German court bans circumcision of young boys

jdp said:
Not really, you showed me a picture of earlobes which are clearly abnormal. Let's try again with normal earlobes.
Click to expand...
Guys who are 7 feet tall are also abnormal. So?

I have beautiful attached earlobes. But suppose I was born with the hideous drooping earlobes some poor schlubs are afflicted with. If I chose to have surgery to get rid of that ugly, useless, slag-drip of an earlobe, and go with the sleek no-nonsense streamlined look I currently enjoy, I wouldn't consider the surgery a "mutilation".

For that matter, if I'd been born with a cute, curly little piggy tail at the base of my spine, I wouldn't consider its removal a mutilation either.

I know women who have had breast reduction surgery. Not a mutilation.

The girl on the cover of Natonal Geographic with her nose cut off? Mutilation.

Does that help?
 
zeggman said:
I have beautiful attached earlobes. But suppose I was born with the hideous drooping earlobes some poor schlubs are afflicted with. If I chose to have surgery to get rid of that ugly, useless, slag-drip of an earlobe, and go with the sleek no-nonsense streamlined look I currently enjoy, I wouldn't consider the surgery a "mutilation".
Click to expand...

Since you chose to do so, nobody would have a problem with it either.
 
Checkmite said:
Since you chose to do so, nobody would have a problem with it either.
Click to expand...
I didn't see a "choice" exception in your definitions either, but you seem to be arguing that one is implied.

So if I choose to have surgery to transform my normal-looking earlobes into a different kind of normal-looking earlobe, that's not mutilation?

But if I have surgery that transforms my normal looking yinyang into a different kind of normal-looking yinyang, I've been mutilated?

What if someone with body integrity identity disorder chose to have a leg amputated below the knee, would that be a mutilation? Above the knee?
 
zeggman said:
Guys who are 7 feet tall are also abnormal. So?
Click to expand...

So what? Not much you could do about it if you wanted to.

zeggman said:
I have beautiful attached earlobes. But suppose I was born with the hideous drooping earlobes some poor schlubs are afflicted with. If I chose to have surgery to get rid of that ugly, useless, slag-drip of an earlobe, and go with the sleek no-nonsense streamlined look I currently enjoy, I wouldn't consider the surgery a "mutilation".
Click to expand...

It depends; it could be a correction of a birth defect. But if you're talking about earlobes which are already within the normal range of variation that changes the story. You are dogging the issue though, normal child, normal size ear lobes, should I as a parent be permitted to consent to excise them for non-therapuetic reasons? That is the question being asked; I'd hope your answer is no. Why should the answer be no though? What is lost? What function is removed?

zeggman said:
For that matter, if I'd been born with a cute, curly little piggy tail at the base of my spine, I wouldn't consider its removal a mutilation either.
Click to expand...

This is a birth defect.

zeggman said:
I know women who have had breast reduction surgery. Not a mutilation.
Click to expand...

It depends again, this is recommended medically in some cases. But more importantly, you're conflating cosmetic operations undertaken by those who can consent with those who can't.

zeggman said:
The girl on the cover of Natonal Geographic with her nose cut off? Mutilation.

Does that help?
Click to expand...

That's what I see when I see circumcision.
 
Keep this on topic and civil please. If you wish to discuss Forum Managment, please do so in the proper area or we will have to snip more out.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
zeggman said:
I do have an "emotional bias" against being described as mutilated and dysfunctional.
Click to expand...

What is your response to the men that do feel like that after being circumcised against their will, harden up its no big deal ?
 
mutile said:
What is your response to the men that do feel like that after being circumcised against their will, harden up its no big deal ?
Click to expand...
If people choose to use inflammatory terms to refer to themselves, I believe that is their prerogative.

If a black person refers to himself as a ******, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If a person with cerebral palsy refers to himself as a spaz, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If a homosexual refers to himself as a faggot, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If you, for whatever reason (i.e., circumcision, nose job, tonsillectomy, mole removal) choose to say you've been mutilated, I may express the opinion that I don't think you've been mutilated (just as I might say I don't think of you as a ******, a spaz, or a faggot), but ultimately your opinion of yourself is your own.

For myself, I have been circumcised. I have not been mutilated.
I have had my tonsils removed. I have not been mutilated.
I have had my wisdom teeth removed. I have not been mutilated.

You are free to describe yourself as mutilated if you think you have been. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using that hateful, inflammatory, and inaccurate language when referring to an entire class of men who, voluntarily or not, have been circumcised.

Thanks in advance.
 
zeggman said:
If people choose to use inflammatory terms to refer to themselves, I believe that is their prerogative.

If a black person refers to himself as a ******, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If a person with cerebral palsy refers to himself as a spaz, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If a homosexual refers to himself as a faggot, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If you, for whatever reason (i.e., circumcision, nose job, tonsillectomy, mole removal) choose to say you've been mutilated, I may express the opinion that I don't think you've been mutilated (just as I might say I don't think of you as a ******, a spaz, or a faggot), but ultimately your opinion of yourself is your own.

For myself, I have been circumcised. I have not been mutilated.
I have had my tonsils removed. I have not been mutilated.
I have had my wisdom teeth removed. I have not been mutilated.

You are free to describe yourself as mutilated if you think you have been. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using that hateful, inflammatory, and inaccurate language when referring to an entire class of men who, voluntarily or not, have been circumcised.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

We could also use the word "amputee" since the foreskin has been amputated. But I'm sure that's also inflammatory.
 
I think there's a difference in connotation between describing circumcision as a mutilation, which it is (along with ear piercing, breast reduction and face-lifts by the way), and describing the people who have had these procedures done as "mutilated".

I think, anyway. On the other hand, the pictures I've seen of circumcised penises do look mutilated to me, so who knows?

Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
Good to know all those women haven't been mutilated - must let the WHO know.
Click to expand...

They were mutilated only if they believe they were mutilated. But seriously, what then is the appropriate defintion because if we're only going to talk about situation where there is loss of some subjectively defined amount of function then there is a whole raft of things that someone could do to another person and it not be considered mutilation, earlobes, ritual scaring (to just about any degree), some of the lighter degrees of what is currently called FGM, ect.
 
Last edited:
I had previously considered FGM to be synonymous with clitoridectomy. From reading this thread (and making no attempt to corroborate the claims) I gather that it's applied to less severe excisions as well. I would be inclined to let the women characterize themselves as they saw fit, but since I have not really informed myself on the subject, I won't comment further.

I consider myself somewhat more informed on the subject of male circumcision, since I am circumcised myself. I do not consider it a mutilation, and prefer not to be characterised as "mutilated." I realize that I cannot speak for all men, nor can other men speak for me. I have no problem saying I'm circumcised -- the term is precise and descriptive. I see no reason for preferring a less precise, more inflammatory term.

ETA: I've just been informed that it is considered acceptable for other forum members to characterize me as "mutilated", but it is not acceptable for me to express my opinion of people who do so. I regard this as a double standard, and I guess that's my final word on the subject.
 
Last edited:
Since when did the word mutilate become "hateful, inflammatory, bigoted speech"?

I am nonplussed considerable that the fact actual functional body parts for absolutely no good reason were cut off of certain people when they were infants is not only un-upsetting to them but they're even defensive about it; yet someone terming such cutting-up "mutilation" severely upsets them. The word is unacceptable but the act is not.
 
zeggman said:
I had previously considered FGM to be synonymous with clitoridectomy. From reading this thread (and making no attempt to corroborate the claims) I gather that it's applied to less severe excisions as well. I would be inclined to let the women characterize themselves as they saw fit, but since I have not really informed myself on the subject, I won't comment further.

I consider myself somewhat more informed on the subject of male circumcision, since I am circumcised myself. I do not consider it a mutilation, and prefer not to be characterised as "mutilated."
Click to expand...

It's very simple: If you have no hear hair on your head, you're bald, whether you like it or not.

Edit: Because stupid.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Since when did the word mutilate become "hateful, inflammatory, bigoted speech"?

I am nonplussed considerable that the fact actual functional body parts for absolutely no good reason were cut off of certain people when they were infants is not only un-upsetting to them but they're even defensive about it; yet someone terming such cutting-up "mutilation" severely upsets them. The word is unacceptable but the act is not.
Click to expand...

My guess is that it has to do with the intent of the action. I don't believe there is intentional malice in the act of non-therapuetic circumcision. To accept though that it's mutilation might mean someone believes they have to accept that there was malice in the act. I don't think this is necessary. That's my best guess though.

And I am still confused then what would be considered mutilation because I think it can be shown that acts that cause far less damage and result in less actual and potential harm are classified that way.
 
zeggman said:
If people choose to use inflammatory terms to refer to themselves, I believe that is their prerogative.

If a black person refers to himself as a ******, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If a person with cerebral palsy refers to himself as a spaz, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If a homosexual refers to himself as a faggot, I don't have a problem with it. If you or I refer to him that way, we're bigots using hateful inflammatory language.

If you, for whatever reason (i.e., circumcision, nose job, tonsillectomy, mole removal) choose to say you've been mutilated, I may express the opinion that I don't think you've been mutilated (just as I might say I don't think of you as a ******, a spaz, or a faggot), but ultimately your opinion of yourself is your own.

For myself, I have been circumcised. I have not been mutilated.
I have had my tonsils removed. I have not been mutilated.
I have had my wisdom teeth removed. I have not been mutilated.

You are free to describe yourself as mutilated if you think you have been. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from using that hateful, inflammatory, and inaccurate language when referring to an entire class of men who, voluntarily or not, have been circumcised.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

In all those examples, the term existed with a negative connotation first, and was later reappropriated by members of the actual groups in order to deprive the term of its meaning.

Circumcision as mutilation doesn't fit in that grouping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom