Medical Genital mutilation

[Anarchy]

I'm starting this to discuss the general ignorance and misinformation

Genital mutilation in infancy is one of my traumas.

The quote that follows came up in another thread. I'm absolutely not attacking the member who made it

I am attacking the misinformation that they have been fed and thst they are repeating in the quoted post

And yeah, I am quoting the whole post, it is relevant in its entirety, and I think that it is important to see the level of complacency and self satisfaction that the misinformation can create.

*This is slightly off topic of the original thread but I feel quite strongly about something, and here it is:

"Female circumcision" is most certainly NOT equivalent to circumcision. It's a term that the media took up to describe something that happens in many Third World countries. It's not performed in the United States. (Except perhaps in small ethnic communities, in a non-medical setting. I can't imagine that either Canada or Australia does this, either, and I think that covers 99%+ of the board members.
So it's irrelevant here.
It's "nicer" to say it the first way. Less offensive to our Western sensibilities. Try googling it and you will be sent to a search with the label Female genital mutilation.
(FGM), also known as female genital cutting and female circumcision, is the ritual cutting or removal of some or all of the external female genitalia.
It's a term describing a disgusting thing. Imagine cutting the whole thing off. That would be akin to "female circumcision". That term is misleading. I'm actually glad to see that Google took my search this way - now I know. Now you know.

Female genital mutilation comes in three basic forms.

1. Mutilation of the clitoral hood (perhaps but not always taking the clitoral glans)
2. Mutilation of the labia minora
3. Removal of all external genitalia and stitching up the resulting wound

Male and female structures are different, they serve different purposes, so saying goes that male and female mutilation are not the same is true.

Destroying a clitoral hood is roughly analogous to destroying a foreskin, but not the same.

But does it follow from having a difference that mutilating males is therefore somehow ok and perhaps even justifiable or necessary?

Another quote from that thread:

Personally, I don't think it's had any effect on me one way or the other.
I was far too young to remember, now as an adult I just don't care.

Does a perceived lack of consequences lack of, represent a justification?

I'd seriously question the perception. Bother the inside surface of a clitoral hood and a foreskin are highly sensitive erogenous tissue so is the frenulum of a foreskin.

It turns out that the ridged bands in the inner surface of a foreskin contain a greater number, density and variety of nerve endings than the glans

although it's not the most sensitive part of a foreskin, even the smallest strip that often remains after mutilation, just below the corona of the glans, is more sensitive and pleasurable than the glans.

In other words, male mutilation removes over half (and the best half at that) of the erogenous structures of a male.

I was far too young to remember,

To young to remember consciously
Mutilation of male infants is usually done without any pain control. They're strapped into a "circumstraint" and the cutting and clamping of the most sensitive part of the part of their body that they'll use to relate to others in their most intimate moments is forcibly separated from the glans (like pulling a finger nail out), cut and clamped.

Unfortunately the amygdala (the fear centre of the brain) becomes fully functional and is recording and learning about three months before birth

There may be no conscious memory, but there's a very strong, unconscious traumatic memory.

The glans is covered by mucous membrane.

Once exposed, it dries out and keratinizes, losing sensitivity

The urinary opening (meatus) is likely to become ulcerated with contact with daipers, causing pain every time the infant urinates, and usually leading to significant scarring. The meatus of a male mutilated in Infancy is usually half covered with scar tissue.

Now move to adolescence and adulthood.

Assuming equal knowledge and care in sex, a mutilated male is significantly physically handicapped.

Fore play is more difficult for both parties, and much less satisfying

The difficulty and lack of satisfaction from foreplay is likely to lead to going for penetration far too soon

Penetration is not as easy or as gentle (the analogy of the difference between pulling a long sock straight on compared to unfurling it over your foot, is a good one) and a mutilated male is both less capable of producing and retaining natural lubrication.

During sex, instead of the skin gliding back and forth as it evolved to, it rubs, leading to dryness, soreness, chafing and more chance of cystitis

Because of lowered sensitivity (well over half of the sensory structures have been destroyed) there is a need to compensate, longer harder thrusts, more use of fantasy etc
And a greater difficulty in coordinating responses (over half of the sensory input is not there).

Yeah, mutilated males are far more likely to be sexually dysfunctional and perverted / fetishistic etc.

Oh, and personal experience, it's no just their partners who end up with cystitis /UTIs more frequently.

Mutilated males are more prone to injuries and to UTIs

 

[somerandomguy]

THANK YOU.

Circumcision IS mutilation. And it opens the door to easier acceptance of the sexual abuse of boys. Boys also learn, if they've been mutilated, that bodily integrity is not a right that all humans share.

I strongly believe - in the face of no scientific evidence, I admit - that male genital mutilation, which only happens routinely for "medical" reasons in the United States, contributes to the large-scale male violence that exists solely in the USA among all developed nations. You can't tell me there are NO longstanding issues resulting from cutting off a large section of a newborn boy's penis. I think an increased propensity to commit violence is such a result.

Women of myPTSD, please listen. The existence of male genital mutilation in no way invalidates the horrors of FGM. It's NOT a competition. They can both be terrible! And MANY of us men of myPTSD have DIRECT EXPERIENCE with this kind of mutilation. Please do not insult our pain.

 

[blackemerald1]

Ok well the author of the post you quote is incorrect in terms of both female and male mutilation in Australia.

For female mutilation it happens frequently and secretly in various cultures. Basically back-yard ops.

It is performed (in males) in a religious ceremony in one particular culture in large numbers and routinely.

Up until the late 1980's it was done routinely by doctors in hospitals for all male infants. It was an 'opt' out situation originally and there was a shed load of disgust, misinformation and guilt heaped on parents who decided to opt out.

It lingered on and on and is deemed now to to be a choice where parents can now opt to have their male infants circumcised.

Aside from anything else there are still fatalities that occur from this activity. It just doesn't hit the media.

 

[Swift]

No one should have their genitals mutilated. Full stop. Ever.
Especially when they're too young to consent.
The mutilation of baby males should be criminalized, IMO.
As should "normalizing" genital surgeries on intersex folk, or those with atypical genital formation.
Male circumcision is terrible, and evil, and runs against all concepts of bodily integrity.
I imagine it's uniquely traumatizing, and I can't speak and won't speak over those it effects.

But. To draw parallels between male circumcision and FGM is reductive to both causes. FGM is done against a wider context of sex-based oppression.
Male genital mutilation is done against a wider context of the consent of men being assumed, the concept of masculinity being a sex and dominance driven one, wrongly, and a male-driven medical establishment with Judeo-Christian beliefs, historically speaking.
They are done for different purposes, for different reasons and to different effects. If this is a male circumcision thread insofar as it effects cis men, then I have nothing further to add
. Other than that it's terrible, obviously, and not at all analoguos to FGM.
Which is part of the problem, really.

 

[scout86]

Mutilation of male infants is usually done without any pain control. They're strapped into a "circumstraint" and the cutting and clamping of the most sensitive part of the part of their body

This is the part that bothers me the most. (Speaking as someone who's female and probably doesn't have much of a place in this discussion.)

Time was, the "experts" didn't think babies felt pain. I can't imagine what ever gave anyone THAT idea. But then, apparently there is still the thought, at least in this country, among members of the medical professions, that Black people don't feel pain like White people do. Again, I can't imagine what ever gave anyone THAT idea. Wishful thinking, maybe?

And @Anarchy , personally I think the most sensitive organ you can use to intimately relate to others is your brain. :D But, I get your point and it's nice to see you around here this morning! (Well, it's morning here anyway.)

 

[somerandomguy]

But. To draw parallels between male circumcision and FGM is reductive to both causes.

This came up because MGM was mentioned in a thread, and a member dismissed the brutality of MGM by comparing it to FGM.

The opposite also happens frequently when the topic of FGM is raised - some guy will ask why MGM, being much more common in the West, is being ignored.

Context matters. We shouldn't be comparing the two surgeries at all, since they have completely separate contexts and the main similarity is that they are done to a person's genitals without permission. It's NOT a competition on which gender has it worse. Both MGM and FGM are evil. Full stop.

 

[Neverthesame]

@Anarchy I know how circumcision is performed. I said I don't believe my circumcision has effected me in a negative way.
I didn't say that because I'm not bothered, no one else can be either.

If you're going to quote me to make me the villain of the thread, then going on a long tangent about the uselessness of circumcision. Don't leave out the part about the cousin of mine that needed one, because his foreskin had begun to seal itself shut.

Once exposed, it dries out and keratinizes, losing sensitivity

Myth.

The urinary opening (meatus) is likely to become ulcerated with contact with daipers, causing pain every time the infant urinates

Same happens if you leave any kid with any combination of genitals in a wet diaper for too long. It's called poor hygiene. This is what the Huggies wipes and baby powder are for.

and usually leading to significant scarring.

*Looks down* Nope. I know better than to stick it into a pencil sharpener.

Fore play is more difficult for both parties, and much less satisfying

Says you.

Penetration is not as easy or as gentle (the analogy of the difference between pulling a long sock straight on compared to unfurling it over your foot, is a good one) and a mutilated male is both less capable of producing and retaining natural lubrication.

Male lubrication is excreted from elsewhere, travelling through the urethra and exiting out the opening.
I don't make less mess than anyone else. Being totally honest, in the age of safe sex and KY-Jelly, it's really quite irrelevant.

Yeah, mutilated males are far more likely to be sexually dysfunctional and perverted / fetishistic etc.

The moral code the Catholic church beat into be did far more damage to my concept of sex/self/shame than losing a small length of superfluous tissue.

Because of lowered sensitivity (well over half of the sensory structures have been destroyed) there is a need to compensate, longer harder thrusts, more use of fantasy etc

Actually, I prefer it slow.
I'm not the one saying "Faster, harder".

During sex, instead of the skin gliding back and forth as it evolved to, it rubs, leading to dryness, soreness, chafing and more chance of cystitis

If she's dry.... You're doing something wrong.

Oh, and personal experience, it's no just their partners who end up with cystitis /UTIs more frequently.

Frequent UTIs are not common to any healthy person. Get that checked out, it's possibly a symptom of a much more serious condition.

There may be no conscious memory, but there's a very strong, unconscious traumatic memory.

This I actually agree with. Though do remember most crit-a trauma doesn't result in PTSD.
I'm sorry it did for you. Dead patients fill my nightmares, not circumcision.

If you're quite done trying to make me out to be a deformed, disease ridden, clumsy, sexual deviant? I will bid you adieu.

Oh, and here's a story from a thread I started ages ago, involving this very topic.

Spoiler: 6. In the future, maybe you should consider personal lubricant.

This took place when I was about 19-20. I just started my EMT course. A good friend of mine from highschool was dating one of my supervisors from the gas jockey job I mentioned in the last story. They met through me, still a bit awkward but, what can you do?

At this time we all lived at home, so like all 19 year old kids, when someone's parents are out of the house for the night, mischief isn't far behind.

I was never a terrible kid, so the parties I threw on these occasions were just a few friends and some drinks, nothing crazy. This night should have been no exception. (Oh boy, I had no idea...)

Evening started out simple enough, just the three of us, some drinks, card game. There was one thing that was really annoying me though. The lovely couple I was entertaining were still very much in the early honeymoon stage of their relationship. And were going at each other like a pair of horny teenagers, which they were.

Being the third wheel was getting a bit awkward, so I thought, why not compromise?

So I pitched an offer. I said "why don't you two go borrow the guest bedroom, I'll f*ck off upstairs for a bit. Get me when you're done."

They agreed. I went upstairs pleased with my diplomacy skills. I was also a closet pot smoker at the time, so I was also pleased with my devious ability to secretly go for a joint. (This turned into a mixed blessing)

So, off they went and up I went. Rolled a joint, went outside, smoked it, came back in and was making horrid screeching noises (what I call guitar practice).

(Pretty boring so far huh? Wait for it....)

I go out to the kitchen to grab a cup of tea, when I see my friend K (the girl) charging up the stairs in just a shirt. This seemed a bit odd. The look on her face, told me something was wrong.

Of course being a bit stoned, I thoughtimmediately that they must have broken the bed or something, nope...

She runs up to me and I notice something rather alarming, she had blood all over her thighs. Again, I thought maybe she was just surprised by her menstrual cycle. (I was naive, and high).

Nope.

She grabs me, starts pulling me down the stairs, I am trying to ask if she's ok?

She said "I'm fine, but G (boyfriend) is not. "This isn't my blood!" she exclaimed.

I walk through the basement which is finished, white walls, light grey carpets. I am staggered at the sight laid out before me.

There is blood splattered on the floor, walls and yes, even a bit on the ceiling. All leading to a puddle on the guest bed. Good lord, what a mess.

I would like to say that the first thing through my mind was, "Ok. Emergency scene management. Find the patient, assess condition" all that cool medic stuff.

Nope. All I could think was "I'm too stoned for this shit man."

Then it came back to me. I followed the blood trail back to the downstairs toilet. I banged on the door. "Hey G you ok?"
His answer was something like "The f*ck do you think?". Fair enough.

He wasn't letting me in, so I managed to get K to go in and tell me what she saw. She impressed the hell out of me with how she handled this. She was the kind of person who usually freaks out in a crisis. This time however, she was calm,observant, and followed my instructions. Had the bleed under control in no time.

Turned out what had happened, was he was not circumcised, I don't fully understand what he did, other than tear his foreskin. OOWW!!

That also explains the horrific blood splatter pattern all over the basement. I guess he took off running when he realised how bad he was bleeding. So it was sort of a semi flaccid red firehose thing, flopping around spraying blood all the way down the hall to the toilet. Poor guy.

So now that we had the medical crisis under control, it was time for cleanup.

You ever try to get copious amounts of blood out of a grey carpet? Not easy.

I did however discover that my mum, at some point, had made an amazing investment in a carpet shampoo attachment for the vacuum cleaner. OMG! That works so well. Couple hours later, done. You never know I had someone perform an accidental briss in the basement.

Parents none the wiser, or at least didn't mention it, ever.

Now lesson learnt for me.
Don't use your basement as a bordello.
Also invest in a carpet shampooing machine, totally worth it. Oh and pot also is quite useful for making something like shampooing blood out of a carpet, rather entertaining.

As for G. He was OK, didn't even need stitches. I still feel soo bad for him though.

K. Hell of an assistant.

 

[Suzetig]

We shouldn't be comparing the two surgeries, since they have completely separate contexts

Context does matter enormously - to call both “surgeries” denies the context of FGM, which holds no medical benefits and is done entirely from a place of controlling the sexuality of women.

I wouldn’t argue male circumcision is ok, I’m female and don’t have a dog in that fight but to compare it in any way to FGM is appallingly misinformed. FGM is an act of violence against women and girls, it utterly undermines sexual functioning and creates significant risk in child birth. It is illegal across most of the globe for very good reason.

Male circumcision can have medical benefits (I know 3 men who were circumcised for health reasons in adulthood), I guess the argument with male circumcision is much more about the enforced act in childhood than the procedure itself, which can’t be said for FGM in that it never has health benefits for women and can’t be carried out legally in a clinical environment.

It’s not a competition - but it is comparing apples with pears.

 

[Swift]

Apples and pears indeed.
So. Let's just talk about male circumcision? OP was talking about his trauma.
I'll bugger off now.

 

[somerandomguy]

Can we agree that male circumcision, if done in infancy or for no medical reason, is mutilation? If not, then I'm afraid there's no basis for any agreement at all.

There are plenty of men who have been mutilated at birth who consider themselves to have had no problems. That's fine, but then they get defensive about a surgical procedure the never consented to. That's fine, man, it's your dick. But I am angry about my non-consensual surgery, and I'll thank you not to minimize my own pain and anger. Some of our genitals simply don't work as well as they could have because of someone else's decisions on our behalf. I'm glad that didn't happen to you.

Male circumcision, if done in infancy or for no medical reason, is mutilation and should be called as such: it is male genital mutilation. Period. Let's not minimize it by comparing it to any other procedure. To bring up FGM to men who are struggling with the effects of their own mutilation is simply disrespectful. I'd thank you to keep your comments to yourself, or start your own thread.

 

[Swift]

Absolutely.
As I said before, male genital mutilation should be criminalized.

 

[Anarchy]

Mods, please don't combine this with the previous post.
Thanks.
_________________________________

"Female circumcision" is most certainly NOT equivalent to circumcision. It's a term that the media took up to describe something that happens in many Third World countries. It's not performed in the United States. (Except perhaps in small ethnic communities, in a non-medical setting. I can't imagine that either Canada or Australia does this, either, and I think that covers 99%+ of the board members.
So it's irrelevant here.

Within living memory, female genital mutilation was practiced on the mainstream population of North America and the other parts of the English speaking world.

Like the ongoing practice of male genital mutilation, it was carried out under the totally false pretext of "medically necessary"

Don't for one second think that the mainstream population of the English speaking world is somehow less superstitious or backwards than:

many Third World countries

Some of the superstitions and backwardness are different, but that doesn't mean that they are less pervasive, less numerous nor less harmful, in the English speaking world.

I know that this is a biased sample, as the members here from places where English is not the main language, are by definition, better educated than the average to have achieved competency in a second (and sometimes third fourth or fifth eg our Finnish members who studied English as their fourth or fifth) Language

Even allowing for that bias, there is still far greater rationality and less superstition in a lot of non English speaking places. Aristotle and logic were not dropped in favour of divine revelation in those places at the time of the wars of the Christian "reformation", as they were dropped in the English speaking world.

Female genital mutilation was practiced in the English speaking world, definitely up to the 1940s, and probably up to the late 1960s and possibly later

The spurious medical pretext?

As a cure for the "disease" of masturbation

Medical practitioners and religious priests have a great deal in common.

Both tend to see themselves as entitled, and neither is given to rational questioning of the "why"s of what they are doing.

Both are inclined to dismiss any questions as impertinent or stemming from the questoners lack of their training and assumed social position...

Medicine and priesthoods is very inclined to pathologize any deviation from the selfish justifications for the privileges and superstitions of the social class which the practitioners believe that they are part of.

(Examples of this are the fake diseases that said that black people's features were due to infection with a type of leprosy (and the implicit warning within that, don't love a black person, you'll catch it) drapetomania - that a slave questioning slavery and wishing to escape was mentally ill.
Drapetomania was really branded and re launched by both sides during the cold war, questioning the rightness of the position of whichever belligerent you lived in, was taken as evidence of schizophrenia and could get you coercively hospitalized and "treated"
The latest and highly abusive re brand and re launch of drapetomania and sluggish schizophrenia is "oppositional defiant disorder" where children who object to being abused by self styled authority figures, and being sent to child day prison, are pathologized and sometimes forcibly medicated.

The medical profession is very energetic at creating false diseases in order to justify abusive social controls.

How did the harmless and enjoyable self indulgence of masturbation come to be classified as a "disease"?

For that, we probably have to go back to the christian revival movement that kicked off in the English speaking world in around the 1830s

This was arguably the violent religious counter revolution to the peaceful rational revolution of the 18th century age of reason.
It created a violent and superstitious age of un reason that we are still living in.

The Christianity that emerged, particularly in the "burnt over land" stretching from Massachusets, through upstate new York and into ohio and michigan... the land burnt over by repeated fires of religious fanaticism.

Can be described as "post millenial pietism"

It believed that man had to stamp out sin, and establish dog's rule on earth for a thousand years before jesus will return and reward the faithful with a day of judgement

The northern variety also believed that it wasn't just necessary to eliminate your own sinning
It was necessary to "save" others souls from sin.

What did they consider constituted sin?
They had a far wider definition of sin than dog or the bible, remember that at least some of these people were descended from puritanical calvanists;
Sex, alcohol, gambling, music, dance, roman catholicism, holding different opinions and views...

How to achieve this stamping out of sin?

Politics and the use of the states apparatus of coercion was one means. The Republican party had its roots in post millenial pietism as a party of "great moral ideas".

The democratic party held out as a party of personal freedom until the Bryanite takeover in 1896, when it too became pietistic, and barely distinguishable from the Republican party on issues such as alcohol prohibition.

A minority (whether religious or the state) cannot long impose their views on a majority by force

To get those views to stick, it is necessary to use ideology

To impose what marx describes as a false class consciousness,that serves the selfish class interests of another class (marx stole the concepts of ideology and of class analysis from the much more sophisticated analysis developed by French classical liberals at the time of the re imposition of the bourbon dynasty. Unfortunately everyone has heard of marx and his misuse of the ideas, very few have heard of Charles Comte and Charles du Noyer)

It is necessary to enlist what Hayek (intellectuals and socialism) describes as "dealers in second hand ideas"

Priests, public school teachers, and other people who fancy themselves as authority figures and moulders of public opinion and shapers of the narrative

Around the time that the Bryanite takeover of the Democratic party was taking place, and cabal of doctors were using state coercion to close down the majority of medical schools and to control the remainder (to limit the number of doctors in order to keep medical incomes high). While doctors were availing themselves of state violence
The (pietist controlled) state was also availing itself of doctors

For a readily accessible idea of the ideas and opinions on children's genitalia that were current, check out co inventor of Corn flakes John Harvey Kellogg's abusive and sadistic views
kellogg circumcision at DuckDuckGo

Interestingly kellogg wasn't a post millenial, he was a seventh day adventist ( jesus has already returned, but he's invisible, the day of judgement is due any time now).

Has anyone else wondered how surgery might be somehow necessary for cleanliness in the sense of "hygiene" at a time and place when soap and warm water had never been more easily available in all of human history?

Here's a thought, that the "cleanliness" was nothing to do with hygiene, it was more likely to be in the biblical sense