Male circumcision

182 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It's not the m-word per se, Magoo. It's the context. Have a look at what I said in # 128.

I don't disagree that this thread seemed a bit hinky from the get-go.

Quote:
But there is a matter of proportion.

Certainly there is.  But if an unwanted grope, and [insert much, much worse here] can both be called "sexual assault" I'm not sure why there should be any real controversy over the unnecessary removal of parts of any child's genitals being called "mutilation".  There's only a need for some kind of qualitative or quantitative comparison if someone feels that need.

Quote:
Thank you Mr.Magoo for dragging me back into a conversation I no longer wanted to be a part of.

Sorry about that.  But the rest of your post doesn't even mention what I referenced.

Do you think we also need to discuss circumcision for religious reasons, or do religious reasons = a free pass?  It was you who made the distinction, so I hope you don't think it's an unfair question.

Quote:
I suppose if you accept that a foreskin is an essential part of a penis, it fits.

If someone were to cut off your daughters' earlobes, would you consider the term "mutilation" to be too much word to describe that?

Earlobes aren't essential for anything.  Ears work just fine without them.

 

 

Sineed

In the past, circumcised guys got their sons circumcised because they wanted their son to look like them.

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
How many circumcised men actually think their pecker is damaged? Srsly, they tend to be as proud of 'em as the intact guys.

It's not really about what grown men think about their cut or uncut peckers.  It is about the fact that circumcision is predominently practiced upon infants who have no say in the matter.

Unionist

Timebandit wrote:
How many circumcised men actually think their pecker is damaged? Srsly, they tend to be as proud of 'em as the intact guys.

No comparison. You should see mine. They come from all over to gaze in awe! And that missing prepuce? Haven't even reported it missing.

ETA: By the way, just three things: Men's rights; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism.

Thanks for listening.

Bacchus

Doesnt matter if they think it is damaged, but by the definition supplied, they are permanently damaged, unless the foreskin grows back

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
ETA: By the way, just three things: Men's rights; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism.

Do you think parents should have the right to circumcise an infant child for religious reasons?

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
 I really don't understand where his animus towards me is coming from. 

Another groundless accusation.  You must be full to overflowing to have them flying out all over the place like that.

Misfit Misfit's picture

Could we please try to curtail the negativity?

Slumberjack

It's often the case in debates that many groundless statements are flung around, to which people are given to respond.  I don't see it as a negative for BS to get hung on the line and aired out.

Unionist

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
ETA: By the way, just three things: Men's rights; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism.

Do you think parents should have the right to circumcise an infant child for religious reasons?

I refuse to engage you in this provocative discussion. I'm busy trying to end the anti-human practice of baptism, with the attendant danger of drowning. We progressive folks have fuck-all to do other than seek out the mote in the eye of others.

 

lagatta

This is almost fun:

Another groundless accusation.  You must be full to overflowing to have them flying out all over the place like that.

I've run into that sort of guys, but usually they were macho drivers of muscle cars who were out for me because I'm a utilitarian cyclist. Often they accuse me of running red lights, when I made a point of stopping.

I mean, frankly, a festival of macho language... Bit old school, non?

Slumberjack

Keep reaching lagatta, this time with anecdotal imagery to try and paint the picture you're looking for.  Don't bother trying to come to terms with your counterproductive biases.

lagatta

I know you are just trying to get me to swear at you, make threats of murder and mayhem or some other crap that would get me banned. Not going to happen. Now I have "counterproductive biases", since I don't like your sexist, phallocratic, patriarchal putdowns.

Being an old coottess, I'm toddling off to bed now. Why the hell don't you attack the right wing?

Unionist

Good night, lagatta. Ignore the provocations.

 

lagatta

Buonanotte a tutti. Renzo, j'arrive!

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I refuse to engage you in this provocative discussion.

Not really asking for a long talk until the birds' chirping rouses us from our musings.  I just couldn't really tell, from your posts, whether you feel there's some difference between a Jewish or Muslim parent circumcising their child and a non-religious parent circumcising their child, and in particular, since you're generally pretty clear that you don't believe parents "own" their children and you don't believe that their beliefs trump that.

Unionist

No difference, Magoo. It's not the religious part that matters. It's the xenophobia. It's the hypocrisy. Cf my example of parents smoking at home. No one gives a damn. But they're eager to save my penis. I call bullshit, yet again.

6079_Smith_W

But there are people who are genuinely upset about it, and it is no one's business to tell them they can't be. There are also legitimate health and consent issues around it - to the degree that some states have acted on it.

The fact that some might use circumcision as a foil against women and other cultures doesn't change that.

I don't see why this needs to be reduced to a black and white argument. The title got changed and that is a good thing. Now if someone wants to raise awareness on this, I don't think I'll be volunteering any of my personal time to the cause, but it is fine by me.

 

inkameep

lagatta wrote:
Here in Québec, non-religious/cultural circumcision has declined so much (except among Muslims and Jews, obviously) that it has really become the exception among newborn boys.

Newborn circumcision has become a minority practice in every province.  Data are available here:

http://www.courtchallenge.com/refs/yr99p-f.html

Those who see no comparison between male circumcision and FGM should explain why they put the various forms of FGM into one category. If removal of the external female genitals (Type 2 FGM) is too severe to be compared to male circumcision, then why isn't Type 2 FGM too severe to be compared to Type 4 FGM, which involves only a symbolic nick?

Those who view male circumcision as a trivial practice hardly worth discussing might wish to read the following article in The Guardian: 

"The human devastation left in the wake of these traditions is horrifying. A recent report by South Africa’s Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Communities calculated that in the Eastern Cape and Limpopo provinces alone at least 419 boys have died since 2008, and more than 456,000 initiates have been hospitalised with complications."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/male-circumcision-c...

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:

By the way, just three things: Men's rights; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism.

Thanks for listening.

I'll add three more: children's rights, bodily integrity, trans rights.

Thanks for listening.

onlinediscountanvils

Slumberjack wrote:

It's not really about what grown men think about their cut or uncut peckers.  It is about the fact that circumcision is predominently practiced upon infants who have no say in the matter.

How common would this practice be if instead of taking place within the first few days of a child's life, it happened in preadolescence - when a child is better able to say; "fuck, no, you're not cutting off a part of my body!"?

The foundation of this practice stands entirely on the inability of the child to verbally deny consent and defend his or her self.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
 Ignore the provocations.

They're called challenges to assumptions and biases.

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
I know you are just trying to get me to swear at you, make threats of murder and mayhem or some other crap that would get me banned.

You're certainly not the one at risk of being banned.  Why don't you acknowledge that the root cause of this disharmony traces back to your unfounded accusations that the issue of FGM was being marginalized, and that the topic under discussion was sexist?  This is essentially the charge is it not?

Slumberjack

onlinediscountanvils wrote:
How common would this practice be if instead of taking place within the first few days of a child's life, it happened in preadolescence - when a child is better able to say; "fuck, no, you're not cutting off a part of my body!"?  The foundation of this practice stands entirely on the inability of the child to verbally deny consent and defend his or her self.

Exactly.  I believe if the practice of circumcision were held off until adulthood, it would have ceased long ago, except perhaps for the fundamentalists who would continue to act outside of the secular laws that were bound to have been in place against it by now.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
Cf my example of parents smoking at home. No one gives a damn. 

Yeah...people do give a damn.  It's hardly socially acceptable anymore to smoke at home or in a car where children are present, although some continue to do it.  But we're not talking about that at the moment.  The matter under discussion involves something different than this.

Slumberjack

Unionist wrote:
ETA: By the way, just three things: Men's rights; Islamophobia; anti-Semitism.

Are you compiling a list of topics with which to supplement the charge of sexism that has already taken place to make it into one big ball of wax, or are these matters to be taken up separately in relation to this thread?

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
Why the hell don't you attack the right wing?

In a way I am, or at least tactics that bear a remarkable similarity to pure reaction if you've been following the newz about Russia.  All kinds of nasty, unqualified things getting flung around.

Slumberjack

lagatta wrote:
Now I have "counterproductive biases", since I don't like your sexist, phallocratic, patriarchal putdowns.

We were talking about pieces of infant being snipped off and flung into the garbage, and then you made it into all of that.  You're the one with issues here lagatta.

Slumberjack

Sineed wrote:
In the past, circumcised guys got their sons circumcised because they wanted their son to look like them.

It's not so much in the genes, as it is in the jeans?

rhubarb

My opening comment was:

"Circumcision. Although it is a practice so widely practiced as to be considered normal, does this normality mean it is a practice that should be continued?"

The thread was quickly attacked by both Unionist and lagatta, see posts #6 and #8, from Unionist, scorn, sarcasm, dismissal and from lagatta, scorn and the minimizing of harm done to males as compared to the experience of Female Genital Modification.  Their comments served to derail any meaningful discussion of this issue.  Perhaps that was the point?

I thank those who have continued to discuss this issue in a meaningful way and and I thank all who have addressed those who are obstructive to this conversation.

As to the attacks based on my having removed my posts, I have no doubt that if the posts were there I would be attacked for them, what is transparently obvious is that Timebandit has no other mode than attack when it comes to interacting with me.  If you wish to see a clear example of that check out the  "First Desert Flower Medical Center opens in Berlin" thread in which she has made no contribution except to attack me. 

Since the issue of Female Genital Modification has been raised repeatedly in this thread, I will ask, why is it okay to describe women as mutilated but it is not okay to describe men as mutilated?  It has been shown that female, male and intersexed human beings have suffered serious harm as a consequence of these procedures.  Again, I do not dispute the greater harm to a greater number of females.

 

 

 

 

 

MegB

Closing.

Pages

Topic locked