We have a responsibility to start using the phrase "Genital Mutilation" and not Fe/male Genital Mutilation.

GregoryPanic · 2013-11-09T12:18:20+00:00

We have that responsibility. Every conversation about Female Genital Mutilation should include Male Genital Mutilation. Every conversation about Male Genital...

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Spikemaw 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Few things better highlight the sad and desperate need feminists have for maintaining proxy victim status than the way intact first world feminist women scramble to push the issue of involuntary neonatal male genital cutting aside with "Well, 'we' have it worse!"

By the logic that treats involuntary neonatal male genital cutting as nothing to complain about based on the claim that involuntary female child genital cutting is more traumatic, one should assume that sexual assault is nothing to complain about because rape is more traumatic. We can just erase from the books all sex crime law not related to rape, and vacate the convictions of everyone found guilty of any sexual assault that wasn't rape, then, can't we?

No?

Well then, "It's worse when you do it to a woman" isn't a legitimate contribution to the dialogue regardless of whether or not it's a valid statement (and for the record, it's really not.) It's irrelevant whether the techniques used in circumcision are more damaging to one sex. It only matters that they're damaging, they're a violation of bodily integrity and autonomy, and they're done involuntarily. That makes it wrong, regardless. It's not more wrong or less wrong no matter who gets injured in what way, and it's hateful and puerile for anyone to try to use that comparison as an argument against the intactivist movement.

[–]jolly_mcfats 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago* (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]You_forgotpoland 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FoundLacking7 points 12 years ago [recovered] (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]aPseudonymPho 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

More or less actually yes. It's (the foreskin) fused to the glans for many years after birth, in the same ways your nail is fused to the nail bed.

The most common method to separate them is to take a pair of foresceps, insert the "needle nose" end into the prepuital opening forcing it between the glans and foreskin, open them inside (like scissors) prying apart everything in the range of the foresceps, and "run" the tool around the surface of the glans, literally tearing the two surfaces apart.

Watch a video if you'd like to match up this text description. That is one of the more delicate varieties. When you are performing a surgery on an infant with little to no anesthesia, on an area less than the size of a dime, while you have to be sure to excise only the top layer of a fused bilayer of tissue, lest you further deform the organ, the process is decidedly less than "surgical" to say the least.

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I fully understand the risk of mutilation and deformation, and find it abhorrable. I just took issue with the idea that it's near impossible for me to have sexual ability given that apparently I have no feeling in my glans (a fact I can personally counter).

My cousin had to have his at around age 9, and he reports no issues with sensitivity, and mine was done at 6 months. Now this was done in Iran, a reportedly 3rd world country. No issues with exactness of layer removal, simply through continual practice and repetition by surgical teams. Of course, there was no aneasthesia which can be fearfully traumatizing (then again, there is the issue of varying trauma coping mechanisms in the west vs the middle east, as they have more easily accessible coping mechanisms in many cases).

TL; DR I hate that an unconsenting person is subjected to something because of parental or cultural pressure, and am angered that many large organizations don't even consider it as mutilation (although one has to look at the racist/imperialist undertones in the language used in describing fgm, and must take care to avoid such useage in mgm), I am more so angered by the dissemination of false 'scientific' information that stands in face extended AND continual case study after case study

[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I just took issue with the idea that it's near impossible for me to have sexual ability

Nobody who actually knows what they're talking about in the circumcision debate says this. What is actually being said, is that circumcision significantly reduces penile function, both in terms of sexual intercourse, as well as in terms of ability to perceive touch and pleasure response.

apparently I have no feeling in my glans (a fact I can personally counter).

First of all, your personal anecdote means nothing unless you were left intact, were sexually active into adult hood, then were circumcised for absolutely no medical reason. The glans is actually one of the least sensitive parts of the entire penis. It is not very sensitive to most types of touch, except a particular kind of rubbing stimulus. This is not information garnered from my personal experience as a circumcised man, nor yours, because that is useless. It is information garnered from a series of studies in which the glans penis of many men was subjected to many forms of measured stimulus, to determine what the threshold was for sensory perception. What the absolute minimum amount of stimulus the glans could detect was.

Across the board, the glans detected significantly less touch stimulus than basically every other part of the penis. Want to know what had the lowest threshold (ie, what parts of the penis could detect the smallest amounts of stimulus)? All the parts of the foreskin, particularly at the prepuital opening (ridged band), and the frenulum/frenular delta.

These same tests were conducted with circumcised men, and it was found that the most sensitive parts of the circumcised penis, were what was left of the foreskin. On top of that, the most sensitive parts of the circumcised penis, were less sensitive to touch stimulus, than the least sensitive parts of the intact penis and the foreskin.

Think about that for a moment. You (and me) can feel less, at the best parts of our penises, than an intact man can feel on the least sensitive part of his foreskin.

Now before you start raging away about how you are happy and satisfied and you love sex and you don't see a problem, let me tell you that that is all fine and good. I feel the same. I ejaculate just fine, and sex is very nice and fun.

Now that that's out of the way, we can get back to objective fact. No one is saying you need to feel bad about being circumcised (even though many of us do, I certainly want my foreskin back). What we are saying, is that you are lying to and deluding yourself, by believing that you have not lost something of value, and by believing that your penis works just as good now, as it would have if you (or me) had been left intact. That is simply not the truth. That doesn't mean we cannot enjoy sex, that doesn't mean we cannot have kids, and it doesn't mean we cannot feel as fulfilled as possible given our circumstance. Those are separate things. It DOES mean, that we will never feel as much, and as many kinds of pleasure response as we should have, and could have, if we had been left alone as infants.

The body is an amazing thing, and our only purpose is to reproduce. We as a species, would not have made it as far as we did, if losing your foreskin meant that your penis 100% no longer functioned. The body adapts, the brain adapts, and it does it's best to make things work. This is not the same thing however, as working properly, or at 100% efficiency.

My cousin had to have his at around age 9, and he reports no issues with sensitivity

How sexually active was he before age 9 that he's able to say absolutely there is no difference in sensitivity? Secondarily (and more importantly) when you are being circumcised as anything other than an infant more or less, the medical team can carry out the procedure much more accurately, and make sure not to remove vital components like the frenulum as much as possible. You cannot do that with an infant, it is all guess work, and you hope you didn't take too much such that that boy grows into a man who cannot achieve erection without pain, or orgasm without excessive work. They're two entirely different circumstances, and you cannot compare them in the ways that you're trying to to lend support to your argument.

No issues with exactness of layer removal

Of course not. By Age 9 more than 80% of boy's foreskins have already separated. So yes, you don't have to tear apart two layers which already separated on their own. This supports my argument, not yours.

although one has to look at the racist/imperialist undertones in the language used in describing fgm, and must take care to avoid such useage in mgm

I'm not going to get into the differences and similarities between MGM and FGM right now. It's beyond the scope of what I'm discussing.

I am more so angered by the dissemination of false 'scientific' information that stands in face extended AND continual case study after case study

I'm not exactly sure what this is referencing. False "scientific" information about what? The fact that ablation of the most sensitive sexual tissue on the penis will result in a reduction of pleasure response and touch perception? I'm not as all sure how this adds up to 'false' information at all.

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The majority of FGM involves amputating the clitoral hood and clitoris.

If you have the time, please read and understand the complexity of this - it does require some work to study the medical and scientific research.

I am quoting medical and scientific research and analysis.

Watch this great video. Totally professional and insightful. Amazing. So much great knowledge:

http://youtu.be/DD2yW7AaZFw

Ken McGrath, Senior Lecturer in Pathology at the Faculty of Health, Auckland University of Technology and Member of the New Zealand Institute of Medical Laboratory Scientists discusses his research into the neural anatomy of the human penis and the physical damages caused by circumcision.

McGrath is author of The Frenular Delta: A New Preputial Structure published in Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem, Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Genital Integrity: Safeguarding Fundamental Human Rights in the 21st Century, held December 7-9, 2000, in Sydney Australia.

Abstract: Textbooks and papers referring to penile function state that the source of penile sensation is solely the glans and often justify the existence of the prepuce by stating it protects the 'sensitive' glans. These statements are contrary to the neuro-anatomical and physiological facts accumulated over more than a century. This study reviews the findings of Taylor, et al., that the prepuce is the primary sensory platform of the penis, and describes a new preputial structure.

This interview was taped in Berkeley, California 2010.

...and from the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/

Removal of the male foreskin and the female clitoral hood (female foreskin) are anatomically equivalent.

However, neurologically speaking, removal of the male foreskin is as destructive to male sexual sensory experience as removal of the clitoris is for females. This video discussion of penile and foreskin neurology explains why.

Contrary to popular Western myth, many circumcised women do report the ability to feel sexual pleasure and to have orgasm, albeit in a compensatory manner that differs from intact women [suggested reading: Prisoners of Ritual by Hanny Lightfoot-Klein]. Similar compensatory behaviours for achieving orgasm are at work among circumcised men, who must rely on the remaining 50% or less of their penile nerve endings.

Just as clitoridectomized girls grow up not knowing the levels of pleasure they could have experienced had they been left intact, so too are men circumcised in infancy unaware of the pleasure they could have experienced had they not had 50% of their penile skin removed. The above video also explains what's really behind the erroneous comment made by some circumcised men that they 'couldn't stand being any more sensitive'..

Here's how the penis and the clitoris both develop separately from the genital tuber:

http://www.baby2see.com/gender/external_genitals.html

The male foreskin and female clitoral hood are anatomically equivalent, but "equivalent" is an everyday way of explaining it. The proper term is "homology".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_(biology)

"In the context of sexual differentiation—the process of development of the differences between males and females from an undifferentiated fertilized egg—the male and female organs are homologous if they develop from the same embryonic tissue. A typical example is the ovaries of female humans and the testicles of male humans"

So the clitoris and penis may be said to be "homologous"; and the same can be said of the foreskin and clitoral hood. But that does not mean they have the same function or scale. For instance, the male foreskin in a adult is around 13 to 15 square inches in size; whilst the female clitoral hood is much, much smaller.

Also, please do remember that the clitoris is a very large organ, most of which is internal to the female.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoris

The visible part - the glans clitoris - is only a small part of the whole clitoris. So when a woman suffers partial or total amputation of the external clitoris when undergoing the crime of FGM, only a small part of her clitoris is removed.

You can read a comprehensive analysis of the sensitivity of the foreskin here. This relies on research in the British Journal of Urology:

http://www.moralogous.com/page/2/

Foreskin Sexual Function/Circumcision Sexual Dysfunction

http://www.cirp.org/library/sex_function/

British Journal of Urology:

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full

Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2013.11794.x/abstract

Conclusion: What is the most sensitive part of the external genitalia of the male?: The foreskin with it's 22,000 nerve endings. What is the most sensitive part of the external genitalia of the female? The glans clitoris, with it's 8,000 nerve endings.

Hence Ken McGrath's conclusion: "neurologically speaking, removal of the male foreskin is as destructive to male sexual sensory experience as removal of the clitoris is for females."

In order to understand this subject fully, you need a complete and comprehensive dissemination of the structure, function and anatomy of the male and female genitalia and the associated medical and scientific research in these matters.

[–]GregoryPanic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AeneaLamia 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]aPseudonymPho 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]aPseudonymPho 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not exactly sure what it is you're trying to say with this. I didn't say anything about the glans whatsoever in my initial post. I didn't say that the shaft skin has no sensitivity at all, only that the shaft skin is significantly less sensitive than the foreskin. I don't think you really know anything about penile anatomy nor physiology, and I mean that in the least offensive way possible. It's difficult to decipher what exactly the point of this post was is all.

The underside of the shaft is directly linked to the actual act of ejaculation, and partial pleasure as well.

You need to clarify this. I have no idea what this means. The underside of the shaft? Where? The shaft of the penis is the entire length from the glans to the base. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you could rub the underside of your penis, near the base (right beside your balls) and you would achieve orgasm? I don't think so.

Most likely, you are talking about rubbing the underside of your penis in the entire area that begins at your frenular delta (where the underside of your glans connects to the shaft), down to the area around and perhaps just past your circumcision scar.

Is this correct?

If that's the area you're talking about, you've done nothing except shoot yourself in the foot. There is a reason that that part of the penile anatomy is directly involved in huge portions of pleasure response.

That's because its the only thing you have left of your foreskin.

Everything above your circumcision scar (from the scar to the very tip of your glans), is mucousal membrane. The same type of tissue on the inside of your cheeks, or inside of a woman's vagina. Your glans itself? That's not skin. It's mucousal membrane, and because you're circumcised and it's been exposed to the air and abrasion for (your age) years, that tissue has dried out, and become toughened. That's why I can tell you your glans likely not completely smooth, moist, shiny and supple, without even having to look at your dick. Your glans is supposed to be an internal organ that is protected.

That underside that makes you come so easily? That used to be 15-20 square cm of the exact same tissue you love so much. Sit with that for a moment, and try to honestly tell me, you think you feel just as much with less than 30% of the tissue, which gives you (Self admittedly) stimulation directly tied to the act of ejaculation.

Add on top of that all of the specialized structures designed only for pleasure, which you've never experienced because they were completely cut away, and maybe you might begin to agree that the shaft skin near your balls, does absolutely nothing for you, while everything as close to where your foreskin was (aka, what is left of your foreskin) actually gives you nearly 100% of your pleasure.

PS. I'm circumcised too. That doesn't automatically mean you know what you're talking about from an objective standpoint I'm sorry to say. Do some research on penile anatomy, and try to see more closely where the parts of your dick you like so much, actually came from, and what they used to be.

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pejmany 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JoshtheAspie 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

I know I have a slightly differing viewpoint from many men on this, but please hear me out.

Female circumcision has absolutely 0 logical reasons or benefits. Male circumcision does have a benefit to sanitation.

My best friend (uncircumcised) was a swimmer on our high school team and was in public pools for up to 8 hours a day with no way to clean during this. Because of this, he had a lot of issues with bacteria in his foreskin that led to very painful infections on more than one occasion. Eventually he made the decision himself to get circumcised to prevent this issue and he never had another problem.

This is obviously an extreme case that doesn't apply to everyone, but there is a difference in cleanliness that can be a big deal to some people. I'm not saying do it to every baby that comes through the maternity ward, but treating circumcision as a wholly evil and completely unnecessary procedure is too great a generalization.

[–]onetenth 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Super_delicious -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

Female circumcision has absolutely 0 logical reasons or benefits.

Women get their labia trimmed and have other surgeries down south which are analogous to infant genital mutilation. These surgeries are typically beneficial to the patients.

but treating circumcision as a wholly evil and completely unnecessary procedure is too great a generalization.

Who are you saying is doing this?

I've paid a lot of attention to this issue the last couple years, and I've never seen an anti-mutilation proponent claim that all circumcision, even that which is deemed medically necessary and/or done with the informed consent of the patient, is evil or unethical.

What makes genital cutting mutilation is when its done for cosmetic, cultural, and/or traditional reasons, without the informed consent of the victimized patient, who is usually a child. This applies to both sexes.

EDIT: All that said, I'm compelled to wonder whether it's so common to circumcise males for medical reasons because it's already socially acceptable to fall back on such a drastic measure. If male genital integrity had more respect in the West, would we see other measures developed for male genital health? Would better creams, medicines and anti-biotics render some of the currently 'medically necessary' circumcisions obsolete?

[+]Dr_VanBuren -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

In regards to the female part, I wasn't referring to things like getting labia trimmed or cosmetics like that, I was talking about what is typically referred to as female circumcision, what involves removal or mutilation of the clitoris.

I see no reason to do anything with your genitals unless there is a medical reason to do so, but in regards to having it done before it becomes a necessity, why are we using it as treatment rather than prevention? If my friend had it done as an infant, he wouldn't have dealt with a few years of almost non-stop infections. Instead, he had to do it later as a form of treatment for the infections. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most modern medicine more concerned with prevention? It's better to stop stuff from happening in the first place if you can.

The biggest reason male circumcision is big in the modern world is just because it's been a common thing for millennia. If there was no religion pushing it in the first place, it wouldn't be as common and would only be done by people who need it for medical reasons. On the other hand, if it was strictly treated as a medical procedure and not a religious rite, there wouldn't be nearly as many opponents either.

[–]xXCptCoolXx7 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]havingread 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

If my friend had it done as an infant, he wouldn't have dealt with a few years of almost non-stop infections. Instead, he had to do it later as a form of treatment for the infections.

Your friend's life choices, and the consequences thereof, do not determine what should be done to other babies' genitals.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most modern medicine more concerned with prevention?

Medicine is concerned with prevention as far as the benefits outweigh the costs. Vaccination is a good example of this, as it kills disease for everyone with very little consequential health risk and no permanent long-term ill effects for everyone involved. Circumcision, conversely, removes the foreskin, a permanent long-term ill effect for everyone involved, when for the majority of people this is not at all necessary and has no health benefit.

If there was no religion pushing it in the first place, it wouldn't be as common and would only be done by people who need it for medical reasons. On the other hand, if it was strictly treated as a medical procedure and not a religious rite, there wouldn't be nearly as many opponents either.

Unfortunately, medical 'professionals' do push circumcision on new parents for supposed 'health benefits.' A teen mother I know had it recommended to her, and she trusted the doctor, and she severely regrets it now. Look at any genital mutilation discussion on reddit and you'll see arguments similar to yours, in favor of mutilating boys' genitals for health reasons. So it's really not just religion and tradition, though that's part of it. Mutilation is treated as a medical procedure now, and misinformation is spread about its supposed benefits to justify it -- misinformation that is very similar to the misinformation spread in other cultures to justify mutilating girls' genitals.

The truth is, there's a market for foreskins. There's your 'health reasons.'

[+]Dr_VanBuren -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say his personal leg should determine everyone else's, I was giving an example of how having foreskin can cause problems.

My point is that the personal choices of a minority do not determine the health needs of the majority.

There's no health risks to not having foreskin.

That is untrue in many, many ways. It's so untrue that I'm getting the impression you've never done any research on this at all.

Have you heard a baby scream while having his genitals cut? Did you know that because the baby is so small, it's too dangerous to use anesthetic? Did you know that we don't know how much the intense, intense pain is scarring the brains of these babies? And even if it isn't, how can we possibly justify hurting babies so deeply?
Infections resulting from circumcisions can be life-threatening.
Circumcision mistakes range from the accidental removal of the entire penis to major and minor scarring issues, inhibiting function and causing disfigurement when the skin of the shaft melds in spots to the head of the penis. I slept with a man who was disfigured in this way. He was psychologically scarred by his disfigurement and very self-conscious.
Circumcision can damage or even remove all or part of the frenulum, one of the most sensitive parts of the penis.
You can't tell how large a baby's erect penis will be later in life. This means that you can't tell how much foreskin to take off, which means some children, upon coming of age to attain full erections, experience soreness and even tearing as their erections are too large for the skin containing them. This happened to one of my lovers when he was a child. Is this how we want boys to experience the awakening of their sexuality? Painfully?
Routine circumcisions remove the natural ability of the penis to move and be moved sexually without much if any liquid lubrication. The circumcised penis can cause pain during sex and masturbation, for both the man and his partner. Women suffer too due to male genital mutilation. I've had sex with one uncircumcised man. He wasn't for me, but I stayed with him longer than I otherwise would have, because finally, FINALLY I could have sex painlessly for long periods of time (his penis moved within his foreskin a great deal, instead of chafing me with too much skin-to-skin friction). Also, he was capable of having multiple orgasms without ejaculating. Not so for any of the (eleven or so) circumcised men I've been with.
On a further personal note, the man I'm with is a perfect fit for me as a person. But, because he was mutilated as a child, his body is not a perfect fit for mine. This has caused us both stress, sadness and frustration.
The foreskin naturally protects the head of the penis the way the clitoral hood protects the clitoris. When the foreskin is removed, the penis head is exposed to the elements and to chafing, giving it a rough, dry, less sensitive surface.

but you can't say that post-circumcision, having it is healthier.

I can most assuredly say that it's healthier to keep the foreskin in the vast majority of cases.

[–]MiracleRiver 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I said no risks AFTER THE SURGERY for a reason. The surgery itself can be harmful, obviously, which is what you just stated. I'm not arguing that.

Also, I never said we should do it to infants, so that point is irrelevant to what I said. All I said is that there are benefits to circumcision and that classifying the entire procedure as wholly negative is a ridiculous way to look at it. Same goes for those who are pro-circumcision, there is no point in having it done if it's not necessary, so to say that everyone should have it done is ridiculous.

I'm saying that once it's all over and done with and properly healed, the risk is not there.

As for the differences in sex and with chafing and friction, that kind of thing may be influenced by the presence of foreskin, but that's still different for everyone. I'm circumcised, don't use lubrication for masturbating, don't experience chafing, and I've never had the problems with sex that you're talking about.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I said no risks AFTER THE SURGERY for a reason. The surgery itself can be harmful, obviously, which is what you just stated. I'm not arguing that.

Every single one of my points except for the very first are about issues AFTER THE SURGERY.

Also, I never said we should do it to infants, so that point is irrelevant to what I said.

Actually, you said, "If my friend had it done as an infant, he wouldn't have dealt with a few years of almost non-stop infections. Instead, he had to do it later as a form of treatment for the infections. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't most modern medicine more concerned with prevention? It's better to stop stuff from happening in the first place if you can."

All I said is that there are benefits to circumcision and that classifying the entire procedure as wholly negative is a ridiculous way to look at it.

No, that's not all you said. If you're going to lie about what you said, this conversation has become pointless.

I'm saying that once it's all over and done with and properly healed, the risk is not there.

And I've given you some information to contradict that claim, as well as your other claims, which you now claim you didn't claim.

Peace, I'm done here.

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dr_VanBuren-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MiracleRiver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

he had it done as an infant, it wouldn't be an issue now

I call this medical therapy: "AMT®" - which stands for Advanced Mutilation Technology®.

It's something I have spent years developing in my laboratory and in the field with randomised control trials. And I fully expect my genius to be recognised by the whole world one day, and for me to receive the Nobel Prize.

It's totally amazing and cost effective, and can cure cancer, HIV/AIDS,STDs, many infections and a host of other diseases and ailments.

Here's how it works (but keep it a secret eh?): I take a very sharp scalpel, and then slash at random parts of the human body, amputating living and healthy flesh and organs.

And then guess what? The remaining parts of the body have less chance of getting cancer, HIV/AIDS, infections etc., because I've just cut a load of flesh away.

I've proved this by slicing away: breasts, ears, noses, clitorises, toes, foreskins, tongues; and many other bits and pieces as the fancy takes me.

And in every single case, the rate of disease has been shown to reduce 100% in all the bits I've chucked in the hospital bin; thus reducing the overall rates in the remaining flesh.

Who would have thought it eh?

I'm a fucking genius!

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about what is typically referred to as female circumcision, what involves removal or mutilation of the clitoris.

Why are you supporting that inaccurate terminology? Circumcise means 'cut around'. It means cutting around the glans of the clitoris or penis to remove the prepuce, called clitoral hood in women and foreskin in men.

People who call amputation of the clitoral glans circumcision are idiots and we should be opposing their misuse of terminology.

in regards to having it done before it becomes a necessity, why are we using it as treatment rather than prevention? If my friend had it done as an infant, he wouldn't have dealt with a few years of almost non-stop infections.

There are other ways to avoid the problems he experienced than cutting off his foreskin. Humans have been swimming and wading in water a lot longer than we've been circumcizing. We've managed.

isn't most modern medicine more concerned with prevention?

No, actually, it isn't.

[–]I_am_Norwegian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Dr_VanBuren2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Dr_VanBuren -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago* (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]I_am_Norwegian 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]saoran 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gtatters0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gtatters1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kurokabau1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]saoran 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Gtatters 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	We have a responsibility to start using the phrase "Genital Mutilation" and not Fe/male Genital Mutilation.
Author	GregoryPanic
Upvotes	117
Comments	124
Date	November 9, 2013 12:18 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1q8pxh/we_have_a_responsibility_to_start_using_the/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/we-have-a-responsibility-to-start-using-the-phrase.1159230 https://theredarchive.com/post/1159230

Comments