Well with my revised understanding of your hypothetical, I’d say that both cosmetic procedures were pretty mild and unlikely to pose much medical risk. However, ears are parts of the body that are on the outside, unclothed. Everybody sees a person’s ears. That is in stark contrast to a person’s penis. So the social impact of the two procedures would not be comparable, with the ear-snipped people facing much more social ostracization than the circumsized boys/men. So still, bad analogy. But a whole hell of a lot better than what i thought you were originally saying.
Ah, so only a problem if the body part in question is on show?
So If I apply exactly the same criteria and apply it to a surgical removal of some of the female labia then you’d think that was acceptable?
Purely for aesthetic cosmetic reasons of course (as dictated by me, naturally. We don’t want to give the girl any say in it do we?)
This is a good example of an attribution error.
Where female genital mutilation is often used as a point of moral outrage but male genital mutilation is explained away.
Note that the risks and impacts are directly the same, but this practice and the story of David and Philistines foreskins just shows how barbaric the bible really is.
The real question is why the US, which isn’t tightly aligned with Jewish law chooses to do this out of nothing but pure habit.
I suggest the book, “Final Exit”, before making a decision.
My son is 25. I remember the doctor coming into the room and asking if we wanted him circumcised. We had never thought about it, never discussed it. He asked if I was circumcised (I am) and said many parents choose to have their son “look like them”.
So, we went ahead with it.
When my brother (who is circumcised) found out about this he went nuts. It turns out he is rabidly anti-circumcision.
Did you read what i wrote just a couple posts above? I said i did not support routine circumcision. My entire point in responding to you was that your comparison was bunk. For example, even with the knowledge that you only meant the soft tissue portion of the outer ear, in addition to the reasons ive already listed, there is not even any slight benefits to the ear-trimming, irrespective of it’s cost/benefit ratio. This is unlike circumcision, where it does provide modest benefits, even if those benefits are pretty trivial in light of and outweighed by negatives from the procedure itself. Analogy fail.
I am circumcised because of similar reasons, when trying to consider it objectively it does seem odd and morally questionable to subject an infant to unnecessary body modification simply to match standards of beauty.
It seems crazy even a low complication rate to risk this for merely aesthetics.
Ear trimming can avoid frost bite and or cauliflower ear…who says these may not be similar benefits, if rare they may be a benefit. You could also in theory cut them as to improve sound sensitivity too.
If ear trimming lead to them being more sexually sensitive for a small portion of people would that change your mind?
So, just so i have a better understanding of your position, how do you explain the absence of women who are glad they were muliated, or at worst, completely unconcerned? If female mutilation and male…eh, mutilation have no daylight between them, what explains the gigantic disparity in victim response?
Note how I said they weren’t exactly equivalent, but while I can’t justify your claim I can also provide rare anecdotal evidence like you presented.
I am not pro-involuntary genital mutilation, but as your argument seems to be based on that please explain away my cite.
Look, my stance on the matter, so it’s clear, is that medically unneccessary circumcision is wrong and the cultural acceptance of it in our country needs to go the way of the passenger pigeon.
I also think that it does that cause a disservice by linking it to female genital mutilation. It gives opponents too much fodder to use against the efforts to do away with pointless circumcision. Lets address each issue on its own merits, there is plenty to work with for each, independently.
apology , I conflated your base position with that of a different poster.
It’s not clear to me how “gigantic” that disparity is. Remember, we’re looking at these phenomena from the viewpoint of a society (US) where infant male circumcision is routine but female genital cutting is extremely rare and widely considered horrific and abnormal. Naturally we’re going to foreground the reactions of women who have negative views of FGC.
It might make more sense to compare how male-circumcision and FGC rates change over time in societies, and how public-health and human-rights initiatives affect that.
I too was mutilated as an infant, as was my father before me.
I have four sons, and all are intact.
Well thank you. That is actually an answer as to how the disparity can be explained.
Quite trying to claim I am making a 1:1 equivalence, but I will state that your response demonstrates my point.
It may cause cognitive dissonance, and yes in general I agree that clitoralectomies are far worse for a humans full life experience but there is no moral high ground here to do the same in the US for fashion.
The rate of horrid outcomes may be less but there is still an impact and it is very much a demonstration of hypocrisy when “othering” other groups.
Being apathetic about male genital mutilation shows just how much we dehumanize the populations were female genital mutilation happens.
It is simply a good example of a white savior complex as my post pointed out. We should be ashamed of our actions and we should take this shame to better treat others as humans and not as savages as it would generally help with helping reduce the amount of female genital mutilations if we did so.
This is a good example of an argument from benevolent prejudice.
The arguments you are making to explain away our own barbaric practices are exactly the same ones floating around those other cultures, if we understand one we understand the other better and can better help target the issue. Pretending it isn’t an unnecessary barbaric practice is the problem in both cases irrespective of the degree of negative results for the individuals.
Mutilation - “An injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part”
My brother was “mutilated” at birth and, according to my SiL, his penis works just fine.
It’s obvious from the misuse of this word, for dramatic effect no doubt, and the use of other phrases such as “the desert demon yahweh”, that this is a viciously anti-Semitic thread.
I believe the program is to demonize and dehumanize the target group and, once that is accomplished, it is much easier to proceed with the inhumane treatment of that group.
Are there other cultures outside of American culture that have FGM placed in the same cultural position of normalcy and attractiveness that male circumcision has enjoyed for so many decades in the U.S.? Cultures where the women are proud of their mutilation, or at least indifferent and nonchalant about it?
:dubious: Perhaps more information than I needed to know about your family’s sex lives, but never mind. I think, though, that you’re overlooking the indisputable fact that male circumcision as routinely practiced does definitely deprive the subject of the “body part” known as the prepuce or foreskin.
Whether this counts as an “important” body part may be debatable, but the fact that it is a body part that is surgically amputated is not. And, of course, “works just fine” isn’t a sufficient criterion to determine “mutilation” status. Many people who have lost, say, part of a finger would still consider that their hand “works just fine”, but that doesn’t mean that their hand hasn’t undergone a mutilation.
While I certainly hold no brief for bigoted expressions like the OP’s “desert demon” crack, I disagree that opposition to infant male circumcision, even vehement opposition, is necessarily anti-Semitic in nature. Certainly not if you’re defining “anti-Semitic” to mean specifically “anti-Jewish”, since male circumcision affects far more Muslims and Christians and non-religious than Jews (simply because there are far more Muslims and Christians and non-religious than Jews).
Or, y’know, some people are just sincerely opposed to the practice of performing non-medically-necessary surgeries on minor children.
If this were a thread condemning, say, abstention from eating pork, I’d be much more likely to agree with you that its primary motivation was to “demonize and dehumanize” a group of people for their (admittedly somewhat arbitrary but totally harmless) choice of ritual practice. But it doesn’t really require any vicious bigotry to be opposed to medically unnecessary and largely irreversible surgical removal of normal and healthy body parts from nonconsenting babies.
Some rare cases woman that had a clitoralectomies can even orgasm, but this is the exception.
Outside of a cultural identifier, viewed as so extreme as being only practiced by the devout; or as a body modification performed out of a desire for looks it offers no value.
At least in cases like the Xhosa tribe circumcision happens at adulthood which allows for personal choice, even if the cultural pressures and costs for non-compliance. (Reduced value, viewed as dirty or as non-adult and restricted from positions of power)
The only reason mutilation seems excessive to you is due to social norms.