Please don't hunt me down and kill me for asking this, but...

girlwriteswhat · 2012-08-28T00:07:38+00:00

You're circumcised and you're not mad at your mom and dad.

What if you were? Hell, what if you feel deeply traumatized, betrayed and cheated by it? What could you do about it now that it's done? Nothing.

None of the men I've known who were not circumcised are mad at their mom or dad.

What if they were? What could they do about it? Well, they could get circumcised.

My bf is circumcised, and he's not mad at his mom and dad. He IS, however, very outspoken in opposing the continuation of the practice. He feels like it's a crazy, needless thing to do that doesn't make any sense. And after watching one being performed, he's more vocal about it.

The procedure has been linked to a lot of problems--physical, sexual and neurological--that don't affect every man who's been circumcised, but affect enough for it to be considered an MRM issue. If you want to know more, go to a website called circumcision harms and look at the gallery of common complications there. Complication rates are hard to track, because many don't become noticeable until adulthood (hairy shaft, varicose veins, skin bridges, etc) and the men affected usually just deal with them as they can.

SilencingNarrative · 2012-08-28T01:33:32+00:00

Most women around the world who were circumcised feel exactly the same way you do. They orgasm regularly and enjoy sex with their husbands despite what you've heard. They don't see what all the fuss is about. There is evidence that they have lower HIV infection rates as well.

Now do you see the problem?

jay76 · 2012-08-28T02:25:00+00:00

I'm in exactly your boat (circumcised, but not angry), my parents were the best and did what they believed was right, even if I wouldn't have chosen it for myself. I could have been born into a far worse situation than what I got.

But I won't begrudge anyone who wants to be (productively) angry. The practice is unnecessary and, in some instances, extraordinarily harmful.

SteelCrossx · 2012-08-28T03:08:20+00:00

My friend's second son underwent a messed up circumcision and he didn't have his third son circumcised because of that. I don't know what mistake was initial made but he had to go back in to have it corrected after the initial work had healed. My friend said that it looked like they had thrown his son's penis in a blender after the second time. He wasn't a newborn anymore and I was told it was a miserable few weeks of his son being constantly sore and always crying.

Newborns do not express well. He said it took that event for him to realize how much his sons did suffer.

NegativeChirality · 2012-08-28T00:24:19+00:00

I'm circumcised and I'm deeply angry at my parents. I feel violated and mutilated, and constantly feel like I'm missing an integral part of my sexual organ.

You want an alternative answer? It doesn't matter at all that you're not upset about being circumcised. What matters is that some men are upset about it, that the vast majority of circumcisions are done without consent, and that there's no way to "undo" such a procedure.

This is not about whether your penis works correctly to you--it's about whether, fundamentally, you should be allowed to mutilate a defenseless infant. It doesn't matter if circumcision grants even 100% immunity to HIV. It doesn't matter if it grants 100% immunity to certain types of cancer, or infections. What matters is that an important part of a man's body was removed without consent or awareness or even reasonable justification, and that the subsequent lack of a foreskin negative impairs at least some men.

Memyselfsomeotherguy · 2012-08-28T00:35:20+00:00

It's about choice. If you choose to have it done or it is actually required medically there is no problem.

DickButtkissJr · 2012-08-27T23:50:57+00:00

It's the fact that circumcised males didn't get to choose, regardless of how whether they are happy with it or not. I was circumcised and I wish I wasn't. I've always felt like I was missing something and I've always felt like my penis isn't sensitive enough. This is likely the result of my circumcision. Unfortunately, I didn't get to choose whether I was circumcised or not.

Throwahoymatie · 2012-08-27T23:49:33+00:00

[permanently deleted]

MechPlasma · 2012-08-27T23:57:05+00:00

There's nothing really wrong with being circumcised, just like there's nothing really wrong with not having fingernails. But it's still wrong to remove their fingernails against their will, for a multitude of reasons.

Plus, it's another double-standard. The (reasonable) medical reasons for doing it apply for women too.

lightmonkey · 2012-08-28T03:50:26+00:00

First of all, I personally would never get mad at anyone legitimately trying to understand someone else's point of view.

Now on to your question. The general feeling is that some men prefer their penis circumcised and others do not, which is why the anti-circumsision movement is not about all circumcision. Most boys, in the US and other places, are circumcised shortly after birth. This means the choice is not made by him, but by others. It violates his person, his body his choice. Now should a boy grow up and decide he would like to be circumcised that would be fine because it would be HIS decision.

Now, on to the negatives of circumcision. Let's start with the negatives of not having the foreskin itself. The most basic way of saying it would be that the foreskin deals heavily with sexual pleasure and without it, sensitivity is reduced and sometimes lost, this lack of sensitivity can even increase over time. I could try to go further into detail, but you would be better off reading the articles located in the sidebar. The negatives of the procedure itself are that is can go very wrong very easily. This can lead to parts other than the foreskin being cut off, sometimes even the entire penis. It can also become infected , which is very bad for a person, especially as an infant and can lead to death. Another fatal possibility is severe blood loss.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

2012-08-28T06:30:58+00:00

Very very simple: Everything on your body is there for a purpose. Like with the spleen or the tonsils in the past, doctors not knowing that purpose, doesn’t mean there is none. But the problem is, that doctors usually are so arrogant, that they think, if they don’t know it, it can’t exist. (Like when they say “There is no cure”, but mean “I don’t know a cure”.)

You probably know, that the tonsils are the germ filter/sensor of your throat, and very important to keep healthy.

But it’s not very long since nobody really knew what the spleen was there for. So they just removed it, “because you don’t need that anyway”.

TURNS OUT the spleen is the standing army of your immune system! It harbors the white blood cells that learned to kill past germs. If you remove it, your immune system forgets everything and becomes a mental goldfish. Like disabling your anti-virus. That that is a very bad thing, should be obvious.

So with the foreskin, it’s exactly like that: It’s there for a reason. (Much more intense orgasm due to higher sensitivity should be reason enough. Protection should be another one. Also, the glans shouldn’t be dry, but a bit humid, in its natural state.)

Why the fuck would you go and cut off a part of you for no reason anyway?? Why not cut off a foot? Or your head? No need for it, in the basement on your chair, watching lolcats, after all!? (I’m obviously exaggerating.)

It’s as dumb as those people who stare at me in disbelief, when everybody around me wears fucking shoes in the fucking summer when there’s absolutely no need for them… We were born to walk barefoot by default. Duh. There’s no snow, no glowing asphalt, and no dirt or glass… so what the fuck are you wearing shoes for?

mean0dean0 · 2012-08-28T00:34:33+00:00

NO. CHOICE. That's it.

ghebert001 · 2012-08-28T02:13:19+00:00

We're not going to hunt you down or kill you. You're mistaking us for feminists.

Your foreskin was removed before you could ever remember what it was like having one. Imagine your eyes and how sensitive they are to touch, now imagine your eyes without eyelids, dried up and desentized to touch, you can still feel them but it doesn't hurt. Your penis is similar. With no foreskin, it has been desensitized and is no longer ultra sensitive. You just don't feel anything is wrong or abnormal because that's the way it's always been.

Soronir · 2012-08-28T02:38:58+00:00

I'm circumcised and I feel violated that my body was mutilated without my consent. No one had the right to do that to me.

celibacy4life · 2012-08-28T03:47:41+00:00

I feel the same way, but I think that's because we've never known a life with our foreskins. Being angry about it won't restore my foreskin. However if I am to ever have a son, then I will let him decide for himself.

vintermann · 2012-08-28T07:39:46+00:00

Please don't hunt me down and kill me for asking this, but...

I knew what would come after seeing this.

It's perfectly understandable that you don't hate your parents for circumcising you. It's perfectly OK that you're happy with your (circumcised) body. It obviously doesn't do you personally any good to think too much about what you have been denied.

But even if you, or indeed most genitally cut men don't see yourself as victims, that's no reason to tolerate the continued practice. Most genitally cut women don't see themselves as victims either - and they don't even have a gender role pressuring them from seeing themselves as victims, to nearly the degree men have.

Your culture and gender role prevents you from feeling abused. And in a sense, that is good, because it wouldn't help you to feel abused. But you should still be able to see intellectually (even though you're lucky enough to feel emotionally indifferent to it) that permanently interfering with children's genitals is not OK unless it's for clear and immediate medical reasons.

Even pro-circumcision organizations like the pediatrics association that was recently in the news here, can't bring themselves to claim there's a clear and immediate need for infant genital cutting. And if there isn't, you just don't do surgery.

Woozer · 2012-08-28T09:27:51+00:00

A possibly relevant comment I'm copying from user med_stu in a /r/skeptic thread about the recent AAP finding.

People are missing the main point here. In good, non-corrupt medical practice the best course of action is ALWAYS considered the course which provides the maximum benefit using the least invasive and risky method. I don't think the studies used to provide evidence for the benefits of circumcision are valid, but lets assume they're all true. Lets look at the supposed benefits from the point of view of benefit and extent of risk/invasiveness.

A) Decreases risk of HIV transmission - Assuming this is true, there are still several problems with it as a reason for circumcision. 1. Condoms reduce risk of transmission by something like 50 times as much as circumcision. 2. From a single episode of heterosexual intercourse with a person known to be HIV positive the risk of contracting HIV is estimated at about 1 in 1000 for the woman and considerably less than that for the man. (BTW circumcision doesn't decrease the risk of transmission for the woman)

B) Decreases risk of UTI - Assuming this is true, the overall rate of UTI among males is about 5-8 in 10,000 per year. As the rate is many times higher in old men (about 30 times higher, approaching the same rate as females), the rate in young men and boys is likely to be considerably lower than this. UTI's in old men are predominantly due to catheterisation and prostatic enlargment, factors unaffected by circumcision. Problems - 1. The risk can be significantly lowered with teaching good hygiene. 2. The risk is so low anyway, and the condition not usually serious, that this benefit is not nearly significant enough to warrant an invasive procedure.

C) Reduces incidence of penile cancer -Again, I haven't seen good evidence of this being solely due to circumcision. However even if true, the prevalence of penile cancer in the US is 1 in 100,000. For comparison, the rate of breast cancer is 1 in 8 over a lifetime, and 1 in 1000 for males. These are still not considered high enough rates to consider pre-emptive mastectomy except in very, very high risk people. Also, penile cancer is strongly associated with HPV virus, the same one that causes cervical cancer and which is sexually transmitted. Problems - 1. The rate of this cancer is much lower than other cancers but we don't preemptively carry out medical procedures. 2. This also can be greatly reduced by using condoms. On the other side, circumcision is a surgical procedure, carries risk of bleeding, botched operations, and in rare cases death. It also quite possibly affects sexual functioning and is a cause of distress to some people in later life.

So, granted that all 3 of these claims are true they still don't justify an invasive procedure on an infant for benefits that can be gained in a less invasive way. Especially as if the person really thinks these claims are worth it, there's nothing to stop them getting circumcised as an adult. If this argument was really based on best practice and medical science, it would have been over long ago. The only reason it lingers is because people have an emotional or religious or 'traditionalist' tie to this procedure and refuse to treat it as any other medical procedure. EDIT: Forgot to mention, will post sources in the morning (it's late my time), but in the meantime got everything from medscape, uptodate, american breast cancer association, cdc, and some articles of pubmed. Will link them tomorrow.

rightsbot · 2012-08-27T23:16:17+00:00

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

MattClark0994 · 2012-08-28T00:13:32+00:00

I think its more along the lines that its "his body and not his choice". But personally I dont see circumsion as being that big an issue especially compared to some other mens issues that dont get near enough attention...like the april 4th directive that tramples on due process rights for male students in college.

front_toward_enemy · 2012-08-28T01:05:43+00:00

I am circumcised and do not give a shit. In fact, I'm glad i don't have a foreskin to deal with -- the hygiene issues that come with it sound unpleasant, and no offense to those of us who are uncut, it looks.... kind of gross. I've never known a female that preferred uncircumcised. I know they exist, yes.

I like my dick.

EDIT: Did I get downvoted for having an opinion about my own dick?

TheAlphaGareBear · 2012-08-28T01:06:12+00:00

Property rights and how males of all ages are stripped of them.

mikesteane · 2012-08-28T01:54:13+00:00

Of course you don't know what you are missing.

SDcowboy82 · 2012-08-28T04:41:09+00:00

HUNT HIM DOWN!! KILL HIM!!!

kazagistar · 2012-08-28T07:19:17+00:00

Also, you don't have to agree on every point to participate in MRM. There are certain views that seem downright silly to me that are very popular around here, but that does not mean the main point is invalid.

NeroJoe · 2012-08-28T08:01:08+00:00

I've noticed some guys talking about the religious issues regarding circumcision, and just thought I'd add my two cents to that:

What kind of fucking asshole of a god do you worship? Seriously, why the would the Creator of the Universe give a flying fuck about your dick? Makes no sense.

greasemunkii · 2012-08-28T10:26:05+00:00

Measure twice, cut once.

2012-08-28T14:42:00+00:00

From the FAQ:

Prevalence of Male Genital Mutilation - Female genital mutilation has been outlawed in all western societies, though it still remain in practice in some African and Islamic nations. However, no similar legal intervention has occurred for male genital mutilation, commonly referred to as circumcision. While there may be religious reasons to promote male genital mutilation (Judeo-Christian), there is little medical support for the elective procedure. Additionally, the risk of complications, from disfigurement to death, is indicative that this practice should also be outlawed in western cultures. Further reading on the subject: 1 - 2 - 3

cheese-and-candy · 2012-08-28T15:48:59+00:00

It's an unnecessary procedure where a healthy and normal part of the body is removed for no real purpose. The reason so many people in the US have them is only because it's a simple procedure and the doctor gets $200 after. The supposed health benefits are miniscule, and often blown out of proportion to justify the danger to the child.

2012-08-28T15:53:17+00:00

I could be wrong here, but I think the OP is trying to understand why this is seen as such a cruel practice. People tattoo and pierce their babies ears, it's a practice that the child doesn't remember and a pain not felt days later. So, why not leave the decision up to the parents on circumcision?

That's my question anyway.

buster2209 · 2012-08-28T17:41:36+00:00

It's genital mutilation and is barbaric. If you choose you want that done later in life, then that's your choice.

DavidByron · 2012-08-28T21:12:28+00:00

I don't think it's a big deal but other civilized countries don't cut up babies junk. The fact that the USA is the world leader in genital mutilation is kind of a thing. The fact that it does this while simultaneously telling other countries how evil it is if the "baby" is actually a teenager old enough to demand the operation for themselves - and female - makes it an example (although I wouldn't say a very good one) of the gender apartheid in the USA.

owlranch · 2012-08-27T23:18:35+00:00

Yea I'm in the same boat. I like the way my circumcised dong looks, so thanks mom and dad.

Rafoie · 2012-08-28T03:30:51+00:00

I want to know why circumcision is worse than parents forcing their boys to join a peewee football team?

they put them in at ages as young as 9, far before they can make the decision for themselves. there is significant incident of injury, including permanent disfigurement and brain damage and rare, but possible death. football players have a significantly higher likelyhood of aggressive tendencies later in life. there is a correlation between amount of football played and lowering of grades.

and it disproportionately affect men. why is this barbaric practice not a men's rights issue?

ignatiusloyola · 2012-08-28T07:08:54+00:00

The issue is Jews, it's that simple. If this wasn't a Jewish ritual, I bet money no one would be talking about it.

This issue is going to destroy the MRM, if it's as widespread as it is here on reddit. Reddit has always been obsessed with everything Jewish so hopefully this is an aberration. It sucks though, when 50% of the posts on "mensrights" are people bitching about circumcision. This is not a mensrights issue, it's a religious freedom issue.

What about the rights of Jewish men who do not want this procedure to end? Obviously, no one here gives a fuck about that. Furthermore, they could end most circumcisions tomorrow by granting a religious exemption like they do in many European countries. This stops the vast majority of circumcisions. Unfortunately, messing with Jewish people is much more important to these folks then stopping most circumcisions, and it will surely be their undoing.

tykusstarcraft · 2012-08-28T09:18:18+00:00

someone cut off a portion of your penis with no say or consent from you ...what is so hard to understand ?

cody_au · 2012-08-28T11:25:26+00:00

You should be angry. Your nerves were cut off and you will never orgasm with the level of sensation and enjoyment an uncircumcised man will feel.

It used to be for medical reasons which aren't applicable anymore. It was also for religious reasons where people aren't religious anymore.

It's a disfigurement that can't be undone. It's wrong.

I am circumcised. I don't hate my mum for it because back then they thought / it was necessary (kinda like lead paint), and we all manage to survive. But now we know different and so it's time to stop it for the next generation.

ThePigman · 2012-08-28T01:24:39+00:00

Off the top of my head, here's one "issue". Take a cup of very hot coffee and drop it in your lap. Now do the same to an uncircumcised man. Observe who screams loudest and you will have a good indication as to why circumcision is a bad thing.

eighty_billion · 2012-08-28T06:43:13+00:00

I personally am glad about being circumcised. As far as what people are saying about sensitivity issues, I have amazing sex with my circumcised penis. And parents make health choices about their babies all of the time. I don't think it's a consent issue at all.

Who here is traumatized by being circumcised? And how so?

Totenglocke42 · 2012-08-28T05:59:32+00:00

I also am circumcised, but my parents didn't have it done until I was like 3-4. I remember what a pain in the ass it was to deal with when taking a bath and I'm glad as hell I don't have to deal with that anymore.

I really think the issue is just that there's so many things people who whine about circumcision are pissed off at for being out of their control, so they pick on that since it was done to them as a child and they couldn't say no and claim that it's SO traumatizing.

SleepingOnMoonshine · 2012-08-28T06:23:48+00:00

I'm circumcised. It's good for you, and it makes your penis look bigger. Besides, I'm a Christian, and it's a part of my religion.

Title	Please don't hunt me down and kill me for asking this, but...
Author	mcparker73
Upvotes	49
Comments	176
Date	August 27, 2012 11:15 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/yxhs2/please_dont_hunt_me_down_and_kill_me_for_asking/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/please-dont-hunt-me-down-and-kill-me-for-asking.1014855 https://theredarchive.com/post/1014855

Comments