Male circumcision and patriarchy

[HeatedCatFurniture]

DP and I were discussing this the other night and I said I would post a thread on here for some MN wisdom, as I had no idea what the answer is.

If we assume that circumcision isn't great for men and boys (dangerous, reduces sexual pleasure, heath benefits are debatable at best), why is it still so common?

We know what FGM is for under patriarchy, but what about male circumcision? I can kind of understand it on an individual level: men are socialised to think their penises are GREAT so why would their sons not be delighted with one just the same? But it's weird that something that's fundamentally damaging to men continues to be carried out so widely.

I think it's fine. The horror and smell of cheesy dick.. Boak

I agree it's a puzzle. It does desensitise the penis, which is an odd thing to continue under a patriarchal society.

Any unnecessary procedure that involves mutilating somebody's body without their permission is barbaric!

It's not odd at all if taken as a symbolic sacrifice (which I think it is in the OT): surely in a setting that favours maleness a sacrifice of a piece of penis is more worthy than one that can be made by a mere woman.

I don't think it is so common outside of certain cultures - the only people I know who circumcised their boys were a) not from the UK (as in came to the UK as adults - not just ethnically) and b) of a religion that does it.

I know more people from the UK (ie born and raised here, but not necessarily of british heritage), but of that religion that didn't circumcise their boys - because in the UK, there's a strong feeling that it's barbaric to lop bits of babies for no reason - it just becomes a set of competing cultural practises at that point.

TBH, cultures are hard to change, it takes a concerted effort (see also drink driving, smoking etc. There has to be a public will to change a practise)

I don't really understand why rountine circumcision of baby boys is even a thing. A pointless procedure pushed by patriarchal religions.

It's less common in cultures that are less patriarchal, which makes it even stranger IMO. More resistance to change generally maybe.

I've slept with two men who were circumcised as adults for medical reasons, and neither of them felt it had reduced their sexual pleasure - probably the opposite in fact.

Otherwise, it's a marker of religious and cultural belonging and if it's the norm within a particular group, then I can see that a lack of circumcision can seem odd, and actually a bit dirty. Unclean in both the religious and practical sense.

Yeah, given a choice as a woman who sleeps with men, I prefer circumcised to not.

It seems to be very common in the US, for boys of all faiths and none.

It was (and still is ) a good money making scheme for the doctors in America.

I knew someone that had it done for health reasons and I do think it's cleaner and doesnt necessarily desensitize his pleasure. But I do think otherwise it's unnecessary unless it's for strong religious beliefs but I'd have to know more about this.

I'm not a fan (although poor teen ds had to have it done recently! Gah!)
However I can't get exercised over it - I feel if it was that bad there would be large groups of American/Australian/Muslim and Jewish men demanding it to stop - or at least discretely not doing it to their sons. Afaik there isn't this strength of feeling.

However I can't get exercised over it - I feel if it was that bad there would be large groups of American/Australian/Muslim and Jewish men demanding it to stop - or at least discretely not doing it to their sons. Afaik there isn't this strength of feeling.

It is the women who perform FGM procedures. Women who have undergone the procedure themselves and yet this is (rightly) deemed barbaric.

But I feel women don't have any power - men do. That's a huge difference

Is it still that common outside of the US / religions?

In the US it was believed to be more healthy and was simply standard. Standards are hard to change, especially if there is "science" showing something is good/bad behind that standard. See vaccinations.

Seeingadistance

Do tell, what's so unclean about it?

If we assume that circumcision isn't great for men and boys (dangerous, reduces sexual pleasure, heath benefits are debatable at best), why is it still so common?

• Cultural/religious tradition
• Money-maker for hospitals/doctors
• False beliefs in healthiness/cleanliness
• Belief that it is more desirable/attractive

I think the last point is the reason why there isn't widespread condemnation of circumcision by men; to condemn circumcision would be to admit that their penis has been altered for the worse.

But I feel women don't have any power - men do. That's a huge difference

I would agree men have more power than women generally but when there are pressures from "elders" and cultural "norms", breaking that would not be easy.

Baby boys circumcised without consent don't really have much power do they?
Patriarchy harms men as well as women if often said on here.
Not sure what circumcision is "for" under patriarchy though. It doesn't seem to have a use.

I would have thought American, Australian, Jewish and Muslim MEN were some of the more powerful people in the universe. I just can't believe they don't have the resolve, the money, the status, the education, the opportunity, the wherewithal whatever, to resist this if they wanted to. They don't want it to, because it doesn't bother or harm them.

There are very few commonalities with female fgm as far as I can see and I am uncomfortable with efforts to make them on a par.

I think it's fine. The horror and smell of cheesy dick.. Boak

That's a personal hygiene issue, not a circumcised vs uncircumcised issue.

I'm sure there are many many smelly, cheesy uncircumcised dicks out there too... Boak.

It's wrong quite simply, to perform unnecessary surgery on a child, boy or girl, when they are too young to understand the implications of the choice, or indeed to choose a religion.

Children are not born Jewish, Muslim or Christian.

Whilst FGM is in its more invasive forms far worse than male circumcision, they are both still morally wrong.

Mm, but I think prioritizing one's outrage is important. I can't feel any outrage here.

In the US it is still being seen as a health thing. I've heard a lot of misinformation about it from people in my time. But from people who spend 5 minutes considering it there is a real vehemence in their opposition in a way I don't see for women's rights issues.

I'm full of outrage for this and other feminist issues. I do see this as a feminist issue as I know a lot of women who didn't want it done and had their perfect baby taken and chopped against their wishes.