Miles Wrote: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.
Well, Miles, at least we seem to agree. I'm not comparing the quality of your sex life or the sensitivity of your penis with mine, because honestly, it would be very difficult to compare. However, when you consider the number of nerve ends that are in the foreskin, and its function as a protector of an otherwise quite vulnerable part of your anatomy, you'd have to accept the scientific evidence that this practice is absurd, to say the least, if not harmful.
The practice is so ancient now that we don't even know what started it. Maybe it was a hygienic thing in the middle east, in times when hygiene was difficult to obtain, especially in dry lands where water was rare. Maybe, the whole role of circumcision was to guarantee, like certain other mutilations performed on male skins at the advent of puberty, the status of a male as a future "man". None of this is justifiable in the modern world, especially with the bill of human rights being now more and more prominent as a guideline for all our lives. And that's what I think we really should consider. Not whether it's justifiable because of traditional or cultural or religious reasons.
So maybe it is irresponsible to compare female and male mutilation, but I consider this no less wrong. If a woman wants to have plastic surgery on her vulva, that should be her choice. In the same way it should be a man's choice to have a circumcision performed (unless,of course, there is an averred case of phimosis, which requires surgery). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis
This article explains the pains of female genital mutilation and its practice in the United Kingdom. http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_18...onhtml.htm
princealbertofb Wrote:So maybe it is irresponsible to compare female and male mutilation, but I consider this no less wrong. If a woman want to have plastic surgery on her vulva, that should be her choice.
do you mean , if a woman wants to have her genitals cut off with broken glass / razor blades without anesthetic ? because that's the norm for FGM
i do not agree with male circumcision (if it's non-consensual) , but it has no similarities at all with FGM other than the area of the body it involves . boys aren't circumcised to stop them from having sex or to keep them faithful to their wives by making sure they don't feel pleasure during sex . complications from male circumcision (although i know they do happen) are far rarer than in FGM for many reasons , and the majority of circumcised men probably go on to live very very normal lives ~
the majority of cases of FGM happen because girls are considered property of the men they (usually non-consensually too ) end up marrying ~
megumidesu Wrote:do you mean , if a woman wants to have her genitals cut off with broken glass / razor blades without anesthetic ? because that's the norm for FGM
i do not agree with male circumcision (if it's non-consensual) , but it has no similarities at all with FGM other than the area of the body it involves . boys aren't circumcised to stop them from having sex or to keep them faithful to their wives by making sure they don't feel pleasure during sex . complications from male circumcision (although i know they do happen) are far rarer than in FGM for many reasons , and the majority of circumcised men probably go on to live very very normal lives ~
the majority of cases of FGM happen because girls are considered property of the men they (usually non-consensually too ) end up marrying ~
No, I do not mean that, Megumi... I think mutilation is wrong. Full stop.
Labiaplasty is a totally different thing. Read my post again. We both agree with the whole wrongness of the way women are deprived of their rights to own their bodies...
princealbertofb Wrote:No, I do not mean that, Megumi... I think mutilation is wrong. Full stop.
Labiaplasty is a totally different thing. Read my post again. We both agree with the whole wrongness of the way women are deprived of their rights to own their bodies...
i know what you meant
i was just trying to point out that a woman choosing to have surgery on her vulva is in no way similar to FGM ... which can be consensual (sort of) because so many girls are totally brainwashed into thinking it's okay and needs to happen ~
whereas non-consensual male circumcision would be the same (in practice , i mean) as consensual circumcision ... what happens would be the same , just the age of the man involved would change (probably) ~~
I was not comparing physical operations here, nor the suffering and hurt and damage they can generate, but the right of every person to own their own body... To deprive any person of a part of their body that they wished or may have wished to keep is mutilation and can be wrong and abusive.
princealbertofb Wrote: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.
I don't really disagree with what you said. I do get your point. I was simply stating that I do not miss my foreskin at all and I do not feel mutilated by my circumcision. I'm all for boys being able to decide if they are circumcised. At the same time a part of me would have preferred my parents had it done when I was an infant. I guess I don't see it as that big of a deal but then if I'd been cut as an infant maybe I'd hate my parents for having it done to me without my permission. Bottom line is I see and appreciate your point, but I guess I don't like the word mutilation being used in all cases of circumcision, especially when it is the choice of the man or boy having it done whether for medical, religious, initiation or other reasons.
elad12 Wrote:I don't really disagree with what you said. I do get your point. I was simply stating that I do not miss my foreskin at all and I do not feel mutilated by my circumcision. I'm all for boys being able to decide if they are circumcised. At the same time a part of me would have preferred my parents had it done when I was an infant. I guess I don't see it as that big of a deal but then if I'd been cut as an infant maybe I'd hate my parents for having it done to me without my permission. Bottom line is I see and appreciate your point, but I guess I don't like the word mutilation being used in all cases of circumcision, especially when it is the choice of the man or boy having it done whether for medical, religious, initiation or other reasons.
What exactly were your reasons for getting the operation done? Is this something you can share? My brother who was born in the United States almost got his done at birth, just from this all pervasive way Americans had it done then... My mother said: NO! The irony of it was that he had to have the operation done when he was an adult. I think it was from discomfort in his sex life. Never got down to the bottom of it and never will.
Good question. Truth is that I always wanted to be cut since I was a kid. Why? Not sure exactly. I had friends that were cut. Maybe it was because the guy who raped me when I was little wasn't cut. I don't know for sure why. I just know that I wanted it and as soon as I was old enough and had the money I had it done and have never really regreted it. I also found that I prefer sex without the foreskin.
Cut or Uncut?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
