German court bans circumcision of young boys

zeggman said:
Removal of wisdom teeth is also not called mutilation, even when (as in my case) a good bit of healthy gum tissue is removed in the process.
Click to expand...

But it would be accurate to call it that.

Perhaps instead of asking people to read words which have gained a negative connotation in a non-confrontational context, one could just employ the non-confrontational term "circumcision" when writing.
Click to expand...


I very much want to use the word "mutilation" because of its connotations: Cirumcision of boys is bad for the same reasons that circumcision of girls is bad, and that the latter tends to be worse that the former is entirely besides the point.
 
zeggman said:
Well, then, let's not pretend that the confrontational context is being created by a misunderstanding on the part of the reader.

As someone who has been circumcised, de-wisdom-toothed, and tonsillectomized, I don't think the term "mutilation" is an accurate description of any of my childhood surgeries.
Click to expand...

Except for circumcision, I also had those. The difference seems to be in medical necessity.

If some one was circumcised because of phimosis, we wouldn't call it mutilation, because it was necessary.

At least I wouldn't, and I don't think I'm alone.
 
Mutilation is the term used when discussing the surgical modification of non-diseased tissue for management or cosmetic reasons in veterinary medicine. Tail docking is a mutilation, and ear tagging is a mutilation. That is the word used in all debates as to whether modifications like this should be permitted.

Nobody is arguing against putting ear tags in calves' ears to identify the individual and make stock tracing and disease surveillance easier. But nobody is up in arms about describing the procedure as a mutilation, because there is no doubt it is.

I can't help feeling the shrill denials that circumcision is a mutilation indicate a deep unease with the procedure, covered by defensiveness.

Rolfe.
 
Rasmus said:
But it would be accurate to call it [extraction of wisdom teeth] that [mutilation].
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't.

Rasmus said:
I very much want to use the word "mutilation" because of its connotations: Cirumcision of boys is bad for the same reasons that circumcision of girls is bad, and that the latter tends to be worse that the former is entirely besides the point.
Click to expand...
At least you're honest about your motives. You want to use a term which suggests that someone has been disfigured or crippled because you want to arouse a feeling of revulsion.

I'm sorry for bragging here, but no one who's seen me in all my glory ever described me as "disfigured." On the rare occasions when someone's commented on it, my circumcised salami has been described as beautiful, perfect, and even (I swear this is true) "addictive."
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
Except for circumcision, I also had those. The difference seems to be in medical necessity.
Click to expand...
Not really. The tonsillectomy was sold as a way of perhaps decreasing the frequency of ear infections; the wisdom tooth extraction was sold as a way of avoiding potential problems down the road. Neither was any more a real medical necessity than the circumcision, though there may have been more medical justification.
 
Last edited:
zeggman said:
At least you're honest about your motives. You want to use a term which suggests that someone has been disfigured or crippled because you want to arouse a feeling of revulsion.
Click to expand...

That's actually how the term is meant to be used, and to say that I don't mean it that way implies that you assumed that I meant to shock, even when I said I didn't.

I've never really felt offended by someone on the internet, but this comes rather close.

I'm sorry for bragging here, but no one who's seen me in all my glory ever described me as "disfigured." On the rare occasions when someone's commented on it, my circumcised salami has been described as beautiful, perfect, and even (I swear this is true) "addictive."
Click to expand...

I can only say that I'm happy for you.
 
Rolfe said:
I can't help feeling the shrill denials that circumcision is a mutilation indicate a deep unease with the procedure, covered by defensiveness.
Click to expand...
After careful consideration of your feeling, I believe you're mistaken.

As I've said before, my denial that circumcision is mutilation indicates a reluctance to accept a term which implies my manhood was accidentally caught in a wood chipper. The term implies disfigurement, and if I felt I had been disfigured, I'd be looking to have it reversed.

I don't, and I'm not.
 
zeggman said:
Not really. The tonsillectomy was sold as a way of perhaps decreasing the frequency of ear infections; the wisdom tooth extraction was sold as a way of avoiding potential problems down the road. Neither was any more a real medical necessity than the circumcision, though there may have been more medical justification.
Click to expand...

For me the tonsillectomy wasn't necessary either, so mutilation would be an apt definition.

My wisdom teeth WERE actually doing bad stuff (my teeth were pushed together), so there was necessity, but if not, calling it mutilation would work.
 
Yes, actually. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

ETA: Come to think of it, a facelift is a mutilation. So is breast reduction surgery. Which doesn't mean that either of these are bad things or wrong choices which people make for themselves as an informed decision.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
zeggman said:
No, it wouldn't.


At least you're honest about your motives. You want to use a term which suggests that someone has been disfigured or crippled because you want to arouse a feeling of revulsion.
Click to expand...

Nope.

I don't care if you feel revulsion about female circumcision, either.

I'm sorry for bragging here, but no one who's seen me in all my glory ever described me as "disfigured." On the rare occasions when someone's commented on it, my circumcised salami has been described as beautiful, perfect, and even (I swear this is true) "addictive."
Click to expand...


Good for you - but that's simply irrelevant to the discussion of whether a circumcision is more like a haircut or an amputation. That people don't much mind the sight is just part of their culture - i am certain the mutilated feet of too many Chinese women weren't described as "disfigured" at the time, either.

I recall seeing an image of a foreskin from some tribes-member (ha!) somewhere that was not cut off, but sliced into fringes - i wonder what the same people would comment then...
 
Bram Kaandorp said:
For me the tonsillectomy wasn't necessary either, so mutilation would be an apt definition.
Click to expand...
I would call it "unnecessary surgery."

You seem to want to avoid the connotation that "mutilation" implies "disfigurement", even though it is clear that this is your main motive for choosing the word.
 
zeggman said:
After careful consideration of your feeling, I believe you're mistaken.

As I've said before, my denial that circumcision is mutilation indicates a reluctance to accept a term which implies my manhood was accidentally caught in a wood chipper. The term implies disfigurement, and if I felt I had been disfigured, I'd be looking to have it reversed.

I don't, and I'm not.
Click to expand...

Not to mentioned the implication that circumcised men are are somehow "not quite men" because their penises aren't fully "functional".
 
Rolfe said:
Yes, actually. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're consistent, but I think that you would have a hard time convincing people that your referring to sex-reassigment surgery as "genital mutilation" is not stigmatizing for transsexuals.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Is sex-reassignment surgery mutilation?
Click to expand...

Are you going to look for any surgery which to you seems to be unnecessary on the face of it?

And why do I feel like I'm the one moving the goal posts, when the not-anti-circumcision people say that a baby doesn't have to give consent?


sex-reassignment is not medically necessary, but it is also done to the person a)with their consent (at least in legitimate cases) and b)it actually has a very good chance of making the person feel better.

If you want to call it mutilation, fine. Maybe it is. Mutilation isn't always horrible. Just look at removing of earlobes. It isn't necessary, but it isn't going to restrict a person either (apart from the inability to pierce them).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom