True, male circumcision may have nothing to do with degrading (although that remains to be proven), it's nevertheless an operation that can have risks, as stated previously, especially when performed in poor clinical circumstances. I'm afraid, no one is in a position to say what it does or does not do to a male child in terms of harm, or sense of degradation, other than the obvious mutilation, and other than the person themselves.
A lot of males who were circumcised without their consent feel that they haven't been mutilated, but they are not the best judges of what they've actually lost, even if they are encouraged to be proud of the way they now look. I am convinced that, were it a conscious choice, most males would not want to have their foreskins tampered with.
I don't think it's fair, Megumi, to say that female genital mutilation is any more brutal than male genital mutilation. Maybe the ages at which both are performed make all the difference?
megumidesu Wrote:while i don't agree with either , i would say there is a huge difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation / female circumcision .
female genital mutilation is done when the girl reaches puberty , and the purpose of it is to stop her getting any feelings of sexual pleasure or desire . it's a brutal , awful practice that serves only to oppress and punish teenage girls in places where women are considered less than men , and sexual desire from women is an evil thing.
death due to FGM is extremely common .
while i disagree with circumcising infant boys , it is nowhere near the same as FGM. male circumcision has nothing to do with oppression or degradation. it's a traditional religious practice that needs to end , because people should have a choice about what happens to their own body.
so , i disagree with both . but they are nothing alike.
On a similar note, there are, I heard, more and more females who want to undergo labiaplasty, for aesthetic reasons, or for other reasons (some get their hymens artificially reconstituted too). But these are operations consciously requested by their recipients. Again, the artificially reconstituted hymens are proof of a desire to force women into a form of submission whereby, if they are shown not to be virgins anymore, they are publicly vilified, possibly even stoned.
Gurlz, I've never said uncut Penises are unhygienic or less clean, but to me circumsized penises look cleaner...not that they automatically and always are.
I get that Foreskin is natural and I'm all for it, but my preference(not judgement upon by the way) is a Circumsized penis.
I want Mint Chip Ice Cream, I want a Circumsized Penis, it's just what I like or prefer.
Not to say I'd say to a guy "um, sis, you gotta...little..uh...skin on your dick" and be done with him, no.
If guys can say they prefer Masculine Men over Feminine Men, then I can say I prefer Circumsized Penises over Uncircumsized. Even though I don't discriminate or judge, it's merely my preference.
I've never made judgements or generalizations about uncircumsized penises(Unlike some people who do such with the Masc VS Fem debate), so Chas, I don't think my preference is ridiculous.
And I'm really not concerned with the whole Mutilation factor, because what's done is done, get over it Sis.
It's similar to this twinky little Italian Boy who felt he was and should've been raised Jamaican, so goes out of his way to become one and then becomes a Reggae singer, but is never truely seen as a Jamaican, because he's not.
Men with Circumsized Penises who want foreskin are entitled to their loss and even anger, but you're circumsized, so what's next?
I find it would only be traumatic if you were a 20+ year old, who was made to be circumsized, because then you know what you want in the matter, but if you're an infant, then what do you care? You got a Penis, it works, so what's the problem?
How can you be upset over a choice that was never yours? Your parent's do what they think is best and if the child at some point wants foreskin later on, he has to realize, that until that point, he didn't even realize the significance or lack thereof of foreskin and that his parent's did what would be in his best interest.
Just as many men who grow up without foreskin, then want it, is equal to the men who grew up with foreskin and want to get rid of it.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Choices are so subjective.
Personally, I don't care if I'm circumsized, it is what it is, mutilation or not. I've never been one to want what I can't/don't have or be something I'm not.
cardiganwearer Wrote:You don't say! 75% of men in the world have foreskins, the medical establishment seems not to be snowed under with the resulting problems. In this instance washing is preferable to amputation.
Repeat it as often as you like, gross things do not happen to uncircumcised penises except vanishingly rarely.
It became popular "back when" because it was an indelible tribal marker. It had nothing to do with cleanliness. It was performed without aneasthetic, or antiseptics using crude instruments in dirty surroundings. Losing a few to infection was considered a price worth paying for tribal cohesion.
If the "back when" you refer to is the promotion of circumcision in America during the early twentieth century, it was promoted by quacks (themselves uncircumcised) as variously a cure for malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease. The original promoters never used the hygiene argument because they themselves were not circumcised. Hygiene came along for the next generation and was useful because it turned out that malnutrition, paralysis, bed-wetting, hip-joint disease, headache, alcoholism, criminality, club-foot, and heart disease were unaffected by circumcision.
Infections from dirty foreskin are rare indeed. If access to normal hygiene is so bad that it can occur, surgery is not to be recommended.
There are no problems associated with foreskins. Seventy five percent of the worlds men have one and are not disproportionately burdened with problems as a result. Of those routinely circumcised for religious reasons the vast majority are muslims (1.6 billion). For the most part they don't circumcise until preadolescence so they seem untroubled by hygiene issues among young boys, a group not best known for its affinity to soap and water.
No major medical body in the world recommends routine neonatal circumcision. Bacterial infections are treated with antibiotics, not amputation.
You can go argue the point with my high school health/biology teacher then.
And all the facts that she showed us and had us read from medical texts.
I was gonna avoid dipping my tip in this hot tub again, but here goes...sorry if it's kind of scatter-shot but I'm trying to cover my bases quickly here.
I'm cut. I agree that in principle, it's wrong to deny the choice to males by cutting them in infancy. There are some cases where circumcision is necessary because of health concerns, yes. I'm not talking about those. I say fuck doing it for 'hygiene' or religious reasons. If you weren't meant to be able to clean it adequately, you wouldn't have been born with it. All that said...
I could say "It's not that big a deal to me that I'm cut. I don't feel mutilated." Then you could say, "Well, you've never had a foreskin so you don't know what you're missing." To which I might reply, "Well, you've never lived without a foreskin, so how do you know how much worse it is?" For most cut men, I'd wager it has not reduced the quality of their life in any noticeable way. I think the relatively few cases where circumcision HAS caused permanent damage/mutilation/lifelong suffering/death are plenty of ammunition to sink the practice of circumcising when it's not medically necessary, without trying to blow more benign cases out of proportion.
To compare the above scenario to the unequivocally indefensible, wicked, barbaric, psychotic, evil fucking practice of female genital mutilation is irresponsible at best I think.
I agree with megumidesu in regards to female circumcision vs male circumcision.
Personally, I had a foreskin until I was around 20. I chose to be cut and know what I'm missing and I don't miss it at all. It's true that it was my choice but I certainly don't feel mutilated.
My comments are from what was taught in health classes when I was in high school. They are not my personal dictations. If any of you have issues with the information I was taught, then you need to take it up with the Dallas County School Board, as they accept or decline what information is taught in their schools.
Im no medical expert, but as I have stated before, from what I have personally seen and read about, men with foreskin are much more highly susceptible to infections, disease, and I have been told they have to wash twice as much to keep it clean.
As for a lot of men with foreskin that I have worked with, the biggest problem they all have is that they get it caught in their zippers a lot more often than cut men do. They also claim that it gets in the way when peeing sometimes, and they get pee all over themselves. To some of them apparently, its harder to manage that extra skin, as opposed to not having it there. But I wouldnt know since I dont have foreskin. But thats the info I get from those who do have it.
Yes, thats a small area of men, but thats not a conversation that comes up very often. When it does, most guys will give me their opinions on it. And from what I gather...whether they have it or not, it would be much better for them to not have it at all. Although a few didnt care one way or the other.
But they would not go out of their way to go to the Dr. and have it removed.....they just live with it.
Im with most people on this, that it shouldnt be done, unless it has a medical precedence to be done. Otherwise I think it should be left up to the guy, when he's older.
I like to see the bulging head of a penis so for me it's either cut or the foreskin has to pull back when he's hard. Love sucking that type of cock. Not a great fan of cocks where there is still floppy foreskin that won't pull back over the head when I suck him. Sorry if I sound fussy but the shape, length, and girth of his cock are important to me...just call me a fussy queen but I know what I like. Oh I feel the same about a guys balls are also important to me as I can't stand a tight sac with small balls the sac has to give them room to swing and the ball need to be at least a good mouthful each. Ok TMI I know.
elad12 Wrote:I agree with megumidesu in regards to female circumcision vs male circumcision.
Personally, I had a foreskin until I was around 20. I chose to be cut and know what I'm missing and I don't miss it at all. It's true that it was my choice but I certainly don't feel mutilated.
Again, you are missing the point. You did this operation of your own free will. It was YOUR choice all along. That's the whole point. If you deprive someone of part of their body, especially without their consent, it's called mutilation. In your case it was a willful operation, therefore can be seen as plastic surgery.
I'm glad you don't miss your foreskin, and maybe you feel that you're getting better use out of your penis now it's cut. Some people do. I guess you are also lucky that the operation was done in good clinical conditions and that it didn't cause you any problems.
Can we accept, however, that children are circumcised in early childhood, on whatever grounds this operation is done, when clinical conditions are poor and hygiene is lacking? Can we accept that this is routinely performed just because it's another way of bleeding parents of their money? Very often there is no medical reason for operating a young child like this and it certainly does not respect the child or baby as a person whose personal choice and comfort should be sought. We are moving towards societies where the rights of children are more and more protected. You can't even slap a kid for being rude these days, so what makes us think we can perform unnecessary surgery on them, which inflicts pain, discomfort and may end up in a botched job? It would not be ok to punch a kid in the face and break a tooth, even if the discomfort was only short-lived, it would be considered abuse. It's not all right to cut, or beat, or burn, or hurt children any more. Circumcision performed on a child against his will is abuse and mutilation. Look up the definitions. Not surprisingly some courts have forbidden the practice.
As for female genital mutilation, the worst part of it, is that these young women are old enough to know what they'd prefer if they had the choice to avoid it, but still are forced into accepting to have it done to them because of peer pressure and the pressures of society. Unfortunately, this too counts as abuse (it's mental abuse, at the very least).
Maybe it's time for people like Kakenya Ntaiya (who found out that female circumcision was illegal). Please watch and listen. The bleeding she suffered could also happen (and happens) to male children as well.
Cut or Uncut?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
