I disagree, to an extent. Personally, I do not see the need to do anything to anyone’s genitals unless it is medically necessary and I did not have my son circumcised.
Now that said, I do not think female and male circumcision are equal.
Male is generally done for religious reasons and it the removal of a bit of skin.
Female (as I’ve heard it) is removal of a lot more than just a little bit of skin. According to this site there are several forms of it ranging from Sunna circumcision where just the tip and/or covering is removed to a clitoridectomy where the entire clitoris, the prepuce and adjacent labia are removed and is often followed by sewing up of the vulva. A small opening is left to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass. The last is known as infibulation.
Now I would say the closest to male circumcision would be sunna, and even then I’d say it’s just a touch worse, if it includes the tip. AFAIK when a male is circumcisized it doesn’t really affect his sexual pleasure.
I’m not saying that male circumcision is a good thing, nor am I saying it’s a bad thing. I think it’s your choice once you are old enough to make that decision.
What I disagree with is people screaming genital mutilation and that it’s exactly like what they do to girls in Africa. Often, it’s not. THAT’S what I disagree with.
You got THAT right (umm, errr not that I would know about YOURS persay, just in general :D). IME, foreskin pinches a girl’s delicate bits. My ex-husband was uncircumcised.
As to why men would obsess over it to the point of talking about it almost 8 hours a day? I can’t imagine, other than what some others have said here, that it symbolizes their basic anger and unhappiness with their lots in life?
Actually, that’s pretty much the biggest argument opponents of M.C. bring forth. Not saying it’s true or not, just sayin…
I would have to think that it may be about equivalent to some of the milder (partial clitoridectomy) procedures described above, barring contrary evidence. But I’d agree with your quote because when ppl mention F.C., the image it conjures up is one of the more drastic procedures.
[QUOTE=CanvasShoes]
You got THAT right (umm, errr not that I would know about YOURS persay, just in general :D).
[quote]
God, nothing beats a penis compliment.
[quote]
As to why men would obsess over it to the point of talking about it almost 8 hours a day?
[QUOTE]
This brought another minor point to mind. It’s not like it really takes an issue for men to talk about their wangs all day I think it’s just the delayed reaction to it. Our johnsons are our tools for life, they are the center and focal point of much of our existance and a great deal of what we identify with as men. If anyone disagrees on this, walk through the room with a pair of scissors while they’re not wearing any pants. Their hand will instinctively move just in front of their penis to protect it, should you choose to make a lunge. Now, at some point in their history, someone has circumcised them. This causes the inevitable subconscious rebellion against reason, and their mind screams out, “Someone has slashed my tool!”
I don’t know if it’s true or not either, but how do you test for that? Circumsize a guy who’s had sex a few times then once he’s healed up and has sex again ask him to fill out a questionnaire? How would you find volunteers for that procedure? If it did effect sexual pleasure would they do a restoration? I suppose you could send out questionnaires to adult patients of those who do the procedure but I wonder how many replies you’d get.
Exactly. I figured it’s about equivalent to us getting the clitoral hood taken off. But to take even a bit of a clitoris would effect climax I’d think considering the clitoris plays a major part in that (IME… not the loss of bits the climax ). And the few times I have encountered people comparing circumcision to FC, the way they talk about it implies, if not outright states, it’s on par with the drastic procedures.
I’d dig up the thread but it’s on another board and I’m pretty certain they deleted it after they banned a bunch of people then proceeded to make it so you can’t talk about anything controversial (circumcision, religion etc though politics are strangely not included in that. Maybe because the politics threads don’t get as heated.)
Well, this has aready been answered n’all, but let me put it this way. The most mild form of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood…which would be analogous to male circumcision (and I’m of the understanding that they both reduce sexual pleasure to some extent). But beyond that is cilorectomy which would be analogous to cutting off the head of the penis.
And then of course there’s infibulation and other horrors…:eek:
Are there really? I’ve heard the fanatics on the one side (JDT, et al) but what arguments to the pro fanatics use? I can’t think of an equivalent emotional appeal. Just curious.
Well, there’s not really medical REASONING behind it, so much as medical justifications. Unless you count masturbation prevention, which I believe was the reason it ever got popular among gentiles in the US in the first place. Anyway, it may or may not slightly decrease transmission rates of certain STDs, such as HIV and HPV. It may or may not cause a decrease in the rate of penile cancer. You can’t have problems with your foreskin being too tight if you don’t HAVE a foreskin. This site claims a decrease in urinary tract infections and mentions a study where uncircumcised boys had ten times as many “problems” (problems of what kind, I have no idea… :dubious: ) as circumcised. However, all of these studies are a bit hampered by the fact that cut and uncut guys may well come from very different backgrounds, cultures, or economic groups, on average.
I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to make me believe that the few medical benefits really outweigh the possible complications in surgery and healing, or vice versa. I do feel compelled to note, however, that an uncircumcised guy who wants to get circumcised has to go to a doctor to have the procedure done. A circumcised guy who wants a foreskin has to associate with… people like Jack Dean Tyler.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’ve seen a lot of ‘there may or may not be’ a reduction in this risk or that risk or the other risk, but there’s no actual, definitive, proven medical benefit (that anyone’s ever presented to me) to have it done.
Just seems kind of extreme to me to cut off part of a person’s body unless there is some kind of provable, tangible medical benefit to doing so.
As far as aesthetics go, I like the uncircumcised ones. Those are hard to find in the US.
Yes, it’s certainly interesting to look at rates in the US versus those in other nations, even other western nations. And I’d comment on your aesthetic judgements, but I’m afraid of what it’d do to poor Qadgop.
I can only honestly summarise the perspective of an uncut male here, but it is something like this:
-We’re talking about and incredibly sensitive bit of tissue here; it’s small, but for me to lose it would be similar to having my tongue cut off.
-There is really no compelling or sound medical basis for circumcision (at least in the overwhelming majoriy of cases) and medical arguments appear contrived, distorted and over-inflated.
-Personal accounts, coming from cut males (to the effect ‘I don’t miss it’, or ‘it’s just a little scrap of useless skin’) can easily come across as being rooted in psychological denial. (I’m not saying this is the case, just that it can very easily look that way).
So at least, from my perspective, the tendency towards the polar extreme is almost irresistable.
I have had men both cut and uncut, and to me [internally] it makes no difference, the only difference being during fellatio [with or without manual stimulation]
The only difference I find in males is in how clean they keep themselves. in general uncut males take more care in hygene pre-sex than cut men do - the ones I have known have all excused themselves to the bathroom for a quick washup…when the majority of cut men haven’t [mrAru did, one of the reasons he was a ‘keeper’]
The thing is, the guys on the foreskin restoration list I’m on (who must spend years, quite literally, regrowing what was stripped from them in 15 minutes), claim quite vociferously, and almost unanimously, that it makes a tremendous difference to their sexual pleasure after they regrow enough skin to keep the glans penis covered at all times. Some of these men, at the age of 50 or 60, had given up on sex almost entirely because they could not orgasm, or got no pleasure when they did…and are enjoying a renaissance of their sexuality now that they have restored. I don’t think anyone can begrudge them this. After all, they’re improving their perception and experience of sex.
Is it fair to say, “But they were fine before, I mean, everybody else is fine with having been done, so they must just be a bunch of whiners”? Hardly, Their experiences are as valid as anyone else’s, and they claim their sexual experience improves when they regain coverage. Does it really matter HOW they improve their sexual experience? Do we, as a culture, have a right to say “Little boys have this done because this is what is done, and if as adults they must go through years of effort to reverse it, well, that’s just the way it goes, they’re a subset of the population and not significant”?
And there are men on the list who had themselves cut as adults, and within years, or even months, embarked on restoration because they missed what they had chosen to have removed.
Yes, and there are men who have themselves cut as adults, and are happy. But they have had the right to make that choice themselves. Which is as I believe it should be. Adults may choose to alter their bodies however they like. Hell, if they want to have their tongues bifurcated, it’s nothing to me. They can research it and make their own choices.
I think you’re exactly right about comparing it to removing the clitoral hood. Only I can’t imagine a single woman out there in western society, not one, who would voluntarily have her clitoral hood excised in the name of cleanliness or any other reason short of something unavoidably medical. It would chafe and irritate like nobody’s business to have the glans clitoris exposed and rubbing against fabric day and night. And…if a woman wouldn’t do it to herself, why would she allow it done to her son? I don’t get it. And why for that matter does a father think that his son’s body must be altered to match his own? That boggles me. The child won’t resemble the father in many ways. Why this one?
Then there’s the question of recurrent dreams.
There’s a thread right now on the restoration list about recurrent nightmares some of the men have suffered since childhood. The ones reported seem to follow a disturbing trend involving helplessness, inability to run away or fight, and terror/pain/threat of bodily injury at the hands of dark forms bending over…kind of like subconscious memories of a traumatic event in infancy being replayed over and over. If there’s any truth to this, can we really dismiss it and say “It’s irrelevent” just because it can’t be quantified? Of what value is the freedom to sleep without nightmares of this type?
Because sex is 95% mental! Christ, if I convinced them their orgasms would improve if I cut off their feet, they would improve if they allowed me to do it. That doesn’t mean that the presence of feet in any way impairs the orgasm, it’s their outlook and beliefs that have changed. Scroll back up and read the wise (if cynical)words of Miller again:
I don’t begruge them their improved perception and experience of sex, but I’m also not going to sit here and call their anecdotal tales “proof” in the face of an overwealming lack of actual, peer reviewed scientific proof either. It’s too bad they didn’t obsess about getting piercings instead of “reversing” circumcision as the panacea to “make their sex lives better”, it would have been a lot cheeper, faster and a lot less work.
