Male Genital Mutilation, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 22-8-2004 @ 04:59 AM by taibunsuu
I'm wondering lately why circumcision is not properly called Male Genital Mutilation, whereas female circumcision is known as such. Circumcision for males is culturally accepted in the West, yet when it happens to females it's considered a horrid tragedy perpetuated by irrational, superstitious cultures.

Is this because 'Female Genital Mutilation' is a foreign concept to Westerners, and thus horrific, or is it because removing the most sensitive parts of the human genitalia for no reason whatsoever is in itself horrific, but we accept it outright? The idea that male circumcision is performed for hygiene is not true, and in fact its origins in America amongst gentiles were for reasons of sexual purity, as detailed by a proponent of the operation, John Harvey Kellogg:

"Tying the hands is also successful in some cases. Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying abnormal excitement. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect on the mind."

Um... thanks, John, I'm not quite sure I'll ever look at corn flakes the same way again.

Anyway, I find the practice of mutilating a child's body horrific, male or female. What's interesting about the issue of Female Genital Mutilation is how serious the term sounds. It was definitely formed by a propagandista for maximum psychological revulsion by using the words...

Female - subconsciously associated with vulnerability
Genital - an emotional word with strong cultural sensitivity
Mutilation - self-explanatory

...whereas Male Genital Mutilation is still conveniently referred to as the benign-sounding circumcision, when in fact the operations have the same overall physical and psychological effects on the victims, since the glans and the clitoris are the most-common feature of male and female genitalia.

Next time you hear of someone talking about circumsizing their baby boy, just say, "Oh, you mean Male Genital Mutilation?" The reaction is interesting.


reply posted on 22-8-2004 @ 07:12 AM by ThePrankMonkey
Originally posted by Echotebarknwhale
some tribes in africa do female genital mutilation so that they wont have any pleasure from having intercourse, because their tribes beliefs dictate that only the men get to have pleasure.


yes and what happens to those females is considered "barbaric" and "mutilation" in the eyes of "the western world" while the western world practices a different form of it and is never questioned.



But otherwise i disagree with you on circumcisions because lots of men have been circumsized(i have) and i couldnt be happier. It is basically the removal of the foreskin. The foreskin basically has to be pulled back to reveal the head of the male genitalia so the male can urinate, have intercourse, and because of the foreskin, there is much more hygenic issues with the foreskin than with a circumsized male. I have also heard that many women prefer men who are circumsized.


spoken like a person who has no foreskin. its not your fault but this whole hygenic argument is pure bunk. scientists once "knew" the world was flat and the sun revolved around our planet...our knowledge evolves and its been found with regular cleaning, something everyone should do anyway...its no more of a problem than a man that has been circumsized. and no a man doesnt have to pull it back to urinate, again you speak from ZERO experience of this. preference has ZERO to do with getting it done and shouldnt be a factor to begin with, how many parents ever thought "hey lets get it done so our son will be more lucky with women in bed"???? and the reason for the preference is because is because its done so often, and with little thought being put into it, females have become use to it and have even come to expect it. of course if a woman is picking her men based on if they have a foreskin or not should get their head examined, in todays world thats the least of their problems.


this was primarily done as a religious exercise and while i support people's right to priactice their religion i dont support this based on someone's misconception that somehow having the foreskin is unclean in some way. maybe for those who bathe but once a month they might be true but i think anyone who doesnt bathe on a regular basis will enevitably develop medical problems of some kind at one time or another, circumcised or not.

i've never had a problem with women, i can only assume that them having a preference only applies to some women.

i just dont get the idea of removing any part of the human body for no real reason. this doesnt pertain to just THIS subject.



reply posted on 22-8-2004 @ 11:26 AM by taibunsuu
Originally posted by RedBalloon
Perhaps the difference in terms comes fromthe goal of the proceedure. With FGM, the goal is to prevent sexual pleasure - to prevent orgasm and sexual thoughts.


It's the same goal originally in the US, thanks to anti-masturbation nutcases in the 1890s. Look at Kellogg's quote in my post.

The fact that female circumsiscion is not accepted and looked on as brutal whereas male is looked on as being a benign parent's choice is because our culture has accepted male circumsision as normality, whereas doing it to females is absurd. In the other cultures it's normal and something not mentioned is that males undergo it as well. Mom's have it done and expect their daughters to have it done, and daughters think all is normal, otherwise the practice would not become culturally accepted.

My point is to bring up the fact that genital mutilation of children is culturally accepted in this country when the children are male, but looked on with horror when the children are female. Both operations carry considerable risk and the benefits for the operation on both male and female are non-existant. The idea that an uncircumsiced penis is unclean is a strong superstition and nothing more. The hygiene 'benefits' are laughable compared to the risks inherent in the process of literally ripping skin off a part of your body.

The acceptance of genital mutilation on males and the rejection of the same process on females provides an interesting perspective on the power of culture's ability to define normalcy.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 6 days ago with 51 member flags
Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags
A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 9 days ago with 28 member flags
Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags
FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 9 days ago with 18 member flags
MPD/DID and Quantum Psychiatry
  Posted 12 days ago with 12 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Greetings from a Dying Man
  Introductions, Posted 9 hours ago, 74 replies
Alien Grey caught in photo ?
  Aliens and UFOs, Posted 11 hours ago, 65 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 15 hours ago, 55 replies
Iran sent pink drone to Obama
  World War Three, Posted 16 hours ago, 40 replies