Circumcision Debate

bikemaul · 2013-12-28T04:27:56+00:00

You seem very hostile and I don't expect a productive exchange.

That said, I think it's a basic human right to not have good body parts cut off. This applies equally to males and females.

LifeinBath · 2013-12-28T04:33:17+00:00

Starting to think OscarWardProductions is just trying to pick a fight, guys. In the other circumcision thread, he is basically just trying to justify MGM and prove that FGM is worse no matter what.

P3RUN · 2013-12-28T05:23:17+00:00

Oscar, I looked back through some of your previous comments, and it seems like you have no idea whatsoever what the Men's Rights Movement is about. I'm posting this because I honestly want to help you, and the fact that you came over here to debate shows that you're not blocking yourself off from contrasting views.

You make this assumption that feminism is inherently pro-equality, and since sometimes the MRM clashes with feminism, the MRM must be opposed to equality. What you must understand is that feminism doesn't always promotes equality. Sometimes feminism stands for equality, while sometimes it simply puts women ahead of men. The movement isn't perfect; no movement ever could be. Feminism, like everything else in the world, is not infallible. Sometimes, feminists argue for policies that would not promote gender equality - such as lowering standards of evidence in trials when men are accused of crime and promoting disproportionate government spending that favors women over men. I'm not saying every feminist stands for these unequal policies, just that some of them do, and those feminists need to be argued against.

In other words, the MRM only opposes feminism when feminism promotes inequality. But opposing certain aspects of feminism is only an extremely small part of what the MRM is about. The bulk of the movement - almost the entirety of it - is about promoting equality for men. I would encourage you to look through what we stand for, as there are many areas where men are discriminated against, circumcision being just one of many. I think you fundamentally misunderstand our movement, and the both of us would be better off if you were to educate yourself about it.

The MRAs who equate FGM to MGM - if any - would make up an extremely small minority. It seems to me like you are just looking for any possible chance you can find to demonize our movement, perhaps because you have been misinformed about what we stand for.

I wrote the entirety of this solely for you, so I hope it has an effect on you. I don't care if you want to call yourself a feminist or not; your actions speak louder than the labels you give to them. And if you truly advocate gender equality, you'll find yourself an ally with the MRM.

SporkTornado · 2013-12-28T03:58:50+00:00

you mentioned harsh and unsanitary conditions. I believe that harsh and unsanitary conditions are beside the point and it would still be considered as brutal even if it took place in a sterile lab environment with ample amounts of anti biotics and pain killers to ensure the woman felt no paid. and did not get an infection. sure male genital mutilation is not as brutal as female genital mutilation. but just because getting your thumb chopped off is way less brutal than getting your whole arm chopped off. does not make it right to chop off someone's thumbs.

OscarWardProductions · 2013-12-28T04:03:13+00:00

There are many circumcised men who have no problems with being circumcised.

But there are also many men who suffer their whole life because of botched circumcisions.

There are also men who were circumcised later and can compare having sex with and without foreskin. And many report that sex never felt as good again after circumcision.

Our stance is that everyone should be able to make an informed decision if he wants to get circumcised or not. And not be cut when he is a baby.

We don't want to compare FGM and infant circumcision but point out that circumcision is equally pointless. Of no merit. Without consent.

WizzleTizzleFizzle · 2013-12-28T04:30:59+00:00

I'm not really expecting a meaningful debate based on your last line, so I'll try to keep this short and concise.

First:

Now at birth circumcision is something to be discussed but it doesn't have any drawbacks, yet FGM is usually done in harsh unsanitary conditions and leads severe scarring and loss of nerve endings, making sex less enjoyable.

If you don't think that circumcision leaves scars and removes nerve endings, and that this would in turn make sex less enjoyable, then I don't think you have a good grasp of exactly what is going on when a boy has his foreskin cut off.

But I would agree that FGM is more invasive, has more of an effect on function, and is generally just "worse" than circumcision. I don't think you'll find many people in this sub or elsewhere who think that FGM isn't a problem, or even that circumcision should be viewed quite as harshly.

But that's not to say that MGM is a non-issue, either. FGM is practiced in pretty localized areas (I'm looking at you, Africa) and affects a relatively small portion of the population (140 million based on the WHO facts I just Googled real quick - about 4.5% of the female population) It's seen by most of the world as extremely barbaric and detestable and has a pretty considerable campaign trying to put an end to it.

Meanwhile upwards of 1/3 of the male population worldwide will be circumcised (that's a little over a billion men, current population), and for the most part it's not just accepted but standard in many areas. To the point that uncircumcised boys will at times want to remove part of their genitalia to fit in. Think about that.

Bring up FGM and say "We should stop this!" and enjoy your 100% support from anybody you're with. Bring up MGM and say "We should stop this!" and see what kind of a reaction you get. Or just search the internet for places that have tried banning the practice and see how much support they get.

Point being: People dismiss MGM as an extremely trivial thing, and it's not. It's perhaps not as extreme as FGM but it is far more prevalent and doesn't have the same stigma as FGM at all. In the scope of what needs more awareness - of what needs a radical shift in public perception, as well as has the potential to affect more lives - MGM as an issue has been left behind.

In my opinion, nobody should have any part of their bodies removed without consent or medical necessity. That's what this boils down to, and in principal that's what makes MGM on par with FGM.

This was not short or concise. I'll stop now.
Thanks for stopping by :)

^* ^Apologies ⁱⁿ ^advance ^for ^any ^bad ^math ^or ^statistics. ^I ^threw ^this ^together ^pretty ^quick.

rightsbot · 2013-12-28T03:44:18+00:00

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

Ivan_Fackoff · 2013-12-28T04:52:57+00:00

Can we please just call it 'cutting' or 'genital alteration'?

vaguelycurious · 2013-12-28T14:50:12+00:00

Female infibulation, III female genital mutilation (FGM)—and in some African countries as "pharaonic circumcision"—is the removal of the labia minora (inner lips) and labia majora (outer lips). When the labial tissue heals, it forms a wall of skin and flesh across the vagina and the rest of the pubic area. By inserting a twig or similar before the wound heals, a small hole is created for the passage of urine and menstrual blood. The procedure is usually accompanied by the removal of the clitoris. The legs are bound together for two to four weeks to allow the labia to heal into a barrier. The procedure is usually carried out on young girls before the onset of puberty. It is a procedure conducted in several African countries, and in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. It is used by practitioners to render women sexually inactive, unlikely to engage in intercourse, and the visibly intact barrier of infibulation assures a husband he has married a virgin. The barrier produced by infibulation is usually penetrated at the time of a girl's marriage by the forcible action of the penis of her husband, or by cutting the connected tissue with a knife. The procedure frequently results in organ damage, urinary incontinence, obstetric fistula, and death. Copied straight from wikipedia- my point being, although I do not agree with involuntary, non-medical male circumcision, can that be equated to the above- a procedure that turns women into passive receptive sexual objects, not only giving them value through their virginity, but also removing any possibility of sexual pleasure, by the removal of the clitoris. This and the sheer brutality of the procedure. For scale, over 8 million girls have had this done to them. For me, both are wrong, but using the same terminology makes them sound equal in severity, which I think is wrong.

not_shadowbanned_yet · 2013-12-28T15:54:05+00:00

This is not true- female genital mutilation ranges in degrees of severity, even the ritualistic piercing, which removes nothing physically, is considered female genital mutilation.

The idea that nothing is lost is a blatant lie- no mechanism has ever been suggested for how the removal of sensitive and functional tissue could not cause a decrease of sensation.

MGM is done to limit and control sexual pleasure, it is a violation, I don’t care what you are comfortable with- they are the same.

Title	Circumcision Debate
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	0
Comments	42
Date	December 28, 2013 3:43 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1tur62/circumcision_debate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/circumcision-debate.1155035 https://theredarchive.com/post/1155035

Comments