Is Circumcision an Infringement of Male Rights ?

Often times we hear Americans getting upset over the fact that little girls are being sexually mutilated in parts of Africa, which they condemn as a "barbaric practice", yet everyday millions of little boys have perfectly functioning foreskins see parts of their genitalia mutilated without their consent just the same.

Isn't there a contradiction and double-standard there ?

Should a boy have the right to chose whether his penis be cut or not ?

----------
A great article to read in its entirety...I'm pasting bits of it

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/milos-macris/

Circumcision: A Medical or a Human Rights Issue?
By Marilyn Fayre Milos, RN, and Donna Macris, CNM, MSN 1992

"Abstract
American parents and health care professionals are faced with medical/ethical dilemmas regarding whether or not to respect the natural integrity of the male newborn's body. In the English- speaking countries,, where circumcision of infants was initially adopted to prevent masturbation, medical "reasons" were postulated to justify a practice most of the world has never considered. This resulted in a spectrum of medical recommendations for surgical removal of normal genital tissue in all male newborns to prevent diseases (foreskin inflammation, urinary tract infections, and sexually transmitted diseases) that could be effectively treated medically without the risks of surgery. Only by denying the existence of excruciating pain, perinatal encoding of the brain with violence, interruption of maternal-infant bonding, betrayal of infant trust, the risks and effects of permanently altering normal genitalia, the right of human beings to sexually intact and functional bodies, and the right to individual religious freedoms can human beings continue this practice."

"While some researchers believe that circumcision was practiced as early as 6,000 years ago on the west coast of Africa, the earliest record of circumcision, an Egyptian bas relief, dates back to 2800BC (2). Theories suggest that circumcision was practiced for religious reasons, as a punitive measure, as a puberty or premarital rite, as an absolution against the feared toxic influences of vaginal (hymenal) blood, and as a mark of slavery. Written documentation of circumcision first appears in the Bible. Both Jews and Moslems circumcise in accordance with Abraham's covenant with God (Genesis 17:10), which historians date to 1713 BC (3). Moslems also perform female circumcision (genital mutilation that often includes clitoridectomy), a practice probably of African origin (4)."

"From myth to medicine

Circumcision evolved from a religious ritual or puberty rite into routine surgery for "health" reasons in the English-speaking countries during the nineteenth century when the etiology of most diseases was unknown: "Within the miasma of myth and ignorance, a theory emerged that masturbation caused many and varied ills. It seemed logical to some physicians to perform genital surgery on both sexes to stop masturbation" (5). In 1891, P. C. Remondino, MD, advocated circumcision to prevent or cure alcoholism, epilepsy, asthma, hernia, gout, rheumatism, curvature of the spine and headaches (6). His book was last printed in 1974, the same year that one physician, writing in Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, called the book "pertinent and carefully thought out" (7).

As scientific advancements found legitimate pathologic etiologies for diseases previously believed to be prevented or cured by circumcision, new excuses were adopted to substantiate this elective genital surgery. Since the turn of the century, one excuse after another has been used to perpetuate a practice most of the world has never considered.

Hygiene and prevention of venereal diseases became popular excuses for circumcision during World War I (8, 9). The erroneous fear during the 1930s of foreskins causing penile cancer (10, 11) and during the 1950s of foreskins causing cervical cancer (12-14) helped champion the practice of prophylactic circumcision. The most recent justifications for routine neonatal circumcision of boys include protecting infants from urinary tract infections (UTIs) during the first year of life (15, 16) and decreasing the risk of AIDS in the sexually active male (17). While the American medical community was presenting one pathology after another to support amputation of the foreskin, its European counterpart began to research the normal structure and function of the external male genitalia."

"Informed consent and self-determination for childbearing- childrearing health care were an essential component of the cataclysmic changes brought about by the Women's Movement. American women who had struggled to achieve these rights for themselves were now beginning to consider rights for their babies as well."

"In response to consumer demand for accurate information, the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) was founded in 1985. This organization serves as a clearinghouse for information on all aspects of male and female circumcision. In 1989, NOCIRC sponsored the First International Symposium on Circumcision (ISC), which was held in Anaheim, California. International experts from the diverse fields of cultural anthropology, theology, psychology, medicine, midwifery, law, and ethics gathered to discuss male and female genital mutilations and their human rights implications.

The Declaration of the First ISC was unanimously adopted by the general assembly on March 3, 1989. The first tenets of this declaration read:
We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right.

-We recognize the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts.

-Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia.

-Physicians and other health-care providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts.

-The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure.

-We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims.

-The last tenet states:
Physicians who practice routine circumcision are violating the first maxim of medical practice, "PRIMUM NON NOCERE," "First Do No Harm," and anyone practicing genital mutilation is violating Article V of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights: "NO ONE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR TO CRUEL, INHUMAN, OR DEGRADING TREATMENT..." (27)

rest of article..

 

Personally I think guys have the right to choose for themselves. I'm not circumcised and I'm pretty glad about it.


You can always choose to get yourself circumcised later in life but you can't 'uncircumcise' yourself if your parents made the decision for you at birth.

 

I'm really against it being a mandatory thing here. (in the US)

 

Very unnatural. A strange practice indeed, as you say, it's "wrong" for it to be done on girls, but here we look upon it as something that is needed.

Anyway I just stumbled across this from the front page, this is a pretty mainstream issue and we should all check it, maybe post it in the sex forum as well?

Seems a lot of people in the community are realizing that it's not the best thing in the world to do when they have children, I think it's an issue we should all think about.

 

i didnt have my son done, i see no point in it. i have heard arguments abut it being cleaner but i think its more of a "well, it doesnt look normal". it does look normal, it is natural, and girls wont make fun of him about it, i have also heard that given as a reason to have it done! well.................. if you teach your child to wash his self properly he wont have any problems.

 

NOT this again!

 

and now.... all over again..... the forskin mafia , and related penis gang wars !!

 

Interesting, but it surprises me coming from you cause I had the impression from your previous posts that you were a progressist when it came to women rights, and gender rights in general.

Why would it not extend to your son's right to chose what happens to his penis when he is of age to consent? After all, if later in life he does not agree with your decision he does not have the option of growing his foreskin back

 

my son is circumcised, I did it because my brother wasn't and he wishes he was. now he feels weird in the locker room at school because he doesn't look like the other guys, and he's afraid of what girls will think, because most guys are.... I think it looks better, cleaner and I don't want Aden (my son) to go through what my brother is going through.

 

hi .....this thread is pure folly ......i wouldnt want a forskin ......i dont have one ....i love my penis ,,,,,,,im enjoying it

 

You got it wrong, i'm not from the "foreskin mafia" and I have no idea who they are...As a matter of fact I am cicircumsised and if I was perfectly honest I would say that I like guys who are cut too.

But this is a philosophical debate, and it goes beyond what I feel or not...I realize some people have strong reactions in regards to this issue, because if they admit that there could be something wrong with this practice it forces them to feel all the emotions of loss towards the part of pleasure that may have been stolen from them. It may also mean feeling guilt over the choice of getting their sons circumsized, or resenting their parents (or their traditions) for making the choice for them. And no-one wants to go there...

Personally I'm not afraid to discuss anything cause that's the only way I learn and move forward

 

its quite alrite , its that in the past theese topics have got extreme responces .....go for it !

 

hey lets not forget the dental herpies rabi ....we are obliged to drag him out .

 

i hate to sound extremely nieve, but i have absolutely no inklink of a clue as to what circumcision is. is any one willing to explain?

 

Well my sun is uncut and the only reasons to realy wack off a perfectly funtioning body part like the foreskin is either purely for looks or you are Jewish.

I think my kid would look better with half an ear maybe i'll try to get a doctor to cut half of it off when he is about three or so days old.

silly humans forskins are for kids

 

all i wanna know is, why is this in the gay forum? i voted unsure, becuz im happy w/ my circumsized penis

 

well if "EVERYONE" jumped off a cliff, would you ? ** good ole mom's retort **

or

** SNIP **

 

I agree that it's wrong for boy's to be circumcised and then have to live with someone's crap decision for the rest of their lives, but I still gotta say female circumcision is WAY worse! Afterall, a circumcised male can still feel pleasure and doesn't have all the complications.

 

Female circumcision is not just one standard thing. It involves cutting off different parts in either small or extreme ways. In some places it's very minor, in others it's quite a complete procedure.

If you're just worried about your child fitting in, well why not drop your alternative lifestyle and send him to Harvard to become a fine suit-weraing capitalist? He'll fit in much better and be accepted and probably not have nights sitting up wondering what it's all about as he's so rich and satisfied with his lot in life.

So what is this "fitting in" argument all about? Do you fit in? Are you living an apple-pie and football existence? Take off your hippy gear and start falling into rank, no reason to make waves or be different. Or be like the billions of normal people through the world who have not had their genitals cut for some random reason.

Unless you have a religious reason for doing it, circumcision doesn't really have a purpose. And I'll remind you that female circumcision is also done for religious reasons. And for fitting in.

In Roman times Jews who lived with Romans used to try to adapt by only having a very minimal, symbolic cut to the foreskin, in order to fit in and not arise taunts from their Roman neighbors. They denied their religious heritage and what they thought was right simply to fit in and not make waves. Naked wrestling without being different was more important to them.

So think about it before you just shrug it off, if you were born in Europe, or born mostly anywhere else in the world, would you cut off your child's foreskin? Of course not, there's no reason for it. People live and have lived happy lives like that for all of our evolutionary history. So just because you live here, in America, where a fad caught on, why do you have to join in the fad? To fit in and be like everyone else?

Well then tell your hippie sisters to shave their armpits and stop being vegans, cut your dreadlocks off and get a fucking job doing something American damnit!

 

This guy expressed my every view so damn well i want you to read it again!!!!