"[Circumcision] is probably the most serious operation one can perform without being charged with practicing medicine without a license… The state regulates the hygienic practices of the people who cut our hair and our fingernails, so why not a baby’s genitals?"
and I’m having some trouble finding resources. For instance, where can I find out about smegma in males vs females? According to the internet, it seems to be common knowledge that females produce more smegma, but I can’t find a scholarly source stating that.
Also, I want to talk about how smegma, UTI’s, yeast infections are seen as especially gross by men, when they are more common in vaginas and relate that to misogyny and devaluing of the vagina/vulva, but that’s been really hard to find sources on.
Does anyone know of any resources that might be helpful? Thanks
So, up until 10 minutes ago, my opinion on circumcision was, “Eh, it’s the parents decision, or more correctly, the father’s because he has to teach his son how to clean it.” Then I found this Website. It has 6 parts, but I was convinced by the end of the first part that circumcision is NOT necessary as an infant at all.
I suggest everyone click the link in the first myth and watch the two videos at the bottom to see how foreskin works, and what happens when you cut it off.
POSTS IN THIS SERIES
Part 1: Surgery Myths
Part 2: STD/Hygiene myths
Part 3: Social and sexual myths
Part 5: Greatest danger for uncircumcised boys
Part 6: Harming boys through ignorance of male anatomy
I’m glad you’ve had a change of mind! I love this series, I’ve recommended it to people before. Thanks!
Foreskin Explained with Animation. Clip taken from SenSlip
I saw this video a long time ago and I’ve been trying to find it forever!
My only complaint is that their model of the intact penis doesn’t do justice to just how soft and wet the glans is and they don’t show enough of the difference between the glans pre- and post- circumcision
I’m making a big official post about it because I’ve been getting a lot of complaints from MRAs who think I don’t take male circumcision seriously.
I am absolutely 100% okay with men fighting for their right to bodily autonomy and taking issue with the practice of male circumcision. I’m totally cool with it. It doesn’t affect me, and it’s not an issue I have a stake in because I do not have a penis. I’ve known men who liked the fact that they were circumcised, and I’ve known men who dislike it. I assume cisgendered men know more about what it’s like to have a penis than I do, so I don’t want to try to make this issue “mine” because I certainly do not appreciate it when men try to control MY bodily autonomy and reproduction rights.
I really don’t understand why MRAs and feminists bump heads on this so often. At least, I don’t understand why MRAs DECIDE to bump heads with feminists on this issue, since it doesn’t really have anything to do with us. A lot of MRAs seem to throw male circumcision in our faces like it’s somehow evidence of female privilege, which it isn’t.
Female circumcision is not even really a “circumcision” procedure. It is the removal or mutilation of the entire clitoris (and sometimes additionally the sewing together of the labia), whereas male circumcision is the removal of excess skin. Male circumcision grew out of tradition but stayed prevalent for hygiene reasons. While it is possible for men to remain clean and infection-free even with an uncircumcised penis, it is easier with a circumcised one. That’s not to exonerate the practice of male circumcision, but that’s the reason it’s still around.
I’m extraordinarily resentful of people who compare male circumcision to female circumcision. Comparing a perhaps outdated hygiene practice to the malicious and senseless violence of female genital mutilation is wrong, and to use this as “evidence of female privilege” is unbearably sad. It is not our “privilege” that we do not have to undergo this procedure, because the reason for its existence in the first place was misogynistic - in some cultures, our sexual pleasure is a sin and our “purity” held to unreasonably high standards. This procedure comes with life-long complications for childbirth, intercourse, and even urination. Male circumcision came into practice to protect you from disease, and while some men may lose slight sensitivity or even suffer urination complications from a botched circumcision, the procedure was never malicious or sexist in nature.
We feminists would not take as much issue with you MRAs if you did not so disrespectfully compare the removal of your foreskin to the removal of OUR ENTIRE CLITORIS. If male circumcision were the practice of removing the entire head of the penis on the grounds that pleasure should be reserved for us, they’d be comparable. But it isn’t, and they aren’t.
You are free to go about your opposition to male circumcision. Don’t bring feminism into it. Don’t bring female circumcision into it. Don’t bring the notion of “female privilege” into it. If you do, you’re terrible.
Please don’t refer to foreskin as “excess” skin. Calling it such demonstrates a lack of understanding of the purpose and functions of the foreskin.
It was my understanding that feminism was for EQUAL rights, not for FEMALE rights.
Male circumcision actually spread to repress male sexuality (google the Kellogg brothers). Genital mutilation is sexual repression, period. Also, there are many degrees of female circumcisions. Some damage less flesh than a typical male circumcision. Some more. Some are the exact equivalent (removal of the prepuce AKA clitoral hood), though all are horrible. While I agree that it’s wrong to downplay FGM as if MGM is worse, downplaying MGM as if FGM is worse is also wrong. You can’t compare two horrible things and try to decide which is less horrible. It will always insult those affected by the other.
I do actually feel privileged as a female assigned at birth that female infant genital mutilation is illegal in my country, so my genitals are intact. I’m privileged as a human with intact genitals, not mutilated against my will.
I wish OP wouldn’t say “we feminists,” because many feminists would disagree with her. Because feminism is about equal rights regardless of gender, I believe that all people, regardless of gender, should be in full control of their genitals and be protected from unnecessary, risky procedures.
Male circumcision is a feminist issue that this feminist won’t be quiet about.
every time I post something about circumcision on facebook or my personal tumblr, I get really nervous for a second6
wondering if people will attack me for my stance.
but, of course, it turned out my last two posts got no response. I’d rather attacks than apathy…
all the debate-y people I know are off debating other issues that have already been beaten to death. I’d love to switch to a topic that’s actually quite underexposed
The anti-circumcision fad that’s going around with all these “crunchy” moms and moms-to-be is so annoying. Everyone just spews the same information about how if you just leave a foreskin alone, nobody will ever have any problems and life will be well.
Whether you “leave it alone” or not, there are still medical reasons that would sometimes require a circumcision to correct, especially if they are persistent after various methods of treatment. Such conditions include: phimosis, acute balanoposthitis or paraphimosis. In cases of phimosis, the change in the prepuce (foreskin) is due to a condition called, “balanitis xerotica obliterans” and circumcision is advisable in most cases in order to correct the issues. The other two conditions do have other treatment methods, but if the condition is recurrent and troublesome, a circumcision is necessary.
Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is narrowed, which prevents retraction. Sometimes the edge of the foreskin has a white, scarred, inelastic appearance and will not pucker open as it is retraction. Between 1 and 1.5 per cent of boys will develop this condition by age 17. Symptoms can include: irritation/bleeding from the edge of the foreskin, especially during sexual intercourse or masturbation, stinging or pain when urinating (aka dysuria), and even the inability to pass urine if the foreskin is exceptionally tight.
Acute balanoposthitis involves swelling of the foreskin, with a discharge of pus between the space between the foreskin and glans. The whole penis may even be swollen and inflamed. 3 to 10 percent of boys will develop this condition. Balanoposthitis is occasionally the first sign of diabetes. If there is no underlying cause, simply hygiene measures, mild painkillers, and avoiding tugging the foreskin would be acceptable means of correcting this issue without medical intervention. However, further intervention (i.e. a circumcision) might still be necessary if there is a specific underlying cause or if it is recurrent and bothersome.
Paraphimosis is a condition caused by retracting the foreskin behind the coronal ridge of the glans, without subsequent replacement to its normal position. The foreskin forms a tight tourniquet around the glans, which causes severe pain. The condition can sometimes be treated by firmly (but gently) squeezing the trapped glans until the foreskin is able to slip over it again. If that is not possible, general anesthetic would be required to slip the foreskin into its correct place. Though circumcision is not typically formed at this stage because of the associated inflammation, it might be required later if the foreskin remains tight.
But, these conditions are never mentioned on these “anti-circumcision” sites. These people who have supposedly “done their research” and yet condemn parents who read arguments for both sides of the debate and yet choose to circumcise, claiming they aren’t fully educated, are actually not fully educated themselves. Excuse me while I back away and prepare for the lightening to strike.
I am of the firm believe that the decisions you make for your child should be based on what YOU feel is correct and not because of some internet fad. You aren’t a bad parent if you choose to circumcise your child, and you aren’t a bad parent if you don’t. We reserve the right as parents to make educated decisions for our children, since they are not capable of doing so during the early stages of their life. This right should not be taken away. There is an abundance of information on both sides of the debate that any expecting mother can freely go read via various blogs, websites, etc and make their decision based off that. While it’s great that people are finally putting to rest the claims that circumcision lowers STD risks, cancer risks, and UTI/infection risks, they are not properly sharing information regarding possible conditions that could occur if a child is to remain intact. That is a problem for me, a big problem. If you’re going to debate and spread “facts” then all the facts need to be laid out onto the table. Period. Whether you like them, agree with them, or not.
Less than 1% of uncircumcised individuals will need to be circumcised in their life. Yes, that’s really it - just 1% so don’t feed me that “it’s for their health!” bullshit, because it’s not.
I am a firm believer in you not having a not completely reversible cosmetic surgery on an nonconsenting party.
I don’t have any information on whether circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer (which is rare to begin with) or STD’s in general (which can be prevented through safe sexual practices) but “it prevents UTI” argument is based on a flawed study, not to mention the fact that female bodied people are more likely to get UTI’s but they are just given antibiotics…a treatment that works on male bodied individual’s as well.
Also circumcision does not prevent HIV and is not a cure all for AIDS, Viral load is the chief predictor of the risk of HIV transmission and male circumcision does not reduce viral loads. The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection as well as the highest rates of infant male circumcision in the industrialized world. The idea that circumcision prevents HIV is based on severely flawed studies done in Africa. The lifetime risk of contracting HIV is less than 2% for men, a percentage that can be made even smaller through safe sexual practices, while the risk of a woman getting breast cancer in her lifetime is 12% - yet you wouldn’t advocate removing her breast buds at birth, would you?
A German court has ruled that parents can’t have their sons circumcised on religious grounds in a move which has angered Muslim and Jewish groups in the country. The court in Cologne decided that a legal guardian’s authority over a child does not allow them to subject them to the procedure, which the court called minor bodily harm, reports The Financial Times Deutschland. Neither does religious freedom, which is protected by law in Germany, give grounds for such decisions to be taken for the children, the ruling says. The decision sets a precedent, which may affect medical practice across the country.
Is this blog a fucking joke and I’m just not getting it? If not, this person is so fucking evil to indulge the barbaric act of infant mutilation…
It seems to me like Jake Waskett finally opened up a tumblr account.
Lord help us all.
based on the asks…
I believe the rules we make the men follow on abortion: no uterus no opinion should be applied to the girl: no penis no opinion.
um… what? Are you serious? Personally, I think men (or non-uterus-owners) can have opinions on abortion, they just won’t be the ones to act on them. On the other hand, men and women are parents. Who’s policing people’s opinions other than you? My opinion is invalid? I’ll just restate what the anon on life-intact’s blog said (because she said it perfectly):
“I absolutely hate when people say women can’t have an opinion on circumcision because we don’t have penises. Hello! Women have sex with penises. Women are the ones who decide whether or not to circumcise their kids, which could domino effect onto their grandkids beliefs and so forth. Women give birth to superficial assholes who feel the need to pick on others simply for having a foreskin. I have every right to have an opinion on this and I plan to keep on voicing it!”
Also, someone once told me I can’t speak on it because I don’t know what it’s like to have a penis. I told him he can’t either because he doesn’t know what it’s like to have an intact penis, and we both realized that that argument is invalid. I suppose you would have absolutely opinion on no FGM? Are people incapable of compassion or empathy? Should I not care about people different from me? Do you not believe in the concept of an ally?
I will likely one day give birth to someone with a penis. You never will. Should this make your opinion invalid?
That’s not even getting into the whole binary issue…
I know lotion isn’t needed for masturbation if one has a foreskin, but since pop culture associates lotion and male masturbation so much, I wonder if an adolescent would see that, just assume it’s the norm, and use lotion even though it’s not really necessary.
I just thought about a guy who made a joke about there being a bottle of lotion on my bed, and I pointed out that girls don’t need lotion. I later hooked up with him and found out that he was intact. This made me wonder.
Is why all of these mothers are bashing on each other for choosing differently then they are.
Formula feeding is JUST as good as breastfeeding, being circumcised will NOT effect someone’s entire life, and cloth diapers do the SAME thing disposable diapers…
click through to see the rebuttal. so much knowlege.
Personally, I think everyone that argues about it is annoying as fuck. Its their child, not yours. Stop bitching. Thank you.
Maybe because nobody likes seeing a baby get hurt…?
Circumcision hurts for babies, because they can’t receive general anesthesia without dying, so… they are usually given local, which doesn’t really help that much, and they usually scream, unless they go into a form of neurogenic shock resembling a coma, and pass out from said pain.
Point and case below:
That is why.
If an adult wants/needs it, they at the very least can choose it for themselves, they have the benefits of being able to undergo general anesthesia, fatal exsanguination (bleeding) is much less of a problem for adults (about 1.5 oz is all the blood a baby needs to lose before going into shock), it is MUCH less dangerous for adults, and the adult can at least walk out of the operating room with adequate pain management options, when babies cannot.
I never quite understood the argument for infancy being the prime age. Babies may heal fast, but this ^
The other day I was talking to my grandparents, and they both said they have their wisdom teeth.
Today, I saw my old orthodontist about my retainer and he noticed that I still had my wisdom teeth. He gave me a form recommending their extraction. I’d been told that I need to get them out before, but it always seemed like it was just because I had them. No one examined my teeth thoroughly or told me why. This time, the orthodontist pulled up my the x-ray of my mouth and pointed them out to me. “Are they coming in wrong?” I asked.
"Well, they might cause a little crowding and mess up all your orthodontic work." They’re already almost all the way in, so I really doubted that would be a problem. Anyway, I could care less about my orthodontic work. I only ever got orthodontic work because I was young and insecure. I wouldn’t really mind crooked teeth at this point, as long as my jaw won’t dislocate or something. If it was purely cosmetic, I didn’t want it.
He went on, “And they’re just so far back, that they’re hard to clean and people get cavities there. It’s just a lot cleaner if we take them out. And this is the prime age to do it, between 17 and 21. You still heal fast. It’d be more problematic to get them out later, so it’s better to get rid of them now so they don’t cause problems down the road.” I was a little insulted. I can certainly clean my teeth and keep good hygiene. My wisdom teeth are exposed and I brush them now. It’s not a chore. I also feel like, why would people have these extra teeth if they were never supposed to be there? I felt like this is just something they push, trying to make it seem like everyone does it, like it’s a rite of passage rather than a surgery.
I’m not usually a conspiracy theorist, but I feel like this is just for money. They catch you when you’re young and insecure and tell you your teeth are wrong, and charge you a fortune to fix them. Then, oops! We didn’t take into account that you’re supposed to have more teeth, so the most logical thing is to take them out. And they charge you a fortune for that too.
Fuck appearance, and fuck “hygiene.” I’m not wasting my mom’s money.
Anyway, I just realized, I think the reason I’m so strongly averted to it is because the arguments for it are similar to those for routine infant circumcision, which, if you’re new here, I’m very, very strongly opposed to. Luckily for me, I’m 18 and my consent is required. And, I decline.