How could it not be emasculating? What could be more emasculating than knowing that you have no rights to bodily autonomy? Knowing that at some point in the first few days of your existence, someone strapped you down and carved off the most sensitive parts of your genitals? That any attempt to speak out about your mutilation would be quashed by women who's genitals are federally protected, and by men who are afraid to admit they were violated? It's emasculating knowing that most people believe you have no right to be upset about being sexually assaulted when you were too small and defenseless to stop it. That people view me as a lesser man for having the courage to speak out against it is the most emasculating part.
I was cut as an infant, and it was the biggest mistake my parents ever made. I may never know what it's like to be intact. I may never know what it feels like. I hope that someone can donate to Foregen. That might be able to regenerate the foreskin.
The foreskin contains the most erogenous, sensual tissue on a man's body. Cutting it off at birth amounts to a permanent hindering of his sexual self-actualization and his ability to have healthy physical relationships with others. I won't recount the rather obvious sexual functions of the foreskin; anyone interested can look it up. It's not really controversial, except in circumcising nations.
As a circumcised man, I live with a radically & permanently altered sex organ. For me, it's very emasculating. It hinders my ability to view myself as a sexually independent man. Because I was taken advantage of and wounded as a child, I can't ever really be my own man. My parents and my doctors seized a crucial part of me and discarded it before I had any ability to assert ownership over my own body. It's not something I can ever escape or fully recover from.
Circumcision is symbolic castration, inflicted on an infant who can neither understand what is going on nor why. It is a brand whose secular purpose (as Maimonides said) is to weaken men's sexuality and control it.
Parents claim a "religious freedom" to circumcise, but circumcision destroys the religious freedom of the child. A right cannot legitimately be used to destroy a right.
Circumcision began in the mists of time as some kind of blood/sex/fertility/magic ritual. There is some suggestion it was a mitigated form of castration or even child sacrifice. (Then it attached itself to religion when that was the dominant paradigm, then to "purity" when that was, in the late 19th century, and since that was known as "moral hygiene" it was a short step to "medicine" and then "science" now they are dominant paradigms. As each medical reason is debunked, a new one is found. Today, HIV/AIDS is given as the main reason - forgetting that a high proportion of babies were already being circumcised in the 1970s, before the epidemic began.)
For nearly 2000 years, from Philo Judaeus of Alexandria in the first century CE, to Maimonides in the 12th, to John Harvey Kellogg in the 19th, the foreskin was known to be a, if not the, seat of male pleasure, and they advocated removing it to deliberately reduce that pleasure and free up men for "higher" pursuits.
Of course it does not completely emasculate (castrate) men, but nowadays in the USA we certainly see on social media many parents, women especially, who desperately and angrily cling to their "right" to do it to their newborn babies, apparently as a direct expression of their power and control over them.
It is 2nd only to castration. Circumcision is designed to shame and tame men about their sexuality and let them know they are not master of their own bodies. The foreskin is a highly specialized structure, the most sensitive part of the penis (in fact the whole male body) and primary erogenous tissue. The decision to sacrifice it for any supposed "benefits" is a decision only an adult man can make about his own body. Circumcision of babies and children is a vile form of child abuse and should carry heavy criminal penalties.
It is 2nd only to castration. The purpose of circumcision is to shame and tame men about their sexuality and let them know they are not in control of their bodies. The foreskin is a highly specialized structure, the most sensitive part of the penis (the whole male body in fact) and primary erogenous tissue. Even if the "benefits" were real, sacrificing such an important part of the body is a decision only the owner of same part can make as an adult. Circumcision of babies and children is child abuse and should carry very heavy criminal penalties.
It is 2nd only to castration. The purpose of circumcision is to shame and tame men and let them know that they are not in control of their bodies and sexuality. The foreskin is a highly specialized structure, densely packed with nerves, primary erogenous tissue and the most sensitive part of the penis (in fact the whole male body). Even if there are any "benefits" the choice of whether to sacrifice such an important part of the body can only be made by its owner, when he is an adult. Circumcision of babies and children is child abuse and should carry VERY heavy criminal penalties.
How could amputating part of the male sex organ NOT be emasculating? The fact that this is even a question raises severe concern about the world we live in.
I dream of a day where it is assumed wrong, morally and otherwise, to amputate healthy tissue from non consenting, helpless infants.
His body, his choice!
Circumcision is a cruel mutilation which is practiced for various reasons - none of them are actually valid. First off, it is often said that circumcision is hygienic and doesn't reduce sensitivity. I counter-argue that with "how can it not reduce sensitivity?" Skin is the predominant sensory organ on the human body. Removing skin, by definition, reduces sensitivity because there is less tissue physically present. I can say as an intact male that my foreskin is the most erogenous part of my body. Foreskin is highly innervated, healthy, natural tissue which is integral to a fully functioning penis. All mammals have foreskin. Oddly enough, though - generally (at least here in the United States), many men have their foreskin amputated shortly after birth in this circumcision practice. On a microscopic level, up to 20,000 nerve endings are severed. For women, the comparable practice "only" severs 8,000 nerve endings. Guess what? It has been illegal since 1997, and is covered under the female genital mutilation law. If 8,000 nerve endings being severed are considered mutilation, then what is the amputation of 20,000 called?
Regardless of your position on circumcision, or whether you agree or disagree with the possible medical benefits, it being "emasculating" to men would be a stupid reason to oppose it. It's a piece of skin. Some still have it, others have had it cut off with a knife. End of story.
Maybe parents shouldn't pierce their Child's ears either, her body her choice, and yet they do because they only stand to gain. Circumcision drops the risk of HIV by 60% as well as HPV, herpes, and other diseases. It also reduces the chances of males spreading the infections to their respective partners. Should we not give our children immunizations when they are young? Folly! Of course we should, as long as we are protecting them then there is no harm in it at all, besides the fact that most of the time the child is from a religious home and when they grow up will have wanted one regardless, and if they don't have one will now have to go through an uncomfortable ordeal as appose to when they were babies having it done painlessly.(babies don't remember pain)