Both male and female circumcision is intolerably cruel mutilation.
By
fiXedd
on August 09, 2007
I still hate my parents and grandparents for having me circumcised.
Selective quote from Wikipedia:
It is the opinion of some intactivists that foreskin has up to twelve functions, such as to contact the G Spot. [7] It is the opinion of some researchers that foreskin can be a tool for intercourse. In the book Sex as Nature Intended It author Kristen O'Hara argues that foreskin is a natural gliding stimulator of the vaginal walls during intercourse, increasing a woman's overall clitoral stimulation and allowing for the achievement of female orgasm more often and in shorter periods of time. [8] It is therefore believed by some that the absence of the foreskin and gliding action makes it more difficult, not impossible, for a woman to achieve orgasm during intercourse.In April 2007 medical journal BJU International published a study conducted by NOCIRC and Doctors Opposing Circumcision, which stated that it "conclusively shows that circumcised males have a significant penile sensory deficit as compared with non-circumcised intact men." and that "the most sensitive regions in the uncircumcised penis are those removed by circumcision."
Agreed
16
10
61.5% 38.5%
Embed Claim
Make a related claim
Similar claims
- 19-4 "I like pleasure spiked with pain."
- 30-4 Torture is never morally justifiable.
- 42-3 Information extracted using torture or the threat of torture is unreliable.
- 22-11 To torture is to cause extreme anguish of the body or mind for purposes of punishment, revenge, as a means of extracting information, or out of sheer cruelty.
- 24-4 I need my ears pierced like I need another hole in my head.
Discussion (13)
The reasons in favor of cutting it off are a crock, and it's genital mutilation, but since it's done right away as a baby I'd have to say "intolerably cruel" is going a bit far.
It's just a stupid tradition of genital mutilation though, and nothing else. If you support it, you may as well dance around a fire half naked in a loincloth and eat bugs, because that's how evolved you are
I'll say that it's intolerably cruel not because of the initial pain, but because of the inability for proper functioning throughout the rest of the person's life.
Lets say that a person starts having sex at 15 and stops (or dies) at 60. That's 45 years of sexual dysfuction CAUSED by their family or family religion (note I didn't say THEIR religion). THAT is intolerably cruel in my mind.
(er....I'm referring to male circumcision there)
Yeah, me too. The original claim was going to be all about male circumcision, but I realized it applied to females too.
I was circumsized when I was ten (too much information, buy you asked for it). My foreskin had started to ... close ... to the point where I was in pain whenever I urinated. My circumcision was done for help reasons, and it would have been cruel for it not to be done.
I will agree that female circumcision is intolerably cruel/evil/barbaric and anyone who performs such a surgery should be locked away for all time.
Hmm... I should have claimed either "Ritualistic circumcision is intolerably cruel mutilation for both females and males" or "Both male and female circumcision is intolerably cruel mutilation when not medically necessary."
Sometime I think I'm being clear enough when in fact I'm not. I blame emotional involvement.
Can I give you "foreskin-less" cred?
:)
Go for it. When I return the cred, should it be "foreskin-less" or "foreskin intact" cred?
-less...that's why I'm so pissed :)
When not done for valid medical reasons or with informed consent on an adult. But if either of the above two apply, then no.
Even if it's done to a child (male) for purely cultural/religious reasons, it's still not that bad a thing.... Female circumcision is a horrible crime, but male circumcision is much less harmful/horrible.
I consider male circumcision less bad than female, because of the differences in what is done when those terms are used. However, I consider it incredibly unethical to make permanent changes to someone's body without medical need when that person cannot consent.
Unethical, yes... but it's rather not really good/bad for the male later on. So he has a slightly less sensitive penis head? At least he doesn't have to get sand stuck in there....