Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Dyakovo]

It's more dangerous than the alternative of not doing anything at all. All surgery carries some risks.

Mutilating someone's genitals on religious grounds is hardly pointless.

Yes, it most certainly is.

[Qandaristania]

I am a circumsized male, and I have not been infected during the operation whatsoever. I have had no problems with being circumsized either.

[Sgurr Dearg]

I am a circumsized male, and I have not been infected during the operation whatsoever. I have had no problems with being circumsized either.

Sample size of 1?

Bra-fucking-vo

[AiliailiA]

Personally I find highly offensive the comparison between male circumcision and FGM: the "damages" of circumcision are not even closer to the damages of FGM. Everybody knows.

A small cut to the labia majora leaving a visible scar is classed as FGM. The "damage" is quite literally cosmetic, it does not affect female sexual function at all.

So are you certain that ALL female genital mutilation is more damaging to the female than circumcision is to the male?

[Nations Federation]

I am circumcised, too. I experienced this operation when I am 13 years old. I'm just saying, this operation is too harmful. Firstly, this operation have been created a long time ago by African tribes. And circumcision operation has only goal: it reduces sexual pleasure. Not more. If you are not experience this, you are so lucky. Foreskin secures from a lot of disease.

[Nordengrund]

I don't care either way. I am a Christian and I was circumcised. It was because of tradition and the symbolism of it rather than religious reasons.

[AiliailiA]

Mutilating someone's genitals on religious grounds is hardly pointless.

Yes, it most certainly is.

It has a point. It is not pointless.

It is to impose a religious belief of the parent (or OTHER religious authorities) on an infant, with the intent if not effect of making a religious choice for the infant.

It is hard for me to respect religious beliefs put to me by religious adults. I mostly manage to respect their right to hold irrational beliefs, though sometimes I wonder why I go easier on a stupid belief just because it is a religious belief. Perhaps because I know so many beliefs are inherited from parents and other role models of a child. And a fear of hypocrisy: I know I still hold some beliefs from my own childhood that I haven't got around to questioning properly and renouncing if necessary. It's a long hard road, and I'm nowhere near the the end of it myself, so I go easy on people brought up believing all that religious bullshit. It's harder for them than it is for me!

Parents will impose their own beliefs on their children. It's inescapable, unless we propose a major overhaul where children are raised by professional child care workers from birth. Which I do not propose. Some of the imposed beliefs will be religious, this is also hard to prevent.

Parents having their children physically altered, to mark those children permanently by a parent's religious belief? We can prevent that.

[Jochistan]

I don't care either way. I am a Christian and I was circumcised. It was because of tradition and the symbolism of it rather than religious reasons.

Christians usually do that?

[Ifreann]

Ban penises.

[Nordengrund]

I don't care either way. I am a Christian and I was circumcised. It was because of tradition and the symbolism of it rather than religious reasons.

Christians usually do that?

I think it is common wear I live, but circumcision isn't required to be Christian.

[Sgurr Dearg]

Ban penises.

Finally someone is speaking sense.

[Ostroeuropa]

Personally I find highly offensive the comparison between male circumcision and FGM: the "damages" of circumcision are not even closer to the damages of FGM. Everybody knows.

A small cut to the labia majora leaving a visible scar is classed as FGM. The "damage" is quite literally cosmetic, it does not affect female sexual function at all.

So are you certain that ALL female genital mutilation is more damaging to the female than circumcision is to the male?

This, essentially.
The "FGM is worse!" arguments are, as usual, disingenuous lies from feminists.

It's like if we talked about Castration and then oscillated between Castration and Male Genital Mutilation, before pulling the number out of a few million boys genitally mutilated.

I'd personally rather we move Male Castration and Female Castration into their own category in order to properly compare the two and oh look, it turrns out that once you remove the castrative types, yes, yes they are both very comparable, as you point out.

There IS a double standard at work here, partially enforced by feminists and their kneejerk hyperzealousness in insisting no problem men have is comparable to womens problems.

On this issue they are, in effect, a pro-genital mutilation lobby. You have to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back, and the constant and repetitive downplaying of the issue they engage in outweighs their "But we oppose it" tacked on to the end.

This is why they are, as usual, utterly fucking useless at addressing mens issues.

[Ostroeuropa]

I am a circumsized male, and I have not been infected during the operation whatsoever. I have had no problems with being circumsized either.

Would you oppose a law allowing people when they reach 16 the option to sue both their parents and the doctor/clergy who performed the operation should they decide they do have a problem with it?

[AiliailiA]

I don't care either way. I am a Christian and I was circumcised. It was because of tradition and the symbolism of it rather than religious reasons.

Tradition on closer examination, sometimes turns out to be from religion.
And the symbolism, what is that?

[Ifreann]

Ban penises.

Finally someone is speaking sense.

I'm not saying it's a solution that'll make everyone happy, but isn't that the mark of a good compromise?

[Ostroeuropa]

The compromise as far as i'm willing to go on circumcision:

1. Ban on circumcision unless for explicitly religious reasons, or with the approval of two publicly paid doctors to treat certain illnesses. (And here, it is the loosening of the hood form that is done. Not removal.)

2. No public funding of circumcision, excepting the medical treatment forms.

3. Both parents must approve if available.

4. Ban on forms of circumcision which increase risk of transmission of disease.

5. The patient may sue their parents, and the person who performed the surgery, when they reach majority if they decide they do not like the fact they are circumcised. No statute of limitations. This may occur at any time in the future. This will not apply to patients on whom the procedure was performed for legitimate medical reasons under the public doctor exemption.


This doesn't make me happy. But it at least provides a means for those who feel victimized by the procedure to gain recompense for it. It's also more politically viable than a ban.

[Sgurr Dearg]

Finally someone is speaking sense.

I'm not saying it's a solution that'll make everyone happy, but isn't that the mark of a good compromise?

And in light of the recent Ebola STI case penises seem to only be getting more dangerous.

[Jochistan]

Still, male circumcision doesn't hurt every waking moment like FGM does. It doesn't even hurt during sex. It's just unecessary

[Ostroeuropa]

Still, male circumcision doesn't hurt every waking moment like FGM does. It doesn't even hurt during sex. It's just unecessary

That depends on the form of FGM being performed. In addition, there may be psychological damage.

In some MGM cases, diseases are transmitted during the procedure, including STDs, and the procedure can be fatal.

[Jochistan]

Still, male circumcision doesn't hurt every waking moment like FGM does. It doesn't even hurt during sex. It's just unecessary

That depends on the form of FGM being performed. In addition, there may be psychological damage.

In some MGM cases, diseases are transmitted during the procedure, including STDs, and the procedure can be fatal.

Really? how common is it to be fatal?

[Ostroeuropa]

That depends on the form of FGM being performed. In addition, there may be psychological damage.

In some MGM cases, diseases are transmitted during the procedure, including STDs, and the procedure can be fatal.

Really? how common is it to be fatal?

100+ cases in the USA per year.
http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html
In countries with less modernized medical procedures, environments, and equipment, it's worse.

More deaths overall than terrorism has had if you take a decades long sample.

[Lordieth]

Being from the UK, I haven't been circumcised. All I can say it that I haven't suffered a single problem related to this.

Show me data that shows the pros outweighs the cons, and I will review my stance, but from what I can see it is a pointless operation that is solely preventative for what are incredibly minor health risks to the point that it almost seems silly. I certainly have nothing against the practice if people chose it, and it's really not that big of a deal, but I cannot possibly agree on the basis of medical grounds that this should be performed at birth. What people do within their own faith is their business, although I still think everyone should have a choice in it.

[Dyakovo]

The compromise as far as i'm willing to go on circumcision:

1. Ban on circumcision unless for explicitly religious reasons, or with the approval of two publicly paid doctors to treat certain illnesses. (And here, it is the loosening of the hood form that is done. Not removal.)

2. No public funding of circumcision, excepting the medical treatment forms.

3. Both parents must approve if available.

4. Ban on forms of circumcision which increase risk of transmission of disease.

5. The patient may sue their parents, and the person who performed the surgery, when they reach majority if they decide they do not like the fact they are circumcised. No statute of limitations. This may occur at any time in the future. This will not apply to patients on whom the procedure was performed for legitimate medical reasons under the public doctor exemption.


This doesn't make me happy. But it at least provides a means for those who feel victimized by the procedure to gain recompense for it. It's also more politically viable than a ban.

Just flat out banning circumcision except in cases of medical necessity for children is much better.
If you want it done as an adult, feel free.

[Ostroeuropa]

The compromise as far as i'm willing to go on circumcision:

1. Ban on circumcision unless for explicitly religious reasons, or with the approval of two publicly paid doctors to treat certain illnesses. (And here, it is the loosening of the hood form that is done. Not removal.)

2. No public funding of circumcision, excepting the medical treatment forms.

3. Both parents must approve if available.

4. Ban on forms of circumcision which increase risk of transmission of disease.

5. The patient may sue their parents, and the person who performed the surgery, when they reach majority if they decide they do not like the fact they are circumcised. No statute of limitations. This may occur at any time in the future. This will not apply to patients on whom the procedure was performed for legitimate medical reasons under the public doctor exemption.


This doesn't make me happy. But it at least provides a means for those who feel victimized by the procedure to gain recompense for it. It's also more politically viable than a ban.

Just flat out banning circumcision except in cases of medical necessity for children is much better.
If you want it done as an adult, feel free.

I agree it's much better, and it's what I think should be done if we can get away with it. But the pro-circumcision faction is too powerful at this time. This is a compromise which will lower the amount of circumcisions which take place, as well as provide a means of recompense to some victims of the practice. It will also remove it as a cultural normality in the USA.

The benefits of this approach is that it would, overtime, reduce the power of the pro-circumcision faction. Within a generation or perhaps two, it could be banned. I agree it should be an option for consenting adults though.

[AiliailiA]

A small cut to the labia majora leaving a visible scar is classed as FGM. The "damage" is quite literally cosmetic, it does not affect female sexual function at all.

So are you certain that ALL female genital mutilation is more damaging to the female than circumcision is to the male?

This, essentially.
The "FGM is worse!" arguments are, as usual, disingenuous lies from feminists.

It's like if we talked about Castration and then oscillated between Castration and Male Genital Mutilation, before pulling the number out of a few million boys genitally mutilated.

I'd personally rather we move Male Castration and Female Castration into their own category in order to properly compare the two and oh look, it turrns out that once you remove the castrative types, yes, yes they are both very comparable, as you point out.

There IS a double standard at work here, partially enforced by feminists and their kneejerk hyperzealousness in insisting no problem men have is comparable to womens problems.

On this issue they are, in effect, a pro-genital mutilation lobby. You have to get behind someone before you can stab them in the back, and the constant and repetitive downplaying of the issue they engage in outweighs their "But we oppose it" tacked on to the end.

This is why they are, as usual, utterly fucking useless at addressing mens issues.

Men should address their own issues.

I'm a man, and I'll stand with you addressing men's issues. There should be more funding for testicular and prostate cancer, these are major preventable causes of death for men. There should be men's shelters as well as women's shelters, for the victims of domestic violence. There should be legal enquiry into hiring practices in industries like childcare and teaching where it appears female workers are privileged over male workers.

The bias in policing, prosecution and sentencing of crimes is worth another paragraph. Huge problem there, which men's rights advocates should bring front and center. The law and the enforcement of law sets the standard of what is right and wrong, for a great many people. Maybe not a majority of people, but the "swing electorate", the middle ground who aren't committed for or against feminism, would go with with law if that was made right.

I'm not at all with you in criticizing feminists for their focus on women's issues. Your bitching about how feminists are not standing up for men's rights is ... I'm being polite about this ... ridiculous.

So let's get back to the subject. Is circumcision (or male genital mutilation) high on your agenda of injustices against men? Where whould you rank it in the top ten injustices against men?