Do you think it’s fair to refer to circumcision as Male Genital Mutilation (MGM)?

[CarpetDenim]

Updates

+1 y

Or to compare it to Female Genital Mutilation?

[RickPen]

Yes, it is fair, because it is forced cutting that damages the penis.

Even the World Health Organization has noted different types of genital mutilation.

The technically most direct type would be Type 2 for females, where the prepuce (hood) is removed. However, the most common form is a ritual nick of the hood to draw blood.

Roughly 80% of sensation is in the prepuce (foreskin) of the penis, with about the same number of nerve endings as all ten fingertips combined. Men lose all that, but get complications as well.

The glans (head) dries out and becomes desensitized through keratinization. Then there are other complications, such as nerve or blood vessel damage, meatal stenosis, too much skin removed, Whig results in curved, painful erections, or the skin splitting.

If that weren't enough, skin tags happen when the foreskin tries to re-adhere to the glans, as it's attached at birth. The membrane is called the synechia, and the same type as what holds the fingernail. This is so strongly adhered that forced retraction (before it naturally dissolves) and infant circumcision routinely rip chunks out of the glans. Meatal stenosis is common, and is a closing up of the urethra opening. The only fix for this is cutting the hole open.

Most infant circumcisions are done without anesthetic, and what is done isn't sufficient. I suggest watching one on YouTube.

The capstone is that circumcision does not prevent any disease, and America started obsessing over it to stop masturbation in boys (Kellogg of corn flakes fame started it, and like to use carbolic acid on the clitoris for girls). Then it turned into some other fix for diseases, and we keep trying to do that even today.

It is forced on an unconsenting infant, and several hundred boys are suspected to die of this every year. It can't be restored, and the effects are lifelong. Even the medical world defines removing healthy tissue as mutilation, so it absolutely matches circumcision. It's billed as a cosmetic surgery, but is *huge* money in the USA, so banning is unlikely.

It is torture and mutilation, and not one person deserves to have their healthy genitals cut without consent (male and female alike).

[RickPen]

Adding this to my own comment for additional info.

Mystic_Nova claimed it's popular in Britain. I'd have replied there, but she blocked me, and clearly lacks the capacity for rational discussion. To clarify, she's flatly wrong. Britain stopped post WW2 when social medicine started as RIC was not found to benefit anything.

Catholics condemn it as Jesus was the last blood sacrifice, and nowhere is it commanded in the Quran.

Some countries are working on banning it. To be Frank, I have only heard women state their circumcision fetish, and universally American women at that. Men are given a proverbial "shit sandwich" and told to like it, so of course they will. They have no choice. Imagine how angry a man could be if he had to come to grips with knowing what was done, how painful it was, and thevlast effect. What we have is a severe lack of education about the normal male body, with body shaming and literal hate compounded with it.

I realize it's a polarizing topic, but people are often very, very wrong, and so many myths have been pushed about it.

Simply put, cutting is wrong, almost nobody practices it for nonreligious reasons save for the US and wherever they exert strong political power. Given the equal right to protection of the 14th ammendment, male circumcision should have summarily banned, however, last year, the federal ban on female cutting was lifted and deemedbinconstitutional for that reason, leaving the states to make their own laws.

With education, I would hope less people torture and rape their sons (forcibly taking is a secondary definition of rape, but also applies as a doctor must give a boy an erection to know the max they can be cut), but it will probably not happen in my lifetime, ad I have little hope the America will pull its head out of its own ass.

[FakeName123]

100%. Biologically speaking the foreskin is the equivalent to the clitoral hood. The later is considered female genital mutiliation.

Secondly it is a legal issue. By keeping male circumcision allowed - due to gender equality laws we layer the groundwork to make mild forms of female genital mutiliation legal as well.

Thirldy there is no first world country - aside from the US - where male circumcision is common practice. The only countries who do it commonly are third world countries.

Fourthly the reasoning for male circumcision is the same that advocates in countries with FGM make. To prevent masturbation, because it looks better, because it is healthier, etc.

Fifthly any surgery NEEDS to have a risk-reward balance. That is not a given with male circumcision. The only benefits - based on strongly criticised studies - are lower risk of STDs and cleaner. Neither do babys and young boys have sex nor do we chop bodyparts of, because some parents are incapable of teaching their children proper hygiene. By that logic we could also amputee nails. We don't. Because it's beyond retarded.

Sixthly there are more complications up to major scarring, erectile dysfunction and even death than there are cases of male phimosis. Not to mention that there are non-surgical treatments with high success-levels for that.

Seventhly the foreskin has multiple functions including creating a fauna underneath and keeping the Glans of the Penis lubricated. Very similar to the vaginal fauna. This isn't like the appendix.

And last but not least young babies can't be fully anesthesized. See this experiment: http://edition.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/

.

So yes. Male circumcision _IS_ genital mutiliation. Especially since their

[FakeName123]

Especially since there is no proper proof of the benefits and most european health organisations are at least critical towards it being a common procedure to the point that Germany for example almost banned it, if it weren't because of religious pressure from Jews and Muslims.

[Mystic_Nova]

It's both bad, an considered mutilation. But, compared to FGM, I'd say FGM is worse. I did a project on the matter and alotnof girls, while men typically just get their foreskin removed, girls will get labia removed, as well has their clitoris in some regions. They will even get their hole sowed up! And this is done when they are girls about to have their first period, while they are awake and forced down by people as they go through the whole process and the tools aren't what males typically get. It usually consists of a regular knife, razor blade, etc.


While males, typically get theirs done when they are babies, so they dont even remeber, and its usually done with numbing agents and proper treatments. But, I'm sure in some regions, they dont always get that luxury. But, they dont get their penis cut off or their balls removed, it's just the foreskin, which compared to FGM, I see it as less harsher.


But, both are retarded practices

[DrMeow]

agreed

[RickPen]

MRI scans were done on babies pre and post circumcision. Cortisol levels were raised, and never returned to baseline in the testing time frame. It permanently changes the brain.

Also, there are documented cases of boys, and men, having recurring dreams/nightmares of the cutting, as some dreams are precognitive memories (before we understand words and thoughts).

While the worst type of FGM may be worse than MGM, the most common type is Type 2: ritual nick. In Islam, the clitoral hood is removed.

While that's analogous to the male foreskin, the latter has denser innervation than the clitoral hood. As to the procedure, the most common is the gomco, which is a clamp that crushes the foreskin together and sits on the penis for approximately 15 minutes. That's a long time, and babies die from it, have collapsed lungs, vomit, etc.

Also, the argument of "they don't remember" is as valuable as saying someone who was drugged and raped, but doesn't remember, isn't really that bad off. It minimizes the actual damage.

Yes, penises do get lost, the nerve damage is severe (again, 75-80% sensation lost in *all* cases of RIC), the urethra closes up for some (metal stenosis) and has to be cut open again (often no pain management again). Then there are people like David Reimer, who *did* lose his entire penis, and was reassigned as a girl, later learning the truth and killing himself.

As one who had it forced on him, mine was "perfectly normal" and wouldn't stop bleeding, with severe nerve damage. It... sort of works. But I'm left with that, and had no choice. It's not published, and not one soul gives a damn, so I'm like most men in the USA.

If you'd like to see just some of the botches circumcision (in a clean environment) causes, here's a link:
http://circumcisionharm.org/gallery1.htm

[Mystic_Nova]

@RickPen Ok. Are so trying to insunituate or just add to the convo?

[Mystic_Nova]

@RickPen, also, of course there will be cases where it went wrong, but the majority of men with it have their penises intact and all that.

And of course there will be some side effects for some people. There is malpractice everywhere, but once again, the majority of people dont have any side effects like the ones you described. The thing is, Male circumcision is more of a normalized practice, this doctors get trained to do such things, so the child is able to, for the most part, depending on the family and who they go to especially of theybate poor, gets dealt with professionals and such. While no doctor is trained to do FC, therefore they do it under the radar by sketchy people. And this is also done for ritualistic and religous purposes. And can cause bleeding, vomiting, cysts, death, etc. As well as mental health issues and PTSD.

I'm not trying to compare, all I'm saying is, bothbare disgusting and have legit no reason to exist. Its nasty. Personally, I believe if god didn't want the skin there, it wouldn't be there, so people who use religion as an exucse, have mo leg to stand on.

Thank you for your informative comment though. It's good to hear you have research as to why this practice is disgusting for boys, because for boys. I even know of a village where they cut off the boys foreskin and the grandfather eats it with a banana (I believe it's a banana) its hella freckled up.

[RickPen]

Male circumcision is only normalized in America, and within the Jewish community. More than 2/3 of the world is intact, and not cut.

The problem is that troubles are not documented, because cutting genitals is so normalized, and any problems are considered to be a man's personal issue, and not actually due to early life trauma from the cutting. Erectile Dysfunction has been linked. That alone should cause a massive pause since America is *THE* largest user of Viagra, followed closely by Israel. It's so common in Israel that Viagra was proposed to be over the counter. To me, that is proof positive side effects are the norm, and not exceptional at all, but go unnoticed because of the normalization, and that men are supposed to be happy they had no choice in being cut up.

With that in mind, American doctors are trained to cut first, and ask questions later. I've known of dozens who literally have no clue of the anatomy, what it does, or the cell types that comprise it. These are medical experts who spent years of study. Even the circumcision is barely practiced at all. It's basically "See one, do one under supervision, train another," and literally anyone could legally cut a baby.

Both are horrific, and I genuinely hate that men are despised so much that their pain, even if they don't have major problems, is so marginalized and normalized by so many in America. Even statistical "outliers" like myself are ignored because we just don't matter to people. How many cut guys actually come forward, or even have an education in what happened to them? Few. Hence the normalization. It should not be, but it is, and another reason why the society in America is pretty digusting.

[Mystic_Nova]

Circmsion is normalized in more places tr than America and Israel. Muslim community normalizes it as well. As well as the catholic faith, which is all around the world. Britian, russian, etc. You might want to say, "western" instead of just america. And the ones normalizing it IS Men. It was MEN that made it so normalized, do due MEN pushing the tradition due to religion.

[SarahNiemann]

YES!!! It IS genital Mutilation! It should also be a sex-crime to perform cosmetic surgery WITHOUT anesthesia or CONSENT, on ANYONES genitalia, regardless of whether they are male or female! If female circumcision is considered genital mutilation... Then it should be the same for males!

[1CentWorth]

... I really hate your opinion.

[Mystic_Nova]

@SarahNiemann I love this opinion!

[SarahNiemann]

@1CentWorth ONE cent? I think you over-valued your opinion. Especially if you are just going to throw hate around! No explanation? No reasoned well-thought opinion? Just... “Eh, hate!”?

[SarahNiemann]

@Mystic_Nova Thank you so much, Nova!

[SkipStop]

YES!!! It's the exact same thing as circumcision of the clit. Both are equally bad. It's like torturing the baby. If you watch a documentary called "The Red Pill", there is a 10-second clip showing a baby boy having the procedure done to him. And OMG. Watching that baby cry from extreme pain without knowing what is going on and why it's going on literally brought me to tears. Just 10 seconds is all it took to make me cry. I don't understand how those doctors can do such a thing. I would kill that doctor if he did that to my baby. Circumcision should be a crime unless that man/woman is an adult and chooses to go with that procedure.

[ShortCircuit]

I suppose it's not directly 1:1 comparable to female genital mutilation, in the sense that female genital mutilation has a larger impact on sexual sensitivity than male genital mutilation. However, the practice of male genital mutilation still impacts sexual sensitivity to some degree, and is medically unnecessary, barbaric, and outdated.

Plus...
"mutilate
[ myoot-l-eyt ]

verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts"

So it is, by definition, a form of mutilation.

[MountAverage]

I'm strictly against circumcision. I personally was lucky enough that I wasn't circumcised, but I pity anyone who was without having a say in it. The US is also one of the very few western countries (if not the only one) where this is still the norm. It's totaly bullshit and I think it should be illegal on minors.
That being said, I don't think it's even remotely on the same level as female genital mutilation. That shit is beyond barbaric. It's torture and it completely ruins a woman's genitalia, let alone heavily traumatizes her. We really don't need to make a pissing contest out of this. Circumcision is bad. The fact that female genital mutilation is far worse doesn't take away from how bad circumcision is.

[websterII]

yes what right does anyone have to change anything on a young child like that.. if god wanted us circumcised we would have come that way.. we're defacing his art. or if you prefer natures art adn evolution. medical necessities are different than religious mutilations. femal circimcision as well as men should be a crime agains thumanity.. they can do what they want when they turn 18.

[Aislin9]

That is probably the only thing I agree on with the MGTOW freaks. I don't think it's okay but the parents are making the choice for the baby based on religion, appearance, supposed cleanliness (I don't buy it). Female genital mutilation also happens all over the world, is much more serious and often causes death. A lot of little girls are also forced to get their ear pierced as well.

[Aislin9]

I think it's a form of mutilation but not NEARLY as severe as what is done to women.

[Kurαȷ]

The foreskin has considerably more nerve endings than the clitoris, and its removal results in post-traumatic stress disorder and long term physiological harm just the same as FGM.
And, of course, both are ridiculous religious practices without a medical basis.

So I think that is fair to treat both cases equally, and I think it is fair to treat people who excuse circumcision as poorly as those who excuse FGM.

[Syrian_survivor]

What kinda PTSD are you talking about? Where'd you get that information from?

How can someone get PTSD from something they don't even remember cuz it happened to them as a toddler? I'm pretty fine and happy the way I am, no shellshock whatsoever and my genitals function just fine in every way 🤷‍♂️
I don't see why this would trigger you so much that you wanna treat circumcision supporters poorly because of their opinion?

I'm only talking about male circumcision by the way.

[Kurαȷ]

I don't expect random people online to know much about human psychopathology or about how it works, but I don't feel like spending my time explaining it to them.

There are plenty of sources online, if you want to get yourself educated, here are few:
www.psychologytoday.com/.../circumcision-s-psychological-damage
www.sciencedirect.com/.../S2049080119300305

Also, whether someone thinks they "remember" something makes no difference on whether they have PTSD or not, and if they did have PTSD they wouldn't really know they have it/wouldn't really be capable of acknowledging it themselves.

That's kind of the point with psychological issues, you don't know you have them.
If you do acknowledge you have psychological issues, you are already well on your way towards them being treated.

[Wealthydentist]

Yes it is, because it is genital mutilation of men. It was a practice to desensitise men. I’m not cut and I have very sensitive glans, had I been cut I’d not have that. Female genital mutilation is worse as I believe it’s to stop women enjoying sex completely.
Men should grow up and make their choice. Learn to wash your penis, everything natural is better. Women should also not have any say on a baby’s genital parts. We don’t take that right away from you.

[Walrus_au]

circumcision IS MGM.

It could be compared in that both are mutilating the genitals. But the results and social pressures etc are different and fairly incomparable.

Any kind of mutilation of someone without their informed consent that is not medically necessary is a crime. Babies cannot give informed consent. Teeneragers usually don't in the case of FGM.

[abc3643]

It's fair.

But, if you really want to talk "male genital mutilation", Google "John Wayne Bobbitt" whose wife, Lorena, did exactly that.

[RickPen]

And she received no punishment for it.

[abc3643]

@RickPen
That's because, at her trial, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. She was required to go through a 45-day psychiatric evaluation though. That's how the criminal justice system works.

[RickPen]

Yet her husband served jail time, despite losing his penis... also the way our justice system works.

[abc3643]

@RickPen

Not from the incident with Lorena.

About a year after the incident, he was in the pokey for about two weeks for battery to another woman. Lorena was not his victim and had nothing to do with that crime.

[abc3643]

And, he got his penis back... This is all before your time. You should see the Howard Stern New Year's Eve 1993 special about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oYsahcI9k8

And SNL
www.nbc.com/.../n10487

[RickPen]

I still think Lorena should have served time for what she did, or at least been charged with covering the medical bills.

As for John's incarceration, I was mistaken; you're correct, though he was still under arrest during the trial, while she was not. Tons of sexism in that case.

And yes, that most certainly was mutiliation, but not really any worse than forcing a baby to lose part of their penis for no reason other than making a doctor fast money, and that foreskin being used for facial cream for the rich. Ahhh, capitalism :)

[abc3643]

@RickPen
Perhaps she should have.
The jury felt differently because of all the abuse she suffered.
His story in her trial was inconsistent too, and that only strengthened her defense.

[RickPen]

Both were inconsistent in their stories. Initially, her statement was that he would orgasm during sex and she wouldn't, so she was fed up, but later changed it to rape. I think both had issues.

[abc3643]

@RickPen Well, she was raped... except that "raping your wife" wasn't rape then. This was a very contentious issue before you were born. Considerable changes happened after that.

Anyway, what happened is what happened. The criminal justice system did its job. They have both moved on... and so has America.

[Anonymous]

of course it is. How could it not? It is quite literally mutilation. And to those who don't think it affects the dick in any way, they know nothing about the effects of circumcision and therefore should not speak on the subject. No, it isn't as horrific as FGM overall, but that doesn't mean there's no negative consequences.

[goaded]

Yes, at least in babies, but it's not in the same league as FGM, which is much worse, as I understand it; FGM is performed later in life and removes far more important flesh.

[Anonymous]

It’s crazy that there are people out there who argue that cutting someone genitals isn’t genital mutilation.
What else do you call the cutting of someone genitals for non-medical reasons, if not genital mutilation?

[BhaniLovesMusic]

Yess, it's a way of tortured. But I loved uncircumcised, also cercumcused

[TadCurious]

Yes I think that's exactly what it is if there is no legitimate medical reason for it (which is very rare).

[_SOARER]

There is 0 scientific basis for doing circumcision
It's a strange Jewish ritual which should have nothing to do with the lives of gentiles

[Mystic_Nova]

Not, just Judaism either, even Catholicism, Islam, etc. I don't know why religion is so obsessed with boys penis skin?

[Andremoso]

@Mystic_Nova Catholics don't do that. The main reason behind it is to prevent men from masturbating therefore men will become dependent on women, feminizing the circumsized men. That's all the purpose it has. Surprisingly everyone is hiding the truth.

[Mystic_Nova]

@Andremoso Acutally, they do. and it has nothing to do with women. It's been happening for centuries do to men keeping triadion going, due to religion, as well as bbn just a basic action done by fathers for their kid. They were cut, so they want their kid to be cut.

Women in the west, where it happens a lot, are more accustomed to men who are cut because it happens mostly in the west, so women have no choice but to get prevenaces for it, because most men around here have been cut.

[_SOARER]

@Mystic_Nova Catholics aren't supposed to
It's not in the catechism
But many American Catholics do because of pressure from doctors and societal norm
I am catholic and my parents refused to circumcise me when I was a baby

[goaded]

@Mystic_Nova Not "in the West", at least not in Europe, non-religious circumsision is mostly a US thing. I don't know about South America or Canada.

https://youtu.be/gCSWbTv3hng

[Walrus_au]

@Andremoso @Mystic_Nova is correct, there may not be an overt command to do so in catholocism, but it is pretty universally done, not just in catholicism butt many other branches of christianity.

[youknowbetter]

I don’t like how young boys don’t HAVE A CHOICE. Although circumcision is more risky when the big gets older.

[RickPen]

How is it riskier? An infant can die from losing two ounces of blood. An adult can lose much more.

Infants do not receive much, if any, anesthesia, and no pain management afterward. Adults do.

We already have an estimate of circumcision being linked to SIDS. Adults can die, too, but lower risk. So, how is having itbdone by a consenting adult riskier?

[Andremoso]

That's exactly what it is. I'm also surprised that it's still being performed without consent and that circumsized men don't sue the medical professionals that performed the circumsicion on them. There is absolutely no health benefits.

[Anonymous]

No, because women can't be circumcised and people who cut them damage a perfectly good vagina. Doing this increases health risk for women and reduces pleasure, but removing the foreskin reduces health risk for men and women. Though it is more pleasurable for the woman to have foreskin, it is high maintenance for men and increases infection risk for both.

[Paige90]

No it isn't! Cutting the foreskin off a boy's dick is better is many ways when he gets older. It's more hygienic and looks so much better. If I ever have a boy I will make sure he is circumcised.

[RickPen]

How is hygiene improved by cutting off skin?

How does a baby's penis look better when cut?

Please cite the many ways things are better.

[DrMeow]

Female Genital Mutilation shouldn't be compared to Male Circumcision. They are both too different in terms of procedure and after effect to have the same name?

[DrMeow]

There probs is such thing as male genital mutilation not circumcision.

[DrMeow]

Just to change my opinion after further research.
Male Circumcision is Male Genital Mutilation cause it is cutting of a genital for religious/cultural/looks.
MCM shouldn't be compared to FGM cause both are different in their own ways. However, FGM is mostly more painful cause majority of FGM is done without anesthetics or any clean equipment. FGM comes in different types. (removal of; the clitoral hood. Clitoral hood and clit. Clitoral hood and inner labia. Clitoral hood and inner and out labia[sewn up to vaginal opening]. all above and sewn all the way til a small hole for pee and period). The clit has different number or nervs than the male glans and type 2-4 FGM has a lot more side effects. Overall in my opinion, both are bad and done without the person's consent.

[DrMeow]

theatlantic. com/health/archive/2015/05/male-circumcision-vs-female-circumcision/392732/ - just one of the many sites u can research about. Just don't actually compare the practices to the victims cause it can trigger.

[RickPen]

Male is done without anesthesia, too. At best only a partial block is used. Oh yeah, the medical world called sugar water anesthesia too, as it distracts babies from the pain (some boys choke on them, or have their lungs collapse from the pain).

[DrMeow]

@RickPen Both practices are bad for both genders.

[RickPen]

Very much agreed.

[DrMeow]

@RickPen I agree with "While the worst type of FGM may be worse than MGM" but type 3-4 are also common in other countries/areas. I wouldn't like to compare FGM to MGM cause both are bad and unessersary in majority of the cases and done without consent of the person (regardless of gender) being done to.