Why isn't male circumcision as abhored (and illegal) as any type of female genital mutilation?
Not much in the details. It is something I have never understood. I blame it on cultural norms.
Yes, I know that the result can be different; female genital mutilation can and does cause anything from decrease of pleasure to death, and male circumcision usually doesn’t. But, in both cases genitals are being surgically and painfully (it’s gotta hurt) altered without consent.
Why?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
48 Answers
Um, religion?
My sisters have both circumcised their sons, for no other reason than “so he’ll look like everyone else”.
And I’ve heard the hygiene reasoning, but I don’t buy it. Female genitalia has a great many nooks and crannies, and yet we manage to be clean and healthy.
(I have an [almost entirely] facetious theory than men are horny bastards because they’ve had a great deal of potentially wonderful nerve endings whacked off, and they spend the rest of their lives trying to make up for the loss of that exquisite sensitivity.)
Female genital mutilation is far more brutal and oppressive because the idea is that women should never enjoy sex because it’s horrible and wrong.
That and procedure is far more invasive.
I was circumcised and I don’t feel as though my life has caused me any suffering because of it. I doubt I’ll circumcise my son should I ever have one.
Yes, it all started because of religion. Then, it simply became culturally ingrained and people stopped doing it for religious reasons.
To this day, a lot of people are under the (false) impression that if a male isn’t circumcised he’ll be more likely to contract and spread disease. It’s important that men who aren’t circumcised wash properly, yes, but c’mon… Like that’s hard to do. It’s common sense.
I’m with you on this and I don’t think it should be legal.
do I even need to say it: sexist norms, women are not to have sexual pleasure, blah blah blah, men are to be cut for god, blah blah blah…there is little in this world that I abhor more than FGM practices…still I think male circumcision is just as problematic
@DrasticDreamer
I also thought I’d say that it’s really only in the United States where we have this infant male circumcision craze. And it is often done so the son will look like his father.
@tinyfaery
Personally, I would never have my son circumcised because I don’t believe in removing a part of a person’s body without their consent and I’m glad my parents felt the same way.
But the reason is mainly religious and that’s what started it for male circumcision. Still, female circumcision is more dangerous and they’re not the same thing.
I think it’s just a cultural norm that is slowly losing popularity… if we find out we’re having a son I doubt we do it.
Female circumcision is to restrict. Male circumcision is supposed to a) help in a couple of ways or b) mark someone as belonging to a religion.
I think circumcising as babies, when kids are too young to remember the procedure, is less cruel than doing it as an adult for religious reasons or whatever other reasons that adult circumcision is done. That is another factor in female circumcision. Its done to pubescent girls who remember the procedure that is often done in very unsanitary conditions with unsanitary objects and with great risk of infection and bleeding out. The entire thing is beyond brutral, not only the procedure itself but the end goal.
The main point of what happens is that a female is sewn up to ensure virginity and is literally torn open on her wedding night and so on. The removal of the clitoris to remove pleasure seems relatively small compared to this cultural brutality.
No, male circumcision isn’t nice, but as long as its done in infancy, its nowhere near as brutal.
Besides the religious/social reasons, put simply: a circumcised penis enjoys sex as much as an uncircumcised penis.
That little button you girls have? Yeah, that doesn’t grow back.
Also, to note, I was not circumcised (I was born in Puerto Rico. It isn’t as popular as it is in the mainland). I have never, ever had any sort of infected, dirty and/or smelly penis. Ever. Clean your penis, folks. Clean it well.
It’s a myth. I’m almost certain that there is no evidence that a circumcised penis is more hygienic than an uncircumcised one. As you can see, it personally upsets me when people say that circumcision is “cleaner” or “more hygienic”. You’re talking about my schmoopiepapoopie now, people. And he’s perfectly clean. And hygienic.
(‘sides, we have that cool rumor floating about saying that an uncircumcised penis is more pleasurable for our lovers. take that, you circumcised jerks)
@Grisaille so schmoopiepapoopie DOES mean genitals!
at long last, the mystery is solved
I think the answers above about cover it. I just wanted to add: If I had a son, getting him circumcised would depend mostly on whether my grandmother were still alive. It simply wouldn’t occur to her that he wouldn’t have a bris, that’s all. I’m not particularly religious, but I do respect my culture’s traditions for my family’s sake. Personally, I tend to suspect that uncircumcised penises have more fun…but I guess the jury’s still out on that one. If that is in fact the case, I think I wouldn’t get it done, even if Bubbs is still alive.
Circumcision is wrong in both cases- there is no longer any “medical reasons” to circumcise male babies (we just thought that a long time ago and society hasn’t caught up with medical data of today).
If a male baby is circumcised to show he belongs to a religion, shouldn’t that be a personal choice to the male, not the parent’s choice????
It’s interesting that the cosmetic argument has not been brought up yet for male circumcision…although perhaps this was hidden in “looking like everyone else” or “looking like Daddy.” But I do think there are people who think a circumcised penis is more attractive to look at and it’s conceivable that they would favor non-religious circumcision for this reason.
Female circumcision yields no known cosmetic benefit.
Just another facet.
@BBSDTfamily So… You’re advocating an adult choice where one would be fully cognizant of the pain associated with it rater than not remembering it because it was done as an infant? Babies hurt, but they don’t have to walk, they don’t have to go to work, and they don’t remember the procedure. It would seem that it would be better for it to be done in infancy if its to be done.
@avvooooooo Maybe so if it’s to be done… but why assume it is to be done?? To circumcise a baby is to make this huge assumption. I see absolutely no reason for making that decision for someone- it is an irreversible decision made to their body and it is not up to the parents to decide.
@wildpotato You would let your respect for your culture steer you to allow an unneeded surgery on your son? What if he grows up to not give two craps about this culture? What if it were up to him, he would rather have stayed intact? Grandma and whoever else can get over it… it’s not their body!
@BBSDTfamily If its going to be a “cultural necessity,” or a “religious necessity,” for whatever reason, its better to have it over and done with. Sure its not strictly necessary, but if its going to happen, better to do it in the least (at least psychologically) painful way possible. Some people might resent the decision that their parents made later, some never will. Probably most never will because of the fact that they look like everyone else that they know, at least in the American culture.
Since this is traditionally done in infancy and is sometimes mandated by religion, it is the parents’ decision. You can object to it, but you can’t deny that decisions made in infancy are up to the parents and that this is something that they need to decide and are asked about at the hospital before a baby ever comes home.
The simple truth is that circumcised men will never really know what, if anything, they’re really missing. Its simply not something that most people would know for sure unless they chose to be circumcised in adulthood and had sex before and after. Men who are circumcised enjoy sex. You’re not missing out on sexual enjoyment or having that much of a different experience due to a little piece of skin.
@avvooooooo No one knows what they are or aren’t missing out on. The entire point is that it’s not your body, or even medically necessary, so why do it? Why not chop off a pinky? Your hand can function without it. They wouldn’t know what they were missing out on. It’s just one, little finger…
@DrasticDreamer Yes, some people do know. Did you even read my post? As I just stated, the people that do know are those who choose to be circumcised as adults who have sex before and after. Why not ask them what the real difference is instead of making an assumption that “There are all these things that I’m missing out on because my stupid parents made a stupid decision, damn them!”
Traditionally, this is the parents decision. Maybe it shouldn’t be, but it is. Until it isn’t, until its deemed to be medically unnecessary (which it hasn’t) and cruel and unusual, it will be the parents decision. Its stupid to condemn parents for making what they think is the best decision for their child when there is no proven impairment because of it.
There has been no medical benefit shown for chopping off a pinky. The same is not true for circumcision.
@avvooooooo There is absolutely no proof that circumcising a male is medically necessary, healthier or beneficial in any way. It’s not stupid to condemn parents for making what they think is the best decision when no parents even bother looking into the actual facts. It’s a poor, misguided and uneducated decision to make.
The bottom line is that it is not their body and they have no right to alter it, regardless of whether or not it’s illegal.
@DrasticDreamer If doctors are telling the parents that its necessary, if they’re advocating it, then they are making what they think is an informed decision. It absolutely is stupid to condemn parents for making a decision that they think is best for their child based on the information provided to them. Some people believe that its beneficial. There’s no proof either way. At least not proof that you, and others who are dead set against this procedure, would accept. There are both benefits and disadvantages to circumcision just as there are benefits and disadvantages to not being circumcised.
According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, “parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child.” In the US, that is generally what we do when it comes to parenting concerns. This procedure comes under “parenting concerns” because of when the procedure is traditionally done.
You have no idea that parents are just deciding without looking at any information to circumcise their children. I’m sure that there are people like that out there, but to stereotype all parents (“no parents even bother looking into actual facts”) of circumcised infants as ignorant, ill informed, cruel, misguided, infringing on rights, uneducated or whatever else is ignorant on your part. Parents and doctors together decide, with information levels ranging from minimal to very well informed, what they believe is best for the child. You may not agree. That is your opinion. But as you are not the parent of every circumcised child, you have no say in what happens.
The bottom line is that parents decide what they believe to be in the best interest of the child. Until that decision is taken away and all males are required to wait for the age of consent to decide whether they wish to be circumcised or not, that’s the way it is.
@avvooooooo
What reasons would a doctor give for saying that it’s “necessary”? How can you judge that it’s “necessary” at such a young age unless the foreskin is deformed or misshapen somehow?
@avvooooooo What about female circumcision that’s done by a licensed medical professional? People could argue that the females are still able to enjoy sex because of their G-spot. If it’s a religious thing or parents are told and believe it’s the best thing to do, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do it? The clit is just a little piece of skin… They won’t know what they’re missing.
I’m done now. Mutilating someone else’s body because you want to isn’t okay, regardless of what the laws are. Not your body, not your choice, under any circumstance.
From the comments I’ve seen on Fluther, circumcision is much more abhorred than I ever imagined.
@DominicX It has long been believed that there’s a decreased chance of infections, namely UTIs, with circumcised penises. That’s one thing that’s still relevant today. Its quite late here and I’m about to go to bed, but you can look up proponents of circumcision anywhere on the web and learn why they think its beneficial.
@DrasticDreamer Female circumcision is designed to do nothing more than to decrease female sexual satisfaction and ensure virginity. There’s a discussion going on here where people are actually discussing and not stating that circumcision is wrong and that’s the way it is, period, the end. Male circumcision is done because its ultimately believed to be beneficial, not because of the “sinful nature” of male babies. Comparing the two, one which is mostly done in the most brutal way imaginable and which has no possible benefit, and the other which is done in the most painless way possible and is believed to have overall health benefits is absurd. FGM is not just about removing the clitoris. I cannot believe that you know anything at all about this procedure and are practicing the same ignorance that you accuse parents of if they chose to get their male child circumcised. Do some reading.
As it stands, not your baby, not your choice. Period.
@avvooooooo
I read that in boys who have normal-functioning urinary tracts, the rate of UTIs is 1%. Apparently it would only be beneficial in boys with recurring UTIs (something you can’t predict when the boy is an infant) or vesicoureteral reflux. How can a doctor tell an infant will get a UTI or recurring UTIs in the future? Most people do not get UTIs in the first place.
Furthermore, the American Cancer Society says circumcision is not recommended as a prevention for penile cancer.
The American Academy of Pediatrics says circumcision has little coincidence with optimal penile hygiene.
@avvooooooo Obviously, you fail to realize it when people are trying to make a point. This isn’t even something worth arguing over. Some things are wrong. Period.
@DrasticDreamer And some people are wrong. Period. But generally they’re incapable of realizing it or having a discussion where pros and cons of something they’re rabidly against without knowledge of the other side are up for discussion.
There’s trying to make a point and then there’s sticking fingers in ears and saying “nanananananananana! I can’t hear you!”
It is done without the child’s consent. That is wrong, as @DrasticDreamer has elaborated. Sure it will hurt more as an adult, but that means it’s the adult making their OWN choice versus having it chosen for them. And it’s not like they can just undo it when they get older, no a part of them is gone forever. How is that in any way fair to the person? It goes against their rights, simply put.
Anyone actually advocating for irreversibly mutilating children based on their parent’s religion or choice is beyond worthy of having a discussion with, I’m sorry, but as @DrasticDreamer says, some things are wrong, period. This is one of them.
@BBSDTfamily You would let your respect for your culture steer you to allow an unneeded surgery on your son? Absolutely. In the world I grew up in, you have a baby boy, he gets a bris at the same time he gets his name – it’s that important. The circumcision and the name are signs that you are a full person, who is part of his family and heritage. Not doing it would be tantamount to deliberately excluding him, in more traditional eyes. This is why adult males converting to Judaism have their foreskins lightly pricked with a needle – the drawing of blood is the visible part of God’s covenant with Abraham. For new babies this happens 8 days after the birth, originally because that lapse of time would give the baby time to die if he’s going to – so many babies died that it wasn’t practical to give names, to attach full personhood, to someone younger than 8 days old (this is a common practice in many cultures – some, a child is not named until it’s 2 years old for the same reason). There is much interesting Jewish scholarship on this if you’d like more info than I can dredge up from years ago in Hebrew High.
What if he grows up to not give two craps about this culture? Then I won’t have presented Judaism correctly. It’s a very take-it-or-leave it culture (we were using democracy way before the Greeks) if you’re not Hasidic or Orthodox (most of us aren’t). Most young Jews don’t, in fact, give two craps about their culture, but they will go along to get along, which is easy to do because Judaism doesn’t try to shove itself down your throat. So, to answer What if it were up to him, he would rather have stayed intact?: Some Jewish men do feel that way, and I believe they have good cases. But most do not feel strongly about it, because they still have good sexual experiences, and because they find Judaism easy to get along with and don’t want to upset their grandparents. If I had a son I had circumcised, and he felt that way, I’d have to say, “Tough luck, buddy. Yes, that you are a part of your heritage in the eyes of your family is more important to me than your retention of a useless bit of skin. remember, we are operating in the hypothetical that circumcision makes no sensory difference; as I stated above I think I would not get a son circumcised if proof came out that it decreases sexual pleasure. Quit whining and go get laid.”
But you may actually have stumbled upon an interesting question – my generation is going to be the last with grandparents “from the old country” – maybe my children, the next generation, won’t be so careful to not offend their grandparents, my parents – who care about Judaism about 50% less than my grandma does.
@wildpotato You said “The circumcision and the name are signs that you are a full person, who is part of his family and heritage. Not doing it would be tantamount to deliberately excluding him, in more traditional eyes.”
That is the same reason for female circumcision and other forms of female, genital alteration.
@tinyfaery You make a great point. I think that it may not apply to the point I was making, though – the question had the subject of male circumcision, and that’s how I framed my answers in both posts. I was weighing the pro and cons of male circumcision considering that there does not seem to be proof that male circumcision decreases sexual pleasure. If it doesn’t, then it’s more important to have the ceremony than to not do it, in my eyes. That’s it. If factors were different, such as the nonparticipation of certain elders in the ceremony, or I got testimony from an adult who was circumcised that it does decrease sexual pleasure, then my decision would be different. I further object to the comparison because male circumcision does not involve being sewn up and ripped open, or anything remotely as horrible as all that. If male circumcision is a mutilation, then what are tattoos? and piercings? Where’s the line between minor, voluntary bodily alteration and mutilation, exactly? Now that’s an interesting question.
@all What I have been trying to say, in short: male circumcision is not, generally speaking, a big deal physically, and as far as we know now. Therefore I don’t think there’s much wrong with using this as a symbol of heritage. If you feel like attacking, go ahead, but please note that I never intimated that I’d personally follow this tradition blindly, and actually stated otherwise.
@wildpotato The difference between circumcision and tattoos and piercings is that it’s each individual deciding whether or not to get a tattoo or piercing. Can you imagine living in a society where parents are allowed to pierce whatever they want on their child’s body? Or put a tattoo of whatever they want, wherever they want, on a child’s body? The idea is disturbing. And it’s the same thing kind of thing as circumcision.
@DrasticDreamer Parents are currently allowed to do much worse things to their children than tattoo, pierce, or circumcise. And I think we do live in that society already, actually. Parents get babies’ ears pierced all the time. If a parent wanted to give his son a Prince Albert, that would obviously be quite inappropriate (Just to forestall obvious objections: no, that wouldn’t compare to circumcision, because reasons for getting a baby circumcised are different from reasons for getting a Prince Albert. Also, I’m not saying that if there were cultural or mistaken hygienic reasons to do so, that people should get their sons Prince Alberts). When I was younger I user to promise myself that I’d never have kids because it seemed to me that even just forcing the kid to be born, as my kid, is such an injustice. How could I ever hold someone else’s freedom, their whole life, in my power? Of course, at the time I was 15 and hated my parents more actively than I do now – but now that I’ve stopped worrying about that so much, I see the control that parents have over their kids as inevitable. I’d tend to agree with you – been kind of playing devil’s advocate here, I must confess – personally, if I were a circumcised dude I imagine that I’d like to have been consulted about the decision. But I also think that I’d think about it for awhile and probably conclude that my parents made a responsible decision based on their background and on information they had at their disposal. I can respect that.
@wildpotato I can agree about here not being a big deal physically. However.
However.
Considering I am not circumcised, I cannot even fathom what my penis would look and feel like without the foreskin. In fact, I’ve grown so accustomed (which is quite stupid to say… it IS my penis after all) to the way it looks. I’d feel funny without it. Embarrassed, almost.
I’m glad that I was born in a place where circumcision is not popular. Because I now have a choice. I feel it is more so to be my penis than anyone else’s, least of all society.
* looks down at Captain Jack Sparrow *
It’s okay, dude. No one is going to hurt you.
@wildpotato it may not be a big deal, in your eyes…but to my husband, for example, it is very upsetting that his was cut…he wasn’t raised Jewish or anything, but what would you say to an adult who was upset the way he is..
@tinyfaery Is there any possibility that you put in a link you didn’t mean to put in? That doesn’t seem remotely like male circumcision to me. I would liken Type 1 much more to total penile castration.
@Simone_De_Beauvoir Actually, I wrote above what I would say – if your husband was Jewish. Since he’s not, I’d say it’s unfortunate that his parents were misinformed about the whole hygiene thing (or that they chose to have it done for whatever reason they did choose to have it done), but that they were undoubtedly doing what they thought was best for their child.
Look at it this way: I was scared into accepting braces as a 9-year-old because I was told that if I didn’t I’d just have to pay for them myself when I was older. Now I find out from my current dentist that they caused my enamel to become de-calcified, so that I’ll get cavities and chip my teeth more easily for the rest of my life – and also that it’s likely I didn’t really need braces to begin with. Am I pissed? Yes. Am I going to ream my parents out about this? No – they were doing what they thought was best.
Isn’t the answer to this question obvious? Male circumcision involves removal of the foreskin; female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoris (the equivalent in a male would be removal of the head of the penis). See the WHO descriptions.
@mattbrowne Jews don’t actually require circumcision anymore for adult male converts, either. It’s now a pinprick sufficient to draw a drop or two or blood.
@wildpotato That’s not true, except amongst Reform Jews, maybe (but they’re always amending religious rituals and rites willy-nilly). Orthodox Jews would not allow a foreskin to remain on a male.
The pinprick sufficient to draw blood is for people who were circumcized in a non-religious ceremony or born without a foreskin (or have an abnormal foreskin).
“Female circumcision is to restrict.”
So was male circumcision; it began in the US as an effort to stop masturbation.
“Isn’t the answer to this question obvious? Male circumcision involves removal of the foreskin; female genital mutilation involves removal of the clitoris”
It doesn’t matter. Both are forms of genital mutilation. Both are almost always performed without the consent of the individual (i.e. on a child). Both are violations of the child’s human rights and a disrespect against their genital integrity.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
