AlohaChris wrote:I fought with my wife over this issue for our boys. I did my research and decided there was no good medical reason to circumcise and it violated the first tenet: Do No Harm. My wife wanted the boys circumcised for 'aesthetic' reasons. She thought uncircumcised penises were 'gross'. In the end, I was unwilling to die on that particular hill.

It is not clear to me which of you won this argument, did your sons end up circumcised or not? My fiance and I occasionally go down this path, with the roles reversed. I've done more research on the topic, but he always holds with the so-called 'locker-room' argument, and not being male, I don't have a good response.

These days, at least in the US, it's done out of ignorance. Many people are raised to think it's more hygienic to be cut. There's also the cultural/aesthetic reason. Most people here just prefer the look and don't think about the butchery they're doing.

In both cases, it developed from a desire to attempt to control sexual desire. Simple as.

We should simply use the term "genital mutilation of infants" rather than the "circumcision" euphemism. Then people might finally start realising why it is so fucking evil.

I've heard that males sometimes get it done when they are older because of part of the skin preventing the foreskin from being pulled back without pain. I don't know, I think I'd rather not remember that procedure...

dylan wrote:I've heard that males sometimes get it done when they are older because of part of the skin preventing the foreskin from being pulled back without pain. I don't know, I think I'd rather not remember that procedure...

You wouldn't. Unlike with babies they use anaesthetic. But as babies cry anyway, it's ok to cause them great pain while mutilating them without their consent.

dylan wrote:I've heard that males sometimes get it done when they are older because of part of the skin preventing the foreskin from being pulled back without pain. I don't know, I think I'd rather not remember that procedure...

Yes, that's the case for a tiny minority of men. And I believe in the majority of cases, full circumcision isn't necessary. I agree with what others have said. I suspect it originated as simply another way of attempting to control the sexual activity of others by religious authorities. Just a hunch though, based on their record on this issue.

Rawnaeris wrote:It is not clear to me which of you won this argument, did your sons end up circumcised or not? My fiance and I occasionally go down this path, with the roles reversed. I've done more research on the topic, but he always holds with the so-called 'locker-room' argument, and not being male, I don't have a good response.

What locker-room argument? I don't know what went on in his school, but so much as glancing at another person's cock would be enough to brand you as gay for the rest of your life in my school.

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Rawnaeris wrote:It is not clear to me which of you won this argument, did your sons end up circumcised or not? My fiance and I occasionally go down this path, with the roles reversed. I've done more research on the topic, but he always holds with the so-called 'locker-room' argument, and not being male, I don't have a good response.

What locker-room argument? I don't know what went on in his school, but so much as glancing at another person's cock would be enough to brand you as gay for the rest of your life in my school.

Apparently not where he grew up. He says that anyone who was different--for this argument not circumcised, would be teased mercilessly.

Explanations for FGM (female genital mutilation) you'll get from people who practice it range from ritual ("removing the male part of the woman") to aesthetic (WTF?) to hygienic ("uncut female genitals are smelly") to traditional ("we've always done it"). Needless to say, they are all a load of crap. The real reason is controlling female sexuality (in the case of infibulation this means physically preventing sexual intercourse by closing up the vagina, in the other cases it's "only" about repressing sexual desire).

It has to be noted that FGM is a considerably more serious "operation" than male circumcision and has a number of medical as well as psychological consequences. As to how it's done: no anaesthetics, often with scisors, razor blades, shards of glass, anything that will cut.

Wikipedia has a good article on FGM.

virphen wrote:

dylan wrote:I've heard that males sometimes get it done when they are older because of part of the skin preventing the foreskin from being pulled back without pain. I don't know, I think I'd rather not remember that procedure...

You wouldn't. Unlike with babies they use anaesthetic. But as babies cry anyway, it's ok to cause them great pain while mutilating them without their consent.

That is, the crushing truth!

james1v wrote:I once read that in some areas, where clean water was scarce, penile cancer was more prevalent. Hence circumcision for males, it reduces the risk apparently. Sorry, cannot remember the source.

Female circumcision? Spite, jealousy and control freakery by men. I just cannot imagine any woman inventing it and prescribing it for herself.

I think you will find that in African societies at least the mutilation is performed by women. So it's safe to assume that those who do it agree with the practice.
Just a random example: http://allafrica.com/stories/200901270799.html
Note: it's not always the men who are the baddies.

Regina wrote:

james1v wrote:I once read that in some areas, where clean water was scarce, penile cancer was more prevalent. Hence circumcision for males, it reduces the risk apparently. Sorry, cannot remember the source.

Female circumcision? Spite, jealousy and control freakery by men. I just cannot imagine any woman inventing it and prescribing it for herself.

I think you will find that in African societies at least the mutilation is performed by women. So it's safe to assume that those who do it agree with the practice.
Just a random example: http://allafrica.com/stories/200901270799.html
Note: it's not always the men who are the baddies.

Yes, it may be women who are carrying it out on each other now, but, who invented it? Who demanded the first mutilation? Im betting it was not a woman!

I guess we will never know for sure, and yes, you are probably right that it was a male invention. But frankly, what difference does it make when so many women willingly participate? And in the case of Burkina Faso in the full knowledge that it's against the law.

That's one problem that I didn't mention, but it's a huge one. Yes, it's mostly women who practice FGM. It's appalling how far social "rules" and "values" can be naturalized to the point where not even those who are clearly their victims will even think of questioning them But social pressures behind the practice are not all women's work. For example, in societies where FGM is the norm a girl who doesn't undergo it has no chances of making a good marriage, or even any kind of marriage (and these are traditional societies where marriage is the norm and where social exclusion is a considerably more serious thing than in urban Western settings).

Education seems to be the key, and opposition coming from within those societies. Senegalese writer and film director Sembene Ousmane is a good example, I'm sure that his last film Mooladé can make more to raise consciousness than a host of strangers alighting in a village and telling people to stop that evil practice. On the other hand, those can achieve a lot by disseminating information about the medical consequences of FGM (rather than dispensing moral judgement). Laws don't appear to have much effect, people do it anyway.

Until I read this thread, not only did I not know about female circumcision... I didn't think it was possible...

Jesus Christ, some people are sick!

virphen wrote:In both cases, it developed from a desire to attempt to control sexual desire. Simple as.

The bolded is the basic explanation for why it occurs (in the Western world at least, the religious causes are somewhat more difficult to figure out). In the 50s circumcision in boys was introduced because they thought it would stop them from masturbating - that is, cut off a load of nerves and it won't feel pleasurable any more. Unfortunately, they severely underestimated the determination and persistence of teenage boys...

Does anyone know what countries circumcision is still legally accepted as an elective procedure? I think most countries have banned it now on the grounds of aesthetic surgeries aren't allowed to be performed on minors, haven't they?

virphen wrote:We should simply use the term "genital mutilation of infants" rather than the "circumcision" euphemism. Then people might finally start realising why it is so fucking evil.

Definitely. I've never understood how people could be so 'outraged' by FGM but be fine with male mutilation because they think it'll help them look like their father. There are some major mental acrobatics required for that kind of reasoning I think.

Rawnaeris wrote:

AlohaChris wrote:I fought with my wife over this issue for our boys. I did my research and decided there was no good medical reason to circumcise and it violated the first tenet: Do No Harm. My wife wanted the boys circumcised for 'aesthetic' reasons. She thought uncircumcised penises were 'gross'. In the end, I was unwilling to die on that particular hill.

It is not clear to me which of you won this argument, did your sons end up circumcised or not? My fiance and I occasionally go down this path, with the roles reversed. I've done more research on the topic, but he always holds with the so-called 'locker-room' argument, and not being male, I don't have a good response.

Tell him that less and less little boys are being circumcised. So the "locker-room" argument is no longer really valid (nor has it even been anyways.)

Thank you for your thoughts. I was trying to find the news article and couldn't but I also remember reading about how circumcised men their rates of getting STD's is slightly lower. I can't remember how much but I remember it being VERY tiny. Still interesting though if it does lower it a bit.

dylan wrote:Thank you for your thoughts. I was trying to find the news article and couldn't but I also remember reading about how circumcised men their rates of getting STD's is slightly lower. I can't remember how much but I remember it being VERY tiny. Still interesting though if it does lower it a bit.

Even if it did, it's not an argument in favor of mutilating a baby boy's penis. If an adult man is concerned about getting an STD or HIV, then he's more then welcome to have it done.

Valden wrote:

dylan wrote:Thank you for your thoughts. I was trying to find the news article and couldn't but I also remember reading about how circumcised men their rates of getting STD's is slightly lower. I can't remember how much but I remember it being VERY tiny. Still interesting though if it does lower it a bit.

Even if it did, it's not an argument in favor of mutilating a baby boy's penis. If an adult man is concerned about getting an STD or HIV, then he's more then welcome to have it done.

I agree. I was merely trying to mention the reason some people use to get it done and was wondering if it was really valid or not...