Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What the fuck is it with people bringing up the "cosmetic" argument about how an uncircumcised penis looks?!

Look, you think my penis is disgusting because it is uncut, that's fine, but at least it doesn't look like a half-botched pencil; if we want to go that way.

Anyways, no, cosmetic reasons are not precisely the best reasons to have a circumcision done. Circumcision was made routine because of many factors, but among them were the puritanical view that masturbation is evil, and doctors making a profit out of it.

I will agree that parents have a right to make medical decisions for their child, but when it comes to cosmetic arguments, the whole argument falls apart because aesthetics is a personal, subjective thing. It's not very objective, and everyone has different standards of beauty. That, and the penis is not supposed to look "pretty" anyways, and it generally doesn't either way.

[Jochistan]

What the fuck is it with people bringing up the "cosmetic" argument about how an uncircumcised penis looks?!

Look, you think my penis is disgusting because it is uncut, that's fine, but at least it doesn't look like a half-botched pencil; if we want to go that way.

Anyways, no, cosmetic reasons are not precisely the best reasons to have a circumcision done. Circumcision was made routine because of many factors, but among them were the puritanical view that masturbation is evil, and doctors making a profit out of it.

I will agree that parents have a right to make medical decisions for their child, but when it comes to cosmetic arguments, the whole argument falls apart because aesthetics is a personal, subjective thing. It's not very objective, and everyone has different standards of beauty. That, and the penis is not supposed to look "pretty" anyways, and it generally doesn't either way.

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

[Ifreann]

What the fuck is it with people bringing up the "cosmetic" argument about how an uncircumcised penis looks?!

Look, you think my penis is disgusting because it is uncut, that's fine, but at least it doesn't look like a half-botched pencil; if we want to go that way.

Anyways, no, cosmetic reasons are not precisely the best reasons to have a circumcision done. Circumcision was made routine because of many factors, but among them were the puritanical view that masturbation is evil, and doctors making a profit out of it.

I will agree that parents have a right to make medical decisions for their child, but when it comes to cosmetic arguments, the whole argument falls apart because aesthetics is a personal, subjective thing. It's not very objective, and everyone has different standards of beauty. That, and the penis is not supposed to look "pretty" anyways, and it generally doesn't either way.

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Unusual more than ugly. Since most males in the US are circumcised, people will tend not to be familiar with the appearance of an uncircumcised penis, which leads parents to fear that their son might one day not get a blowjob from the head cheerleader because she thinks he's got a funny looking mickey, so off comes the foreskin.

[Imperializt Russia]

As a male, I see no issue with ritual circumcision of boys by comparison of FGM of girls. Medical complications aside, male circumcision doesn't impair the function of the penis. Removal of the clitoral hood or clitoris itself is obviously greatly impairing to the function of those parts (and often, FGM is not carried out in a sanitary condition while in ritual circumcision, typically they make the effort).

I suppose one could push that circumcision must be a decision made by the person themselves. I don't believe it would be difficult for, in the case of Jewish ritual circumcision, making circumcision a part of the Bar Mitzvah rite of passage?

[Jochistan]

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Unusual more than ugly. Since most males in the US are circumcised, people will tend not to be familiar with the appearance of an uncircumcised penis, which leads parents to fear that their son might one day not get a blowjob from the head cheerleader because she thinks he's got a funny looking mickey, so off comes the foreskin.

Hahaha!...y-yeah. Never...never happens in reality...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Unusual more than ugly. Since most males in the US are circumcised, people will tend not to be familiar with the appearance of an uncircumcised penis, which leads parents to fear that their son might one day not get a blowjob from the head cheerleader because she thinks he's got a funny looking mickey, so off comes the foreskin.

Honestly, I've never had much of an issue about my penis because it is uncircumcised.

It's just a non-issue, to me. I mean, hygiene is important, but that takes less than a minute in the shower anyways. Also, I feel that it is somehow far more sensitive to things than it probably should be for some reason; but those are not big inconveniences.

[Dyakovo]

What the fuck is it with people bringing up the "cosmetic" argument about how an uncircumcised penis looks?!

Look, you think my penis is disgusting because it is uncut, that's fine, but at least it doesn't look like a half-botched pencil; if we want to go that way.

Anyways, no, cosmetic reasons are not precisely the best reasons to have a circumcision done. Circumcision was made routine because of many factors, but among them were the puritanical view that masturbation is evil, and doctors making a profit out of it.

I will agree that parents have a right to make medical decisions for their child, but when it comes to cosmetic arguments, the whole argument falls apart because aesthetics is a personal, subjective thing. It's not very objective, and everyone has different standards of beauty. That, and the penis is not supposed to look "pretty" anyways, and it generally doesn't either way.

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Maybe? I mean I think both are ugly...

[The Alma Mater]

What the fuck is it with people bringing up the "cosmetic" argument about how an uncircumcised penis looks?!

Look, you think my penis is disgusting because it is uncut, that's fine, but at least it doesn't look like a half-botched pencil; if we want to go that way.

Anyways, no, cosmetic reasons are not precisely the best reasons to have a circumcision done. Circumcision was made routine because of many factors, but among them were the puritanical view that masturbation is evil, and doctors making a profit out of it.

I will agree that parents have a right to make medical decisions for their child, but when it comes to cosmetic arguments, the whole argument falls apart because aesthetics is a personal, subjective thing. It's not very objective, and everyone has different standards of beauty. That, and the penis is not supposed to look "pretty" anyways, and it generally doesn't either way.

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Depends on where you are. In Europe the cicumcised penis is usually seen as ugly; but that might be due to its association with Islam.

[Imperializt Russia]

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Depends on where you are. In Europe the cicumcised penis is usually seen as ugly; but that might be due to its association with Islam.

I sincerely doubt it's anything to do with that since it's far more closely associated with Judaism.

[The Alma Mater]

Depends on where you are. In Europe the cicumcised penis is usually seen as ugly; but that might be due to its association with Islam.

I sincerely doubt it's anything to do with that since it's far more closely associated with Judaism.

It used to be. Muslims are nowadays slightly more present.

[Jochistan]

Is thinking uncircumcised penises are ugly a common view?

Depends on where you are. In Europe the cicumcised penis is usually seen as ugly; but that might be due to its association with Islam.

Nailed it.

[Obexer]

Honestly, I've never had much of an issue about my penis because it is uncircumcised.

It's just a non-issue, to me. I mean, hygiene is important, but that takes less than a minute in the shower anyways. Also, I feel that it is somehow far more sensitive to things than it probably should be for some reason; but those are not big inconveniences.

I agree. It's kind of hard for me to get all riled up about this since I don't really care that much to begin with. However, I kind of get the vibe that this is just another thing for people to be outraged & have a sense of moral superiority over.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I'm for circumcisions. My kid doesn't have a choice? Too bad. When the kid is an adult, then they can complain about circumcisions and how horrible they are. Until they get a job, move out, or contribute to the household in some meaningful way, their rights are nil. Besides that, I don't care. Besides, I highly doubt there are many women out there who want to look at a guy's misshapen anteater penis.

To me, this seems a lot like "screw my kids and what they think, I do what I want". I could be wrong but that's what it seems to me.

[Arach-Naga Combine]

Honestly, I've never had much of an issue about my penis because it is uncircumcised.

It's just a non-issue, to me. I mean, hygiene is important, but that takes less than a minute in the shower anyways. Also, I feel that it is somehow far more sensitive to things than it probably should be for some reason; but those are not big inconveniences.

I agree. It's kind of hard for me to get all riled up about this since I don't really care that much to begin with. However, I kind of get the vibe that this is just another thing for people to be outraged & have a sense of moral superiority over.

But, to the point of the thread, you would also have to say the same about female circumcision. The thread is about the hypocrisy, not really the morality.

[Ostroeuropa]

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?

I agree with most of that. The reason i'm complaining about feminists is because they claim to represent gender equality for both genders, not just women. As such, their focus on womens issues is extremely problematic, especially since they flip out and demand no other movement address sexism since feminism is already doing it.
If they would shut the fuck up about feminism addressing mens issues too, i'd have no problem with their focus on womens issues since this would leave the MRM free to start accumulating institutional power. As it is, they focus almost entirely on womens issues, then go crazy when someone sets up an MRA group because feminism is already addressing mens issues. (No, it fucking isnt. Not sufficiently.) Then they abuse their institutional and media power to prevent the MRA group from attaining legitimacy or recognition. This is why it's impossible for men to work on their own issues. Take a look at all the times feminists protest or shut down MRM groups, or the times they tell lies about us in the media.

THIS is why I criticize feminists. They not only focus on womens issues, but make it impossible for people to work on mens. Go to the MRM thread and see all the feminists absolutely convinced there is no such thing as sexism against men. The only thing left for us to do is to make it so a feminist has to either work on both men and womens issues, or only womens, and to make it so opposing work on mens issues makes you toxic. I'd say we're doing well at making feminists toxic to most people. Eventually, they'll agree to stop blocking work on mens issues and shut the fuck about them doing it themselves. (They're shit at it for one thing.)

As for circumcision, it's on the agenda, and it's fairly high, but personally i'd rank it below domestic abuse, rape, bias in the justice system, bias in the education system, male mental health, and male homelessness. i'd probably then say circumcision is next on the list.


Circumcision is a good instance of showing that feminism is NOT an equality movement.

You're missing the problem, really. Any explicitly MRM group will be opposed by feminists, and moderate ones will not support it. (Though they may also, not oppose.)
They think the solution to mens issues needs to come from within the feminist movement, and they will not yield on this point.
The fact that it's utterly fucking failed to materialize despite 100 years of waiting doesn't deter their ideological zeal.

As for the backlash against feminism...
Maybe if feminists didn't insist their movement had to do it all and there was no space for other movements, they wouldn't be so despised when they then fail to live up to the expectations they keep throwing out.

They are not entitled to our support. They have lost it. That feminists keep throwing shitfits over people having decided their movement is INADEQUATE is not our problem, and that they think temper tantrums and demands that we support their movement are a good way to win back support is merely humorous, but for them to then spitefully try to shut down other movements and insist that they and they alone are the deliverance from sexism makes me think they are just unbearable. Feminists force feminism to be our problem, that is why they are hated.
We are expected to be forever tied to an overbloated, incompetent mess of a movement with entrenched dogmas that actively resist work on our issues, because it's adherents cannot bare to admit that they have fucking failed.

[Camicon]

As a male, I see no issue with ritual circumcision of boys by comparison of FGM of girls. Medical complications aside, male circumcision doesn't impair the function of the penis. Removal of the clitoral hood or clitoris itself is obviously greatly impairing to the function of those parts (and often, FGM is not carried out in a sanitary condition while in ritual circumcision, typically they make the effort).

I suppose one could push that circumcision must be a decision made by the person themselves. I don't believe it would be difficult for, in the case of Jewish ritual circumcision, making circumcision a part of the Bar Mitzvah rite of passage?

It's been pointed out before, simply leaving a visible scar on a vagina is considered FGM, regardless of whether or not it impairs the function of the vagina. Regardless, circumcision can actually impair the function of the penis, so you are wrong on that count.
And if you're going to discount the "medical complications" of male circumcision (like death, amputation of the penis, etc.) then you can't turn around and use the "unsanitary conditions" you seem to think FGM is normally carried out in as a reason for male circumcision being more acceptable.

Excepting male circumcision, since when have the religious practices of my parents ever trumped my right to bodily sovereignty?

[Imperializt Russia]

As a male, I see no issue with ritual circumcision of boys by comparison of FGM of girls. Medical complications aside, male circumcision doesn't impair the function of the penis. Removal of the clitoral hood or clitoris itself is obviously greatly impairing to the function of those parts (and often, FGM is not carried out in a sanitary condition while in ritual circumcision, typically they make the effort).

I suppose one could push that circumcision must be a decision made by the person themselves. I don't believe it would be difficult for, in the case of Jewish ritual circumcision, making circumcision a part of the Bar Mitzvah rite of passage?

It's been pointed out before, simply leaving a visible scar on a vagina is considered FGM, regardless of whether or not it impairs the function of the vagina. Regardless, circumcision can actually impair the function of the penis, so you are wrong on that count.
And if you're going to discount the "medical complications" of male circumcision (like death, amputation of the penis, etc.) then you can't turn around and use the "unsanitary conditions" you seem to think FGM is normally carried out in as a reason for male circumcision being more acceptable.

Excepting male circumcision, since when have the religious practices of my parents ever trumped my right to bodily sovereignty?

Making you eat in a kosher household, maybe.

I am uncircumcised for what it is worth.

[Obexer]

But, to the point of the thread, you would also have to say the same about female circumcision. The thread is about the hypocrisy, not really the morality.

No, I don't really think it's that hypocritical. I can see how someone would think those two things are equivalent, but removing a woman's clitoris (and even more, in some cases) doesn't have roughly the same effect as removing a man's foreskin.

[Camicon]

It's been pointed out before, simply leaving a visible scar on a vagina is considered FGM, regardless of whether or not it impairs the function of the vagina. Regardless, circumcision can actually impair the function of the penis, so you are wrong on that count.
And if you're going to discount the "medical complications" of male circumcision (like death, amputation of the penis, etc.) then you can't turn around and use the "unsanitary conditions" you seem to think FGM is normally carried out in as a reason for male circumcision being more acceptable.

Excepting male circumcision, since when have the religious practices of my parents ever trumped my right to bodily sovereignty?

Making you eat in a kosher household, maybe.

I am uncircumcised for what it is worth.

Eating a kosher meal which my parents provide for me is a violation of bodily sovereignty? You make that leap of logic how, exactly?

As am I, thank goodness.

But, to the point of the thread, you would also have to say the same about female circumcision. The thread is about the hypocrisy, not really the morality.

No, I don't really think it's that hypocritical. I can see how someone would think those two things are equivalent, but removing a woman's clitoris (and even more, in some cases) doesn't have roughly the same effect as removing a man's foreskin.

Removing the clitoris is not equivalent to circumcision, and I don't see anyone on the anti-circumcision side of this debate making that comparison; though, if I did, I would point out that they are entirely wrong.

[Imperializt Russia]

Eh.

As I've said, I don't see it as a vast issue and suggested a workaround to it.

[Diopolis]

Yes, circumcision is wrong except for medical reasons. No, it's not as wrong as FGM.

[Camicon]

Yes, circumcision is wrong except for medical reasons. No, it's not as wrong as FGM.

And your reasoning is what, exactly?

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, circumcision is wrong except for medical reasons. No, it's not as wrong as FGM.

Why not? (Changing that to MGM is not as wrong as FGM.)

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, circumcision is wrong except for medical reasons. No, it's not as wrong as FGM.

And your reasoning is what, exactly?

Well, he's technically right, but because he's unknowingly being disingenuous.

Circumcision isn't as bad as FGM.

But MGM is as bad as FGM.

Circumcision doesn't cover all MGM, and Female Castration is one form of FGM that is often presented as all of it.

We may as well say;

Pricking the clitoris with a pin isn't as bad as male genital mutilation, don't you know they castrate people!?
Millions of boys a year are victims of male genital mutilation!

[Camicon]

And your reasoning is what, exactly?

Well, he's technically right, but because he's unknowingly being disingenuous.

Circumcision isn't as bad as FGM.

But MGM is as bad as FGM.

Circumcision doesn't cover all MGM, and Female Castration is one form of FGM that is often presented as all of it.

We may as well say;

Pricking the clitoris with a pin isn't as bad as male genital mutilation, don't you know they castrate people!?

I suspect that's what they're doing but I want him to admit it, because, barring that, they're being ridiculously sexist.