I'm not denying that.

The purpose of my post was to show the difference between alterations like male circumcision, tattooing, ear piercing, or scarification, and practices like FGM, foot binding, lip plates, etc. I think the latter can justly be considered mutilation and child abuse, and should be prevented regardless of ritual or cultural significance. I think the former, while unnecessary and probably better if ended, are simply not in the same category.

Yes, it permanently alters a person's body without their consent. But no, it really doesn't cause a lifetime of pain, suffering, or physical disability. As such, I do not condemn those who do desire to continue such cultural tradition, whether for the sake of the child's ability to simply "fit in" or for its religious connotations. (And, at least in the case of male circumcision, it can be argued that there are mild health benefits to such a procedure.)

 

[DallasApple]

I think the former, while unnecessary and probably better if ended, are simply not in the same category.

I would not put them in the same category either.I also wouldn't go so far as to call male circumcision child "abuse".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As was mentioned, circumcision is more akin to scarification or tattooing practices. Yes, they permanently alter the person's appearance. But no, they are unlikely to cause any lasting issues. If tattooing or scaring were common cultural practices, and social repercussions occurred to people who did not have them, then I probably wouldn't see much issue with that either. Would it be better if they didn't occur? Sure. But is it a big deal that they do? Not really.

Parents who tattoo their kids run a very big risk of having them taken away. Heck - the State of Florida took this 10-year-old boy away from his parents for *allowing* the child to get a tattoo *that the child wanted!*

Child, 10, Gets Tattoo, Gets Put in Foster Care

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think tht might be a good benchmark for considering whether something warrants the accusationof child abuse or mutilation.

Does it cause the person pain?

Yes.

Does it effect the normal functioning of the body part?

Normally no, but sometimes yes.

Does the person feel as if something is wrong with their body?

Normally no, but sometimes yes.

I think a fourth question is also relevant:

Is there a compelling reason to do it to the child instead of waiting until the child can give free, informed consent himself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Obviously, circumcision permanently alters a person's body. I'm not denying that.

The purpose of my post was to show the difference between alterations like male circumcision, tattooing, ear piercing, or scarification, and practices like FGM, foot binding, lip plates, etc. I think the latter can justly be considered mutilation and child abuse, and should be prevented regardless of ritual or cultural significance. I think the former, while unnecessary and probably better if ended, are simply not in the same category.

Yes, it permanently alters a person's body without their consent. But no, it really doesn't cause a lifetime of pain, suffering, or physical disability. As such, I do not condemn those who do desire to continue such cultural tradition, whether for the sake of the child's ability to simply "fit in" or for its religious connotations. (And, at least in the case of male circumcision, it can be argued that there are mild health benefits to such a procedure.)

FGM and footbinding are worse, but they're still in the same category, just as shoplifting and car-jacking are both in the category "theft", even though they're different in magnitude.

 

[Falvlun]

Parents who tattoo their kids run a very big risk of having them taken away. Heck - the State of Florida took this 10-year-old boy away from his parents for *allowing* the child to get a tattoo *that the child wanted!*

Child, 10, Gets Tattoo, Gets Put in Foster Care

That is not the context I was speaking of. If it were a common cultural practice to tattoo our children, as it has been in various tribes around the world, then I doubt the kid would have been taken away. As an extension, I would not condemn the ritual or cultural practice of tattooing children in cultures that have done so.

 

[Wirey]

I repeat:

I was circumcised when I was 5 days old, and it took four lumberjacks and a hedge trimmer. True story. They used the foreskin to make Australia (little known fact: If you rub Australia, it turns into Jupiter).

 

[Falvlun]

Yes.

I meant in the context of extensive, long-term pain as a direct result of the altered body part. Yes, the procedure causes pain if not done under anesthesia, but the result of circumcision does not.

Normally no, but sometimes yes

Normally no, but sometimes yes.

There are outliers to any procedure. As such, they are not relevant in categorizing such a practice as causing suffering or loss of function.

I think a fourth question is also relevant:

Is there a compelling reason to do it to the child instead of waiting until the child can give free, informed consent himself?

It is a good question, and a reason why I have stated that it would be for the best if these practices were extinct.

But, again, I do not see great harm coming from such alterations, and as such, I do not see the need to condemn them or to categorize them as something horrific. I also see the benefit to conforming to cultural norms, as far as physical aesthetics are concerned. As for consent, as has been pointed out, many unnecessary things are done to a child without his consent, most of which will have much more far reaching consequences in his life than the removal of his foreskin. We can't and shouldn't try to, regulate everything.

FGM and footbinding are worse, but they're still in the same category, just as shoplifting and car-jacking are both in the category "theft", even though they're different in magnitude.

I think that the attempt to equate by association comes across as a bit desperate and hurts the position more than helps it, as most people do not feel as if they have been damaged or violated due to having been circumcised, and therefore, do not relate to such gruesome depictions.

 

[Wirey]

I repeat:

I was circumcised when I was 5 days old, and it took four lumberjacks and a hedge trimmer. True story. They used the foreskin to make Australia (little known fact: If you rub Australia, it turns into Jupiter).

And the next person who sends me peanut related PMs is getting reported to the mods! Of course, that first one was from a mod.