German court decides that circumcision violates bodily integrity

[kuronosan]

I enjoy my hood.

[thetruepandagod]

As for mutilation, for most people the term implies disfigurement, and circumcision doesn't really have any aesthetic issues. In fact, there are a decent number of people that consider it to be more appealing than a foreskin (I have no numbers on this, but it is definitely not zero). So while in the most strict definition it is mutilation, it doesn't carry the psychological damaging implications of disfigurement.

It obviously depends on the prevalence of it in said location. For example yes in places like Europe you are seen as disfigured if you are circumcised where as in Israel it would be the exact opposite.

[Sera]

the thing is, i think a lot of guys have a really big problem with being called "disfigured". Think about what that word truly implies. It seems unfair to use that sort of terminology, considering most everyone who gets circumcised didn't exactly have a say in the matter... and disfigurement has such a negative connotation as far as body image goes - like "Hunchback of Notre Dame" type shit. No guy wants to look down and go "oh. there's my disfigured wang." Considering all the shit guys already have to deal with (with respect to their penis' aesthetic appeal), a term like that just strikes me as unnecessarily hateful.


Technically a more precise term would be "mutilation" anyway -- and even that strikes me as really fucking harsh considering, like I said, not many dudes get a choice in the matter.

[Psion]

mutilation is, by definition, something you dont get a choice in the matter with.

Now self-mutilation, on the other hand...

[BaneTheBrawler]

People who split their tongue in two to be snakelike call it body modification, but it could also be called mutilation. To me, body modification seems like a more accurate term for circumcision than mutiliation, given the connotations they carry. Mutilation generally has a more malicious tone to it. Maybe imposed body modification?

But really, semantics aside, unless my sig. other was super worked up about it, I'd just as soon not cut my kids. I'm not big on "God wants you to do X!" stuff, especially when those things involve causing pain. I mean, "God wants you to be a good person." is one thing, but "God wants you to snip the skin of your son's penis off." is just a little too far-fetched.

[thetruepandagod]

To me, body modification seems like a more accurate term for circumcision than mutiliation, given the connotations they carry. Mutilation generally has a more malicious tone to it.

It has a malicious tone because it is an irreversible procedure that is done without ones permission. If a baby gets their ears pierced for example which would be body modification, they can decide that they don't like it and just stop wearing earrings and let it heal. It would be akin to giving a baby an ear gauge at birth, which i would call mutilation and not a body modification when done without regards to ones will.

[Mazmaz]

tl;dr fuck you, we're calling it mutilation because we want to win this argument!

[ringthree]

tl;dr fuck you, we're calling it mutilation because we want to win this argument!

Exactly.

Next is the holy crusade against children getting their ears pierced! THOSE LOBES MUST REMAIN UNPOKED!

[hey]

Exactly.

Next is the holy crusade against children getting their ears pierced! THOSE LOBES MUST REMAIN UNPOKED!

If a baby gets their ears pierced for example which would be body modification, they can decide that they don't like it and just stop wearing earrings and let it heal.

.

[ringthree]

.

The mutilation has already occurred! There will always be a mark, and free will has already been denied!

How could someone get over the psychological damage of such a mutilation?

[Kerberoz]

How the hell often do parents have their kids' ears pieced without their consent...?

A better analogy would be tattooing infants with their parents' preferred religious symbol, anyway.

[ringthree]

How the hell often do parents have their kids' ears pieced without their consent...?

A better analogy would be tattooing infants with their parents' preferred religious symbol, anyway.

It's not that uncommon.

[hey]

How the hell often do parents have their kids' ears pieced without their consent...?

A better analogy would be tattooing infants with their parents' preferred religious symbol, anyway.

Of course tattoos can be removed too.

[ringthree]

Of course tattoos can be removed too.

And a foreskin can be restored.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

[Psion]

Foreskin isn't something you restore completely. you can restore the appearance and some of the use of the foreskin, but the bundle of nerves at the tip, the frenulum, won't come back. it's gone forever. foreskin restoration can be done by either surgical or nonsurgical methods, but the former is reported as unsatisfactory by many patients, and the latter takes years of dedication. Neither are a full restoration however.

It's mutilation, pure and simple, and it's something that currently cannot be completely reversed.

[Sera]

How the hell often do parents have their kids' ears pieced without their consent...?

ehhhhh mine were - and around the time of my birth it was such a popular thing it was actually done in the hospital with one of those little piercing guns. it was a thing, for sure.

not a great comparison because an ear hole could heal up and never be noticed & ear's function not altered at all. female circumcision is considered mutilation - why isn't male?

[archibaldcrane]

If female circumcision was simply a hood trimming, performed in a hospital environment with the backing of Christianity/Judaism, it wouldn't be considered mutilation nearly as frequently as it is.

(it's a bad comparison, and I'm generally against circumcision)

[Kuya]

And Islam too. Pretty much a safe bet an arab has a snipped pipi.

[Sera]

If female circumcision was simply a hood trimming, performed in a hospital environment with the backing of Christianity/Judaism, it wouldn't be considered mutilation nearly as frequently as it is.

(it's a bad comparison, and I'm generally against circumcision)

Fair enough. Would pro circumcision people be for this (with regard to females) if it is performed as he described it?

[Churchill]

because i am the CLIT commander