Over the last few days, a couple of people commenting LezGetReal decided to hijack a thread to try and make a point about male circumcision. Specifically, they were going after a story that discussed a bill that would ban vasectomies in men. Apparently, any time someone dares to say anything about men’s reproductive rights, they are automatically targeted for this kind of hijacking.
While we here at LezGetReal do tend towards personal freedoms and a dislike of having people performing medically unnecessary procedures on infants and children, the reality is that this is not the venue for discussing that issue. Typically, those who love to bring up banning circumcision do so with absurd and often misguided attempts to appeal to others.
Let us be clear here, male circumcision involves the removal of the foreskin of the penis. Unless the doctor or qualified individual botches it up badly, there is little risk of anything other than pain. In women, this procedure would be equivalent to the removing of the hood of the clitoris. The problem? Female genital mutilation does not involve removing just the hood in something approaching 99% of all known cases. In fact, FGM involves the removing of the clitoris at minimum, and often involves the removing of the labia minora and even the labia majora. It can also include the sewing up of the vulva with a singular hole left for the passing of urine and menses.
The severing of the clitoris is damaging enough. It is the equivalent of the removal of the penis. While there are nerves buried deeper inside the woman’s body that could result in an orgasm, the resultant nerve damage leaves the bulk of women who are forced to undergo this procedure without the ability to orgasm, and that is even if the person doing the procedure does it properly. The removal of a man’s foreskin results in no loss of sensation unless the person doing it botches it badly.
Then there is the motives behind the two procedures. Male circumcision is done in order to prevent disease and increase hygiene. While that is not necessary these days when soap and washing is a lot easier, it was not always so in the past. Dirty glanses can lead to things like penile cancer. The motive behind FGM is to destroy women’s ability to feel pleasure from sex, and thus to damage a woman’s identity.
What is more, FGM is practiced on girls who are old enough to say ‘no’ to the procedure, but who are often forced to undergo it. It is a violation of their bodies without consent.
For those who argue against circumcision in men, perhaps coming up with an argument that works would be a good idea, and a compromise. There are societies where circumcision is performed at an older age, and it is part of the coming of age ritual.
But pushing this idiocy that, somehow, male circumcision is equivalent to abortion rights or FGM is absurd.
Oh yes, and as for the comments that I make on that thread. . .I really do find male genitals to be incredibly ugly, and really do not care one way or the other what is done to them. Apparently people never bother to notice that this site is run by a lesbian and two straight women, and that my comments really are mine, and I really have no interest in male genitals other than how far they can stay away from my private parts.
On my shelf is a Master of Arts degree that barely has had time for the ink to dry on it. In the pursuit of that degree, I researched quite extensively the realities of female genital mutilation, and I have loved how many men come in here to provide one or two examples of women who praise the procedure or to claim that the foreskin is absolutely needed for sex or how it is very sensitive.
Quit lying. You have an argument that is valid. . .that an unnecessary medical procedure is being forced on infants who cannot consent. The rest of the arguments are based on lies and should be abandoned. Apparently the reading comprehension of so many men is abysmal. I have tossed those comments, incidentally.
Thank you for all the links to information that apparently you men haven’t actually read through. Since one guy actually pretty much asked to be censored, I will let him know that I did read through the BUJI article he linked to and can say that it has nothing to do with the foreskin. It is amazing how many people out there are having trouble reading lately. Well, I have had enough, so no more comments. Have fun guys.
I am going to explain this since a lot of people appear to be having difficulty understanding what I was trying to get at. My attempted argument is that I want those who oppose male circumcision to come up with their own arguments. I have vetted a lot of information available on the subject, and what I said is true up to this point- the newer evidence is still wobbly at best. A lot of the research is either from samplings that are too small to be useful in a debate or are from people who are lacking in strong academic credentials. This does not mean that what they are saying will not prove accurate, but at the same time, it cannot be counted on right now.
I admit to having issues when it comes to my interactions with men, but typically this is only a problem when I have men showing up attacking me or accusing me of being stupid, which is how a lot of this started.
Simply put, I admit to being hostile, but I admit to being wrong only if you want to believe information that is, at best, very preliminary. Always view your source information with some skepticism. I still believe that male circumcision is wrong, but because it is wrong to alter an infant’s body when it is medically unnecessary or risks further damage to the infant’s body. Does that make it very clear to everyone now?