Is male circumcision and genital mutilation same? Is it legal? Why is it done? W!

It is mutilation and it should be illegal

Circumcision is Unnecessary Risky, and Painful. Complications occur 2-10% of the time!(1) If you count more "minor" skin tags, complication rates as high as 55%(1) have been documented. Perhaps worst of all, more then 117 (4) to 230(5) infants in the U.S. die from circumcision every year.

DO YOUR RESEARCH The circ rate is down to 30% in the U.S. will be in the growing majority!. Besides who is to say your son will even value conformity

No official western medical organization in the world recommends it, not even in Israel!. The Royal Dutch Medical Society, The British Medical Association, the Canadian Pediatric Society, and the Royal Australian College of Physicians have all made official policy statements against circumcision. The AAP, the AMA, the AAFP, and the AUA are in agreement that there are no proven benefits. they all have officialy termed circumcision as non-therapeutic or ritual surgery.

What is the foreskin? Information about the foreskin is virtually absent during discussions of anatomy in biology classrooms, and yet, the foreskin provides a well-documeted set of crucial sensory, protective, immunological, hygienic, and sexual functions. The foreskin is a double fold of skin that is twice as big as its appearance. It can make up to 80% or more of the penile skin covering, and includes around 12-20 square inches of skin (the size of a 3x4 or a 4x5 index card!), and in turn includes a specialized sheet of dartos muscle(42,44). One of the functions of this mobile skin system is to glide up and down the shaft of the penis in order to facilitate non-abrasive stimulation during sexual activity without any need for artificial lubricant. This frictionless gliding mechanism is the principal source of stimulation for the intact penis and facilitates non-abrasive intercourse.

in a 2006 study which measured the sensitivity of all the parts of the penis. they concluded

"Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision were more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis ... which is the amputation scar on the ventral side "(51)

The foreskin, like the eyelid, also serves an important set of protective and immunological functions. The foreskin protects the delicate glans of the penis and puts the urethra at a distance form its environment protecting it from foreign contaminants of all kinds. While simultaneously shielding the penis from injury. The foreskins inner fold and the glans of the penis are comprised of mucous membrane tissue. These are also present in your eyes, mouth, and all other bodily orifices including the female genitals. These mucous membranes perform many immunological and hygienic functions. Certain components such as Langerhans cells(52), plasma cells(53), apocrine glands(54), and sebaceous glands(55), collectively secrete emolliating lubricants(56) rich in enzymes such as lysosomal enzymes, cathepsin B, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase, immunoglobulin, and cytokine(58,58) whose function is to sequester and “digest” foreign pathogens. The foreskin is also responsible for the production, retention, and dispersal of pheromones such as androsterone(59). In time we will discover even more information about the foreskin and its functional components.

The intact penis is naturally clean and maintains a level of hygiene that is optimal when compared to a penis that has been altered by circumcision. In fact, a myriad of rigorously controlled studies performed by objective researchers among racially and socioeconomically homogeneous study groups in developed urban settings have shown that circumcision is often associated with an increased risk of bacterial infections, viral infections, and major STD’s (60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71).

Great article!!:
http://www.mothering.com/health/the-case…

Just watch a circumcision!!!! This should tell you all you need to know.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=013PdUzvW…

The psychological impact has been well documented. This article will address this.
http://knol.google.com/k/circumcision-an…

Contact me at craig.ginsbe@yahoo.com for advice, detailed research and the rest of my refrences.

sry cant fit all references
(1)Williams, N; L. Kapila (October 1993). "Complications of circumcision". British Journal of Surgery 80 (10): 1231-1236.
(4) Bollinger, Dan; Boy's Health Advisory (2010-04-26). "Lost Boys: An Estimate of U.S. Circumcision-Related Infant Deaths". Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies 4 (1): 78–90
(5) Gellis, SS. Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 1978;132:1168.
(44) Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized musocsa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996 Feb;77(2): 291-5

(51)Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis . BJU 2006 Oct:22, pp. 864-869
(52) Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of diminished immune response? Isr J Med Sci 1993 Jan;29(1);42-3
(55)Hyman AB, Brownstien MH. Tyson's "glands": ectopic sebaceous glands and papillomatosis penis. Arch Dermatol 1969 Jan;99(1):31-6
(57) Ahmed AA, Nordlind K, Schultzberd M, Liden S. Immunohisto chemical localization of IL-1 alpha-, IL-1 beta-, IL-6- and TNF-alpha-like immunoreactivities in human apocrine glands Arch
(63) Van Howe R. Does Circumcision Influence Sexually Transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62.
(64) Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual Practice. JAMA 1997 Apr2;277(13):1052-7

First let's be clear what constitutes "mutilation". It's a highly subjective term, but the definition is damage or disfigurement. Circumcision damages sexual sensitivity and removes the foreskin, turning the glans from an internal to an external structure. I would say that qualifies as mutilation.

Male circumcision has not been made illegal out of a fear of being perceived as religiously intolerant. Sweden once passed a law requiring that anyone who performed a circumcision would have to be medically licensed. Its government was likened to that of Nazi Germany.

Circumcision was first practiced at least 4000 years ago, but it was probably done much earlier. The original rationale is unclear, but most anthropologists agree that it was a method of population control. The reasoning of leaders at the time was that by removing the foreskin, they could suppress sexual sensitivity and drive, resulting in fewer children. The benefits were obvious; food could be scarce at the time and a pregnant woman had to consume a lot. It was also an effective method of population control when the rate of population growth was around 0.001% (at this time, infanticide and senicide were very common).

From there it become incorporated into several religions. The brit milah, or covenant of circumcision, first originated around 500 BCE, though circumcision was not entirely unknown to the Hebraic tribes before that point. The theocracy that established itself in Israel and Judea wanted a way of ensuring men's loyalties to the state, so they required that every boy be subjected to dangerous surgery. A man who refused to circumcise his son was clearly not loyal to the rabbinic elite, and therefore along with his son was treated as an outsider by the community.

The health benefits of circumcision are hotly disputed. It was first performed in the Western world to stop boys from masturbating. From there it was claimed to cure everything from epilepsy to cretinism. In the late twentieth century, these wild claims were dismissed, but the medical establishment was unwilling to stop circumcising. Several excuses were fabricated, including reduced rates of penile and cervical cancer (neither of which have been proven). In the 1980s and '90s the popular rationale was to prevent urinary tract infections (disregarding the fact that girls get UTIs with more frequency than boys and that such infections are easily treated with cheap antibiotics). Now the popular justification is AIDS, after a few studies in Africa made the claim that circumcised men had a lower incidence of HIV. This data has not been enough to convince a single medical organization in the world (not even in the US or Israel) to recommend infant circumcision. Look at the worldwide prevalence of HIV and circumcision and you'll see how truly ineffective male genital mutilation is at stopping a disease that is already 100% preventable.

ALL forms of circumcision are genital mutilation. So yes, they're one in the same. "Circumcision" is just a cutesy term to make genital mutilation seem more acceptable.

Male circumcision (MGM) is illegal in a few countries, I believe. Female circumcision (FGM) is illegal in most developed countries.

It's done because some people don't take the time to research it, and are therefore unaware of the sheer lack of medical benefits, and how unnecessary and damaging it is.

Benefits of circumcision are opinions, rather than facts. Maybe a guy prefers the look of a circumcised penis, so for him it'd be a benefit. But another guy might prefer the look of an intact ("uncircumcised") penis, so for him it would NOT be a benefit.
It's all your personal perspective. It's best to let each man decide for himself what he views the pros and cons to be, so he can make his own informed decision on whether or not he wants a permanent cosmetic alteration done to his body.

If you're talking MEDICAL benefits, there are some very very slight benefits. For example, about 2% of intact baby boys will get a UTI, but only 1% of circumcised baby boys. Considering that circumcised baby boys are over ten times likely to get other types of infections, that slight benefit is DEFINITELY outweighed by the risks.
(Although...the only reason why intact baby boys are more likely to get UTIs is because some parents force back the foreskin, instead of leaving it be. Forcing back the foreskin is the number one cause of foreskin infections in kids).

The only other medical benefit is that it saves half a second of washing in the shower.


@ Zara - Congratulations, you referenced the website of a guy with a circumcision fetish. None of the information presented on that website is correct.

Cancer of the penis is WAY rarer than 1/1000. It's closer to 1/500000. The country of Denmark has the lowest penile cancer rates in the world - and guess, very very few men there are circumcised.
The biggest risk factor of penile cancer is smoking. Not having a foreskin. Circumcised men can also get penile cancer because they have a, you know, penis.

HPV does not "thrive" underneath the foreskin. Geez, where do people get this sh!t from? oh right, Brian Morris.

It has been disputed time and time again that circumcision has anything to do with HIV/AIDS. The USA has the highest HIV rate in the developed world, and yet, 75% of men there are circumcised.

OMG a circumcised penis is SO not odour free. NO ONE's genitals are completely odour-free.
And how is it possible that circumcised men enjoy better sex? They had an important, functioning part of their genitals removed.

For the record, girls do NOT prefer circumcised guys. And if they DO, then they are totally uneducated and moronic. An intact penis gives more pleasure for both the man and the woman and looks exactly the same as a circumcised penis when erect. Not to mention, I would NEVER want a man to mutilate himself just because I like the way something LOOKS. That is just selfish and ridiculous.

My most important point is this: if a grown man wants to change his genitals for some reason, regardless of what that reason is, then that is his choice. The same goes for adult women. But under no circumstances do I think it is right, or that it should be legal, to do the same to a minor.

Yes, male circumcision and genital mutilation are the same.

Is it legal? Yes, in most places. A very few countries have made it illegal in certain circumstances.

Why is it done? Because many people are ignorant morons who haven't the sense to research it.

What are it's benefits? There are none. It is a damaging and unhealthy cosmetic procedure.

Here in Australia they only do it if it is for a medical purpose.

The majority of the world is uncircumcised as the should be.


They first used circumcision in desert regions like the middle east. to combat dryness and sand.

I hear the women in the US like it more. But nearly the rest of the world still are full men.


I have my skin and I would rather keep it. It protects your glans from the outside environment.
Your penis is more protected from disease if you still have your skin. We don't cut our ear lobes off do we.
Plus humans can't better nature and evolution so they should stop trying to modify things.
Circumcised mens glans get condensed skin and are less sensitive because of all the abrasion.


Plus have you seen some of those fail circumcisions where the penis changes skin color where the cut was made. Yes it is genital Mutilation. But over in Africa they even sew young girls vagina's together so humans are just sick.


@Zara
you are mentioning thing that are so rare anyways that it doesn't even matter. Yes there are advantages of removing the whole penis as well but do we do that no. How about all you women cut your cagina flaps off. Get a grip girl, most countries that did it have now stopped because it is wrong.
There are so many penises that have forskins even now in the US porn.

Main reason though is that men that are circumcised miss out on a lot of the pleasure receptors we have because of the constant abrasion on the glans turning it dry and less sensitive.

Most other Answers have covered the background
so i will just answer your questions

1) Circumcision is by definition cutting off a functioning part of the body.
Yes, it is mutilation.

2) It is not legal for girls in most Western countries
It is legal for boys in U.S.A.
It is not covered by NHS in U.K. and is only "ethical" for medical emergencies.
Needless to say, Jewish and Moslem doctors have been known to cheat.
There is currently some controversy in Europe.

3) Predudice and Ignorance and Stone Age religious traditions

4) None whatsoever.

+

There are no benefits. A cut up penis is not cleaner nor does it get less stds. The alleged benefits are contrived by people wanting a reason to pass this on to the next generation.

A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous.

Male "circumcision" is definitely genital mutilation, it fits the definition. If you can't understand it to be mutilation, then either your dictionary is faulty or your comprehension is lacking.

You think it is ok just because "doctors" have been doing it then read this about what their "ethics" has allowed them to do.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110227/ap_o…

Not too many years ago "doctors" also did cigarette commercials claiming medical benefit for smoking. Yes a benefit for a "doctors" bank balance. Anything for a dollar, even mutilating a baby boy's penis.

And before you can even get here wounddo: schoen is as bad as any of those creepy money grubbers.

There isn't a type of circumcision that isn't concidered mutilation.

There are no benefits of it.
It's done because there are some very uneducated people who still think there are benefits.

-Connor

Because people are silly and artificial. There are no benefits, just a non functioning wiener the rest of your life. It is legal, tisk tisk society.

No it is not genital mutilation and is legal.
What are the benefits from circumcision?

Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised.

Protection against HIV and AIDS. A British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus.


Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex.

Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

http://www.circinfo.net/benefits_outweig…