Female Genital Mutilation

snfu73

disturber of the peace
I think the ear piercing is a bad idea. To socialize a child into a prescribed gender role from day one is a bad idea in my books. The fact that it is more easily done to females than males is curious.

Also, you really can't say "...help a great deal with hygiene..." when on a balance of probabilities it has no effect. If you and I bet on every single person in the world on the urinary tract infections and I said for every child, "$10 says they won't get an infection," and you take me up on that, I will become very rich and you will become very poor. Regardless of any alleged hygiene benefits, the actual risks without the procedure are so small and the possible harm from those risks of so little consequence that hygienic and health reasons cannot really be used. Again, I bring up the appendectomy, you are talking about operating on a perfectly healthy baby because there is an extremely small chance of an infection, but unlike the case of the appendectomy in this instance the baby will lose functionality/sensitivity. If the hygiene argument was even remotely reasonable (as opposed to being a rationalization) then we should have far more appendectomies than genital cuttings.
I dunno...again, I can only speak for myself in saying that I find it is helpful in keeping that area clean. It's a moist, damp area, and if not able to have a shower for a few days, say camping, or in warmer, humid conditions, I feel that it allows me to take care of the area a little better. Mind you, I don't have anything to compare it to. I don't use it as a rationalization for myself...who I am speaking about...I use it as...what I see as fact...for myself. For me, the procedure was a good thing. I'm happy to have had it done. I feel that it has been beneficial. What can I say?

And, it was brought up about sexual sensation...how that is reduced by having the foreskin taken away. Well, HOLY CRAP, I can't imagine what things would be like WITH a foreskin, seeing as I have plenty of sensation there as it is and would like to have less...lol. I dunno.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
And, it was brought up about sexual sensation...how that is reduced by having the foreskin taken away. Well, HOLY CRAP, I can't imagine what things would be like WITH a foreskin, seeing as I have plenty of sensation there as it is and would like to have less...lol. I dunno.

And men aren't the only ones who suffer from the 'lack of sensation' issue when a foreskin is removed.

Sex with circumcised men creates more friction, and can reduce a woman's ability to reach orgasm. Couple that with the decrease in sensation for the man (especially men who have been overcircumcised), resulting in longer coitus sessions, and you can end up with one long tedious chore, with no benefit to the woman. I've known couples where this was a serious issue.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Intactivists? What does that mean?

So, while on this topic, just wondering what folks think of babies having their ears peirced. I've seen a number of babies who have had their ears peirced. Apparently, it is very common in some cultures. What is peoples opinions on this?
.

I personally wouldn't have it done to my baby because it does hurt and I think it looks a little strange, but I don't really care if people do it to theirs. It's not nearly as involved as circumcision is. I've never heard of a baby suffering life threatening complications from ear piercing.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Why does Islam have such an unhealthy fixation on female genitalia?
  • Muslim women asking for hymenoplasty surgery
  • French doctors divided on how to best respond
  • Some fear their patients will be beaten or ostracised
A DEBATE is raging among doctors over Muslim women who ask for operations to reconstitute their hymens before marriage, and medical certificates stating they are virgins.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21691116-401,00.html

It appears to me that we are waging the war on terror all wrong.

Instead of guns and tanks, all we need to drive the "faithful" into a terror filled, full-on rout, is to put a few batallions of unchaste women riding pigs together, and the war will be won.

Don't think it's just muslims. A lot of plastics places here in southern California will do vaginal rejuvenation... How you even know your vagina looks old is beyond me. We all had a good laugh about the ad we saw at work one night. I've even had patients want to have a c-section because they didn't want childbirth to alter their vaginas... It's mindboggling to me that they would even give that a second thought when they are about to give birth to a baby.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
And men aren't the only ones who suffer from the 'lack of sensation' issue when a foreskin is removed.

Sex with circumcised men creates more friction, and can reduce a woman's ability to reach orgasm. Couple that with the decrease in sensation for the man (especially men who have been overcircumcised), resulting in longer coitus sessions, and you can end up with one long tedious chore, with no benefit to the woman. I've known couples where this was a serious issue.
How does it create more friction? I have never heard of this stuff before. Anyway, if a couple loves one another and is dedicated to pleasing one another, it can be overcome. I mean, I don't know, it doesn't seem like it could or should be THAT drastically different. There are alot of naturally occuring things that can interfere with sex, and people do overcome those, or work around them, learn their limitations or what feels good or what they can do better...it's experimentation. I have had no problems with sex, and have had no complaints from my wife or any previous partners. So, again, I mean, speaking from my own experience as a man who has gone through the procedure, and lived a full, rich life despite it (that's kind of joke..but not a funny one I guess) that I still am not seeing the issues or the problems. I mean, not, again, saying that anyone should rush out and have their babies circumsized, but again, I kind of resent someone telling me that this thing is somehow awful and all these horrible things are related to it...when...well...at least for me, I haven't seen it or heard of it. I come from a generation where millions and millions of babies were circumsized. It was common practise in 1973. I haven't seen the overwhelming negative effects that I feel are being implied here. I don't see how it is such a big deal. To me, it is relatively mild on the scale of things. To me, I can't see it...I don't know. There are risks of infection if you get circumsized, but there are also risks of infection without circumsizion. I don't know. Anyway...it does seem complicated.

And, what is overcircumsizing?
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
[FONT=Garamond, Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman, serif][SIZE=-1][SIZE=+1]Sex Files: The Pro-Circumcision Argument[/SIZE]

by [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Garamond, Bookman Old Style, Times New Roman, serif][SIZE=-1]Ashley Brenke

The following is the pro side of a circumcision debate held by the Sex Files columnists. The con side will be published next week.

Since the current rate of newborn male circumcision in the United States is still over 50 percent, and has been the "norm" for well over a century, there must be something about this practice that encourages doctors and parents to continue it. The original argument, circa nineteenth century, was that circumcision helped to discourage masturbation in young boys, and therefore sexual deviation and madness. This belief has long since died out, and in the early twentieth century, consideration turned to health and hygiene concerns. In fact, this is still the biggest argument today.

In particular, circumcision helps to prevent disease in infant boys. The American Academy of Pediatrics (FamilyDoctor.org) states that circumcision can help to prevent urinary tract infection in infants, and according to Richard M. Parker (PedsUroLogic.com), intact foreskins can lead to phimosis, a condition in which the foreskin narrows and cannot retract, or balanoposthitis, an infection of the glands and foreskin. The American Urological Association supports both these claims in a 2003 statement.

The healthful benefits of circumcision can extend beyond infancy. The AUA states that circumcision can lead to a decreased risk of adult penile cancer, and FamilyDoctor.org cites research finding that circumcised males have a lower rate of sexually transmitted diseases. Interestingly, a 1997 study by Edward O. Laumann (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association), shows that circumcised males have a higher degree of sexual satisfaction and a lower rate of sexual dysfunction than uncircumcised males; in particular, the rate of inability to maintain an erection is significantly lower in circumcised men. Finally, even daily hygiene can be improved from foreskin removal, since there is no place for excrement buildup around the penis.

Of course, many pro-circumcision arguments go beyond pure health and hygiene. The circumcised penis is now so common in our culture that it is often considered more aesthetically pleasing, especially to women. A relatively important concern in the past was that the uncircumcised schoolboy would feel awkward in the locker room, but with the current circumcision rate near 50-50, this may not be so much of an issue anymore. There is no denying, however, that circumcised penises are considered to "look nicer" and that many circumcised fathers want the same for their sons.

Many parents worry about forcing their sons into a personal choice, causing them undue pain, or contributing to genital mutilation. They may be worrying needlessly. I interviewed a 22-year-old circumcised male who has never wished for a foreskin. He claims no sexual dissatisfaction, saying that the lack of the foreskin's sensitivity "hasn't caused [him] any ill effect," he says. He also does not consider himself mutilated; at least, no more so than from anything "done to your body [as a child] - haircuts, little girls [getting] their ears pierced, or even being baptized," which have no "far-reaching ill effects," he says. He also does not feel slighted for the practice being done without his consent: "I'd rather be a circumcised neo-nate than a circumcised sixteen-year-old," he says. All things considered, he harbors no resentment for his neo-natal circumcision, and plans on circumcising his future son, as well.

While the rate has been slowly decreasing in recent decades, circumcision is still a highly common procedure in the United States. If performed well, it is relatively harmless, especially when local anesthesia is used, and has many healthful benefits for not only infants, but adult men. New parents should perform further research on circumcision practices and talk with their obstetrician about their preferences before their son's birth. The decision to circumcise may be a difficult one, but your son will likely thank you for it.[/SIZE][/FONT]
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
No meta analysis of the evidence has found that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the health risks. That's why no pediatric body recommends it for health reasons anymore. They admit there are pros and cons and say parents should decide for their children. That article talks only about the one side and ignores the other. They say you might avoid a uti (though most kids won't get one anyways, circed boys still get them, and they are easily treatable), but why don't they balance that information by admitting that you might also wind up with damage done from the circ? Why don't they talk about the potential for infection, gangrene, uncontrolled bleeding, true mutilation, fistula, adhesions, etc? Here is a website that discusses those to balance things out a bit. Or you could just google Ryleigh Roman Bryan McWillis. He's reason enough for me to never want to participate in this practice.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
 
Last edited:

able

Electoral Member
Apr 26, 2007
139
2
18
snfu73: give yourself a break,stop concerning yourself about something that can't be changed. You have seen what has been written, you are willing to compensate for any perceived problems, so let it go at that. Concerning yourself about something on the internet is a sure bet to make you go insane.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
snfu73: give yourself a break,stop concerning yourself about something that can't be changed. You have seen what has been written, you are willing to compensate for any perceived problems, so let it go at that. Concerning yourself about something on the internet is a sure bet to make you go insane.
No, no...don't worry about me...it's just a discussion. This is what a discussion is about...presenting ideas and points and discussing. I know we don't all agree, and I can appreciate that...but it is a discussion...a discussion we all feelings about. I'm not worried too much about it when I'm not in the forums...I am aware it just the internet...and any feelings that I express are within the context of this discussion, within this forum. I'm not losing sleep over it...:)
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
No meta analysis of the evidence has found that the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the health risks. That's why no pediatric body recommends it for health reasons anymore. They admit there are pros and cons and say parents should decide for their children. That article talks only about the one side and ignores the other. They say you might avoid a uti (though most kids won't get one anyways, circed boys still get them, and they are easily treatable), but why don't they balance that information by admitting that you might also wind up with damage done from the circ? Why don't they talk about the potential for infection, gangrene, uncontrolled bleeding, true mutilation, fistula, adhesions, etc? Here is a website that discusses those to balance things out a bit. Or you could just google Ryleigh Roman Bryan McWillis. He's reason enough for me to never want to participate in this practice.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html
Oh...ya...I mean, I presented those because we have plenty of articles in this thread that do discuss the downside...for sure. So, this was to get another side in there...the pro circumcision point of view...to present that side. I still do think there are benefits...and that is what the articles I presented were trying to show. That's exactly why I presented them. I won't say that there are no risks to the procedure...or pain...or anything like that. Actually, I guess I'm taking a bit of middle road on this as opposed to the opposite side as it might appear. I don't think it is a horror story, but at the same time I can see why folks would be concerned. Again, most of my arguement is based on my personal experience. I don't have problems with people NOT circumsizing their babies and understand why, BUT at the same time I am not against anyone circumsizing their babies...well, for most of the arguments I have put forth. As I have mention, it is a complicated issue. I am actually surprised at how strong peoples views and opinions are on this. Until the last thread discussing the issue, I had no idea that there were such strong opinions against it. At first I was like "This can't be serious!"...but, then I realized it was...and I can't say that good points have not been made...they have. It's just very interesting, that's all.
 

lysyfacet

Life is good!
Apr 12, 2007
258
5
18
Brampton, ON
i never thought people actually did stuff like that. I studied it and learned alittle bit about it in my World Issues class gr12, but other then that, i never knew about it. Just reading about it grouses me out :-? . Obviously thats not normal, and i don't think it was intented to be done, expecially by untrained surgens. I dunno, i find it gross and am against it. I here it has ot do with religions and beliefs too.:-|
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
And, what is overcircumsizing?


overcircumcising is the removal of more than a normal circ should remove. This can include removal of the frenulum (oh boy, do you want to keep your frenulum) or removal of excess shaft skin which results in pubic skin being pulled up the shaft during an erection (thus the hairy shaft some men find themselves with... this is not normal BTW). Here's a link which explains some of the issues which can result.

This link directs you straight to images of circumcised penises, and is not work safe.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched7ex.html


And frankly, I really can't explain the purpose of penis anatomy better than this link can.
http://www.cirp.org/pages/anat/

It never even would have occurred to me that circumcision could cause so many sexual problems if it wasn't for a friend whose husband could barely acheive any kind of orgasm, even on his own, due to overcircumcision.
 

Josephine

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2007
213
7
18
So then the question becomes how do we get that practice changed?

The main reason we call FGM what we do is because people didn't want it to be compared with male circumcision. Here we almost all agree that the practice of FGM needs to be changed and that it is mutilation. But, in order to change it we have to work with people who like you would be insulted by the very name we give it. It is largely women who have been subjected to FGM that have their daughters done. How do we approach the subject with them and convince them to change?


Women in Africa are taking on this issue themselves...so we don't really need to convince them to change. They've created organizations and raised money...without us...and that's enough for me to show that they want a change...."horse's mouth" and all!