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.

There are simple explanations for why circumcised men don't all band their power and influence together to stop circumcision;

To go against circumcision would awaken an intense cognitive dissonance.
They do not want to believe that their parents could have done something permanent to them before they could defend themselves for no other reason than "tradition".
To accept that it is not medically necessary is to admit that neither of your parents could be bothered thinking critically about your bodily autonomy.

Don't forget that even men need to be controlled and indoctrinated as children for a patriarchy to work.

I've had this discussion with many people from the US and always get the same replies:

'but his dad and his dad before him had it - it's tradition'

'its cleaner' god forbid men be taught to wash their willies properly of course

'women will think it's ugly otherwise' - another cultural issue, have read threads of women stating they thing uncirc is ugly

'it prevents STIs' - in a 3rd world country this is a good argument, in countries where we have access to education, prevention and healthcare it isn't a good enough excuse to mutilate a baby.

It's barbaric ... but it's not my battle unless it's the foreskin that fucks up their aim at the toilet in which case make it compulsory

It's barbaric ... but it's not my battle

Human trafficking is barbaric... but it's not my battle!

Imagine if we all took that approach in life. Someone needs to care. The people who are affected by the barbaric practises are often unable to speak up for themselves or change their situation. Babies cannot speak for themselves.

It's not my battle (shrug) and after the pain my ds went through pre-circumcision, I can't help wishing we'd done it earlier.

My 3 boys aren't circumcised and are perfectly clean and are in no pain. Their Dad isn't circumcised and was in no pain.

If it's for medical reasons then fine but if not it's barbaric and weird to decide to dislike a part of a body and lob it off.

I know only one person who needed a medical circumcision. I am 100% sure that he is happy his parents did not chop a bit of him off before it was medically necessary, even if it was painful at the time.

Don't forget that even men need to be controlled and indoctrinated as children for a patriarchy to work.

Yes I too think it's this. Also boy babies are seen as feminine in a way, they are small and clingy and crave affection, they haven't developed 'manly' qualities yet. So they are multilated while still feminine which doesn't garner the same outrage.

Several years ago after a colleague brought a brochure to work (on reconstructive surgery) I asked my husband several questions. No he does not regret having been circ'd, actually never thought about it. No he doesn't begrudge his parents, they did what they thought was best at the time. No, he doesn't feel different nor does he look at other men in the bathrooms. And no he doesn't care if his grandchildren are or aren't circumcised.
So like others, this isn't my bandwagon to jump on.
Oddly enough at some point in time being a circumcised male was a job requirement with the RCMP.

I can't see many reasons either for or against. A small decrease in sensitivity, maybe. Although a man who was circumcised wouldn't realise this.

I'm not buying the hygiene argument. That's just down to regular washing, which ought to be par for the course.

So it comes down to why cut away a perfectly functioning body part for no reason?

Seriously. There is no good reason.

Shouldn't happen.

Three reasons:

1. Tribalism-this is the primary motivation of religious mutilation to mark out those born into the religion
2. Stupidity-many people still believe that it is cleaner/beneficial
3. Sexual control-it was original touted in western countries as a cure to mastrabation

Such interesting responses, thanks all. I agree that it's not really women's battle to fight, except as mothers of sons on an individual level. It just puzzles me that men aren't fighting it, and I think there are really interesting answers on this thread as to why.

Masturbation is a funny one, isn't it? In the days when boys were controlled in that way I suppose it was expected that they'd be free to wank into non-consenting women.

Abuse of children of both sexes is a big, important part of patriarchy. There are patriarchal countries where the rape of boys is considered completely normal. (Cannot remember which country it was, but read a book that detailed how lorry drivers there always had a boy with them, who'd do small jobs, fetch things ... and serve as object to be raped at nights. The men all considered this totally okay, because it was the way they had started, too.)

So, doing something that causes pain to little boys? No problem whatsoever!

It is possible circumcision was born out of a desire to imitate women, and first, it was the foreskins of teenage boys that were ritually sacrificed to emulate menstruation. In some patriarchal cultures, men feed boy children their semen and claim it is like milk, so there's that - womb envy.

Everything that harms little boys also helps patriarchy - it hurts the mother of that little boy emotionally, making her feel even more powerless, and it causes anger in that boy - anger that can then be directed at women, or enemy men, for the benefit of the patriarch.

What are the typical reasons you would need circumcision as an adult? (I've lived a sheltered life.)

What ttbb says. It's a tribal marker and about sexual control.

Feminism is a useful way of analysing the world but it isn't the only way.

Grawp

I believe a common reason is the foreskin is too tight and causes pain. Or infection.

Believe it's called phimosis

I'm in the UK so most of my sexual partners have been uncircumcised. I had one American boyfriend who was circumcised and there was no difference at all in smell/taste/hygiene. If an uncircumcised man seems to be dirty then he just needs to wash more thoroughly!

There is no reason at all to perform surgery on healthy babies. I think the reason men don't argue against it is probably because they don't remember having it done to them and therefore haven't given it much thought. Like many other outdated traditions there's the "it never did me any harm" kind of logic.

I had a partner who was circumcised. He had a very sensitive penis and I can't believe he had lost any sexual pleasure as a result (if anything, the opposite).
I'm against the practice myself but I disagree with people who say it reduces pleasure and numbs feeling. Not the case for all men, although it's obviously a risk.