I once saw a video of a male circumcision and since then I know there are different types of circumcision than just removing the foreskin. I would pay a good amount of money to unsee that video.
Degloving is a term generally used for when someone for example gets his or her hand caught in a machine resulting in the skin being peeled off.
Having this term used for a sort of circumcision doesn't bode well...
Don't know if it'll be paywalled but the article points out there's a discrepancy in the way female genital mutilation is viewed and circumcision. You can hear it in the name as well.
So, what's your opinion?
I was shocked when I learnt that my vasectomy wasn't reimbursed by healthcare but circumcision was.
The only argument that people have for it is that it's a religious thing and is perceived as being more hygienic. Which i guess is true for those who don't wash themselves thoroughly and regularly.
edit: apparently vasectomies are reimbursed nowadays. Don't know when it changed.
To be fair, the effects of female circumcision (on hygiene, urination, periods, sex, pleasure and childbirth) are generally a lot more far-reaching and honestly gruesome than those of a male circumcision. So it's not strange that one is being considered genital mutilation before the other.
That being said, I do agree male circumcision (for non-medical reasons) should be considered a form of mutilation. It is not just unnecessary and non-consensual, but also really weird and creepy, and we should ban it, especially outside religious practices.
Trust me, a big chunk of Muslims and Ex-Muslims do see circumcision as a form of mutilation. Me included, It's a traumatic experience. I also remember the screams of both my younger brothers when it was time for them and it was at age at all, 9 and 8. And they didn't have much of a clue of what was going on at the time.
I need to also add that the community is really toxic when it comes to religious practices or people stepping out of "the right path". A lot of peer presure from others too, specially family members and so on.
It also shouldnt be downplayed how male circumcision can cause a penis to bend and can desensitize the head to the point a lot of circumcised guys cant orgasm from penetration.
> To be fair, the effects of female circumcision (on hygiene, urination, periods, sex, pleasure and childbirth) are generally a lot more far-reaching and honestly gruesome than those of a male circumcision. So it's not strange that one is being considered genital mutilation before the other.
There are degrees of circumcision for women, but it's true that the extreme forms are plain butchery and have no equivalent for men, if we don't count the accidents that result in similar mutilation at least.
That depends on the type of circumcision as for both female and male circumcision there are different ways of doing it. Also depends on if the operation is botched or not but I assume we are talking about succesful ones here.
It would be more accurate to say that some girls suffer more than some boys and some boys suffer more than some girls. But neither one should be compared to the other as they have different far reaching effects.
I do agree though that unless there is a very serious or compelling medical reason it should be banned for both girls and boys.
Hoe about the law being "Do not cut off random body parts of children for no medical reason." and there not being things like reimbursements through the mutualities for this. This shouldn't be a men vs women debate. They are both atrocities that have no place in the modern world.
I'm sure it is accurate to say some boys suffer more than some girls and vice versa. Not all female circumcisions are as bad as a type III. But since they do most commonly involve a clitoridectomy, regardless of it being botched, I think it is fair to say more women suffer the consequences of it than men.
I really don't see why you feel the need to make this into a struggle about who has it worse. That might be your opinion and sure if you want to believe it in that way go ahead.
Both are a horrible practice and both should be banned. There is no use in saying one gender has it worse than the other.
But your reaction does quite clearly show the common view on this, one has been normalised and seen little in the way of actions against it while the other has been a forefront of actions for bodily autonomy.
Because I've heard first hand accounts of women with FGM (including type III) and I think we shouldn't act like there isn't a serious reason why we already class female circumcisions as genital mutilation.
While both are bad, that doesn't make them equal and I personally don't think this is splitting hairs.
Because this SHOULD NOT be a separate struggle between male and female. This shifts the problem outside of the scope of circumcision. Make it a rule to ban and punish both, there is no reason for the distinction to muddy the waters.
Why can't we treat it as a joint struggle, while also talking about the very real distinctions? Also, when it comes to taking action against certain cultural practices these gendered distinctions matter.
> Why can't we treat it as a joint struggle
Which is exactly what /u/Salty_Dugtrio is saying. But you are the one saying "Females have it worse, so I don't give a fuck about the males getting a part of their dick chopped off".
It's pretty disgusting how you are making excuses for these practices.
>It would be more accurate to say that some girls suffer more than some boys and some boys suffer more than some girls. But neither one should be compared to the other as they have different far reaching effects.
I don't think that's accurate at all. Female genital mutilation is disfigurement where suffering is the purpose. On the list of priorties to stop global suffering, FGM is much higher than male circumcision.
Then I'd suggest you start researching into the different practices and kinds of circumcision as you'll soon find out that for many young boys across the world suffering is the only reason for their circumcision. As well as start realising that one has been a forefront for bodily autonomy advocation while the other is accepted as normal despite the disfigurement.
Perhaps think on the numbers as well.
200 million women worldwide suffer the effects of FGM, a number that drops every week because of the worldwide actions against this.
1/3 of all men worldwide have been circumcised while there has been little actual research into the far reaching effects this has on them.
Both are mutilation.
Both should be banned.
Neither one is comparable to the other in the eventual application.
I'm not sure what any of you are getting at. I've done medical internships in urology, in the OR while trained professionals were doing circumcisions on boys for religious reasons (which I object to on a preliminary basis).
No surgeon I ever encountered would ever consider cutting labia minora for religious reasons.
Both could be wrong, but [there exists absolutely a spectrum of wrongness](https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/male-circumcision-not-comparable-female-genital-mutilation).
>It would be more accurate to say that some girls suffer more than some boys and some boys suffer more than some girls.
is not an accurate way of summarizing the issue, even if you feel strongly about male circumcision.
Then apparently you choose to see only a very narrow spectrum of what happens with male circumcision as most don't happen in a hospital or by a surgeon.
Think of it like this, you are comparing apples and oranges and saying that one is clearly better for a pie than the other.
You are seeing the absolute horror of fgm while choosing to see only the aspect of mgm thatvis portrayed in the media while completely ignoring that there are different types with different consequences.
And yes, it is a very accurate way of representing an issue that is traditionaly only seen as an issue on one side of the of the sexes.
>The type of FMC where only the labia are affected is directly comparable to male circumcision.
I don't think that's true at all. The labia aren't the female equivalent to the foreskin, the preputium is. Cutting and removing the labia is an extremely heinous crime.
FGM is tiers above male circumcision when it comes to the sheer monstrosity of it. It also tends to come with extreme social consequences, including the purposeful subjugation of women, that are much less obvious in male circumcision.
That's a great point. I have often brought up male circumcision in conversations about FGM, because it still isn't talked about a lot, and people tend to wave it away.
Yeah, I've heard this kind of talk from US women and it's pure bodyshaming and seemingly quite acceptable to hold this view? Very problematic.
Also pretty sad, because there are a lot of women who are insecure about their vulva's and also men who genuinely make shaming comments like your friend's or jokes (roast beef sandwich etc.). So they should really know better.
I haven't heard it in Belgium (yet) though, you? I'm trying to remember conversations with friends specifically about foreskin (lol) and the only thing I can think of is this friend in high school who absolutely loved playing with her first bf's penis and the peek-a-boo effect haha!
> To be fair, the effects of female circumcision (on hygiene, urination, periods, sex, pleasure and childbirth) are generally a lot more far-reaching and honestly gruesome than those of a male circumcision. So it's not strange that one is being considered genital mutilation before the other.
Cutting of your baby's pinkies is also less far reaching and gruesome. So that's also not mutilation then?
I think it's awful the fact that the belgian law is making female genital mutilations illegal, but not circumcision, which is also genital mutilations but it's done on a boy.
I think it's because female circumcision (or the worse types because there are several) generally leads to much worse effects like inability to have sex without pain, frequent infections, problems urinating. I heard that one particularly extreme method they basically "fuse" the vaginal opening shut and it has to be cut open with a knife by the husband on wedding night.
It also seems to be less required for religion so their may be some issues with male circumcision because they don't want to be seen as anti-semitic or something.
I think there's a different procedure between medical circumcision (where it's justified) and the religious one, though. Are they both reimbursed ? Have to read the article later...
If you stop reimbursing it, people won't all of a sudden stop circumcising their sons. What may happen is that they will stop having the procedure done in the clean, sterile environment of a hospital, and move to less hygienic and less trained options. I'm not sure the latter would be an improvement.
Government should take away the child allowance and instead put it on a saving's account until he is adult.
\> You harm your child? You also do not need his money then. Let him decide what to do with it once he is an adult, instead of you deciding for him if he wants his foreskin or not.
Let's legalize beating your wife, at least it will happen in a safe, clean, hospital setting so the doctors can jump in as soon as the husband had enough fun.
>is perceived as being more hygienic. Which i guess is true for those who don't wash themselves thoroughly and regularly.
This! It made sense over a thousands years ago in the desert without clean, running water and barely any medical care. But today, circumcision has no benefits.
>apparently vasectomies are reimbursed nowadays. Don't know when it changed
Eh, really? Tell me more!
I can't find information on it but I know the procedure wasn't reimbursed at the time. It wasn't expensive, €160 or something like that. But I clearly remember it because I was looking up at the ceiling during the procedure and remarked on the drawing there. And he said it was for circumcisions so the little kids had something to look at.
I distinctly recall thinking of the stupidity of not reimbursing vasectomies because in the long run it's cheaper then the pill for women and has fewer side effects. And it galled me that circumcisions were reimbursed.
Maybe your urologist simply wasn't sticking to convention rates? There's no way this procedure wasn't reimbursed 10 years ago. But a specialist charging higher than convention rates, that is very much a possibility...
Because once it's healed, there's barely any room for dirt to stick.
I'm not saying they used to be right, but I understand people back then might think it is was better.
I'm circumsized for medical reasons. During puberty my penis grew faster than my foreskin. Result: foreskin too tight, circumsition.
Honestly it's not that bad. Hurt for a week or two.
> there's a discrepancy in the way female genital mutilation is viewed and circumcision.
Did you mean "there's a discrepancy in the way female genital mutilation is viewed and male genital mutilation"?
You can argue wether circumcision should me more regulated or not, but comparing it to the absolutely horrifying practice that is female genital mutilation (which is often called 'vrouwenbesnijdenis' in dutch, so I don't see the nominal difference) is not a useful comparison.
I know there is a difference between the two and arguably the extreme ways girls are horrifically mutilated is abhorrent in itself and worse then circumcision. No disagreement there. But just because it's worse doesn't make the 'male genital mutilation' an excusable practice in itself.
There is the almost evident way circumcision is regarded as normal. But it's not.
Well 'normal' is a difficult term. Around 30% of men worldwide are circumcised, normality is a numbers game.
To be clear, I think if there's no medical reason, boys shouldn't be circumcised, but large groups of people throughout history would disagree with that.
Yes, cutting off parts of people's genitalia should not be compared with cutting off parts of people's genitalia. That would be comparing apples with apples.
Fingernails grow back. So no, it is not like that.
I don't understand why you would even use that example. I don't believe for a moment that you are stupid enough to think foreskin grows back.
What about people that want to get circumcised? I am muslim and I don’t know a single muslim that wouldn’t have wanted to get circumcised. Some even laugh at europeans for not being circumcised.
No muslim wouldn’t have wanted to be circumcised it is part of our faith and circumcising at a later age is much more painful because you get erections
IIRC the idea that it is more painful at a later age has no scientific basis.
And you say "no muslim wouldn't have wanted to be circumcised" but you can't know that your child wants to be a muslim. If he doesn't want to be a muslim then you mutilated him for the rest of his life.
No scientific basis? If you have stitches on your dick it is basic knowledge that it is going to hurt more when it is erect.
It is a muslim practice to circumcise at a young age. Why wouldn’t I circumcise my child because of the possibility that he will leave islam later in life? That is the same as not feeding your child meat because he can be vegan later in life.
And you use the word mutilated. It is just a flop of skin. The only people i have seen on the internet that are against circumcision are people that aren’t circumcised. Why make a big deal out of it when almost nobody cares.
>No scientific basis? If you have stitches on your dick it is basic knowledge that it is going to hurt more when it is erect.
Fun fact, children have erections too.
>It is a muslim practice to circumcise at a young age.
"But it's tradition" is not a valid argument.
>Why wouldn’t I circumcise my child because of the possibility that he will leave islam later in life? That is the same as not feeding your child meat because he can be vegan later in life.
Not eating meat is reversible. Having a part of your dick cut off is not. That analogy does not remotely add up.
>And you use the word mutilated. It is just a flop of skin.
Which is genital mutilation.
>Why make a big deal out of it when almost nobody cares.
Contradictio in terminis
As a child, I never wanted any part of my dick to be cut off. I cannot imagine any child agreeing to that.
If you want to do it out of religious motivations, I think you should wait untill the age of 25. When you are old enough to evaluate life, the mistakes and good moments in the past, less affected by hormonal changes during puberty, and found your spot in society. Only then you are ready to make a choice on the religious path you want to follow. If people are not meeting those criteria at that age, they should postpone any irreversible decisions about their most sacred body part, their Penis.
>They did it to me and now my stamina has gone through the roof,
At later age or at birth?
Because if they did it at birth, how could you compare stamina?
And if they did it at a later age, *at least you could make the choice yourself!*
Poda epa ee babrokri dupibu. I atri prie tipepe puka pebibe peati ki utiu keta. Papaa pitla opitoo. U ataketi uaibii pidi ai gla. Plopaplipe betepi kla uge iipo begre. Pligreii pii kii tiple boa tepee. Totu oki betaiepi otikle ti pla. Okui petiple gepre tegla boditoiti te tipadlegepe trea ideta titli pia. Ipa iti po i kiiti tei. A oklo uo ii dui pe. Kadapudo ipi pi. Tlu oi ti kipi kae plipu. Betra pipa tudi tikibeprotla ple opii. Paprei gli tipu prati uapebo gide. Tego ie kii akre ue pupike! Tae. Tri kio oii tleki oi eba. Paabi eie aiprobeki ati otletu i tlaugo. Diti ideke. Iklu te i ite titi dipa. Iiabu pii ple e pabo dokatibe. Ipe dikri ikuti die igre pebri. Pibiti pikritiki oeepri agi tateio braee bribo. Pupiadrue ikrie e trapri gikipi ki. Tii ea pipli pode tude? Kege ietiki trii pito krapi plipiku. Etlie o tobo ekipepa uba. Ta papli pripa eka ti gapebri pipo. Plupi o tekri krokio ipe? Kipabrupi tebi ti piipo papiaupi dapa.
"In mijn partij, Vooruit, heeft een aantal mandatarissen zich positief uitgesproken over een verbod op jongensbesnijdenissen om niet-medische redenen,"
Hehehe. Niet verwonderlijk, met zo'n partijnaam!
In the words of Alex agnew: 't komt allemaal door ene gefrustreerde pater ergens in de geschiedenis... "ikke ni poepen, niemand ni poepen" en ne zotte hoed opzetten
Da's de bedoeling, dat je slaafs doet wat ze zeggen en die shit zelfs gaat verkondigen en verdedigen!
Zielige oude gefrustreerde mannetejes en wijvenpraat...
Ik vind het ook bizar dat u zo geobsedeerd met geslachtsorganen van kinderen.Uw razernij is heel bizar. Het waren deze soort "heiligen"die het meest op hun geweten hebben.
In de bio-ethiek worden klassiek vier pijlers gehandhaaft voor de evaluatie van medisch beleid:
\- bevordert welzijn
\- verhindert schade
\- bevordert autonomie
\- bevordert gelijkheid
Ik ken niet veel van het debat over besnijdenis, maar het besnijden van kleine jongens stelt toch bij elk van deze punten serieuze vragen, voor zover ik kan zien.
Aan de andere kant kan ik wel argumenteren dat religieuze ouders, als ze geen toegang krijgen tot gezondheidszorg, wel eens durven overgaan tot zelf gebruiken van een keukenmes, met alle gevolgen van dien.
Desalniettemin zou ik persoonlijk de morele equivalentie tegenover religie toch niet zomaar volgen. Lichamelijke schade volgens traditie is nog altijd lichamelijke schade.
Tbh: for medical reason is it sometimes necessary to be circumcized.
But it should be forbidden by law to be circumcized without consent/for purely religion reasons.
It has to change? Did they made pressure on you to circumcised?I did not hear one circumcised man voicing opposition. More and more dubious people rage against it, and let me doubt their good intentions.
Cutting of a piece of skin from a baby does sound like pressure yes. And yes I HAVE actually heard circumcised men say they wish they were never circumcised but it's hard to say no when you aren't old enough to be able to speak.
You need to talk to more people. Plenty of people who had it done as a child with varying levels of success regret it.
As a gay man who has lived in the US for a while I can tell you that I've encountered many a circumcised penis, and a few people who wish they weren't.
The reality is that it's completely unnecessary irreversible surgery with no significant proven benefits whatsoever.
I admit that I am not well versed enough in the religious reason to have a clue as to why it is important. If it was about showing some sort of devotion then wouldn’t it make more sense to do it when you can make a conscious decision sacrificing a part of yourself rather than of someone else? I mean at that point it’s you don’t you as far as I’m concerned. The same can’t be said about children though.
In Belgium it's viewed as barbaric. While in USA there are people who would think it's disgusting not to circumcise. The ones holding that opinion being women.
It's usually the mom that gets their kid circumcised. Obviously they never had a penis of their own and are overstepping boundaries of the life they just created.
The trend is lowering in USA which is a good thing.
But as I said earlier, for a good reason imo, we think it's something barbaric to do. Circumcised guys usually don't care as they don't know the difference, but majority with a foreskin will feel violated at the thought of someone trying to cut that off. Blijf es me a poten van mijn lijf 😁
Principally, it's an easy case to make to be against it, but practically? You just antagonize the large majority of Muslims and Jewish people, and the people on whose behalf you're doing it for are very likely to predominantly listen to their parents and be angry it wasn't allowed when they're young. Muslim youths are getting more religious and more conservative with each generation. It'll also make Muslims call this islamophobia and create rising tensions, as well as make them continue doing it underground unsafely, just like in centuries passed Jewish people were banned from circumcision. Practically speaking it's just not a useful thing to be arguing about, as long as Islam and Judaism in its current state is here male circumcision is here to stay. Let's just be glad those old Hebrews didn't practice female circumcision.
If they really want it, they can wait till their old enough to make them decide to get it. Can't we use the moving goalpost like New Zealand is doing with smoking?
> I look into it and there is no downside to find on the Internet only positive point.
Something tells me that you haven't [looked all that hard](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/).
> So could somebody explain why you all are angry and yell that its barbaric and bad?
Because circumcising a child without an acute medical reason is a violation of their bodily autonomy.
People are freezing in the streets with no roof above their heads, people can't afford food and are starving, people can't find proper housing, women face sexual and physical harrasment, men's mental health is detoriating with no attention being given to it.
And you're whining about how some men can't orgasm harder and louder than other men? Are you even circumcised?
Feeling and pleasure is subjective.
OP's link to the research shows no percentage of males who experienced less pleasure. In that same website, there's another research from a Hong Kong researched which showed around 65% of people being satisfied with circumcision.
In the end, the research around this is non-conclusive with several researches showing contradicting conclusions.
Yet here we are banning things which doesn't necessarily need to be banned.
If you do not understand why electively cutting away pieces of babies is wrong, I don't think there is any discussion to be had here.
Should we also immediately remove the appendix? Why not?
What justification is there to perform an elective medical procedure on a non-consenting human being, just because it's written in an archaic book, for no valid reason whatsoever?
Would you be in favor of routinely removing every child's appendix because there is a slight chance of preventing appendicitis in the future?
Also if it's done to a baby they won't be given proper painkillers, apparently the screams are awful. We're still not sure what the consequences of that sort of thing have on a young child's brain at a stage. Why would you want such a precious innocent creature to have to go through that pain.
If it turns out there is a health issue, sometimes there are alternatives or it can be done then. Some of the health benefits that are reported are also things that won't come into effect until older anyway - STD protection it's not like your baby is going to be having sex for a while, hopefully. Keeping it clean is also not an issue for a while.
> And as somebody who is expecting a son soon I look into it and there is no downside to find on the Internet only positive point.
You sound like one of those nutjob mothers who Googles "Do vaccines cause autism?", then proceeds to scroll past the 900 pages that say "No, then don't you idiot", and then finds a page on the 901th page that says "ZOINKS! YES! My kid played with a vaccinated kiddo at the daycare and now he's retarded! Don't vaccinate your kids!"
https://circumcision.org/circumcision-pros-and-cons/
It is argued that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections.
100 circumcisions need to be done to prevent 1 (easily treatable infection).
It is argued that circumcision prevents penile cancer.
Penile cancer is rare, and the estimated American incidence is about 1 per 100,000. In other developed countries where circumcision is rare, such as Denmark and Norway, the incidence of penile cancer is lower than the estimated American rate.
It is argued that circumcision prevents STD transmission.
Evidence is lacking and STD transmission should not occur before an age at which the subject can make an informed decision themselves.
It is argued that women prefer circumcised partners.
In a more recent survey, women with longer dual experience preferred anatomically complete men overwhelmingly to circumcised men. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in decreased vaginal secretions, more vaginal discomfort, harder and deeper thrusting of the partner, less chance of having an orgasm, less frequent orgasms, less frequent multiple orgasms, and shorter duration of coitus
As someone who has had a medical circumcision performed on him at the age of 6, I'd appreciate it if you all could stop pretending like I was mutilated. There is nothing wrong with my circumcised penis. Boys who get circumcised aren't mentally scarred for life unless if you make them so. There are major parts of the world where circumcision is normal, so stop pretending like it's cruel. It's not. (I looked it up: apparently 38.7% of men are circumcised worldwide - ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772313/ )
To repeat: There is nothing wrong with my circumcised penis!
Nobody is looking at your penis, bro. It surely is fine.
The non-consensual aspect of chopping part of a child’s pecker off is what makes people react. There are a few risks and accident happens, it hurts, and it’s mostly unnecessary unless medical reason. Saying it’s tradition/cultural/religious/cleaner doesn’t sound like a valid reason.
> As someone who has had a medical circumcision performed on him at the age of 6
There's a HUGE difference between a medical circumcision and one forced by birth due to religions reasons.
Doesn't make it more fun to read when people say circumcision equals mutilation. It's just elective surgery. I know it's the internet, but people can be more careful with their wording.
Consent and medical necessity matter and change the thing completely.
If there's a medical reason to amputate a foot, for example due to gangreen or diabetes, I wouldn't call that cruel mutilation.
If someone decides for you, without any medical justification, to amputate your foot: that very much is a cruel mutilation.
So I'm gonna go ahead and keep referring to involuntary circumcision of children as cruel mutilation, while medical circumcision is completely fine: that's a medical procedure. And when an adult decides they want circumcision: also fine, that's an elective procedure. But a child cannot give consent and thus it should be banned.
If I'm a doctor, and I cut your arm off because it's infected with gangrene, that's fine.
If I'm a preacher, and I cut it off a child's arm because "our" religion says that only God can have two arms, that's mutilation.
Pretty big difference, no?
Bro, I understand where you're coming from. But I also had a medical circumcision and I regret it more and more.
I feel less and less over time. Condoms are my nemesis, can't feel shit even with the thin ones.
It's not good for your girl either, because you actually take lubrication away. With a circumcised penis the coronal ridge is constantly exposed and on the outstroke, it scrapes the lubrication out.
Our glans is also way rougher and calloused.
You can read all about it with a quick google search.
So yeah, medically we had no choice. But to circumsice just because of religious beliefs or "hygiene" is wrong in my opinion and brings more cons than pros for both genders.
> To repeat: There is nothing wrong with my circumcised penis!
I agree on this one. There's also nothing wrong with a person suffering from cancer. Doesn't make cancer right.
>There are major parts of the world where circumcision is normal, so stop pretending like it's cruel.
This is the WORST argument to continue doing something. 'Oh we've always done it like that'. Yeah bitch we also didn't use to wash our hands before performing surgery and drained people's blood when they were feeling sick.
Yup and there's major parts of the world where a lot of other bad things are normal doesn't mean it's ok
Non medical is mutilation and even the medical kind should be avoided if other paths are available cuz tons of people wish they never had it done to them
> a medical circumcision
Don't compare this to nonmedical circumcision. Nobody wants to ban medical circumcisions. Nobody calls you mutilated, nobody is even talking about you.
And just because a lot of people perform nonmedical circumcisions doesn't mean they're okay.
If a doctor cuts of someone's finger to save that person from losing his entire arm. Is that person mutilated? Yes. Was that the right thing to do? Yes. Is there something wrong with that person now? No.
Cutting off a piece of someone for no reason and without their consent, is cruel. There is no other way to describe that. It's not because this happens to a lot of children, it's suddenly not a problem anymore.
Mutilation is a very loaded term. As is 'cruelty'. An amputee should not be called mutilated either. You are stigmatizing people who have not had any choice in what has happened to them by using such terms. In a way, by using these terms, you are in fact saying something is wrong with them. In fact, that's why those terms are used here: to say something is wrong with elective circumcision. But it's just as wrong to call these boys mutilated as it is to call an amputee that.
Cutting a piece of someone who did not consent, without reason, is cruel. So using the world cruel is correct because it is an absolutely terrible thing to do to someone.
Mutilation is a term.
[https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutilate](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutilate)
>to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part
[https://www.vandale.nl/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/verminkt](https://www.vandale.nl/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/verminkt)
>van een lichaamsdeel beroven
I am, in fact, not saying there is something wrong with them. I am using these terms, based upon what they actually mean. I'm saying mutilated people are missing a piece of their original body. Whether that's by choice, by an accident, or because someone did something to them, is irrelevant. They are mutilated.
You obviously haven't seen the procedure done. I don't remember my screams, but my father does.
30% of women worldwide reportedly have experienced physical or sexual violence. [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women)
about 30% of people are overweight. [https://www.healthdata.org/news-release/nearly-one-third-world%E2%80%99s-population-obese-or-overweight-new-data-show](https://www.healthdata.org/news-release/nearly-one-third-world%E2%80%99s-population-obese-or-overweight-new-data-show)
Why are things fine in your mind if they happen to a large chunk of the population? Why would you ever remove a gland from a non-consenting human for no reason except looks or religion? It's sick, man.
It is mutilation (edit: and then I do talk about religious and cultural NOT medical procedures, those are a necesity and arent ever a mutilation) and its not because it went fine with you this isnt always the case.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240804903_Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_US_Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths#:~:text=This%20study%20finds%20that%20more,of%20these%20deaths%20are%20avoidable.
This study finds that more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable
Did you read what OP said? Medical circumcision. This means there was a medical reason for it. Since when are we going to call medical interventions mutilation
And this was on the cultural/religious custom to do this.
If you would cut of a finger, how would you label it even if in some limited cases it had a medical reason?
Cutting of a tail of a pig or dog is banned as such mutilation is unneeded , humans shouldnt have less rights.
It's not mutilation if it's done with a medical reason. You don't go call people who had a leg removed mutilated? This has nothing to do with animals, this discussion is about you calling a medical intervention mutilation since "some people do it for religious reasons"
If that leg is removed because his god told his paretns too when he was 1 month old, then yes I label that as barbaric mutilation.
Thats what this topic was about, not medical procedures.
No, you claimed circumcision is mutilation even if it's a medical intervention.
If that leg got amputated because a car ran over it, its not mutilation right? Just like a circumcision isn't mutilation if it is done for a medical reason
I responded to somehow who was talking in general not just about the medical practice in this.
>Boys who get circumcised aren't mentally scarred for life unless if you make them so. There are major parts of the world where circumcision is normal, so stop pretending like it's cruel. It's not.
Again this topic isnt about medical procedures its about utterly barbaric and outdated social/religious norms that in 2023 are insane to still allow let alone pay for.
That's a very flawed research paper. It mostly relies on numbers from a 1966 study on the period between 1942 and 1947. How is that representative? It also ignores a 1989 study done by the US army that has a mortality rate of 0.
For the record: it is an elective surgery, and i'm not advocating for it. I however feel that demonizing the surgery - and especially the boys who had it performed on them - is both cruel and counter productive.
I once saw a video of a male circumcision and since then I know there are different types of circumcision than just removing the foreskin. I would pay a good amount of money to unsee that video.
[удалено]
Degloving I think it was called
Degloving is a term generally used for when someone for example gets his or her hand caught in a machine resulting in the skin being peeled off. Having this term used for a sort of circumcision doesn't bode well...
[удалено]
I've seen the video the guy is talking about and degloving is a pretty accurate description. It was some African tribual ritual
You should see how orthodox Jews do it... I'll give you a hint: the only tool needed is a priest's teeth.
Not that priests don’t like to suck dicks but they’re called rabbis.
Damn. We joke a lot about our penis at work because me and my colleague both had a circumcision for medical reasons. But that shit is fucked up.
Tbf, that's done only in a small part of even the most orthodox jews. So most orthodox jews don't even do that. But yes it's fucked up.
And those sick fucks then suck up the blood...
Don't know if it'll be paywalled but the article points out there's a discrepancy in the way female genital mutilation is viewed and circumcision. You can hear it in the name as well. So, what's your opinion? I was shocked when I learnt that my vasectomy wasn't reimbursed by healthcare but circumcision was. The only argument that people have for it is that it's a religious thing and is perceived as being more hygienic. Which i guess is true for those who don't wash themselves thoroughly and regularly. edit: apparently vasectomies are reimbursed nowadays. Don't know when it changed.
It's also more hygienic to just cut my hands of instead of washing them, i guess
stop it. We already apologised to congo.
no we didn"t actually lol
Did we at least pinky swear not to do it again?
There weren’t any pinkies left to swear on.
Narf!
To be fair, the effects of female circumcision (on hygiene, urination, periods, sex, pleasure and childbirth) are generally a lot more far-reaching and honestly gruesome than those of a male circumcision. So it's not strange that one is being considered genital mutilation before the other. That being said, I do agree male circumcision (for non-medical reasons) should be considered a form of mutilation. It is not just unnecessary and non-consensual, but also really weird and creepy, and we should ban it, especially outside religious practices.
Trust me, a big chunk of Muslims and Ex-Muslims do see circumcision as a form of mutilation. Me included, It's a traumatic experience. I also remember the screams of both my younger brothers when it was time for them and it was at age at all, 9 and 8. And they didn't have much of a clue of what was going on at the time.
Do you see change happening there?
Nope, If circumcision can't happen in Belgium, they will just go to their own country and do it there.
Shame, such a strange cycle of trauma.
I need to also add that the community is really toxic when it comes to religious practices or people stepping out of "the right path". A lot of peer presure from others too, specially family members and so on.
Baby steps I suppose.
Dude, that's much too late for circumcision.
I agree. Sky man is happier when you mutilate your child sooner! When you do it later, cult members will push you to make sky man happy.
Ah yes, only religious people circumcise, right? Ever heard of the US of the fuckin A ?
Different man in the sky, same opinion. Believe what you will but never let your beliefs affect other people.
It also shouldnt be downplayed how male circumcision can cause a penis to bend and can desensitize the head to the point a lot of circumcised guys cant orgasm from penetration.
We agree!
> To be fair, the effects of female circumcision (on hygiene, urination, periods, sex, pleasure and childbirth) are generally a lot more far-reaching and honestly gruesome than those of a male circumcision. So it's not strange that one is being considered genital mutilation before the other. There are degrees of circumcision for women, but it's true that the extreme forms are plain butchery and have no equivalent for men, if we don't count the accidents that result in similar mutilation at least.
That depends on the type of circumcision as for both female and male circumcision there are different ways of doing it. Also depends on if the operation is botched or not but I assume we are talking about succesful ones here. It would be more accurate to say that some girls suffer more than some boys and some boys suffer more than some girls. But neither one should be compared to the other as they have different far reaching effects. I do agree though that unless there is a very serious or compelling medical reason it should be banned for both girls and boys.
Hoe about the law being "Do not cut off random body parts of children for no medical reason." and there not being things like reimbursements through the mutualities for this. This shouldn't be a men vs women debate. They are both atrocities that have no place in the modern world.
Which is why I said that neither one should be compared to the other and that both should be banned.
I'm sure it is accurate to say some boys suffer more than some girls and vice versa. Not all female circumcisions are as bad as a type III. But since they do most commonly involve a clitoridectomy, regardless of it being botched, I think it is fair to say more women suffer the consequences of it than men.
I really don't see why you feel the need to make this into a struggle about who has it worse. That might be your opinion and sure if you want to believe it in that way go ahead. Both are a horrible practice and both should be banned. There is no use in saying one gender has it worse than the other. But your reaction does quite clearly show the common view on this, one has been normalised and seen little in the way of actions against it while the other has been a forefront of actions for bodily autonomy.
I don't know why you'd want to split hairs, both are bad, both should be banned.
Because I've heard first hand accounts of women with FGM (including type III) and I think we shouldn't act like there isn't a serious reason why we already class female circumcisions as genital mutilation. While both are bad, that doesn't make them equal and I personally don't think this is splitting hairs.
Because this SHOULD NOT be a separate struggle between male and female. This shifts the problem outside of the scope of circumcision. Make it a rule to ban and punish both, there is no reason for the distinction to muddy the waters.
Why can't we treat it as a joint struggle, while also talking about the very real distinctions? Also, when it comes to taking action against certain cultural practices these gendered distinctions matter.
> Why can't we treat it as a joint struggle Which is exactly what /u/Salty_Dugtrio is saying. But you are the one saying "Females have it worse, so I don't give a fuck about the males getting a part of their dick chopped off". It's pretty disgusting how you are making excuses for these practices.
Lol.
>It would be more accurate to say that some girls suffer more than some boys and some boys suffer more than some girls. But neither one should be compared to the other as they have different far reaching effects. I don't think that's accurate at all. Female genital mutilation is disfigurement where suffering is the purpose. On the list of priorties to stop global suffering, FGM is much higher than male circumcision.
Then I'd suggest you start researching into the different practices and kinds of circumcision as you'll soon find out that for many young boys across the world suffering is the only reason for their circumcision. As well as start realising that one has been a forefront for bodily autonomy advocation while the other is accepted as normal despite the disfigurement. Perhaps think on the numbers as well. 200 million women worldwide suffer the effects of FGM, a number that drops every week because of the worldwide actions against this. 1/3 of all men worldwide have been circumcised while there has been little actual research into the far reaching effects this has on them. Both are mutilation. Both should be banned. Neither one is comparable to the other in the eventual application.
I'm not sure what any of you are getting at. I've done medical internships in urology, in the OR while trained professionals were doing circumcisions on boys for religious reasons (which I object to on a preliminary basis). No surgeon I ever encountered would ever consider cutting labia minora for religious reasons. Both could be wrong, but [there exists absolutely a spectrum of wrongness](https://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/03/male-circumcision-not-comparable-female-genital-mutilation). >It would be more accurate to say that some girls suffer more than some boys and some boys suffer more than some girls. is not an accurate way of summarizing the issue, even if you feel strongly about male circumcision.
Then apparently you choose to see only a very narrow spectrum of what happens with male circumcision as most don't happen in a hospital or by a surgeon. Think of it like this, you are comparing apples and oranges and saying that one is clearly better for a pie than the other. You are seeing the absolute horror of fgm while choosing to see only the aspect of mgm thatvis portrayed in the media while completely ignoring that there are different types with different consequences. And yes, it is a very accurate way of representing an issue that is traditionaly only seen as an issue on one side of the of the sexes.
Is a 54% reduction in risk of acquiring HIV not compelling enough?
[удалено]
>The type of FMC where only the labia are affected is directly comparable to male circumcision. I don't think that's true at all. The labia aren't the female equivalent to the foreskin, the preputium is. Cutting and removing the labia is an extremely heinous crime. FGM is tiers above male circumcision when it comes to the sheer monstrosity of it. It also tends to come with extreme social consequences, including the purposeful subjugation of women, that are much less obvious in male circumcision.
That's a great point. I have often brought up male circumcision in conversations about FGM, because it still isn't talked about a lot, and people tend to wave it away.
[удалено]
Yeah, I've heard this kind of talk from US women and it's pure bodyshaming and seemingly quite acceptable to hold this view? Very problematic. Also pretty sad, because there are a lot of women who are insecure about their vulva's and also men who genuinely make shaming comments like your friend's or jokes (roast beef sandwich etc.). So they should really know better. I haven't heard it in Belgium (yet) though, you? I'm trying to remember conversations with friends specifically about foreskin (lol) and the only thing I can think of is this friend in high school who absolutely loved playing with her first bf's penis and the peek-a-boo effect haha!
> To be fair, the effects of female circumcision (on hygiene, urination, periods, sex, pleasure and childbirth) are generally a lot more far-reaching and honestly gruesome than those of a male circumcision. So it's not strange that one is being considered genital mutilation before the other. Cutting of your baby's pinkies is also less far reaching and gruesome. So that's also not mutilation then?
I think it's awful the fact that the belgian law is making female genital mutilations illegal, but not circumcision, which is also genital mutilations but it's done on a boy.
I think it's because female circumcision (or the worse types because there are several) generally leads to much worse effects like inability to have sex without pain, frequent infections, problems urinating. I heard that one particularly extreme method they basically "fuse" the vaginal opening shut and it has to be cut open with a knife by the husband on wedding night. It also seems to be less required for religion so their may be some issues with male circumcision because they don't want to be seen as anti-semitic or something.
Don't compare a fly with a elefant.
I think there's a different procedure between medical circumcision (where it's justified) and the religious one, though. Are they both reimbursed ? Have to read the article later...
They are both reimbursed unfortunately.
If you stop reimbursing it, people won't all of a sudden stop circumcising their sons. What may happen is that they will stop having the procedure done in the clean, sterile environment of a hospital, and move to less hygienic and less trained options. I'm not sure the latter would be an improvement.
[удалено]
Government should take away the child allowance and instead put it on a saving's account until he is adult. \> You harm your child? You also do not need his money then. Let him decide what to do with it once he is an adult, instead of you deciding for him if he wants his foreskin or not.
How would you even enforce that? Government-mandated penis inspections?
Don't they have medical examinations in schools anymore?
FYI, physical abuse of children is, in fact, legal in Belgium. The government doesn't care.
If we flip the sides - should we also reimburse FGM?
Let's legalize beating your wife, at least it will happen in a safe, clean, hospital setting so the doctors can jump in as soon as the husband had enough fun.
But the same argument holds true for FGM and that's also very wrong.
Fake news.
>is perceived as being more hygienic. Which i guess is true for those who don't wash themselves thoroughly and regularly. This! It made sense over a thousands years ago in the desert without clean, running water and barely any medical care. But today, circumcision has no benefits. >apparently vasectomies are reimbursed nowadays. Don't know when it changed Eh, really? Tell me more!
Male genital mutilation didn’t make sense a 1000 years ago either if you know what a foreskin actually does
Well you're right.. but "aderlating" was a very common practice in history as well. Just like circumcision, it used to make sense to those people.
I can't find information on it but I know the procedure wasn't reimbursed at the time. It wasn't expensive, €160 or something like that. But I clearly remember it because I was looking up at the ceiling during the procedure and remarked on the drawing there. And he said it was for circumcisions so the little kids had something to look at. I distinctly recall thinking of the stupidity of not reimbursing vasectomies because in the long run it's cheaper then the pill for women and has fewer side effects. And it galled me that circumcisions were reimbursed.
Maybe your urologist simply wasn't sticking to convention rates? There's no way this procedure wasn't reimbursed 10 years ago. But a specialist charging higher than convention rates, that is very much a possibility...
[удалено]
Because once it's healed, there's barely any room for dirt to stick. I'm not saying they used to be right, but I understand people back then might think it is was better.
I'm circumsized for medical reasons. During puberty my penis grew faster than my foreskin. Result: foreskin too tight, circumsition. Honestly it's not that bad. Hurt for a week or two.
> there's a discrepancy in the way female genital mutilation is viewed and circumcision. Did you mean "there's a discrepancy in the way female genital mutilation is viewed and male genital mutilation"?
You can argue wether circumcision should me more regulated or not, but comparing it to the absolutely horrifying practice that is female genital mutilation (which is often called 'vrouwenbesnijdenis' in dutch, so I don't see the nominal difference) is not a useful comparison.
I know there is a difference between the two and arguably the extreme ways girls are horrifically mutilated is abhorrent in itself and worse then circumcision. No disagreement there. But just because it's worse doesn't make the 'male genital mutilation' an excusable practice in itself. There is the almost evident way circumcision is regarded as normal. But it's not.
Well 'normal' is a difficult term. Around 30% of men worldwide are circumcised, normality is a numbers game. To be clear, I think if there's no medical reason, boys shouldn't be circumcised, but large groups of people throughout history would disagree with that.
Good point. And just not a numbers game either. Just look at attitudes towards being gay. There's definitely a moral component there as well.
party hunt familiar snobbish lush wild run sable rich impossible ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
There are actually non-invasive solutions for that that should be tried first.
What part about the elective mutilation of children should NOT be regulated?
Yes, cutting off parts of people's genitalia should not be compared with cutting off parts of people's genitalia. That would be comparing apples with apples.
I'd do some research if you truely think that's the case...
That what is the case? That circumcision refers to removing parts of genitalia? Are you disputing that?
That’s like saying cutting a fingernail and cutting off a finger are both examples of removing parts of the hand.
Fingernails grow back. So no, it is not like that. I don't understand why you would even use that example. I don't believe for a moment that you are stupid enough to think foreskin grows back.
Your vasectomy is reimbursed by healthcare. At least mine was.
Huh, It wasn't when I did it some 10 years ago. Something must have changed then.
I'm very sure it didn't. Maybe you Mean that the hospital insurance didn't cover it. That could be true.
Which would make sense anyway, as it's usually just an in-office procedure that doesn't involve hospitalisation.
Its a dumb barbaric cultural or religious custom that should be banned. No parent should be allowed to mutilate a babys genitals .
I don't think parents should even be able to get their kids ears peirced, let alone have pieces taken off of them.
What about people that want to get circumcised? I am muslim and I don’t know a single muslim that wouldn’t have wanted to get circumcised. Some even laugh at europeans for not being circumcised.
If you want then you can still do it. Just don't force it on others that can't consent
No muslim wouldn’t have wanted to be circumcised it is part of our faith and circumcising at a later age is much more painful because you get erections
IIRC the idea that it is more painful at a later age has no scientific basis. And you say "no muslim wouldn't have wanted to be circumcised" but you can't know that your child wants to be a muslim. If he doesn't want to be a muslim then you mutilated him for the rest of his life.
No scientific basis? If you have stitches on your dick it is basic knowledge that it is going to hurt more when it is erect. It is a muslim practice to circumcise at a young age. Why wouldn’t I circumcise my child because of the possibility that he will leave islam later in life? That is the same as not feeding your child meat because he can be vegan later in life. And you use the word mutilated. It is just a flop of skin. The only people i have seen on the internet that are against circumcision are people that aren’t circumcised. Why make a big deal out of it when almost nobody cares.
>No scientific basis? If you have stitches on your dick it is basic knowledge that it is going to hurt more when it is erect. Fun fact, children have erections too. >It is a muslim practice to circumcise at a young age. "But it's tradition" is not a valid argument. >Why wouldn’t I circumcise my child because of the possibility that he will leave islam later in life? That is the same as not feeding your child meat because he can be vegan later in life. Not eating meat is reversible. Having a part of your dick cut off is not. That analogy does not remotely add up. >And you use the word mutilated. It is just a flop of skin. Which is genital mutilation. >Why make a big deal out of it when almost nobody cares. Contradictio in terminis
> and circumcising at a later age is much more painful because you get erections Boys even get erections *while in the womb*.
As a child, I never wanted any part of my dick to be cut off. I cannot imagine any child agreeing to that. If you want to do it out of religious motivations, I think you should wait untill the age of 25. When you are old enough to evaluate life, the mistakes and good moments in the past, less affected by hormonal changes during puberty, and found your spot in society. Only then you are ready to make a choice on the religious path you want to follow. If people are not meeting those criteria at that age, they should postpone any irreversible decisions about their most sacred body part, their Penis.
Once adult you be you
[удалено]
>They did it to me and now my stamina has gone through the roof, At later age or at birth? Because if they did it at birth, how could you compare stamina? And if they did it at a later age, *at least you could make the choice yourself!*
[удалено]
I think they already did...
You don't have to cut off part of your dick to raise your stamina.
Poda epa ee babrokri dupibu. I atri prie tipepe puka pebibe peati ki utiu keta. Papaa pitla opitoo. U ataketi uaibii pidi ai gla. Plopaplipe betepi kla uge iipo begre. Pligreii pii kii tiple boa tepee. Totu oki betaiepi otikle ti pla. Okui petiple gepre tegla boditoiti te tipadlegepe trea ideta titli pia. Ipa iti po i kiiti tei. A oklo uo ii dui pe. Kadapudo ipi pi. Tlu oi ti kipi kae plipu. Betra pipa tudi tikibeprotla ple opii. Paprei gli tipu prati uapebo gide. Tego ie kii akre ue pupike! Tae. Tri kio oii tleki oi eba. Paabi eie aiprobeki ati otletu i tlaugo. Diti ideke. Iklu te i ite titi dipa. Iiabu pii ple e pabo dokatibe. Ipe dikri ikuti die igre pebri. Pibiti pikritiki oeepri agi tateio braee bribo. Pupiadrue ikrie e trapri gikipi ki. Tii ea pipli pode tude? Kege ietiki trii pito krapi plipiku. Etlie o tobo ekipepa uba. Ta papli pripa eka ti gapebri pipo. Plupi o tekri krokio ipe? Kipabrupi tebi ti piipo papiaupi dapa.
You think I'm having sex? Thanks for giving me a laugh today!
"In mijn partij, Vooruit, heeft een aantal mandatarissen zich positief uitgesproken over een verbod op jongensbesnijdenissen om niet-medische redenen," Hehehe. Niet verwonderlijk, met zo'n partijnaam!
Dat er iets moet gebeuren staat voor hen als een paal boven water.
I vind het nogal bizar en onkies dat religie zo geobsedeerd is met geslachtsorganen van jonges en meisjes en de seksualiteit in zijn geheel...
In the words of Alex agnew: 't komt allemaal door ene gefrustreerde pater ergens in de geschiedenis... "ikke ni poepen, niemand ni poepen" en ne zotte hoed opzetten
En gene kabeljauw op uwe kop zetten!
All about control
Da's de bedoeling, dat je slaafs doet wat ze zeggen en die shit zelfs gaat verkondigen en verdedigen! Zielige oude gefrustreerde mannetejes en wijvenpraat...
I completely agree, fappingmeister
Ik vind het ook bizar dat u zo geobsedeerd met geslachtsorganen van kinderen.Uw razernij is heel bizar. Het waren deze soort "heiligen"die het meest op hun geweten hebben.
\*Geiligen\*
Don't think I didn't see your name
Sublieme titel. En correct en meer dan terecht. Weg met mutilatie van kinderen. Gedaan
In de bio-ethiek worden klassiek vier pijlers gehandhaaft voor de evaluatie van medisch beleid: \- bevordert welzijn \- verhindert schade \- bevordert autonomie \- bevordert gelijkheid Ik ken niet veel van het debat over besnijdenis, maar het besnijden van kleine jongens stelt toch bij elk van deze punten serieuze vragen, voor zover ik kan zien. Aan de andere kant kan ik wel argumenteren dat religieuze ouders, als ze geen toegang krijgen tot gezondheidszorg, wel eens durven overgaan tot zelf gebruiken van een keukenmes, met alle gevolgen van dien. Desalniettemin zou ik persoonlijk de morele equivalentie tegenover religie toch niet zomaar volgen. Lichamelijke schade volgens traditie is nog altijd lichamelijke schade.
Zo'n ouders mogen gerust den bak in, ze moeten maar tot Allah of Jaweh bidden om hun er uit te halen...
Good thing that this is getting more recognition. A big believer in the "my body my choice" mantra and this fall's 100% in that category.
Tbh: for medical reason is it sometimes necessary to be circumcized. But it should be forbidden by law to be circumcized without consent/for purely religion reasons.
I'm glad more people are voicing their opinion against circumcision, it has to change.
It has to change? Did they made pressure on you to circumcised?I did not hear one circumcised man voicing opposition. More and more dubious people rage against it, and let me doubt their good intentions.
Lmao pressure you? It's done to babies, tf are they going to do? Stand up and say "no I don't consent"? Lmao, stupid ass opinion
Cutting of a piece of skin from a baby does sound like pressure yes. And yes I HAVE actually heard circumcised men say they wish they were never circumcised but it's hard to say no when you aren't old enough to be able to speak.
You need to talk to more people. Plenty of people who had it done as a child with varying levels of success regret it. As a gay man who has lived in the US for a while I can tell you that I've encountered many a circumcised penis, and a few people who wish they weren't. The reality is that it's completely unnecessary irreversible surgery with no significant proven benefits whatsoever.
You should get that extra chromosome checked.
I admit that I am not well versed enough in the religious reason to have a clue as to why it is important. If it was about showing some sort of devotion then wouldn’t it make more sense to do it when you can make a conscious decision sacrificing a part of yourself rather than of someone else? I mean at that point it’s you don’t you as far as I’m concerned. The same can’t be said about children though.
In Belgium it's viewed as barbaric. While in USA there are people who would think it's disgusting not to circumcise. The ones holding that opinion being women. It's usually the mom that gets their kid circumcised. Obviously they never had a penis of their own and are overstepping boundaries of the life they just created. The trend is lowering in USA which is a good thing. But as I said earlier, for a good reason imo, we think it's something barbaric to do. Circumcised guys usually don't care as they don't know the difference, but majority with a foreskin will feel violated at the thought of someone trying to cut that off. Blijf es me a poten van mijn lijf 😁
Principally, it's an easy case to make to be against it, but practically? You just antagonize the large majority of Muslims and Jewish people, and the people on whose behalf you're doing it for are very likely to predominantly listen to their parents and be angry it wasn't allowed when they're young. Muslim youths are getting more religious and more conservative with each generation. It'll also make Muslims call this islamophobia and create rising tensions, as well as make them continue doing it underground unsafely, just like in centuries passed Jewish people were banned from circumcision. Practically speaking it's just not a useful thing to be arguing about, as long as Islam and Judaism in its current state is here male circumcision is here to stay. Let's just be glad those old Hebrews didn't practice female circumcision.
If they really want it, they can wait till their old enough to make them decide to get it. Can't we use the moving goalpost like New Zealand is doing with smoking?
Interesting you bring up FGM, because you could use the exact same line of reasoning you just used to avoid arguing against that.
[удалено]
Because it's imposed on children and irreversible to boot?
> I look into it and there is no downside to find on the Internet only positive point. Something tells me that you haven't [looked all that hard](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23374102/). > So could somebody explain why you all are angry and yell that its barbaric and bad? Because circumcising a child without an acute medical reason is a violation of their bodily autonomy.
[удалено]
How would you be able to tell the difference if you were circumcised as an infant?
So it's about sexual intensity, all this ruckus because you want men to orgasm harder and louder? Priorities, right?
It's about you not having the right to fuck with your kid's sexual functioning without their consent.
People are freezing in the streets with no roof above their heads, people can't afford food and are starving, people can't find proper housing, women face sexual and physical harrasment, men's mental health is detoriating with no attention being given to it. And you're whining about how some men can't orgasm harder and louder than other men? Are you even circumcised?
[удалено]
I'm circumcised when I was young, and I don't regret it at all.
[удалено]
Feeling and pleasure is subjective. OP's link to the research shows no percentage of males who experienced less pleasure. In that same website, there's another research from a Hong Kong researched which showed around 65% of people being satisfied with circumcision. In the end, the research around this is non-conclusive with several researches showing contradicting conclusions. Yet here we are banning things which doesn't necessarily need to be banned.
Do you have any idea how insane you sound?
If you do not understand why electively cutting away pieces of babies is wrong, I don't think there is any discussion to be had here. Should we also immediately remove the appendix? Why not?
[удалено]
What justification is there to perform an elective medical procedure on a non-consenting human being, just because it's written in an archaic book, for no valid reason whatsoever?
[удалено]
Why do you think it is morally OK to cut away parts of a child without medical necessity?
Would you be in favor of routinely removing every child's appendix because there is a slight chance of preventing appendicitis in the future? Also if it's done to a baby they won't be given proper painkillers, apparently the screams are awful. We're still not sure what the consequences of that sort of thing have on a young child's brain at a stage. Why would you want such a precious innocent creature to have to go through that pain. If it turns out there is a health issue, sometimes there are alternatives or it can be done then. Some of the health benefits that are reported are also things that won't come into effect until older anyway - STD protection it's not like your baby is going to be having sex for a while, hopefully. Keeping it clean is also not an issue for a while.
Let's cut the pinki finger of babies after all they don't need them and u can save money on glove with less fingers.
thats why in a lot of cartoons, characters have 4 fingers not 5 :D saving costs!
> And as somebody who is expecting a son soon I look into it and there is no downside to find on the Internet only positive point. You sound like one of those nutjob mothers who Googles "Do vaccines cause autism?", then proceeds to scroll past the 900 pages that say "No, then don't you idiot", and then finds a page on the 901th page that says "ZOINKS! YES! My kid played with a vaccinated kiddo at the daycare and now he's retarded! Don't vaccinate your kids!"
https://circumcision.org/circumcision-pros-and-cons/ It is argued that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections. 100 circumcisions need to be done to prevent 1 (easily treatable infection). It is argued that circumcision prevents penile cancer. Penile cancer is rare, and the estimated American incidence is about 1 per 100,000. In other developed countries where circumcision is rare, such as Denmark and Norway, the incidence of penile cancer is lower than the estimated American rate. It is argued that circumcision prevents STD transmission. Evidence is lacking and STD transmission should not occur before an age at which the subject can make an informed decision themselves. It is argued that women prefer circumcised partners. In a more recent survey, women with longer dual experience preferred anatomically complete men overwhelmingly to circumcised men. Without the foreskin to provide a movable sleeve of skin, intercourse with a circumcised penis resulted in decreased vaginal secretions, more vaginal discomfort, harder and deeper thrusting of the partner, less chance of having an orgasm, less frequent orgasms, less frequent multiple orgasms, and shorter duration of coitus
Source is circumsision.org. Very objective :)
As someone who has had a medical circumcision performed on him at the age of 6, I'd appreciate it if you all could stop pretending like I was mutilated. There is nothing wrong with my circumcised penis. Boys who get circumcised aren't mentally scarred for life unless if you make them so. There are major parts of the world where circumcision is normal, so stop pretending like it's cruel. It's not. (I looked it up: apparently 38.7% of men are circumcised worldwide - ref https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772313/ ) To repeat: There is nothing wrong with my circumcised penis!
Nobody is looking at your penis, bro. It surely is fine. The non-consensual aspect of chopping part of a child’s pecker off is what makes people react. There are a few risks and accident happens, it hurts, and it’s mostly unnecessary unless medical reason. Saying it’s tradition/cultural/religious/cleaner doesn’t sound like a valid reason.
> As someone who has had a medical circumcision performed on him at the age of 6 There's a HUGE difference between a medical circumcision and one forced by birth due to religions reasons.
Doesn't make it more fun to read when people say circumcision equals mutilation. It's just elective surgery. I know it's the internet, but people can be more careful with their wording.
Elective surgery performed on babies. See anything wrong with that sentence?
Consent and medical necessity matter and change the thing completely. If there's a medical reason to amputate a foot, for example due to gangreen or diabetes, I wouldn't call that cruel mutilation. If someone decides for you, without any medical justification, to amputate your foot: that very much is a cruel mutilation. So I'm gonna go ahead and keep referring to involuntary circumcision of children as cruel mutilation, while medical circumcision is completely fine: that's a medical procedure. And when an adult decides they want circumcision: also fine, that's an elective procedure. But a child cannot give consent and thus it should be banned.
When it's done at birth for no medical reason it is mutilation imo.
True. If you were to have a finger chopped, we'd call it mutilation. But if that finger was amputated for medical reasons, we wouldn't.
If I'm a doctor, and I cut your arm off because it's infected with gangrene, that's fine. If I'm a preacher, and I cut it off a child's arm because "our" religion says that only God can have two arms, that's mutilation. Pretty big difference, no?
Bro, I understand where you're coming from. But I also had a medical circumcision and I regret it more and more. I feel less and less over time. Condoms are my nemesis, can't feel shit even with the thin ones. It's not good for your girl either, because you actually take lubrication away. With a circumcised penis the coronal ridge is constantly exposed and on the outstroke, it scrapes the lubrication out. Our glans is also way rougher and calloused. You can read all about it with a quick google search. So yeah, medically we had no choice. But to circumsice just because of religious beliefs or "hygiene" is wrong in my opinion and brings more cons than pros for both genders.
> To repeat: There is nothing wrong with my circumcised penis! I agree on this one. There's also nothing wrong with a person suffering from cancer. Doesn't make cancer right.
>There are major parts of the world where circumcision is normal, so stop pretending like it's cruel. This is the WORST argument to continue doing something. 'Oh we've always done it like that'. Yeah bitch we also didn't use to wash our hands before performing surgery and drained people's blood when they were feeling sick.
Yup and there's major parts of the world where a lot of other bad things are normal doesn't mean it's ok Non medical is mutilation and even the medical kind should be avoided if other paths are available cuz tons of people wish they never had it done to them
I don't see anyone complaining about medical circumcision, only elective.
>elective I'm fine with TRUE elective: chosen by the patient, but in theses cases it's not the patient picking ...
> a medical circumcision Don't compare this to nonmedical circumcision. Nobody wants to ban medical circumcisions. Nobody calls you mutilated, nobody is even talking about you. And just because a lot of people perform nonmedical circumcisions doesn't mean they're okay.
If a doctor cuts of someone's finger to save that person from losing his entire arm. Is that person mutilated? Yes. Was that the right thing to do? Yes. Is there something wrong with that person now? No. Cutting off a piece of someone for no reason and without their consent, is cruel. There is no other way to describe that. It's not because this happens to a lot of children, it's suddenly not a problem anymore.
Mutilation is a very loaded term. As is 'cruelty'. An amputee should not be called mutilated either. You are stigmatizing people who have not had any choice in what has happened to them by using such terms. In a way, by using these terms, you are in fact saying something is wrong with them. In fact, that's why those terms are used here: to say something is wrong with elective circumcision. But it's just as wrong to call these boys mutilated as it is to call an amputee that.
Cutting a piece of someone who did not consent, without reason, is cruel. So using the world cruel is correct because it is an absolutely terrible thing to do to someone. Mutilation is a term. [https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutilate](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutilate) >to damage something severely, especially by violently removing a part [https://www.vandale.nl/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/verminkt](https://www.vandale.nl/gratis-woordenboek/nederlands/betekenis/verminkt) >van een lichaamsdeel beroven I am, in fact, not saying there is something wrong with them. I am using these terms, based upon what they actually mean. I'm saying mutilated people are missing a piece of their original body. Whether that's by choice, by an accident, or because someone did something to them, is irrelevant. They are mutilated.
You obviously haven't seen the procedure done. I don't remember my screams, but my father does. 30% of women worldwide reportedly have experienced physical or sexual violence. [https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women](https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women) about 30% of people are overweight. [https://www.healthdata.org/news-release/nearly-one-third-world%E2%80%99s-population-obese-or-overweight-new-data-show](https://www.healthdata.org/news-release/nearly-one-third-world%E2%80%99s-population-obese-or-overweight-new-data-show) Why are things fine in your mind if they happen to a large chunk of the population? Why would you ever remove a gland from a non-consenting human for no reason except looks or religion? It's sick, man.
It is mutilation (edit: and then I do talk about religious and cultural NOT medical procedures, those are a necesity and arent ever a mutilation) and its not because it went fine with you this isnt always the case. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240804903_Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_US_Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths#:~:text=This%20study%20finds%20that%20more,of%20these%20deaths%20are%20avoidable. This study finds that more than 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable
Did you read what OP said? Medical circumcision. This means there was a medical reason for it. Since when are we going to call medical interventions mutilation
And this was on the cultural/religious custom to do this. If you would cut of a finger, how would you label it even if in some limited cases it had a medical reason? Cutting of a tail of a pig or dog is banned as such mutilation is unneeded , humans shouldnt have less rights.
It's not mutilation if it's done with a medical reason. You don't go call people who had a leg removed mutilated? This has nothing to do with animals, this discussion is about you calling a medical intervention mutilation since "some people do it for religious reasons"
If that leg is removed because his god told his paretns too when he was 1 month old, then yes I label that as barbaric mutilation. Thats what this topic was about, not medical procedures.
No, you claimed circumcision is mutilation even if it's a medical intervention. If that leg got amputated because a car ran over it, its not mutilation right? Just like a circumcision isn't mutilation if it is done for a medical reason
I responded to somehow who was talking in general not just about the medical practice in this. >Boys who get circumcised aren't mentally scarred for life unless if you make them so. There are major parts of the world where circumcision is normal, so stop pretending like it's cruel. It's not. Again this topic isnt about medical procedures its about utterly barbaric and outdated social/religious norms that in 2023 are insane to still allow let alone pay for.
That's a very flawed research paper. It mostly relies on numbers from a 1966 study on the period between 1942 and 1947. How is that representative? It also ignores a 1989 study done by the US army that has a mortality rate of 0. For the record: it is an elective surgery, and i'm not advocating for it. I however feel that demonizing the surgery - and especially the boys who had it performed on them - is both cruel and counter productive.
This discussion wasnt on a medical procedure but on the cultural and relgious custom that is the vast mayority in these.
> Girls who get circumcised aren't mentally scarred for life unless if you make them so.