The fact that we even have the discussion about whether circumcision has any medical or hygiene benefits shows how little society cares about boys' and men's basic autonomy

rabel111 · 2026-06-24T01:06:54+00:00

There were similar arguments about FGM in terms of improved hygiene, reduced incidence of STDs, better moral health,etc. All these false flag arguments were not just dismissed. They were condemned for being misogynistic, demeaning, sexist etc.

Yet somehow, when it comes to the human rights of baby boys to body autonomy, we have to agrue why they should have that right! The insipid sexist argument about hygiene, the manipulated biased studies, the sexist dismissal of men's human rights, all this is rolled out by people who consider themselves morally superior. Superior enough to sexually abuse male babies is ways banned for girls, and even animals. OMG.

darthsyn · 2026-06-23T23:59:24+00:00

You can't expect society to care about the parts of something when it doesnt care what happens to the whole.

hmspain · 2026-06-24T00:12:01+00:00

Put another way, can you imagine having a conversation about the "medical or hygiene" benefits of FEMALE genital mutilation?

Budiltwo · 2026-06-24T05:36:49+00:00

The fact that there's any conversation at all about "should we, or should we not, cut off part of a boy's penis when he is born?" is absolutely vile and makes me want to vomit.

The fact that men in the U.S. are not entitled to their own whole body when they're born is just abhorrent.

Gleichstellung4084 · 2026-06-24T08:58:49+00:00

I have started becoming more aggressive in such discussions. Anytime a woman is promoting this as something that is "OK" or tradition or whatever, I propose a double mastectomy. It has medical benefits, as it's reducing the risks for Breast cancer and sexual assault. It's also something she can affect on her own body, instead of promoting mutilation on others.

Plus-Meaning-7484 · 2026-06-24T12:03:58+00:00

I often say if western countries care about equality or equity. Then how do the justify taking away the bodily autonomy rights of the most vulnerable group of boys in our society.

If we can't even care about the most vulnerable and innocent group of boys who need protections. Why would they care about other issues.

Powerful-Act3516 · 2026-06-24T11:51:15+00:00

The biggest reason the "cleanliness" argument for male mutilation is a lie is because it's inconceivable that if you had to pick the practice on any sex for the health "benefits", it would be anything other than the sex that more frequently gets yeast infections, bacterial vaginosis, urinary tract infections, etc. (I'm not saying cutting the glans is actually a valid solution but that it's a more plausible intervention for female cleanliness and infections compared to for males)

But by God, we figured out that optional surgeries on non consenting girls is not the answer.

I don't mind the hygiene conversation. What I mind is when working people are pressured by force into giving tax dollars to fund bigoted organizations

angrycanuck · 2026-06-24T02:03:24+00:00

Circumcision needs to stop but Fathers especially need to stop advocating for circumcision just because they had it done to them.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576965/

WhereIsHisRidgedBand · 2026-06-24T10:19:14+00:00

The purposeful pedestalizing of FGM and downplaying MGM keeps it legal:

Circumcision is purposely imposed upon the organ that gave the baby life, which may one day perpetuate more life. It is a cut upon the sexual organ and not the earlobe or the finger, as a symbol of cut, curtailed, disciplined sexuality. This interpretation is not wholly new. As early as the twelfth century, Maimonides saw the rite as reducing sexuality to a manageable level. Today we need this idea rearticulated. Jewish views of sexuality include the notion that sexual pleasure is mutual, that force is violence and not love, and that human sexual encounters must be based on sanctity and not on strength.

Circumcision functions not only as ritual initiation but also as the communal ritual setting of boundaries to male sexuality. At the brit milah male blood is the metaphor for discipline and control over the ultimate male lack of control: unbounded and dangerous sexuality. Rabbi Zalman Schacter-Shalomi writes:

Something destructive and "macho" gets refined by a bris, directing a man away from pure instinct and toward prudent judgment. Maybe Freud was right about the dominating power of the libido: if so, it makes sense to take that absolute power away from the penis. So much of what happens in sex is covenantal. Perhaps this is why Covenant has to be imposed on this organ from the very start.

We cut the organ that can symbolize love or terror, endearment or violence. Here is a ceremony in which we metaphorically pronounce the limitation imposed on the male organ to all gathered. We say to this child, "We who are gathered here charge you: as your father used his organ in love to produce you, so you, too, are expected to sanctify yourself, to restrain the power of your maleness." Our community, at least in theory, rejects an unbridled masculinity. We publicly acknowledge that male sexuality is moved from the realm of the casual, hurtful, or noncommittal to the sphere of the holy, the whole, the good.

Seeing Torah Through a Feminist Lens. 1998, by Rabbi Elyse Goldstein

.

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable.

For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision. https://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/)

.

The first century C.E. Jewish philosopher Philo defends circumcision in Greek terms by listing physical and allegorical advantages. Circumcised men are more fertile, less vulnerable to disease and being cleaner, are more fittingly set aside as a nation of priests. In addition the heart begets the thought, which is the highest human excellence; therefore penises should be circumcised to resemble the godly heart. Moreover, circumcision represents the excision of the pleasure of sex, which bewitches the mind.15 https://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/)

brainquantum · 2026-06-24T13:44:11+00:00

I think it's also important to consider that these practices are fundamentally motivated by quite old cultural and religious reasons, which took hold long ago in different communities and have often, over time, become social norms synonymous with integration processes and even the transition to adulthood when these practices are performed not just after the birth of a newborn but on adolescents/young men, as is done in some communities in Africa.

In Europe and the USA, it's probably quite recent that the validity or even the existence of these practices can be openly questioned. I think the introduction of these debates on the supposed validity of these practices (the idea that they have a benefit in terms of hygiene and disease prevention) occurred when it became apparent that questioning/criticizing these practices was inevitable. By shifting the debate to issues of well-being, hygiene, and disease prevention, we avoid directly challenging these practices from an exclusively religious or cultural perspective, as this would likely lead to singling out certain communities, etc.

This reframes the debate in a way that more often allows for questions about the supposed benefits of these practices. So, if we disagree with the benefits, we often arrive at a "neutral" conclusion stating that these practices are useless, but it's up to individuals to decide whether or not to adopt them, while the harmful effects are often swept under the rug.

In a way, feminists understood that if they remained at this level of debate, there would never be a way to put an end to these practices because it is not possible to have a fair discussion on the same level between, on the one hand, people who seek "rational" arguments based on medicine, hygiene, and so on, and on the other hand, people who say that it's always been done this way, so we continue, and if there's opposition, then cry scandal, discrimination, intolerance, etc.

So yes, feminists were, in a way, right to attack so aggressively at this level, denouncing these practices not only for what they are but also attacking those who would justify or normalize them under the guise of pseudo-medical benefits. And I think that if we want to get rid of male circumcision, we have to adopt the same method as the feminists (yes, I know that may surprise some...).

Any_Owl_8189 · 2026-06-24T00:20:37+00:00

I mean to be fair it’s not going to hurt to have sx forever if it happens to a man, but yeah doing it to babies is bonkers, could just show a mf how to clean it instead of chopping it off

Future-Stretch-401 · 2026-06-24T01:39:29+00:00

You aren’t engaging in any type of good faith discussion. The fact is that circumcision does reduces infections, including hiv, and FGM is an unhygienic practice that causes infections, has no medical benefit, and is carried out on older children that will remember their suffering. If you want to debate the value of circumcision in western countries where the large majority will be straight and have low risk of disease and easy access to treatment, then that would be reasonable. But the statement you made is just a lie.

Comments