Male Genital Mutilation

Kinda odd that every other male animal on the planet can operate just fine as it was born, up to and including whales, elephants, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, walruses, gorillas etc.
But, MAN, has to come up with the idea, of whacking off his babies or pre teens wang to suit some stupid religious idiocy!

My father is fully intact. His mother was from Old World Europe, as was his father. None of their boys were circumcised.

When I was born, the doctor cut me without anyone's permission. My parents were P.O'd when they found out. But it was too late. Apparently, it was something they just did to boys in our area. As I found out much later on, in the showers after physical ed...because everyone was tailored fit.

All circumcision should be stopped. It isn't necessary. Leave it alone, and let it grow normally to its full potential. Leave females alone too.

Call me unlucky, a victim, or w/e you would, but I was circumcised as a baby and don't see myself standing out or different from any other male. I'm still highly sensitive down there and don't have any problems reaching an orgasm during intercourse. I'd actually prefer to stay circumcised then to have the foreskin back if I had the choice. Animals/us have the foreskin to protect the penis from damage to ensure that reproduction could still occur normally, but seeing as us humans don't run around with our wangs out anymore it isn't really a necessity to have.

I see what most of you are getting at, that's it's wrong to force babies to get it. But it'd be much more harsh for a man to decide to get circumcised later on when he's developed. I guess it's all up to the parents decision, but I don't think just because they chose to get their little boy circumcised makes them bad parents or religious nuts; as both of mine are neither.

Originally posted 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."

Interesting topic, particularly here in South Africa. None of our 9 indigenous tribes performs female circumcision, although we have a lot of migrants coming in from the north-west of Africa, where it is custom. We have a strong feminist movement these days and it is certainly regarded as unacceptable. What is interesting is male circumcision. The Xhosa people send their boys for initiation around puberty where they are circumcized. Every year we have cases of genital mutilation (resulting in infection and penile amputation) and since the knife is sometimes not cleaned between a number of boys, HIV infection. The Zulu people gave up circumcision under king Shaka in the 19th century. Legend has it that he saw a friend die from the parctise, and the healing process took too long to maintain the Zulu regiments. Nowadays we get a lot of info from the West that provides evidence for circumcision leading to a reduced HIV-risk for men. Although circumcision does not mean cut men are totally "safe", for straight men the risk is very reduced. Young males are encouraged to go to the clinic for the snip, but old traditions die hard, and here in the Cape men are sometimes abducted for forced initiations. Apparently in the past it was safer, and the traditional surgeons were very experienced, but nowadays it is done for financial reward, and clinic circumcision is not given the same status as traditional initiation. It is a huge topic here, particularly since male circumcision now has the benefit of Western medicine's thought in HIV reduction. But I agree, it is male mutilation and if this was done to women, there would be a huge international protest.

the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis www.circumstitions.com... it contains 83% of a mans erotic nerves approximate 20,000 erotic nerves the head or gland of the penis has 4,000 erotic nerves it would be stupid to think a circumcised penis with only 4,000 erotic nerves would have the same amount of feeling as a uncircumcised one with 24,000 erotic nerves circumcision removes 50% of the feeling in the penis most American males don’t know what they have lost because they were circumcised as newborns Dr. Morris Sorrels, M.D. said in my preliminary study on penile touch sensitivity, comparing circumcised and normal men. one said sex before circumcision on a scale of 1 to 10 felt like 11 after circumcision it barely made a 3 Decreased penile sensitivity and increased erectile dysfunction were the most frequent complaints reported by men who were circumcised. that is why America circumcised males need Viagra, Levitra, or Cialis Circumcision only lowers chances of baby boys getting what boys have little chance of getting any way like urinary tract infection .baby boys uncircumcised or circumcised have only a (1.%) chance of getting urinary tract infections. Baby girls have a 5% chance. Penile cancer is an extremely rare disease with less than 1 case per 100,000 if you would recommend Male Genital Mutilation I wonder if you would recommend Female Genital Mutilation removal of the clitoral hood and the inner labia This is the same parts that becomes the foreskin on a male at 10 weeks gestation. Since girls have more folds of skin down there more chances of getting urinary tract infections 5.% chance and Islam gives the same medical benefits www.islam-qa.com... both are mutilation Top 12 Myths About Circumcision www.mybestbirth.com...

Originally posted by Byrd
Now... let's be fair. Let's compare the "mutilations," shall we?

male:
done in hospitals
sterile instruments
by doctors or rabbis with doctor assist
takes only foreskin


female:
not done in hospitals
usually done with a piece of broken glass (really!)
done by various people with no medical training
takes foreskin, clitoris, labia (equivalent of slicing off the penis itself.)

I agree. Great post.

I'm not saying it's NOT mutilation, because it is, but it's certainly not the same as what those poor girls go through, not even close to it.

To be honest, while I understand that this thread is about the male circumcision, it's the female variety that you should be worried about, and the female variety which is being lessened by your argument.

Your argument makes equal what is not equal. The above quoted material explains why.

I'm shocked that there has been a comparison between circumcision and the act of genital mutilation in women over the world. They are so completely different.

As someone posted earlier, the penis and clitoris are basically the same thing only different sizes. Your foreskin is our clitoral hood and when we are stimulated, our clitoris becomes engorged and hard, like your penis.

Therefore, in comparing the two rituals, it would be the same as completely cutting off the entire 'head' of your penis. That is a big difference then cutting off the foreskin.

They are similar only in that there is cutting on the genital area but they are completely different procedure wise. Also, the sensitivity being more this way or that way is debatable because no evidence either way has come out in favor of one or the other.

There are benefits and risks to both and comes down to a personal decision by the parents who have to weigh the good and bad of both. There are however studies showing that uncircumcised men do harbor more bacteria then circumcised and can get infections easier then circumcised men but I'm sure with the proper hygiene that voids itself.

Also, lets be honest, people don't circumcise they’re children solely for that factor, the aethstetics also play a big part. I myself do not like uncircumcised penises but I am sure there are many women who hate circumcised ones. It is just a matter of taste.

Originally posted by BaronVonGodzilla

Originally posted by Byrd
Now... let's be fair. Let's compare the "mutilations," shall we?

male:
done in hospitals
sterile instruments
by doctors or rabbis with doctor assist
takes only foreskin


female:
not done in hospitals
usually done with a piece of broken glass (really!)
done by various people with no medical training
takes foreskin, clitoris, labia (equivalent of slicing off the penis itself.)

Not necessarily outside the Western world! In Xhosa initiation boys are taken into the bush, where a knife (seen footage of a pocket knife used) is sharpened on a rock. The boys sit naked with their legs apart, and the traditional "surgeon" pulls the foreskin of each boy and cuts it off. To show pain is a disgrace, so the boys may not flinch. Thousands of boys do this, even around urban areas, every year. These days boys as young as 6-9 are taken. Afterwards they live, and supposedly heal for a period of seclusion (especially from females) under the beatings of their "surgeon", and some freeze to death, being naked in icy nights. They may not drink water for a period, and some get dehydration. Needlessly to say, many boys and young men die each year or have their penises completely amputated to treat infection. The mutilated penis is wrapped in leaves and often drags in the sand. Read up on Xhosa initiations (and many other tribes) and tell me again that in Africa male circumcision is done safely in hospitals! Amongst the Xhosa an uncircumcised man is not considered or spoken to as a "man", no matter how old, he will always be a "boy". Sometimes those cut in clinics are abducted and cut again in the bush, it really is horrendous from outside perspectives.
PS. Many activists and ethnologists actually argue that female circumcisions are a kind of inflated "revenge" in circumcized patriarchy, where men sublimate their own mutilation on women. However, the Xhosa don't practise female circumcision, but men enjoy a superior status to women after initiation. In some regions of northern Africa and the Middle-East men may have their entire groin skinned during "circumcision".