Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

It's quite the mystery how in these otherwise-politically-correct times how no one has ever called out gay men for referring to other men as "cut" or "mutiliated". It's akin to other body-shaming terms that people should be called out for using.

I've tried, they just complain louder. I'm not adverse to someone describing their own bits that've been altered but then they fly right on by and insist on describing everyone's altered bits that way. Makes me wonder how familiar with mutilation they really are. Especially when they compare it to fgm. It's like, no honey, you've still got your dick.

Mind you, it's gay men and mra's that both do that specific description for all despite not all considering themselves mutilated by any means. Not even most- it's (circumcision) is largely regarded as a curiosity unless something went badly wrong. So LNG as the owner gets a vote, like peeonme stated, I don't give a damn either way.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

Mind you, seems gay guys and mra's largely complain for different reasons. The first is aesthetics and the assumption that ones genitals are for public consumption. Mra's, for the most part, ignore circumcision unless there's a fgm convo going on. "Won't someone think of the foreskins at the expense of others?" When it comes up anywhere but a gay male site you can pretty much bet the focus was previously on either removing whole clitorises or sewing up vaginas or, my personal favorite, piercings used to chain things shut.

God, some people need priorities.

And the outrage given over (obviously born a male) circ? I notice it's largely silent for every other genital surgery done on Infants/kids. Funny how that works.

 

[KaraBulut]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

I've tried, they just complain louder. I'm not adverse to someone describing their own bits that've been altered but then they fly right on by and insist on describing everyone's altered bits that way. Makes me wonder how familiar with mutilation they really are. Especially when they compare it to fgm. It's like, no honey, you've still got your dick...

In Hot Topics, most of the discussion is allowed to go on unfettered because that's what Hot Topics is. Most of the time, as long as it's not a COC violation, the discussion goes on regardless of whether we agree with it or not. We'd probably allow discussed of "rugged vaginas" and "fragile rectums" because it doesn't violate the COC. The difference is that the members in the forum would call out someone who used the specious arguments that ideologues use to imply that there's something wrong with what gay men do with each other in bed.

What's happened on this issue is that we've heard terms like "cut" and "mutilated" used for so long that we no longer realize what is being said: specifically that there's something wrong or ugly about a perfectly fine penis. But when you pause for a moment and think about it, basically it's saying that most of the members of the forum have mutilated genitals. If someone to say that to your face, they'd probably get a drink thrown in their face or you'd kick them out of your bedroom?

These circumcision threads start with a legitimate discussion about some study that is either pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision. Eventually, it devolves into pointless rhetoric and argument.

Gay men have enough issues with body image. These discussions that are intended to imply that there's something wrong with our bodies need to be called out for what they are. Short, long, skinny, thick, uncircumcised, circumcised- we like them all.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

In Hot Topics, most of the discussion is allowed to go on unfettered because that's what Hot Topics is. Most of the time, as long as it's not a COC violation, the discussion goes on regardless of whether we agree with it or not. We'd probably allow discussed of "rugged vaginas" and "fragile rectums" because it doesn't violate the COC. The difference is that the members in the forum would call out someone who used the specious arguments that ideologues use to imply that there's something wrong with what gay men do with each other in bed.

What's happened on this issue is that we've heard terms like "cut" and "mutilated" used for so long that we no longer realize what is being said: specifically that there's something wrong or ugly about a perfectly fine penis. But when you pause for a moment and think about it, basically it's saying that most of the members of the forum have mutilated genitals. If someone to say that to your face, they'd probably get a drink thrown in their face or you'd kick them out of your bedroom?

These circumcision threads start with a legitimate discussion about some study that is either pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision. Eventually, it devolves into pointless rhetoric and argument.

Gay men have enough issues with body image. These discussions that are intended to imply that there's something wrong with our bodies need to be called out for what they are.

I'm definitely not the one you want to use in an example of genitalia and doctors interference/body mods so I'm going to mostly ignore that one question mark right there at the end of the second paragraph. I'm also not going to compare the results specifically of male circumcision with genital surgery of any other type because people have a damn short sighted view of reactions to actual 'abnormal' or surgically altered genitalia. I've yet to kick someone out of my room because I have a heavy screening process and've been lucky.

The thing is, when y'point out that something doesn't have to be considered mutilation in order for someone's rights to be acknowledged (as in, don't modify infants outside actual medical necessity) there's always one pissy person who insists that it's mutilation no matter who does it. They dislike acknowledging autonomy as a thing. And they loath that someone's dick might not exist for their viewing pleasure. It's always 'hot or not', rarely is it a discussion about ethical obligation.

 

[bankside]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

It's quite the mystery how in these otherwise-politically-correct times how no one has ever called out gay men for referring to other men as "cut" or "mutiliated". It's akin to other body-shaming terms that people should be called out for using.

If you would like, we can restrict your access to the the forums that only contain pictures of "intact" penises. Oh, wait- there's no forum here that meets that criteria.

The difference between mutilation and body modification, in any other circumstance, is the active consent of the individual concerned.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

The difference between mutilation and body modification, in any other circumstance, is the active consent of the individual concerned.

If only. That isn't how the world works and there's plenty of things not classed as mutilation wrt surgery and hormone affects that should be considered such that's regularly done on infants. Don't aim for the 'everyone but circumcised boys'' argument, it's false. And personally insulting, knock it off.

 

[alphacentauri]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

The difference between mutilation and body modification, in any other circumstance, is the active consent of the individual concerned.

Exactly. Which is why circumcision of boys and girls is involuntary genital mutilation since they can't consent to it. Both MGM/male circumcision, and FGM/female circumcision are done for the same reasons. Not all female circumcisions/FGM removes a woman's clit sometimes only the clitoral hood is removed.

If someone's an adult and wants to get their foreskin removed, entire penis removed, testicles or one testicle removed, or they're a woman and want their clitoral hood, labia, or other parts of their genitals removed, or wants to surgically modify or mutilate their body in other ways it's their choice.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

@Alpha,

When your opinion is based on whether it's hot or not, it loses value. You do a shit job of backtracking - thought you should know.

 

[bankside]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

If only. That isn't how the world works and there's plenty of things not classed as mutilation wrt surgery and hormone affects that should be considered such that's regularly done on infants. Don't aim for the 'everyone but circumcised boys'' argument, it's false. And personally insulting, knock it off.

The difference between mutilation and/or body modification on one hand, and surgery on the other, is pressing medical necessity. BEtter now?

 

[alphacentauri]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

@Alpha,

When your opinion is based on whether it's hot or not, it loses value. You do a shit job of backtracking - thought you should know.

 

[Rickrock]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

My dictionary says to mutilate is to injure or damage severely, typically so as to disfigure. It doesn't say anything about voluntary or involuntary. I would say that piercings and tattoos could be called mutilation. (Sorry to add to the fire in this thread. I just couldn't hold myself back.)

 

[bankside]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

My dictionary says to mutilate is to injure or damage severely, typically so as to disfigure. It doesn't say anything about voluntary or involuntary. I would say that piercings and tattoos could be called mutilation. (Sorry to add to the fire in this thread. I just couldn't hold myself back.)

Sorry to douse the flames because I think most tattoos are ridiculous but I can't call them severe damage. They heal generally well. And they are voluntary. The disfiguration is mostly subjective. I think they are mostly void of any symbolic or aesthetic content that should be taken seriously, but some people disagree. Some people think cubism is awesome and hate Impressionism.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

My dictionary says to mutilate is to injure or damage severely, typically so as to disfigure. It doesn't say anything about voluntary or involuntary. I would say that piercings and tattoos could be called mutilation. (Sorry to add to the fire in this thread. I just couldn't hold myself back.)

The last two, damage severely/disfigure is what's being discussed. Injury itself would be negated as a reasoning as medical procedures generally involve further injury to heal, from stitches on up. Voluntary/involuntary distinction is made because consent matters.

I don't believe circumcision automatically does either of those things. Hell, I don't believe most people would think a bit less skin is mutilation, whether they wanted to be circumcised or not. They still have every major part. Most people, if they consider something to be disfiguring, they either do not look like the rest of the population and/or the bits themselves don't fucking work because, aha, they were removed. People generally still have foreskin, it just isn't as large as it previously was.

And when I say "don't look like the rest of the population" I don't mean a few centimeters of moveable skin's difference. That's why fgm practitioners have been encouraged to ceremoniously nick/cut the tip of the hood. That way everything still works. To compare the two for that reason alone is laughable.

The only time I compare circumcision to other surgeries is to advocate for autonomy by waiting for adulthood if possible as it occasionally is medically necessary.

 

[KaraBulut]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

The difference between mutilation and body modification, in any other circumstance, is the active consent of the individual concerned.

The term "mutilated" is offensive. Again, no one be shamed because their body doesn't look the way that you think it should.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

The difference between mutilation and/or body modification on one hand, and surgery on the other, is pressing medical necessity. BEtter now?

It's actually more complicated than that. That particular concept is a generalization. And not a very good one when discussing genital procedures on youth because you can receive both needed medical help and by extension, modification by side effects. The latter is not mutilation even if it wasn't aimed for and it's a separate concept from attempting genital mods for aesthetic reasons on infants. However, that doesn't mean you don't get psychological issues regarding such. Medical necessity doesn't mean much when taking social expectations into consideration. I've been regarding such situations as "Shit Happens".

So no, not better.

What would be better is not describing all of one type of genital mod as mutilation. Feel free to describe your dick in your own terms, and pointing out kids need to be of the 'age of consent' before getting circumcised unless medically necessary.

What you so far have failed to get is that something doesn't need to be considered mutilation in order to demand ones autonomy for receiving it.

 

[peeonme]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

Well, I can't resist. I remember on more than a few occasions seeing mothers with infant/toddler girls, they had their ears pierced.
It seemed though they were from a part of the world where this is a tradition.
To me it seemed strange, I asked myself "what if they don't want this?"
I know holes in the ear will close up, but it's been my experience that there is still a minute scar left behind.

Again we find the thoughts of tradition verses the free choice of an individual. Still in the USA circumcision seems traditional, I never heard any questioning of it until some time in the '90's.

The question to me is rights verses responsibility. As parents we have the responsibility to care for and provide for a child that we choose to bring into this world, feed them, educate them and even expose them to a spiritual / religious belief that they can choose to follow or reject.
But, do we have the right to "modify" their bodies? Should we not let them choose circumcision, earrings, tattoos or religion for themselves?

 

[bankside]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

The term "mutilated" is offensive. Again, no one be shamed because their body doesn't look the way that you think it should.

I'm entitled to describe what was done to me, without my consent and without any pressing medical need, however I like. Perhaps you also want victims of female genital mutilation to find a more polite term, or a word that does not upset your sensibilities, or a word that does not reveal your biases, or a word that leaves the customs of some religion or culture with a veneer of plausible wholesomeness. This is part of the political push-back against the change in perception, beginning in the late 1990s that autonomy has to mean something for men too, pushback which has intensified, in a coordinated way, since around the time European courts started hearing cases about bodily integrity and consent.

No one would question that Female Genital Mutilation is the correct term for everything from infibulation to clitorectomy to excision of the clitoral hood. As you've pointed out, while the glans is equivalent to the clitoral body, male circumcision, unless botched, deals with the analogous structures as in the clitoral hood and is one thing people seem to agree women should be protected from. Same structures, same terms.

Campaigners against this practice do not challenge the rights of any adult to do as they please and anything I've seen is supportive of circumcision for pressing medical needs where other less radical treatments are not suitable. But they (and I) will continue to describe what was done to their own bodies without that consent in whatever terms reflect their experience.

It is interesting to see that coordinated political pushback expressed recently in medicine (in much the same way as we saw medical dissidents promoting and insisting on "reparative therapy" when the DSM relented in the medical oppression of gay people) through recent studies suggesting baby boys should undergo excision of the foreskin for the health and wellbeing of adult women they might eventually grow up to fuck. Grasping at straws and fanciful conceptions of public health.

In the mean time, Google Stephen Fry on being offended. People have a right to speak about their experience.

LuckyN7 I would have thought you'd be aware of (and found insightful) the position of intersex campaigners for bodily integrity: that people's genitals should be left as they are when they are born, until the person can sort out what to be done, if anything, with their very own body. Terms like butchery or mutilation come up there too, to reject the more frankensteinian delusions of the medical establishment about its self-ascribed "duty of care." Clitoral hoods and foreskins belong equally to the people they (may) be born on.

 

[bankside]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

In Hot Topics, most of the discussion is allowed to go on unfettered because that's what Hot Topics is. Most of the time, as long as it's not a COC violation, the discussion goes on regardless of whether we agree with it or not. We'd probably allow discussed of "rugged vaginas" and "fragile rectums" because it doesn't violate the COC. The difference is that the members in the forum would call out someone who used the specious arguments that ideologues use to imply that there's something wrong with what gay men do with each other in bed.

What's happened on this issue is that we've heard terms like "cut" and "mutilated" used for so long that we no longer realize what is being said: specifically that there's something wrong or ugly about a perfectly fine penis. But when you pause for a moment and think about it, basically it's saying that most of the members of the forum have mutilated genitals. If someone to say that to your face, they'd probably get a drink thrown in their face or you'd kick them out of your bedroom?

These circumcision threads start with a legitimate discussion about some study that is either pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision. Eventually, it devolves into pointless rhetoric and argument.

Gay men have enough issues with body image. These discussions that are intended to imply that there's something wrong with our bodies need to be called out for what they are. Short, long, skinny, thick, uncircumcised, circumcised- we like them all.

Do you show similar regard for the sensibilities of practitioners of Female Genital Mutilation? These are generally grandmothers who have had the practise done to them, and who think they are passing on a lovely tradition, and who got enough satisfaction from their own experience to want to share it with their granddaughter's generation. Ayaan Hirsi Ali had it done. Maybe she needs some new terminology so she can enjoy it more.

And (anticipating Lucky) yes I am aware FGM is typically more involved than MGM and usually imposes greater functional costs. But it is a total red herring to imply as you do that we should do nothing about this because some greater wrong exists somewhere on the List of Great Wrongs being kept in the ether. If this is such a relatively trivial injustice then it should be relatively easy to put an end to it.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

@Bankside,

I'm aware of intersex and ambiguous genitalia, what the hell position did you think I was argueing from, considering I grew up with it. Your missing the intricacies of needed medical care verse side effects/shit they can't fix or caused verse aesthetic genital modification for no goddamn reason whatsoever.

They intersect but they aren't the same thing. Nor are surgically/hormonal lay altered genitalia automatically described as mutilated because it's fucking rude. The practices when done for no medical reason are often described as mutilation - but an action/practice isn't someone's genitalia.

 

[bankside]

Re: What is the thing with circumcision in The US ?!

[snip]because you can receive both needed medical help and by extension, modification by side effects. The latter is not mutilation even if it wasn't aimed for and it's a separate concept from attempting genital mods for aesthetic reasons on infants. However, that doesn't mean you don't get psychological issues regarding such. Medical necessity doesn't mean much when taking social expectations into consideration. I've been regarding such situations as "Shit Happens".

So no, not better.

What would be better is not describing all of one type of genital mod as mutilation. Feel free to describe your dick in your own terms, and pointing out kids need to be of the 'age of consent' before getting circumcised unless medically necessary.

What you so far have failed to get is that something doesn't need to be considered mutilation in order to demand ones autonomy for receiving it.

btw, i only disagree with your conclusion here: something done without regard for someone's autonomy is something they can later demand be defined as mutilation.

@Bankside,

I'm aware of intersex and ambiguous genitalia, what the hell position did you think I was argueing from, considering I grew up with it. Your missing the intricacies of needed medical care verse side effects/shit they can't fix or caused verse aesthetic genital modification for no goddamn reason whatsoever.

They intersect but they aren't the same thing. Nor are surgically/hormonal lay altered genitalia automatically described as mutilated because it's fucking rude. The practices when done for no medical reason are often described as mutilation - but an action/practice isn't someone's genitalia.

A distinction between verb and noun that I don't find very meaningful.