~ archived since 2018 ~

Circumcision is a euphemism for genital mutilation and rape.

duckordian

August 30, 2017

71 upvotes

10 U.S. Code § 920 - Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally

(a)Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by—

(1) using unlawful force against that other person;

(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;

(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;

(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or

(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

The penis is a sexual organ. Cutting healthy children is not medical. Stimulating an infants genitals and inserting tools is a sexual act. If it is not, then inserting tools into any persons genitals, is not rape.

Mutilate

to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts:

This is an abhorrent human rights violation and must be recognized as such.

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	Circumcision is a euphemism for genital mutilation and rape.
Author	duckordian
Upvotes	71
Comments	90
Date	August 30, 2017 8:09 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6x1uks/circumcision_is_a_euphemism_for_genital/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/circumcision-is-a-euphemism-for-genital-mutilation.915059 https://theredarchive.com/post/915059

Comments

[–]ThirdTurnip 17 points18 points19 points 8 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]uhh__Alex 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]uhh__Alex 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]uhh__Alex 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6x1uks/circumcision_is_a_euphemism_for_genital/dmcpqav/

No, that isn't rape. That would be considered sexual assault too although it really isn't, because the anus and a tool like a broomstick are neither sexual organs.

If you want logic, here goes:

If penetration occurs of mouth or anus

And penetration is by genitals

Then sexual assault.

If penetration occurs of vagina

And penetration is by genitals

Then rape

If penetration occurs of mouth or anus

And penetration is by non-sexual objects

Then it is incorrectly called sexual assault but it clearly isn't, even though it IS sodomy in the ass-play realm, but I wouldn't even consider that sexual assault in the mouth realm, while it would be both sodomy and sexual assault if it was a penis.

Or would fish hooking someone in a wrestling match be sexual assault of a finger into a mouth? All of this is consistent with my previous statements. You invented an argument I didn't make to argue against it. Go ahead and try again if it'll make you feel better.

[–]uhh__Alex 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy0 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]duckordian1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThirdTurnip 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]7hunderpants 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MeesaMisa 8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]duckordian[S] -6 points-5 points-4 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pinuspalustris 9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrodnarFancypants 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pinuspalustris -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here you go - you have the moral high ground here. It's yours, take it. No one can take it away from you. But I am a pragmatist. I am a pragmatist who wants badly to see fewer infants mutilated. And so I will use whatever tactic is at my disposal (within reason), to convince people that mutilating babies is wrong. Then you come along and say that it's not mutilation, it's rape. And that is going to be considerably more than what most people are willing to consider. That makes these people think that I'm just as hyperbolic as they think you are.

So have the moral high ground; it seems to be your primary goal here. But I have to ask: why is your primary goal not seeing fewer babies harmed in this way?

And if your comeback is "that is my primary goal, you're strawmanning me", We've already addressed that. You would rather tell (what you believe is) the truth and be seen as a wacko than use the arguments that work.

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pinuspalustris -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WikiTextBot 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ayana-shimmer 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]PowerToAnnihilate 10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrmensplights 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Your argument that circumcision is rape doesn't rely on this definition you posted, it relies on the definition of "sexual act". The same exact document defines a sexual act as:

(1)Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means— (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or (B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Sorry, I just don't see routine circumcision satisfying the definition of rape as a sexual act a prerequisite, and the definition of sexual act does not cover the situation. Maybe, /u/ayana-shimmer is right and you could sell the circumcision with the mouth thing.. you could reach very far and make a case for B saying the instrument goes under the foreskin.. but you have to read deep.

I think circumcision is wrong. I mean, it's an unnecessary cosmetic surgery performed on children. I think it's mutilation. I think it's abhorrent and it troubles me.

I don't think it's rape.

The people performing it just aren't, in general, getting off on it sexually.

There's something else. For decades, feminists have rammed a crowbar into the definition or rape and cranked it wider and wider to encompass more and more situations. They use the shock value of the word to attempt to control more and more social behaviours. I think you'll find a lot of MRA's will have a distaste for playing with the definitions of shocking words. A lot of people here have had that word used against them as a bludgeon.

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your argument that circumcision is rape doesn't rely on this definition you posted, it relies on the definition of "sexual act". The same exact document defines a sexual act as: (1)Sexual act.—The term “sexual act” means— (A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or (B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Circumcision involves the penetration of the male genitalia. Of course, the definition is sexist by not defining it is as so; it doesn't even acknowledge that the male genitalia can be penetrated.

The people performing it just aren't, in general, getting off on it sexually.

Sexual intent is not required for an action to be rape. In fact, I doubt the definition above would stand in court.

[–]mrmensplights 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Circumcision involves the penetration of the male genitalia. Of course, the definition is sexist by not defining it is as so; it doesn't even acknowledge that the male genitalia can be penetrated.

While definition (b) does say "any part of the body by any object", it also requires there be an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade or getting sexual gratification. Even though we consider it abusive, most doctors are just performing an operation and I do not believe they have abusive intent, in general.

Sexual intent is not required for an action to be rape. In fact, I doubt the definition above would stand in court.

Subsection (b) specifically requires intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade OR to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. Subsection (a) does not require this but also can not be used to support the argument that routine circumcision is rape. I don't know which definition you are referring to, but it's literally an excerpt from the US Criminal Code, so I think it'd probably stand up in court.

I agree there is still sexism in the definitions, but the argument was made based on these documents so the debate has to proceed along those lines.

[–]duckordian[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]mrmensplights 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrmensplights 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not at all.

Under the US Criminal Code, rape requires a sexual act, and the same US Criminal Code defines a sexual act as "(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or (B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person."

A man penetrating a woman could constitute rape because it satisfies definition (A), only definition (B) requires intent. However, in practice it probably satisfies (B) as well because as a matter of interpretation, it'd be hard to prove there wasn't intent. In addition to rape, there's also sexual assault, aggravated sexual contact, abusive sexual contact which seem satisfies. Lastly, I'm not from the US, but I believe the state has their own set of criminal laws as well and there would be differences on a state by state basis.

My main point is that, op made the argument the circumcision is rape based on the definitions in US Criminal Code, but the definitions in the US Criminal Code do not seem to support this assertion. I didn't even say it isn't rape (although I don't believe it is as a matter of personal opinion) I just challenged the argument.

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]IparryU 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]IparryU 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

(a)Rape.—Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by— ~~(1) using unlawful force against that other person;~~

(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;

~~(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;~~

~~(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or~~

(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

The only things that you could pin for rape is 2 and 5, but very shaky despite how emotional you get about it.

The below fits the act more accurately.

(b)Sexual Assault.—Any person subject to this chapter who—

(1) commits a sexual act upon another person by—

~~(A) threatening or placing that other person in fear;~~

(B) causing bodily harm to that other person;

**(C) making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose; or

(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person;

(2) commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or

(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to—**

(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; or

(B) a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person;

is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(c)Aggravated Sexual Contact.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits or causes sexual contact upon or by another person, if to do so would violate subsection (a) (rape) had the sexual contact been a sexual act, is guilty of aggravated sexual contact and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(d)Abusive Sexual Contact.— Any person subject to this chapter who commits or causes sexual contact upon or by another person, if to do so would violate subsection (b) (sexual assault) had the sexual contact been a sexual act, is guilty of abusive sexual contact and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

But, since this is more of a tradition it gets overlooked. Yes FGM is not allowed but MGM is and that makes it OK in the court's eyes no matter how much you protest and prove it is the same.

So, there you have it.

edit: <br> for paragraphs

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]IparryU 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IparryU 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]duckordian[S] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]IparryU 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]duckordian[S] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FrodnarFancypants 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Floppuh -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]duckordian[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Floppuh -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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