MGM/Circumcision: Why is it bad?

waterbagel · 2012-11-18T19:43:18+00:00

The only reason circumcision is wrong is a lack of consent, simple as. If you want to get circumcised as an adult go ahead, but it should never be allowed to be forced on a child who has no say in the matter.

2012-11-18T19:50:05+00:00

For myself and I imagine many others it is that it is done with out consent. A new born infant has no choice in the matter. If you as an adult want to be circumsised by all means go ahead. Granted the risk of circumsision is low but there is no reason at all to put a child in that sort of position.

While circumsision is a huge hot button issue within this community, I don't beilive what you feel about it hinges on you being an MRA.

Phuzzums · 2012-11-18T20:29:35+00:00

Infant circumcision is a medical procedure done on someone who does not have the capacity to consent to it. It is a big deal not only because it physically harms the infant, but also because it sets a terrible precedent that it's okay for parents to "customize" their child as they see fit.

This particular precedent applies only to boys, which is why it is a men's rights issue, but it could just as easily apply to girls if it became common practice for parents to have labiaectomies performed on their infant daughters for the purpose of aesthetics.

The issue does create a divide though. Men that are circumcised see this discussion saying "circumcision is bad, circumcised men are broken" and it's like a personal attack. That's why I hate use inflammatory works like genital mutilation, it's only purpose is to incite an emotional response, but that emotional response can go either way. Likewise I think there are probably a number of men who aren't circumcised that are insecure about it if they live somewhere where it is common practice. They fight tooth and nail, using those inflammatory words, to get others to validate them that they are the normal ones for not being circumcised.

Either way, I think all men should be comfortable with who they are, circumcised or not. Unfortunately those that are circumcised and uncomfortable with it don't really have a lot of options and are the ones that probably fight for the issue the most. Beyond that, I think the perpetuation of infant circumcision outside of medical necessity needs to stop for the reasons above.

Grubnar · 2012-11-18T22:17:37+00:00

I oppose it because it is almost always compleatly unnessisary, and can be incredibly harmfull. You should change your mind because the facts do not support your opinion.
Not me.
I can not speak for the community, but personally I will not think of you as a "fake" or anything like that just because of how you feel about one of many MRA issues. I do not agrea with you, but I understand why you may feel the way you do.

borderlinebadger · 2012-11-18T22:27:58+00:00

However small the complication rate the one child who dies or is disfigured by it it is unnecessary. Any logical argument as to why fgm is bad applies in essence.

Yes strongly. Any health benefits are questionable at best and there is no reason why adults cannot get it done later if they choose to. It impedes proper function e.g. self lubrication.
It is a big deal for a number of reasons. The main issue is the volume of it and how it is accepted so easily by many. There are huge amounts of money being spent to use it as a measure against hiv in Africa instead of more effective measures.
Anybody is free to hold whatever opinion they want. Drawing lines over who is real or not is stupid. Having said that I don't think there are many arguments from a mra perspective though that hold much weight. The medical evidence is questionable at best particularly if you view non-American research. Doing it for religious or appearance reasons is also particularly questionable.

Flailing_Junk · 2012-11-18T23:18:50+00:00

How do you rationalize genital cutting as relatively harmless? If someone held you down and slashed your dick open would you consider yourself "relatively unharmed" by the encounter?

For your consideration:

http://www.norm.org/lost.html

Tetrahedroid · 2012-11-18T22:26:11+00:00

It's a lack of consent.

rg57 · 2012-11-19T01:30:47+00:00

It's wrong for the same reason any sexual abuse is wrong.

2012-11-18T23:32:56+00:00

MGM is used to 'prevent' UTIs, STDs, and prepuce cancer.

UTIs, STDs, and prepuce cancer are all more common in women.

FGM has been shown (dubiously, as with MGM) to lower the risk of contracting STDs, and either way you're going to need a condom. If you cut something off it's not going to get cancer... so all we're left with are UTIs.

We can treat UTIs (and most STDs) with antibiotics, and we do in women. MGM results in death, however rare, and so we are effectively opting for human sacrifice over antibiotics when it comes to boys; as such, we might as well be using voodoo.

Add to that the fact that both remove the most sensitive areas of the body, both have a detrimental effect both physically and mentally (even in babies, though most MGM happens to kids/teens), and both are unnecessary procedures carried out against the will of their victim?

There's really no difference between the two, only in who we deem worthy of protection. If you are against FGM, you are either against MGM or a bigot; sorry, there really is no wiggle room on this issue.

2012-11-18T23:46:11+00:00

From the merriam-webster dictionary, the definition of Mutilation is:

to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect

If that doesn't sum up circumcision, I don't know what does.

We're not OK with it happening to women, we're not OK with doing it on limbs or testicles (castration is considered mutilation), so what makes it okay to do it on the foreskin?

mikesteane · 2012-11-19T05:35:11+00:00

It is extremely painful, sometimes so much that it causes traumatic shock resulting in an absence of visible reaction from the victim. This effect is sometimes taken to mean that it is not painful.
It removes an erogeneous zone without the consent or the owner. The number of nerves in the foreskin varies greatly but is but is usually in the range 20,000 - 100,000. These nerves are sensitive to both pain and pleasure.
The operation is subject to complications including complete destruction of the penis or death.
Societies which practice genital mutilation of children tend to be violent and aggressive. It is not by coincidence that 11 out of the 12 genocides in recent history have involved circumcising groups as either the main aggressor or the main victim, in three cases on both sides.
It is an irreversible operation carried out without the consent of the subject.
Even taking a symbolic drop of blood from a girl's genitals is a serious crime in all developed nations. Boys should have the same protection.

The defenses for the practice are largely fabrications. From the early days when it was supposed to cure all kinds of mental and physical illnesses to the modern stories of it protecting against the transmission of AIDS, the evidence, is at the very best, weak. The three research papers from Africa promoting the practice were all subject to serious bias.

In answer to your question about being an MRA: If you think that male circumcision is okay, but female circumcision is morally wrong, you have a bias in the direction against men's rights. Exactly the same arguments apply to both.

aPseudonymPho · 2012-11-19T04:02:46+00:00

Yes I fully and completely oppose, Male genital mutilation. I do not oppose circumcision. What is the fundamental difference? Circumcision is an elective procedure, when for medical necessity, the male foreskin is removed. MGM, is when the procedure known as circumcision, is performed on an infant, or a child against their will, or without their consent, for any reason beyond medical necessity (aesthetics, religion, etc.) You should change your mind, because it's no different from FGM, or cutting off a finger, or a toe. It is healthy tissue, that until a medical issue arises, does not need to be removed. It is a cultural thing, not a medical thing, and we should never allow the fundamental basic human rights of a person, to be forgone in the interest of respecting culture norms. The only thing that varies between these examples is magnitude of harm, not the nature of harm, that being, senseless destruction of tissue for non-medical reasons.
No. It is absolutely a big deal, just like before 1997 when FGM was made illegal FGM was still a big deal too. I would say the biggest deal pertains to the fact that the north american medical industry, CONDONES this procedure, and has elected to stand by and do nothing, in the interest of saving face, and making money.
You are just as much an MRA regardless of your stance on this topic. However if you are not oppose to infants having healthy, functional, important tissue removed from their body, without their consent, I think you may have bigger issues to tackle than whether youre an MRA or not. Particularly what exactly has led you to believe that this kind of behaviour is okay, simply because it has somewhat low complication rates, or is "relatively harmless".

I was circumcised as an infant, without my choice. I do not want to be part of the "masses". I do not want to "look like my father" and I dont give a fuck about any of the other constantly regurgitated bullshit that people spew to perpetuate this disgusting and radically illogical practice within our culture. To say I'm biased might be a bit of an understatement, but I feel this is one issue where my bias is warranted. I feel like I've been sexually assaulted, almost if not to the point of rape. A rape victim can at least regain control of their lives, once they tackle their psychological issues. I will have to live for the rest of my life knowing that because of cultural norms, and ignorant people, my body was disfigured without my consent. I'm genuinely happy if other men are content with their circumcisions. However that doesn't mean I am, or that I'm any less entitled to be unhappy I had my body permanently altered at the will of others.

I'm willing to accept any downvotes which may propagate from the emotional charge this post carries. I fucking hate reading shit like this, and having to constantly defend my entitlement to my own fucking body.

2012-11-19T03:33:24+00:00

It seems to me to be a relatively harmless practice, with rather low complication rates.

I oppose it because, directly contrary to what you said, it is a harmful procedure. It's no more medically necessary (in most cases) than removing the ear lobes.

The procedure may have few complication, however virtually any complications from the procedure will ruin the boys life.

Also, the consent aspect of it, as so many have pointed out, should not be dismissed. I wouldn't be happy if my parents removed my ear lobes or little toes, because they "weren't necessary" and I'm none too pleased that that they lopped of part of my genitals without my ok.

It is a very, very big issue. There's no reason for it. Doctors started doing it centuries ago to prevent masturbation and for various other religious reasons. It may prevent a few infections here and there, but so does cleaning yourself. Removing the labia or clitoral hood would probably prevent infections in women, but doctors would never dream of doing that.

No one would (or at least should) dismiss your voice out of hand because you don't hold the exact same opinions on every issue. One thing you've probably picked up browsing this community is that we're all pretty open to dissent and discussion.

2012-11-19T04:37:59+00:00

I cannot have sex to the same level of enjoyment I would have if my body weren't disfigured before I was even capable of stating an opinion on the matter. MGM is something so vehemently disgusting and overwhelmingly damaging to the infant involved that it is a small miracle that the tradition manages to this day. If I could go back in time and tell my parents not to circumcise me, I would. I can't. It's permanent. It's dangerous. It's done without consent. It's traumatizing and painful. It prevents people from having their full sexual function.

dragonsandgoblins · 2012-11-19T02:20:26+00:00

1.) I oppose circumcision because I believe a man should have a right to choose whether he wishes to be circumcised. You should change your mind, because your son might later wish he were uncircumcised.

2.) Circumcision is a big deal because it is done a lot. Millions of people are circumcised each year against their will because they are unable to protest, because they are infants. I would no more allow someone to circumcise an infant than I would allow someone to crop his ears.

Of course, the law does not recognize this moral imperative, so I've chosen to protest on behalf of the infants which do scream in agony when this is done.

Here is the operation performed with anesthesia

I couldn't bring myself to go look for one without, although they are typically performed without. Here is a text of a study on pain during circumcision

3.) You may still be a real MRA if you don't oppose circumcision.

Pecanpig · 2012-11-19T03:17:20+00:00

I oppose mutilation of children out of moral principle, feel free to support the sexual mutilation of baby's, just don't delude yourself about what it is.
I think it's a big deal.
I don't think you are disqualified for simply not caring, but I think that supporting mgm is a pretty bad thing, and I personally wouldn't recognize you as an MRA.

rightsbot · 2012-11-18T19:42:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

ullere · 2012-11-19T04:45:05+00:00

Yes, this is why: lets imagine that there is a correlation between circumcision and lower rates of sexually transmitted disease (even though studies show that the opposite is true for women, men are more protected, women less so. Along with all the huge issues with the methodology in the studies, and the fact that rates of circumcision do not correlate with levels of stds internationally, more studies on lack of correlation.)

Firstly correlation is not causation. If it turns out that the reason for the lower rates of std's in circumcised men is in fact that circumcision lowers male sexual pleasureby removing the most sensitive glands on the penis then essentially you are condoning the reduction and abuse of male sexual function in exchange for a reduction is std rates. I would also imagine that castration greatly reduces the rates of males catching std's, but you would say it's barbaric. So how about chemically reducing all male sexual appetite? No physical harm would be done and all men would be more protection against stds? I am being ridiculous in these suggestions, no-one short of the most extreme androphobes would say they are morally ok.

Ignoring the above, assuming that there is no harm to male sexual function. Simply due to serious medical complications being relatively rare, considering it is an un-necessary procedure any complications are avoidable, also there is evidence that complications are much more common than the evidence suggests. How many babies do you think neo-natal circumcision prevents from catching std's? Presumably baby boys shouldn't be catching sexual diseases anyway, thus any supposed advantage is erased when it comes to neo-natal circumcision.

Leaving us only with Adult circumcision. Some suggest that adult circumcision is a more complex procedure, due to the need of pain killing medicine etc, however the rate of complications in adult circumcision is even lower than in neo-natal. Also adult circumcision removes the issue of people unprotected by the supposed benefits of circumcision, such as gay men who receive anally, bi sexual men who receive anally, asexual men who have no interest in sex, heterosexual intravenous drug taking men, etc... This would allow men who do their own research and decide if the suppose benefits are worth the risk depending on their lifestyle and sexuality.

Furthermore this idea that circumcision has no harms attached to it since medical complications are rare is not matched by any self reported studies of circumcised men. In fact some studies show that half of all men circumcision as babies have some form of PTSD

You claim to understand my reasoning behind being against Circumcision, the only kind I could possibly tolerate, assuming that these medical benefits really exist and aren't simply pro-circumcision advocacy using poor methodology, is adult circumcision after being informed of the risks prior to the procedure. I am ok with rational sound of mind Adult males choosing to do whatever they wish to their own penis.

Neo-natal circumcision is in no way acceptable based on supposed sexual benefits.

Yes some MRA's agree that circumcision isn't a big deal, but then some MRA's likely believe in ghosts and Aliens, as a community we aren't going to agree on every single issue, every single time.
No, regardless of your beliefs, I think merely working to improve the situation of men in society in any area is enough for you to be an MRA.

Energy_Turtle · 2012-11-19T06:16:35+00:00

Alright, my man, I will go against the grain here and say I don't think it's a huge issue. I totally understand why people are against it, but I just don't think it's a big deal. Cultures all over the world do things like this to their children. I see the comparison to female mutilation a lot, but it's just not the same. Many times with women the entire clitoris is removed and the labia are sewn together. That's far more destructive than the removal of the foreskin. As far as making you a less of an MRA for being ok with it, that's bullshit. It would be worrisome if we all had the same points of view. That's not healthy. We come from different backgrounds and we all have our own stories. There should be differing opinions. The important thing is creating a community where we can discuss these issues respectfully and without hostility.

DerickBurton · 2012-11-19T00:17:24+00:00

Watch this all the way through and it should change your mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_8ZR0F4VUM&feature=plcp

CAPTAIN_BUTTHOLE · 2012-11-19T01:15:18+00:00

I know that other people here can give better and more succinct reasons as to why circumcision is wrong, but I will leave just one thing. If it wasn't a long-standing cultural/religious tradition, it wouldn't even be discussed. There would never have been health studies performed for the sake of justifying it, it simply wouldn't be a thing. The procedure wasn't made for the purpose of preventing AIDS or other STDs, it was a ritual performed for various religious reasons.

2012-11-19T05:04:58+00:00

Prima facie, it is an unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering which doesn't have a significant effect in preventing a risk of harm (infections). If taught, boys can learn how to clean themselves and their privates. We all have to learn somehow, even those who are circumcised. For that reason, it is unnecessary.

I was circumcised at age 14-15 (I do not remember, it has been such a length of time ago). My parents thought the same way I do about the issue, but I needed the surgical procedure for more than cosmetic reasons. Anyway, I do not recommend it.

JDRPG · 2012-11-19T09:56:00+00:00

Talking about MGM and circumcision, this brings up my life actually. When I was born, my family was currently living in Cuba (my dad was working for the US government). I was "snipped" by the doctors. Without consent by my parents, or so I've been told. As far as I can tell, it hasn't affected my life in any way (though I'm a virgin, so I can't say anything about it sexually). I have no idea if I would have cared for it to be mutilated or not, honestly.

Now my brother, he was born in Bulgaria (Eastern Europe). There, the doctors actually asked my parents, and they left my brother uncircumcised. But recently, he went to the doctor and he needs to be circumcised for medical reasons. This may have been stopped if he was circumcised as a child, but there was no way for anyone to know. Honestly, unless there is a REAL medical emergency that requires it as an infant, I don't think it should be done.

Cutsman4057 · 2012-11-19T05:03:07+00:00

sigh, this again? look at the FAQ, right over there on the sidebar. Here, I'll even link it for you.

CptSeaCow · 2012-11-18T23:47:45+00:00

I have to go with the OP on this one. All you guys are right when it comes to consent. It is done without consent on children.

But! Parents don't see it as mutilation, as they truly believe it has health benefits as it reduces infections and/or contagious sexual diseases. To which you will argue - that it doesn't actually help that much.

The thing is Circumcision is authorized by parents (unless it is for religious purposes) because they BELIEVE it is better for you - not to hurt you.

Imagine the following situation: Imagine studies show that if you remove one of your toes (nonsense...i know) you could reduce the chances of getting prostate cancer in the future? As a father, if you truly believed this BS, wouldn't you consider cutting a toe to protect your child?

With this said: Circumcision shouldn't be performed on non-consenting infants.

Title	MGM/Circumcision: Why is it bad?
Author	theonetruemango
Upvotes	13
Comments	70
Date	November 18, 2012 7:40 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/13erf9/mgmcircumcision_why_is_it_bad/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mgmcircumcision-why-is-it-bad.1008928 https://theredarchive.com/post/1008928

Comments