Taking a person and without that person's consent chopping a part of it off is a mutilation.

By your logic, it's also immoral to do life-saving surgery on a child "without consent" of the child instead of the parents.

I'm neither pro nor anti circumcision. I am circumcised and two out of three of my brothers were. Circumcision was predominant at our grade school, and I can remember my youngest brother, the one without the snip, asking my Mom if he could get the operation, because he felt like a freak for not having it!

Lower rate of HIV would be a good argument for circumcision, but the main problem with the operation is, by the time you're old enough to know that, you're also old enough to make it a difficult and traumatic experience.

They say that uncircumcised men respond better sexually, but I haven't read any evidence of that, and definitely, their sex partners don't seem to know the difference. I would think that their sex partners, especially gay ones, would notice this. Perhaps there is gay, uncircumcised cock porn somewhere out there that plays this off, but I haven't heard of it.

Failed analogy. Circumcision can be medically neccessary, and I have absolutely no issue at all with non consensual medically neccessary procedures performed on infants. But we are talking about ritual circumcision.

Okay, I didn't read the subject carefully enough. I didn't know that was the modifier.

I realize you have absolutely no issue with non-consensual medical procedures, for children who can't consent, but that does contradict the title, which deals only with consent. Apparently, it's not central to your objection.

If the parents believe that circumcision is important to the child's ultimate destiny, then, as illogical as it is, they have the best interest of him at heart. Does this excuse it? No, it's a mitigating factor. There's a good reason why parents should choose their beliefs responsibly.

If circumcision were so terrible, you would have had rebellions against it within the faiths where it's practice. God or no, somebody would have said, hey wait. However, as far as I could tell, there has never been such a rebellion in the Jewish faith. Not on that issue.

As it is, I don't find any reason to believe it's worse than a large tattoo. It definitely isn't nearly as bad as some of the body modifications now.

the point is not that circumcision is "so terrible", although it is in fact a medical procedure that is not without risk and when done to infants it is done without anesthesia, which is in fact bordering very close to terrible if not crossing the line.

What other surgical procedures should we allow to be performed on infants without benefit of anesthesia and with no medical justification just because their parents want it done?

"I don't believe it is any worse that a large tattoo" - seriously? You are wrong about that, but I really don't think tattooing infants should be permitted either.

Since few guys adult guys can are in a position to give an unbiased comparison of having circumcised dick to having an uncircumcised one (and they would be biased by what they had been accustomed to) I could only go by my subjective experience. In other words, what any other guy says about the trauma of this operation is as good as my word as a circumcised male. To tell you the truth, I don't notice I'm missing anything, despite assurances by the uncircumcised that I've lost a lot, I don't feel it. So I don't feel the injustice or cruelty of it.

In fact, I'll go as far to say that since adult males can't make this comparison until they've been both circumcised and uncircumcised, it's impossible for any of us to make an informed adult decision about getting the procedure for ourselves. So, I find the periodic outrage over circumcision to be odd. Yes, tattoo is an apt comparison. In conventional circumcision (there are forms of it practiced elsewhere that are absolutely barbaric.

You talk about anesthetic for infants, but you've forgotten that anesthetic itself is dangerous. That's why you have an anesthesiologist, to make sure it doesn't kill you, or disable you. It's especially risky with infants who don't have a liver that can reliably metabolize such drugs. To impose anesthetic on a circumcision would make the surgery less painful, maybe, but at the cost of having some worse, painful, debilitating, long-term complications, including fatalities.

You also presume that the mind of a newborn is anything like the mind of an adult or even a four-year-old child. You can't expect that they're going to react to pain with long-term trauma in any way similar to what we experience as adults or remember as children.

As for the "child's ultimate destiny," as an atheist, let me explain this. The parents believe the child having that circumcision will affect where and how he spends his eternity. I know. I can't take that seriously, either. To them, however, this is a little more important than something medical.

I'm not interested in outlawing circumcision, I get that people come to different conclusions based on a bunch of different factors, but personally, for me, I find the practice unjustifiable.

Not that it's done because of that, it just worked out like that.

But, yeah, I hear you. I still don't think it's justified, but I also realize that people need to work stuff out for themselves. I'm not one of these people who needs to make everyone else's decisions for them.

Like how many folks we have running around who consider themselves perfectly well placed to second-guess every choice that other consenting adults want to engage in, down to their swimwear. I don't get it. I've got enough on my own plate.

...while I'm sympathetic to those who are sensitive to the b, p, r, c, n, and w words, I feel pity for the fact that they chose to throw energy into the direction of being so hurt by them.

Typically, their hurt by these words make the words stronger, so I sort of stay out of it, except to say, maybe, "Hey, that wasn't nice what you just said."

Mutilated, yeah, I guess my penis is mutilated, just like my heart and soul. You can't get through 55 years without some damage!

that it's really nobody else's damn business whether it's a mutilation or a common surgical procedure done at the time.

And I do not ever, under any circumstances, consider myself a victim because of it.

(Now let's get back to that female "circumcision" that's really torture as practiced by some cultures and not get sidetracked over a non-problem.)

But we like it that way, thanks.

When they told you to "grind it", bro... That's not what they meant.

if her genitals were surgically altered *without her consent* I would describe it as mutilation.

If there were a religious practice that involve hacking away at a woman's breasts without her consent it would cause a major outcry.

How often on here have you seen support for FGM because it's been practiced forever and it's the families decision?

Are you getting a little confused? "Mutilated" is a description of a physical state, isn't it? It shouldn't matter whether or not it was volitional.

I think you need to examine your rhetoric.

Genital Mutilation
The destruction or removal of a portion or the entire external genitalia, which may occur in the context of a crime of passion or as part of a cultural rite
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/genital+mutilation

Circumcision is male genital mutilation.

mu·ti·late   [myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.


Your definition of imperfect or disfigured may vary.

So ramming a barbell through your nose might be mutilation to one person, but not to another because they believe it to be an improvement.

Unless there is a standard definition that everyone can adhere to for "imperfect" regarding human body modifications? If so could you provide said definition that 100% of humanity can agree to?

Last edited Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:11 AM - Edit history (1)

why do you suppose that is?

Mutilation is a subjective term since we all define physical perfection differently.

Someone may feel that a giant hole in their nose that they can run a ring through is an improvement. And they're right, for them it is.

Someone else may feel that such a thing would involve mutilating their nose. And they're right, for them it is..

You can't define what parts are acceptable to hack off for other people for cosmetic reasons.

They should define that for themselves.

"Mutilated" in reference to a circumcision, with rare exceptions, is the mark of a propagandist.

Carefully read any given definition of mutilation and explain to us how it does not fit to circumcision.

Im not upset bout it, but i do feel retroactively that the ethics involved were a bit questionable.

It makes me wonder what I'm missing sometimes.

but I'm not offended..it takes a lot for me to get to that point. You won't see me changing my tune and becoming part of the word police either.

I'm circumcised..actually pretty happy about it too...at least from a hygiene point of view. I've been told by a woman on more than one occasion, of a preference for a circumcised penis...cleanliness being the chief factor.

I realize a lot of people here for whatever reason like to refer to it as "mutilation".. but it's just hyperbole and weakens their case. I look upon circumcision as a common practical procedure that should remain the choice of the parents.

It obviously hurt like a son of a bitch.

Wished I could have a do-over on that decision.

But on the upside, he got married on Saturday to a really wonderful woman, so I guess all's well that ends well.

however, she found some resources that convinced her that a foreskin or lack thereof has nothing to do with a Jewish identity, so by the time she was 9 mo. she was leaning towards "against".

Despite being the secular Atheist in the family, I was actually slightly leaning in the "for" column, mostly because "well that's how I am and..." along with the experiences of other family members who weren't (and grew up in times and places where that was out of the ordinary) and had been a little uncomfortable with the decision.

But the birth was real tough, long, and I felt pretty bad for my son by the time he came out. I held him when they pricked his foot for a glucose level, and the way I felt when he screamed... at that moment I couldn't imagine letting anyone do anything to him that wasn't ABSOLUTELY necessary.

... we kicked it around in the post-delivery room for about a half a day, and at one point my wife and I looked at each other and were both like "you know, if thinking about this is making us so miserable, let's just not do it"

So, we didn't. Haven't regretted the decision once. Wouldn't 2nd guess anyone else's choice, but I feel we made the right one for us.

Mutilation is cutting to alter its appearance is a word perfect description of what circumcision is.

I've been mutilated for a Roman Catholic tradition I want no part of. I am fully agnostic. I wasn't given a choice in infancy.

Sex is challenging for me because of diminished sensitivity. It pisses me off and I think all people and children have a right to their genital integrity.

but since Jesus is the prime role model and he was circumcised in Jewish tradition it follows many xtians will follow his example.

or doctor, just wasnt sure why the church got blamed for it.

I am not sure what you're getting at but I guess you agree that there is no good reason to cut a baby's junk.

One is that it is more hygienic without that pocket for smegma and bacteria to culture.

Another is that it reduces the chance of HIV and other venereal diseases. 3 independent blind studies proved it.

Another is that I am circumcised and I chose to have my own sons circumcised. Parents make decisions for their kids all the time -you just want to pick and choose which ones you think are okay and then say other people's are not. It doesn't work that way. The way it works is I raise my kids, you raise yours and that's that.

If you are worried about children as much as you say, go help millions of starving kids in Africa. A small contribution will actually make a difference whereas telling people here that is is a horrible crime to circumcise kids will do nothing.

Bullshit on the studies. I do believe these questionable studies were conducted by those with an agenda to keep this dangerous, ancient, barbaric practice going. Their is plenty to suspect as there are many, many infected among the circumcised.

Studies also suggest this is the case.

But that doesn't invalidate my statement either. Some people do not wash enough and some people maybe cannot wash enough. Many scenarios are imaginable such as physical disability, lack of access to soap and water (poverty, work conditions, etc)

So if we can agree that in theory being circumcised reduces the risk of bacterial infections as well as the spread of viruses (as studies shown), then whether it is NECESSARY or DESIRABLE becomes really an issue of opinion and choice. --As in I will choose what I think is best for me and my family and you do the same for yours.

One: If you are suggesting they wait until the age of consent, 18, it means 18 years of possible increased risk of the medical conditions I have already mentioned.

Two: The cost of the procedure is probably out of the reach for many by the time they are adults.

Three: The fear of pain, the loss of work, the temporary inability to have sex and other side-effects of the operation as an adult would make it more difficult.

That's why it has to be inflicted upon a baby to keep this obsolete, superstitious and harmful ritual alive.

Neither have you shown it to be superstitious or harmful.

That to me, pal, is a full-on failure.

I agreed that an adult is likely to pass on the procedure for the reasons you listed. It is still dangerous as babies are more vulnerable to infection and frequently die and circumcisions often go very bad. It is superstitious if one believes it will move one closer to gawd. It is obsolete because it never really did repel disease. It is harmful because, by design, it attenuates sexual sensitivity. In Africa it is extra harmful because many have been mislead to believe they are immune and engage in reckless activity and often before they have fully healed.

You talk about superstition, but you are the one engaging in magical thinking.

To make the claim that it inflicts extra harm in Africa because it encourages reckless activity is beyond preposterous and is rich with irony since it is a life saving procedure simply if one goes with the numbers that are suggested by the 3 studies showing a dramatic decrease in the spread of HIV and other venereal diseases.

As for closeness to God, I do not think that many of the circumcisions done around the world are for that reason.

And as for the attenuation of sexual sensitivity, you cannot know what my penis feels like and I cannot know what yours feel like. The human nervous system is incredibly adaptive as is the brain and I strongly suspect that the nerve endings lost as a baby are made up for with other neural connections. But then again, sex is more in the head than the head of the penis.

Thanks for the great conversation and welcome to DU.

high school were Catholics. I asked a Catholic bishop about that once, when we were talking about religious beliefs. He said that many Catholics in the first half of the twentieth century rejected circumcision for the very reason that the Jewish faith required it and that Catholics sometimes tried to set themselves apart from Judaism in that way. He also said that there is nothing in Catholicism that requires circumcision. The Roman Catholic Church's views toward Judaism have changed over the years. But, I'm not in high school any more, so I don't see a lot of penises these days, so i don't know what the style is now.

us, lol

Sorry.

FORCED! TO! EAT! CAKE!


NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

thought it was just an american thing

So there is an element of "forcing" them to eat it until they figure out how it tastes.

Sort of like how penetrative sex is a "patriarchal construct" and a crazy gun-wielding nutjob's fantasies of killing billions of humans is "brilliant", "necessary" and "delicious".

Or how Ed Meese is a "trusted ally" and Religious Right homophobic asshats like Judith Reisman and Donald "He Restoreth Me" Hilton are valued 'scientific' sources.


I know, i dont get it either.

seems to me that most of the porn online is done by the actual person in the picture nowadays, some of the forums i frequent are nothing but self images in all sorts of poses and situations.

That headlong probably caught your attention.

http://index.healthboards.com/menshealth/bacterial-infection-penis-foreskin/1/

One quick look at this Men's health board page should satisfy any question as to whether men's foreskins can get infected easily.

Sure, you can probably help the problem out by washing. But it is not always easy and circumcision apparently makes this infection problem go away.

So if that is not a good enough reason for you, I am sorry. But it should at least be enough for people to shut the F up and allow others to make their own choices.

I don't believe it is medically justifiable, personally, but I'm not in favor of laws around it.

Opinions vary and everyone thinks they have good reasons.

It would be the height of arrogance to believe that your own opinion trumps everyone else's to such a degree that you would advocate a criminal punishment for having your child circumcised.

Some people rise to that height.

ankle shown provocatively, for others the very idea that someone may be having fun. personally i think that its live and let live.

Also, most of the people screaming that circumcision needs to be stopped frighten me with their near-religious stridency. It makes me not trust what's behind their stance and suspect something else is going on. Is it just a control thing or is it something else.

One only needs to look at all the healthy, normal happy people that are circumcised in order to see that it isn't a big deal. Be against it if you want, but don't try to elevate it to some crazy over-the-top discussion of it being mutilation. That makes you sound like an American fundie wackjob.

But it is my own personal position that it is morally questionable. Deeply.

But I disagree.

I come from a Jewish family, believe me, I get it.

Oh, sorry, I thought you said "multitalented"

Can you throw it over your shoulder like an old garden hose?

even if its ugly as hell thats what the lights are for

FWIW, circumcision is mandated in Islam as well. Many people do not realize this, and a groom expecting to marry a Muslim lass in a religious ceremony WILL be checked by the Islamic equivalent of a moil, and if some business needs to be attended to, they'll expect to do it.

Oh yeah.

Of course, not all circumcisions are religious oriented. I know people look at my avatar and assume I am circumcised because I am Jewish, and their assumptions are incorrect. My circumcision had nothing to do with religion as my mother was Methodist at the time, and had yet to meet my Jewish step-father.

Or is there a particular style of penis-throwing that is particular to Continental soldiers?

See, the lyrics here are a bit unclear.

I've never seen the move executed, though, so I can't be certain!

If I had to guess, I think they're likening the effort to the shouldering of a weapon when an infantryman goes on the march!

Perhaps the lyrics are obscure to preserve the mystery...?

On edit, nevermind somebody asked Yahoo LOL


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080623212303AAwJfex

End of story.

but it's still early, here. Night is young.

Sometimes I don't. I was only circumsized "because Daddy was," which I hear is a very common excuse. Personally I think it should be outlawed. Other times I don't. I usually don't think about it unless there's a cut/uncut battle at 4chan... Yeah I'm ashamed, but I go there... Mainly to see the dicks...

It's a secret.