AWKWARD ZOMBIE

I just

independent of the good reasons not to do it anyway

would like to politely point out that while a growing number of parents in America are choosing to do it on pretty much a whim, it is still a very important part of several religions

that's all.

A religion is in my opinion still not a good reason to circumvent the personal choice of the person it's done to.

Just because something is religious doesn't mean that it should be continued as a tradition, otherwise stoning and other such archaic things must be considered okay as well

How could you compare male circumcision to stoning? It's not like being circumcised is killing the kid.

I'm thinking the main point is that it's perfectly normal for a male to get his penis cut off "because religion" but the second the same idea is applied to females, everyone loses their shit.

Besides, just because something is done "because religion" it doesn't mean it's a good idea, or even necessary. There's a lot we used to do "because religion" that we don't do anymore because we either found out it was a shitty way of doing things, or completely unnecessary.



It shouldn't matter if it does or not, the point is it's unnecessary, and the only justification people have for it include how "harmless it is". For one, no it's not. You're inflicting a wound. Second, there's a lot of shit out there that is harmless, but unnecessary as hell so we don't bother with it. it's unnecessary, so we should stop wasting our time with it.

The point I'm trying to get across is that just because something is religious doesn't make it okay because its 'tradition'

Actually Reyo, Wry Bread pointed out earlier in the thread that female circumcision is actually far more severe in its effects than male circumcision. The way I see it, male circumcision upon infants is still considered okay because it has less severe effects than female circumcision, even though it is still an act that involves genital mutilation without consent.

Ok, but what's so bad about having a kid circumcised for religious purposes? It's not harming him like Stoning, the only thing at risk is his decision to have a bit of skin on his penis or not. What would religious people who are strong to their beliefs do, wait for the kid to grow up and ask if they want to follow their religion or not.

Also why do you keep using the word mutilate?

That's a really inaccurate and offensive way to simplify the issue, much like the out-of-hand comparison to female genital mutilation.

Your argument is consent. That is also pretty much the only good one, along with a potential loss of perhaps some loss of barely quantifiable sensitivity in the tip of the penis specifically and nowhere else, and a possibility of irritation later in life without the protective foreskin there. You're right, it is plainly exactly like the cutting of the rose (the entire forcible removal of the clitoris) and other similar procedures that incise nearly the entire vulva, painfully exposing the first portion of the interior of the vaginal canal, a mucus membrane never meant to touch open air, with the cut flesh crudely stitched together in such a way as to keep the channel forced open permanently to make spontaneous, nonconsensual sex easier for the male to perform.

Then you have infibulation. The entirety of the external genitalia are removed with the outside edge of the labia majora pulled together so they heal except for a "matchstick sized" hole for sex, bleeding and urination:



When men need to penetrate their wives, they simply force their penis through the "matchstick sized" hole progressively over the course of days as a way to show they are man enough to force it. However, it's common for them to simply cut the flesh covering the skin open for sex, then force it to heal again once they're done, so their vaginal skin is being cut open each time. In some cases it's recorded that the scar tissue from cutting them open for sex repeatedly becomes so strong the men have to use high grade surgical scissors to achieve penetration.

There's also the ritual burning with fire and chemicals held against or inserted into the vagina for the purpose of removing sensitivity in the nerves through severe, irreversible damage known to kill the woman, forcing caustic chemicals into the vagina to keep it "tight," and using a knife to cut the anterior wall of the vagina so it's bigger when and if it heals.

That's a reason why we shouldn't perform female circumcisions, not why we should continue male circumcisions. My point is that we need to stop circumcisions altogether.



"It doesn't kill him" is just as shitty a reason as "because religion". You're still cutting a bit of the kid's penis off for no real reason.

Yes. Cause you know, that's the smart thing to do that's not pushing your religion and their dick cutting traditions on your children.

Abraham had himself circumcised as an adult, so why not allow a male member of the Jewish faith to wait until their bar-mitzvah to get circumcised? That's when they come of age, so it seems like that would be a good time to let them decide.

Also, why do you keep using the word mutilate?

Because it's cutting off a part of the body that was not meant to be cut off?

I never said my actual position on the issue earlier, nor did I ever imply that it was an easy decision even for someone like me who is expected to bear our family's heir and feels a great deal of religious and social pressure in the form of indignant anger from my parents about the circumcision issue, which I've specifically argued with them about before.

Surprise! I was on your "side" the whole time.

That said, you're continually disregarding the agonizing and sometimes lethal torture of children old enough to be permanently scarred by the procedure in nations that include Egypt and India rather than some "that's too bad but what do you expect" tribal backwoods. Surprise again! It's also illegally performed right here in the US. And not to a negligible number of girls.

It's not female circumcision, it's female mutilation. It's not male mutilation, it's male circumcision. End of story. You're specifically choosing reversed terminology to seem more sympathetic. If you read any of the many things I specifically cited earlier, you'd notice there's a reason it's called MUTILATION while the surgical removal of the loose sensitive skin cover that conceals the tip of the penis at rest doesn't quite warrant that. Cutting large amounts of flesh off a four-to-ten year-old girl's body, including the most sensitive part of the female body, so you can create an artificial skin covering that you have to cut open with a knife during intercourse or else stretch to the point of tearing with forcible insertion, is arguably more severe. As in severe at all. And it's not uncommon.

I don't intend to circumcise my kid. I just also think your unsupported arguments and callous attitudes about this particular issue are disrespectful and don't hold much weight beyond "it's better to ask."

I'm going to bow out now. I wish I hadn't posted anything about it since I've achieved nothing but making myself feel sincerely upset, and pretty shitty about my particular situation.