~ archived since 2018 ~

Why Circumcision is a Feminist Issue

thetrollking

July 11, 2011

13 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://ecochildsplay.com/2011/07/07/why-circumcision-is-a-feminist-issue/

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Why Circumcision is a Feminist Issue
Author	thetrollking
Upvotes	13
Comments	51
Date	July 11, 2011 12:02 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/imc9b/why_circumcision_is_a_feminist_issue/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-circumcision-is-a-feminist-issue.1037486 https://theredarchive.com/post/1037486

Comments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]NoSalt -10 points-9 points-8 points 15 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]NoSalt -7 points-6 points-5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Scott2508 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whisper 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 8 points9 points10 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good. Glad to hear you like your dick.

We get bent out of shape by it because it is a ethical issue that pertains to agency and bodily autonomy. We think that men and boys should simply have the choice.

We think that circumcision is cosmetic surgery that is unneccessary and shouldn't be done on infants.

Every year almost 200 baby boys die due to circumcision and medical issues related to circumcision.

Consent to the procedure aside, it is a profit based industry. The foreskins are sold to biotech and cosmetics companies and used for everything from cosmetic surgery (lips and even in some cases burn victims needing skin grafts, where they grow skin from the fibroblasts harvested from the foreskins) to cosmetic anti-wrinkle cream.

It is a multi billion dollar international industry. Oprah has even endorsed a face cream made from the fibroblasts and other cells harvested and grown in labs from foreskins. On a scientific level, it is fascinating that the only place on the body that has cells that can be used for this happen to be the genital of boy, and girls too. How would you feel on a moral level if girls had their labia cut off and used for everything from cosmetics to medical research? Wouldn't that make you kinda sick to your stomach.

There is a lot of info on the web and if you want I can link to posts about everything that I have said and much more. Or you can search through my post history because I have submitted posts to this sub about all of what I said.

The main thing to realize is that it isn't about you as much as it is about giving boys the choice because once it is done there is no going back.

As far as medical benefits or hygiene or sex, most of those arguments are bullshit. Especially the medical ones, the circ industry is well funded. As far as hygiene goes, showering tends to do it. As far as sex goes, you probably have loss of sensitivity but it's not like you have any comparison. many like to claim that they work fine so it isn't a big deal and they are somewhat correct.

The prostate controls erections and the creation of most seminal fluid, so support prostate cancer research and you will have healthy boners into old age...as long as you don't have circulation issues. The testes produce sperm, so support testicular cancer research.

I will say that there is a difference between ejaculation and orgasm, many cut guys I talk to seem confused by this but as a uncut guy I find it kinda annoying that if I am tired or really drunk that I can cum and not have a orgasm. I don't know but I really wonder if the loss of nerve endings, 20K+ in the foreskin along with more in the rigid band and frenulum, plays a role here.

If you want your sons or grandsons to have the choice, then support ending it. If they want it done at 18 then they can have it done. And that is all I am going to say on this for now, I gotta get some work done today. I will put this here though: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ik43w/since_circumcision_is_debated_so_much_here_i/

Watch the video, I tried but couldn't. NSFL.

[–]mellowgreen 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago* (36 children) | Copy Link

You simply have no idea what sex or masturbation would feel like with an intact penis, because you have never tried it. According to some studies of men who have been circumcised later in life, most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis. It is a scientific fact that there are thousands of fine touch nerve endings in the foreskin which are removed with the procedure. We can never get that sensitivity back. You see, I'm circumcised, and I have a healthy sex life, but I want to know what it is like with a natural penis. I feel like it is wrong for people to have decided to start cutting babies penises simply because of some religious commandment. I feel like it was a part of our society because of aspects of sexual repression, and the Victorian philosophy of restraining male desire and lust.

Watch this to fully understand the argument: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSM-SkwGEf0

[+]NoSalt -11 points-10 points-9 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mellowgreen 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dirtbuggy 6 points7 points8 points 15 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking[S] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I gave you upvotes and what I think is a fair reply. I hate how emotional this issue gets.

I will say this though. I read a survivalist story years ago about a plane crash in the arctic some where. The men who survived got frost bite on their noses and fingers and lost them. They also got frost bite on their dick and lost them, except for one guy who wasn't circumcised.

As far as cleaning goes, it is not a big deal at all. It takes literally seconds. Actually, fun medical fact, the smegma that builds up (usually after days not minutes) is actually how the foreskin cleans itself. Smegma is built up in intact men and women, yup women get it too and you have probably heard about how the vag is a self cleaning organ, as a way of auto cleaning to keep germs out. The foreskin and vag lips actually release a small oil that traps any dirt to keep it from creating a infection.

[–]Whisper 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BinaryShadow 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BolshevikMuppet -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

one of those studies DID show that men circumcised in adulthood reported decreased sensitivity.

But not a "preference" for sex or masturbation pre-circumcision

Second, read my comment again for why the reports of "increased satisfaction with sex" among those men is a red herring

For those circumcised due to phimosis and other disorders. How do you account for the other studies (now linked to) which show no significant difference between circumcised and uncircumcised men in general?

You're probably getting downvoted because you have a well-known history as a pro-circumcision troll

One can disagree without being a troll, this is a pure ad hominem.

The studies that you posted are easily debunked.

Considering you, and others, have now claimed they prove your point, "debunking them" wouldn't help your cause. In general circumcised men report no difference in satisfaction; is your claim really "well, they would if they had been circumcised after learning the joy of uncut sex"? If so, how do you respond to the companion studies to HIV studies in Africa which report no difference in satisfaction among men who were circumcised without any diseases of the penis?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00979.x/abstract

[–]mellowgreen 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I should have made it clear that there is no significant tendency toward decreased satisfaction, at least not under any valid statistical test I'm aware of. Given that we should care about whether men are enjoying sex, rather then about just how sensitive they are, the most reasonable measure is whether men who are circumcised report lower sexual satisfaction most do not.

as long as these high of percentages (38%) are showing that they were not satisfied with the procedure

That's not quite what I said. I was intentionally using the metric of who was satisfied with their sexual life after the procedure, and there is no significant group of men who find their sex lives less satisfying (at least not in most of the studies).

we shouldn't be doing this to infants without their informed consent.

And, for you, for your family, that's fine. But don't try to bully others into your position. If you must attempt to persuade others, do not misstate the information (you claimed the studies show "most" men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis, which is not supported by the information available), and do not do it using fallacious arguments. Like appeals to emotion (it's "child abuse"?), or circumstantial ad hominems ("you only think it's okay because you're circumcised and don't know how better it would be if you weren't"), or ignoring confounding variables.

Incidentally, I came up with a better analogy for your "circumcision doesn't reduce the risk of HIV because people will behave irresponsibly" argument. It would be like saying "condoms aren't effective at preventing STIs, because people will engage in riskier sex" or saying "seatbelts don't reduce harm in accidents because people will drive more irresponsibility". Even if it's true, it's not because the actual thing is ineffective.

[–]mellowgreen 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"condoms aren't effective at preventing STIs, because people will engage in riskier sex" or saying "seatbelts don't reduce harm in accidents because people will drive more irresponsibility"

If those statements were true, I mean if statistically speaking people were at greater risk to contract an STD using a condom than not, then condoms would not be pushed as a prevention device for STDs. They are used to prevent STDs because they are effective. Same thing with seatbelts, if statistically speaking seat belts cause more auto injuries or deaths, they would not be mandatory in vehicles. They do not, they statistically reduce the number of injuries and deaths. The point is their positive effect is greater than any negative effect their use may cause. That is not true of circumcision with respect to HIV infection rates. It doesn't matter if circumcision can reduce the chance of HIV infection in some people, if the population at large sees an increase in rates of infection due to the procedure. That means it is an ineffective way to prevent HIV, since it leads to higher rates of the disease than without the procedure, just like seatbelts would be an ineffective way to prevent auto fatalities if the rates of auto fatalities increased after making seatbelts mandatory, regardless of what risky behavior might have caused it.

[–]mellowgreen 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mellowgreen 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

True not every study shows that most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis, but many studies show that, and ALL studies show that some men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis. To me it is less important whether less than 50% of men lose satisfaction or more than 50% of men lose satisfaction, in ALL studies too many men report losing satisfaction for my comfort. The only conclusion that can be drawn from any of these studies is that some men are happy with their circumcision, and some are not, with a sizable chunk (39% in the first study and 38% in the second) of people reporting they were not satisfied with the outcome of the procedure. That is unacceptable to me. Would you perform an elective, cosmetic surgery on yourself if you had only a 61% chance of being satisfied with the outcome, and the procedure was mostly irreversible? Seems silly to me, I wouldn't have this done as an adult other than for medical reasons. Doing this on a child and it become not just a stupid, unnecessary, and potentially harmful procedure, but also child abuse and mutilation.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

but many studies show that, and ALL studies show that some men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis

You said "most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis". Are you prepared to edit your post to reflect the reality that such a statement is far from proved?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from any of these studies is that some men are happy with their circumcision, and some are not

A much more reasonable statement. And a far cry from "most men prefer..."

Doing this on a child and it become not just a stupid, unnecessary, and potentially harmful procedure, but also child abuse and mutilation.

Bear in mind that my response was solely to your original claim of "most men prefer being uncircumcised, after comparing the two". If you want to discuss the actual harm and benefits of circumcision, it's (a) a longer discussion, and (b) going to be fruitless. I will not convince you that circumcision (having both risks and benefits) should be left to the decision of parents. You will not convince me that it is a universal evil.

[–]mellowgreen 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hopeless_case1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BolshevikMuppet1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mellowgreen 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

From your own study:

A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.

So they DID find decreased penile sensitivity and worsened erectile function after circumcision. Improved satisfaction is subjective, and I would argue much of the improved satisfaction found in this survey comes from the cultural norms of our society to be circumcised, so they felt more normal after the procedure. Even counting that, only 62% were happy with the procedure. I'm not happy with something which leaves 38% of the people who undergo it complaining of harm that it cause and being unsatisfied with the procedure. That is a greatly unacceptable rate of harm considering that infants have no choice in the procedure, and never get to know what they are missing since they never get to experience an intact penis.

Also, note that in your study, the causes of the circumcisions were in most cases problems with the penis, such as phimosis, which cause dissatisfaction to begin with. In people with problems like that, it is natural that they would report increased satisfaction after the problem is fixed and has little to do with the actual differences between an intact and cut penis.

TL;DR; They found decreased penile sensitivity and worsened erectile function after circumcision. Also most cases of adult circumcision in these studies were done to correct a problem with the penis, so naturally the respondents would report better sexual function after correcting a problem with their penis. That is different from completely cosmetic genital cutting.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mellowgreen 4 points5 points6 points 15 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

It was me, and I did not lie, nor did I give any misinformation. Show me a study which only considered cosmetic and elective reasons for the circumcision, rather than medical reasons. Of course people report increased sexual pleasure when the starting point is a penis with phimosis, balanitis, or condyloma, which made up the vast majority of the cases. Those are painful medical conditions which greatly effect sexual function and pleasure.

And as I pointed out, your study even showed worsened erectile function (p = 0.01) AND decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), which were the only two measures of sexual function in the study, and both got worse after the procedure. The improved satisfaction, like I said, stems not from the differences between an intact penis and a cut one, but from the correction of a painful medical condition.

If you want to see other studies, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision#Satisfaction

Kim and Pang found that 20% reported that their sex life was worse after circumcision and 6% reported that it had improved. They concluded that "there was a decrease ... sexual enjoyment after circumcision, indicating that adult circumcision adversely affects sexual function in many men, possibly because of complications of the surgery and a loss of nerve endings.

[–]BolshevikMuppet -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Your original statement:

"According to studies of men who have been circumcised later in life, most men prefer sex and masturbation with an intact penis"

I have provided studies that show men in adulthood being circumcised did not correspond to decreased satisfaction (the "prefer sex and masturbation"), and (in fact) correlated to increased satisfaction.

As I said, the argument for infant circumcision is different; but your OP was misleading at best.

Ironically, the site you link to (wikipedia) lists far more surveys listing either no significant different, or positive changes.

The improved satisfaction, like I said, stems not from the differences between an intact penis and a cut one, but from the correction of a painful medical condition.

That was the conclusion of the Frink study, but not of the others. Even so, no study except the one you linked show a significant difference in sexual satisfaction or function.

If you want to argue the principle, argue the principle. If you want to argue the data, argue the data. But, if you elect to do the latter, please present it honestly and without bias. For instance, one study found significant harm. However:

Krieger et al. reported that in a controlled trial of circumcision to reduce HIV incidence in Kisumu, Kenya, in which 1,391 men elected to be circumcised, more than 99% were "satisfied" with their circumcisions.[28] Kigozi et al. reported finding "no trend in satisfaction among circumcised men". The authors concluded that "[a]dult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men".[31] Shen et al. reported that adult circumcision appeared to result in improved satisfaction in 34 cases (of 95 adults being circumcised), the association was statistically significant.[25] Senkul et al. reported that they did not find a statistically significant difference in BMSFI satisfaction scores in their study of 42 adult circumcision patients.[29] Collins et al. reported on a study of 15 adult circumcision patients. No statistically significant difference in BMSFI scores was observed.[30 Cortés-González et al. found no statistically significant differences in terms of overall sexual satisfaction (p=0.15), pain during intercourse (p=0.23), or enjoyment of intercourse (p=0.32).[7] Frisch et al. reported that circumcised and uncircumcised men were "equally likely to report incomplete sexual needs fulfilment in the last year".[33]

[–]mellowgreen 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

That study you cited is inconclusive.

"more than 99% were "satisfied" with their circumcisions"

They do not list what the criteria for satisfaction was. These men were circumcised while being told it might reduce their risk of HIV. Even if it did reduce their sexual function, they might be satisfied with the procedure due to the fact that they believed they had reduced their risk of contracting a deadly disease. That, by the way, is false, circumcision doesn't greatly lower the risk of contracting HIV. These poor African men then thought they had HIV proof penises, and likely were less cautions about intercourse and using condoms because of it, and contracted HIV at even higher rates than the general population.

Regardless, I don't care if 40%, 30%, or 20% of men report reduced sensation, if any significant number do, then that is too much of a price to pay in my mind. You are literally cutting off thousands of nerve ending in this procedure, and getting rid of a large part of the penis' natural ability to mechanically lubricate intercourse, which stimulates the head of the penis. How could you think that would not reduce sensation?

[–]BolshevikMuppet -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That, by the way, is false, circumcision doesn't greatly lower the risk of contracting HIV

By itself, it does. I'd say "significantly" though

These poor African men then thought they had HIV proof penises, and likely were less cautions about intercourse and using condoms because of it, and contracted HIV at even higher rates than the general population.

That doesn't make circumcision less effective. It'd be like saying "penicillin doesn't really reduce the risk of dying from infection, because people will be more likely to do things that could get them infected". Even if true, it is a moral hazard, not proof of the ineffectiveness of the underlying procedure.

Regardless, I don't care if 40%, 30%, or 20% of men report reduced sensation, if any significant number do, then that is too much of a price to pay in my mind.

Which is fine, I am happy to let you choose whether or not to circumcise any sons you may have. Give the same respect to everyone else to look at the freely-available data, and decide for themselves what is best for their families.

[–]mellowgreen 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which is fine, I am happy to let you choose whether or not to circumcise any sons you may have. Give the same respect to everyone else to look at the freely-available data, and decide for themselves what is best for their families.

Having the procedure recommended by doctors, whom we consider to be medical professionals, is obscene. If parents ask to have the procedure done, that is one thing, but right now we have doctors recommending it to people who would not have otherwise even considered it. Given how little evidence there is that it has any positive medical benefits for the patient, and the very real evidence of negative side effects and complications and the possibility of death, that is a violation of the Hippocratic oath. At first I would be happy if we simply stop recommending the procedure, and get real information out there so that when parents ask for the procedure, doctors can give real information to them about the risks and complications, and the decreased sexual function their child might have for life due to this procedure. I don't think many parents know that reduced sexual function and sensitivity is a very real and common side effect for the procedure, and if they did I think it is likely the procedure would become far less common.

And would you be fine with letting people choose whether or not to circumcise any daughters they have? That procedure is illegal in the United States, despite being practiced by many cultures and religions. Why should people be free to cut male children but not female children?

[–]Kill_The_Rich 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]turinturambar 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]simohayha -8 points-7 points-6 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link