Are We Human or Are We Dogs? - Page 3

[kxsiven]

Thank you for this letter - this is exactly what is needed! The voices of men. Unfortenately the subject is still tabu and even men who are restoring often want to stay anonymous.
This letter should be posted in every newspaper in USA!

And genital cutting is genital cutting. No matter if it is just a little wound on baby's clitoral hood or removal of foreskin. It is still done to an innocent helpless baby.

Originally Posted by DaddyJoe

Do you even think of us as human beings... or do you think of us as dogs, to have our ears clipped and our tails bobbed at your discretion?

Just have to boast. Scandinavia is intact - that goes for both children and dogs(ear&tail clipping are forbidden too).

Please post this letter to newspapers or boards where there are more men - voices of men are needed and they can **really** change the mind of parents and maybe your letter will give courage to other men 'come out'.

[plantmama]

I think I conceded that the physical comparison is much more accurate than I thought when I wrote my first post. I also said the terms in which daddyjoe compared circumcision were accurate in my later post and apologized to him for my harshness (and ignorance : ).
It is not irrelevent to me that women are circumcized most often with the intention to completely repress their sexual functioning and in cultures that view female sexuality as something dangerous and forbidden.
That boys are circumcised here in the US is tragic, awful and I agree it needs to be stopped, I admire all of you for your efforts to eradicate circumcision. American men can also expect to have a lot of effort put into being pleased sexually.
I think it's unproductive to compare female and male circ because of the conditions under which they happen, yes I do. I think it's far more shocking to say to someone- "Cutting off a boy's foreskin is like cutting off the external part of a female's clitoris." That's what got me ok.
But actually comparing the two cases invites a deeper debate than what is productive. I am sorry I offended people.

[LeosMama]

Hi Plantmama,

I think the last sticking point here is that whatever the reasons for genital mutilation, the resultant health, sexual, and social consequences are the same.
In the US, we are cutting boys for myths that aren't currently about suppressing their rights. We do it for health and conformity. But the results are the same as when girls are subjected to the lower levels of FGM.

Here in the US, the conditions are very different for MGM than in other cultures where FGM is practiced. But MGM doesn't only occur here. In Muslim cultures, MGM is practiced when a boy is pre-adolescent, just like for girls.

It's useful to look at the thread posted here about National Geographic in which boys are held down by their fathers while they are circumcised for manhood ceremonies. These are 6 or 8 year old boys. No anaesthetic, no parental consent. Dirty instruments. It is done for conformity and 'health' reasons. It's hideous.

It isn't the same as infibulation of females. I won't compare infibulation to more moderate male circumcision. But I will compare the milder forms of FGM to MGM.

I do agree with you that it's not productive when talking to a mainstream American to compare the two directly like that. When I do so with a person just learning about male circ, I try to gently compare the myths of why female and male circ are practiced and never use the word mutilation, as it makes me look like a nut.

But here, among fellow intactivists, who understand the issues, I will continue to compare the two, for they are not TWO, they are ONE issue. Genital mutilation is genital mutilation.
MGM in a lesser-developed country occurs under the same conditions as FGM in that country. No anaesthetic, filthy conditions and instruments, forcible restraint, oppressive social pressure, and exile or death for those who won't submit.

I don't think you offended people, exactly, but you did get our dander up. It was immediately obvious to most of us that you weren't aware of the anatomical comparison. Most people aren't.

I think that human rights is a feminist issue. I think genital integrity is a feminist issue. Feminism hasn't always been about humanity. Feminism traditionally has been about promoting women and making things better for women, increased opportunities, freedoms, justice. Feminism traditionally hasn't given a lick about people as human beings, only about people who are female human beings.
I think that modern feminism needs to be about equality and justice for all human beings, not about promoting women and making life better for women. Sometimes the best way to improve the situation for all people is to make life better for women first(educating women improves poverty in a society far more than educating men, for example). But sometimes the best way to improve life for women is to improve life for all people. Genital integrity is one of those issues.

I think this debate we're having is excellent, and I welcome your discussion and input. There are other people reading these words and hopefully they are learning and thinking about the subject both from a medical standpoint as well as a human rights perspective.

So welcome, and please know that no one here resents your presence or your questions. They are thought provoking and very productive. Thank you.

-Lindsay

[Yoshua]

Originally Posted by plantmama

I think it's far more shocking to say to someone- "Cutting off a boy's foreskin is like cutting off the external part of a female's clitoris." That's what got me ok.
But actually comparing the two cases invites a deeper debate than what is productive. I am sorry I offended people.

You said it again, why is that more shocking?

Forskin: External Body part that gives great pleasure during intercourse and masterbation.

Clitoris: External Body part that gives great pleasure during intercourse and masterbation.


? I am confused as to why it is more shocking except that you have a vagina and I have a penis. I find both instances equally disturbing and disgusting. There is nothing more shocking about one than there is the other except culture has beat it in to our heads that cutting off a mans genetalia is acceptable and cutting off a womans is not.


When circumcision of boys started in america it was to supress the sexual urges that led to promiscuity and masterbation.


Now explain to me how that is different the FGM? please explain the difference? Just becuase it is accepted in today's culture to mutilate our men does not make it less appalling that it happens.

And the more you post the more I find myself to have intactivist tendancies because even though alot of people here have laid down the facts to you, you still seem to think that FGM is worse than MGM..... which is extreamly ludicris.


arg, I know you are against circumcision, I understand that, and I applaud that, but the way you lay down the framework for your thought process amazes me. Why cant you see that Genetil Mutliation is equal on both sexes, it is appalling, and it shouldn't be done.


I am not trying to say it is worse for boys, I am saying that it is just as bad for boys as it is for girls. Doesnt that make sense?


sorry, I am not trying to be berating here, or trying to act like I am above anyone, I am new to this whole train of thought and I find myself talking out about it more and more with more information I come across.

[movingon]

plantmama is expressing exactly the extent to which American culture has trivialized male circumcision. I'd think a good look into the things women in cultures that do circumcision (and no, i'm not saying infibulation) on girls would probably open her eyes to how trivialized female circumcision is in those cultures.

The only difference with Americans is that we have been told and told and told that men think they're just fine, and that since they're "just fine", it's nothing to be concerned about. But no one's been pounding into our heads that women who are circ'd are just fine. In those cultures that circ females, though, they certainly think the women are just fine, too.

That was what changed my mind about fgm not being worse, but being the same.

All cutting on those who are smaller and unable to defend themselves, regardless of sex needs to end.

I had a kneejerk reaction to her original post, but after thinking back to how I once thought about fgm and mgm, I let it sit for a time until I could express what I see happening with her comments.

We need to make our country understand that damaging sexual anatomy is bad. We need to have more men come forward or at least understand that what was done to them was wrong, and not to be done to their sons. We need to have the intact penis be the norm, so women aren't frightened by the unknown intact penis.

After we have been sensitized once again, maybe our hypocritical act of saving other "inferior" cultures without saving our own sons will fade into history... Maybe the standards we are trying to hold others to will be our own freakin' standards, someday...

[njeb]

Plantmama, thank you for your honest questions and perspectives, and for your willingness to be open to new information. I appreciate that.

The reason I'm fighting more against male circ. as opposed to female circ. is that male circ. is happening here and now in our own country. Thousands of baby boys are circ'ed every day here in the U.S. Female circ., on the other hand, has been outlawed. IMO, it is hypocritical of Americans to condemn FGM in other countries when our own hands are bloody with the foreskins of baby boys. We need to clean up our own house before we condemn someone else's.

[plantmama]

Ok, let's see....Lindsay, thank you for your patience with me. Everything you've said has been very thoughtful and clear with the desire to understand my points while giving me your own well informed opinion. I totally agree with you that feminism needs to be (and is for some) about humanism and compassion for inequalities of all kinds- societal intolerance for men's emotional openess for example is a relevent feminist concern. Or as you said men's genital integrety should also be a concern to compassionate feminists. And in the end what hurts men also hurts women and vice versa. Sorry to go so OT. I'm glad you are enjoying this discussion- so am I!
Anyway...
Yoshua, I meant shocking in a good way...you want people to realize that male circ is horrible? Then give them an accurate physical comparison with female anatomy....without saying "female circumcision" and bringing up the cultural baggage. Does that make any sense?
American parents who circ their little boys do not want sons who are sexually impaired.
So I don't mean to "trivialize" male circ in this countryby saying it's unproductive to compare it to female circ in other countries--alright gotta go.

[movingon]

a clarification: no single person is responsible for the trivialization - you're a victim of it, too, in fact - my guess is you're skimming posts now.

To keep denying there are similarities is a lie by omission. Every argument against male circ seems to inevitably ruffle someone's feathers. I once thought it wasn't a big deal, just unnecessary. Now, after learning the truth, I have coverted to the understanding that it's not just unnecessary, but damaging. It takes time, but I'm grateful to those who opened my eyes to the fact that it can and should be compared to female circ.

[kxsiven]

Originally Posted by plantmama

It is not irrelevent to me that women are circumcized most often with the intention to completely repress their sexual functioning and in cultures that view female sexuality as something dangerous and forbidden.

Male circumcision started in USA for the exact same reason - to stop the evils of masturbation(female circumcision was also practised in USA for a short time).

"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.


"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurous effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts." -- Angel Money. Treatment of Disease In Children.Philidelphia: P. Blakiston, 1887. p.421

"Another advantage of circumcision ... is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing ... This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ ... It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs hygienic and medical, to urge its acceptance." Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): pp. 121-126.


And so the practise began....

[Yoshua]

Originally Posted by kxsiven

Male circumcision started in USA for the exact same reason - to stop the evils of masturbation(female circumcision was also practised in USA for a short time).

"In cases of masturbation we must, I believe, break the habit by inducing such a condition of the parts as will cause too much local suffering to allow of the practice being continued. For this purpose, if the prepuce is long, we may circumcise the male patient with present and probably with future advantage; the operation, too, should not be performed under chloroform, so that the pain experienced may be associated with the habit we wish to eradicate." Athol A. W. Johnson, On An Injurious Habit Occasionally Met with in Infancy and Early Childhood, The Lancet, vol. 1 (7 April 1860): pp. 344-345.


"There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurous effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts." -- Angel Money. Treatment of Disease In Children.Philidelphia: P. Blakiston, 1887. p.421

"Another advantage of circumcision ... is the lessened liability to masturbation. A long foreskin is irritating per se, as it necessitates more manipulation of the parts in bathing ... This leads the child to handle the parts, and as a rule, pleasurable sensations are elicited from the extremely sensitive mucous membrane, with resultant manipulation and masturbation. The exposure of the glans penis following circumcision ... lessens the sensitiveness of the organ ... It therefore lies with the physician, the family adviser in affairs hygienic and medical, to urge its acceptance." Ernest G. Mark, Circumcision, American Practitioner and News, vol. 31 (1901): pp. 121-126.


And so the practise began....

You scared me.... I'm gonna go cry myself to sleep now...

oh, and btw, im copyin those quotes.

[LeosMama]

http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/

This will make you cry a bit more, Yoshua. It's a good history of circ in America's medical culture.

[plantmama]

Movingon,
I kind did the same thing if you will read my posts and not skim
I'll stop posting here as I can see there is another thread where it would be more appropriate.
Thanks.

[Daisyuk]

This is a good site for History of Circ. too.

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net...tpage&Itemid=1

[broodymama]

DaddyJoe - Just wanted to say thanks for such an eloquent letter. I used it as the opening in my blog entry today.