Page 1 of 2
Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:40 am
by raymar2020 (imported)
I recently met a young man at the gym, wearing a shirt that said " I'm not gay but my boyfriend is" who I will admit checked a lot of boxes in my list of things attractive. We ended up spotting each other and chatting, and even though I am in a monogamous relationship ( doesn't mean I can't look at the menu) when he showered I did too out of curiosity. As we undressed for the shower he commented that I was "unique" too. I had noticed immediately that his penis was rather blunt on the end.
After our showers we stopped and had a cold drink in the lounge area. We discussed how I became a eunuch , and he offered up his story on how his penis came to be missing the whole glans. Seems that when he was being circumcised as an infant that the doctor sneezed and took off a goodly portion of it. Due to the size of the severed piece no attempt was made at re-attachment. Then as a 6 year old , another doctor worked on it a second time removing the rest of the glans. His story brought to the surface again for me the insanity of our society.
We support and even encourage the ritual genital mutilation of our children. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure performed mostly on people who have absolutley no say in the amputation of a part of the body they were born with. While complications like my new young friend endured are rare, botched circumcisions certainly are not. And yet this same society that will attack and savage the genitals of its male children is horrified at the notion that even one of them as an adult might decide that having testicles is not for them. If it is acceptable for parents to make the decision to amputate such a sensitive part of the body , then why later in life is it unacceptable for a now mature person to decide that possessing reproductive organs is not something they wish to do? Even more bizarre is that this ritual mutilation of boys is deemed acceptable but the groups that choose to do such surgeries on female children are considered to be vile and evil.
Fortunately my new young friend seems quite accepting of his situation, although he did admit that some of the guys he has met were quite put off by his "modification". Aside from him I know quite a few others who have real issues with what was done to them as an infant. The scars of circumcision are not only found on the penis. The procedure can leave serious wounds to the mind and soul as well.
Its high time that this unnecessary procedure be reserved for consenting adults to choose to do.
Raymar
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:54 am
by daifu-orchid (imported)
It seems that Dr Fara's website would agree that such a service should be available. (By coincidence, he happens to offer it for a staggering 5 grand.)
Like your new friend, I didn't expect to be mutilated, and probably like him and his peers, would share an instinctual or learned revulsion for any such mutilation, even though it makes no logical sense.
Now I find myself happier in my nutless state than before, I have concluded that others should be free to choose it.
Like all irreversible changes, it must be chosen with care, but that is not a reason to deny it to all.
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:06 am
by paring (imported)
raymar2020 (imported) wrote: Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:40 am
I recently met a young man at the gym, wearing a shirt that said " I'm not gay but my boyfriend is" who I will admit checked a lot of boxes in my list of things attractive. We ended up spotting each other and chatting, and even though I am in a monogamous relationship ( doesn't mean I can't look at the menu) when he showered I did too out of curiosity. As we undressed for the shower he commented that I was "unique" too. I had noticed immediately that his penis was rather blunt on the end.
After our showers we stopped and had a cold drink in the lounge area. We discussed how I became a eunuch , and he offered up his story on how his penis came to be missing the whole glans. Seems that when he was being circumcised as an infant that the doctor sneezed and took off a goodly portion of it. Due to the size of the severed piece no attempt was made at re-attachment. Then as a 6 year old , another doctor worked on it a second time removing the rest of the glans. His story brought to the surface again for me the insanity of our society.
We support and even encourage the ritual genital mutilation of our children. Circumcision is an unnecessary procedure performed mostly on people who have absolutley no say in the amputation of a part of the body they were born with. While complications like my new young friend endured are rare, botched circumcisions certainly are not. And yet this same society that will attack and savage the genitals of its male children is horrified at the notion that even one of them as an adult might decide that having testicles is not for them. If it is acceptable for parents to make the decision to amputate such a sensitive part of the body , then why later in life is it unacceptable for a now mature person to decide that possessing reproductive organs is not something they wish to do? Even more bizarre is that this ritual mutilation of boys is deemed acceptable but the groups that choose to do such surgeries on female children are considered to be vile and evil.
Fortunately my new young friend seems quite accepting of his situation, although he did admit that some of the guys he has met were quite put off by his "modification". Aside from him I know quite a few others who have real issues with what was done to them as an infant. The scars of circumcision are not only found on the penis. The procedure can leave serious wounds to the mind and soul as well.
Its high time that this unnecessary procedure be reserved for consenting adults to choose to do.
Raymar
I totally agree with you, circumcision should be reserved to consenting adults. I felt rejected too because of my circumcision, about 80% of my shaft skin was removed.
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Sat Feb 08, 2014 3:10 pm
by jako9999 (imported)
How can countries be so different having been to the US several times it is very like the UK and yet you are all butchered against your will where as over here it very rare at birth and is only done on request or for medical reason. I was 32 when I decided I wanted to be circumcised and I have to say I only wish I had got it done years ago it is so much better but it should be the persons choice. I do understand where all you in the US are coming from the choice should have been yours. I know its of no consolation to any of you but it was one of the best things I have had done its up there with becoming a eunuch.
Thanks
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:49 pm
by Atreyu69 (imported)
The boy in this video says that if he was circumcised he'd never be a "true man". I think he might have it confused with castration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEsXjIJeSic
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:30 pm
by Paolo
His facial expressions are the best part.
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 4:33 am
by Twinsenboy (imported)
Men are supposed to be nice and powerful at the same time.
We got lots of responsibilities.
Yet, we are mutilated against our will... on our manhoods!
How can society be demanding of us at the same time as treating us this badly, for being men?
What kind of signals does this send, if nothing but subconsciously?
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:49 am
by JesusA (imported)
A more appropriate title for this thread would probably be Body Modification in the 21st Century. Genital modification is only one of a number of modifications that can be or are made to the body that are not strictly required for physical health. Some modifications are made TO children by adults; some are sought BY adults for themselves. Some are legal and some are not.
There is no rational reason to the legality or illegality of various modifications. (Law and Logic may both begin with the letter L, but there seems to be little or no other connection between the concepts.)
Some of the modifications are reversible and others not e.g., ear piercing of little girls vs. circumcision of little boys. Vera Bergelson (see the EA Bibliography) has written in detail about the legal case for a "right to be hurt," the right to choose to be modified. The general status of the law is that, other than for a few types, it is illegal to take any actions that would lead to irreversible modification of the body. However, there are some modifications that are legally acceptable e.g., brain injuries from boxing or football. Body piercing (somewhat reversible) seems to have moved into mainstream acceptance for a socially accepted right to be hurt, though it is generally not legal yet. Tattooing was only made legal in New York in 1997 and was technically an illegal activity before then! Amputations have not yet become an individual right, at least for adults, other than those modifications with a long historical and cultural background in western society, such as circumcision, and a few more recent ones, such as plastic surgery.
There is both decreasing acceptance of modification of children and increasing acceptance of voluntary modification of adults. The trend is in the right direction, though there is still a long way to go.
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:43 pm
by daifu-orchid (imported)
Increasing acceptance of modification in adults -tattoos illegal before- seems to give hope for enlightened permission ofr the adult individual. Presumably the concern is for a responsible informed choice. I have no idea if the change in the tattoo law was because of sheer futility, or it shows the way to precedent. There's a lot of elective plastic surgery which is popular and generally acceptable. I would hazard a guess that the parts operated on have changed over the years, and are more inclusive than before?
Re: Genital mutilation in the 21st Century
Posted: Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:33 pm
by Atreyu69 (imported)
I think it was the early 1980's when I happened across something that I thought was really rather amazing. It was one of those family nudist (naturalist?) magazines. Anyway there was an interview with a ten year old boy. He said how happy he was that his parents and decided to buck the American trend and left him uncircumcised.
The boy said that he wouldn't want to change a thing and that although he looked different from his friends it didn't bother him at all. He also said that keeping clean was not a problem at all. It only took a little extra care twice a week. He said that he felt more parents should stop having their kids circumcised.
I suppose this was all very reasonable but the thing is this was in a nudist magazine. There were full frontal photos of the boy and his penis. In most nudist magazines, or in Jock Sturges photos, or whatever the fact that the kids are nude is just sort of incidental. To have a nudist boy interviewed and talking about his penis seemed pretty weird.