Male circumcision is a good thing

Post Reply New Topic

I don't see that the premise leads to the conclusion.

Female genital mutilation is part and parcel of a system of rigid patriarchy that treats women as property and deprives them of their inherent sexuality. Male circumsicision does not reduce men to property and it does not deprive men of their sexuality.

I don't doubt that many feminists would, as a matter of principle, oppose circumcision--but not as an aspect of feminist thought, but rather as a matter of their personal views on bodily integrity.

to be fair it doesn't compromise female sexual function, there still able to get pregnant, they just cant enjoy the process. but that also means there less likely to sleep around, making them more loyal to there husband and less likely to get std's and who cares about pleasure? you dont so why dont you support this to, i bet it even reduces clitoris cancer as well. makes since to me for you to support this, brings in the same advantage of male ones and well you dont care about pleasure in this equation. so its a win win in your thought process.


oh i know why you dont, cause its not cultural acceptable here. thats right. you support male genital mutilation cause it happen to you and if you have boys you did it to them. your unable to get out of the cultural bias you bin born with. silly me i thought you where capable of looking outside of your box.

i bet if you where born a girl in the areas where they have fgm, you would be fighting for that to. it happen to me im fine, i did it to my little girl and shes fine. there nothing wrong here i tell you what! and dont forget about how its good at fighting stds and clitoris cancer.

Last edited by Cultus_Diabolus on 12 Sep 2012, 3:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

um, circumcision does deprive men of there sexuality, about 50% of physical pleasure how many times do i have to say this before it sinks into your thick skull. i want my foreskin, i want that part of my functioning sexuality but i cant thanks to people like you who thinks society should steel it from me, your all sorts of hypocrite today.

and fgm does not reduce them to property. although they might already be considered property if there Muslim, fgm or lack of doesn't free them or enslave them.

that is well out of line,

i might not agree with some of what he writes but visagrunt always gives people the benefit of the doubt and shows common courtesy.

nothing that deserves this kind of vitriol.

same thought process, all i did was remove the cultural reasoning behind it, now its to evil. the thought process that leads to them are the same, the main difference is our culture thinks one is ok and the other not.

in the areas they have have fgm the men and woman in the culture fight to keep it around. they feel its there rights as a parent, they feel what there doing whats best for there girls, they can bring out the same logic we use for ours, and they dont care about pleasure, one can use the argument for mgm and paste it right to the fmg and those in that area would agree that alone is enough to keep fgm around.

frankly im getting tired of giving courtesy to those who wish to perpetuate the genital mutilation of boys in our culture, there just as evil as the woman who hold there girls down and cut there clits off. they dont care about preserving there right to choose, they dont care about the physical pleasure there robbing them, they dont care the std argument is pretty much bull s**t. all there care is about i like the way it looks and reduces a rare cancer to a little more rare, and the later they just use as a fallow up to the i like the way it looks more. its all a fashion show to them its makes me sick.

and your thought process is to put words in the mans mouth and inform him of his intent, only so you can b***h about that afterwards?

im not doing that, as much as im showing how the argument for fgm is the same for mgm, only difference is our culture says one is ok. and ya frankly based on that argument he might as well support female ones to. he doesn't care about pleasure, and the rest fall in line. its hypocritical to support one and not the other with the line of thought hes bin giving.

culture is the deciding factor here, if he was born in a the area that practice fgm i do in fact think he would be a strong supporter of that to.

there you did it again.

and in the psot i replied to as well.

if your talking about it happen to you and you did to your boys if you had any line, than yes that is imo the reason why he supports it, its bin drilled into his mind from our culture. group mentality is very strong.

that doesnt equate not caring about pleasure though, something that he never spoke about.

he doesn't, ive told him many times he refuses to acknowledge it in his rhetoric. he says female is bad cause of lack of pleasure and ignores that part for male. for him its enough reason to say fgm is wrong, but wont even factor it in for male.

when i wrote that i did not see your last message.

I will overlook your stupidity and move to the essence of your question.

I didn't refer to reproductive function, I referred to sexual function, in which pleasure is a necessary component. Circumcised males are not deprived of sexual pleasure, and no matter how much bias confirmation you indulge in, you cannot make ambiguous medical literature serve you on this point.



Read my posts again.

I neither support nor oppose neonatal circumcision. I take the position that there is no scientific evidence to contraindicate the practice, and the medical benefits are too marginal to justify it. You take the uncritical, and incorrect position that there are only two camps. I have staked out a middle ground and you would do well to recognize it.



Repeating a lie does not make it so. There is no body of medical literature that supports your spurious claim to a 50% reduction in "pleasure" (an immeasurable quality), nor even a 50% reduction in sensitivity. You may believe this is so, but you do not have a body of evidence to support you in this belief.

I fully respect your wish to the integrity of your body. But your complaint lies with your parents, not with me. I, for one, am not going to gainsay a decision taken by them in good faith. You, however, are free to take all steps within your competence to do so.

As for the remark about property, you are quite correct. Nonetheless, FGM remains a cultural practice in which women are prevented from the full exercise of their civil and political rights. I will confine my remarks to that.

Last edited by visagrunt on 12 Sep 2012, 3:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

with females it can create intense and direct pain, something a circumcision doesnt do,

but other than that you know nothing about his intentions, dont speak about what you dont know

i agree that ascrificing a childs choice to how they want their body and the resulting phsycological trauma does mean that we shouldnt habitually circumcise babies and perhaps wait at least till they have a semblance of choice.

both of the strong supporters in this thread have refuse to factor in the scientific facts of nerve sensitivity when dealing with mgm. but they acknowledge it for female and make that there main reason why its wrong. pure hypocrisy. using there argument, you cant prove when you cut off there clit it will remove sexual pleasure, sexual pleasure is subjective. who's to say they dont enjoy it still.

its truly mind boggling how they can use nerve sensitivity as an argument against fgm, but deny it for male.

one it does cause pain when you chop off the foreskin, 2 i have psychological trauma for it, but thats another thing they dont factor, how people feel about it, not every one likes it, but who cares about mental health? who cares part of my sexuality and many others got robbed, at least i can sleep ezer after i f****d a dirty hooker with aids with out a condom cause i know my chances of getting it is lower.