Reading the Queensland Criminal Code when suddenly...

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kmmeerts 15 points16 points17 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kmmeerts 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Roddy0608 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YKWDPM 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Guns-Cats-andRonPaul 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago* (70 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps it is because male and female circumcision are not the same thing? I don't like male circumcision but I don't see how it is comparable to female circumcision.

Edit: I really love the /r/MensRights community, but I forgot that you cannot argue some things.

So I will just post some things here so I do not have to reply to the individual comments saying, "OMG MORE NERVE ENDINGS"

Whether or not the clitoris has more nerve endings or not, it does not matter, you are removing it entirely so from a feeling perspective, we are going to give female circumcision a 0 on the sexual pleasure scale. The foreskin, while containing nerve endings, is not the main source of pleasure for male genital stimulation. Therefore, you can remove the foreskin entirely and some pleasure can still be had. We will give it a 7 on a pleasure scale while natural will be a 10.
There was a large survey done in 2001 on Australian men. 19% reported sex being better circumcised, 19% reported sex being better natural, 19% said no difference, the rest were unsure if there was a difference.
Female circumcision has no health benefits. At least with male circumcision, phimosis and balanitis are not heard of. Intact men are also 4 times more likely to have a UTI than a circumcised male. There is also evidence to suggest that circumcision may slightly decrease a mans chance at contracting STDs.

So TL:DR While male circumcision has some benefits, and the gains outweigh the risks (it's rare that they are messed up), there are hardly any significant health gains, it simply isn't worth it. However my point is not male circumcision should be practiced, my point is that having your clitoris and labia removed is much more sinister. Plus the two aren't even connected, this is MENSRIGHTS, not "complain about women." I'm AGREEING with you all on the important part, male circumcision shouldn't be practiced and done without consent, what I don't get is why we are comparing it to women and complaining about how their circumcision is illegal when ours is not.

[–]What_Is_X[S] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1: The magnitude of sensitivity is irrelevant. You are forcibly cutting off a part of someone's body without their consent. That is grievous bodily harm and in my mind, child abuse.

2: That survey is meaningless. No men who were circumcised as children can know whether it is better or worse than normal. Only those who are voluntarily circumcised as adults would know, and there's no problem with that.

3: The health benefits argument is firstly bullshit and secondly irrelevant. If you wash your penis, there is no difference between circumcised and uncircumcised. And of course, even if there were health benefits, this does not give you the right to mutilate a child.

Female genital mutilation is horrible and a SERIOUS criminal offence. Male genital mutilation is horrible, but socially acceptable. Fuck this shit.

[+]Eryemil 14 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps it is because male and female circumcision are not the same thing? I don't like male circumcision but I don't see how it is comparable to female circumcision.

Why do they have to be 100% comparable for one to be completely legal while the other is not?

There are more than one type of FGM as there is more than one type of MGM. Some rare forms of MGM are as bad as the worst forms of FGM, but I'm sure you've never heard of them. Also, some forms of FGM are much less invasive than male circumcision as you probably know it.

It's so fucking disingenuous when people like you compare the very worst form of FGM to the most common form of MGM while ignoring the fact that even the mildest, less severe forms of FGM are illegal.

[...] we are going to give female circumcision a 0 on the sexual pleasure scale.

That's funny because many circumcised females, like most circumcised men, will state outright that they can enjoy sex just fine. Sexual pleasure is subjective so while an overall decrease in sensation is possible and measurable stating that it decreases sexual pleasure 100% is unscientific nonsense.

There was a large survey done in 2001 on Australian men. 19% reported sex being better circumcised, 19% reported sex being better natural, 19% said no difference, the rest were unsure if there was a difference.

Was this the same subject where the surveyed men were suffering from phimosis? I would like to see a citation for this if you don't mind.

That said, not only are self-reported surveys not as reliable as measurements in this context, due to the nature of the injury a newly circumcised penis will be hypersensitive for a while after the surgery which will offset the loss of nerves. And this is without taking into account the gradual thickening of the glans mucosa over time due to friction.

Female circumcision has no health benefits.

That we know of. Everyone's in the countries that actually do research is too busy condemning it to actually try to come up with reasons to justify it. Male circumcision existed in our countries well before there was every any medical reason for it. It's always been a disease searching from a cure, instead of epilepsy these days it's supposed to cure HIV.

At least with male circumcision, phimosis and balanitis are not heard of [...]

And if you cut off a boy's testicles he won't get testicular cancer, not really the greatest argument. That said, balanitis does occur among circumcised men and phimosis only affects less than 1% of adult men and can be treated less invasively the overwhelming majority of the time.

Intact men are also 4 times more likely to have a UTI than a circumcised male.

Do you have a link for this? According to the AAP the studies that showed any link between circumcision and UTIs have since been invalidated due to flawed methodology.

Even if the hadn't though, even by the best estimates circumcision would have only been able to reduce UTIs by 10% according to those discredited studies, bringing the overall incidence from 1% to 0.1%. This means that at most it would have a maximum benefit of 1% which would in turn mean that hundreds of otherwise healthy boys that would never get a UTI would have to be circumcised to prevent a single UTI.

For the record. In infant girls, who get UTIs much more often than boys, we usually use antibiotics/antimycotics to treat the condition without having to resort to amputation.

So TL:DR While male circumcision has some benefits, and the gains outweigh the risks [...]

In my opinion you've mostly failed to substantiate that circumcision does in fact have benefits to begin with. It is however particularly disingenuous to say that said benefits outweigh the risks considering all the complications that can result from circumcision, the gravest of them being death.

[...] my point is that having your clitoris and labia removed is much more sinister.

What about having your clitoral hood removed, should that be allowed?

Plus the two aren't even connected [...]

Non-therapeutic, irreversible genital surgery performed on a party that cannot consent. No, they're nothing alike—I see that now.

Plus the two aren't even connected, this is MENSRIGHTS, not "complain about women.

We're not complaining about women. We're complaining about the fact that the legal protections from genital mutilation automatically granted to females is not extended to males; this is discrimination and we don't like that.

[...] what I don't get is why we are comparing it to women and complaining about how their circumcision is illegal when ours is not.

You've got that backwards. We're complaining that it is legal to mutilate our genitals while it is not legal to mutilate theirs.

[+]earl_sleek 14 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh great just what we needed, another fucking random coming in here and acting like he knows what's going on, great.

[–]Eryemil -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear 20 points21 points22 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kazaril -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Stratisphear 16 points17 points18 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kazaril -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drockers 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kazaril 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pahncrd 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]codexx33 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil2 points 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]drockers 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]waspinator 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]drockers 13 points14 points15 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

The glans(head) of the penis was never meant to be an external organ. It's meant to be moist, hidden, and sheltered. When you cut off the forskin you expose it to the elements permanently, it drys up, gets rougher, and the glans is desensitized. This causes lubrication problems and problems with actually cumming.

Not to mention the forskin has about 5,000 nore nerve ending than the clitoris, so if you're judging this by a pleasure standard the forskin is "more important". The action of the forskin sliding again the glans is the most pleasure a man can receive from masturbation/hand job.

During sex the forskin rolls back creating a pleasure bump for both the man and woman, also sealing off the vaginal canal more thoroughly keeping more sperm inside her.

So no from a sexual, biological, and emotional standpoint male circum. is worse than female circum.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobandgeorge -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ohreallynowz -6 points-5 points-4 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]Eryemil 14 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

This is not a 'which side gets mutilated worse' contest.

It's not. All genital mutilation should be illegal, period.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ohreallynowz -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ohreallynowz -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YesImSardonic 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Wulibo 14 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

I'd like you to know that I downvoted you not because I disagree, but because you had to complain about having to back up your opinion before actually doing so.

If you make a claim, any claim, you need to give a reason for it, or else it's a circlejerk. Jerking about something most of the community does not agree with simply makes no sense, so stop complaining that you were downvoted for making a statement without explaining it.

[–]Democritus477 -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I just wrote an entire essay to what you replied to me just now, and I'm now going to post it here because what you said was both unacceptable and illogical.

As for my comment, I did back it up.

The hell you did.

Alright, I didn't write a damn essay. I was trying to be brief, but I see that I was clearly too brief. Here you go.

Opinions need logical evidence, by Wulibo

In the world of the internet, there are a lot of differing opinions. They range everywhere on the political spectrum, and some defy that spectrum altogether. There are ignorant opinions, informed opinions, conflicting opinions, and fake opinions that simply came from someone who is trying to make people upset through "trolling." However, in an intellectual debate, even an opposing or ignorant opinion, if well-thought-out and presented with evidence, deserves recognition. Opinions are simply opinions, and cannot be outright proven in most cases; they are often the meat of who we are, and are something we should be proud to share, but only carefully. Finally, by arguing your opinion, you may be able to change even the most ignorant of minds if done well. For these reasons, it is always important, when attempting any sort of intellectual discourse, to back up any claims you make with logical thought.

Many people claim to have the "correct" opinion, when this is not truly something someone can have. Everyone has opinions, and it is very difficult to be objective most of the time. We often get very personally involved, and accidentally do not see the bigger picture, therefore making our opinions less valid. However, even an objective opinion is liable to be different from another, equally intelligent and objective opinion, through different trains of thought. If opinions could be right or wrong, they would simply not be opinions! The dictionary defines an opinion as, "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." We can look at a theory or law of science that is empirically correct, and say, "this is fact;" looking at an opinion does not give this same definition, and ergo cannot be strictly factual.

Even without objective fact backing them up, opinions are extremely important, as they represent a lot of who we are. Philosophy is often concerned with what makes a person that person; this is called the problem of self. It is impossible to label the self as a physical body or the ego, as both change. However, many experts agree that a combination of a few things can make someone an individual. Through physically being the same person, and having certain opinions and mindsets, we maintain our own personage, which is something very dear to us. So, by being proud human beings, and putting ourselves out there, we gain an opportunity to better ourselves, and hopefully others, by being proven wrong, or proving others wrong. And how can even the most obvious of facts prove anyone wrong if it is not backed up sufficiently?

For intellectual discourse has more than one goal; it is important to improve the minds of all those involved. By arguing your points with clearness and strength, not only do you have the ability to change faulted or harmful opinions, bettering the minds of those who held them, but you have the ability to read articulated thoughts from other equal minds, and consider any faults you may have yourself. One cannot call themselves an intellectual unless they take part in this regularly, as a means of self-improvement, and improvement of the world. It is certainly fun to call out poorly thought out arguments, but we simply do not persevere against such things unless we ourselves deviate from this poor behaviour.

In conclusion, I allude to the initial comment made by Guns-Cats-andRonPaul which sparked this debate, and gave genesis to this essay. While in its current state, the arguments presented here are valid to varying degrees, there was one point that the comment did not say this. This is evident by the asterisk to the right of the post info, which is a device reddit uses to signify an edit was done on the post. The poster even goes so far as to show where the edit begins. Before this edit, it simply read as one opinion without anything additional. As a result, the users of reddit who saw it enacted "downvotes" upon it, a method with which reddit users show that a comment is not adding to discussion. However, after the edit, it has since received a large amount of "upvotes," which show contribution. We need to recall, however, that Guns-Cats-andRonPaul had to complain about going out of his way to back up his out-of-place claim in a subreddit designed for intelligent discourse only. It is therefore more than reasonable to say that this comment deserved one more downvote, as this is not the sort of behaviour one should show in any sort of forum dedicated to rational thought and equality.

[–]Democritus477 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I deleted the quoted comment because it was unnecessary rudeness, and I realized that a couple minutes after posting it. So I'm not going to try to defend it to you.

That said, I will respond to this comment. Most of it is thoroughly pointless, dealing only with trivialities. The only important part is near the end:

We need to recall, however, that Guns-Cats-andRonPaul had to complain about going out of his way to back up his out-of-place claim in a subreddit designed for intelligent discourse only.

As I mentioned earlier, I would not expect someone to provide evidence for a claim which appears obvious. Your post contains many such claims:

Many people claim to have the "correct" opinion, when this is not truly something someone can have.

Opinions are extremely important, as they represent a lot of who we are.

For intellectual discourse has more than one goal; it is important to improve the minds of all those involved.

Note that I don't challenge you on these statements. That would be needlessly adversarial, and a waste of everyone's time.

Now back to OP's comment. He said that "male and female circumcision are not the same thing". To me this appears obvious. For one thing, MGM usually means removing the foreskin, whereas FGM means removing the more sensitive clitoris.

Many people disagreed, but only to point out that the difference is one of degree, not of nature. To my mind, this reinforces that OP's claim is indeed obvious. Therefore attacking him for not spelling out his precise thinking is needlessly adversarial, and a waste of everyone's time.

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]t1k 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]lwrun -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]rhinestones 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Democritus477 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_Duelist 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Eryemil 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YesImSardonic 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_Duelist 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No...it really isn't. After female circumcision you literally cannot enjoy sex ever again. After male circumcision, sex is apparently just a bit dulled. (And you can still orgasm, in fact 50% of men could not tell if there was a difference in sexual pleasure with or without foreskin) The only comparison I think that could be made is female circumcision is equivalent to cutting off the entire head of a male penis.

Yeah, except the procedure performed as an adult is different than the one done on a child, where the foreskin is part of the glans.

And no. Have you had sex with a woman before, or had sex as a woman? There are other erogenous zones that a woman posses other than the clitoris. It'd be just 'a bit dulled'.

Fuck off. You're removing more than 80% of the nerve endings of the penis, and the 'labia sewn shut' thing is rarely done. There are also forms of cirucmcision that remove the fucking glans tissue, but we don't talk about those, do we?

[–]rhinestones 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Kazaril -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cartesian_Duelist 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Roddy0608 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kautylia -3 points-2 points-1 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]What_Is_X[S] 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]takatori 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

It's because the only time MGM is more than a circumcision is when they're intentionally trying to cause harm. FGM is a cultural practice used in many countries and women who don't get it aren't considered women. There are three types of FGM. One involves the removal of the clitoris. Another the removal of the clitoris and labia, the third is removing the clitoris and the labia, then sewing the vagina shut, only to be sliced open with a dagger on the wedding might. And if the man goes away on a trip, he can sew her back up. And these "procedures" aren't in some nice sterilized doctors office. It's in the woods with a women with a kitchen knife or dagger. And the reasons for it are ridiculous. From, it will make women less likely to have premarital or adultery sex, to it causes cancer, to it will poison the baby upon birth/make breast milk poisonous to the baby. MGM is not mentioned because no one's castrating their sons. People do this to their own daughters.

I'd just like to say, I am male, not a feminist, and usually support what I see here on r/MensRights but I had to say this.

[–]Eryemil 10 points11 points12 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Doctor_Loggins 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This form is given special treatment because it's a particular practice that's common enough that it deserves it [...]

This is argumentum ad populum. By this reasoning if the countries that ban FGM but not MGM suddenly see an influx of immigrants from places where the former is legal and they become the majority then this would be a reason to legalize FGM—it would not.

[...] usually, at the behest of the parents where the child doesn't know what's going on.

How does this change the ethical impact of it? More importantly, how does this differentiate it from other forms of genital mutilations? Some forms of FGM are performed on infants as well.

I don't see it as such because to be honest I'm pretty happy with my circumcision.

You might be surprised to learn then that most circumcised women are also happy with their circumcision, in fact they like the practice so much that they perpetuate it upon their daughters. Your feelings are irrelevant when it comes to establishing whether male circumcision is mutilation or not; either it fits the definition or it doesn't. If cutting off a largely useless body part such as the earlobes from an unconsenting party is considered mutilation, and it is, then amputating a boy's healthy, functional foreskin certainly is.

I don't have to pull back a foreskin to properly clean myself [...]

Is this even an argument I should grace with a reply? You are happy a good chunk of one of your most precious body parts is missing because it would take you 2 seconds more to clean once a day?

Seriously? As far as body parts that are a pain to clean, the ears and between the toes are much more of a pain. You'd probably have been happy if your parents cut those off too, wouldn't you?

[...] and it was done at a young enough age that I have no recollection of neither the incident itself, nor any pain that may have resulted of it.

So if I shock my baby daughter with a small cattle prod, enough to cause her excruciating pain but not to kill her, then it is not unethical because she will not remember it as an adult? What about if I take an adult man from his home, drug him deep into unconsciousness and fuck him then put him back in his house without him ever knowing? (I could have done that to you and you'd never know it)

[–]Celda 8 points9 points10 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rhinestones 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Much more well-argued than the others who seem to be supporting your argument.

We need to remember that even though one doesn't happen nearly as much, it still happens, and should be illegal if it's horrible. Under these laws, it's debatably allowable to remove the full head of the penis, claiming it was simply extreme circumcision, not disallowed by the law. Any form of genital mutilation is wrong, and should be outlawed, even if FGM is generally more malicious and with worse consequences.

Whether or not MGM is beneficial all-in-all, it is an infringement of the rights of the child. It is better to let them decide once they're legally allowed to make other permanent decisions about their own body. Though you may argue that adult circumcision is worse because of pain, this is not true. Children can feel pain as well, or else they wouldn't cry from physical blows (spank of life?). However, because we don't know why they're complaining, we have no way of knowing that circumcision causes a lot of pain outright. Also, we simply cannot give them the same pain medication we could give a physically developed person. It is even traditionally only acceptable to anesthetize an infant using wine in judaism, so overall pain is far greater in child circumcision.

In conclusion, while FGM is probably more wrong than MGM, this is only marginally so, and both should be very clearly defined as illegal unless the subject is willing to have it done.

[–]foresthill 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ChristineJIgau -11 points-10 points-9 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhipIash 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I disagree. We're going for equality here on all fronts. Firstly, there's a huge debate about whether male circumcision is beneficial for the subject, so let's remove this from the picture for a moment, calling it a wash. Now, whether it's beneficial or not, there is a noticeable difference on the penis, which is a very culturally personalized part of the body for a man. Hell, I'd probably give up my arm sooner than my penis. If the man wants this procedure to be done, that's great, we should allow this. However, there is no reason the parents should ever have the right to in any way permanently alter the child without his consent, especially if it is on an extremely personal area, and it is not wholly beneficial enough to be necessary rights or no rights. It is quite simply an infringement of rights for the child just as much as it is for female genital mutilation.

Yes, the reason I am against it primarily is not that they look gross, don't feel the same, or are risky (all valid claims, to varying degrees), but because it infringes on the rights of the child. We should absolutely leave it until the child is old enough to make life-changing decisions himself legally. Some of you might be thinking, "well, it hurts quite a lot to have it done as an adult." So? What tells us it doesn't hurt the child just as much? The child can't complain about the excruciating pain, except through the crying it does night and day regardless, so we're not as careful. I was talking to a jewish friend of mine about this, and she was simply happy she got to drink wine as an infant. I asked how that was relevant, and she matter-of-factly replied that they're only allowed to anesthetize the child with a small amount of wine. Compared to the massive amounts of pain killers, adults would be put on, child circumcision is therefore more painful.

Now, comparing it to female genital mutilation... they are both an infringement on rights, but it is fair to say that female genital mutilation is more dangerous, and primarily negative in consequence. However, one thing being worse than another does not make the second thing okay. They are comparable, because they're the same act, and the only variation in degree is the amount of negative caused, which is not the primary reason we should not allow it.

Tattoos and piercings are allowed, even though they can get infected and hurt, but we don't let parents tattoo or pierce the body of a non-consenting child.

[–]ZimbaZumba 4 points5 points6 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 3 points4 points5 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChristineJIgau 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My apologies for coming off so hostile. I was pretty frazzled by the time I got to the bottom of this thread.

That said, you are projecting modern concepts into the past; in the conditions that circumcision would have been performed then it would have been many time more dangerous for a boy's health than leaving him intact—and in a way that even they would have noticed as the link between injury and death is a lot more ancient than germ theory.

All mammals, regardless of how far removed from us and with the exception of monotremes, have foreskins and you don't see them dropping dead by the dozen because of it. The only way such an adaptation remains so successful as to be nearly universal among an entire class of animals is because it is either fundamental in such a way that doing away with it would be more trouble than to continue evolving along the same rote (i.e bilateral symmetry) or because it is damn useful.

I'm not a religious person but comparing mgm to fgm is not a very comparable thing.

Why? One of the most devious and clever thing Western feminists have done in the genital mutilation debate is define FGM in the public consciousness by the worst forms of the procedure. There are types of FGM that are directly analogous or even less sever than male circumcision.

[–]ChristineJIgau 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No problems :) I'm guessing the reason why in nature animals dont get infections from their in circumcised junk is because they clean themselves with their own saliva (or the parents do). and I think the healthy bacteria in the saliva prevents infections.

And I'm with you... It's an old tradition that will hopefully phase itself out. Last night, I asked my boyfriend if he wished he wasn't circumcised and his response was like "meh". Now, some guys out there are probably really pissed off about having their foreskin removed, but if we took a vote on how being circumcised affects your life, I would wager that there are more psychological effects on women. And if I'm a product of feminist propaganda in my opinions then I am really sorry for my ignorance. I just don't know any girls who have had their privates disturbed. I guess that's why I'm a subscriber to this subreddit. Thanks for responding to me :)

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No problems :) I'm guessing the reason why in nature animals dont get infections from their in circumcised junk is because they clean themselves with their own saliva (or the parents do). and I think the healthy bacteria in the saliva prevents infections.

Horses can't even reach there and neither can many other species and even some that can don't exhibit self-licking behavior as you imagine it. Why are you assuming that there's something inherently harmful about mammalian genitals, and males one in particular? Smegma, which females also produce, serves a similar biological purpose as snot in that it captures pathogens.

There's very little difference in terms of hygiene between males and females, in fact I'd say that women would benefit a lot more from trimming of the external genital as they do not only generally have more "hidden" surface area, they also get genital infections many more times than men. Has it ever occurred to you that might be a good idea to cut off your labia as to make your vagina cleaner?

but if we took a vote on how being circumcised affects your life, I would wager that there are more psychological effects on women.

Circumcised women that haven't been contaminated with our Western ideas on the subject are generally as ambivalent about the practice. Have you ever watched interviews or read any essays by circumcised women? They tend to be just as quick to defend the practice as circumcised men.

If your idea of female circumcision is a practice that is solely perpetrated upon females by evil men then you need to update your views. The overwhelming majority of the time it is passed down from mother to daughter.

[–]ChristineJIgau 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well I'm not really assuming that there is something inherently wrong with male genitals.... But a quick wiki read on circumcision cites many reasons why boys have it done. Some even conflict. Something else I learned is that there is a significant percentage that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

I honestly don't know any ladies who have been circumcised... But any info I have received have been negative.... And also doing a quick wiki read on this kinda further fuels that fgm is not the same as mgm. In particular the type 4 fgm. Do you really think that sewing up the cervix is the same as the removal of the foreskin? You can still have sex... But in some cases of type 4 fgm someone literally has to cut the Vagina open to have sex.

I'm not sure if your one of those ppl that considers Wikipedia a reliable source, but if you compare the two.... It paints fgm way darker than circumcision. Well more like that there are more differences than similarities.

Are you circumsized? If so, do you remember having it done? How does it effect you?

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Something else I learned is that there is a significant percentage that circumcision helps prevent HIV.

Those studies are only relevant to very specific conditions, in this case sub-Saharan Africa and even then, they're widely disputed. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest circumcision has any impact on HIV transmission in the developed world, in fact there are studies that suggest otherwise e.g. it doesn't affect HIV transmission between two men or from man to woman and a recent military study supports the claim that it has no impact at all in the US.

Circumcision has always been a cure searching for a disease. Once upon a time it was used to cure epilepsy. If you try long enough to justify a practice that you are already invested in, something's bound to come up. Whether it has an impact on the transmission of certain STIs though, doesn't change the ethical arguments against it as babies are not sexually active.

I honestly don't know any ladies who have been circumcised...

They why don't you try to learn what they've got to say?

But any info I have received have been negative.... And also doing a quick wiki read on this kinda further fuels that fgm is not the same as mgm. In particular the type 4 fgm. Do you really think that sewing up the cervix is the same as the removal of the foreskin? You can still have sex... But in some cases of type 4 fgm someone literally has to cut the Vagina open to have sex.

Firstly, they don't sew up the cervix; that would be pretty damn hard to do. Secondly, this brings me to the first thing I said to you: you are being intellectually dishonest by comparing the worst forms of female circumcision with male circumcision as you know it. Genital mutilation is a spectrum from practices that are downright monstrous to some that are merely abusive or unpleasant. Would you say that cutting off a girl's clitoral hood is OK? It is directly analogous to the removal of the foreskin, even though the latter is much more functional.

Also, there are worse forms of MGM than circumcision, some of which are comparable to the worst forms of FGM such as subincision and penile skin stripping.

If so, do you remember having it done?

How is this relevant? Ignoring the fact that traditional Muslim circumcision, which makes up the majority of circumcisions in the world, is performed on older children that can remember it, why does it matter? Do you believe that doing something terrible to a person is any more justified if they can't remember it?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]SnazzyNannersz -9 points-8 points-7 points 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnazzyNannersz -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SnazzyNannersz -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]naraclan31fuzzy -2 points-1 points0 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EricTheHalibut[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]feefmeharder -21 points-20 points-19 points 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]rhinestones 11 points12 points13 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]feefmeharder -12 points-11 points-10 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wulibo 12 points13 points14 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 7 points8 points9 points 14 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle -5 points-4 points-3 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle -1 points0 points1 point 14 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

All forms of FGM are illegal in a good chunk of the developed world. That's where the discrimination kicks in. You can't say that banning the removal of the clitoral hood or a ritualistic injury to the clitoris yet allowing circumcision is not hypocritical.

I've never said that. Also, what about circumcision which involved only a ritual injury to the skin, only a small cut? The amount of nerves which will be damaged by that are less than those damaged by a ritualistic injury to the clitoris.

lso, the worst forms of MGM as as bad as the worst forms of FGM There are forms of MGM where they slice off the entire penis? Now, when things go wrong, that happens, but in the worst case for either of them, they die.

Also, please tell me which set of numbers has a higher average.

Set 1: 10, 15, 20 Set 2: 9, 18, 19

Set 2 does, even though it's lowest and highest are both lower than the lowest and higher of Set 1.

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Also, what about circumcision which involved only a ritual injury to the skin, only a small cut?

It doesn't exist. The least invasive forms of "circumcision" are those practiced in certain parts of Polynesia and Africa, where a hole is cut into the foreskin and the head of the penis is inserted through it or those where the foreskin is split open.

There are forms of MGM where they slice off the entire penis? Now, when things go wrong, that happens, but in the worst case for either of them, they die.

No, but there are no forms of FGM where the whole clitoris is removed either since most of its structure is internal. The worst forms of MGM are penile skin stripping, where all of the skin of the penis is removed and subincision where the penis is split open along the urethra from tip to base.

FGM and MGM are not analogous for the most part but they can still be compared in terms of how much function is lost.

No matter how hard to try to rationalize it, genital mutilation between the sexes is comparable.

[–]Lawtonfogle1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]nepidae -4 points-3 points-2 points 14 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 1 point2 points3 points 14 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

What are you talking about?

I was explaining to you why you and people like are uncomfortable with this particular subject among all other menrights issues, since you seem to lack the introspection to realize it yourself. If you can't see that the genital mutilation of males and the legal discrimination they face on the matter is relevant to this subreddit then there's something very odd going on in your head.

By the way, calling people who are circumcised both mutilated and crippled is probably the worst way to get people to look at your arguments objectively.

I have downvoted you in the past which most likely means you've said something stupid about circumcision. If you've been in /r/menrights for so long and still whine about circumcision being discussed here then you're not worth the time it'd take me trying to make you see reason.

Also, you're actually wrong when you say that it's a bad strategy to call you out so ruthlessly. Every group seeking change needs good and bad cops; think of yourself as a pawn that I've discarded in the hopes of taking more valuable pieces. Also, keep in mind that our most pressing aim is to convince parents to abandon the practice so making them feel like they've negotiated themselves to the position intellectually is advantageous.

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I find it interesting that you are so quick to judge my own ability at introspection. Perhaps you should do a little bit of introspection yourself, and discover your own real motivations before trying to divine my motivations.

In /r/MR saying something "stupid" about circumcision simply means I disagreed. In my view, men's rights is about being able to say my own mind about all the topics that men deal with. The problem is that on this topic, for many people there can be no opinions or dissenting thoughts.

And your final paragraph is exactly what I was talking about, though you said it more boldly than most. You seem to be trying your best to harden people's opinion as much as you can against your cause. By all rights I should be on your side, but I simply cannot agree with this type of tactic and you have made me want to distance myself away from you as much as I can.

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

In [1] /r/MR saying something "stupid" about circumcision simply means I disagree.

Some people "disagree" that the Earth is hundreds of millions of years old. Refusal to accept the obvious is stupidity.

And your final paragraph is exactly what I was talking about, though you said it more boldly than most. You seem to be trying your best to harden people's opinion as much as you can against your cause. By all rights I should be on your side, but I simply cannot agree with this type of tactic and you have made me want to distance myself away from you as much as I can.

Make no mistake, don't think for a second that I don't believe what I am saying—it is not just rhetoric for me. I do think it is sexually crippling mutilation and I am more than capable of substantiating that claim. I might not always say it because as you said yourself, is not always in my best interests to confront circumcised men hard with a truth they do not wish to hear and would probably not be able to accept.

Except in this case, it was advantageous. I made a judgement, based on past conversations, that trying to reason with you would be a waste of my time so I presented my argument with no regard to your feelings. You got downvoted while I got upvoted; to anyone reading this far down into the discussion it will be evidence that my views are socially acceptable and yours are not, at least within the MRM, and their dumb social animal brain will not allow them to forget that, because fitting in is pretty damn important to said brain.

I've been arguing this topic with stupid Americans for a very long time so I've gotten a pretty good handle on what works. While it might seem to you that all I am doing is being cruel (for the record, I don't actually use this tactic very often) the protection of boys and man has always been my main priority.

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]nepidae 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 0 points1 point2 points 14 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]nepidae1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Female circumcision and male circumcision are simply not the same. Just because they use the same english word, doesn't mean they are the same.

Actually, they are pretty much the same. FGM is an umbrella term for all non-theraputic practices that injury the genitals; like MGM it is a spectrum from least to more invasive. The less invasive forms of FGM are actually much less damaging than male circumcision.

Calling it mutilation is saying that even though you have a perfectly functional penis, it is mutilated.

Actually, a circumcised penis is not "perfectly functional". Its mechanical and sensory functions have been diminished in some very significant ways. Circumcision destroys a substantial amount of erogenous tissue but also the most fine-touch sensitive parts of the penis which confers a different sort of sensory ability altogether.

Have you ever actually seen the full range of motion of a healthy, adult penis? Not only is it mechanically beautiful, it is also quite useful. It provides practically frictionless movement during masturbation and intercourse, which not only stimulate the foreskin itself but also the glans of the penis. It also creates a seal which keeps lubrication within the receptive orifice.

And there's also of course the damage caused by friction and the drying properties of air to what remains of the penis after circumcision. I'm sure you've seen this image around if you've been posting on /r/MenRights for a while. It illustrates the difference between healthy mucousa (think inner eyelid) and the discolored, dried out and cornified surface of the circumcised penis.

Which is incorrect. If someone has a mutilated limb, that means it is either non-functional, or close to it.

Not really. If I cut off your earlobes I would have mutilated you as sure as if I had cut off your arm. The definition of mutilation does not entail a loss of function, just a loss of healthy body parts or even certain kinds of severe disfigurements.

[–]nepidae1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you do not understand the difference between male and female circumcision I will not argue with you about it, as it would be fruitless.

This is what rationalists call discussion ender. A rhetorical device employed to end the debate while attempting to maintain that you've in fact "won". Refusing to see your arguments to their logical conclusion is the same as a forfeit.

Why don't you tell me what you believe these differences to be?

Men, specifically in america, have been circumcised for a long time. Reproduction is happening, sexual pleasure is happening. That to me sounds functional.

Women in other parts of the world have been circumcised just as long and they claim to can enjoy sex and can reproduce just fine. Would you like to see some videos and essays of personal accounts from circumcised women where they say basically the same thing you just did?

It is interesting that your mutilation argument was cutting off the earlobes, seeing as they serve very little purpose to human functionality.

That was sort of the point. If cutting off even something that serves no apparent purpose falls under the definition of mutilation, then foreskin, which does serve a purpose certainly does.

[–]nepidae1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yes, if we disagree on terms, then it is best to end the discussion.

Just answer my very simple question: why do you believe FGM is different from MGM. That's all I want from you and it should not take you more than three minutes.

You apparently do not believe that circumsized men can enjoy sex [...]

This is a straw man, I've never claimed that. What I did say is that sexual pleasure is subjective so saying "I can enjoy sex just fine" is not much of an argument because anyone will use it if they can. Circumcised women certainly do, no matter how severe their mutilation.

You claimed that male circumcision did not degrade function—I showed you otherwise. How about you provide a rebuttal to my actual argument and show me some counter-evidence evidence of why circumcision does not degrade function?

You were the one who compared male circumcision to cutting off an earlobe, not me.

Yes I did, and I just told you why I did it. For the third time: you said that for something to be considered mutilation there had to be a loss of function. I disagreed and told you why.

If cutting off an earlobe is mutilation, and it is, then circumcision is also mutilation.

[–]nepidae1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil1 point 14 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

FGM is: removal of the clitoral hood, removal of the clitoris, removal of the labia, or worse

Actually, you forgot one type of FGM. All other practices which injury the female genitals including ritual blood-letting, incision etc which are unarguably less severe than male circumcision.

At best you could say that removal of the clitoral hood is the same as removing the foreskin, though I would absolutely disagree with you.

Removing the clitoral hood is directly analogous to male circumcision; it's the exact same structure except in females it is much more undeveloped. In women it contains thousands fewer nerve endings, fewer types of tissues, (the foreskin even has a muscle in it) many times less surface area and venosity and serves no mechanical function beyond the protection of the clitoris.

Removing the clitoral hood would actually have less impact on a woman's sexuality than removing a man's foreskin. I would love to see you attempt to argue otherwise.

You showed me nothing.

That is not a rebuttal. I want to see some counter-evidence why circumcision does not degrade the sensory, mechanical and structural function of the penis.

In case you need reminding, I provided evidence that:

Circumcision removes erogenous tissue as well as most of the fine-touch mechanoreceptors of the penis
Removes the optimal mechanical movement of the penis which is adapted to facilitating penetration and masturbation.
Further degrades the integrity of what's left of the penis after circumcision by exposing the fragile mucous membrane of the inner foreskin and glans to the elements.

If cutting off an earlobe is functionally meaningless, then circumcision is also functionally meaningless.

We were discussing whether circumcision could be termed "mutilation", not whether it resulted in a loss of function. If you haven't noticed, that particular topic is addressed above.

I disagree that circumcision does not degrade function, I think it does and I've provided evidence of that. But even if it didn't it would still be mutilation because there's no requirement of "loss of function" for something to be deemed such.

Circumcision is mutilation because it falls under the parameters of the definition.

[+][deleted] -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TalesAbound -17 points-16 points-15 points 14 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mean0dean0 9 points10 points11 points 14 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]TalesAbound -8 points-7 points-6 points 14 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]What_Is_X[S] 6 points7 points8 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitschu 5 points6 points7 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 14 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Reading the Queensland Criminal Code when suddenly...
Author	What_Is_X
Upvotes	265
Comments	168
Date	May 19, 2012 12:30 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tumxi/reading_the_queensland_criminal_code_when_suddenly/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/reading-the-queensland-criminal-code-when-suddenly.1021483 https://theredarchive.com/post/1021483

Comments