I'm having issues regarding MGM

YesAmAThrowaway · 2021-10-10T21:36:43+00:00

The Americans cling onto it because of Kellogg and people don't want to face the possibility that they're harming their children.

The WHO pedals it because they're America's bitch. They claim bogus disproven benefits to justify it. The things actually helping, such as condoms and education, are not emphasised enough.

Genital mutilation, for both men and women, serves the express purpose of reducing sexual pleasure. Always has, always will. There never was any other reason in history, especially centuries ago where lack of modern medical care meant that any such wound could end with your death.

Actually, babies die from genital mutilation to this day.

needletothebar · 2021-10-10T21:37:53+00:00

cognitive dissonance. are you aware that the vast majority of circumcised women are also highly supportive of the practice?

when your culture tells you that something is normal and beneficial and your parents who say they love you did it to you as a baby, it's really hard to look at it objectively.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3134892/

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

pressure from the united states is changing perceptions on female circumcision in some places, but the united states is actually trying to spread MGM to more of africa rather than stop it.

https://www.circumstitions.com/adamant.html

INFP-of-course · 2021-10-10T22:37:39+00:00

Your common sense, your compassion IS right, please don't lose it for their sake.

Cultures make masculinity something to be *earned* rather than something innate. That's where all the insanity starts.

Men in a cutting culture are highly likely to view their "coming of age" in positive terms simply because they associate it with "earning" masculinity, or at least avoiding shame. They will employ mental gymnastics to never question their sacrifice.

Like Carl Sagan said, “If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken."

(Oh, by the way, infants in the US are often circumcised without anesthetic and infants feel pain as deeply if not more intensely than older people. They may not "remember" it, but "the body keeps the score" and it has been shown that the body/mind is still adversely affected.)

problem_redditor · 2021-10-11T01:43:50+00:00

The "benefits" of MGM, specifically circumcision, have been brought up time and time again to justify the practice: Lower risk of HIV transmission, reduced risk of UTIs, reduced risk of penile cancer, reduced risk of phimosis and balanitis. None have the slightest amount of validity to them.

I can't address them all in detail, but here is just a summary of how the claims of benefit are flawed.

HIV transmission.

The African RCTs many people cite to prove that circumcision reduces HIV transmission such as Auvert 2005, Bailey 2007 and Gray 2007 are riddled with flaws. The article "Critique of African RCTs into Male Circumcision and HIV Sexual Transmission" notes:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278023840_Critique_of_African_RCTs_into_Male_Circumcision_and_HIV_Sexual_Transmission

"On the basis of three seriously flawed sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into female-to-male (FTM) sexual transmission of HIV, in 2007 WHO/UNAIDS recommended circumcision (MC) of millions of African men as an HIV preventive measure, despite the trials being compromised by irrational motivated reasoning, inadequate equipoise, selection bias, inadequate blinding, problematic randomization, trials stopped early with exaggerated treatment effects, and failure to investigate non-sexual transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV+ than in those where more circumcised men were HIV+? Why were men sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many men lost to follow-up? Why did men in the intervention group receive additional counselling on safe sex practices? The absolute reduction in HIV transmission associated with MC was only 1.3 % (without even adjusting for known sources of error bias). Relative reduction was reported as 60 %, but after correction for lead-time bias alone averaged 49 %. In a related Ugandan RCT into male-to-female (MTF) transmission, there was a 61 % relative increase (6 % absolute increase) in HIV infection among female partners of circumcised men, some of whom were not informed that their male partners were HIV+ (also some of the men were not informed by the researchers that they were HIV+). It appears that the number of circumcisions needed to infect a woman (Number Needed to Harm) was 16.7, with one woman becoming infected for every 17 circumcisions performed. As the trial was stopped early for “futility,” the increase in HIV infections was not statistically significant, although clinically significant. In the Kenyan trial, MC was associated with at least four new incident infections. Since MC diverts resources from known preventive measures and increases risk-taking behaviors, any long-term benefit in reducing HIV transmission remains dubious."

Penile cancer.

Penile cancer is a shit reason to circumcise. Firstly, we don't cut off any other body parts despite that every single body part has the potential to develop cancer.

Secondly, penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world affecting about 1 man in 100,000 per year.

cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/about/key-statistics.html

One estimate noted "that the cost of circumcising 100,000 male infants is $3.8 million and that this maneuver would prevent only two cases of cancer of the penis. ... they estimated that the cost of prevention would be 100 times the cost of treatment."

http://cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

Circumcising nations do not have lower rates of penile cancer than non-circumcising nations. In "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy," Edward Wallerstein writes: "If infant circumcision reduces penile cancer we could expect to see proportionately less penile cancer in circumcising nations as compared to noncircumcising ones. No such difference is found." Wallerstein reports that, for various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was 0.8 for the United States (which circumcises), and 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of which do not). None of these differences is statistically significant. Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer.

http://cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

UTIs.

Okay, now going on to urinary tract infections. Here is an article which addresses the claims made about circumcision and UTI:

“[I]t is quite possible that the differences noted in the incidence of urinary tract infection between circumcised and non-circumcised boys are entirely due to confounding factors. ... a number of other studies have failed to find a UTI risk-reduction effect from circumcision."

https://doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/urinary-tract-infections/

Balanitis and phimosis.

Regarding balanitis, this study reported significantly more balanitis in circumcised boys as compared with intact non-circumcised boys.

https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00467.x

The possibility of phimosis (tight or non-retractable foreskin) does not warrant circumcision, especially given that there are far less invasive methods of treatment.

http://cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/berdeu1/

It is possible to get phimosis after circumcision, too. The previous study showing more balanitis in circumcised boys also noted that "Preputial stenosis (phimosis) affects circumcised and intact boys with equal frequency." So circumcision causes just as many cases of phimosis as it prevents.

https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00467.x

"Infant circumcision itself can actually cause a phimotic condition, as the circular scar may contract over the top of the glans following surgery, trapping it behind a ring of scar tissue. One study found that phimosis occurs in 2.9% of circumcision patients[21] – a figure that easily exceeds the incidence of pathological phimosis in intact males.[11] Since circumcision may cause more cases of phimosis than it prevents, it cannot be recommended to prevent phimosis."

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/phimosis-balantis/

So the benefits of circumcision are minimal and questionable at best, non-existent at worst.

Anyway, it's incredibly hypocritical that people will recommend male circumcision to prevent "future issues" yet will not recommend FGM whatsoever, although you can actually find studies showing "benefit" for FGM. It really is a mirrored issue.

"The surprising and perplexing significant inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity has not been explained by other variables available and examined in these analyses"

http://tzonline.org/pdf/femalecircumcisionandhivinfectionintanzania.pdf

"The inverse association between FGM and HIV/AIDS established in this study suggests a possible protective effect of female circumcision against HIV/AIDS."

https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1113&context=iph_theses

"Increased years of sexual activity were associated with HIV-2 seropositivity, while a history of excision and BCG vaccinations decreased the risk of HIV-2 infection."

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/136/7/895/57349

Clitoral phimosis exists too and can be addressed by female circumcision. Actually you know what, we shouldn't treat it when the problem occurs. You know what would be great? Why don't we start outright chopping off clitoral hoods to prevent clitoral phimosis? That's pro-cutter logic, after all.

https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(18)31387-0/fulltext31387-0/fulltext)

Now, will these people once looking at this start recommending female genital mutilation on the basis of "health benefits"? I doubt it.

john_nash1 · 2021-10-11T09:49:35+00:00

Keep in mind in Kenya boys get circumcised at 14, not as babies, so they feel pain

Babies also feel the same pain, it is just easier to hold them down. Just something to think about.

konous · 2021-10-10T20:58:54+00:00

We've been conditioned for a long time to view this practice as acceptable. The shame of not being circumcised is a lot for men to endure, and few families, my own included. Though my parents knew it did nothing to benefit me, my Dad specifically didn't want me being ridiculed by judgemental women, and he'd also been raised very catholic as well.

Science heavily supports that it is an unnecessary practice, but societal pressure counts for a lot.

a-man-from-earth · 2021-10-10T22:43:50+00:00

There's a reason we are teamed up with /r/Intactivism (see the sidebar). /u/DarthEquus can give you all the information you need.

Metrodomes · 2021-10-10T22:25:14+00:00

Circumcision in some societies is more about masculinity, often going alongside various other rituals designed to symbolise the passage of a boy turning into a man. I'd call it toxic masculinity as the boys are pressured to show no pain, no fear, because they want to prove that they are men. I think I've heard of some boys in Kenya being told to "prove" that they are now a man by having sex shortly after being circumcised too, so I think alot of it all intertwined. It all seems to revolve around becoming a man and proving that you are a man, and that not being circumcised is equivalent to not being a man. And when there is a huge pressure to be a certain type of man, it can be hard to resist and say that you disagree with the practice.

I'd turn to anthropological work on this rather than turning to Western perspectives. Circumcision is done here for different reasons here (ie, "cleanliness"). I think the social pressures and cultural treaditions and history is just entirely different.

I think using Google or Google Scholar and searching "Kikuyu male circumcision masculinity" and you'll get some papers and writing on it. Beware of western perspectives that fail to take into account what the reality is like in the ground, ofcourse. But that would be a good start.

MGM is "okay" of everyone is doing it willingly. If everyone "consents" to it, then technically its "okay"... But the problem is, that "consent" is a tricky thing. If I say "yes, I want to get circumcised" because everyone pressured me, is that consent? Imo, not really. I think there are such strong pressures and traditions there, that they don't realise that male genital mutilation is harmful. There are going to be boys who do not want to get circumcised, but they cannot say no due to the pressures. And if they say no, they'll be shamed and ostracised for not being a man. And even if they do get circumcised, they might feel the pressure and still need to say 'it wasn't that bad'.

But this is all just me thinking about things I've read age ago about circumcision and certain cultures approaches. Bst to do the reading, figure out what arguements are being used against in in your own culture, and base your opposition against it in a way that draws upon your own culture and not some foreign concepts of western human rights or liberal rights of feminism/men's rights. Chances are you will use arguements from those schools of thought, but you don't want to appear as of that's your position and instead you are coming from a position found within your own culture and society.

echonian · 2021-10-10T22:12:18+00:00

So why do people still think male circumcision is healthy? or not harmful?

Primarily due to cultural reasons, but also due to religion for many.

As far as it being "not harmful" is concerned, for most people who have been circumcised - it isn't usually that harmful. Being circumcised doesn't meant that somebody can't live a good life, or that they somehow aren't going to be able to enjoy sex necessarily specifically. Plus it is obvious that somebody who has never known how it is to live without having lost a functional part of their body, isn't going to always know what they are "missing" so to speak.

Because of this however, many who have been circumcised are fine with pushing it onto others who are then either forced into the practice or indoctrinated to support it from a young age.

Since they turned out "fine," it's okay for them to snip parts off of other people.

I admit that I am unfamiliar with how circumcision is performed in Kenya however, so perhaps there are unique risks to how it is done there. With that being said, the idea of not "being a man" unless you are circumcised sounds like just another nonsensical cultural tradition, like how here in America many men are typically considered boys until they lose their sexual virginity.

It doesn't make sense from a rational point of view, but is enough to shame people into trying their best to not be seen as an "outcast." It is unfortunate to hear that anybody would be denied marriage or having children based on the amount of skin on their penis, and I sincerely hope that such discrimination can be stopped at the very least. While changing overall cultural perspectives on it being acceptable or not might take longer, at the very least an argument could maybe be made against the whole "boyhood based on penis skin" tradition.

Or maybe not. Things like this are difficult to change.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on this topic. I apologize for not having more to say.

Though I do want to add that I am grateful that female MRAs such as yourself are willing to push against this kind of practice, especially in countries where MGM leads to more severe consequences. In the USA where I live, MGM is common - but besides people thinking you might be "weird" for not being circumcised, you would never be denied your rights to live a happy live one way or the other. So the scale of the problem is different here.

CoffeehasSentience · 2021-10-11T03:37:50+00:00

So why do people still think male circumcision is healthy?

Pseudosciente has always been rampant.

Whenever I bring this up the local
men tell me MGM is okay and it doesn't mean anything bad is happening to
men. And I don't know what to think anymore.

Same as adults who were beat the shit up by their parents trying to normalize it. Some men have this very idea of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" a lot as well.

AmericanBoy505 · 2021-10-11T01:48:53+00:00

The fact they view circumcision as important shows how normalized this practice is.

Itrusttheinternett · 2021-10-11T06:02:42+00:00

Circumcision is harmful. Your culture just brainwashes people to think that it's not.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

People would chop off other parts of their body and call it beneficial if someone in authority told them to do it.

Skirt_Douglas · 2021-10-11T15:16:58+00:00

You literally just said they will be shunned and shamed if they don’t do it and you seriously need to ask why they would want do it?

“My roommate says, “I’m going to take a shower and shave. Does anyone need to use the bathroom?” It’s like some weird quiz where he reveals the answer first.” -Mitch Hedberg

Title	I'm having issues regarding MGM
Author	JackieNaper1907
Upvotes	130
Comments	42
Date	October 10, 2021 8:39 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/q5g93i/im_having_issues_regarding_mgm/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/im-having-issues-regarding-mgm.1076397 https://theredarchive.com/post/1076397

Comments