Hacker News Reader

Comment by lindseymysse | Hacker News Reader

It is about lessening sexual pleasure and removing the child's autonomy. It's entire purpose was to mark you as subservient: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-ancient-traditions/h...

View on HN

The same thing applies to the genital mutilation endured by girls in some parts of the world. But in that case it's generally agreed throughout the Western world that we're talking about "mutilation" and "abuse". Somehow circumcision managed to escape these labels despite being essentially the same.

Isn't the reason for this acceptance due to tolerance of Judeochristian fundamentalist religious observance?

I would love to see an ethnography on the topic.

Anecdotally, every person I know to have a circumcision performed on them had it because "it was normal" in the society, not for any religious belief. Not wanting to stand out is a good enough reason for many. In some places an uncircumcised penis is (was?) considered "gross" or "abnormal" and many parents just want to avoid that for their child.

Right. This is one of the few instances where how the social norm evolved can be determined.

It's not remotely the same — if you are circumcised, your dick still basically works fine. I mean, yeah, wtf, but it's a minor change. Like getting a tooth pulled, or an appendectomy, for no reason.

You get (most values of) the "girls version" around the world, and it's basically equivalent to chopping off the entire top half of your dick. The _important_ part.

Totally not in favor of either. But there is no equivalence here.

How do you know? Why are you minimizing the pain of this practices victims? This is the equivalent of saying: My dad beat me and I turned out fine.

Men's pain should be recognized and not minimized.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com