Are there men out there who feel that circumcision is a form of male genital mutilation?

Question

I am surprised that circumcision is so widely accepted in the US...seeing that most people feel that circumcision done to females in africa is a barbaric practice. And please do not tell me it is cleaner or something...I know plenty of men who are not circumcised and have not gotten infections and such. I just read the book: The Joy of Uncircumcising. you should too.

Answer 1

Yes, it is definitely mutilation!

Parents do not have the right to make such decisions for their children! It is not necessary surgery, it is not medically called for, boys don't need it any more than girls do, and it is just cosmetic.

To the poster above me, Jorge and others are trying to educate some of the airheads that blindly insist on mutilating their sons, yes it is repetitious, bordering on tedious but then so are the empty reason that people mutilate. And reading his posts won't amputate healthy body parts.

Answer 2

I usually avoid Bible verses unless necessary to answer a question - about yours.... male circumcision was done Biblically, but after Christ was crucified, thats one of those rituals no longer needed for that particular purpose; Religious circumcision has no gender intended - it is circumcision of the heart. That said, it is done regardless of religion; it is done today for medical reasons, for cleanliness. It would be a nesting ground for unfathomable types of bacteria. My son was done in the hospital right after birth, and they didn't ask me first if I was of a specific religion in order to do it. Female circumcism is genital mutilation; when a male is done, it does not affect the operations of the penis; but with a female, it destroys all the nerves that would provide pleasure; also, if you ever saw the documentary they have on Discovery channel about girls who are done in tribes in North Africa, you would see that they don't even wash off the razor blade - and, theres no pain killers or antibiotics given - nothing. They just scream and bleed, and these are female "children", about the age of 10-11. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with religion is my point. The reason they said females are "done" is so that they will concentrate on raising the family and doing the work needed, instead of thinking about pleasuring themselves. Its pretty harsh.

Answer 3

I am a heterosexual man, married for nearly 32 years, with three children (two are "circumcised" boys), I am "circumcised" and 51 years of being "circumcised" has taught me that:

"Circumcision" IS mutilation.

I regret allowing my sons to be mutilated, I just didn't know yet how much damage it causes. I started to understand 3 years after my youngest son was born and mutilated. This was in the 70's and everybody was "circumcising" their sons.

But I will tell you that it is cleaner; IF your son is going to be too damn stupid to wash his gear. Of course if your children are going to be that stupid you should get your self fixed to prevent conceiving any more idiots, the world doesn't need any more of you!

Answer 4

I agree completely! I'm not a man, but I think it's male genital mutilation. Well, actually I'm all for adult males being able to make an (informed) decision for themeselves, but I think it is wrong to do the procedure on babies! It is unnecessay and irreversible so doing it to somebody without their consent is wrong. I also am so surprised it's still going on in the USA (no other Western country does that), but rates are dropping! Part of the problem is that a lot of people over there don't understand it and believe lots of myths!

Answer 5

Yes, male genital mutilation is exactly what circumcision is. It's not as horrific as female genital mutilation, but that in no way makes it okay. It's as barbaric as any other mutilation, such as foot binding, even if it doesn't interfere as much with normal living. It's still unnecessary alteration of a healthy, functional part of the body, with generally unpleasant results. How can that not be mutilation?

Answer 6

YES!!!!! I am 100% against it. I have restored mine and refused to have my son cut as well. Those that are cut have no basis to talk. I can not believe the sensation I get in sex and masturbation. I only wish I had all those nerves that were cut off at birth-but I am happier now than fully cut!

Answer 7

I'm not cut and while I don't think it's really mutilation, I'm glad they left mine uncut =)

Answer 8

I don't really think of it as mutilation, however had I been given the choice I probably would not have done it.




By the way Jorge, have you ever heard of the phrase, "too much information"?

Answer 9

Not many feel that here in the USA (since we're the last developed nation doing it) but one survey found that half of circumcised men expressed wishes on making the decision themselves. Otherwise, both groups experience about a 10% dissatisfaction rate, but uncircumcised guys can just get circumcised. I'll link the surveys below; they're at Jackinworld. Ultimately, many 'benefits' have been proven false, but since it's cultural many continue to believe them. Our rates are falling though (as low as 14% in some states).

Circumcision is a traditionally Jewish and Muslim surgery, although it was introduced and encouraged to the Western, developed world (North America and Europe, but especially the USA) as a way to stop masturbation, especially with the help of Dr. Kellogg. (see link 1) However, although scientific studies have discovered that circumcision harms masturbation by up to over 60% (2), needless to say, it doesn’t completely stop masturbation. Many circumcised guys just find it more convenient to use a lube like KY or lotion as a result (3) since the typically moist foreskin (like the eyelids) is not there to rub the head of the penis with (4).

Most developed nations quickly rejected circumcision after noticing its ineffectiveness against masturbation (they were quite religious back then!), and as a result the United States remains the last developed nation doing it to a significant percentage of newborns. (5) This was done as a result of the for-profit American health care system promoting myths about benefits of circumcision (6), such as preventing penile cancer (6a, 6b), preventing HIV (6c, 6d) despite the USA being the developed nation with the highest HIV rates and circumcision rates (6e, 5), and preventing STDs (6d, 6f). As a result, circumcision now brings in hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors and the American health system. (7)

However, circumcision has been becoming less popular as years have passed by. In the 1960s over 90% of guys were circumcised in the USA, now circumcision rates are as low as 14% in some states. (8) More and more parents are discovering that circumcision carries more risks than benefits, and realize that by leaving their sons uncircumcised, their sons have the choice of choosing what they’d like, since the surgery is irreversible (you can't go back if you don't like it or if it goes wrong).

Circumcision risks include the loss of sexual pleasure according to multiple studies (2, 9, 10, 11). Those studies take into effect many sensation points, including the foreskin, and they involve many participants. There have been other studies that claim no difference, but they don’t even take into effect the nerve endings on the foreskin, which as seen in one study, are some of the most sensitive points on the penis (10). One study even found an increase in erectile dysfunction rates after circumcision (10a). In another study, it was found that females ended up reaching orgasm with and preferring uncircumcised males in 9 out of 10 cases (10b). In addition, circumcision is extremely painful on newborns (12, 13, 14), and you risk many bad conditions, such as a buried penis when too much foreskin is removed and limits the size of the penis (15), or adhesions or skin bridges that develop from the head to the shaft when the skin heals after the surgery (16), meatal stenosis [occurs in up to 10% of circumcised males!] when the opening of the penis becomes irritated from too much exposure and rubbing and begins to close up (17), and meatal ulcers (18). All those risks are, of course, not including the possibility of having too much skin removed, which can cause discomfort during erections due to lack of skin to allow the penis to expand, and could consequently cause a hairy penis by pulling pubic hair and skin to the shaft. Often a circumcision scar develops around the penis after circumcision. In addition, circumcision has negative effects on breastfeeding. (18)

To conclude, here is a link that describes the anatomy of the foreskin (19) and the development of the foreskin with infants, a link especially helpful for parents (19a). Ultimately, one survey found that although uncircumcised guys are a bit more satisfied percentage-wise, it’s within the margin of error. (20) The only difference is that those unsatisfied uncircumcised guys can simply get circumcised and end up satisfied either way. If you're cut or uncut and happy, you'll say that side is better. If you got cut later in life, you'll say cut because you had problems with your foreskin before. If you're cut and had something go wrong or wish to have had a choice, then you'll say uncut. One survey found that up to half of circumcised guys wished to have had the choice themselves (as in, been left uncircumcised and they could have chosen to get circumcised if they wished later on in life). That's a huge number. (21) That, along with the risks and negative effects that are being seen more with the help of the Internet, may be what is bringing down circumcision rates.

Answer 10

I totally agree.