AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Noffletoff wrote:How could you compare male circumcision to stoning? It's not like being circumcised is killing the kid.

The point I'm trying to get across is that just because something is religious doesn't make it okay because its 'tradition'

Actually Reyo, Wry Bread pointed out earlier in the thread that female circumcision is actually far more severe in its effects than male circumcision. The way I see it, male circumcision upon infants is still considered okay because it has less severe effects than female circumcision, even though it is still an act that involves genital mutilation without consent.

Ok, but what's so bad about having a kid circumcised for religious purposes? It's not harming him like Stoning, the only thing at risk is his decision to have a bit of skin on his penis or not. What would religious people who are strong to their beliefs do, wait for the kid to grow up and ask if they want to follow their religion or not.

Also why do you keep using the word mutilate?

That's a really inaccurate and offensive way to simplify the issue, much like the out-of-hand comparison to female genital mutilation.

Your argument is consent. That is also pretty much the only good one, along with a potential loss of perhaps some loss of barely quantifiable sensitivity in the tip of the penis specifically and nowhere else, and a possibility of irritation later in life without the protective foreskin there. You're right, it is plainly exactly like the cutting of the rose (the entire forcible removal of the clitoris) and other similar procedures that incise nearly the entire vulva, painfully exposing the first portion of the interior of the vaginal canal, a mucus membrane never meant to touch open air, with the cut flesh crudely stitched together in such a way as to keep the channel forced open permanently to make spontaneous, nonconsensual sex easier for the male to perform.

Then you have infibulation. The entirety of the external genitalia are removed with the outside edge of the labia majora pulled together so they heal except for a "matchstick sized" hole for sex, bleeding and urination:

Bleeding is profuse, but is usually controlled by the application of various poultices, the threading of the edges of the skin with thorns, or clasping them between the edges of a split cane. A piece of twig is inserted between the edges of the skin to ensure a patent foramen for urinary and menstrual flow. The lower limbs are then bound together for 2–6 weeks to promote haemostatis and encourage union of the two sides...
Healing takes place by primary intention, and, as a result, the introitus is obliterated by a drum of skin extending across the orifice except for a small hole. Circumstances at the time may vary; the girl may struggle ferociously, in which case the incisions may become uncontrolled and haphazard. The girl may be pinned down so firmly that bones may fracture.

When men need to penetrate their wives, they simply force their penis through the "matchstick sized" hole progressively over the course of days as a way to show they are man enough to force it. However, it's common for them to simply cut the flesh covering the skin open for sex, then force it to heal again once they're done, so their vaginal skin is being cut open each time. In some cases it's recorded that the scar tissue from cutting them open for sex repeatedly becomes so strong the men have to use high grade surgical scissors to achieve penetration.

There's also the ritual burning with fire and chemicals held against or inserted into the vagina for the purpose of removing sensitivity in the nerves through severe, irreversible damage known to kill the woman, forcing caustic chemicals into the vagina to keep it "tight," and using a knife to cut the anterior wall of the vagina so it's bigger when and if it heals.

That's a reason why we shouldn't perform female circumcisions, not why we should continue male circumcisions. My point is that we need to stop circumcisions altogether.

Noffletoff wrote:Ok, but what's so bad about having a kid circumcised for religious purposes? It's not harming him like Stoning, the only thing at risk is his decision to have a bit of skin on his penis or not. What would religious people who are strong to their beliefs do, wait for the kid to grow up and ask if they want to follow their religion or not.

Also why do you keep using the word mutilate?

"It doesn't kill him" is just as shitty a reason as "because religion". You're still cutting a bit of the kid's penis off for no real reason.

Noffletoff wrote:What would religious people who are strong to their beliefs do, wait for the kid to grow up and ask if they want to follow their religion or not.

Yes. Cause you know, that's the smart thing to do that's not pushing your religion and their dick cutting traditions on your children.

Abraham had himself circumcised as an adult, so why not allow a male member of the Jewish faith to wait until their bar-mitzvah to get circumcised? That's when they come of age, so it seems like that would be a good time to let them decide.

Also, why do you keep using the word mutilate?

I never said my actual position on the issue earlier, nor did I ever imply that it was an easy decision even for someone like me who is expected to bear our family's heir and feels a great deal of religious and social pressure in the form of indignant anger from my parents about the circumcision issue, which I've specifically argued with them about before.

Surprise! I was on your "side" the whole time.

That said, you're continually disregarding the agonizing and sometimes lethal torture of children old enough to be permanently scarred by the procedure in nations that include Egypt and India rather than some "that's too bad but what do you expect" tribal backwoods. Surprise again! It's also illegally performed right here in the US. And not to a negligible number of girls.

It's not female circumcision, it's female mutilation. It's not male mutilation, it's male circumcision. End of story. You're specifically choosing reversed terminology to seem more sympathetic. If you read any of the many things I specifically cited earlier, you'd notice there's a reason it's called MUTILATION while the surgical removal of the loose sensitive skin cover that conceals the tip of the penis at rest doesn't quite warrant that. Cutting large amounts of flesh off a four-to-ten year-old girl's body, including the most sensitive part of the female body, so you can create an artificial skin covering that you have to cut open with a knife during intercourse or else stretch to the point of tearing with forcible insertion, is arguably more severe. As in severe at all. And it's not uncommon.

I don't intend to circumcise my kid. I just also think your unsupported arguments and callous attitudes about this particular issue are disrespectful and don't hold much weight beyond "it's better to ask."

I'm going to bow out now. I wish I hadn't posted anything about it since I've achieved nothing but making myself feel sincerely upset, and pretty shitty about my particular situation.

I don't think that my arguments are unsupported. I think it's quite logical to assume that male genital mutilation continues to be commonplace in western society and major religions because, when compared to female genital mutilation, the effects on the male's genitals are far less drastic in nature, and that it's wrong for these conditions to continue.

Welp, reading this thread is very uncomfortable, but I'm going to put something out there before I bow out as well.

There's also a further point to consider. Males that want to get circumcised as an adult can find it to be an expensive and tedious procedure. Also, VERY painful considering the subject matter, not only for the procedure itself, but also for the gradual shift in sensitivity. Cleaning it can be very painful for a long time, as it's sensitive to not only chemicals but physical touch. It's very much not desirable to get circumcised as an adult.

Which means that circumcision, ideally, should be done as a very young child. Last I checked, the verdict was still out whether the infant mind could fully appreciate the pain felt of it, but even so, I was circumcised and I certainly don't remember anything.

As far as I feel, I don't really personally care. That being said, I'm not sure what to decide if I ever had a son, but I likely wouldn't have it done, if just for the possibility of the circumcision going awry.

Unfortunately, the person it affects can't decide during the best time for the procedure to be done.

Anyways, I'm leaving after posting this. Not sure I'll be back to read anything further though because my stomach is in knots over this.

Wry Bread wrote:you'd notice there's a reason it's called MUTILATION while the surgical removal of the loose sensitive skin cover that conceals the tip of the penis at rest doesn't quite warrant that. Cutting large amounts of flesh off a four-to-ten year-old girl's body, including the most sensitive part of the female body, so you can create an artificial skin covering that you have to cut open with a knife during intercourse or else stretch to the point of tearing with forcible insertion, is arguably more severe. As in severe at all.

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I wasn't asking why you keep saying mutilate, I was asking Burnttoshreds, who I think is just using the word to exaggerate circumcision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate

Anyways, I think there is no problem with circumcision, it's pretty safe, and it's not effecting the kids life in a huge way, even if they didn't get to decide or not, I think we shouldn't tell other people what to do with their religions, or how to take care of their children, as long as it isn't super harmful like female circumcision or stoning.

I'm not even religious, my mother told me the reason why I was circumcised was because she didn't want me getting sick from it being not being circumcised, and I agree with her, I prefer it this way.

Anyways, bed time.

I understand having to deal with people using emotionally charged terms to try and argue their point, but I can't help but feel that you're focusing a tad too much on that use of emotionally charged terms to argue your own points.

Male circumcision has its founding in religion, and no, it's not really that harmful when compared to female circumcision, but there's also no good reason for it to be done. There's no founding in science that deems it safer in the long run, or cleaner, or better for sex, or anything else for that matter. It seems it's done purely for that religious aspect, which is commendable, but there are all sorts of things that used to be done for religion that we don't do anymore, and a good lot of them were a hell of a lot more harmless than circumcision (not working on sabbath, not eating pork, not mismatching your clothing when it comes to linen vs cotton, etc.) so it being "really harmless" shouldn't work as justification. It's tradition, but it's an extremely unnecessary procedure. A procedure that has to do with cutting a chunk of your kid's penis off. Not cutting the foreskin off would pose no general difference for the kid, and, actually, be a hell of a lot easier on the parents since they then wouldn't have to babysit the wound. If the kid wants to have it done when he's an adult, that's fine, but even that shouldn't be used as justification. "See, he wanted it anyway. That means we need to do it across the board for everyone." That just doesn't make sense.

Noffletoff wrote:

Wry Bread wrote:you'd notice there's a reason it's called MUTILATION while the surgical removal of the loose sensitive skin cover that conceals the tip of the penis at rest doesn't quite warrant that. Cutting large amounts of flesh off a four-to-ten year-old girl's body, including the most sensitive part of the female body, so you can create an artificial skin covering that you have to cut open with a knife during intercourse or else stretch to the point of tearing with forcible insertion, is arguably more severe. As in severe at all.

I don't know if you're talking to me, but I wasn't asking why you keep saying mutilate, I was asking Burnttoshreds, who I think is just using the word to exaggerate circumcision.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate

Anyways, I think there is no problem with circumcision, it's pretty safe, and it's not effecting the kids life in a huge way, even if they didn't get to decide or not, I think we shouldn't tell other people what to do with their religions, or how to take care of their children, as long as it isn't super harmful like female circumcision or stoning.

I'm not even religious, my mother told me the reason why I was circumcised was because she didn't want me getting sick from it being not being circumcised, and I agree with her, I prefer it this way.

Anyways, bed time.

How exactly would you know that no? Have you had any experience with having to deal with an uncircumcised penis or is it based off of 3rd party accounts from a few people, some of which I'm guessing are from mom, a woman who doesn't even have a penis?

Wry Bread wrote:

D-vid wrote:You get a piece of your body chopped off without you knowing or having any say in the matter for no good reason. That's pretty bad.

I just

independent of the good reasons not to do it anyway

would like to politely point out that while a growing number of parents in America are choosing to do it on pretty much a whim, it is still a very important part of several religions

that's all.

In certain jewish sects it is customary to suck the blood from the penis after the circumcision. That and circumcision in general is an outdated tradition people do merely for the sake of tradition. Several other traditions have been dropped from our society because they don't serve our culture, why hold onto this one?

edit: reyo said what I said but I said it more succinctly.

No, I was agreeing with you, Noff. Sorry.

And sorry I got heated everyone. It would have been better for me to just leave, or never join in at all, knowing how I would end up feeling for various reasons and that I would get upset about it, especially considering how painful and personal various issues brought up are for me.