jump to content
my subreddits
more »
Want to join? Log in or sign up in seconds.|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on
146 points (90% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

MensLib

subscribeunsubscribe8,021 readers
~35 users here now

/r/MensLib: For the Development and Well-Being of Men.

Welcome! /r/MensLib is a community to explore and address men's issues in a positive and solutions-focused way. Through discussing the male gender role, providing mutual support, raising awareness on men's issues, and promoting efforts that address them, we hope to build a healthier, kinder, and more inclusive masculinity. We recognize that men's issues often intersect with race, sexual orientation and identity, disability, socioeconomic status, and other axes of identity, and encourage open discussion of these considerations.

Our Mission

The /r/MensLib mission is threefold.
  • To address inequities men experience through discussion, information-sharing, recruitment, and advocacy.
  • To provide a space for men wanting to push back against a regressive anti-feminist movement that attempts to lock men and women into toxic gender roles, promote unhealthy behavior, and paint natural allies as enemies.
  • To examine and dissect traditional ideas of masculinity to promote the development of men as better and healthier individuals, participants in their relationships, and leaders in their communities.

Resources for Men Guide

How does feminism help men? Check out this list of feminist resources tackling men's issues
Subs of interest
Social Issues
/r/Feminism
/r/feminisms
/r/Blackfellas
/r/socialjustice101
/r/SocJus
/r/TheBluePill
Support Subreddits
/r/SuicideWatch
/r/MaleSupportNetwork
/r/Rape
/r/SurvivorsofAbuse
Fun
/r/MensGlib
/r/TrollYChromosome

Ground Rules

/r/MensLib is a space for constructive discussion of men's issues. Moderators reserve complete discretion to maintain a positive atmosphere, including removing comments and submissions, and banning offenders.
Keep your user flair enabled!
Flair FAQ

Commenting Rules

  • Be civil.
  • Friendly debates are welcome, so long as you stick to talking about ideas and not the user. Comments attacking a user, directly or indirectly, are not welcome and will be removed.
  • Slurs and hatespeech are prohibited, including but not limited to racial and religious bigotry, sexism, ableism, homo/transphobia, etc...
  • Do not call other submitters' personal stories into question.
  • Do not invalidate other users' experiences because of their identities, gender or otherwise.
  • This is a pro-feminist community. Members are not required to identify as feminist, but if you disagree with this foundational approach you are welcome not to participate.
  • If you found yourself in a thread because of an external link do not vote or comment. If the moderators suspect this to be the case you may be banned for 1-∞ days.
  • Don't be uncivil.

Posting Rules

  • When making a link post, please prompt the discussion by posting a top-level comment with your perspective or questions.
  • Image links must be submitted as a self-post.
  • Do not editorialize headlines. A good rule of thumb is to use the original or Reddit-suggested headline.
  • Links to reddit must be approved by the moderators beforehand.
  • No "outrage porn"-type articles. Additionally, if you have a negative story or experience to share or want to get something off your chest please ask the moderators first or post it as a comment in our "Free Talk Friday" thread.
  • Meta-discussion should be kept in the weekly Free Talk Friday post unless pre-approved by the mod team.

Moratoria

  • We do not discuss "financial abortion" in the context of consensual sex. More on this policy here.
created by Jozarina community for
sorted by:
best (suggested)
you are viewing a single comment's thread.
[–]draw_it_now 16 points17 points18 points  (42 children)
I don't agree with this. Outlawing circumcision for religious purposes will do more harm than good.
If male circumcision is illegalised, then it will just push the practice underground, and stigmatise religious minorities, such as Jews and Muslims, for whom the practice is essential.
Illegalising this won't stop male circumcision, it will just make it more dangerous to the lives of boys.
[–]ginger_root_and_tree 30 points31 points32 points  (13 children)
You could make the same argument for FGM, too, but FGM is illegal in the UK.
There's no reason that anyone who wants it done for religious reasons can't just wait and do it as an adult.
[–] ★ Man-jusri 7 points8 points9 points  (7 children)
Unless their religion is very specific about it being done on an infant child (i.e. God's covenant with Abraham).
And age of consent isn't a straightforward issue either. In the US, there are states where you can get married as young as 12 with parental consent. It's 16 in the UK. And age of consent to sex ranges from around 14-16 in Europe. And tattoos and other body modifications are generally legal at any age with parental consent, though jurisdictions vary (the UK classified vaginal piercing as FGM just last year, which has been rather controversial).
I believe Muslims practice circumcision at around 12 to 14, which, with parental consent, doesn't seem that far off of comparable laws regulated sexuality and body modification WRT minors.
[–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 4 points5 points6 points  (6 children)
Unless their religion is very specific about it being done on an infant child (i.e. God's covenant with Abraham).
The original covenant thing didn't talk about removing the entire foreskin, either.
It's 16 in the UK. And age of consent to sex ranges from around 14-16 in Europe. And tattoos and other body modifications are generally legal at any age with parental consent, though jurisdictions vary (the UK classified vaginal piercing as FGM just last year, which has been rather controversial).
At what age is penis enlargement legal? That age.
[–] ★ Man-jusri 0 points1 point2 points  (5 children)
Legally, you can get penis enlargement at any age with parental consent. The lower boundary is set by the medical profession, not the law. Same with circumcision. The medical profession deems it not to be a harmful procedure for infants. So, with parental consent, it can be done.
[–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 4 points5 points6 points  (4 children)
I seriously doubt infants are getting penis enlargements. Or that docs would ever perform it.
[–] ★ Man-jusri 0 points1 point2 points  (3 children)
You're no doubt correct. It would likely be deemed harmful, which is a medical issue. But penis enlargement was brought up in the context of age of consent laws.
[–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
No parent who would consent to their infant getting penis enlargement would be seen as mentally sane. We're saying infant here, not even child. Why not give them an overdose of morphine so they 'die peacefully' at 5 months old, while we're at it?
[–] ★ Man-jusri 0 points1 point2 points  (1 child)
I understand that you find circumcision offensive. But the question was about establishing a reasonable age of consent in the case of criminalization. You recommended using penis enlargement as a comparison.
[–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 [score hidden]  (0 children)
Someone mentioned tattoos and some cosmetic surgery. I used a surgery that is cosmetic that people are likely to view as extreme. But that still falls there.
[–]leopold_s 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
There's no reason that anyone who wants it done for religious reasons can't just wait and do it as an adult.
Unless you are Jewish and your religion prescribes you to circumcise a newborn boy on the 8th day of his life.
[–]gigacannon 1 point2 points3 points  (2 children)
FGM is far worse. Removal of the clitoris is equivalent to chopping off the entire head of the penis, not just the foreskin.
[–]Realist317 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
I compare to labiaplasty. Is it OK to perform labiaplasty on and infant?
[–]gigacannon 0 points1 point2 points  (0 children)
Yeah it's exactly like that, and it's obviously wrong without medical necessity.
[–] ✔ Asher-D[S] 21 points22 points23 points  (0 children)
People's rights of their own bodies is above religious rights. Although I do see your point with it being pushed underground.
[–] ★ baronvoncarson 6 points7 points8 points  (0 children)
I understand where you are coming from, but I see circumcision the same way I see FGM. Both are barbaric and shouldn't be practiced. There should be a choice. Maybe not outlawing it, but allowing a choice for adults to have it done. Babies cannot consent.
I would actually like to see if there are any statistics on men who are given the choice to have a circumcision when they are consenting adults and if they are more or less likely to have it happen.
[–]GayFesh 7 points8 points9 points  (0 children)
for whom the practice is essential.
No religion has a right to push their practices on children too young to decide if they want to be a part of that religion.
Eliminating the Bris is not going to destroy Jewish heritage.
[–]pentestscribble 9 points10 points11 points  (8 children)
Do you feel the same way about female genital mutilation being banned?
[–] ★ delta_baryon 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
Could everyone talking about mild or superficial classes of FGM please stop right now? You're repeating an MRA talking point that isn't reflected in reality. According to the WHO, these forms of FGM are extremely rare and are almost always combined with another type.
[–] ★ Man-jusri [score hidden]  (0 children)
Those practices predominate in Indonesia and Malaysia. And in both countries, FGC has a more than 90% prevalence among Muslim women (i.e. a huge population).
Ceremonial and nicking procedures have also been advocated for in Africa (and the US, incidentally) as a harm reduction strategy.
The WHO data can be difficult to interpret because cutting the clitoral hood is included in Type I, which also includes removal of the clitorus, and because most research on FGC has been done in Africa.
[–]draw_it_now -1 points0 points1 point  (5 children)
No - FGM has a lot more seriously damaging medical effects. While male circumcision can go wrong, it is a lot more harmless when done properly
[–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 12 points13 points14 points  (1 child)
They banned even ceremonial nicks to the clitoris, which will likely have the families go in a plane in their own country to have the worse procedure done. They never thought it was a good to prevent a worse outcome.
So it's rarely about damage.
[–] ★ Man-jusri comment score below threshold-7 points-6 points-5 points  (0 children)
It has much more to do with cultural imperialism. We should stick to medical concerns rather than trying to 'reform' cultures.
[–] ★ Scarecowy 8 points9 points10 points  (0 children)
It depends on the severity of the FGM. In more moderate or superficial cases, female circumcision can be comparable to male circumcision.
[–] ★ patrickkellyf3 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
What the fuck? Just because one procedure isn't as harmful, doesn't mean it's okay. It's still fucking horrible. There's no "properly," either. You're mutilating genitalia.
[–]Realist317 -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
So compare it to labiaplasty instead. Is it ok to perform labiapalsty on an infant?
[–][deleted]  (1 child)
[removed]
    [–] ★ Man-jusri 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Opposition to circumcision has been used as a justification for anti-semitism since Roman times. They banned it, actually, which set off the Jewish Revolt which ultimately led to the expulsion of the Jews from Israel. The 'barbarity' of circumcision was then used by Europeans to justify their anti-semitic campaigns. This is a really old argument.
    Or maybe they were all totally sincere and just cared that much about the penises of other peoples' children.
    [–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 4 points5 points6 points  (9 children)
    They can do ceremonial mock-surgery that doesn't cut anything. Brit milah I think it was.
    [–] ★ Man-jusri 4 points5 points6 points  (8 children)
    And some sects of Christianity have given up baptism; but it's still seen as essential throughout mainstream Christianity. The fact that a marginal community who self-identify as Jews have renounced circumcision doesn't really mean much.
    [–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 5 points6 points7 points  (5 children)
    Baptism doesn't cut a portion of sexual skin. I've been baptized, and I don't hate my parents for it. It's even the first dress I've worn. Then for first communion (when I was 8) I wore a robe (everybody did). And then nothing feminine until I was 24, when I transitioned.
    [–] ★ Man-jusri 0 points1 point2 points  (4 children)
    Fair enough. My comparison was with respect to religious imperative, not the harmfulness (or lack thereof) of baptism or circumcision. I'm not sure whether it's a realistic expectation that Judaism will 'reform' itself in response to criminalization. Brit Milah is a relatively marginal group, and infant circumcision is explicitly commanded by God in the Torah.
    [–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 3 points4 points5 points  (0 children)
    I'm not sure whether it's a realistic expectation that Judaism will 'reform' itself in response to criminalization
    More reasonable than tribal non-religious traditions. They at least got a precedent for allowing a 'placeholder' for the tradition. Tribes aren't unified in wanting FGM in one exact specific way. It must vary from place to place.
    [–] ★ nope_nic_tesla 2 points3 points4 points  (2 children)
    infant circumcision is explicitly commanded by God in the Torah
    So is stoning gay people, but Jews have worked up elaborate extra-biblical justifications for why they don't do it anymore.
    [–] ★ Man-jusri 1 point2 points3 points  (1 child)
    Eh. I'm not a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure circumcision is more fundamental to Jewish identity.
    And in any event, the two can't properly be compared. Circumcision is group-inclusive; it's perceived as a benefit to the child. Stoning was a punishment.
    You're going to have to convince religious people to abandon a fundamental sacrament. I'll leave it to you to decide whether a religious Jew would find the comparison between stoning and circumcision persuasive.
    [–] ✔ SchalaZeal01 [score hidden]  (0 children)
    Circumcision is group-inclusive; it's perceived as a benefit to the child.
    According to Maimonides, it's perceived as a benefit because it curbs sexual pleasure so it lets the boy/man focus less on pleasures of the flesh and more on his duty. Doesn't sound like it's for his own benefit, but for whoever employs him.
    [–]GayFesh 2 points3 points4 points  (1 child)
    You can't compare water immersion (or sprinkling, depending on the denomination) with an irreversible medical procedure.
    [–] ★ Man-jusri 2 points3 points4 points  (0 children)
    The religious imperative is comparable. I was explaining why the existance of Brit Milah isn't necessarily a good predictor of how the broader Jewish community would respond to criminalization. I wasn't comparing the physical aspects of baptism and circumcision, but rather the religious significance.
    [–] ★ patrickkellyf3 4 points5 points6 points  (0 children)
    There are a bunch of things that we've banned that were done for the sake of religion. Circumcision should be next.
    Need I remind you that it's cutting off part of a boy's penis while it's impossible for him to consent?
    [–] ★ TotesMessenger [score hidden]  (0 children)
    I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
    If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
    [–]1000minus7 -2 points-1 points0 points  (0 children)
    People will downvote you, but you are right that it will only make illegal circumcision morw dangerous.
    [–] ★ nope_nic_tesla -1 points0 points1 point  (0 children)
    I think we should stigmatize harmful religious teachings. Jews and Muslims have successfully modernized many other ancient teachings, why can't they do it with this one?
    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy (updated). © 2016 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
    REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
    π Rendered by PID 7695 on app-131 at 2016-01-24 15:22:09.657790+00:00 running 0740420 country code: DE.
    Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies.  Learn More
    0%
     
    10%
     
    20%
     
    30%
     
    40%
     
    50%
     
    60%
     
    70%
     
    80%
     
    90%
     
    100%