Anti-circumcision bias on A2A.

---

Has anyone else noticed this? So many poor guys on the list have horrendous foreskin problems--bleeding, phimosis, infection, etc. and there are always a couple posters who say, "It's fine. You don't need to go the the Dr." Even if your foreskin is on fire they would say, "It's fine. Keep stretching and the flames will go out in a few months." They also call circumcision "genital mutilation" which is a tipoff to how extreme their views are. Also, as someone who was sometimes made to feel inferior when I was uncircumcised, I'm really offended by those who try and make guys feel inferior because they're cut...or uncut.

there are always a couple posters who say, "It's fine. You don't need to go the the Dr."Who? Feel free to name names.> I'm really offended by those who try and make guys feel inferior because they're cut...or uncut.If you advocate changing from one state to the other, expect to attract disagreement. Not many people are getting uncircumcised; it's the way we're born. If you adovcate taking an action to change that state, some folks think there should be a really good reason for it. Not everyone agrees that being teased (or the fear of being teased) for having a foreskin is a good reason.Would it be better to refer to circumcision as "body modification" rather than "mutilation"? Wikipedia says: "The use of the term mutilation is controversial with regard to its relation to body modification, since both terms are sometimes interchangeable among different persons."

Yes, I would say body modification would be better. You could also call it minor surgery.
To me, if you direct readers to NORM, NOCIRC, CIRP are such anti-circumcision activist sites, you are an activist. These sites don't make any effort to show both sides

Liamcny ... S'matter, afraid to admit the truth? We have already determined that genital mutilation is not surgery. "Body Modification" is just another euphemism, like "circumcision" for genital mutilation, so we are back where we started. I would, indeed, be interested in seeing an internet site which advocates genital mutilation, but which "show(s) both sides". Perhaps you might suggest one or two?Korydon

I would agree with Body Modification as well. When you use the term mutilation it makes it sound as if something is wrong (Disfigured) or destroyed. I do not feel AT ALL my circumcised penis is destroyed or disfigured.And Korydon or anyone else who wishes to feel that circumcision is wrong, that’s perfectly okay, but at the same time you need to understand taking it to an extreme by calling it mutilation is a bit far fetched. There are people like myself who are very happy with being circumcised and there’s nothing wrong with that either!Again, Mutilation is defining something as destroyed or disfigured and a extreme classification for circumcision.

"We have already determined that genital mutilation is not surgery."Who is "we"? You seem to think you have some authority on this matter, but you don't. Aren't you the guy who had a foreskin transplant? Your bias is so extreme it's almost amusing.

Why, no, Liamcny, it's the many editors of Webster's new Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The American College Dictionary who have defined surgery for we poor slobs. So if you have a complaint, take it up with them, not with me.Korydon

Not trying to speak for Liamcny, but I think he was talking about was where does it have genital mutilation as a definition for circumcision?

Ah, NtroducingMyself, my message was a comment on Liamcny's "You could also call it 'minor surgery'." That subject was discussed with Liamcny elsewhere, where it was established that genital mutilation is not surgery, according to all authority.I have yet to directly address, here, at Afraid To Ask, the spurious attempt to claim that genital mutilation, under ANY contrived, studied, torturingly inoffensive euphemism is any the less genital mutilation, no matter what the term or phrase or who uses it. Attempts to fool oneself only make a person look ridiculous. Why can't people simply accept themselves for what they are, openly and proudly, without subterfuge? Is it guilt? Uncertainty? Embarrassment? Immaturity? I'm rather impressed with the fellows at Yahoo: Circumsexual. They, at least, don't kid themselves, or attempt to pull the wool over anyone else's eyes, certainly not their own.Studying the reasons why it has proven so difficult to accept the truth might well be instructive. "Know Thyself" was inscribed into the walls of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi nearly three thousand years ago. The challenge still rings true. Genital mutilation, after all, isn't some romp through a field of flowers. It is a window into the mind of those who choose to cut themselves and others, a window which tends to open into ... well, let's just say that it's not a pretty sight.Korydon

WOW! You really are an extremist aren't you??First off I love myself and I love the way I look.. including my circumcised penis. To say those of us that like being circumcised are lying to ourselves is rediculous. Personally (MY opinion) I don't care for how an uncut penis looks, and much prefer cut penises. Everyone has though OWN personal opinions.And again I will stress how extreme your words are and how extreme it is to call circumcision mutilation. Some of us LIKE being circumcised and could find it offensive that someone who is an advocate saying we're mutilated.It's fine that you are against circumcision, I respect that.. but also respect those of us that like being circumcised.