So, atheists/agnostics/non-Abrahamic-religion-people, do you have your male children circumcised? Why or why not?
Recent Comments
- Michael: The bill does not apply to religious organizations for the... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- Isilzha: I need that as a tattoo! on Can I hear an Amen?
- Paul: I’m not sure that Obama’s compromise will work with... on Mr. Conservative on religion and politics
- Mahousniper: And then people wonder what the harm of religion is. on John Piper and Divine Command
- Paul: No excuse for being a combatant either on John Piper and Divine Command
- Leland Somers: These people are consistent, logical and take the text as meaning... on John Piper and Divine Command
Funny $&#!@ From 9 Laughs
I'm one of the contributors to 9 Laughs:
Subscribe by Email
Archives
Well, no. I have no sons, but even if I did I wouldn’t have them circumcised and I am not circumcised myself.
But my case isn’t very telling. I live in Sweden, where such a practice isn’t widely used at all. I know no one here who is circumcised.
Personally, I don’t think there is any good non-religious defense for the practice. The medical benefits I have heard just don’t seem worth it, since they can be achieved with just regular proper hygiene.
For some discussion on the benefits of not being circumcised though, I recommend watching the episode of Penn and Teller’s Bullshit that deals with the matter. I certainly don’t agree with everything that they say and argue in that series, but it is still a widely entertaining way to get at least some facts.
My brother was circumcised at birth because of my father’s experience of having to be circumcised at age 14 for some kind of medical reason. He wanted to make sure his son didn’t have to go through anything like that.
Due to this family history, I chose to have my son (now 25 years old) circumcised at birth, as well.
It was still common practice then. I understand doctors don’t automatically recommend it to young parents anymore, but I think I would still make the same decision today.
My father was circumcised, I was not.
But I heard from a friend that her boyfriend had to get an emergency circumcision at age 12 that seriously hurt the sexual sensitivity to the point where the increase in stamina was seen as a downside.
Yeah, I get all these details from my friends.
I only have a daughter and have no plans on having another kid, but I’m pretty firmly against circumcision and think it should be illegal to do such a thing to a child for any reason beyond legitimate medical reasons. It should not be a routine procedure that’s done to children simply for being born male.
i totally understand where you’re coming from but like others said, i would rather have my son get circumcised at birth than have to be circumcised later in life due to medical reasons where it would be a much worse experience
That’s REALLY rare that someone gets or needs a circumcision for a medical condition. It is almost 100% religious or cosmetic. It’s also a huge industry, which is where a lot of this scaremongering comes from.
i have no plans to have kids, but i would never circumcise my hypothetical son. my parents did it to me when i was a baby for purely religious reasons, nothing to do with medical reasons.
No, I do not. My son had major open-heart surgery at 36 hours old and a few other operations in his 11-day stay in the hospital right after he was born. I could imagine putting him through a fifth (unnecessary) operation after he had just gone through four operations he needed to save his life.
This decision was over the strong objections by my mother.
I’m curious — what circumstances would require a (emergency) circumcision at age 12-14? I’m leaning against circumcision for a hypothetical son, but not sure what my wife thinks about it.
I was circumcised in the mid-70′s just because that was the prevailing medical opinion at the time. I am an atheist, but that had no bearing on my circumcision decision for my son. We did not circumsize because it is not a medically necessary procedure, because of the inherent risks of circumcision, and because I did not want to put my child through that immense amount of pain. He’d already been through enough just getting here.
My brother and and sister-in-law are hardcore Baptists, my brother converting because of his new in-laws (sigh, long difficult story). They are (or he claims to be) biblical literalists, young earth creationists, etc.; but their son is also not circumcised for the same points enumerated above.
In Europe circumcision is rare for everyone, even Christians.
Oops – I meant “…could not imagine…”
My husband and I don’t do the circumcision thing unless it’s medically necessary (like the foreskin won’t descend from the glands and causes infections type of necessary). I would not consider modifying the genitals of my daughter, why on earth would I consider modifying the genitals of my son?
Here is the American Pediatric Association’s official policy statement on circumcision:
http://tinyurl.com/3h3hl
tl;dr: “data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”
(tl;dr means “too long, didn’t read” – thank you Internet attention spans!)
I think Wikipedia’s disambiguation statement is telling: “This article is about male circumcision. For female circumcision, see Female genital cutting.“. When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric.
There is much more to be said on the issue, and unfortunately I don’t have much time. There are medical benefits to be had from circumcision, but as others have pointed out they are mostly benefits that could also be had from teaching proper hygiene and sexual practices – specifically, wearing a dang condom.
I’m from Denmark and in the whole of Scandinavia circumcision is only done by a small religious minority and for the medical reasons below, which are all quite avoidable by teaching boys (and girls) about basic hygiene in schools before they reach puberty.
Phimosis:
The foreskin cannot be pulled back beyond the head of the penis without tearing.
Paraphimosis:
Foreskin is stuck behind the head of the penis.
Although not atheist at the time of my son’s birth, I did not have him circumcised as it seemed medically unnecessary.
My brothers were circumcised (60′s, 70′s and 80′s) but I don’t think that my parents even thought about it, it was just the done thing.
Yes, I did. Honestly, the main consideration was for sexual selection purposes (in the evolutionary sense). Put in more common terms, he’d seem more attractive to girls. I had read several surveys that women (in our general cultural area) prefer circumcised men and had done a little informal survey myself.
A secondary reason, related to the first, is that it’s traditional in my area regardless of religion. A third reason is that I am circumcised myself. That means I can’t really talk to issues related to being uncircumcised, whether social, psychological, or physical. But I can certainly talk about what’s “normal” in terms of circumcised penises because I have one.
I fully admit that none of these reasons are overly strong. But I hadn’t heard any real argument against doing it. The medical arguments are also weak in terms of any meaningful input, though tend slightly towards circumcision for simplicity of hygiene.
In short, when I had to give my input it was just the additive effects of a bunch of small reasons for it versus none I could find against it. My wife also sided that way.
Majority of hot girls prefer men to be circumcised rather than not, what other reason do you need?
@not religious: By that logic, women should be circumcised too because a majority of Muslim men prefer it.
no you’re wrong. women don’t seek out muslims for mates but guys sure as hell seek out hot girls
I don’t think that American women (and it really is just American women) being too uneducated to know that circumcision isn’t the natural look of a mate is a good reason to send an infant under the knife. Besides, it’s not as though you men walk around with your genitals waving around, so women aren’t going to be attracted or not attracted to you initially based on the status of your foreskin.
Clearly you have never been out drinking in Cardiff :-p
not religious: Cultural bias can be changed over time. Around these parts women certainly do not prefer circumcised men, and it can be that way anywhere. And I must say that I very much prefer being un-mutilated :) So it might be a good idea to try to change such a bias.
If I ever have sons, I will not have them circumcised.
Mostly because I don’t think parents should make their children undergo surgery for anything other than medical reasons.
Being British, and there not being an insane cultural tradition of it over here, of course not!
Not religious, not circumcised.
I grew up in Japan, and “being able to pull the skin back” was sort of our main topics of conversation in middle school (amongst boys of corse).
Looking back, I sort of wish my parents circumcised me at birth.
I’m looking forward to having my sons circumcised, if that day ever comes.
The glans is designed to be moist membrane like your inner lip not dried out skin which is what it becomes from being exposed and rubbed against fabric.
The USA is the only civilized nation on earth to still inflict this barbarity on its sons. However, the rates are declining steadily.
I’m a Mormon, and this topic confuses me.
In the New Testament, Paul clearly states that one doesn’t need to be circumcised at all.
How is this still a question of faith for anyone who isn’t Jewish?
No I would not.
If you are on the fence on this issue, I’d recommend watching Penn & Teller’s take on it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0q_UWlvoTHc
Yes, I did.
I’m circumcised and it seems to have done me well. My cousin was not, and he’s had several infections, etc.
Mostly I did it out of tradition, though. I found the medical reasons for and against to be dodgy at best. For me, it came down to “It was good enough for my great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and me, so……” Except for a couple people like my cousin, every man I’ve ever known has been snipped.
If I had the chance to choose again, I would still probably opt for it. They’re much uglier when they have the turtleneck on ;)
As for the difference between male and female circumcision … I apply a strict double-standard here unabashedly. Female circumcision is wrong in my opinion and I would never support it.
Hmm…. am I the only one to have been “semi circumsised” such that I have no skin to pull back, but my glans is still covered? I’d have to say I’m a big fan of not having anything rubbing on something that’s not skin down there.
I am an atheist and I am circumcised. If I ever have a son I will likely consider having him circumcised simply because it protects against STDs. Actually, in africa, it is becoming popular for men to get circumcised in order to reduce their chances of contracting aids. It is a relatively cheap and it only has to be done once. Many morals/customs originally come into being to solve legitimate biological problems. Why is incest considered bad? I promise it has nothing to do with something abstract or metaphysical. It is because people noticed that it led to an increased risk of children with genetic diseases, though they didn’t know the detailed causes of the diseases. Sexual promiscuity has a negative social stigma under a similar logic; it is “bad” both because of diseases and unwanted children.
However, I am not having any children in the foreseeable future and it is hard to say what I would want to do at a later time. The only sure thing is that I would weigh the pros and con’s as well as taking into account the views of my wife/gf. I am not strongly opinionated either way, but I definitely see it as a compelling option.
I did and my reasons are practically identical to comment #15 from DL.
Until I saw the Bullshit (Penn & Teller) episode on circumcision, I did not think that this still took place outside the Jewish community. Never heard about it in Russia, never heard about it in Australia (outside of Bullshit and South Park episodes).
Culturally, I have no reason to circumcise. Of course, culture tells me I’m not complete without religion so its not like I listen to culture often. Quite simply, I think that genitals should grow in naturally, without snipping bits off for aesthetic reasons.
UTKid: It protects very, very little against STDs, and in the case of many irresponsible young people it can actually make things worse.
Things like that – being told that you have something that protects you – can make people forego condoms when there isn’t the time to get one. But a condom is many times safer, so for many that false sense of security can be devestating.
It’s just like the pulling out-method of birth control. For several reasons it works very poorly, but people still try even though they know that they should use something better. Because the heat of the moment makes them forget about the risks and they don’t want to interrupt what they are doing by going to get some better protection.
No, neither of my 2 boys is.
If the kids want to have the procedure done when they are older, they can make that decision themselves. We don’t feel it is appropriate for us to make the choice to cut their flesh for cultural purposes.
The medical establishment used to cut out appendices every time one swelled up; now they’re not so quick to do so since, lo and behold, there IS an actual purpose to the appendix. It’s the same with foreskin and the argument “we just haven’t devolved it yet” is not even worthy of discussion, being completely hypothetical and untestable.
We went back and forth about having my son circumcised. We finally decided to do it for 3 reasons:
1. Cleanliness. Sure you can avoid problems with proper hygiene, but if you’re cut you don’t have to worry about it. Of course, that did tend to be the part of my body that I spent the most time washing when I was growing up.;)
2. I’ve been circumcised, as have most men in this part of the US. I wanted him to fit in. I’ve got a minor genital abnormality which made (and to an extent still makes) me feel uncomfortable changing clothes in locker rooms. I don’t want him to go through that.
3. I just couldn’t buy the whole ‘we have no right to make a decision like that for him’ argument. That’s what a parent’s job is.
speaking as someone who had a foreskin when no one else did at school, it didn’t make me embarrassed in any way. It was just a thing. It was actually kind of a status symbol, like growing hair first at puberty.
I had some problems with accumulated smegma as a child, but a nightly wash in the shower takes care of that nicely.
And a parent’s job is to look after their child, not lop bits off their body unnecessarily.
As for all the masturbation innuendo going around, uncircumcised males save a fortune on lube and/or hand lotion.
95% of the world’s non-Muslims do not circumcise. Whoever said girls like cut guys was talking about a sick minority in a sick culture.
The Catholic Church forbids it, and the New Testament makes plain that it is not part of Christianity (somebody tell that to Christians in the US, South Korea, and The Philippines).
No national medical association on earth endorses it. Foreskin feels REALLY good. HIS body HIS decision.
Would you trim your newborn daughter’s labia just so her vagina can look more attractive to men when she grows up? No? I didn’t think so. So why do it to boys? I’m European and I didn’t even know about this sick, barbaric ritual before I moved to the US. I thought only Muslims and Jews did it. But no matter what medical reason they give you, it’s just religion in disguise. Just say NO to child mutilation of any kind!
I am, but our four boys are not.
Eric said that “It was good enough for my great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and me, so…” That’s probably true for a few generations of my family, as well… but it’s not true for couple thousand generations before that, and humanity’s still here. I figure evolution’s probably got some reasons.
I’m not worried about being ‘unable to relate’ to my boys because of it, or that they’ll feel ‘different’ from me. My wife and I have just explained that they used to do that, but since it’s not necessary we didn’t want to put them through it.
As for cleanliness, that comes down to teaching basic hygiene. Duh. We’ve only got sons so I haven’t changed any girl’s diapers, but I’m told it can be rather involved, cleaning all the folds. I’m sure it’d be easier to keep them clean if you just cut those labia out of the way, but I don’t see anyone seriously proposing that.
As for ‘fitting in’ with peers – since my wife’s parents came from Italy, her brother (raised in America his whole life) wasn’t circumcised, and gee, it was no big deal. These days, it’s even less uncommon. I can’t see putting a baby through surgery (with small but serious risks) for that.
Sure I would, and I would also make sure my daughter had breast implants, as a majority of men find larger breasts more appealing. (It follows, logically. Right?)
We did not circumcise our now 3 month old son because there was no rational reason to do so. We did however circumcise our now 11 year old son because at the time, we were irrational, superstitious christians. I wish I could go back to that time and knock some sense into my old fundie noggin.
Of course not! Some day this will be universally seen for the extraordinary (mad) question that it is.
Notice that the reasons people give for doing it are all either wrong (the latest study, from New Zealand, of a cohort of 500 boys – 40% circumcised – followed to age 32, found NO difference in STDs) or just stoopid.
Sexual selection? That means a foreskin is a good airhead repellant.
“I just couldn’t buy the whole ‘we have no right to make a decision like that for him’ argument. That’s what a parent’s job is.” There is no other healthy, non-renewable part of the human body for which parents have the job of deciding whether to have it cut off. Deciding not to cut it off is also deciding (though that is often not how parents are treated in hospital). The sensible default decision is not to cut anything off. Whose body is it? Whose penis? Whose rights?
Why do circumcised men say it’s easier to clean their penises because they don’t have to worry about it? You mean circumcised men NEVER wash their penises?! That’s the most bizarre thing I’ve ever heard.
My gf would not let me have sex with her because I am uncut. She would rather have unprotected sex with a cut man because it is cleaner and healthier than having protected sex with an uncut man. She’s not Jewish, Muslim, Christian or religious, she’s just German!
To top it all off, (pun intended!) she smokes, is obese and keeps her place like a pigsty and calls tidy people “clean freaks”. What a contradiction!
I was born in the U.S. in 1964. I was amputated against my will, because it was considered “normal” and “healthy”, not for religious reasons.
I was NOT given the choice to amputate a part of my own body.
You may call it circumcision to make yourself feel better, but it is amputation. Look it up:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amputate
I find it interesting that when you look up “Famle Circumcision” it is most often referred to as “genital mutilation”, but when done to males it’s considered acceptable. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=female+circumcision&spell=1
If you are religious, we are “made in God’s image” (read with foreskin). My question to religious people considering amputating a son is – Is your son’s foreskin God’s mistake?
If I am ever to have a son, I absolutely wil not have him circumcised. I was born in a Catholic household and I was circumcised, but I believe the practice is barbaric and cruel. I live in Canada and from what I can tell it’s part of the WASPish society here to do so, but I dislike and disapprove of the idea.
I am a maternity nurse and quit my job because I had to “help” with circumcisions. I have seen some horrible things happen to innocent baby boys. Sometimes they cut too much off sometimes it bleeds a lot and the babies always scream in pain. Why would someone choose to traumatize a perfect baby?! It makes me sick to think about. I have 2 sons and we did not circumcise. My husband is and wishes his parents had made a different choice. If someone is reading this trying to decide whether or not to do it…DON”T!
I’ve been researching this quite a bit lately as I’m pregnant. I don’t think I’ll circumcise my son. I see no compelling reason to do and I’m not Jewish. In my research I’ve found sites that say Christians aren’t supposed to circumcise – http://www.udonet.com/circumcision/christian.html . Since atheists have no religious conviction to do it, and since it’s not medically necessary, why put your child through something unnecessary? I’m thinking Jews are the only ones who are supposed to circumcise their boys.
Boy, is there some wrong information flying around here. I believe the majority of blacks, not just whites and (nowadays) American Hispanics, are cut. Most in S. Korea, Philippines and other countries are. Most in Australia are. A good number in Canada are. Most in the entire mid east are.
But how many is not the issue. Many believe that it’s just a damned good idea. That’s why so many boys and men that didn’t get cut when they were born or when little choose to get it done later, and most are exceedingly happy with the decision too, as are their women.
There are just so many good reasons — personal, social, cultural, traditional, simple cleanliness and proper penile development, and that’s before you even get into the health, medical or religious reasons.
Frankly, I disagree that either parent or church (or anybody) should be able to violate a boy’s right to decide for himself. But he should certainly have it explained to him by the time he is starting school, and have it offered no later than about puberty if he feels he needs or wants it.
Actually, it’s not common at all in Europe or Australia, and in the US these days less than half of MAAB infants are circumcised.
Boy, are you misinformed, Charles II. The only countries that really circumcise their infants routinely are Middle Eastern and the USA. This is absolutely a barbaric practice that cannot be justified by tradition. To answer the question, I certainly would never even consider circumcising a hypothetical son of mine. In fact, if I birthed this hypothetical son in an area that routinely circumcised, I would threaten the medical staff if they gave me any lip about it. No one in their right mind allows their little baby’s genitalia to be mutilated, regardless of their own genital mutilation or tradition in the area. The one thing I am noticing here is that many say that women in your geographical area (I’m assuming you all are mostly in the U.S.) prefer circumcised men. Know why that is? These women have this weird preference (and it is weird when you have sampled both – unless you like pain, chaffing, and minor bleeding from having sex with a circumcised man) because they do not know their options! Or, more accurately, “the system” has deprived them of this knowledge via depriving the men of their generation of their foreskins. Many of the women you are referencing have only had the opportunity to have sex with circumcised men. I can tell you, socially, I am used to images of the mutilated penis. However, I can tell you that the sex is better and the penis sexier when it has a turtle head! I am also fairly certain that if you were to interview men in countries where they regularly mutilate their female babies genitals that they would tell you that the mutilated female is more attractive. Is FGM justified because of those men’s preferences? I would think most would say not. Ridiculous double standard. Yes, there is a study out there that says that male genital mutilation (MGM) can help prevent the transfer of AIDS, HOWEVER – the drop-out rate in that study was so ridiculously large (look it up yourself – I don’t remember exactly) that there is no way to draw any legitimate conclusions from it. Additionally, people, we have condoms. Should we amputate the breast tissue of baby female infants to prevent the possiblity of future breast cancer? How about cutting out labia to help prevent AIDS? Disgusting, ridiculous practice that we will one day look back in horror on this.
Additionally, I saw a study that showed about 90% of women who have SAMPLED BOTH PREFERED INTACT MEN.
To “an Atheist” who commented on Charles II note, GREAT JOB!!! Thank you very much for the comment. I was in shock and feeling so disgusted about the misinformation Charles II spewed out. I didn’t have time to respond when the notification came up on my e-mail and I was planning on responding in the same way you did.
Originally am from Scotland and my family is all European. People over there are intact and everyone likes it that way! Charles II really doesn’t know what he is talking about. Most men are NOT mutilated. There is no medical reason to and women do not prefer it!!! “An Atheist”, I think your comment was so well put, I second everything you said. Thank you, thank you!!!! Hopefully you saved somebody’s foreskin!
The circumcised penis is not easier to clean in infancy. An open, fresh wound in a diaper with dark sticky sh*t and urine? No way, man. Once the boy is old enough to retract his foreskin, cleaning would be little different from running water over a vagina (not a huge/horrible/difficult/impossible task). Plus, how difficult do you really think it would be to get a little boy to touch/wash his penis in the shower? I don’t think that would take much convincing at all.
P.S.
Washing her hands and brushing her teeth are two of my daughter’s favorite things to do – so I think how much of a chore it is depends on the child.
Dear Nicky Nurse,
Thank you! Thats why I try to post on threads about circumcision – maybe someone will think twice before mutilating their son’s penis. (I personally don’t care what adult men choose to do – I’m not the one who has to live without my prepuce.) It’s a shame you had to quit. I’m actually in nursing school now but I don’t plan on working maternity wards here in the U.S. for that reason. I don’t think I could bear watching little babies traumatized, disfigured and mutilated over and over at their parent’s request.
“When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric.”
Because, other than the word, male circumcision and female “circumcision” have nothing in common.
Boy, is there some wrong information flying around here. I believe the majority of blacks, not just whites and (nowadays) American Hispanics, are cut.
So something is correct information if and only if you believe it?
What a moron.
“When you mutilate a boy’s genitals it’s got a dry medical term; when you mutilate a female’s genitals it’s barbaric.”
Because, other than the word, male circumcision and female “circumcision” have nothing in common.
Really? I will copy and paste a decent article:
The horrors of female circumcision reverberate all throughout today’s mass media. Male circumcision is often dismissed as nothing or not even talked about at all. Often in conversations people will tell me that “it is impossible to compare male and female circumcision.” Well as the definition of a compare is “to consider or describe as similar,” I believe I can. In both male and female circumcision part of the genitals are being amputated. Eureka! Now that we have determined that they can indeed be compared lets be a little more serious about the matter.
One reason we have such a hard time getting through to African cultures about female circumcision is they think we are all hypocrites. We criticize them for circumcising a female in such horrible conditions, when a male is next in line. They also see us circumcising a large percentage of our males, so they see no reason why we have any room to talk. This leaves the most common argument that female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision. Well in some ways they are right. The kind of circumcision that you see in the news is much worse than what is commonly practiced here. However, the situation is much more complex than that.
Before I start, there are some people whom this will not satisfy. They will point out some differences in what I am trying to compare. Notice I say they are “similar” not identical. Also to help satisfy those people who get angry when I do this, I am not downplaying female circumcision. I agree. It is sick. That isn’t the point at all. The point is to find parallels.
note: I have gotten some complaints that I don’t talk about other complications from the procedures (death from the procedure, infections, and infant mortality) This is much harder to do, but I will try and do it quickly. As far as deaths go, more men die in circumcision than women. This is becuase many more men are circumcised than women. It is true that a greater percentage of circumcised women die or have infections. However, those women are operated on in mostly 3rd world countries with a shard of glass. This happens to the men there too and they also die in large numbers. The discrepancy in the percentage of infections/deaths comes from the US, where we have a trained medical staff and sanitary conditions. As a result it is hard to have any meaningful data. As far as childbirth goes, well Men don’t deal with that at all obviously. As most anti FGM posters rarely talk about it, information about the subject was sketchy at best from my sources. While I am sure FGM contributes to deaths in childbirth and infant mortality, who is to say that the death would not have happened had she not been circumcised? As I stated earlier, another reason for lack of prevalent data is that FGM activists don’t concentrate on it.
1. The most mild form of female circumcision is a prick or simple bloodletting. This is actually more common for girls than most people think. A prick is also becoming more and more common for Jewish boys, becuase their parents want a “bris” without putting their child in the most pain he has ever experienced. These two actually compare really well. Baring infection, neither has any long term damages. Both are mildly painful. Both are done for religious reasons. Neither serves a practical purpose.
2. Removal of the female prepuce is next on the list. Contrary to what most people think, this is actually the most common type of female circumcision. This type of circumcision may include the labia or clitoral hood. They both serve a similar function as the male foreskin and are biologically homologous organs. The purpose of this tissue is to cover the glans. For the female this is the clitoral glans. For the male, this is the head of the penis. Either surgery will have the same result. Both will dry the exposed glans out and leave it calloused. Unlike the female prepuse, the foreskin acts as the males main lubricant and has many more nerve endings than the female prepuce. Both males and females can usually experience sexual pleasure and orgasms, but it is often greatly reduced.
3. Clitorectomy. This procedure is hard to compare to anything for the male. Many angry women will chant that “Its like removing the entire penis you sexist pig!!!” While I am sure they have the best of intentions, that notion is absurd. A woman who has had a clitorectomy can have sex and has often been able to have orgasms. A man with a penectomy cannot function in any way sexually. He cannot even have sex let alone have an orgasm.
Some people say that a very tight circumcision is the equilivant of a clitorectomy. A very tight circumcision removes a similar amount of tissue as a clitorectomy. It can also make normal living difficult as well as normal sexuality. Some poor circumcision jobs have make erections painful and can even tear the skin causing bleeding. It would also remove all sensitive areas around the glans such as the frenulum, and frenular band. This is probably a little less severe than a clitorectomy for the simple fact that a man would still have his glans and the woman would not. As they are biologically homologous structures, this discrepancy cannot be ignored. There is a very rare procedure called a glansectomy that would remove the males glans. This procedure is so rare that there is very little information about it, but given that this procedure would take away all of the males sensitive tissue, and would relocate the end of the urethra, it is probably more sever than a clitorectomy. A clitorectomy would remove most of the sensitive tissue, but it is nearly impossible to remove the entire thing, as well as many other internal sexual organs making some sexual pleasure still possible. In conclusion the clitorectomy is probably somewhere in between the two.
4. Infibulation or Excision of all the external genitalia followed by sewing the remaining tissue together so that a small opening is left for menstruation and urination. Now the comparisons get harder and harder. I would compare this to a penectomy, but again, a male without a penis cannot function in any way shape or form sexually. Both procedures make urination interesting to say the least, but women who have had infibulation done can still have sex, especially after the part that is sown shut is opened. It might be very painful, but it is still possible. I would have to say this is somewhere between a glansectomy and a penectomy, although probably closer to a penectomy.
One a side note, a penectomy is uncommon but not unheard of after a botched circumcision.
I introduce topic for two main reasons. One reason is I find that we tend to accept our cultural norms without question and reject others cultural norms. One classic example of this is the difference between male and female genital cutting. Through our western eyes the male version seems like a little snip while the female version seems unthinkable. However when you break it down to its core, it is very similar. While each stage of genital cutting does not have a 100% match, they all have a close cousin. The other topic is very simple. I make comparisons to female circumcision occasionally in my other blogs. Anyone who reads those blogs without first taking time to read this would probably be very confused.
The information of female circumcision comes from these sources. The male equivalents comes from further research which I will elaborate on in subsequent blogs.
http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php (October 2008)recognizes types 2 – 4
Mason, Christine, Exorcising Excision: Medico-Legal Issues Arising From Male and Female Genital Surgery in Australia, Journal of law and Medicine, Aug 2001, Vol 9, no 1: 58-67
Lightfoot-Klein, H. Pharaonic Circumcision of Females in the Sudan (1983) 2 Medical Law 253 at 357 quoted in Mason, C., (2001)
This article was taken from: http://searchfortruth0525.blogspot.com/2009/04/female-circumcision-vs-male.html
I would also like to add that both male and female genital mutilation take away two important things from the person who is circumcised: bodily integrity and control over one’s body. Neither a little girl to be circumcised in some foreign land nor an infant boy here in the U.S. has a say in whether or not his/her genitals are to be cut up (off?). Both are equally horrific in that they violate the circumcised.
I would even go so far as to argue that in some ways male genital mutilation is more horrific because of the context in which it is performed. As a people that have ample opportunity to be well-informed, we ought to know better! We do not have a long history of practicing this. Leaving a male intact will not cause him to never be able to marry and have a family. Leaving a male intact will not cause him to be a permanent outcast and social reject.
I would also like to add that I am female and I am a feminist. I echo the sentiment in the article above – female genital mutilation is a disgusting, barbaric practice, and I do not agree with it. That being said, FGM and MGM are not in separate worlds.
When I asked my mother and mother -in- law if I should circumcise the baby boy that I am expecting, they both answered “yes, of course”…When I asked them why they answered the same way…”his father is” and “its cleaner”…what a crock! My mothers have been brainwashed! I am intelligent enough to figure out that deep down inside I think its the wrong thing to do! Why would I want to mutilate and cause my perfect baby boy pain after I had taken extra measures for 9 months of my life to protect him while he was growing inside me? I never really gave circumcision much thought until I found out that I was having a son. The more I researched the subject the more disgusted I became with the idea. There is NO WAY that I will be circumcising my son. It is barbaric and wrong! My husband actually says that he wishes he wasn’t circumcised and that he didn’t like the fact that his parents made that decision for him.
I don’t have any biological sons, but if I had one I would not circumcise. My stepson, from my wife’s late husband, is circumcised, but not for the reasons that are usually given. He had multiple birth defects. His foreskin was used to help enlarge his bladder. Pro-circumcision people like to claim all kinds of medical benefits from circumcision. They normally either fail to mention meatal stenosis (scaring or constriction of the urinary track at the end of the penis) or do so dismissively. However, about 10% of infants who are circumcised eventually suffer from this. It occurs because of irritation/abrasion on the exposed end (glans) of the penis from undergarments. Typically it occurs between age 3 and 7. It is rare in uncircumcised children. Just this one condition is illustrative of the protection afforded by the foreskin. From my personal perspective, I am an ‘intact’ 62 year old male. I have never had a problem with my foreskin. As a zoologist and atheist, I regard evolution as proven fact. The foreskin is a product of natural selection. As such it has to have been beneficial to male reproduction. Because of the religious association with circumcision (Similar to the abortion and evolution debates), I am very suspicious of the pro-circumcision people.
I think a circumcised penis is much easier to keep clean. Especially when the boys are young, and getting them to wash their hands or brush their teeth can be a chore unto itself. :)
PS. Congratulations.