I went though a period where I had to come to terms with this concept that my body was modified without my knowledge or consent for reasons that I believe are flimsy at best. I love my parents, I...
I went though a period where I had to come to terms with this concept that my body was modified without my knowledge or consent for reasons that I believe are flimsy at best. I love my parents, I believe they did what they thought was best for me based on what they knew (they where and are religious). I am resentful, I wish they hadn't, I wish that choice wasn't taken from me, but I don't hate them for it.
It's hard to face this as a man, it's even harder to have a conversation about it, it's a hard topic. As a man, admitting even the possibility that your literal manhood has been modified/partially taken/mutilated (or whatever word you'd like to use) is admitting helplessness, vulnerability, grief, and a range of other emotions that our society still does not celebrate and encourage in men.
When friends mention they're having kids I try to find a private moment to bring up the topic and share my thoughts, but I avoid bringing it up in larger groups because it's very likely to spiral out of control. Questioning your own sexuality and "maleness" isn't something most men are prepared to do on the average day.
As the article mentions, I do see a lot of hope in the younger generations (I'm 38) who are a lot more body positive, and seem to discuss things like gender and sexuality a lot more openly.
I had the same procedure but experienced none of the existential and psychological effects you mentioned. But mine was not religiously motivated. Do you think you would feel differently if the...
I had the same procedure but experienced none of the existential and psychological effects you mentioned. But mine was not religiously motivated. Do you think you would feel differently if the procedure addressed a legitimate medical issue? Or, currently, if you shared your parents beliefs?
I think if it had address a legitimate medical issue I would feel very differently. Parents make that kind of decision for their children all the time (vaccines, etc). As for religion, the...
I think if it had address a legitimate medical issue I would feel very differently. Parents make that kind of decision for their children all the time (vaccines, etc).
As for religion, the specific topic was never brought up. As I'm thinking about it now, I don't think that I've ever actually asked my parents the question directly. eg: "why did you do this?" So I don't know for sure if it was religious reasons, cultural expectations, or something else entirely.
I get the impression either some doctors are butchers or some people have a different anatomy that causes terrible side effects. In my case, I must say it’s rather convenient. I never think about...
I get the impression either some doctors are butchers or some people have a different anatomy that causes terrible side effects. In my case, I must say it’s rather convenient. I never think about otherwise.
I'd still strongly advocate against doing it for non-medical purposes (perhaps even outlawing it), because every surgery has an inherent risk, even if it is standard, routine, whatever. Especially...
I'd still strongly advocate against doing it for non-medical purposes (perhaps even outlawing it), because every surgery has an inherent risk, even if it is standard, routine, whatever. Especially in the US it's often done because "everyone else does it", here in Europe it's usually for actual religious purposes (which I still don't agree with)
Thanks for posting this. As one circumcised involuntarily mutilated male, because of a religion that I came to not identify with, it is relieving to know that there is an awakening regarding this...
Thanks for posting this. As one circumcised involuntarily mutilated male, because of a religion that I came to not identify with, it is relieving to know that there is an awakening regarding this issue. Forced MGM is a violation of physiological and psychological integrity of an infant. It is a kind child abuse that is commonly practiced in the modern world. A primitive ritual. Hopefully it comes to an end soon. I am lucky that my circumcision was a successful one, and un/lucky to have been 10yrs old when mine was done and have seen what a horrible thing it is.
It is sad that it is still differentiated from FGM, and that it can be stigmatised and derided freely while the same about a vulva or other female body parts would get you in trouble. Similarly with penis size, it can be spoken about, derided, joked about freely, while similar stuff about women are heavily stigmatised and accepted as wrong. It is now men's turn to fight against patriarchy, and I happily participate in that.
That does seem to be a rather common result of circumcision when not an infant. My father, for example, was circumcised late in his teens, and the experience so traumatized him that, at a time and...
un/lucky to have been 10yrs old when mine was done and have seen what a horrible thing it is.
That does seem to be a rather common result of circumcision when not an infant. My father, for example, was circumcised late in his teens, and the experience so traumatized him that, at a time and place where it would have been standard practice, he very vocally ensured that I would not be circumcised when I was born, arguing that he would not allow his infant son to needlessly suffer such an experience.
No problem! Tho AFAIU the pain and danger FGM and MGM pose are not identical, I am not really knowledgeable enought on FGM (yet) to comment on the degree of similitude. But in essence it is the...
No problem! Tho AFAIU the pain and danger FGM and MGM pose are not identical, I am not really knowledgeable enought on FGM (yet) to comment on the degree of similitude. But in essence it is the same thing: abuse and involuntary mutilation.
Taken from Wikipedia's article on FGM. I'd say FGM is much more involved than circumcision. The operation done seems more risky, involving many more parts removed or mutilated than the foreskin....
removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, known as infibulation, a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth
Taken from Wikipedia's article on FGM. I'd say FGM is much more involved than circumcision. The operation done seems more risky, involving many more parts removed or mutilated than the foreskin. Thre are also many types of FGM which most commonly involves (partial or complete) removal of the clitoris, which has as many nerve endings as the whole penis. Considering the significant number of women who can derive pleasure almost exclusively from the clitoris, this procedure is at least condemning a woman's sexual life and, at worst, practically re-purposing the vagina (type 3 FGM). MGM on the other hand is relatively simple. Additionally, since MGM most commonly is circumcision, circumcision does have some benefits to it. There are no long-term adverse sexual effects to ~MGM~ circumcision as far as the current studies show.
In my opinion, both are definitely wrong to perform on newborns or people who can't give consent, but I'm not surprised that FGM is given much more attention, considering the consequences and procedures involved.
The clitoral hood is the equivalent of the foreskin. The clitoral glans is equivalent to the glans of the penis (i.e. tip). The labia are equivalent structures to the scrotum and penis skin. So...
The clitoral hood is the equivalent of the foreskin. The clitoral glans is equivalent to the glans of the penis (i.e. tip). The labia are equivalent structures to the scrotum and penis skin. So FGM can be…extensive.
I guess that's mostly a Jewish thing, Muslims vary. At least in Turkey, at birth is the exception; circumcisions as late as 5-6yrs old are common, and there is even a folklore trope of the kid...
I guess that's mostly a Jewish thing, Muslims vary. At least in Turkey, at birth is the exception; circumcisions as late as 5-6yrs old are common, and there is even a folklore trope of the kid that flees the cutting. Mine was rather later even for that, I guess that was in order for it to coincide with my younger brother who was 4 or 5 at the time. It is also seen as a rite of becoming a man, so maybe it has to do with that.
It was weird. The doctor did the thing, then we had to put something like a bowl on our dicks so that the robe does not rub against the head of it. I literally passed a few days with an upside down plastic bowl covering my penis, and that is how I "became a man".
I really wonder what sort of a people actually came up with this and why. I like to imagine... "Hey, let's cut our dicks off, that's how we become proper men!" And enough people followed that it became a millennia long thing. Crazy.
In Judiasm it's within 8 days IIRC. In the US it's way more common in general, though I think heavily weighted in the conservative religious demographics. The religion I was raised in is Nazarene...
In Judiasm it's within 8 days IIRC. In the US it's way more common in general, though I think heavily weighted in the conservative religious demographics. The religion I was raised in is Nazarene which is an offshoot of Free Babtist that emerged about 100yr ago in California.
The occurrence of genital modification in itself isn't that unusual, there are a lot of societies both historical and current that have genital modification as part of their rites and rituals. From one perspective, it's just another form of most modification like piercing the ears, tattoos, etc. The most important distinction to me is that circumcision as commonly practiced is done without giving the person (baby) a choice.
My experience with “circumcision” is that it cured my phimosis and I got ice cream afterwards. AFAIK it was a very well done procedure and I never experienced any of the downsides listed in the...
My experience with “circumcision” is that it cured my phimosis and I got ice cream afterwards. AFAIK it was a very well done procedure and I never experienced any of the downsides listed in the article. I never thought of it like “multilation”. IDK if those issues are more common in other countries or if my doctor was particularly good.
I dabbled with restoration a few years ago, as I had painful erections from an overly tight circumcision. I was able to grow enough skin take the pressure off, but not go much further. It takes...
I dabbled with restoration a few years ago, as I had painful erections from an overly tight circumcision. I was able to grow enough skin take the pressure off, but not go much further. It takes incredible dedication. I do feel violated, and I of course did not circumcise my three sons.
Question: are the Jewish “ministers” that perform circumcision also medical professionals? Cause if not, that’s totally bonkers. Sorry if used offensive language, I’m not a native speaker.
Question: are the Jewish “ministers” that perform circumcision also medical professionals? Cause if not, that’s totally bonkers.
Sorry if used offensive language, I’m not a native speaker.
Not offensive language. However a Jewish "minister" would be properly referred to as "rabbi". As for their medical expertise I don't know for sure, but AFAIK there is no medical training to become...
Not offensive language. However a Jewish "minister" would be properly referred to as "rabbi". As for their medical expertise I don't know for sure, but AFAIK there is no medical training to become a rabbi that I am aware of (but I'm also not Jewish).
I'm also not Jewish, but AFAIK the only people who can perform circumcisions are mohels, who are trained to perform the procedure... although I'm sure how much training varies by location. And...
I'm also not Jewish, but AFAIK the only people who can perform circumcisions are mohels, who are trained to perform the procedure... although I'm sure how much training varies by location. And while some Rabbis are also mohels, AFAICT outside the Orthodox community they are usually all MDs or registered nurses/midwives.
E.g. In the list of "approved" mohels in my area, only Vaad Harabonim (an Orthodox Organization) has anyone other than MDs listed... but even they have quite a few Doctors.
Yeah, one of the practices is called Metzitzah B’peh (Direct Oral Suctioning), so no surprise that you don't have to be a medical professional to perform this ritual. Seems disturbing in a modern...
Yeah, one of the practices is called Metzitzah B’peh (Direct Oral Suctioning), so no surprise that you don't have to be a medical professional to perform this ritual. Seems disturbing in a modern context, but I haven't done enough research to claim any intentions (to put it politely) on the part of the practitioners or developers.
I recall an argument about whether it should be defined as genital mutilation. The person arguing against had the argument of "the baby won't even remember the pain, so it doesn't matter."
I recall an argument about whether it should be defined as genital mutilation. The person arguing against had the argument of "the baby won't even remember the pain, so it doesn't matter."
This reminds me of an online conversation I had some years ago. I was a member of a private Facebook group with people from all around the world (long story!). We discussed anything and...
Why do it? The most common response is custom: because dad did.
This reminds me of an online conversation I had some years ago.
I was a member of a private Facebook group with people from all around the world (long story!). We discussed anything and everything.
One day, one of our members came to us with a question. His son had just been born, and he wanted input on whether he should get the baby boy circumcised or not. For context: he's American, and living in America, and he himself was circumcised.
Discussion on the topic was, shall we say, animated and lively (we were a talkative bunch!), and there were opinions on both sides, but the majority leaned towards "no".
In the end, the father decided he would get his son circumcised - despite a majority of the people he asked saying "no". The reason he gave was that he didn't want his son to look different to the other boys and men in locker rooms and public showers. That was his only reason. Basically, it was indirect peer pressure: he wanted his boy to be the same as everyone else.
I feel like the only male who has no strong feelings about this issue. I am circumcised and my bf is not and honestly I mildly prefer being circumcised just because it stays clean easier. I think...
I feel like the only male who has no strong feelings about this issue. I am circumcised and my bf is not and honestly I mildly prefer being circumcised just because it stays clean easier. I think mine might be done to a lesser extent however because I have none of the issues people describe with being circumcised. I can pull the skin up over the head but it doesn't naturally sit that way but I have no discomfort related to it.
Still I side with the anti circumcision group purely because there is usually no reason this has to be done at a young age and people should be able to choose on their own.
Of course ancient religions taught to circumcize. They were written before they had invented soap. Not to mention water filtration. But in our modern age? It's a barbaric, disgusting act. My...
Of course ancient religions taught to circumcize. They were written before they had invented soap. Not to mention water filtration.
But in our modern age? It's a barbaric, disgusting act. My circumcized father, rest his soul, made the merciful choice to not have me cut. And I often thank him for that.
I would see other boys' "equipment" in the bathroom (in the 3rd grade one of my buddies would do "long distance" peeing into the urinal from a meter or so away - quite an impressive feat for an 8 year old in retrospect), and I noticed they were different. But I didn't feel weird or envious. And when I asked my dad and he told me what circumcision was, I felt proud to be different.
Naturally when my son was born I didn't want the procedure done to him, and surprisingly nobody at the hospital seemed to make any attempt to push it. I was ready to strike down any doctor who brought it up but nobody did. It was kind of relieving.
I went though a period where I had to come to terms with this concept that my body was modified without my knowledge or consent for reasons that I believe are flimsy at best. I love my parents, I believe they did what they thought was best for me based on what they knew (they where and are religious). I am resentful, I wish they hadn't, I wish that choice wasn't taken from me, but I don't hate them for it.
It's hard to face this as a man, it's even harder to have a conversation about it, it's a hard topic. As a man, admitting even the possibility that your literal manhood has been modified/partially taken/mutilated (or whatever word you'd like to use) is admitting helplessness, vulnerability, grief, and a range of other emotions that our society still does not celebrate and encourage in men.
When friends mention they're having kids I try to find a private moment to bring up the topic and share my thoughts, but I avoid bringing it up in larger groups because it's very likely to spiral out of control. Questioning your own sexuality and "maleness" isn't something most men are prepared to do on the average day.
As the article mentions, I do see a lot of hope in the younger generations (I'm 38) who are a lot more body positive, and seem to discuss things like gender and sexuality a lot more openly.
I had the same procedure but experienced none of the existential and psychological effects you mentioned. But mine was not religiously motivated. Do you think you would feel differently if the procedure addressed a legitimate medical issue? Or, currently, if you shared your parents beliefs?
I think if it had address a legitimate medical issue I would feel very differently. Parents make that kind of decision for their children all the time (vaccines, etc).
As for religion, the specific topic was never brought up. As I'm thinking about it now, I don't think that I've ever actually asked my parents the question directly. eg: "why did you do this?" So I don't know for sure if it was religious reasons, cultural expectations, or something else entirely.
I get the impression either some doctors are butchers or some people have a different anatomy that causes terrible side effects. In my case, I must say it’s rather convenient. I never think about otherwise.
I'd still strongly advocate against doing it for non-medical purposes (perhaps even outlawing it), because every surgery has an inherent risk, even if it is standard, routine, whatever. Especially in the US it's often done because "everyone else does it", here in Europe it's usually for actual religious purposes (which I still don't agree with)
Yes, of course. It should have the same standards of all the other procedures.
Thanks for posting this. As one
circumcisedinvoluntarily mutilated male, because of a religion that I came to not identify with, it is relieving to know that there is an awakening regarding this issue. Forced MGM is a violation of physiological and psychological integrity of an infant. It is a kind child abuse that is commonly practiced in the modern world. A primitive ritual. Hopefully it comes to an end soon. I am lucky that my circumcision was a successful one, and un/lucky to have been 10yrs old when mine was done and have seen what a horrible thing it is.It is sad that it is still differentiated from FGM, and that it can be stigmatised and derided freely while the same about a vulva or other female body parts would get you in trouble. Similarly with penis size, it can be spoken about, derided, joked about freely, while similar stuff about women are heavily stigmatised and accepted as wrong. It is now men's turn to fight against patriarchy, and I happily participate in that.
That does seem to be a rather common result of circumcision when not an infant. My father, for example, was circumcised late in his teens, and the experience so traumatized him that, at a time and place where it would have been standard practice, he very vocally ensured that I would not be circumcised when I was born, arguing that he would not allow his infant son to needlessly suffer such an experience.
I never considered the equivalence to female genital mutilation for some reason. Thank you for teaching me this viewpoint.
I don't think I would call them equivalent, because FGM is in general far more invasive and dangerous. But I do still consider them both wrong.
No problem! Tho AFAIU the pain and danger FGM and MGM pose are not identical, I am not really knowledgeable enought on FGM (yet) to comment on the degree of similitude. But in essence it is the same thing: abuse and involuntary mutilation.
Taken from Wikipedia's article on FGM. I'd say FGM is much more involved than circumcision. The operation done seems more risky, involving many more parts removed or mutilated than the foreskin. Thre are also many types of FGM which most commonly involves (partial or complete) removal of the clitoris, which has as many nerve endings as the whole penis. Considering the significant number of women who can derive pleasure almost exclusively from the clitoris, this procedure is at least condemning a woman's sexual life and, at worst, practically re-purposing the vagina (type 3 FGM). MGM on the other hand is relatively simple. Additionally, since MGM most commonly is circumcision, circumcision does have some benefits to it. There are no long-term adverse sexual effects to ~MGM~ circumcision as far as the current studies show.
In my opinion, both are definitely wrong to perform on newborns or people who can't give consent, but I'm not surprised that FGM is given much more attention, considering the consequences and procedures involved.
The clitoral hood is the equivalent of the foreskin. The clitoral glans is equivalent to the glans of the penis (i.e. tip). The labia are equivalent structures to the scrotum and penis skin. So FGM can be…extensive.
Thanks for the info!
Wha? Why 10? My understanding was that most occur near birth.
I guess that's mostly a Jewish thing, Muslims vary. At least in Turkey, at birth is the exception; circumcisions as late as 5-6yrs old are common, and there is even a folklore trope of the kid that flees the cutting. Mine was rather later even for that, I guess that was in order for it to coincide with my younger brother who was 4 or 5 at the time. It is also seen as a rite of becoming a man, so maybe it has to do with that.
It was weird. The doctor did the thing, then we had to put something like a bowl on our dicks so that the robe does not rub against the head of it. I literally passed a few days with an upside down plastic bowl covering my penis, and that is how I "became a man".
I really wonder what sort of a people actually came up with this and why. I like to imagine... "Hey, let's cut our dicks off, that's how we become proper men!" And enough people followed that it became a millennia long thing. Crazy.
In Judiasm it's within 8 days IIRC. In the US it's way more common in general, though I think heavily weighted in the conservative religious demographics. The religion I was raised in is Nazarene which is an offshoot of Free Babtist that emerged about 100yr ago in California.
The occurrence of genital modification in itself isn't that unusual, there are a lot of societies both historical and current that have genital modification as part of their rites and rituals. From one perspective, it's just another form of most modification like piercing the ears, tattoos, etc. The most important distinction to me is that circumcision as commonly practiced is done without giving the person (baby) a choice.
The wiki article on genital modification has a lot of references describing the various modifications performed by different cultures: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation
A minor point, but NHS will pay if there's a medical need such as phimosis that doesn't respond to other forms of treatment.
My experience with “circumcision” is that it cured my phimosis and I got ice cream afterwards. AFAIK it was a very well done procedure and I never experienced any of the downsides listed in the article. I never thought of it like “multilation”. IDK if those issues are more common in other countries or if my doctor was particularly good.
I dabbled with restoration a few years ago, as I had painful erections from an overly tight circumcision. I was able to grow enough skin take the pressure off, but not go much further. It takes incredible dedication. I do feel violated, and I of course did not circumcise my three sons.
Question: are the Jewish “ministers” that perform circumcision also medical professionals? Cause if not, that’s totally bonkers.
Sorry if used offensive language, I’m not a native speaker.
Not offensive language. However a Jewish "minister" would be properly referred to as "rabbi". As for their medical expertise I don't know for sure, but AFAIK there is no medical training to become a rabbi that I am aware of (but I'm also not Jewish).
I'm also not Jewish, but AFAIK the only people who can perform circumcisions are mohels, who are trained to perform the procedure... although I'm sure how much training varies by location. And while some Rabbis are also mohels, AFAICT outside the Orthodox community they are usually all MDs or registered nurses/midwives.
E.g. In the list of "approved" mohels in my area, only Vaad Harabonim (an Orthodox Organization) has anyone other than MDs listed... but even they have quite a few Doctors.
Many mohels (men who do circumcisions) are doctors, but not all.
@mrbig is no longer with us.
Do we know what happened to him?
I have a long-held hunch that they became a new username.
Yeah, one of the practices is called Metzitzah B’peh (Direct Oral Suctioning), so no surprise that you don't have to be a medical professional to perform this ritual. Seems disturbing in a modern context, but I haven't done enough research to claim any intentions (to put it politely) on the part of the practitioners or developers.
It's very rare in practice; here's an article that explains the alternative used in most communities: https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2015-02-25/ty-article/.premium/what-is-oral-suction-circumcision/0000017f-e663-d97e-a37f-f76764430000
I recall an argument about whether it should be defined as genital mutilation. The person arguing against had the argument of "the baby won't even remember the pain, so it doesn't matter."
This reminds me of an online conversation I had some years ago.
I was a member of a private Facebook group with people from all around the world (long story!). We discussed anything and everything.
One day, one of our members came to us with a question. His son had just been born, and he wanted input on whether he should get the baby boy circumcised or not. For context: he's American, and living in America, and he himself was circumcised.
Discussion on the topic was, shall we say, animated and lively (we were a talkative bunch!), and there were opinions on both sides, but the majority leaned towards "no".
In the end, the father decided he would get his son circumcised - despite a majority of the people he asked saying "no". The reason he gave was that he didn't want his son to look different to the other boys and men in locker rooms and public showers. That was his only reason. Basically, it was indirect peer pressure: he wanted his boy to be the same as everyone else.
I feel like the only male who has no strong feelings about this issue. I am circumcised and my bf is not and honestly I mildly prefer being circumcised just because it stays clean easier. I think mine might be done to a lesser extent however because I have none of the issues people describe with being circumcised. I can pull the skin up over the head but it doesn't naturally sit that way but I have no discomfort related to it.
Still I side with the anti circumcision group purely because there is usually no reason this has to be done at a young age and people should be able to choose on their own.
Of course ancient religions taught to circumcize. They were written before they had invented soap. Not to mention water filtration.
But in our modern age? It's a barbaric, disgusting act. My circumcized father, rest his soul, made the merciful choice to not have me cut. And I often thank him for that.
I would see other boys' "equipment" in the bathroom (in the 3rd grade one of my buddies would do "long distance" peeing into the urinal from a meter or so away - quite an impressive feat for an 8 year old in retrospect), and I noticed they were different. But I didn't feel weird or envious. And when I asked my dad and he told me what circumcision was, I felt proud to be different.
Naturally when my son was born I didn't want the procedure done to him, and surprisingly nobody at the hospital seemed to make any attempt to push it. I was ready to strike down any doctor who brought it up but nobody did. It was kind of relieving.