I've never understood male or female circumcision, I think they should both be treated the same way. Maybe I'm a little biased since circumcision is extremely uncommon here.
I would have no objections if adult men or women chose to have it done for themselves (although I could never understand why they would choose to do so). But I think it isn't something that should be carried out on a baby or child who is unable to give consent.
I wonder about the emotional impact of having gone through the trauma of being born and then cut in one of the most sensitive parts of a male's body shortly after without anything to kill the pain.
[deleted] M
6 ups, 5y,
2 replies
It seems a little barbaric to me but I'm sure you'll have people that will argue otherwise. I do find it extremely hypocritical that people are up in arms about female circumcision yet male circumcision is seldom talked about I'm the same way. People argue it's for hygiene, have the every heard of a wash?
That's what upsets me. The hygiene claim is bs. It also had religious aspects of a Puritan manner. The Bible says we shouldn't murder, which also includes doing damage to one's body, which is a temple, yet mutilation was pushed. Doesn't make sense.
Interesting that it never became an issue or questioned until this whole "bodily autonomy" mantra was thrown around by the liberals. So it's ok to kill a baby boy but not ok to circumcise him (which in America at least is always done with anesthesia by a doctor) I get the female mutilation thing is wrong and I'm against that because the methods used is barbaric and cruel. I can't say the same for males.
All my boys are circumcised and vaccinated. If you take care of it it's sore for maybe a day or 2 and they're given medication and special care until it heals pretty quickly. I find it ironic that pro-vaccine people are anti circumcision.
Just teasing. Although FGM is far worse, that still doesn't mean MGM can't be a negative. You are literally removing some of the most sensitive parts of your body.
I would be against male circumcision too if it meant ripping out the entire p**is and leaving only a hole. That's what female circumcision would equate to.
Yep. As stated here my boys are. The World Health Organization says that it can decrease the risk of HIV by 60% the benefits outweigh the harms. And actually doing it not at all or later in life carries more risks. Not the same as FGM.
How dare you :P
It's just not the done thing here. I remember in college having a debate about circumcision the only person who seemed to think it was normal was an American. The very idea of it seems alien to most people here. I know it's a lot more common in the US.
I had the procedure carried out in later life , about 15 years ago due to complications of my diabetes.
Let me tell you I have quite a high tolerance to pain and was under anaesthetic to carry it out but after that had worn off it was the worse pain I have ever felt in my life.
To do this to babies or young children ( both male or female ) for religious reasons is barbaric and says something about said religion that their opening gambit in their relationship with you is to give you an extreme dose of pain to stamp their authority but try to hide it with the thin veil of tradition and cleanliness.
We need to stop this now for Petes sake it is the 21st century.
Rant over.. phew
Wow, I suppose it's better than losing a foot but I'm sorry to hear that. Never heard of that complication before. Sorry to get personal, but did that lessen your enjoyment of sex to any degree? Feel free to ignore the question if you want. Peace.
Tbh I couldn’t tell you if it was better or not sexually afterward.
I had partaken for quite a while before and couldn’t for some time after so was just happy to be able too and didn’t really think of comparing before and after.
Peace.
Well think how active a grown man is versus a newborn. Not like he was laying around in a diaper having his mama take care of it. I'm sure later on is much more painful and recovery much longer.
I'm curious to know that too. Also interesting that those circumcised later in life had to do it for their health but doing it to a newborn is barbaric?
Modern humans don’t need toenails but could in theory get an ingrown toenail in later life.
So should we sterilise some pliers and pull out babies toenails.
Surely the answer must be no.
Mine was a reaction that something that did happen not a preventative measure for something that might not.
Peace.
Caption this Meme
