"circumcision not mutilation"

[JohnC]

It's long been the case on Bubhub that the word mutilate, or its cognates, should not be used for infant male circumcision on the entirely reasonable grounds that parents who have routinely circumcised their sons find this upsetting. There has always been a small problem with this, however: namely, we have been exhorted for several decades to describe female circumcision as genital mutilation, regardless of its severity. This double standard does not sit well with everyone.

We can relax now, for the Indonesian Department of Health has clarified the matter by issuing guidelines for "safe female circumcision", with a spokesperson Murti Utami making clear in recent press converage: “I would like to stress that female circumcision is not genital mutilation, which is indeed dangerous. They are two things that are very different.”

Murti added that "the guidelines provided directions on performing the procedure properly and safely and required that circumcision must only be carried out with parental consent. Furthermore, parents must be given information beforehand on pros and cons of the procedure. Circumcision is typically done at birth, or before a girl reaches the age of 5."

All sounds comfortingly familiar, doesn't it? And we now have a fully gender-neutral approach to circumcision which distinguishes it from genital mutilation, for both boys and girls.

Of course, Australians generally view all genital cutting of female children as mutilation, regardless of the upset this might cause those Muslim parents who favour circumcision for their daughters. So the Indonesian resolution of the double standard may have trouble finding widespread acceptance here.

There is an alternative approach, but that would involve embracing the "m" word for the genital cutting of male children, and hence breaching Bubhub guidelines.

I wonder what the 52 infant boys who will, on average, be circumcised today (and every other day) will make of this semantic problem when they are old enough to realise that unlike 85-97% (depending on where they live) of their peers, they have had their foreskins removed "routinely"?

[share a book]

I'm glad there are no more double standards.

[serendipity22]

The word circumcision is a euphemism.
Its a grand sounding Latin word which implies undeserved credibility.
Other terms I have seen which more accurately describe the process are:

partial penectomy
partial penile amputation
foreskin amputation
penis reduction surgery
penis skinning
carving pieces of flesh off the penis
male genital cutting

[goldtoe]

It fits some definitions, not others. Unnecessary, emotive, and best avoided in a civilised discussion.

mu·ti·late tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter¹.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


Mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually causing death.

[halloweendee]

it boggles my mind.

a lady in the us is investigated for taking her young daughter to a tanning salon yet it is okay to cut part of a boy's penis off with no anaesthetic?

[xkwzit]

Hi All
For those who were wondering about our reasons behind our moderation of language in the circ section, you can find that in the sticky here:
http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/f...ction-language

Cheers

[share a book]

It fits some definitions, not others. Unnecessary, emotive, and best avoided in a civilised discussion.

mu·ti·late tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter¹.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


Mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually causing death.

Seems to fit all of those definitions...

[Opinionated]

It fits some definitions, not others. Unnecessary, emotive, and best avoided in a civilised discussion.

mu·ti·late tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter¹.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.


Mutilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mutilation or maiming is an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, usually causing death.

I actually think that it is correct given all definitions you have supplied.
1. It does deprive an essential part. It just depends what your definition as to what is essential. Is it essential to merely function, or is it essential to have optimum function and sensation?
2. It is a disfiguring procedure and the penis is and irreparably damaged.
3. It is imperfect because part of it has been excised and altered.

How can you claim they don't all apply? It is only those who have done it or support it that find it unnecessary and emotive. As for it being best avoided in "civilised discussion", I don't find it a very civilised thing to do so think it is totally appropriate.

This is one Bub hub rule I strongly disagree with.

[daysta112]

I have no issues with male circumcision, ds is not circumcised but may need to be for medical reasons in the future, I have never seen an uncircumcised male penis other than ds's. But would never dream of circumcisions on a female. I think it's horrible.

IMO. It's a personal choice, But do people who are against circumcision have issues if it's needed medically?

[xkwzit]

How can you claim they don't all apply? It is only those who have done it or support it that find it unnecessary and emotive. As for it being best avoided in "civilised discussion", I don't find it a very civilised thing to do so think it is totally appropriate.

This is one Bub hub rule I strongly disagree with.

But do you want to try and sway opinions of those who are thinking about circing or do you just want ppl who have already made that choice (or required circ for a medical reason) to feel horrible about it?

I truly believe that the best way to influence ppl who have yet to make the choice is with facts and not ugly, guilt-inducing words.