To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See synonyms at batter1
To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.
[/QUOTE]
I am a circumcised male
I don’t particularly feel deprived or as though I’m missing an “essential” part of anything, I don’t consider myself crippled
I don’t consider my penis disfigured or damaged. As penises go, it’s attractive enough, it functions properly in all aspects of normal use. I know a significant proportion of the population considers circumcised penises more attractive than uncircumcised, so I think disfigurment is a non-issue generally.
I don’t feel that my penis has been made “imperfect” by circumcision anymore than a woman’s earlobe is made imperfect by a piercing.
As to your wife, and all her friends/family never even hearing of circumcision? It’s not our fault that she’s lived her entire life in a Cambodian cave and has no concept of a procedure performed hundreds of millions of times across vastly diverse populations.
I wonder given the foofarah over the passage in Jim Webb’s book about Cambodia, you wife knows about the allegedly rural Cambodian practice of putting a young son’s penis in your mouth. If that’s really a rural Cambodian practice, I would think it’s a good analogue to something Americans find utterly bizarre and shocking, but another culture sees as normal and shrug worthy.
Of course, personally, (and I’m circumcised and don’t much care that I am), I think circumcision is a pretty good example of something that’s just completely nutty to begin with. I think it’s very plausible that the tradition began in ancient times when someone with an actual certifiable mental illness decided for some crazy reason that this was the way to impress his god, and here we are thousands of years later imitating a contagious crazy person.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I don’t particularly feel deprived or as though I’m missing an “essential” part of anything, I don’t consider myself crippled
[/quote]
Many women who have been genitally mutilated say the same thing.
It’s not your fault man. It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. (Cheesesteak: “Don’t do this to me man!”) It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. (Cheesesteak: “STOP IT!”) It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. It’s not your fault. (Cheesesteak: “Oh God why does it have to be this hard!”)
[QUOTE=CairoCarol]
Well, it had to be only a matter of time! I’m surprised there were so many even-handed posts before the Great Debate started. I daresay few people outside of a roomful of geeky urologists could spend more than a few minutes talking about circumcision without it turning into a debate.
[/QUOTE]
Sweetie, he’s been TRYING to make it into a mud slinging debate since the OP (y’know, except for the lack of a debate stance).
If he wanted an honest debate, he could have said: “Circumcision: mutilation or no?”. Instead he posted a dubious anecdote and a GQ question with loaded language.
I’m more amazed that no one is rising to the bait, but I’m rather proud of us, as well. This would *almost *be at home in GQ, save for the lack of citations.
[QUOTE=CairoCarol]
Mind you, I’m not speaking out for or against circumcision. However, there are some who believe that it is a good thing to do because it is easier to keep a circumcised penis clean than it is to keep an uncircumcised one clean. Who knows, in ancient times before there was easy access to running water, maybe that had something to do with it.
[/quote]
Maybe in ancient times, but nowdays, “Wash, don’t amputate.”
I just mean it’s a stupid reason. I may have underarm odor on occasion, but I don’t cut off my arms.
[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Come on, mutilation? A lot of times it is done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off.
[/QUOTE]
:eek:
Imagine saying that about any other body part whatsoever. “… done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off”. But hey! It’s not mutilation!
The only situation that I can even conceive of where “done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off” can be applied to a human body part where it isn’t mutilation would be a medical procedure done for medical reasons.
Imagine saying that about any other body part whatsoever. “… done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off”. But hey! It’s not mutilation!
The only situation that I can even conceive of where “done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off” can be applied to a human body part where it isn’t mutilation would be a medical procedure done for medical reasons.
[/QUOTE]
Imagine saying that about any other body part whatsoever. “… done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off”. But hey! It’s not mutilation!
[/QUOTE]
How about jabbing yourself 10,000 times with a needle covered in a colorful liquid? Or just ramming something through a body part and dangling a pretty rock from it? What about gluing a bunch of wires to your teeth and forcing them to take the “preferred” shape?
Mutilation!
Male circumcision is not nearly as invasive as female circumcision, and has an extremely low incidence of follow on complications. Female circumcisions introduce a whole host of medical problems, male circumcisions do not. I suspect that if over 90% of women born in the 70’s were circumcised, we’d hear something about complications from that group.
Male circumcision is no more damaging and has no more lasting impact than any other minor cosmetic procedure. You can call it mutilation if you want, but all your doing is watering down what mutilation means, you’re not turning circumcision into a barbaric act.
I do not care just how much passion this topic seems to generate, this is Great Debates, not the BBQ Pit, and we do not need to turn this into a brawl.
If you need to argue the understanding of the word “mutilation,” do so in a dispassionate manner. Insulting posters’ wives or intelligence or claiming that another poster desires to be insulting or foolish will stop, NOW.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Ha. My best friend was married to an uncircumcised man for two years without knowing it. While she was pregnant with their son, she made some sort of “But they just so so gross and unhygenic with foreskins!” argument for circumcision, and he, rather shocked, went, “Uh, you know I have one, right?” She didn’t. Hadn’t noticed, somehow! :eek:
In her defense, she said she was only interested in it when it was standing at attention, and (apparently) the foreskin retracts so you can’t tell the difference. I wouldn’t actually know, as the only uncircumcised males I’ve seen are infant and toddler boys.
[/QUOTE]
Really! I’ve never seen an uncircumcised one. Ever.
Mutilation is an act or injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.
Well, I would certainly say that circumcision is irreparable disfigurement and it certainly degrades the appearance and function of the penis.
Just because you consider it a small mutilation does not show that it is not mutilation.
[/QUOTE]
I can almost agree with parts of that. I would disagree with the the terms disfigure, make imperfect and degrade as they relate to circumcision, but it is inarguably a permanant change that is being made. I would hesitate to use the word mutilate because it carries strongly negative connotations which I do not associate with circumcision.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
How about jabbing yourself 10,000 times with a needle covered in a colorful liquid? … Mutilation!
[/quote]
Most of those things are indeed mutilation when done to someone without their informed consent. (I think that most if not all of them are still technically mutilation even with informed consent, but I wouldn’t call them that in such cases.)
Well, yes. I don’t think anyone would argue that. I certainly don’t think that male circumcision is anywhere remotely as vile as female “circumcision”. But what the heck does that have to do with the OP?
Done for legitimate medical reasons (or in the honest belief that there are legitimate medical reasons) I do not consider it barbaric. Done for religious reasons or for the unfathomable reason that one doesn’t want their son’s penis to look different from daddy’s, I do consider it barbaric.
No, not as barbaric as ripping someone’s still beating heart from their chest.
No, not as barbaric as stoning people to death.
No, not as barbaric as female genital mutilation.
No, not as barbaric as making a kitten-stomping fetish video.
But barbaric nonetheless.
I think it was only a couple of months ago that there was thread on this exact topic, which turned into a train wreck. I wouldn’t be surprised if this one does too.
[QUOTE=BlackKnight]
No, not as barbaric as ripping someone’s still beating heart from their chest.
No, not as barbaric as stoning people to death.
No, not as barbaric as female genital mutilation.
No, not as barbaric as making a kitten-stomping fetish video.
But barbaric nonetheless.
[/QUOTE]
Where on the barbarism scale does circumcision rate? I assume it’s somewhere above an ear piercing and below the beating heart thing, but I’m not sure exactly where. It’s important that I know because I’m going to my niece’s first communion this weekend, and I’d like to know whether or not I should give my dad a hug or punch him in the face.
[QUOTE=suranyi]
I think it was only a couple of months ago that there was thread on this exact topic, which turned into a train wreck. I wouldn’t be surprised if this one does too.
[/QUOTE]
Well, this one will not because the participants, (all gracious persons of great civility) have already been advised that they need to increase their temperance in this thread.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Where on the barbarism scale does circumcision rate? I assume it’s somewhere above an ear piercing and below the beating heart thing, but I’m not sure exactly where. It’s important that I know because I’m going to my niece’s first communion this weekend, and I’d like to know whether or not I should give my dad a hug or punch him in the face.
[/QUOTE]
As someone who is both pierced and circumsized, I would place it below the piercing.
Imagine saying that about any other body part whatsoever. “… done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off”. But hey! It’s not mutilation!
The only situation that I can even conceive of where “done with a clamp that simply cuts off the circulation until it falls off” can be applied to a human body part where it isn’t mutilation would be a medical procedure done for medical reasons.
[/QUOTE]
It’s excess skin. It’s not a body part. Would you consider a previously overweight person having excess skin removed as “Losing a body part” It just has a name, that’s all. We have a name for excess skin on our dicks. I still have foreskin, just not as much. Mine doesn’t cover my glans, big deal.
When you use the word body part, you are exagerrating to make your point. A finger is a body part, a foreskin, isn’t. It’s not like they are cutting the tips of the penises from babies.
Besides, nowadays, the WHO is recommending as a measure for AIDS prevention, which isn’t far off from false health benefits attributed to it earlier in America. I consider myself lucky in that regard.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Where on the barbarism scale does circumcision rate? I assume it’s somewhere above an ear piercing and below the beating heart thing, but I’m not sure exactly where. It’s important that I know because I’m going to my niece’s first communion this weekend, and I’d like to know whether or not I should give my dad a hug or punch him in the face.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe the face isn’t really where you need to punch him.
