Male Circumcision

[lizziec]

I'm curious about my f-list's opinions on this because I don't really know where I stand. On one of my exmormon mailing lists there's currently a rather heated discussion about Male Circumcision, which some of the posters are calling Male Genital Mutilation. Are they being over the top, or is male circumcision Male Genital Mutilation? There is no doubt that female "circumcision" is mutilation, but I am really not sure where I stand on the male circumcision thing. Is it the same or similar? If it's different, why/how is it different (not talking about the technique itself, but about its perception etc)? Is it not really mutilation at all?

I know it sounds like an odd question, but I'd really appreciate your comments and thoughts on this.

Comments

[violetnights.livejournal.com]

I'd say mutilation was a bit of an extreme term. Whilst you are removing something quite natural, you aren't ruining the organ beyond function, nor the quality of the life of the man it's attached to. It can, in fact, be better for hygenic purposes though, apparantly, you can experience *some* loss of sensation. I would not call it a a mutilation, merely a procedure. Would you call appendix removal digestive mutilation? I think not.

I'd say the more important point with circumcision is having a choice in it. Where babies and young children cannot voice an opinion, nor choose a religion for themselves, is it fair to force it upon them? POssibly an entirely different debate in itself.

[princess-cutter.livejournal.com]

I agree

[0plato0.livejournal.com]

yeah.. what she said

[barakta]

While the risks for male circumcision are low, they do exist and can be quite extreme. The more something is carried out the more likely a small risk factor is to happen. 0.1% is only 1 in a thousand. While most circumcisions seem to go well, many men are left with over-sensitivity and other difficulties resulting from circumcision. Baby-penises are so tiny that a 'small' mistake in an adult can damage a lot more of the existing tissue in a baby.

My feeling is that for religious reasons it shouldn't be allowed. For cosmetic reasons it shouldn't be allowed.

It should only be permitted for genuine medical reasons when other solutions have been tried. A baby is not able to consent to a medical procedure therefore said medical procedures should be kept to a minimum.

Appendixes are not removed without a good reason: they are removed because they have become inflamed, or there is a high risk they will become inflamed.

In fact, medics are reluctant to remove un-inflamed appendixes 'prophylactically' even in high potential of inflammation as it is believed the appendix DOES still perform immune-system response so removing it can increase risk of autoimmune disorders and all sorts. An at-risk person is better off being ultra-aware of the symptoms and getting them checked out.

I am wary of children having unnecessary medical procedures. Medics have an obligation to 'first do no harm' and should consider that at all times, ESPECIALLY when dealing with children who are having decisions made for them by parents. There's consent, and informed consent.

I consider consent by anyone under religious conditions not to be informed consent because they have to consent to prevent religious ostracisation - same as Jehovahs Witnesses not accepting blood products. That's consent under duress. I do not think children under a reasonable age of consent should suffer for adults' religious or other beliefs. Determining the age at which an individual child can consent is left as an exercise for the reader.

[kimble.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course it's mutilation. It damages what is in most cases a perfectly healthy organ, reducing its functionality, and for the most part, without informed consent of its owner.

Even when it's done for medical reasons, removal of the entire foreskin is an extreme solution where a much more minor surgery would often suffice.

Just because female circumcision is orders of magnitude worse does not make this right!

However, I have no problem with an adult choosing to be circumcised, even for religious reasons (however much I may disagree with them). Their body, they can do what they like.

[pornqueenie.livejournal.com]

Its all to do with opinion and culture!

Personally i see it as two things

a) Medical Procedure - It has to be done to improve quality of life.

b) A religious Event

I dont really have an opinion on it, its not something i have ever really had to face up to.

I do however believe, as with most things, if the circumcisee (lol) is willing and happy to undergo the procedure then thats fine with me.

Forced "mutilation" is when things tend to get to me a bit more. However i do understand that a lot of circumcisions happen when boys are younger.

I dunnoo.

[morti.livejournal.com]

Penn & Teller did a good Bullshit! about circumcision. If you're interested and have trouble tracking it down I have it here somewhere and could share. Plenty about some crazy guys who have restored their foreskins by hanging weights and stuff.

I guess in a way it is mutilation but that's putting an overly negative spin on it which isn't necessary. However it is entirely pointless as far as I can tell and has only minor negative effects (in that it reduces sensitivity and is probably quite painful at the time).

I'm against it because there's no reason for it but I wouldn't go as far as hanging miniature weights off my cock or take up any big argument one way or the other.

[mostlysilent.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on a few things. Whether its actually necessary or not. The american trend of lobbing it off as soon as theyre born is, I'd say, as there's no real need for it and the guy in question doesn't get a chance to say "oi no!".

If on the other hand theyre older and it becomes apparent things arent working as they should... then as a last resort, its not. I dont know if there's any sort of medical implications in the same way for female circumcisions, not in the "its not working right, this'll fix it" way. But I may be wrong so correct me if I am! Obviously its got the anti-womany aspect (I'm sure you know what I mean, my brains turned to mush and dinners still ages away!) but I can't tihnk of any good reason why they do it, whereas there's obviously one or two for the menfolk.

I'm gonna stop digging my hole now and go make dinner :P

[skeldof.livejournal.com]

I think the de-facto American attitude of lop-it-off is actually dwindling. Last I heard it was nearing 50% of new borns. Maybe finally going out of fashion. Remember it being on an article. Some daft mother was quoted as "Got the snip as I don't want my boy being the odd one out in the locker room" x.x

[mostlysilent.livejournal.com]

yeah id heard it was getting less and less common... but its still more prevalent than over here as far as im aware. except for some of the nutters opting to have it done cos they think it looks much better, but theyre weird :P

[skeldof.livejournal.com]

Personally I'm on the side of "it's mutilation". This is a regular thread on /b/ that has some strong flame opinions from both sides. When it goes wrong, it goes horribly wrong. Usually it just leaves a scar. Depending on one's cultural background it can be termed "unsightly scar". The glands dry out and often lose sensation. People who had it done later in life say it's a horribly painful experience, with the previously very sensitive glands being in constant contact with clothing.

But on the other side, it's harder to keep a natural penis clean. It requires effort. People are lazy. There's an increased risk of serious disease and it's easier to transmit STIs.

There are medical reasons for it. Hopefully used as a fairly last resort. But I'm firmly against forcing anything like that on an unknowing child just because it's cultural or cosmetic. Female circumcision does happen in some places, but it's so frowned upon in the west that it's termed mutilation. Maybe one day we'll escape our matriarchal oppressors and have the same opinion about male circumcision? Which is odd in a traditionally male run society o.O

Plus I plain think natural looks better. And is more fun c.c
[my opinion, not balanced, /b/ corrupted, don't mean to offend etc] At least I didn't bring out the photos.

[tlc-tugger.livejournal.com]

Hey,
I'm glad to see a conversation about this because I say it's an important human rights issue. In the interest of full disclosure, I help men restore their foreskins for a living.

^^ There is no doubt that female "circumcision" is mutilation ^^

If we say that, WHY is it true? There are several levels of female genital cutting. The most practiced form does not (or is not meant to) harm the clitoris, just the clitoral hood (which is the female homologue to the foreskin - it grows from the same embryonic tissue). In Indonesia, the most common form of female "circumcision" is merely pricking the hood to draw a ceremonial drop of blood. That would be illegal in the US and Europe.

^^ you aren't ruining the organ beyond function, nor the quality of the life of the man it's attached to ^^

But many many men do feel ruined. Google "circumcision damage" and you'll see the ways they ARE ruined. And these don't show up in the stats on "low complication rates" for infant circumcision. I've helped men who literally could not conceive a child until they restored their foreskin to get back a measure of suppleness and sensitivity.

>> in a way it is mutilation but that's putting an overly negative spin on it which isn't necessary. <<

I think it's clearly mutilation. The foreskin includes over half the sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings, including highly specialized types found nowhere on the remaining skin. The foreskin also affords an exquisite rolling/gliding mode of frictionless stimulation which also makes intercourse more comfortable for a man's partner.

>> There are medical reasons for it. Hopefully used as a fairly last resort. <<

Indeed. No national association of doctors (not even the Israel Medical Association) recommends routine circumcision. Most any penile problem you can think of can be resolved without circumcision. Two non-amputating procedures used in the UK but almost unknown in the US - frenuloplasty and dorsal slit with transverse closure - solve the tightness and tearing issues for those who lack the patience to stretch the skin naturally. The one condition that really warrants circumcision is BXO/LS which can make the preputial sphincter hard, inelastic, and scratchy. Even that responds to ointment 2/3 of the time, so the actual proportion of men who would benefit medically from circumcision is about 1 in 10000.

>> I plain think natural looks better. And is more fun <<

To me it's really about the owner of the foreskin having a say, since it's risky cosmetic surgery and foreskin feels REALLY good.

Cheers,
-Ron
HIS body HIS decision

[trappermcintyre.livejournal.com]

Hi Ron :) Thanks for dropping by and giving me the benefit of your thoughts.

I'd not really thought much about male circumcision. As you may (or may not) have picked up from my LJ, I live in the UK and it is not nearly as common here to have a male child circumcised as it appears to be in the UK. I know a number of friends who have male children and as far as I know the topic was never raised with them, and was never something I would even have considered for any male children I may have even before this debate.

I haven't known any men who've been cut (except for my father who had it done for medical reasons), which is why I was a bit shocked at the depth of feeling amongst the members of the exmormon mailing list. The reason I put the question out there in the first place was because of my total ignorance of what it means for a man to have it done and I have to admit that I'm rather shocked at the damage it can cause, moreso as I know it's something that is done fairly routinely in the US.

Anyway, thank you for your input. It has been a really welcome addition to the other responses :)

[tlc-tugger.livejournal.com]

>> I was a bit shocked at the depth of feeling amongst the members of the exmormon mailing list. <<

-- -- -- --

Oh yeah, you can tell your LDS friends to re-read Moroni 8:8 "The law of circumcision is done away in me."

-Ron

[metamoof.livejournal.com]

You do know men who have been cut. It's just not something you talk about.

There is a severe loss of sensitivity associated with a circumcision. This can be a disadvantage, but it can also be an advantage - cut men tend to last longer during sex as a result. Certainly, I find cut and uncut men masturbate differently, and find it difficult to adjust to the masturbation method that they're not used to. Uncircumcised men tend to have natural lubrication, or a particular type of motion of their foreskin, which helps in their stimulation. circumcised men tend to need some form of lubrication, be it spit or something more suited to the motion.

There are also degrees of circumcision. Sometimes doctors will just lop a bit off the tip, which covers most of the glans. Sometimes they'll go really far back. I don't know if that's a function of the shape of the penis, or their own particular cutting styles, or what.

In general, whilst I have found cut men to occasionally bemoan the loss of sensitivity, I have not heard them go on about any more serious emotional trauma related to their circumcision. The fact that it is a common enough thing removes a lot of social stigma from it, I suppose.

That being said, Penile health, especially related to foreskins, is something that is probably not discussed much with doctors. Of the various parters I've had, I've encountered people with issues such as the foreskin being stretched so much it's painful, even when retracted, when the penis is engorged, which makes sex something rather painful for the man in question, and several men whose glans has never seen the light of day, as their foreskin cannot go over even when flaccid. At least one of those has bee given a set of (apparently somewhat painful) exercises to do, which has actually helped quite a bit.

Oh, and as skel says, an uncut penis needs good hygiene. People who don't wash correctly do give off a rather unpleasant smell, and usually you find out at the worst possible moment.

Foreskins are more fun to play with. And just look better, IMO. And you can tell the difference in level of sensitivity.

Would I go so far as to call it "mutilation"? Well, it is disfiguring. And older boys and men can see it as an affront on their virility if they have to go through it, though this may be cultural. The three most prevalent religions in the UK talk of circumcision at best as a sign of a covenant, and at worst as a sign of submission to god's will. I don't think of it as a mutilation, but I do find it disagreeable on occasion.

I certainly disagree with automatic circumcision for religious purposes, or even secular ones. There are valid medical reasons for it, but there are also a lot of things that could be tried beforehand. That being said, a prepubescent 6 year old being circumcised is going to get over the trauma a lot quicker than a 16 year old who, having tried all the various exercises or whatever still finds he needs it taking off. So maybe it is a kindness to do it early on rather than trying stretching exercises and creams and things first. Especially given the latter really would be started round puberty.

It's not the end of the world. Life will move on, and if you accept it, you can make use of the advantages of being circumcised too.

And, to be fair, the vast majority of men will only know one way or another through their lives. Why compare? Both have advantages and disadvantages.