Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Is the circumcision of a boy sexual abuse?

billege · 01-10-2006, 11:56 AM

Leto-

I appreciate you feel I’m spending too much time on this. However, I disagree, and will keep posting. You’re welcome to skip over my posts.

It’s tough for me to know where to start discussing this. There’s so much I want to touch on.

I’d like to start with the cleanliness topic. It has two components, one for women to pay attention to, and one for men.

I’m sure that those of you possessing vaginas have at one time or another been exposed to the idea that your vagina stinks. In fact, there’s an entire industry selling products (FDS, douches, etc.) to make your vagina “not stink.” If you’ve ever watched a stand up comedian talk about “eating pussy” then you’ve heard more comments about the “smell.” You’ve heard the “fish jokes,” and you’ve read the discussions on our own TFP where women struggle with men who do believe their partner’s vagina is “dirty” “smelly” etc. If fact, I’ve read threads and met both men and women, who refuse any kind of sex during menstruation because of various opinions centered on cleanliness. The words “gross” “icky” “disgusting” “smelly” are often used in these discussions.

I say all this to make perfectly clear that the loathing of the vagina’s natural smell and lubrication is well ingrained in our culture. Women deal with this every day. They struggle to educate men to the facts, yet support male genital mutilation for reasons of cleanliness. Such hypocrisy is so deep, it’s not even conscious.

So far as I know, we’re not in the common practice of slicing off labia majora to solve the issue of female odor. However, we are slicing off the foreskin to satisfy the same line of thinking. Any woman who rallies to circumcision’s cause is not only agreeing with the same thought that declares her vagina “smelly” and “dirty,” but she’s also exposing her hypocrisy if she has ever rejected the idea of her vagina as “smelly” or “dirty” in its natural state.

Men who rally to male genital mutilation for cleanliness reasons have now bought stock in the idea that a natural penis’ lubrication is unclean. Most men didn’t even know their penises were supposed to be able to lubricate. Yet, some of you talk about “no side effects…”

Let’s move on to the idea of choice.

Tattooing or piercing compared to male genital mutilation is an apples/oranges situation. But let’s address it anyway. Piercing, such as the ears of a young girl, is quite different than the removal of her earlobes or labia majora. Try having an infant’s clit pierced, and let me know what the police say.

Tattooing is only legal in this country at the age of adulthood, or with the parents permission. They are permanent body modifications that should be made by adults. They should not be made for a child unless solid reasons can be shown. It’s awfully challenging to think of valid reasons to pierce, tattoo, or perform genital mutilation on a child. Adults can modify their bodies at will.

I do not believe that parents who have chosen to mutilate their sons are “sheep.” They have looked (I dearly hope) at facts and made a choice based on their beliefs and own reason.

However, I do believe they’ve made the wrong choice. They’ve chosen to permanently modify their son’s penises from their natural condition, because they felt like it. The boys will not live healthier lives now because of it, nor will they experience the type of sexual pleasures they would have pre-mutilation. Their glans will not be protected nor nourished by the foreskin and its benefits.

It’s true that the rest of their sexual and genital functions will happen, and enable someone to say “there’s no side effects.” Similarly, if I surgically cut off a finger, close after birth, I could say there were no side effects; or, sliced off the female’s labia majora. The fact is a large portion of the penis’ functional structure has been arbitrarily cut off. The penis functions without the hood, but not as nature intended. As it’s done without consent at birth, very few mutilated men can make the basis for a comparison cut/uncut.

As to appearance: We’ve been socialized to believe the cut penis is better looking. Women as well as men. Just like we’ve been socialized to believe in bigger tits, smaller stomachs, narrower hips, and fuller lips. In fact, such a large portion of us have cut penises, most of us didn’t know there was a different way to be, until we saw “that weirdo” in the locker room. Given the intense social pressures to fit in, it’s no small wonder we’re happy we’re all one big mutilated bunch, especially at that age.
I’d also like to go out on a limb an say there’s some latent anger at the mutilation that’s transferred to sons. I hardly would say fathers are conscious of it, but there’s certainly something sick about the train of thought “I’m mutilated, so he’s going to be too.” Further exploration of that train of thought should reveal that Dad doesn’t have a base awareness that he is “mutilated.” He’s accepted his disfigurement by his parents all his life. Challenging that is a very complicated mental process.

It’s just a small flap of skin, and thus not a big deal. So are earlobes. Yet, it’s not aesthetically acceptable to cut off earlobes.

I’ve said what I have to say.

I fervently hope time does show, not that parents who’ve chosen to mutilate are wrong per se, but that the practice of societal endorsed mutilation is wrong.

01-10-2006, 11:56 AM	#79 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	Leto- I appreciate you feel I’m spending too much time on this. However, I disagree, and will keep posting. You’re welcome to skip over my posts. It’s tough for me to know where to start discussing this. There’s so much I want to touch on. I’d like to start with the cleanliness topic. It has two components, one for women to pay attention to, and one for men. I’m sure that those of you possessing vaginas have at one time or another been exposed to the idea that your vagina stinks. In fact, there’s an entire industry selling products (FDS, douches, etc.) to make your vagina “not stink.” If you’ve ever watched a stand up comedian talk about “eating pussy” then you’ve heard more comments about the “smell.” You’ve heard the “fish jokes,” and you’ve read the discussions on our own TFP where women struggle with men who do believe their partner’s vagina is “dirty” “smelly” etc. If fact, I’ve read threads and met both men and women, who refuse any kind of sex during menstruation because of various opinions centered on cleanliness. The words “gross” “icky” “disgusting” “smelly” are often used in these discussions. I say all this to make perfectly clear that the loathing of the vagina’s natural smell and lubrication is well ingrained in our culture. Women deal with this every day. They struggle to educate men to the facts, yet support male genital mutilation for reasons of cleanliness. Such hypocrisy is so deep, it’s not even conscious. So far as I know, we’re not in the common practice of slicing off labia majora to solve the issue of female odor. However, we are slicing off the foreskin to satisfy the same line of thinking. Any woman who rallies to circumcision’s cause is not only agreeing with the same thought that declares her vagina “smelly” and “dirty,” but she’s also exposing her hypocrisy if she has ever rejected the idea of her vagina as “smelly” or “dirty” in its natural state. Men who rally to male genital mutilation for cleanliness reasons have now bought stock in the idea that a natural penis’ lubrication is unclean. Most men didn’t even know their penises were supposed to be able to lubricate. Yet, some of you talk about “no side effects…” Let’s move on to the idea of choice. Tattooing or piercing compared to male genital mutilation is an apples/oranges situation. But let’s address it anyway. Piercing, such as the ears of a young girl, is quite different than the removal of her earlobes or labia majora. Try having an infant’s clit pierced, and let me know what the police say. Tattooing is only legal in this country at the age of adulthood, or with the parents permission. They are permanent body modifications that should be made by adults. They should not be made for a child unless solid reasons can be shown. It’s awfully challenging to think of valid reasons to pierce, tattoo, or perform genital mutilation on a child. Adults can modify their bodies at will. I do not believe that parents who have chosen to mutilate their sons are “sheep.” They have looked (I dearly hope) at facts and made a choice based on their beliefs and own reason. However, I do believe they’ve made the wrong choice. They’ve chosen to permanently modify their son’s penises from their natural condition, because they felt like it. The boys will not live healthier lives now because of it, nor will they experience the type of sexual pleasures they would have pre-mutilation. Their glans will not be protected nor nourished by the foreskin and its benefits. It’s true that the rest of their sexual and genital functions will happen, and enable someone to say “there’s no side effects.” Similarly, if I surgically cut off a finger, close after birth, I could say there were no side effects; or, sliced off the female’s labia majora. The fact is a large portion of the penis’ functional structure has been arbitrarily cut off. The penis functions without the hood, but not as nature intended. As it’s done without consent at birth, very few mutilated men can make the basis for a comparison cut/uncut. As to appearance: We’ve been socialized to believe the cut penis is better looking. Women as well as men. Just like we’ve been socialized to believe in bigger tits, smaller stomachs, narrower hips, and fuller lips. In fact, such a large portion of us have cut penises, most of us didn’t know there was a different way to be, until we saw “that weirdo” in the locker room. Given the intense social pressures to fit in, it’s no small wonder we’re happy we’re all one big mutilated bunch, especially at that age. I’d also like to go out on a limb an say there’s some latent anger at the mutilation that’s transferred to sons. I hardly would say fathers are conscious of it, but there’s certainly something sick about the train of thought “I’m mutilated, so he’s going to be too.” Further exploration of that train of thought should reveal that Dad doesn’t have a base awareness that he is “mutilated.” He’s accepted his disfigurement by his parents all his life. Challenging that is a very complicated mental process. It’s just a small flap of skin, and thus not a big deal. So are earlobes. Yet, it’s not aesthetically acceptable to cut off earlobes. I’ve said what I have to say. I fervently hope time does show, not that parents who’ve chosen to mutilate are wrong per se, but that the practice of societal endorsed mutilation is wrong. __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."