As opposed to Western Europe where it’s 0-20٪, including the jewish and muslim population.
Uh, right. That was my point:
No. I think what pings is the implication here:
You are not going to say I have mutilated my child but you are okay with others saying that.
I’ll also dispute this:
There are people whose children develop autism and who say vaccines caused it. There are men with a variety of sexual dysfunctions who are saying being “mutilated” by a circumcision caused it.
In both there is a place for debunking.
MHO: the medical benefits of circumcision are non zero but small. The harms are mostly a few adult men blaming their sexual dysfunction on something they can see. Just like a few parents of autistic children blame the vaccines they see. No big benefit and no big harm. I would not have had my boys circumcised if not for the religious/cultural indication, and individual cultural indications may vary.
But once we accept it being called something that is “inflicted”, “babaric”, and is okay to label as “mutilation”, we gone down a path to call those who make that choice as child abusers and well meaning people whose own cultural indications do not include it start to call for outlawing it. There have been those calls in the past. I fear more a risk for that in these times of increasing Jew hate.
And my point was that in Western countries outside the US, uncut is the norm. Uncut is just how penises are and intact is just how penises are made.
Anecdote: When we lived in the US for a short period, my wife changed diapers on the baby son of one of our acquaintances. The boy was circumcised, and my wife told me that it looked seriously weird. At that time, we’d been changing diapers on two of our own sons (which of course were intact) for quite a few years.
I don’t think anyone was seriously questioning that.
So your wife, who had no experience with circumcised penises, saw one and thought it was weird. That, again, was basically my point 
Once people start throwing around “mutilated”, I assume it’s safe to check out on their end of the conversation. Either they’re (less likely) just throwing the word around for emotional weight and aren’t interested in an actual discussion (hence the appeal to emotion) or, more likely, they legitimately feel that way so nothing is going to shift their position or thinking anyway.
It’s like someone who sincerely and deeply feels that abortion is “baby murder”. No studies, facts or cites are going to make them say “Oh, okay, I guess baby murder is acceptable in that circumstance”. If someone honestly considers circumcision to be “mutilation” then there’s no sense in trying to progress the conversation because there’s nowhere for it to go.
Intellectually, I sorta can understand that in a society where MGM is the norm, people have an emotional/visceral reaction to intact male genitals. But emotionally, I can’t.
Just as I intellectually sorta can understand that in a society where FGM is the norm, people have an emotional/visceral reaction to intact female genitals. But emotionally, I can’t.
Calling foul, failure to read or abide by the disclaimer in the OP.
Tsk, tsk
Ooh, selective quotation much? Note that what I said was:
What I’m saying, clearly, is that I’m not going to argue with somebody holding the opinion that any elective body-mods count as “mutilation”. (I also don’t argue with, for example, observant Jews considering tattooing unacceptable.)
Like I said:
MGM= Metro Goldwynn Mayer?
Nah, I don’t think that is what you meant.
MGM= Male Genital Mutilation?
That seems to be what you meant. Am I wrong?
IAN Norse and cannot speak for them, but that’s how I read that acronym, which is AFAICT a common term for male circumcision among anti-circumcision activists. Meant to invoke comparison with FGM.
The critical difference is the child bit. Yeah no problem if someone calls gaging ears mutilation when it is an adult. Adults can self-mutilate, so agreement or disagreement is no big deal.
But as a society we limit the freedom of parents to mutilate their children.
Are you okay with people saying that Jews who have their boys circumcised are mutilating their sons?
Or does that cross your line?
There are lots of parents who get their daughters ears pierced when the kids are too young to consent, too. That’s also a cultural thing.
Moderating:
Just a reminder that this thread isn’t about female circumcision. The OP requested that be off-limits.
Quite as okay as I am with people saying that Muslims who have their minor sons circumcised are mutilating their sons, or that people from various southern European and Asian cultures who have their baby daughters’ earlobes pierced are mutilating their daughters.
In all the above cases, I believe that
ETA: I really don’t see how we can logically support a position that people who oppose (some or all) elective body-mods are free to consider a particular elective body-mod “mutilation” when undergone by a consenting adult, but not allowed to consider the same procedure “mutilation” when performed on an infant. That is a degree of doublethink that I can’t wrap my head around.
Yup, thanks, had no plans to pursue that reference beyond using it to explain the “MGM” acronym. Apologies if even that was an overstep.
I’ll do my honest best.
Personally I think calling the cultural practices of others “mutilation” is something to be avoided with rare exceptions. That said there is little other than rudeness and demonstrating your own intolerance or ignorance at stake when someone labels an adult’s tattoo or what have you as “mutilation.”
The consequence of labeling a cultural practice on children as “mutilation” is more than rudeness, as society has a vested interest in protecting children from abuse and mutilation is considered abuse.
Big difference.
Fwiw, i don’t generally refer to any intentional body modification as “mutilation” unless it interferes with the function of the body part. Piercings, tattoos, penile circumcision, ritual scarification… Generally not mutilation.
Mutilation carries the connotation (if not the direct accusation) of ruining a thing. Changing a thing is not the same as ruining a thing. If a person opposes body mods, then they shouldn’t get one. That’s it. Who the hell thinks they have some “right” to tell other people that their piercing or tattoo or whatever is self mutilation? I’m sure the owner of the mod doesn’t think their body is permanently damaged, the opposition can take their concerns and shove it up where their other opinions come from.
If someone wants to claim that a circumcised penis is ruined, then I invite them to show the data. Data that isn’t some dude saying he’s unhappy with his wiener. As if THAT would go away if circumcisions went away.
That the impression that I get as well.
Since I was born back in the 1950s when male circumcision was AFAICT nearly universal in the U.S., I was circumcised as an infant. The head of my penis hasn’t needed any protection from abrasion or whatever beyond what normal clothing gives it. And when does it lack that protection? In the shower, when skinnydipping, or during sex. Somehow I’ve managed to avoid any even slightly uncomfortable impacts to the organ in question at those times.
In terms of pleasure, I’ve had abundant pleasure from sexual activities of all sorts. So I’m not sure what I’d be angry about there on account of not having a foreskin. Not having one is just the way it’s always been, and I have never felt like I was missing anything as a result.
OTOH, when we adopted the Firebug at the age of 19 months, he was not circumcised, and we saw absolutely no point in doing anything to change that. It wasn’t a problem that needed fixing or a condition that needed to be remedied; he was fine just as he was.
That’s likely true for young and middle-aged women. Women of my g-g-generation would have likely encountered uncircumcised penises rarely if at all.