Comment on type shit
snooggums@piefed.world 4 weeks agoAs someone who was circumcised for the ‘medical hygiene’ reasons when it was more popular I am sick and tired of seeing all circumcision lumped together as mutilation. Sure it was probably unnecessary as I am not aware of having a condition that made it necessary in my case, but it was well done and everything has been positive for me. Those that get it done for medical reasons being called mutilation would be offensive.
It certainly should end as a practice, especially as a religious practice done by non-medically trained people, but stigmatizing people who had it done as being mutilated is insulting.
Even if it was ‘well done’, you have literally lost nerves and sensitivity in the region leading to an objectively worse experience.
The solution is obvious, don’t chop kids genitals for no legitimate reason. Doesn’t matter if you came out okay or whatever nonsense.
Religion is not an excuse for child abuse
Without arguing either for or against the practice, losing feeling is an outdated idea. It’s been studied and shown that circumcised men are just as sensitive as uncircumcised
That is non-figuratively impossible. You can’t feel anything with nerve endings that have been removed.
Nerve endings in the foreskin are not that sensitive to sexual stimuli, I would consider that as much loss of sensitivity as amputating a leg is loss of sensitivity.
The brain is weird and whacky the way it works. It has a sort of auto-gain. The less nerve stimulus over time leads to a higher sensitivity of remaining nerves. Often when people lose a limb, they still feel pain in it - the lack of nerve signals causes the remaining nerve endings to be amplified so much that despite not even having pain receptors, the noise signals are perceived as pain. So a human growing up with a cut forskin simply adapts and the brain perceives more sensitivity from the other nerves to produce the same levels of sensation.
How does that even make sense?
Source?
As a man that got circumcised in adulthood, I can’t confirm any loss of sensitivity.
This is true. I was circumcized as an infant, and when I started having sex around 19, I wondered why it didn’t feel as good as it was supposed to. I thought I was doing something wrong.
So I tried harder and harder, inexperienced as I was, and didn’t learn how to make sweet, gentle love until much later. Even then, it was more for my partner’s pleasure, because my dick just isn’t that sensitive.
It caused a lot of problems in my relationships early on. Frustration and feelings of inadequacy on both sides, because I was “hard to satisfy” literally unable to feel satisfactory pleasure…
I am sick and tired of seeing all circumcision lumped together as mutilation
it’s the definition of the word. sure, it carries a lot of negative connotations that may not have affected you the same way, and you may have, personally, appreciated your circumcision, but that doesn’t invalidate the feelings of others. this isn’t some zero-sum situation where other people being upset about it somehow invalidated your experience.
Many people can feel different ways about things. That’s called society. A key part of civilization is our ability to all live together with many different people feeling different ways about things. In fact, a huge advance in civilization - no shit - is that, several thousand years ago, we stop killing each other over this very issue. REALLY.
In a much more contemporary context, it’s just not necessary. Most recently, as recently as the late 1970s and early 1980s, a now-debunked study pushed the idea that it was, at least “more hygienic” to circumcise males, but that was based on shaky and now-debunked studies. In modern medicine, circumcision is no longer recommended at birth except in rare cases of medical necessity of urinary or other birth defects. Exceptions also exist in some religions, Judaism most prominently, not for medical necessity, but as an alignment with a belief based on ancient mythology, not unlike the genital mutilations some women undergo in Islam.
Those that get it done for medical reasons being called mutilation would be offensive.
Right, because they weren’t mutilated, they had to have a procedure done for a medical reason.
Any non-medically necessary surgery to a child’s genitals is mutilation. They have no way to consent, and anything short of a medical necessity is the parent making massive changes to their child’s life based on their preferences. To make the point crystal clear:
How is performing a medically unnecessary surgery on a child’s genitals not mutilation? Again, you’re changing their body surgically without their consent for no reason aside from ignorant beliefs.
I dislike the ‘mutilated’ label being applied and take it as an insult because of the negative connotations despite not personally having any downsides. It is like claiming that everyone who is overweight based on BMI is unhealthy despite many athletes having a high BMI due to having a lot of muscle.
Plus the person I was responding to said adults who voluntarily chose to get circumcised are mutilated themselves. With that logic ear piercings and voluntarily removing annoying, but not medically probematic moles is mutilation. My point is that you can’t just ignore the negative connotations and use a broad brush to describe people while claiming it is technically accurate.
No, it should not be done to babies without a medical necessity. That doesn’t mean calling everyone who has been circumcised mutilated won’t come across as insulting.
The negitive connotations are justified in this case
How do you feel about female infants getting their ears pierced?
Also, removing an arm and removing some skin is really not the same. Specially considering that removing that skin has proven health benefits for the baby.
I was circumcized as an infant without my consent, and my mutilated dick wants you to stop downplaying the severity of its fate.
A piece of me is literally missing, and you want to say I’m not mutilated because that would offend you? Why, do you have uncomfortable feelings about your own situation that you refuse to examine?
Me not wanting to be labeled as mutilated doesn’t invalidate your identification as mutilated.
If you consider yourself mutilated, then yes, you are mutilated. I am not mutilated because we see our personal experiences differently.
Yes but it shouldn’t be done to infants because they did not and cannot consent.
You can’t know whether the infant will come to see it as mutilation. And it is irreversible.
Yes but it shouldn’t be done to infants because they did not and cannot consent.
I have already expressed 100% support of banning non-medically necessary circumcisions.
AbsolutelyClawless@piefed.social 4 weeks ago
Circumcision is and should only be a medically necessary procedure. I’ve never heard anyone say medically necessary circumcision is mutilation, but I’m from Europe where most men aren’t circumcised, so there’s that. Whoever says it’s mutilation when it’s medically justified is ignorant.
theolodis@feddit.org 3 weeks ago
I think the question is: who’s deciding what is medically necessary or justified? Because as far as I am aware there are health benefits associated with a circumcision, from reduced risk of AIDS infection to the reduced risk of infections.
Is that enough to justify it? Some doctors will say yes, and some will say no. Some people will suffer negative consequences and some won’t.
I think most of the negativity around it is because it’s being done on infants, and often for religious reasons. But to the intentions matter, when the action is in line with medicine?
oyo@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Mastectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer. That’s clearly not a valid medical reason to perform it on everyone. The medical necessity that people are talking about here is obvious–a specific condition like phimosis that is directly harmful to the patient. The “risk of AIDS” bullshit can be totally mitigated by… washing up.