Male genital mutilation?

Question

how many of you were circumcised as an infant?...
are you resentful that part of you was cut off?...
If you had a son...would you have him circumcised?
why..why not?

to answer J.S..
Uncut

Answer 1

My mother did not believe in genital mutilation, because that's what sheering off 20% of the nerves in the most sensitive area is.

It's a sick and barbaric practice that has NOTHING to do with health. YOU HAVE TO CLEAN THE THING, viola, no problem there. Victorian era prude mothers brought it back into fashion because they didn't want to touch it to clean it. All you have to do is pull the foreskin back and clean it like the rest of your body.

We are a biologically developed and evolved species and have that area for a reason! Even if you don't believe in evolution and believe in some form of creation, than a perfect god wouldn't have botched the perfection of it, would it?

It doesn't make any ******* sense to go to an infant or any other aged person and sheer off the most sensitive area off of their body.

It also has to do with Informed Consent--children should not be subject to the whim of their parents to mutilate an area of the body that is not life-threatening! Prone to infection? What isn't?!

Answer 2

I was circumcised and I had my son circumcised. There really wasn't as much controversy about it then as there is now. I guess I did it to my son because it just seemed like the thing to do. I don't regret it, but don't know if I would do it to him again given the chance to rethink that decision. I don't resent being circumcised, I don't feel like it has impacted my sex life negatively. I like both circumcised and uncircumcised men but I insist that both of them be very clean. I am not a cheese eater like some guys. As long as it works, I really don't care if there is a little extra skin to get through or not. What about you? Cut or uncut?

Answer 3

I am a bit miffed, yes, since I wasn't old enough to ask if this was something I wanted done. They say the baby doesn't feel it, but that is a lie - they do. The main reason they do this to babies is that they cannot protest it.

All arguments about how it is "dirtier" are false as well. If you teach a child to wash, there is no problem. I have a belly button too, and I somehow manage to keep that clean enough that it doesn't get infections.

Circumcision is middle ages nonsense that only exists for women to put their permanent stamp on their sons. That anyone would do this "because all the other boys have it done" is only helping continue to make genital mutilation - and p.s., you are absolutely correct to call it that - an accepted practice.

It is grossly unfair that female circumcision gets the horrific press it deserves, but similar mutilation of males is written off almost completely.

Answer 4

I definitely would not circumcise my son, if & when I have one. While my whole family believes in it (2 baby nephews in the past 3 years, both snipped), I am NOT in favor of male genital mutilation. That is definitely what it is. It's equal to female genital mutilation.
I think in this day and age it should be common sense to realize that this practice is barbaric.
I hope more people make the choice for change. So many parents just do what their own parents did, giving it no thought. It's a horror.

Answer 5

They're both equally as horrible. Most feminists are opposed to it, it's only in the US where anyone considers MGM good, and even there, the numbers of supporters are rapidly falling. Sadly, in a LOT of cases, FGM removes the clitoris and labia minora or parts of it. In the extreme cases (pharonic) it's all removed in one cut and stitched up leaving only an extremely small opening for urine, leaving the woman needing 20 minutes to go to the toilet. But I don't think many people have actually thought about what is removed in cases of MGM. And when so many men who have undergone it support it or at least say they do (they say the biggest tragedy about circumcision is that it creates a future cutter), for a long time it was difficult to really have an idea about the damage it does. But what shocks a lot of people in the world is how slow the US is to reject it given how much is known about it and how readily available information is.

Answer 6

Not resentful at all. as a cut male I am statistically 60% less likely to contract aids. I am grateful that my parents protected me from the many diseases that being uncut carries. Did you know that women with uncut husbands have a 53% higher rate of ovarian and cervical cancer. Did you know that the HPV virus hides under the foreskin. Did you know that the foreskin has a lot of receptor cells for the HIV virus. I am so happy that I am cut and would do the same favour for my kids.

Answer 7

Not being circumcised is NOT a major cause of any sexual diseases or "erection" problems. Some individuals may require cricumcision because of foreskin issues, but typically an uncircumcised individual has flexibility and retains the sensitivity of the glans.

Circumcision is a surgical procedure performed on infants, this adds to the cost and profits of the hospital, too.

Answer 8

I'm circumcised because I'm Jewish, and for my parents it was just the right thing to do, although my mum has said she wondered about it a bit. I've never resented it, because it's just how it is, and it feels normal to me. In the UK it's not common unless you're Jewish or Muslim, and I don't know anyone who's had foreskin problems or infections.
I haven't thought about whether I'd have it done to my child - I think maybe not, because it does seem cruel when you think about it.

Answer 9

I have been circumcised. I am not bitter because it made me a better lover. And I am going to do it to my son when he is born...well, a little while after of course. I am going to do it because 1. It was done to me (not a good reason but let's be honest here), 2. it is actually a health issue, I work in a hospitol and not being circumcised can lead to infection though it is rare, 3. I want my son to have as good a sexual experience as I have had and I know that not being circumcised causes a guy to *** more quickly thereby not giving them as good a time or their partner. So there you have it, where I stand on male mutilation.

Answer 10

yes I would circumcise my sons and I did. Its very un clean to leave the foreskin. I am a nurse and I see so many health issues.. i have also seen a need for men (yes, grown men) need to be circumcised because the for skin was cutting off circulation... but it is a personal choice. I would just do it to my boys when they are too little to remember so that "just in case" something happens they wouldn't have to go through that as a man who can remember it.