I don't think it did. It just seemed a little odd I think. Not everyone likes my name and that's OK. I consider circumcision to be mutilation because there's no good reason for it. They're mostly religious. For girls, it's expressly to destroy female sexual pleasure and keep her jealously 'pure' for whomever she marries if it includes in…
I don't think it did. It just seemed a little odd I think. Not everyone likes my name and that's OK. I consider circumcision to be mutilation because there's no good reason for it. They're mostly religious. For girls, it's expressly to destroy female sexual pleasure and keep her jealously 'pure' for whomever she marries if it includes infibulation. For boys, it's frankly a silly-ass method the Israelites useful to distinguish themselves from the Pagans. Or, as I suspect with the Cathlolic Church, hostility to the make sex organ. Eith Americans, a mindless belief that the kid should 'look like daddy' or might get bullied in school, although I've never heard of a boy getting teased because he's uncut. Doctors' arguments that it is cleaner and/or prevents penile cancer are bullshit; it's easy enough to clean on the shower and I looked into penile cancer rates in uncutting cultures; they're lie .5%-2%. Men who were circumcised when they were older report less sexual sensation than before.
I can't imagine how it wouldn't be a traumatic effect on most infants even if they can't remember it. Even if they use anesthetic, what about residual pain for days afterward? And for *what*? There's no point.
In Islam it's also a manhood test. It's done on them when they're older and they're expected to bear it without flinching. Patriarchal bullshit IMO. There's something deeply suspicious about adults attacking babies' genitals.
I didn’t ask you for your poor justification for using language that is degrading. And I have no interest in debating the general value of male circumcision or the various statistics and studies surrounding it. That would be pointlessly exhausting. The last time I investigated it thoroughly I was convinced there was some risks(specifically when the operation goes bad), but also possible benefits, and there are many irrational hysterical opponents of it. But overall it was fine and there was absolutely no justification to compare it on a moral level to female circumcision or to use the rhetoric that is used by activists.
I suspect the primary reasons why some men care about male circumcision is because they want to downplay the significance of female circumcision, they want something they can add to their list of things that demonstrates a “war on boys and men”, or because they haven’t received a circumcision and they are ashamed of the appearance of their foreskin. If it wasn’t for those three reasons, male circumcision would be discussed a lot less.
The fact that you haven’t personally heard a boy getting teased about their foreskin simply demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. I know of men who grew up being mortified about sexual encounters because their shame surrounding their foreskins. I think that is tragic and unjustified, but in the US particularly the cultural attitude toward penises that haven’t been circumcised is sometimes strongly negative. Men and women can be openly cruel about their aesthetic preferences and it is obviously extended to the appearance of genitals, as they are a pillar of sex and sexual attraction. Mens’ sexual egos are connected to their circumcision status, and that fuels shaming (and praising) from both people who are and aren’t circumcised — and from women as well.
The language activists use regarding male circumcision is language of shame — “mutilation” and “intact”. And not only shame toward those who carry it out, but shame toward those who receive it. Perhaps some unfortunate circumcised male out there conceives their genitals as “mutilated”, but I certainly don’t. Rather than acknowledging that, you gave me an irrelevant and illogical argument for why you use the word mutilation. A woman getting a breast reduction can be done for “no good reason”, but I suspect you wouldn’t support people calling her breasts mutilated.
I just said I’m okay with it. I’m circumcised. My dad had me circumcised when I was an infant. I wasn’t traumatized. He did it because he received it going into the navy and it was a requirement (dunno why). And it was not comfortable for him. He thought it would be good to do for me, and my brothers, as infants because it would be less distressful than if we chose to do it in the future. Maybe he was wrong? Dunno, cuz I can’t remember it. And there is absolutely no good reason to think it had any “trauma” on me. The only reason would be an activist trying to pile on more reasons for why they hate it. I asked him about his sexual experience before and after—made no difference to him.
*He* didn’t “attack my genitals.” *You* are attacking my genitals, by suggesting they are “mutilated”, when they are in fact functional, and frankly if I do say so myself, quite beautiful.
But....I still think it's mutilation. At least, when babies or young boys who have no say, really, are forced or pressured into it. A guy who wants to do it when he's older - even a teenager - I'm okay with that. If you're happy cut, joy to you! And, point taken, I'm never in men's locker rooms so I may not see/hear what goes on. (I wonder who gets shamed in non-circumcision cultures?) But I don't like surgery for the hell of it. I'm sure you're still quite functional...so are 98% of the men i've been with (the rest were uncircumcised). But I'm not going to keep speaking out against it, and yeah, I call unnecessary surgery mutilation - and that includes <18y.o. 'gender affirming' surgery for kids. So you may run into this opinion again in the future. ;/
Okay, I think that is an irrational, malicious, slur. My dad didn’t have me “mutilated”; and I am not “mutilated.” If I were to have a male child, I’d probably not choose to give him a circumcision, but I don’t view my dad’s decision with any negative moral judgement. And neither should you. He did what he thought was best for me at the time and it has had no memorable observable negative consequences. And you certainly shouldn’t use language that has the connotation of shame for my genitals.
“ I call unnecessary surgery mutilation ”
But “necessary” surgeries with same results is not mutilation? Thus a woman’s chest that has had breast tissue removed because of cancer is not mutilated but if it was for aesthetic reasons it is mutilated?
I think what you do not understand is that in your hatred of who you think is harming the person, you are using language that is actually degrading to the person you think was harmed. If you actually had sympathy toward the people you think are harmed, rather than just expressing your hatred and possibly feeling righteous for espousing your moral outrage, you would take into consideration what the effects of your language could have on them.
You can speak out against what you think is the immorality of “unnecessary surgery” without using language that carries connotation of shame for who you think is a victim.
I don't 'hate' the people being harmed. I detect a lot of emotionalism in your replies so far which leads me to wonder why. I mean, if you're proud of how your family jewels look, and you're not mad at your dad, why should you care what I thinK? I'm not mad at your dad either. He likely operated under doctor's opinions at the time (or maybe a religious dictate) and did what he thought was best, and it's *still* not nearly as bad as FGM.
BTW, I get why a woman would have breast cancer removed, but not why she'd undergo unnecessary surgery - mutilation even - to have bigger breasts to satisfy some patriarchal beauty requirement. She shouldn't be stopped, and she's welcome to get mad at me making, likely, the same arguments you are (without the dad part). BTW, there's no such thing as woman who does it 'for herself' and not to satisfy external beauty requirements. It's to satisfy a male fetish or be more attactive to men, I don't care what she says. OTOH, I understand why she might have a breast reduction - those things are heavy to carry around and very hard on the back, and no baby needs boobs *that* big to feed on.
Honestly, I think the same feeling is more on your end than mine. I'm not trying to make you feel bad about being circumcised - nor do I want to shame your father either. But I wonder whether you'd enjoy sex more if you hadn't been. And you still haven't offered a logical reason for why this needs to be done to males. Just expressed your outrage at my language.
I didn’t say you hate the people being harmed. I said you hate the people doing the harm. Is your emotionalism affecting your reading skills?
There are men who have reported enjoying sex more or less or the same after circumcision. My dad reported no difference. Other than “intactivists” trying to sow FOMO, speculating about it is worthless.
Would you call a woman’s breasts who received augmentation after a mastectomy mutilated? Would you tell a woman who went through a mastectomy for cancer treatment that she was not getting breasts “for herself”, but just to satisfy some “patriarchal beauty requirement” and “not care what she says”? Or would your contemptuous degrading tone change? Would you be able to find sympathy in that arctic heart of yours or would your hatred toward “the patriarchy” blind you?
I think the reduction in the transmission of various infectious diseases, especially HIV is sufficient reason to consider circumcising male babies, specifically in regions where it’s very prevalent. A mother who decides to get a circumcision performed on her male infant rather then letting the risk be greater that he grows up and has sex and gets hiv is not a simple choice. I would empathize with a parent who made the decision to get a circumcision for their male infant. Describing it as mutilation would be wrong. Both because it wrongly disrespectful to the parents but also wrongly degrading to the child.
If you are surprised that I have emotions in response to people expressing degrading language in a way I think is inappropriate I suggest you try to understand human nature better. Humans are emotional. That includes you, even though you seem not to be aware of the “emotionalism” exemplified in the language you are selectively using irrationally. If someone degrades something or someone in a way I think it or they should not be, there is a chance Im going to express my disapproval, aka “outrage”. If a person told me that my cats were ugly I’d tell them to fuk off; it doesn’t matter if I think my cats are some of the cutest beings in the multiverse. And if they continue to do it, and say things like “I wonder why you are getting all emotional about me saying your cats are ugly; why do you caaare? hmmmmm? Is it because secretly you think they are ugly ugly ugly?” I’d infer they were being *malicious* or they were incredibly stupid. But it could also be both— they are being malicious but too stupid to even realize it.
Okay, I've had enough of this conversation. If you want to find my language 'degrading' that's your choice...but I disagree and I still think circumcision, at least of children, is mutilation. Wave you bald boy proudly if you like, but deal with the fact that I'm not the only person who's against circumcising children - there's a whole movement about it, partly grown out of the fact that it's been pointed out that if it's wrong for girls, why not also for boys? I said something about circumcision that had nothing to do with you because I don't know if you're circumcised, and I know a lot of circumcised men wish they hadn't been. Maybe your worry about my 'irrationalism' is your own irrational, personal response to a comment that had nothing to do with you. I'm done. Not blocking you or anything, just done with this thread.
I don't think it did. It just seemed a little odd I think. Not everyone likes my name and that's OK. I consider circumcision to be mutilation because there's no good reason for it. They're mostly religious. For girls, it's expressly to destroy female sexual pleasure and keep her jealously 'pure' for whomever she marries if it includes infibulation. For boys, it's frankly a silly-ass method the Israelites useful to distinguish themselves from the Pagans. Or, as I suspect with the Cathlolic Church, hostility to the make sex organ. Eith Americans, a mindless belief that the kid should 'look like daddy' or might get bullied in school, although I've never heard of a boy getting teased because he's uncut. Doctors' arguments that it is cleaner and/or prevents penile cancer are bullshit; it's easy enough to clean on the shower and I looked into penile cancer rates in uncutting cultures; they're lie .5%-2%. Men who were circumcised when they were older report less sexual sensation than before.
I can't imagine how it wouldn't be a traumatic effect on most infants even if they can't remember it. Even if they use anesthetic, what about residual pain for days afterward? And for *what*? There's no point.
In Islam it's also a manhood test. It's done on them when they're older and they're expected to bear it without flinching. Patriarchal bullshit IMO. There's something deeply suspicious about adults attacking babies' genitals.
I didn’t ask you for your poor justification for using language that is degrading. And I have no interest in debating the general value of male circumcision or the various statistics and studies surrounding it. That would be pointlessly exhausting. The last time I investigated it thoroughly I was convinced there was some risks(specifically when the operation goes bad), but also possible benefits, and there are many irrational hysterical opponents of it. But overall it was fine and there was absolutely no justification to compare it on a moral level to female circumcision or to use the rhetoric that is used by activists.
I suspect the primary reasons why some men care about male circumcision is because they want to downplay the significance of female circumcision, they want something they can add to their list of things that demonstrates a “war on boys and men”, or because they haven’t received a circumcision and they are ashamed of the appearance of their foreskin. If it wasn’t for those three reasons, male circumcision would be discussed a lot less.
The fact that you haven’t personally heard a boy getting teased about their foreskin simply demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. I know of men who grew up being mortified about sexual encounters because their shame surrounding their foreskins. I think that is tragic and unjustified, but in the US particularly the cultural attitude toward penises that haven’t been circumcised is sometimes strongly negative. Men and women can be openly cruel about their aesthetic preferences and it is obviously extended to the appearance of genitals, as they are a pillar of sex and sexual attraction. Mens’ sexual egos are connected to their circumcision status, and that fuels shaming (and praising) from both people who are and aren’t circumcised — and from women as well.
The language activists use regarding male circumcision is language of shame — “mutilation” and “intact”. And not only shame toward those who carry it out, but shame toward those who receive it. Perhaps some unfortunate circumcised male out there conceives their genitals as “mutilated”, but I certainly don’t. Rather than acknowledging that, you gave me an irrelevant and illogical argument for why you use the word mutilation. A woman getting a breast reduction can be done for “no good reason”, but I suspect you wouldn’t support people calling her breasts mutilated.
I just said I’m okay with it. I’m circumcised. My dad had me circumcised when I was an infant. I wasn’t traumatized. He did it because he received it going into the navy and it was a requirement (dunno why). And it was not comfortable for him. He thought it would be good to do for me, and my brothers, as infants because it would be less distressful than if we chose to do it in the future. Maybe he was wrong? Dunno, cuz I can’t remember it. And there is absolutely no good reason to think it had any “trauma” on me. The only reason would be an activist trying to pile on more reasons for why they hate it. I asked him about his sexual experience before and after—made no difference to him.
*He* didn’t “attack my genitals.” *You* are attacking my genitals, by suggesting they are “mutilated”, when they are in fact functional, and frankly if I do say so myself, quite beautiful.
Again, I request you change the rhetoric you use.
But....I still think it's mutilation. At least, when babies or young boys who have no say, really, are forced or pressured into it. A guy who wants to do it when he's older - even a teenager - I'm okay with that. If you're happy cut, joy to you! And, point taken, I'm never in men's locker rooms so I may not see/hear what goes on. (I wonder who gets shamed in non-circumcision cultures?) But I don't like surgery for the hell of it. I'm sure you're still quite functional...so are 98% of the men i've been with (the rest were uncircumcised). But I'm not going to keep speaking out against it, and yeah, I call unnecessary surgery mutilation - and that includes <18y.o. 'gender affirming' surgery for kids. So you may run into this opinion again in the future. ;/
“ I still think it's mutilation”
Okay, I think that is an irrational, malicious, slur. My dad didn’t have me “mutilated”; and I am not “mutilated.” If I were to have a male child, I’d probably not choose to give him a circumcision, but I don’t view my dad’s decision with any negative moral judgement. And neither should you. He did what he thought was best for me at the time and it has had no memorable observable negative consequences. And you certainly shouldn’t use language that has the connotation of shame for my genitals.
“ I call unnecessary surgery mutilation ”
But “necessary” surgeries with same results is not mutilation? Thus a woman’s chest that has had breast tissue removed because of cancer is not mutilated but if it was for aesthetic reasons it is mutilated?
I think what you do not understand is that in your hatred of who you think is harming the person, you are using language that is actually degrading to the person you think was harmed. If you actually had sympathy toward the people you think are harmed, rather than just expressing your hatred and possibly feeling righteous for espousing your moral outrage, you would take into consideration what the effects of your language could have on them.
You can speak out against what you think is the immorality of “unnecessary surgery” without using language that carries connotation of shame for who you think is a victim.
I don't 'hate' the people being harmed. I detect a lot of emotionalism in your replies so far which leads me to wonder why. I mean, if you're proud of how your family jewels look, and you're not mad at your dad, why should you care what I thinK? I'm not mad at your dad either. He likely operated under doctor's opinions at the time (or maybe a religious dictate) and did what he thought was best, and it's *still* not nearly as bad as FGM.
BTW, I get why a woman would have breast cancer removed, but not why she'd undergo unnecessary surgery - mutilation even - to have bigger breasts to satisfy some patriarchal beauty requirement. She shouldn't be stopped, and she's welcome to get mad at me making, likely, the same arguments you are (without the dad part). BTW, there's no such thing as woman who does it 'for herself' and not to satisfy external beauty requirements. It's to satisfy a male fetish or be more attactive to men, I don't care what she says. OTOH, I understand why she might have a breast reduction - those things are heavy to carry around and very hard on the back, and no baby needs boobs *that* big to feed on.
Honestly, I think the same feeling is more on your end than mine. I'm not trying to make you feel bad about being circumcised - nor do I want to shame your father either. But I wonder whether you'd enjoy sex more if you hadn't been. And you still haven't offered a logical reason for why this needs to be done to males. Just expressed your outrage at my language.
I didn’t say you hate the people being harmed. I said you hate the people doing the harm. Is your emotionalism affecting your reading skills?
There are men who have reported enjoying sex more or less or the same after circumcision. My dad reported no difference. Other than “intactivists” trying to sow FOMO, speculating about it is worthless.
Would you call a woman’s breasts who received augmentation after a mastectomy mutilated? Would you tell a woman who went through a mastectomy for cancer treatment that she was not getting breasts “for herself”, but just to satisfy some “patriarchal beauty requirement” and “not care what she says”? Or would your contemptuous degrading tone change? Would you be able to find sympathy in that arctic heart of yours or would your hatred toward “the patriarchy” blind you?
I think the reduction in the transmission of various infectious diseases, especially HIV is sufficient reason to consider circumcising male babies, specifically in regions where it’s very prevalent. A mother who decides to get a circumcision performed on her male infant rather then letting the risk be greater that he grows up and has sex and gets hiv is not a simple choice. I would empathize with a parent who made the decision to get a circumcision for their male infant. Describing it as mutilation would be wrong. Both because it wrongly disrespectful to the parents but also wrongly degrading to the child.
If you are surprised that I have emotions in response to people expressing degrading language in a way I think is inappropriate I suggest you try to understand human nature better. Humans are emotional. That includes you, even though you seem not to be aware of the “emotionalism” exemplified in the language you are selectively using irrationally. If someone degrades something or someone in a way I think it or they should not be, there is a chance Im going to express my disapproval, aka “outrage”. If a person told me that my cats were ugly I’d tell them to fuk off; it doesn’t matter if I think my cats are some of the cutest beings in the multiverse. And if they continue to do it, and say things like “I wonder why you are getting all emotional about me saying your cats are ugly; why do you caaare? hmmmmm? Is it because secretly you think they are ugly ugly ugly?” I’d infer they were being *malicious* or they were incredibly stupid. But it could also be both— they are being malicious but too stupid to even realize it.
Okay, I've had enough of this conversation. If you want to find my language 'degrading' that's your choice...but I disagree and I still think circumcision, at least of children, is mutilation. Wave you bald boy proudly if you like, but deal with the fact that I'm not the only person who's against circumcising children - there's a whole movement about it, partly grown out of the fact that it's been pointed out that if it's wrong for girls, why not also for boys? I said something about circumcision that had nothing to do with you because I don't know if you're circumcised, and I know a lot of circumcised men wish they hadn't been. Maybe your worry about my 'irrationalism' is your own irrational, personal response to a comment that had nothing to do with you. I'm done. Not blocking you or anything, just done with this thread.