Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[moocowmoo]

@Leafsnail:

Thanks for that information.  I think I need to read more sources before I'll have solidified my understanding on the matter.  For example, what I've read implies that clitoral hood removal is pretty much always accompanied by removal of the entire clitoris, whereas removal of the foreskin is pretty much never associated with the removal of the glans; similarly, the motivations are at least ostensibly very different (health vs. making it impossible for women to feel sexual pleasure).

Basically, I feel like calling them "male and female circumcision" or "male and female genital mutilation" invokes a false equality (not to mention that "circumcision" is a loaded term vis-a-vis culture and religious practice, while "mutilation" is also loaded), but calling the two practices "circumcision and female genital mutilation" somehow makes them seem too distant from each other.  Maybe "male and female genital cutting" is the best thing... it's a descriptor, it's fairly neutral, it doesn't have really loaded terminology in either direction, it simultaneously unifies the two subjects by what they have in common.

Mutilation is simply calling it what it is. Performing unnecessary, damaging, cosmetic surgery on a newborn with no power to consent is mutilation. As for the motivation behind it, read the history of why it started as a "medical" practice in the US. The idea was to prevent boys from masturbating, which was believed to cause all kinds of illnesses.

Also before jumping in on the issue at least learn about the anatomy and function of the foreskin. The glans is supposed to be a sensitive, internal organ... the foreskin normally doesn't even retract until about 10-13 years old. So imagine what kind of damage is done to cut and crush it off at one year old, and have the sensitive glans now permanently exposed to air, chemicals and the abrasion of clothing. At around 25-30 years old the glans of a circumcised male is almost completely numb (kind of like feeling nothing from the clitoris). But yeah god forbid we call it mutilation...

Surgically altering healthy female genitals is illegal, but do it to males and its big business. And to even speak about it is to be met with disapproval, shaming and censorship. As for why this ties in to the OP, well, I don't agree entirely with the tone and message of the video posted, but it does highlight the fact that men who have legitimately been victimized are often shamed and ridiculed into silence because men are seen as inherently strong and violent.

[Eagle_eye]

At around 25-30 years old the glans of a circumcised male is almost completely numb

yeah... no. roughly 30% of males are circumcised, and I'm pretty sure 30% of men do not stop having sex at age 30.

[Leafsnail]

Your glans being numb doesn't necessarily mean you'll lose all sexual sensation.

[Eagle_eye]

completely numb implies lack of sensation. That's what numbness is.

[penguinofhonor]

Mutilation is simply calling it what it is. Performing unnecessary, damaging, cosmetic surgery on a newborn with no power to consent is mutilation. As for the motivation behind it, read the history of why it started as a "medical" practice in the US. The idea was to prevent boys from masturbating, which was believed to cause all kinds of illnesses.

Mutilation is not just calling it is what it is. It's appropriating terminology from another cause to get attention by association. It's a different issue. There are probably several dozen different correct names for it, and just conveniently ending up with the one that's almost identical to an extant and universally hated cause isn't "calling it what it is". It's advertising.

[kaijyuu]

@eagle_eye
Yeah, but that's one small part of the entire anatomy. You don't need sensation there to have sexual sensation at all.


I'm living proof of that, as this thread has (disturbingly) educated me on.

Mutilation is simply calling it what it is. Performing unnecessary, damaging, cosmetic surgery on a newborn with no power to consent is mutilation. As for the motivation behind it, read the history of why it started as a "medical" practice in the US. The idea was to prevent boys from masturbating, which was believed to cause all kinds of illnesses.

Mutilation is not just calling it is what it is. It's appropriating terminology from another cause to get attention by association. It's a different issue. There are probably several dozen different correct names for it, and just conveniently ending up with the one that's almost identical to an extant and universally hated cause isn't "calling it what it is". It's advertising.

Can we just agree that both are Bad (tm) instead of trying to dismiss things due to not being as bad as something else? Both should stop and whining about which is more severe a problem gets us nowhere.


And for the record, mutilation is a technically accurate term.

[Euld]

I am 25 years old and I was circumcised shortly after I was born in the hospital.  It was my parent's decision due to religious reasons.  Sure there's been disappointments and problems in my life, but none of them would have benefited from me having an uncircumcised penis.  Circumcision is a religious practice that, according to the Bible (which is where this practice comes from, and why it's so widespread) was given to Abraham by God, the singular oldest prophet for world's three oldest and widespread religions.  This is a practice that has probably gone on for several thousands of years and will probably continue for a few more thousand because of the sheer cultural intertia.  I cannot think of a worse waste of time than trying to convince people that it's an utter horror forced upon men to keep them oppressed/depressed/sexually inhibited.  If circumcision has had a disastrous effect on men in general, then it's pretty much gone unnoticed all these years.

[cameron]

I would only equate circumcision to mutilation on the basis that it is also generally an imposed unnecessary modification of the persons body and that on that principle it would constitute mutilation, I think equating them in terms of general severity or in terms of any sort of loss of function is misleading and rather detracts from the discussion

[kaijyuu]

I am 25 years old and I was circumcised shortly after I was born in the hospital.  It was my parent's decision due to religious reasons.  Sure there's been disappointments and problems in my life, but none of them would have benefited from me having an uncircumcised penis.  Circumcision is a religious practice that, according to the Bible (which is where this practice comes from, and why it's so widespread) was given to Abraham by God, the singular oldest prophet for world's three oldest and widespread religions.  This is a practice that has probably gone on for several thousands of years and will probably continue for a few more thousand because of the sheer cultural intertia.  I cannot think of a worse waste of time than trying to convince people that it's an utter horror forced upon men to keep them oppressed/depressed/sexually inhibited.  If circumcision has had a disastrous effect on men in general, then it's pretty much gone unnoticed all these years.

Imagine the same logic applied to any other part of the body with a very small range of functions. Fingernails, eyelashes, whatever. Things you could go without pretty easily, but would be nice to have. Still okay to remove body parts without permission due to religious reasons?

I would only equate circumcision to mutilation on the basis that it is also generally an imposed unnecessary modification of the persons body and that on that principle it would constitute mutilation, I think equating them in terms of general severity or in terms of any sort of loss of function is misleading and rather detracts from the discussion

If we wanna talk about adding nothing to the discussion, how about bringing up arbitrary "someone else has it worse" arguments for no other reason than petty dismissal?

Severity is the only difference. The process is functionally similar but hurts women more. What, pray tell, does that have to do with male circumcision? How does that discredit the complaint at all? How does dismissing it make female mutilation closer to being resolved? What useful purpose does the dismissal serve, at all?

[Vector]

Also before jumping in on the issue at least learn about the anatomy and function of the foreskin. The glans is supposed to be a sensitive, internal organ... the foreskin normally doesn't even retract until about 10-13 years old. So imagine what kind of damage is done to cut and crush it off at one year old, and have the sensitive glans now permanently exposed to air, chemicals and the abrasion of clothing. At around 25-30 years old the glans of a circumcised male is almost completely numb (kind of like feeling nothing from the clitoris). But yeah god forbid we call it mutilation...

"I don't know a damned thing about foreskins" means "I have never owned or touched or otherwise experimented with a foreskin."  It does not mean that I didn't go read up on the aforementioned.  I would have to be pretty stupid to shoot off my mouth like that.

And interestingly enough, communication is not all about what something is in its strictest sense.  Yes, circumcision is mutilation!  Yes, I am angry about it!  If I have a son, he's not going to be circumcised if I have anything to say about it!  But all the same, the thing you name something is important in communication.  It's also about the associations that a particular name evokes.  As previously stated:

Spoiler: This is why I'm not calling it "male genital mutilation," and it's not just about women or "extent" or "effects" or whatever (click to show/hide)

Ah, so the reason why I don't want to create a false equivalency is because I don't want people to think "male genital mutilation, that's referring to similar things as the already-known female genital mutilation, right?  That doesn't refer to the circumcision practiced in this country!  There's nothing wrong with what we do, right?"

And similarly, I don't want people to think "Oh, female circumcision, that's just that thing we already do but on women!  What are they complaining about?"

It's not about severity so much as what people think is already okay or not okay; it's about a manipulation of the semantic space in hopes of associating two negative practices but without polluting them with our cultural centering of various ideas.  "Cutting" is not cultural, it doesn't have a lot of associations, and you can't debate the semantics.  Both practices constitute the cutting of genitals, period... we get the necessary distance, but the same visceral squick calling both things "mutilation" invokes.

I... I hope that's clearer?  I'm sorry if it's at all confusing.  My head's a bit fuzzed up right now.

[moocowmoo]

I would only equate circumcision to mutilation on the basis that it is also generally an imposed unnecessary modification of the persons body and that on that principle it would constitute mutilation, I think equating them in terms of general severity or in terms of any sort of loss of function is misleading and rather detracts from the discussion

Not misleading at all. Look up the anatomy for yourself. Not only does it reduce pleasure for the male, but it makes intercourse more rough and painful for the female as well. The foreskin helps to hold lubrication in the vagina, and it rolls and creates a gentle "gliding action". Without it, the process more resembles a piston, and the male must thrust harder to feel anything (a "jackhammering" effect... notice the difference of circumcised and intact males if you watch porn).

Yes it started out for religious reasons, but the Jews never cut off the entire foreskin like we do today. Originally it was just the tip, but over time it's evolved into cutting so that the entire glans is exposed. You're blind if you think such a drastic alteration of your body has little effect. The harm hasn't gone unnoticed, but it's been blamed on other things. Do you think it's coincidence that drugs like viagra are selling such huge amounts primarily in the US? Most of the worlds males, over 80%, are not circumcised. It is pretty much Jews, Muslims, and the good old USA.

[cameron]

If we wanna talk about adding nothing to the discussion, how about bringing up arbitrary "someone else has it worse" arguments for no other reason than petty dismissal?

Severity is the only difference. The process is functionally similar but hurts women more. What, pray tell, does that have to do with male circumcision? How does that discredit the complaint at all? How does dismissing it make female mutilation closer to being resolved? What useful purpose does the dismissal serve, at all?

That the discussion about calling it mutilation should be on the basis of it being mutilation and that trying to equate or compare the severity of the two detracted from that discussion

edit
by which I mean it doesn't matter if it reduces pleasure or what, the point is that circumcision is also "an imposed unnecessary modification of the persons body" and so would be mutilation

[moocowmoo]

Fair enough Vector. I guess I'm just sick of the fucking euphemism "circumcision". In my mind, it is a horrible act that deserves strong language. Female genital mutilation is also horrible and thus it has a suitable name. Male circumcision is similar enough that I don't feel it's making a false association to call it the male counterpart.

[kaijyuu]

If we wanna talk about adding nothing to the discussion, how about bringing up arbitrary "someone else has it worse" arguments for no other reason than petty dismissal?

Severity is the only difference. The process is functionally similar but hurts women more. What, pray tell, does that have to do with male circumcision? How does that discredit the complaint at all? How does dismissing it make female mutilation closer to being resolved? What useful purpose does the dismissal serve, at all?

That the discussion about calling it mutilation should be on the basis of it being mutilation and that trying to equate or compare the severity of the two detracted from that discussion

edit
by which I mean it doesn't matter if it reduces pleasure or what, the point is that circumcision is also "an imposed unnecessary modification of the persons body" and so would be mutilation

Hrm, okay, fair enough.



These sorts of arguments really grate on me. We've got two similar problems that, if one were resolved, the other would almost certainly follow suit (like many things concerning sexism/double standards). But what do people do? Dismiss the other problem, stupidly concerned it'll take attention away from the one they think is more important. Instead of coming together and fighting a common problem, we fight against each other instead, undermining both sides. It's really, really stupid.

[Agdune]

Well. Guess I got my wish. I guess I can either spend the next billion hours doing this right and compose something comparable to the average thesis, or I can cut some corners and cherry-pick. ...Yeah, okay.

Just to be clear, this isn't the radical feminist theory which is today core to most feminist schools of thought.

Radical feminism is, at it's core, based on the concept of the patriarchy. The idea that men have structured society men having authority over women and that inherent power structures greatly favour men. The term radical comes from the civil rights movement, whose methods and structures were borrowed by certain groups of 60's feminists. Most of the serious social pushes in feminism came out of the radical movement, including things like the Equal Rights Amendment and abortion rights movement, broadening the focus of earlier groups that had concentrated on economic matters.

Okay, I'll admit my description was bad. I'm prone to drama. I've just dug out my old sociology textbook to fix what I said. Radical Feminism is one of the three main branches of feminism, Liberal, Radical and... Marxist? Okay, Marxist then. Whatever you say Mr Giddens. I'd like to think Liberal feminism is the core of current third-wave feminist ideology, as its main focus is addressing inequalities brought about through social and cultural systems and structures. Nice and sensible. Radical Feminism seems much more second-wave, as its main argument is that men are deliberately responsible for the subjugation of women through the social structures refered to collectively as 'the patriarchy'.

That's the thing I've got issues with. It might've cut it in a solid modernity setting like the 50ies and 60ies, but yeah, not anymore thanks guys. Social issues are nuanced, multifaceted and NEVER deliberate. I know it was the impetus for the very successful feminist movements of the 60ies and 70ies, but I think its time of relevance has passed and it can no longer adequately explain the nature of gender inequalities. Despite its positives, I've not yet come across an argument based off the radical feminist ideology that doesn't revolve around anecdotes, thought experiments or just plain old manipulation of details in an attempt to prove a conclusion the author had decided upon looong before they started researching. Kinda like the guy who's rambling youtube video started off this thread.

Anyway, diverged from my point a bit. Get a bit annoyed when I talk about social theories which start with a pre-conception and then work their way out from there. I was incorrect when I gave that description of what radical feminism was like; that was extreme and incorrect. However even so I still reject the notion that the formal ideology of radical feminism is relevant outside of a solid modernity social structure; its core assumption is simplistic and the questions it addresses are better addressed by other forms of feminist ideology. Third-wave feminist philosophies appear much more based off Liberal feminist principles; nuanced analysis of social and cultural traits, rather than a simplistic assumption of 'it's men's fault, let's find proof'. Radical feminisms' aggression and catchiness worked and did great things for gender equality. It's just reached the point where there are now much better, fairer ideas about gender roles out there. Summary; Feminism still good, subset of Radical feminism getting a bit rusty and tarnished now though. Suggest replacing with something better developed and compatible with third-wave feminism, like liberal feminism.
(note: I'm really not happy with this, but I spent like an hour trying to write something that I felt addressed the issue appropriately. This is about as close as I got in that time, and I can't really spend any more time on a 3 paragraph response to something I essentially don't disagree with. Also can't delete it because then I've wasted an hour :p)

Vector; interesting blog posts. I know a little about male-gaze, but not a whole lot. Unfortunately even as an effeminate male who hates pretty much anything masculine, it's hard to sit through some lectures on feminism without feeling offended at how some of the theories are being presented (fuck you guys, why do you keep making personal jabs at me every few minutes? I'm on your side... ) but it's interesting to see it being applied. I'm always extremely careful in applying implicit connotations to expressions or word usage, as speech psychology is a horrendously complex beast all on its own. e.g. in relation to implicit associations, do you use a word combination because you hold a particular belief or do you use it because it's what other people use and you're just parroting without processing? I use the phrase "goddamn" often but despite its social origins as having religious connotations, my usage of it is primarily driven by parroting others and to me the phrase holds zero association with any form of religious concepts. It's a phonetic structure to illustrate a meaning analogous to "oh fie", as opposed to the individual components holding any meaning. That said, there's definitely something to be said in overall anti-feminism in reactions towards effeminate men.

Generally speaking most censure of unacceptable behaviour comes from one's own sex (e.g. if you're a male acting like Graham Norton in highschool, who's going to cause the most issues for you, males or females? Same for if you're a Female acting like Rosie O'Donnell ...to use a shit example, but I can't actually think of a prominent masculine female. Probably something in that on its own). However on thinking about it, there are definate patterns that come from both males and females... obviously as a male I can pluck a few male-oriented examples out of my ass, such as how any man interested in kids is seen as a sexual predator, where women can (and are expected to) fuss over kids to their maximum physical capabilities. You could definitely link behaviour like that to devaluation of feminine behaviour if you tried. Interesting.

-----

As to genital mutilation, that's a touchy one. As said, the furthest extremes of male/female genital mutilation aren't really comparable (castration for a male means no sexual encounters of any kind. Castration for a female basically means scooping out the sensitive bits and leaving a ragged hole leading to a still-functioning uterus. Guess which one is still in common usage in certain small regions? Bonus points if it was sewn back together afterwards and left to heal, then cut open again prior to first intercourse) however saying that all male genital mutilation is just foreskin removal is incorrect. As with FGM there's still some pretty disfiguring forms taking place in certain regions under the guise of tradition. See the wikipedia article on Penile Subincision (NSFW).

Now, obviously there are different social connotations with Penile subincision than there are with something anatomically comparable, like say type II FGM, but let's all keep in mind this is more than just circumcision vs everything else ever. Circumcision is not a good thing imo (if my parents had had me circumcised I'd probably find it pretty hard to forgive them for taking that option out of my hands), but it's only comparable to the most basic form of female circumcision. Noteably that does not invalidate it, but it does mean we have to be careful in not drawing unrealistic comparisons between it and the much more extreme versions that can happen to female genitals.

edit: also,

This thread is filled with some pretty long arguments that, in all honestly, I'm probably not going to completely read through. Ergo, I'm just going to sum up my opinion on the matters that seem to popping up on these forums every now and then, so that I can quote it whenever I come across another such thread, and then be on my way:

While I'm writing an essay which is basically 'about things that annoy me' I might as well comment on this. TLDR is my biggest pet peeve ever. I could understand if you don't want to read that progressive thread (no way in hell I'm even going to bother browsing 98 pages of stuff that may or may not be about anything I care about) but dude, this thread took me like 10 minutes to catch up on; it ain't exactly The Lord of the Rings. If you're wanting to contribute you should at least read what's been discussed or else there's no point in you posting an uninformed opinion on something that's probably allready been said.